ILOVICA EIA ANNEX 4. Geochemistry Study. April 2016 Report No. 13514150363.701/A.0

ILOVICA EIA ANNEX 4 Geochemistry Study April 216 Report No. 1351415363.71/A.

April 4, 216 ANNEX 4 Ilovica Geochemistry Study Supporting information for the EIA

April 4, 216 ANNEX 4 Ilovica Geochemistry Study Supporting information for the EIA 55459 Prepared for: 12 Berkeley Street, 5th Floor, London, W1J 8DT, United Kingdom. Prepared by: The Pump House Coton Hill Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY1 2DP United Kingdom Registered in England and Wales, 238661 (UK) Limited Registered office: Schlumberger House, Buckingham Gate, Gatwick Airport, West Sussex, RH6 NZ, UK Registered in England and Wales, Registered Number: 238661

CONTENTS 1 INTRODUCTION 1 2 DATA SOURCES 2 3 SITE SETTING AND MINE PLAN 3 3.1 Overview 3 3.2 Metallurgical process 3 3.3 Geological setting 3 4 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 5 4.1 Geological classification 5 4.2 Frequency of abundance of major rock units 6 5 STATIC TESTWORK 7 5.1 Introduction 7 5.2 Field paste ph and conductivity 7 5.3 Acid base accounting 8 5.4 Additional static testwork in 215 13 5.5 Drillcore assay data 22 6 KINETIC TESTWORK 23 6.1 Field weathering pads 23 6.2 Laboratory kinetic tests 33 7 TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION 38 7.1 Laboratory analyses 38 7.2 Results 39 8 ARD/ML RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ILOVICA 46 8.1 Extrapolation of geochemical testwork data 46 8.2 Integration with mine plan 48 9 PROJECT SPECIFIC ARD RISKS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS 49 9.1 Waste rock ARD potential and implications for project material balance 49 9.2 Sulphate and metal leaching potential 5 9.3 Risks associated with tailings geochemistry 51 9.4 Sources of poor quality water 51 9.5 Initial identification of impacts and mitigation options 51 1 SUMMARY 53 1.1 Summary of environmental geochemistry of the Ilovica project 53 1.2 Integration with environmental impact and engineering studies 53 11 REPORT LIMITATIONS 55 TABLES Table 4-1 Acronyms used within geo-environmental classification system 5 Table 4-2 Matrix of major rock material types 6 Table 4-3 Material breakdown in drillcore database 6 Table 5-1 Overview of FS level geochemical samples for laboratory analysis 1 55459 April 4, 216

CONTENTS Table 5-2 Comparative analysis of the frequency of occurrence of individual LAM units within the Ilovica deposit area and in the ABA sample population 11 Table 5-3 Geochemical analysis performed on NAG leachates 13 Table 5-4 NAG leachates for selected alteration samples 15 Table 5-5 Summary of parameters included in ICP-MS analysis suite 16 Table 5-6 Rietveld XRD summary for additional alteration samples 19 Table 5-7 Rietveld XRD summary for leach pad and irrigated field samples 2 Table 5-8 Summary of ore samples mineralogical descriptions 21 Table 6-1 Summary of material and set-up of field leach pads 25 Table 6-2 Summary statistics for kinetic field weathering experiments 29 Table 6-3 DACOXORE irrigated leach test field analyses 31 Table 6-4 Laboratory analysis of DACOXORE leachate 32 Table 6-5 Original GNDIOOXORE leachate field analyses 33 Table 6-6 Upper GNDIOOXORE initial field analyses results 33 Table 6-7 DACUNOXUD initial HCT kinetic test results 35 Table 6-8 GDUNOXSW initial HCT kinetic test results 36 Table 7-1 Static leach test parameters analysed 39 Table 7-2 NAG leachate analysis results for rough flotation tailings 4 Table 7-3 Bulk geochemistry results for flotation tails 41 Table 7-4 Analysis results for the two-step waste material static leach 42 Table 7-5 Weekly analysis results for tailings HCT 44 Table 7-6 Leachate to solid ratio and sample collection date 45 Table 8-1 ARD material proportions exposed on the pit shell surface 46 Table 8-2 Classification of ARD material into ARD risk category 47 Table 8-3 Overall waste material by ARD potential 48 Table 8-4 ARD potential of the pit shell through LOM 48 Table 9-1 Summary of ARD classifications and associated construction suitability of LAM units 5 FIGURES After page Figure 3-1 Mine layout 4 Figure 3-2 Pit shell key LOM stages 4 Figure 3-3 LOM ore and waste schedule 4 Figure 3-4 DFS Process flow sheet 4 Figure 3-5 Regional geological setting 4 Figure 3-6 Local geological setting 4 Figure 3-7 Geology and alteration zones plan view 4 Figure 3-8 Geology and alteration zones section view 4 Figure 4-1 Material proportions in the drillcore database 6 Figure 5-1 ABA analyses presented by NP vs. AP for all static test samples 22 Figure 5-2 Sulphur speciation in initial static samples 22 Figure 5-3 Leach pad drillcore NNP vs. total S 22 Figure 5-4 Alteration samples NNP versus NAG ph 22 Figure 5-5 Additional alteration samples whole rock analyses ranges 22 Figure 5-6 Additional alteration samples selected bulk geochemistry distributions 22 Figure 5-7 Additional alteration samples selected bulk geochemistry distributions (2) 22 Figure 5-8 Major oxide proportions in leach pad drillcore 22 Figure 5-9 Bulk geochemistry proportions in leach pad drillcore samples 22 Figure 5-1 Additional alteration samples XRD Natroalunite abundances versus AP and HCl extractable S 22 Figure 5-11 Leach pad drillcore XRD Natroalunite abundances versus AP and HCl extractable S 22 55459 ii April 4, 216

CONTENTS Figure 5-12 Calcium distribution in the drillcore database 22 Figure 5-13 Iron distribution in the drillcore database 22 Figure 5-14 Sulphur distribution in the drillcore database 22 Figure 5-15 Copper and sulphur relationship in the drillcore database 22 Figure 6-1 Field test set-up photographs 37 Figure 6-2 Measured rainfall and collected leachate volumes 37 Figure 6-3 Cumulative rainfall between sampling events against measured sample volumes 37 Figure 6-4 Oxide ore irrigated leach field tests, irrigation volumes and leachate produced 37 Figure 6-5 Field leach pads ph and conductivity 37 Figure 6-6 Field leach pads field alkalinity and dissolved oxygen 37 Figure 6-7 Field leach pads field ORP and turbidity 37 Figure 6-8 Field leach pads dissolved Al, As and Cd 37 Figure 6-9 Field leach pads dissolved Cu, Fe and Ni 37 Figure 6-1 Field leach pads dissolved SO4, TSS and Zn 37 Figure 6-11 Relationship between field ph and logarithmic field electrical conductivity 37 Figure 7-1 Tailings AP:NP and NNP versus total S and NNP versus NAG ph 45 Figure 7-2 Saturated column leachate compositions 45 Figure 8-1 LOM waste schedule by ARD risk classification 48 Figure 8-2 Final pit material classification and ARD risk 48 APPENDICES APPENDIX A: Additional data 55459 iii April 4, 216

1 INTRODUCTION Geochemical investigations to determine the likely acid rock drainage (ARD) and attendant metal leaching (ML) risks associated with the future exploitation of the Ilovica Au-Cu deposit were initiated in July 213, with results compiled to mid-215 reported previously by in December 215 (5517_TM11). Since the completion of SWS s 215 report, additional data have been collected through supplementary static testing plus ongoing collection and analysis of leachates from field-scale test pads. Geochemical test work data on tailings samples generated from metallurgical testing in late-215 have also been acquired. This report provides a consolidated account of all data now available to elucidate the environmental geochemistry of the Ilovica deposit and thus supersedes SWS s report of December 215. Additionally, this report places all geochemical data into the context of a refined geological block model developed by Euromax (EOX) during late 215 and early 216. The remaining sections of this document are structured as follows: Data sources (Section 2) Site setting and mine plan (Section 3) Geo-Environmental classification system (Section 4) Static testing review of static laboratory testwork and drillcore characterization performed to the end of 215 (Section 5) Kinetic testing review of data from kinetic field and laboratory leaching tests (Section 6) Overview of tailings geochemistry (Section 7) Development of project ARD/ML risk classification system (Section 8) Risks and mitigation options (Section 9) Summary and recommendations (Section 1). 55459 1 April 4, 216

2 DATA SOURCES The following data sources were used in the preparation of this report: Proposed Ilovica ARD work program, (Crummy, 213) Ilovica ARD investigation, (Crummy, 213) Ilovica leach pad early data spreadsheet, (Crummy, 213) Initial results of Ilovica field tests, (Crummy, 213) Leach pad measurement instructions, (Crummy, 213) Ilovica core composites bulk geochemistry, (Crummy, 214) Leach pad runoff chemistry database, (Crummy, 213-214) Ilovica ARD investigation, the state of play end 214, (Crummy, 215) Waste scheduling and closure options, (Crummy, 215) Ilovica cross-sections, (EOX and Crummy, 213-215) Ilovica drillhole database, (EOX, 212-214) Metallurgical mineralogical analysis on ore samples, (EOX, 211) Preliminary economic assessment on the Ilovica Gold Project, Macedonia, (TetraTech, 213) 5517_TM11 Review of ARD/ML assessment program, Ilovica Project, Macedonia, (SWS, 215) Technical PFS report (EOX, 214), as well as updated FS information (Amec FW via EOX, 215-216) FS block model incorporating ARD classifications, (TetraTech, 215) FS waste schedule incorporating geo-environmental classifications, (DMT, 215) Physical and geochemical analyses on PFS mine design tailings, (SGS, 215) Additional static geochemical analyses, including mineralogical tests, on waste material, (Maxxam, 215) Initial results from ore grade Ilovica field tests, (Crummy, 215) 55459 2 April 4, 216

3 SITE SETTING AND MINE PLAN 3.1 Overview The Ilovica Project is located in the Municipalities of Bosilovo and Novo Selo in Southeastern Macedonia, 15 km west of the Bulgarian border. The Ilovica deposit is an Au-Cu porphyry system within which primary sulphide mineralization has been subject to some degree of supergene blanket formation. A Feasibility Study (FS) for open pit exploitation of the Ilovica deposit was completed by EOX in early 216. A provisional FS level mine plan as received by SWS in November 215 has been applied for the provision context in SWS s review of the status of ARD/ML investigations for Ilovica. The mine plan matches the project description used within the project environmental impact assessment (EIA). It contemplates production at a rate of 1 Mt per annum over a mine life of 21 years (plus one year of pre-stripping). The following mine facilities within the plan are of particular importance to the ARD/ML assessment (see Figure 3-1 for locations): Open pit: The expected final floor pit elevation is approximately 25 masl. The pit will be developed in 4 stages, pre-strip (LOM year -1), starter pit (LOM year 2), first pushback (LOM year 7) and the final pit (LOM year 21) (Figure 3-2). Oxide stockpile, to be in place from LOM year 2 until LOM year 21. The oxide stockpile is currently expected to be processed in the last ~2 years of mine life. ROM stockpile, to be sited at the edge of the open pit shell and next to the crusher. Tailings management facility (TMF) for which an embankment is to be constructed using waste rock. The provisional FS level production schedule is shown in Figure 3-3. This indicates a stripping ratio of around 1.1 during the first six years of operations. Over the rest of mine life it is more variable with a low of.4 and a maximum of 1.3. 3.2 Metallurgical process The currently proposed process flow-sheet for Ilovica (produced by Amec Foster Wheeler) is shown in Figure 3-4. Two tailings streams are indicated, the first derived from flotation and the second from CIL. Following primary crushing and milling, ore will pass through a primary flotation step to produce a rough scavenger tailings (RST) stream and a rough concentrate, the former of which will be discharged directly to the TMF. The tonnage of RST is expected to be 8.5 Mt per year, thus equating to approximately 85% of the total tailings mass to be generated. A cleaner scavenger stream will then pass to a CIL circuit, following which the tailings will pass to a CN destruction plant in which free and WAD cyanide will be oxidized to cyanate, with subsequent degradation to produce NH 3-N and NO 3. Overall, the ratio of flotation to CIL tailings reporting to the TMF is expected to be in excess of 5:1 throughout mine life. It is currently proposed that the two streams will be mixed in a single thickener, the overflow from which will recirculate while the underflow will be routed to the TMF. 3.3 Geological setting 3.3.1 Regional geology The Ilovica porphyry is located on the southern margin of a NW-SE striking Cenozoic magmatic arc that extends large areas of Central Romania, Serbia, Macedonia, Southern Bulgaria, Northern Greece and Eastern Turkey (EOX, 214) (Figure 3-5). The mineralization is associated with the emplacement in the late Oligocene or early Miocene of intermediate to felsic calc-alkaline igneous rocks along northern flank of the Strumica graben, an E-W 55459 3 April 4, 216

SITE SETTING AND MINE PLAN trending post-collision extension structure, about 3 km long and 1 km wide. The graben has been infilled with terrigenous clastic sediments and felsic volcanic rocks over the last 4 million years. The basin is asymmetric with gentle south-facing slopes on the mountains on the northern (Ilovica) side and a very steep mountain front to the Belasica Mountains which rise 18 m above the basin floor. Faulting, rapid subsidence and southward tilting have continued actively along the southern and western borders of the basin up to the Pleistocene. Gravity data from the southern part of the Strumica graben indicate the graben fill is more than 18 m thick. The Strumica Formation is the oldest unit in the graben and consists of a basal unit more than 4 m thick composed of conglomerate, sandstone, and some claystone, and an upper unit, more than 2 m thick, of sandstone, siltstone, claystone, and marly claystone. Deposition continued through the Pleistocene with alluvial sediments accumulating adjacent to the Monospitovo Lake lacustrine and marsh deposits and glaciofluvial sediments some 5 6 m thick accumulating near the Belasica Mountains. 3.3.2 Project geology The Ilovica porphyry is about 1.5 km in diameter along the north-eastern border of the Strumica graben (Figure 3-6). The exact location of the deposit appears controlled by major N-S cross-cutting faults and minor NW-SE faulting. The Ilovica intrusive complex comprises a central dacitic brecciated volcanic pipe or diatreme and at least one dacite and two granodiorite porphyry stocks. Topographically, the Ilovica porphyry forms a hill of more than 4 m of absolute relief, surrounded at lower elevations by numerous small dykes and irregular bodies of dacitic tuff, breccias and intermediate volcanic rocks. The Ilovica magmatic complex is emplaced into lower Palaeozoic granite. The granite is locally weakly foliated, coarsely porphyroblastic, and forms a roughly northwest-elongate body some 4 by 12 km in size, intruding Precambrian mica schist and gneiss. Alteration is variably present over an area of about 8 km 2 (Figures 3-7 and 3-8) but is pervasive in a smaller area of around 1.5 km 2 within and proximal to the main porphyry intrusive complex. The alteration comprises an advanced argillic cap, a potassic core and a surrounding phyllic zone. Primary sulphide mineralization mainly consists of chalcopyrite and pyrite with minor bornite, molybdenite, galena and sphalerite. Secondary sulphides include chalcocite and covellite. Occasional traces of sulphosalt minerals such as tetrahedrite-tennantite and tellurides of Au and Ag are also seen. A supergene enriched oxide zone is found ranging between 9 and 7 m thickness, with copper grades of.25.69 % associated with chalcocite and covellite. A leached cap has been weathered and leached to the point where most evidence of copper mineralization has disappeared, containing only around 15 ppm Cu. Mineralization is spatially, temporally and genetically associated with hydrothermal alteration of the intrusive bodies and host rocks. Metallurgical testwork (undertaken by SGS) has indicated that Au is often locked into pyrite (PFS, EOX, 214). 55459 4 April 4, 216

765 7652 7654 7656 7658 ³ Legend Pre-Strip r3a Starter Pit Pushback 1 Final Pit Extents Proposed Conveyor Belt Jazga Catchment Proposed Power Line Shtuka Catchment 4596 Proposed Open Pit Area Proposed Waste Management Facility Location 4596 Pit Stages X Proposed Northern Access Road Proposed Mine Workshop Area Legend Proposed Tailings Management Facility A Proposed Abstraction from Ilovica Reservoir to Processing Plant (Pipeline Route Not Yet Defined) Surface Water Proposed Haul Road 4594 4594 A Ephemeral Watercourse Perennial Watercourse Turija Canal Site Layout Proposed Final Pit Contour Proposed TMF River Diversion Channel TMF Runoff Dam Proposed Haul Road Proposed Access Road Proposed Conveyor Belt Proposed Sediment Pond x Proposed Site Plant Proposed ROM Pad Pond is Redundant 4592 Existing Power Line Proposed Power Line Concession Boundary 4592 Sushica Catchment Proposed Waste Management Facility Diversion Channel Water Pipeline From Turija Dam to Ilovica Reservoir Proposed Final Pit Extent Proposed Embankment Proposed Mine Workshop Area Proposed Oxide Ore Option 3 Proposed ROM Pad Proposed Upper Plant Site Proposed TMF Catchment Boundary 765 7652 7654 7656 7658 Mine layout REFERENCE COOR DIN ATE SYSTEM: HK 3 DEGREE GK ZON E 7 9 BASE BASE DATA OPEN STR EETMAP CON TR IBUTOR S PR OJECT DATA EUR OMAX Document Path: P:\55459_Euromax_MKD_Ilovitza_Project_EIS_ESIA\5_Processed\51_Figures\55459R1_ESIA_Annex4\Figure_3-1.mxd 1 PROJECT: 1 Kilometres CLIENT: DRAWN: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd CHECKED: JD DH FIGURE #: PROJECT #: DATE: 3.1 55459 January 215 55459

Pre-strip pit shell LOM year -1 Starter pit shell LOM year 2 First pushback pit shell LOM year 7 Final pit shell LOM year 21 Pit shell key LOM stages PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 3-2 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document11

14 12 1 Mass (MT) 8 6 4 2-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 LOM year Ore Waste Source : P:\55459_Euromax_MKD_Ilovitza_Project_EIS_ESIA\4_WIP\412_Geochemistry\2. TMF LOM ore and waste schedule PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 3-3 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document1

DFS Process flow sheet Source : P:\55459_Euromax_MKD_Ilovitza_Project_EIS_ESIA\4_WIP\412_G eochemistry\2. TMF Document2 PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 3-4 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216

Source: Figure 7.1 PFS, EOX 214 Regional geological setting Document3 PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 3-5 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216

Source: Figure 7.2 PFS, EOX 214 Local geological setting Document3 PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 3-6 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216

Geology and alteration zones - plan view PROJECT: CLIENT: DRAWN: Document Path: P:\55459_Euromax_MKD_Ilovitza_Project_EIS_ESIA\5_Processed\51_Figures\55459R1_ESIA_Annex4\Figure_3-7\Figure_3-7.mxd FIGURE #: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd DH CHECKED: PROJECT #: JD DATE: 3.7 55459 January 216

Geology and alteration zones - section view Document Path: P:\55459_Euromax_MKD_Ilovitza_Project_EIS_ESIA\5_Processed\51_Figures\55459R1_ESIA_Annex4\Figure_3-8\Figure_3-8.mxd PROJECT: CLIENT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project DRAWN: CHECKED: FIGURE #: PROJECT #: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd 55459 DH JD DATE: 3.8 January 216

4 GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM 4.1 Geological classification Logging of exploration drill core and assignment of properties to the geological block model has been performed by EOX in a manner which includes four primary discriminators of relevance to the environmental geology of the deposit: Mineralization Primary lithology Degree of hydrothermal alteration Degree of supergene oxidation. The above attributes within the EOX core logging system were applied by EOX s geo-environmental team to produce a simplified system for purposes of geo-environmental classification using the lithology, alteration, mineralization and oxidation codes as shown in Table 4-1. Table 4-1 Acronyms used within geo-environmental classification system Acronym DAC GNDIO or GDIO OX UNOX MIX BR or SW UD or DIST CA NON FR AL HS OG OXLOWER OXUPPER Characteristic Granite Dacite Granodiorite Oxidized zone Unoxidized zone Mixed zone (partially oxidised) Brecciated or stockworked, mineralized and hydrothermally altered Hydrothermally unaltered or distal from mineralisation Contains carbonate Contains nontronite Fresh Altered High sulphide Ore grade Lower oxidised zone (specific to oxidised granodiorite) Upper oxidised zone (specific to oxidised granodiorite) Two specific observations commonly noted by EOX during core logging have been used to further differentiate rock units within the geo-environmental classification system: The development of yellow coating on core (mainly in the granodiorite), which develops rapidly within hours of removal from the ground, is thought to indicate the presence and weathering of nontronite. The presence of nontronite is believed to be related to advanced argillic alteration. Initial studies on weathered core suggested that such rock with yellow staining (presumed to be iron hydroxide precipitation after weathering of nontronite) suggests that this material is less pyritic than other material types. Surficial and occasionally semi-pervasive brown staining on core material is assumed to result from oxidation of pyrite and deposition of iron oxides. 55459 5 April 4, 216

GEO-ENVIRONMENTAL ROCK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM Based on the above criteria for rock classification, the major geo-environmental material types recognized by EOX are as shown in Table 4-2. One notable observation evident within this classification system is a focus primarily on the differentiation of lithology, rather than of discrete styles or intensities of alteration. Thus, most classes of rock within which alteration is observed are not differentiated with respect to argillic, advanced argillic, phyllic or potassic assemblages. Table 4-2 Matrix of major rock material types Lithology Alteration Oxidation Code Granite Fresh (unaltered) Oxidized FR Granite Altered Oxidized ALOX Granite Altered (Qtz sericite and nontronite) Unoxidized NON, AL, ALHS, UNOX Dacite Altered Oxidized DACOX, DACOXUD, DACOXBR Dacite Altered Unoxidized DACUNOXBR, DACUNOX Dacite Altered Unoxidized DACUNOXUD, DACDIST Granodiorite Fresh Oxidized GNDIOOX Granodiorite (Brecciated) Altered Unoxidized GDUNOXSW Granodiorite Altered Unoxidized GNDIO, GDIOUNOX Granodiorite Altered (w/wo nontronite) GNDIONON, GNDIOCA All lithologies Partial DACMIX, MIX, GDIOMIX 4.2 Frequency of abundance of major rock units A statistical analysis of EOX s exploration drill core database was performed to determine the relative abundance of each geo-environmental rock unit of the Ilovica deposit area discriminated in Table 4-2. The total database archive includes logs for over 3, m of core, with lithology, alteration, mineralization and metal assay data systematically included. Sulphur assays for around 26 m of core are also included. Table 4.3 presents a breakdown of the lithology-alteration-mineralization (LAM) units for which records are held in the database, along with the proportion of the total drill core length assigned to each unit. This statistical frequency analysis is also shown in Figure 4-1 with respect to lithology, alteration, mineralization and oxidation as independent variables. Table 4-3 Material breakdown in drillcore database Lithology Mineralisation Oxidation Sum of %* Corresponding testwork Dacite No mineralization Ox 2.1% DACOX Dacite No mineralization UnOx 2.9% DACDIST, DACUNOXUD Dacite Stockwork Ox 1.9% DACOX DACOXSW Dacite Stockwork UnOx 7.% DACUNOXBR Dacite Breccia Breccia Ox 2.9% DACOXBR Dacite Breccia No mineralization Ox 1.3% DACOXBR Dacite Breccia No mineralization UnOx.8% DACUNOXBR Dacite Breccia Stockwork UnOx 1.4% DACUNOXBR Granite No mineralization Ox 1.1% ALOX, FR Granite No mineralization UnOx 15.6% AL, ALHS Granite Stockwork UnOx.8% AL, ALHS Granodiorite No mineralization UnOx 28.1% GRDIONON GNDIO, GNDIOCA Granodiorite Stockwork UnOx 2.8% GDUNOXSW Grand Total 86.7% *low percentages were omitted from the table 55459 6 April 4, 216

Oxidation zone % Mix Oxidised Unoxidised All drillcore 3% 14% 83% Au cut off.33 g/t 3% 14% 83% Cu cut off 2 ppm 3% 18% 79% Percentage Alteration Percentage 35% 3% 25% 2% 15% 1% 5% % 9% 8% 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Argilli c Biotit e- Chlori te Chlori te Chlori te- Serici te K- feldsp ar No altera tion Quart z- Serici te Serici te- Clay Silicat e All drillcore 1% 12% 11% 26% 1% 1% 28% 1% % 1% % Au cut off.33 g/t 9% 13% 1% 25% 1% 2% 28% 1% % 1% % Cu cut off 2 ppm 1% 13% 9% 24% % 2% 3% 11% % 1% % UR Vein Percentage Lithology 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% Percentage % Mineralisation 7% 6% 5% 4% 3% 2% 1% % Dacite Dacite Breccia Breccia Diluvium Granite Granodior ite No mineralisation Quartz vein All drillcore 15.6% 1.3%.6% 2.2% 53.2%.%.1%.% Au cut off.33 g/t 13.% 11.4%.5% 23.2% 51.7%.%.1%.% Cu cut off 2 ppm 14.3% 12.5%.8% 22.5% 49.9%.%.1%.% Stockwork All drillcore 6% 58% 37% Au cut off.33 g/t 6% 62% 32% Cu cut off 2 ppm 7% 62% 31% Schist Blank Material proportions in the drillcore database PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 4-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document112

5 STATIC TESTWORK 5.1 Introduction Geochemical characterization of the Ilovica deposit from an environmental perspective has been undertaken through a series of investigations spanning the 213 to 215 period as summarized chronologically below: 1. Initial characterization of drillcore samples by EOX in 213. This included field paste ph and conductivity tests to assess general trends in acid production. 2. Collection (by EOX) and submission for acid-base accounting (ABA) in 213-14 of samples to represent the principal LAM units within the geo-environmental classification system for the deposit. 3. Establishment by EOX in 214 of field scale kinetic tests using drillcore for key LAM units (discussed in Section 6). 4. Additional sampling in 215 of drillcore by EOX with guidance from SWS to eliminate gaps within the static testwork dataset. These samples were subject to ABA and a range of other static tests including some mineralogical analyses. 5. Establishment in 215 of supplementary kinetic field tests using composite drillcore, focused on assessment of ore grade material (discussed in Section 6). 6. Geochemical testing in late-215 of tailings samples from metallurgical testwork (discussed in Section 7). 5.2 Field paste ph and conductivity Screening level assessment of the potential acid forming properties of the principal lithological units of the Ilovica deposit was initiated by EOX geo-environmental team concurrently with exploration drilling activities during 213. This involved the use of paste ph and slurry electrical conductivity (SEC) analyses of samples extracted from drill core to provide a rapid, low cost basis for characterizing extensive lengths of core. Paste ph and SEC tests are typically performed using a small amount (approximately 1 g) of rock material which is crushed or milled and mixed at an approximate 1:1 ratio with deionized water. The slurry is then used to determine ph and EC. The test is essentially a measure of the presence of readily hydrolyzed forms of mineral acidity and is influenced by the state of prior weathering of the core. A review of results of paste ph and EC analyses performed by EOX geo-environmental specialist on exploration core samples yields the following significant observations: Samples from the oxide zone of the deposit (including those of granite, dacite and granodiorite primary lithology) show little evidence of acid production during paste ph testing, yielding near neutral ph levels (5 7) and low levels of EC (< 1 µs/cm). Fresh (un-oxidized) dacite from the ore zone and surrounding stockwork produce relatively low ph levels (4 5), with EC typically around 4 µs/cm. The un-oxidized, hydrothermally altered granite, granodiorite and dacite show evidence of substantial stored sulphasalts and yield typical paste ph values of 4 5 with EC levels of up to 116 µs/cm. Fresh granite and granodiorite from outside of the zone of hydrothermal alteration display near neutral paste ph levels. Within the outer zone of alteration, granodiorite with calcite presence is observed. This produces a high paste ph range of between 7 and 9, with low EC of around 1 µs/cm 55459 7 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Material with nontronitic alteration appears to produce near-neutral paste ph values (around ph 6) and EC of around 15 µs/cm. 5.3 Acid base accounting Acid base accounting (ABA) is the longest established and most widely applied mining industry procedure for screening level assessment of ARD hazards associated with ore and waste rock assemblages. While numerous specific methodologies have been developed for ABA analysis, all essentially involve determination of the balance between: Acid production potential (AP) and Neutralization potential (NP). This balance can be variably expressed as a net neutralization potential (NNP) in units of CaCO 3 per ton of rock. The derivation of AP is most widely undertaken using an approach outlined by Sobek (1979) in which (a) the abundance of sulfide S is determined analytically and (b) acid production potential is calculated by conservative assignment of all sulfide S to pyrite, with proton generation estimated in accordance with the stoichiometry of pyrite oxidation. Determination of NP is undertaken in virtually all ABA protocols by addition of HCl to a specified mass of sample to consume reactive carbonate. Back titration with NaOH is then performed to quantify the precise amount of acid consumed by carbonate dissolution. The interpretation of ABA data here is undertaken such that: A Strong PAG classification is applied to rock units for which average NNP is < -8 kg CaCO 3/t. A Weak PAG classification is applied to units in which NNP is <-2 kg CaCO 3/t. A Low-Reactivity classification is applied to samples with NNP between 2 kg CaCO 3/t and -2 kg CaCO 3/t. An Acid-Consuming classification is assigned to material with an NNP of > 2 kg CaCO 3/t. Acid-base accounting (ABA) tests were conducted in conjunction with PFS level investigations of the Ilovica project in 214 for a total of 61 waste-grade and 1 ore-grade samples selected by EOX s geo-environmental team. The tests were performed at the Evrotest laboratory in Bulgaria who are understood by SWS to have deployed a modified Sobek (1979) procedure. A second round of waste and ore material was collected as part of FS level investigations in 215. The sample material targeted gaps identified in the initial geochemistry review, and consisted of the following categories: 1. Effect of alteration type (potassic, phyllic and argillic) on potential acid generation and metal leaching. 2. Initial geochemical characteristics of the material used on the field kinetic leach tests (as described in 5517_TM11, SWS, 215)). 3. A sub-sample of the irrigated oxide ore field scale tests, prior to their commencement in July 215. A total of 36 samples were collected from exploration drillcore as described in Table 5-1. ABA was performed on the samples at Maxxam Laboratories in Canada. The ABA procedure involved a modified Sobek (1979) method. Quarter core, remaining after the field leach tests were set-up, was used for the samples in point two above so as not to disturb the current field tests. This will not give a true initial geochemical condition of the leach pad material, but provides a good approximation of the original material. Small grab samples across the full range of drillcore was composited to form each leach pad sample, to try to eliminate any sampling bias and loss of heterogeneity from a small sample size. Alteration samples were identified by site geologists to cover a range of lithologyalteration material types that were deemed missing in the first ABA iteration. Finally, a sub-sample of oxide ore 55459 8 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK material, individually granodiorite and dacite, was sent to the laboratory. The bulk samples were used to set-up an irrigated experiment described in Section 6. In addition to gross ABA sample population size, the structure of the population is also critical. This should ideally be as closely representative as possible of the range of rock units within the FS level pit optimization, with sample frequencies by individual rock type corresponding broadly to the relative abundances of each unit in the deposit area. A comparative analysis of the frequency of LAM units within (a) the deposit area as characterized by total exploration drilling coverage, (b) the current pit shell material characterized in the block model (no ore or waste differentiation), and (c) the old, new and combined ABA sample population is summarized in Table 5-2. This indicates that while all major units have been subject to some level of characterization, there is significant bias within the sample population towards oxidized or fresh units, notably those of granite lithology. Significant underrepresentation within the sample population is evident with respect to the un-oxidized stockwork and/or high sulphide granodiorite and nontronite-bearing units. The under-representation was addressed to some degree after the additional sampling in 215. However, some of the samples chosen for analysis were to represent the drillcore placed on kinetic field tests (Section 6), and thus they increased the percentage of samples for some of the overrepresented LAM categories. Initially samples were also chosen with a bias towards mixed material, as due to limited drillcore availability, these material types would not be available for kinetic tests and thus a greater quantity were sampled for initial static tests. 55459 9 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-1 Overview of FS level geochemical samples for laboratory analysis Sample No Lithology Alteration Sample type Hole ID From To Dry weight (kg) ABA, bulk geochemistry and whole rock analysis NAG leachates ILABA13 Potassic Alteration gaps 1121 148.4 151.8 1.538 X X X ILABA14 Argillic Alteration gaps 1247 141 144 1.435 X ILABA16 Argillic Alteration gaps 1256 126 129 1.753 X X X ILABA17 Phyllic Alteration gaps 1247 177 18 1.661 X ILABA18 Phyllic Alteration gaps 125 176 179 1.362 X ILABA19 Phyllic Alteration gaps 125 2 23 1.241 X X X ILABA124 DAC phyllic Alteration gaps 1128 133 138 1.832 X ILABA125 DAC Argillic Alteration gaps 1128 14.8 143.911 X ILABA126 DAC Argillic Alteration gaps 1229 152 155 1.16 X X X ILABA127 DAC Phyllic Alteration gaps 1234 195 198 1.369 X X X ILABA128 DAC Phyllic Alteration gaps 1252 193 198 1.7 X ILABA129 DAC Phyllic Alteration gaps 1359 139 144 1.428 X ILABA141 GNDIO Potassic Alteration gaps 1232 298 31.98 X ILABA142 GNDIO Potassic Alteration gaps 1235 282 285 1.542 X ILABA143 GNDIO Potassic Alteration gaps 1249 364 367 1.26 X X X ILABA144 GNDIO Argillic Alteration gaps 1249 317 32.758 X ILABA145 GNDIO Argillic Alteration gaps 1362 35.3 38.796 X ILABA146 GNDIO Argillic Alteration gaps 1362 325.8 329.5 1.39 X X X ILABA164 Fresh outcrop Alteration gaps N/A N/A N/A 1.445 X X ILABA166 Fresh Plantsite Alteration gaps 19 19.1 19.6 1.214 X X ILABA165 Fresh Plantsite Alteration gaps 19 17.6 17.9.839 X X ILABA15 GNDIO CA Leach pad drillcore 1232 227 326.6 1235 223.1 313.6 5.613 X X ILABA153 GNDIO NON Leach pad drillcore 1249 248 4 1243 325 373 6.313 X X ILABA156 GNDIO Leach pad drillcore 1233 12 149 1236 12 149.8 5.984 X X ILABA159 GNDIO UNOXSW Leach pad drillcore 1362 35.8 46.5 4.22 X X ILABA162 GNDIO OXORE Leach pad drillcore 1242 18.1 36.3 2.19 X X ILABA163 DAC OXORE Leach pad drillcore 1562 47.2 87.4 1.87 X X 1361 21.4 61.5 ILABA13 DAC OX Leach pad drillcore 1252 69.4 3.532 X X 1125 75 ILABA131 DAC OXBR Leach pad drillcore 1361 11.2 22.4 61.5 82.6 3.435 X X ILABA132 DAC UNOXUD Leach pad drillcore 1129 132 16 1128 12 16 4.141 X X 1252 175 225 ILABA135 DAC UNOXBR Leach pad drillcore 1359 19 15 1237 16 24 6.94 X X 1359 15 181.6 ILABA138 DAC DIST Leach pad drillcore 1234 135 21 4.274 X X ILABA11 NON Leach pad drillcore 1247 284 41 3.681 X X ILABA113 AL Leach pad drillcore 125 11 25 1247 12 23 5.24 X X ILABA116 ALHS Leach pad drillcore 117 75 135 3.138 X X 125 1 7 ILABA118 ALOX Leach pad drillcore 124 87 2.47 X X 117 5 XRD analyses 55459 1 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-2 Comparative analysis of the frequency of occurrence of individual LAM units within the Ilovica deposit area and in the ABA sample population Percentage of total exploration drill core * Percentage within the pit in the block model (ore and waste) Percentage of ABA samples (214) Percentage of ABA samples (215) Combined percentage of ABA samples DACOX, DACOXUD 2.1% 23.9% 4.2% 5.6% 4.7% DACDIST, DACUNOXUD, DACUNOX 2.9% 7.4% 8.5% 25.% 14.1% DACOXSW 1.9% 1.% 2.8%.% 1.9% DACOXBR 4.2%.% 2.8%.% 1.9% DACUNOXBR 9.2% 17.% 5.6%.% 3.7% OX, ALOX, FR 1.1% 6.8% 12.7% 11.1% 12.2% AL, ALHS 16.4% 3.9% 7.% 22.2% 12.1% GRDIONON, GNDIO, GNDIOCA, GDIOUNOX 28.1% 9.8% 14.1% 25.% 17.8% GDUNOXSW 2.8% 18.1% 8.5% 2.8% 6.6% DACOG, DACMIX, GDIOMIX, MIX, GDIOOX, NON, UNOX, 13.3% 12.2% 33.8% 8.3% 25.2% OGGNDIOCA, OGGNDIONON TOTALS 86.7% 1.% 1.% 1.% 1.% *Small units are not included in the drillcore analysis 5.3.1 Overview of ABA results Results of ABA testing indicate that approximately 5% of the sample population is classifiable as net-acid consuming, with 49% classified as of low-reactivity, 13% classifiable as of weak potential acid generation (PAG) character and 38% classifiable as strong PAG. Neutralization potential (NP) versus acid generation potential (AP) ratios for all ABA samples are presented on Figure 5-1. The full ABA results can be found in Appendix A. The overall range of maximum potential acidity (MPA) values for the suite of ABA samples extends from.16 to 282 kgcaco 3/t. Values of <2 kg CaCO 3/t are largely confined to fresh (unaltered) rock units plus the calcitebearing GNDIOCA unit. The range of neutralization potential (NP) values for the ABA suite extends from -2.3 to 67 kgcaco 3/t. Only seven samples yield NP values in excess of 2 kgcaco 3/t. These primarily correspond to oxidized and calcite-bearing granodiorites. 5.3.2 Summary of 213-214 ABA tests Complete results of all ABA tests are presented in Figure 5-1 and 5-2, from which the following key trends may be observed: Paste ph values determined for the suite of 71 samples from 213 encompass a wide range (ph 3.47 to 9.1). As shown in Figure 5-2, the paste ph values of most samples within the population are closely correlated to S content. Most paste ph values of <5 are associated with samples holding sulphide S at an abundance in excess of 3%, while the vast majority of paste ph values of >6 are associated with samples holding <1% sulphide S. Highest paste ph values are evident for samples in which calcite is visually evident (notably GNDIOCA) and it is notable that such samples are also systematically of low S content (<.3%). The principal sub-group of samples that deviate from this trend is the oxidized rock units, in which a significant range of paste ph values (5 to 8) occurs at relatively low sulphide concentrations (<.5%). 55459 11 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK The partitioning of sulphur in all samples is sulphide-dominated (see Figure 5-2) to an extent that sulphate acidity may be for practical purposes regarded as irrelevant (and total S may be considered a close proxy for sulphide S). The DACOXBR material did not contain any visual sulphide in the original core logging. However, in the ABA tests this material presented high concentrations of sulphide. Further samples of this material were taken, in order to check the original laboratory results and visual logging. Mineralogical analyses for a DACOXBR sample (Section 5.4.3) suggest that the sample contains alunite and minimal sulphides. Alunite does not produce acidity but can cause an ABA analysis to over-estimate sulphide sulphur and thus potential acidity. A sample of DACOXBR was included in the field kinetic tests, and over the 2 years of weathering the leachate produced is of neutral ph (Section 6.1.2). 5.3.3 Alteration The NP and AP by lithology-alteration group is also shown in Figure 5-1. The argillic and phyllic samples of all lithology types are found to be potentially acid generating in both NP/AP ratios and NNP scale. The fresh granite outcrop and fresh granite from the plant area are found to be uncertain in both NP/AP ratios and NNP scales, although generally this designation is specifically because both sulphides and available alkalinity was found at less than or close to detection limits, so most of readily soluble or readily reactive minerals have been leached from this material. The potassic alteration samples are mixed in terms of acid generating potential. The granite-potassic is defined as uncertain by NNP and NAG by NP/AP. The granodiorite-potassic has one sample PAG, one uncertain and one NAG by NP/AP, and 2 samples are classified as NAG and one as PAG by NNP. The NNP is plotted against total sulphur by lithology-alteration on Figure 5-3. As before, most of the samples follow the trend that NNP is generally controlled by sulphur content, and the influence of carbonate bearing material is low. This is not the case in such a distinctive manner as was reported in the previous SWS review. Some of the positive NNP look to have an influence controlling potential acid generation that is not controlled by total sulphur alone. 5.3.4 Leach pad samples and irrigated field tests The ABA results for the leach pad drillcore samples and irrigated field test samples are presented in Appendix A. The NP/AP ratios are shown graphically on Figure 5-1. The NP/AP ratios and NNP values can be defined as NAG, PAG and uncertain. The GNDIOCA and GNDIO samples are both classified as NAG by NP/AP and all other samples are classed as PAG. The NNP defines GNDIOCA as NAG and GNDIO and ALOX as uncertain. All the other original leach pad field tests are classified as PAG by NNP. The two new irrigated leach experiments, testing the granodiorite and dacite oxide ores, are both classified as PAG by NP/AP and uncertain by NNP. The NNP is plotted against the total sulphur in Figure 5-3. Most samples show that total sulphur is a major control on the prediction of potential acid generation. However, with GNDIOCA, which is the only material where significant carbonate alkalinity is logged, the relationship between NNP and total sulphur is not as clear. It should be noted that for oxide material the ABA analyses will not be relied solely for predicting whether the material is potentially acid generating. As mentioned in Section 5.3.2 alunite has been recorded in some samples of this material which can over-estimate sulphide sulphur and thus acid generating potential. Leach pad data (Section 6) and mineralogical data (Section 5.4.3) was also used to assess acid generating potential and make a final classification (Section 8). 55459 12 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK 5.4 Additional static testwork in 215 The additional samples selected in 215 were characterized using a wider range of static tests than earlier campaigns. The tests used and the results of the laboratory analyses are described in the following sections. All of the analyses were completed at Maxxam Analytics Laboratory, Canada. 5.4.1 NAG ph and leachates alteration samples Single step NAG tests were completed for a small sub-set of alteration group samples, 7 in total. The NAG procedure is designed to measure the response of sulphide bearing rock to chemically induced oxidation. A 25 ml volume of hydrogen peroxide (H2O2) was applied to 2.5 g of sample (as a pulp), after which the ph of the solution was measured (referred to as NAG ph). NAG ph is generally inversely proportional to long-term ARD generation potential. Following measurement of NAG ph, all solutions were subsequently titrated with NaOH to ph 4.5 and then ph 7.. The volume of NaOH consumed during the titration allows the calculation of net acidity generated by oxidation of sulphide by hydrogen peroxide and spontaneous consumption of alkalinity. Following completion of the NAG test procedure as described above, the remaining NAG leachates were analyzed for the suite of major and trace solutes shown in Table 5-3. Table 5-3 Geochemical analysis performed on NAG leachates ph EC Hardness CaCO3 Al Sb As Ba Be Bi B Cs Cd Ca Cr Co Cu La Fe Pb Li Mg Mn P Mo Ni K Rb Se Si Ag Na Sr S Te Tl Th Sn Ti W U V Zn Zr Hg All metals as dissolved A plot of NNP vs NAG ph is shown on Figure 5-4 for the selected 7 samples. Results are partitioned into three categories: Potentially acid generating (PAG) where NNP < kg CaCO 3 /t and NAG ph < 4.5. Not acid generating (NAG) where NNP > kg CaCO 3 /t and NAG ph > 4.5. Uncertain acid generation where NNP > kg CaCO 3 /t and NAG ph < 4.5 or NNP < kg CaCO 3 /t and NAG ph > 4.5. These samples show a similar pattern to those discussed in Section 5.3.3 in that argillic and phyllic materials are all classifiable as PAG. The granite-potassic sample is defined as NAG but the only granodiorite-potassic sample tested for NAG ph is defined as PAG, which for this particular sample matches the classification by NNP and NP/AP. The NAG leachates for the selected alteration samples are presented in Table 5-4. The table compares the NAG leachates against the project discharge standards (Environmental Design Criteria, Golder, 215) and where the leachates exceed guideline values the result is highlighted in red. The table also includes the drinking water standard for sulphate, as there is no project specific discharge guideline limit for this parameter but as the deposit is a sulphide mineralization system it has been identified as a key parameter of concern. The drinking water guideline for sulphate can be used as a relative comparative value for the NAG leachates. The NAG leachates are thought to represent a worst case scenario, as full oxidation of sulphides should have occurred, so the resulting leachates may contain a high proportion of the total solutes released from sulphide oxidation. The argillic and phyllic sample leachates all exceed guideline discharge limits for iron and copper. The argillic samples also exceed 55459 13 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK discharge standards for zinc and some of the phyllic and argillic samples for sulphate. There is no alkalinity recorded in argillic or phyllic samples. The potassic material is generally mixed, and reflects the acid potential predictions, so the sample that is predicted to be not acid generating does not exceed any discharge standards for metals or sulphate and is the only NAG leachate to record alkalinity above detection limits. The granodioritepotassic material exceeds guideline limits for sulphate, copper, iron, lead and zinc. 55459 14 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-4 NAG leachates for selected alteration samples Parameter Units EDC effluent standards EDC drinking water standards**** Sample number, lithology and alteration ILABA13 ILABA16 ILABA19 ILABA126 ILABA127 ILABA143 ILABA146 Granite Granite Granite Dacite Dacite Granodiorite Granodiorite Potassic Argillic Phyllic Argillic Phyllic Potassic Argillic ph ph Units 1.2 2.57 2.2 2.8 2.42 2.52 2.36 EC us/cm 157.3 1551. 31. 416. 36. 1879. 1775. SO4 mg/l 25 34.6 25 43 574 333 271 26 Total Alkalinity as CaCO3 mg/l 54.1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Hardness CaCO3 mg/l 98.7 5.11 3.9 7.83 6.16 35.2 48.7 Al mg/l 1.28 4.42 5.2 7.55 6.32 2.73 2.72 Sb mg/l.689.34 <.2 <.2 <.2.587 <.2 As mg/l.1.344.279.641.553.146.859.114 Ba mg/l.872.9.624.946.923.793.1 Be mg/l <.1.868.5.4.345.318.585 B mg/l.421.85.117.195.78.156 <.5 Cd mg/l.5 <.5.113.516.223.199.368.386 Ca mg/l 39.5 1.4 1.21 2.61 1.97 7.93 4.71 Cr** mg/l.1.177.824.133.915.591.293.362 Co mg/l.64.271.551.13.56.416.467 Cu mg/l.3.182 15.9 5.12 1.2 3.17 6.52 4.85 Fe*** mg/l 2..176 23.2 42.4 31.3 27.4 4.7 16. Pb mg/l.2.556.55.765.132.293.816.517 Mg mg/l <.5.389.211.318.297 3.73 8.96 Mn mg/l.525.162.116.645.68 9.56.257 P mg/l 2..78.67.56.16.5.48.58 Mo mg/l.596.444.235.55.85.527.139 Ni mg/l.5.86.238.445.6.369.267.352 K mg/l 7. 6.95 4.2 4.72 4.43 7.73 4.6 Ag mg/l <.5.17.964.318.399.251.533 Na mg/l 5.36 3.4 3.44 3.79 3.62 3.23 3.19 Sr mg/l.3.241.24.246.246.275.141 S mg/l 1 88 153 26 141 16 95 U mg/l.15.621.238.822.769.977.379 V mg/l.758.22.49.78.56.46.49 Zn mg/l.5.192 1.12.241.74.334 5.62.884 *All metals analysed as dissolved **EDC for Cr is IFC Cr(VI) standard not for total chromium, thus potentially a lower EDC than required for Cr alone ***EDC for Fe is for total not dissolved, so potentially a higher EDC than required ****Including EDC drinking water standards where missing a key EDC effluent standard 55459 15 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK 5.4.2 Bulk geochemistry and whole rock analyses Laboratory analysis of rock samples for bulk geochemistry by ICP-MS was undertaken for all samples. An aliquot of 1 g of each sample was used for digestion in aqua regia (3:1 mixture of hydrochloric and nitric acids) followed by ICP-MS analysis for the parameters listed in Table 5-5. Whole rock analysis to define major oxide proportions by XRF was also completed. Table 5-5 Summary of parameters included in ICP-MS analysis suite Element LOD Element LOD Element LOD Element LOD Element LOD As.2 Ca 1 Pb.1 Mo 1 Sr 1 Al 1 Cd.1 Hg 1 Na 1 Ti 1 B 1 Co 1 K 1 P 1 Tl 1 Ba 1 Cr 1 La 1 S 1 U 1 Be.5 Cu 1 Mg 1 Sb 2 V 1 Bi 2 Fe 1 Mn 1 Sc.1 Zn 1 Results by alteration type The oxide abundances and bulk geochemistry data for samples classified by alteration are presented graphically in Figures 5-5 to 5-7. Full data are included in Appendix A. The potassic alteration group generally show more CaO and MgO present than argillic or phyllic material, averages of 2% or more in comparison with less than 1%. The fresh outcrop and core plant outcrop material had less iron oxides than many other materials, but a higher proportion of NaO compared with the other material types. Iron and sulphur appear to be roughly the same pattern for phyllic and argillic material (Figure 5-6), which could indicate that pyrite is the main source of these elements in this material. The potassic, fresh outcrop and plant area outcrop material generally had a lower ratio of sulphur to iron, suggesting that there is potentially less sulphide mineralization in the potassic material. One of the granodiorite potassic samples had much greater concentrations of trace metals (arsenic at 14 ppm and zinc at >1 ppm) than other samples. The granite-potassic material had the highest concentration of copper at almost 18 ppm. Leach pad samples and irrigated field test sub-samples results The oxide abundances and bulk geochemistry analyses for the leach pad and irrigated field test sub-samples are presented graphically in Figures 5-8 and 5-9 and the data is included in Appendix A. Granodiorite unaltered, granodiorite with calcite and granodiorite with nontronite are the only material with significant CaO and MgO, which implies they are likely to have a source of readily available alkalinity. Iron is always found at greater than 2% in the samples. Sulphur is recorded at over 1% in nontronitic granodiorite and granite, unoxidised granodiorites and dacites, distal dacites, altered and highly sulphidic altered granites. The material with very little sulphur recorded, generally less than.25 % are oxidized dacites and granites, the oxidized granodiorite and dacite ore grade material and the unaltered granodiorite. The granodiorite containing calcite had slightly more sulphur, recorded as.85 %, but this is relatively low compared with the unoxidised material. Copper is the trace element that is uniformily found across material types, as expected from the mineralization. The carbonate granodiorite also records over 27 ppm of manganese and zinc. 5.4.3 Mineralogical results Rietveld X-ray Diffraction (XRD) analyses were performed for the sub-set of 25 Ilovica samples, which includes all samples relating to field tests and a small number of alteration samples. Rietveld XRD provides a quantitative assessment of crystalline mineral phase abundances present at levels of ~1% or more within a rock matrix. 55459 16 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Alteration samples Rietveld XRD was completed on 1 of the alteration samples and the results are summarized in Table 5-6, where major constituents are >1%, minor between 1 and1 % and trace as <1 %. The major minerals recorded across all samples are quartz and then the clay mineral illite-muscovite. The granites of the outcrop site and plant site are also dominated by plagioclase and K-feldspar. Pyrite is recorded as a minor constituent in all of the argillic and phyllic samples, and the granodiorite potassic sample. Calcite is recorded as a minor constituent in the granite potassic material only. Natroalunite is found as a trace mineral the argillic granite and phyllic dacite and as a minor constituent of the phyllic granite. Natroalunite is a significant mineral as in many acid-base accounting procedures. Its presence can lead to over-estimation of acid generation within ABA analyses as it can be recorded within the sulphide sulphur speciation. Figure 5-1 presents natroalunite abundances versus sulfur speciations. For the alteration samples described here, the trace and minor quantities of natroalunite are dwarfed by the pyrite which is recorded as more than 4% in the three samples. It is likely that even if acid generation is overestimated as part of the ABA procedure it would not change material categorization in this instance. Leach pad samples and irrigated field test sub-samples A summary of the Rietveld XRD results, using the system described above, is shown in Table 5-7 for the current field test subsamples. The major minerals recorded across all samples are quartz and illite-muscovite. The granodiorite with calcite is the only sample to show significant alkalinity, calcite with magnesium as a minor constituent mineral of 7.4 %. The sole granodiorite sample also recorded a trace level of calcite. Pyrite was not detected in oxidized dacite or granite material, or in the granodiorite and dacite oxide ore samples. Pyrite was recorded as a major constituent of the highly sulphidic altered granite and the unoxidised and undisturbed dacite. The simple granodiorite sample only recorded a trace abundance of pyrite. All the other material, including the nontronitic and carbonate bearing material, contained between 1 and 1 % pyrite. Only a few samples recorded trace abundances of other sulphide minerals such as chalcopyrite and sphalerite. Jarosite, a secondary sulphate salt, is recorded as a minor constituent of the oxidized granodiorite ore, likely to be a product of past sulphide oxidation. Natroalunite, as discussed above, is present in higher abundances in some of the field test sub-samples. Natroalunite is found as a trace constituent of the oxidized dacite ore, altered granite and the unoxidised dacites, and as a minor constituent of highly sulphidic altered granite and the distal dacite. The latter two of these materials (where natroalunite is a minor constituent) have significant pyrite abundances, >8%, so it is unlikely that the sulphate mineral is over-estimating acid generation potential. Natroalunite is also found as a minor constituent of the oxidized dacites and granites, all between 2.2 and 6.4 % where sulphide minerals are not recorded. For this material the acid potential of the material could be over-estimated using the ABA procedure as described in Section 5.4.2, as the sulphide sulphur content appears to be very low in comparison with the natroalunite abundance. The natroalunite abundance is plotted against AP (essentially sulphide sulphur) and HCl extractable S (readily soluble sulphate) in Figure 5-11. The dissolution of hydroxyl-sulphate minerals such as jarosite and alunite may release stored acidity, in the form of sulphate ions, and metals into solution. This could explain why some of the oxide field tests are still producing acidic leachates. Also it is worth noting that the composited samples of material tested for Rietveld XRD are relatively small, and may not fully capture the heterogeneity, even though multiple grab samples through core lengths were made to try and compensate for the small sample size. The oxidized granodiorite ore material producing acidic leachates corresponds to material relatively deep within the oxide zone, especially in comparison to the waste oxide material tested, and is thought to be beginning to transition towards the mixed zone. Although the sub-sample tested here did not record any sulphide minerals it is thought that there may be some present. The jarosite recorded in the sample is an indicator that the material contained sulphides. The oxidized dacites and granites do not generate acidity on the leach pads. 55459 17 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK 5.4.4 Ore mineralogical data Mineralogical analyses of eight ore grade samples are described in an EOX report of 211. A summary of these is presented in Table 5-8. All samples were recovered from a single drill hole, but spanned a depth range that clearly captures the oxide, mixed and sulphide zones of the ore body. The analyses performed were qualitative in nature, and thus record minerals simply in terms of presence or absence. The analyses confirm that chalcopyrite and pyrite constitute the dominant sulphides. At lower depths there is evidence of carbonate minerals, in the form of siderite. This is a significant observation with regard to any future interpretations placed on ABA data for waste rock classification. While reported within a standard ABA procedure as a component of the carbonate balance, siderite does not significantly contribute to acid consumption during rock weathering due to the simultaneous generation of ferric Fe during siderite dissolution. This serves to both generate acidity through Fe hydrolysis and to catalyze sulphide oxidation through the provision of Fe 3+ as an oxidant. 55459 18 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-6 Rietveld XRD summary for additional alteration samples Sample number ILABA13 ILABA143 ILABA16 ILABA126 ILABA146 ILABA19 ILABA127 ILABA165 ILABA166 ILABA164 Lithology GNDIO DAC GNDIO DAC Alteration Potassic Potassic Argillic Argillic Argillic Phyllic Phyllic Plant site Plant site Fresh outcrop Andalusite - - Trace - - Minor - - - - Biotite 1M Minor - - - - - - - Minor Minor Calcite Minor - - - - - - - - - Chalcopyrite - Trace - - Trace - - - - - Clinochlore IIb-4 Minor - - - Minor - - - - - Goethite - - - - - - - Trace - - Hematite Trace - - - - - - - - - Illite/Muscovite 1M - Major - - - - - - - - Illite/Muscovite 2M1 Minor Major Major Major Major Major Major Minor Minor Minor Kaolinite 1A Trace Minor - Minor Minor Minor Minor - - - K-Feldspar Major Minor - - - - - Major Major Major Magnetite Minor - - - - - - - - - Natroalunite - - Trace - - Minor Trace - - - Plagioclase Major - - - - - - Major Major Major Pyrite - Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor - - - Pyrophyllite 1A - - - - - Minor - - - - Quartz Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Rutile Trace Trace Trace Trace Minor Trace Trace Trace - - Siderite - Minor - - - - - - - - Sphalerite - Trace - - - - - - - - *Major when abundance >1%, minor when abundance 1 1%, trace when abundance <1% 55459 19 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-7 Rietveld XRD summary for leach pad and irrigated field samples Sample number ILABA15 ILABA15 6 ILABA15 9 ILABA13 2 ILABA13 5 ILABA13 ILABA13 1 Lithology GNDIO GNDIO GNDIO DAC DAC DAC DAC DAC GNDIO GNDIOX DACOX Alteration CA UNOXSW UNOXUD UNOXBR OX OXBR ALOX DIST NON NON AL ALHS ORE ORE Andalusite - - - - - - - Trace - Minor - Minor Minor - - Biotite 1M Minor Minor - - - - - - - - - - - - - Calcite - Trace - - - - - - - - - - - - - Calcite, magnesian Minor - - - - - - - - - - - - - - Chalcopyrite - Trace Trace - - - - - - Trace Trace - - - - Clinochlore IIb-4 Minor Minor Minor - - - - - - Minor Minor - - - - Goethite - - - - - Minor Minor Minor - - - - - Minor Trace Hematite - - - - - Minor Minor Trace - - - - - Minor Minor Illite/Muscovite 1M - - - - - - - - - Minor Minor Minor Minor - Minor Illite/Muscovite 2M1 ILABA11 8 Major Minor Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Jarosite - - - - - - - - - - - - - Minor - Kaolinite 1A - - - Major Minor - - Minor Minor - - Minor Minor Minor Major K-Feldspar Major Major - - - - - - - - Major - - Major Minor Magnetite Minor Minor Trace - - - - - - - - - - - - Natroalunite - - - Trace Trace Minor Minor Minor Minor - - Trace Minor - Trace Plagioclase Major Major - - - - - - - - Minor - - - - Pyrite Minor Trace Minor Major Minor - - - Minor Minor Minor Minor Major - - Pyrophyllite 1A - - - - - Minor Minor - - - - - Minor - - Quartz Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Major Rutile Trace - Trace Minor Trace Minor Minor Minor Minor Minor Trace Minor Minor Trace Minor Sphalerite Trace - - - - - - - - - - - - - - *Major when abundance >1%, minor when abundance 1 1%, trace when abundance <1% ILABA13 8 ILABA11 ILABA15 3 ILABA11 3 ILABA11 6 ILABA16 2 ILABA16 3 55459 2 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK Table 5-8 Summary of ore samples mineralogical descriptions Sample EIOC-1-18 47 m EIOC-1-18 91 m Macroscopic Description Mineral composition Microscopic description Oxide/mixed zone material, porphyry structure, no visible sulphide minerals. Ore grade. Chalcocite, chalcopyrite, covellite, native gold, magnetite, martite, hematite, rutile, leucoxene, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcocite. Shows some evidence of chalcopyrite transference to chalcocite, the former generally covers the latter Oxide/mixed zone, porphyry structure, no sulphide visible minerals, slightly limonitized. Ore grade. Chalcopyrite, bornite, chalcocite, native gold, magnetite, hematite, leucoxene, limonite, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is bornite, often in magnetite aggregates. Regularly bonded with chalcopyrite, which can act like a cover. EIOC-1-18 124 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure. No visible sulphide minerals. Ore grade Chalcopyrite, magnetite, hematite, rutile, quartz, silica Porphyry chalcopyrite mineralization (primary zone), quartz veining, extensive magnetite. EIOC 1-18 199.4 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure, no visible sulphide minerals. Ore grade. Chalcopyrite, pyrite, magnetite, hematite, rutile, leucoxene, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite. Traces of pyrite. Magnetite is extensively represented. EIOC 1-18 227 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure. Ore grade Chalcopyrite, pyrite, hematite, magnetite, leucoxene, rutile, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite. Pyrite is becoming more represented in independent crystals. Less magnetite representation. EIOC 1-18 261 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure. Ore grade. Chalcopyrite, sphalerite, hematite, magnetite, leucoxene, rutile, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite, smaller aggregate (.5 mm). Pyrite is not present. Sphalerite is rare. Hematite greater representation than magnetite. EIOC 1-18 294 m Sulphide zone, pseudo-breccia structure with impregnated sulphides on whole surface. Ore grade. Chalcopyrite, pyrite, hematite, rutile, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral s chalcopyrite. Pyrite is irregularly represented. Rutile is extensively represented. EIOC 1-18 428.5 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure. Sulphide impregnation on quartz vein and intensive chloritization. Ore grade. Chalcopyrite, pyrite, hematite, rutile, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite, mostly on chlorite aggregates. Pyrite is irregularly represented. Sometimes linked chalcopyrite and pyrite aggregates. EIOC 1-18 479 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure with impregnation of sulphides on quartz vein and intensive chloritization. Chalcopyrite, pyrite, hematite, rutile, limonite, quartz, silica, carbonates Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite, connected with rutile and chlorite crystals, quartz veins and some in the carbonate matrix. Some infiltrative pyrite. Carbonates as siderite. EIOC 1-18 518 m Sulphide zone, porphyry structure with intensive pyrite impregnation along quartz vein and intensive chloritization. Chalcopyrite, pyrite, molybdenite, native gold, magnetite, hematite, rutile, quartz, silica Prevalent copper mineral is chalcopyrite. Pyrite as irregular large crystal and cataclyzed aggregates. 55459 21 April 4, 216

STATIC TESTWORK 5.5 Drillcore assay data EOX s geological drillcore database contains systematically compiled information relating to core lithology, alteration and mineralogy, plus laboratory assay data for S and a range of metals. This provides a valuable insight into the range and abundance or inventory of elements of environmental concern which may characteristically be present within discrete LAM units reporting to the future ore and waste rock assemblages. The distribution of S, Fe and Ca within all assayed core intervals within the drillcore database is shown in Figures 5-12 to 5-14, in which material which may nominally be regarded as being of ore and waste grade is differentiated using cut-off value of.25 g/t for Au and.15% for Cu. Cumulative frequency curves for S indicate that there is negligible tendency for preferential partitioning into material of ore grade, with the exception of a discrete sector of the frequency distribution between the 3 th and 5 th percentiles within the overall S concentration range. This implies that Cu abundance is essentially uncorrelated to gross sulphide concentration, although sulphide mineralogy will inevitably be subject to variation (ie. higher pyrite to Cu-sulphide ratios are likely to prevail in waste rock). This assertion is supported by the scatterplot shown in Figure 5-15 for S versus Cu. A further observation of significance with respect to the cumulative frequency distribution for S (Figure 5-15) is that the 1% threshold indicated by ABA data (above) to correspond to PAG behavior in virtually all Ilovica sulphur LAM types (with the exception of the minor GNDIOCA unit) lies at around the 5 th percentile within the assay population. This is consistent with the conclusion drawn from the ABA dataset that at least 5% of the overall waste stream may be regarded as liable to present an ARD risk. However, it should be noted that for the oxide material a sulphur threshold based solely on ABA data cannot be assumed. The presence of alunite within oxide material (Section 5.4) can over-estimate sulphide sulphur within ABA tests. The leach pad results (Section 6) need to be taken into account for classifying the ARD risk of oxide material (Section 8). 55459 22 4 April 216

3 25 215 Additional alteration samples PAG AP (kg CaCO3/T) 2 15 1 Uncertain 5 NAG -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NP (kg CaCO3/T) Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Plant area 1:1 1:3 3 215 field leach pad ABA analyses AP (kg CaCO3/T) 25 2 15 1 5 NAG -1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NP (kg CaCO3/T) GNDIOCA GNDIO GNDIO UNOXSW DAC UNOXUD DAC UNOXBR DAC OX DAC OXBR ALOX DAC DIST NON GNDIO NON AL ALHS GNDIOXORE DACOXORE 1:1 1:3 PAG Uncertain 3 213-214 ABA analyses 25 AP (kg CaCO3/t) 2 15 1 PAG Uncertain 5-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 NP (kg CaCO3/t) 1:1 1:3 OX AL ALHS NON FR MIX UNOX DACOXBR DACOXSW DACOXUD DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD DACOX DACDIST DACMIX DACUNOX GNDIONON GNDIOCA GDUNOXSW GDIOOX GDIOMIX GDIOUNOX NAG ABA analyses presented by NP vs. AP for all static test samples PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: December 215 Document1

Sulphide sulphur versus paste ph 1 9 8 7 Paste ph 6 5 4 3 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Sulphide sulphur (calculated %) OX AL ALHS NON FR MIX UNOX DACOXBR DACOXSW DACOXUD DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD DACOX DACDIST DACMIX DACUNOX GNDIONON GNDIOCA GDUNOXSW GDIOOX GDIOMIX GDIOUNOX Sulphide sulphur versus total sulphur 1 9 8 7 Total sulphur (%) 6 5 4 3 2 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Sulphide sulphur (calculated %) OX AL ALHS NON FR MIX UNOX DACOXBR DACOXSW DACOXUD DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD DACOX DACDIST DACMIX DACUNOX GNDIONON GNDIOCA GDUNOXSW GDIOOX GDIOMIX GDIOUNOX Sulphur speciation in initial static samples PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-2 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document121

Additional alteration samples NNP vs. Total S 8. 7. 6. Total S (%) 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. -25. -2. -15. -1. -5.. 5. 1. NNP (kg CaCO3/T) Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Plant area Plant area Leach pad drillcore NNP vs Total S 8. 7. 6. Total Sulphur (%) 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. -25. -2. -15. -1. -5.. 5. NNP (kg CaCO3/T) GNDIOCA GNDIO GNDIO UNOXSW DAC UNOXUD DAC UNOXBR DAC OX DAC OXBR ALOX DAC DIST NON GNDIO NON AL ALHS GNDIOXORE DACOXORE Document18 Leach pad drillcore NNP vs Total S PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-3 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216

12. 1. 8. NAG ph 6. Uncertain NAG 4. 2. PAG Uncertain. -18. -16. -14. -12. -1. -8. -6. -4. -2.. 2. 4. NNP (kg CaCO3 / T) Potassic Argillic Phyllic DAC Argillic DAC Phyllic GNDIO Potassic GNDIO Argillic NAG ph 4.5 Zero NNP Alteration samples NNP versus NAG ph PROJECT: Ilovica Copper Gold Project FIGURE: 5-4 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document29

SiO2 Fe2O3 Abundance (%) 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argilic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (%) 9. 8. 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argilic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (%) 5. 4.5 4. 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic CaO DAC Argilic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (%) 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic MgO DAC Argilic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant 4. Na2O 6. K2O Abundance (%) 3.5 3. 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5 Abundance (%) 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argilic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC GNDIO Argilic Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Lithology and alteration group Fresh outcrop Core Plant Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults: Plotted points are average values for each category and error bars show minimum and maximum limits of data. Document1 Additional alteration samples whole rock analyses ranges PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-5 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Sulphur Iron Abundance (%) 7. 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (%) 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Calcium Aluminium Abundance (%) 2.5 2. 1.5 1..5. GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (%) 1.8 1.6 1.4 1.2 1..8.6.4.2. Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults Plotted points are average values for each category and error bars show minimum and maximum limits of data. Document2 Additional alteration samples selected bulk geochemistry distributions PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-6 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Copper Zinc Abundance (ppm) 2 18 16 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Abundance (ppm) 12 1 8 6 4 2 Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Nickel Arsenic 14 16 Abundance (ppm) 12 1 8 6 4 2 Abundance (ppm) 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 GNDIO Potassic Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic Lithology and alteration group DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Core Plant Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults Plotted points are average values for each category and error bars show minimum and maximum limits of data. Additional alteration samples selected bulk geochemistry distributions (2) PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-7 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215 Document2

1. Oxide abundances 9. 8. 7. Abundance (%) 6. 5. 4. 3. 2. 1.. CA NON UNOXSW ORE ORE OX OXBR UNOXUD UNOXBR DIST NON AL ALHS ALOX GNDIO GNDIO GNDIO GNDIO GNDIOX DACOX DAC DAC DAC DAC DAC Fe2O3 % 5.24 5.7 6.15 7.92 4.58 5.4 4.38 6.18 6.65 6.29 6.5 4.78 6.85 9.16 4.64 MgO % 2.3 1.5 3.17 1.77.54.7.32.2.57.43.35 1.31.26.22.31 CaO % 4.62.52 2.14.1.4.1.11.1.7.9.9.21.1.9.14 Na2O % 1.98.74 2.76.16.26.25.63.95.44.4.46.11.17.14.34 K2O % 3.62 4.59 4. 3.13 4.66 3.69 3.25 2.84 3.37 3.82 3.6 3.78 2.86 2.14 3.54 TiO2 %.47.46.51.43.48.55.6.69.57.5.58.57.59.63.71 P2O5 %.12.21.15.6.8.8.18.19.1.13.15.16.17.2.23 MnO %.38.7.13.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.1.1.1 Cr2O3 %.1.11.16.14.15.12.19.15.16.14.11.28.21.13.18 Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults Document2 Major oxide proportions in leach pad drillcore PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-8 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Major elements in leach pad drillcore 7. 6. 5. Abundance (%) 4. 3. 2. 1.. CA NON UNOXS W OX OXBR UNOXU UNOXB D R DIST NON AL ALHS ALOX ORE ORE GNDIO GNDIO GNDIO GNDIO DAC DAC DAC DAC DAC GNDIO DACO X X Fe % 2.91 2.59 3.6 4.25 2.81 3.87 4.16 3.58 3.87 2.38 4.14 5.24 2.82 2.38 2.96 Ca % 2.24.26.52.7.6.4.4.4.3.16.3.3.5.3.6 Mg % 1.11.59 1.7.77.1.1.2.1.1.42.1.1.1.2.3 Al % 1.29.78 1.71.87.3.28.44.25.21.7.24.18.2.49.42 K %.34.26.87.17.16.14.16.14.12.28.12.9.11.25.18 S %.85 1.62.25 4.23.6.3 4.95 4.2 4.6 1.93 4.92 6.26.3.12.3 35 Other significant elements in leach pad drillcore 3 Abundance (ppm) 25 2 15 1 5 CA GNDI O NON GNDI O GNDI O UNOX SW GNDI O OX OXBR UNOX UD UNOX BR Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults: DIST NON AL ALHS ALOX ORE ORE DAC DAC DAC DAC DAC Cu ppm 435 14 118 921 52 47 256 131 751 796 244 361 81 319 195 Pb ppm 47 34 77 19 18 84 32 7 6 34 7 6 22 99 36 Zn ppm 33 13 152 28 114 15 18 115 48 144 33 89 21 51 23 Mn ppm 273 527 969 54 17 14 1 9 7 177 14 1 16 16 1 GNDI OX DACO X Document1 Bulk geochemistry proportions in leach pad drillcore samples PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-9 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

25. Additional alteration samples XRD natroalunite vs. AP 2. AP (kg CaCO3/T) 15. 1. 5...2.4.6.8 1 1.2 Natroalunite (%) Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Plant area.7 Additional alteration samples XRD natroalunite vs. HCl S HCl extractable S (%).6.5.4.3.2.1..2.4.6.8 1 1.2 Natroalunite (%) Potassic GNDIO Potassic Argillic DAC Argillic GNDIO Argillic Phyllic DAC Phyllic Fresh outcrop Plant area Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults: Document1 Additional alteration samples XRD Natroalunite abundances and AP and HCl extractable S PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Leach pad drillcore Natroalunite and AP 25. 2. AP (kg CaCO3/T) 15. 1. 5... 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Natroalunite XRD abundance (%) GNDIO CA GNDIO GNDIO UNOXSW DAC UNOXUD DAC UNOXBR DAC OX DAC OXBR ALOX DAC DIST NON GNDIO NON AL ALHS GNDIOXORE DACOXORE HCl extractable S (%).1.9.8.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 Leach pad drillcore Natroalunite and HCl extractable S.. 1. 2. 3. 4. 5. 6. 7. Natroalunite XRD abundance (%) GNDIO CA GNDIO GNDIO UNOXSW DAC UNOXUD DAC UNOXBR DAC OX DAC OXBR ALOX DAC DIST NON GNDIO NON AL ALHS GNDIOXORE DACOXORE Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Maxxam_Analyses\StaticResults: Document1 Leach pad drillcore XRD Natroalunite abundances and AP and HCl extractable S PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 5-11 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 214

55 5 45 4 35 Ca (ppm) 3 25 2 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Cumulative percentage All material Waste Au <.25 g/t Waste Cu <15 ppm Calcium distribution in the drillcore database PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-12 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document114

3 25 2 Fe (ppm) 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Cumulative percentage All material Waste Au<.25g/t Waste Cu <15ppm Iron distribution in the drillcore database PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-13 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document119

S (ppm) 8 75 7 65 6 55 5 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 Cumulative percentage All material Waste Au<.25 g/t Waste Cu <15 ppm Sulphur distribution in the drillcore database PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-14 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document119

12 1 8 Copper (ppm) 6 4 2 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Sulphur (ppm) All Material Au <.25 g/t Cu < 15 ppm Copper and Sulphur relationship in the drillcore database PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 5-15 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document119

6 KINETIC TESTWORK 6.1 Field weathering pads 6.1.1 General set-up and selection of sample types Waste material field weathering experiments Kinetic testing of rock from the Ilovica deposit was performed initially through the establishment of a series of field weathering pads. These are designed to assess the chemical evolution of seepage generated from the selected sample materials in response to progressive weathering under ambient climatic conditions, with irrigation and flushing of the rock masses induced in response to the natural seasonal rainfall cycle. The selection of sample types for use in the field pad investigations was undertaken by EOX s environmental team in 213. The general aim of the sample selection process was to encompass the major LAM units of the deposit discernable within the drill core database (see Table 4-3, Section 4) at grades corresponding to waste rock. In all cases, material was recovered from drill core and was aggregated on the basis of common LAM type. Table 6-1 provides a summary of the sample types where field pad tests have been established to date. Head grade analysis of the pad samples was not performed prior to the initiation of testing. This has resulted in the major omission of any quantitative information relating to the total or sulphide S abundance in the majority of samples. Aggregated core fragments contributing to each individual pad sample were placed directly onto leach pads without further crushing. This was considered appropriate as the sizing of the quarter core was assumed to be broadly representative of the likely size distribution of waste rock. No size distribution analysis was performed at the time of material placement. However, qualitative estimates have since been attempted through analysis of photographs taken of each pad sample after placement. A PSD test was also completed in 215 on the remaining quartered core not used for leach pad experiments stored in Strumica, corresponding to the same intervals as the material placed on the leach pads. This was used as an estimate of the original PSD for the leach pad material. Although not the actual material it is likely to give a relatively good proxy of PSD for the material used on the leach pads. The designs of the field pad tests currently established on site at Ilovica include two different pad sizes. These were variably applied in accordance with the mass of targeted LAM material available for each test. The two test scales are illustrated in Figure 6-1 and comprise: 3 kg of material placed within a 1 m 2 pad area 85 kg of material placed within a.28 m 2 leach pad area To ensure broad comparability of results for the two different scales of tests, the aspect to weight ratio is maintained approximately the same. In both cases, the pads are constructed within PVC containers with a single drainage hole at the base which allows the free drainage of infiltrating water into covered buckets for the collection of seepage. Most of the leach pads currently established at Ilovica were commissioned in summer (July) 213. The exception to this is a single DACOXBR pad which was set-up in March 214. A blank pad was also set-up at this time involving the placement of an empty plastic container and collection bucket identical to those used for all rock pads. This is intended to permit assessment of field plus laboratory analytical bias in results generated through analysis of pad leachates. Field analyses of ph, EC, dissolved oxygen, ORP, temperature, turbidity and alkalinity have been performed for most leach pads whenever rainfall has occurred to an extent sufficient to induce seepage. Some field alkalinity 55459 23 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK measurements are, however, absent from the dataset reviewed by SWS. This is generally due to the presence of high colouration or cloudiness in the sample which inhibited accurate colorimetric titration. Samples of leachate for detailed laboratory analysis have been taken intermittently. Due to cost constraints and leachate quantity, the suite of metals subject to analysis has varied temporally. Total and dissolved metals have been variably analysed although these have frequently not been concurrent. Field-based kinetic weathering tests in which irrigation is produced through natural rainfall inevitably generate leachates which are sensitive in terms of their chemistry to temporal variations of rainfall frequency and intensity. In order to normalize time-series data and thus estimate mass release rates of protons, sulphate and metals per unit time, rainfall records are thus critical. The rainfall volumes measured between pad sampling events, and the recorded leachate volumes at each sample collection interval are summarized for all pads in Figure 6-2. These data highlight the prevalence of a prolonged dry period following set-up of the majority of the pads. Thus, for all pads established in July 213 a long antecedent weathering period occurred prior to initial flushing (in November 213). This is likely to have induced a particularly poor chemical quality analogous to that commonly seen during first flush events from waste rock facilities in climates with highly seasonal precipitation. A notable feature of the rainfall versus leachate volume relationship for virtually all individual pads (Figure 6-3) is its non-linear nature. This is the consequence of a number of factors including the tendency for free moisture storage capacity within the rock mass to vary in accordance with antecedent rainfall conditions. Thus, during periods of frequent or prolonged rainfall, the seepage response to rainfall becomes increasingly strong. The occurrence of winter precipitation as snowfall is also significant in the sense that no immediate seepage flux may be generated. Any residual flux during snowmelt is the product of residual water remaining following sublimation. Possibly of greatest significance with respect to the interpretation and practical application of the pad test datasets is the significant variability evident between the rainfall-leachate volume relationships of individual pads. This reflects the significant variability of moisture storage capacity arising from pad size, rock particle size and rock mineralogy. For all competent rock samples, pad retention times appear extremely short, while those of more argillized samples are greater. This variability of retention time appears to produce contact water signatures with inherently lower solute concentrations than those of longer residence time pads to an extent that rock mineralogical controls of seepage quality may become of secondary significance. 55459 24 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Table 6-1 Summary of material and set-up of field leach pads Geoenvironmental Code Material description Set-up volume rock Drillcore sections Average S* Initial assay Average Average Cu Fe ALOX Granite hydrothermally altered, oxidized 3 kg IC125 1 7 m IC1247 87 m Unknown 64 ppm 2.16 %.3 % IC117 5 m AL Granite, altered 3 kg IC125 11 25m IC1247 12 23 m Unknown 589 ppm 4.35 %.2 % ALHS Granite, altered, highly sulphidic 85 kg IC117 75 135 m Unknown 513 ppm 4.26 %.1 % FR called FROC or Granite, fresh 3 kg DACOX Dacite, oxidized 3 kg DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD DACDIST GRDIONON Dacite, unoxidised, brecciated or stockwork hydrothermally disturbed dacite Dacite, unoxidised, undisturbed (without brecciated or stockwork but still hydrothermally altered) Dacite, distal, hydrothermally altered dacite, unbrecciated from outside stockwork and low pyrite Granodiorite with nontronite, undisturbed (moderately nontronitic). Outside the stockwork/breccia zones 3 kg 85 kg Sampled from surface outcrops as no drillcore available Contains stockwork, brecciated and undisturbed materials: IC1361 21.4 61.5 m (brecciated) IC1252A 69.4 m (stockwork) IC1125 75 m (undisturbed) IC1234 12.5 23.5 m (undisturbed) IC1252A 175 225 m (stockwork) IC1359 19 15 m (stockwork) IC1237 16 24 m (brecciated) IC1359 15 181.6 m (brecciated) IC1129 132 16 m IC1128 12 16 m Average Ca Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown.7 % 67.9 ppm 3.4 %.4 % Unknown 1116 ppm 3.81 %.2 % Unknown 36 ppm 3.61 % 2.2 % 85 kg IC1234 135 21 m Unknown 595 ppm 4.25 %.3 % 3 kg NON Granite with nontronite (moderately nontronitic) 85 kg GNDIO Granodiorite, from outside hydrothermal system. Suspected high calcite content, no nontronite 85 kg GDUNOXSW Granodiorite, unoxidised, stockwork 85 kg SAW Waste materials taken from the sawing of all core within core shed, likely to be representative of a mixed geological sample GNDIOCA Granodiorite with calcite alteration 3 kg IC1249 248 4 m IC1243 325 343 m, 349 352 m, 361 373 m IC1247 381 41 m, 284 293 m, 321.4 33.7 m, 291 319 m IC1232 227 326.6 m, IC1235 223.1 313.6 m IC1362 35.8 332.8 m, 346 355.4 m,377.8 387.2 m, 4.9 46.5 m Unknown 1227 ppm 3.43 %.16 % Unknown 815 ppm 3.1 %.13 % Unknown 4.26 % ** 259 ppm 153 ppm 3.81 %.31 % 4.3 %.5 % 85 kg N/A Unknown Unknown Unknown Unknown IC1232 226 329 m, IC1235 222 315 m Unknown 362 ppm 3.3 % 1.69 % 55459 25 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Geoenvironmental Code FRCORE Material description Fresh granite, mainly chosen to test if the fresh granite at depth reacts in the same way as the fresh granite at surface. But this appears to contain a higher concentration of pyrite. Samples are not regularly taken from the leach pad. Set-up volume rock Drillcore sections Average S* Initial assay Average Average Cu Fe Average Ca 9 kg IC79 34 179 m Unknown 43 ppm 1.85 %.17 % DACOXBR Dacite within the brecciated zone, oxidized 9 kg IC1361 11.2-22.4m, 61.5-82.6m.5 % 31 ppm 4.6 %.2 % *if Sulphur assay is known, often not all core used in leach pad tests was assayed ** Some sulphur values within this drillcore set were labelled >5 %, so this was replaced with 5 % but maybe an underestimation of the average Sulphur content 55459 26 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Ore grade pad tests The current mine plan includes a stockpile of low grade oxide ore which will be processed at the end of mine life. The oxide ore grade material is expected to be a mix of the following: GNDIOOXORE granodiorite, oxide, ore-grade DACOXORE dacite, oxide, ore-grade. This oxide material was not captured in the selection of samples for the kinetic tests initiated during 213 and 214 as the initial material selection focused on waste not ore material. A kinetic test was, however, set up at Ilovica in July 215, by the EOX environmental specialist, to assess the long-term leaching characteristics of oxide ore material. Due to the essentially dry nature of summer at Ilovica and the urgency for acquisition of leachate data from the oxide test pad (for use in the FS and EIA), an irrigated test was designed and implemented. The irrigated tests used 3 kg of material that was crushed to less than 3 cm and a particle size distribution (PSD) undertaken prior to test commencement. The final calculated specific surface areas for the material was.2 m2/kg for DACOXORE and.15 m2/kg for GNDIOOXORE. The DACOXORE material appeared to contain more clay material. The tests were set-up on an aspect ratio (container surface area and material volume) to scale to field tests already in place in the field. PVC containers were used with a single drainage hole linked directly to a covered bucket for seepage drainage and collection. The tests were irrigated with distilled water at regular intervals using a spray head that evenly distributed the water over the surface of the material. The leachate generated was collected and the volumes recorded. The irrigated volumes and leachate volumes collected are presented on Figure 6-4. The DACOXORE material took significantly longer to produce leachate from the sample, most likely as a result of the greater clay content. The leachate collected was analysed for field parameters ph, electrical conductivity, ORP, dissolved oxygen, temperature, alkalinity and turbidity as per the larger scale tests. A limited number of samples were collected and sent to the laboratory for major ions and metals analysis. 6.1.2 Field kinetic test results Waste material field weathering experiments The leachate chemistry data generated from pad tests to the end of 214 are summarized in Table 6-2. Time series plots for selected parameters are shown in Figures 6-5 to 6-1. The major trends are summarized below: Virtually all pad leachates demonstrate a tendency for progressive ph reduction over the period from mid-213 to the end of 214. This declining trend appears to have remained ongoing at the time of collation of data for inclusion in the current report. Hence, no estimate of steady-state ph conditions for any of the rock types subject to testing can be attempted. In all cases the ph trend has involved a near linear reduction, with no abrupt or step-wise adjustment evident as would generally be observed following the exhaustion of a key buffering mineral phase such as calcite. The trends are essentially consistent with non-buffered rock units, from which contact water acidity is a function of progressively increasing proton yield as sulphide oxidation rates increase over time. The minimum (typically final) ph values recorded for individual cells follow a trend which is entirely in consistency with the NNP values established for each major LAM unit though ABA testing (Section 5, above). Thus, lowest ph levels in the range 1.9 to 2.9 are produced by the un-oxidized, DACUNOXBR, GDUNOXSW, ALHS and DACUNOXUD units, while highest ph levels are sustained in leachates from the GNDIOCA and oxidized and/or fresh dacite and granodiorite units. Material subject to nontronite alteration yields a ph which is typically intermediate between the sulphide facies and oxidized rock groups. 55459 27 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK The dissolved solids loading (using EC as an indicator) of all leachates generally correlates inversely with ph as shown in Figure 6-11. Two groups of samples with slightly differing ph versus EC slope factors are however evident. The first, involving the AL, ALHS, GDUNOXSW, DACUNOXBR, DACDIST and DACUNOXUD units is distinguished from second, comprising the GNDIO, GNDIOCA and oxidized sample classes, as the latter tends to yield a slightly higher EC level in relation to ph. This is likely to reflect the role of readily mobilized sulphate from non-acid generating secondary mineral phases within the oxide zone. Dissolved oxygen levels in leachates follow a clearly defined seasonal trend which may be directly correlated to ambient temperature. However, it is notable that this trend in no way significantly influences solution ph. While quantitative analysis of sulphide oxidation rates has not been attempted by SWS using the pad test leachate data, it appears probable that progressively increasing rates have occurred throughout the testing period irrespective of oxygen availability and temperature controls. This may in part be due to the small size of the test pads and the fact that oxygen ingress is at all times sufficient for sulphide oxidation not to be rate-limited by O 2. Concentrations of Fe, Cu, As, Cd, Ni and Zn are variably leached from the pad test sample suite at concentrations which would exceed most internationally established discharge criteria (see Table 6-2). All of these metals/metalloids, in conjunction with ph and SO 4, may therefore be regarded as parameters of direct concern for the Ilovica project. Generally, SO 4 and metal concentrations are inversely correlated to ph both within the time-series recorded for individual samples and also between pads. Thus, highest concentrations of metals such as Cu and Fe are measured in the DACDIST, DACUNOXBR, AL and GDUNOXSW samples. The nontronitic granodiorite (GRDIONON) has moderately elevated Cu, with a maximum concentration of 3.9 mg/l. Most other material types have a total copper maximum of less than.1 mg/l. Cd and Ni concentrations are elevated over the effluent discharge guidelines in leachates emanating from the following material, DACOX, DACUNOXUD and DACUNOXBR. Zn is elevated over 18 mg/l in several leachates, including DACDIST, DACUNOXBR, DACUNOUD and GDUNOXSW. Sulphate is elevated to a maximum of over 4 mg/l in DACUNXUD and above 2 mg/l in the leachates from DACDIST, DACUNOXBR, GDUNOXSW, GRDIONON, NON and AL. The DACOXBR material tested in the ABA dataset shows relatively high sulphide contents (1.5 to 4.5 % sulphide content, Section 5). The corresponding leach pad is not showing the same trend, although the leach pad was started at a later date so the leachate quality may still be evolving. The DACOXBR material is still producing neutral waters, with an average ph of 7.3 and a minimum ph of 5.98. The measured field conductivity is always less than 2 us/cm. Visual inspection of DACOXBR core suggests that any sulphides present are as very fine grained, and perhaps encapsulated or coated by silicification or iron hydroxides. It appears that currently the sulphide in the material is not easily weathered oxidised and released. Evolution of the leachate from the field test should be monitored for signs that sulphides may be becoming more exposed with greater weathering time. It is likely that alunite detect by XRD (Section 5.4.3) also explains the discrepancy between the ABA test predicting potential acid generation and the leach pad not producing acid leachates. The ABA test may falsely record alunite as sulphide sulphur, and thus over-estimate the acid generating potential of this material. 55459 28 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Table 6-2 Summary statistics for kinetic field weathering experiments Parameter Unit EDC effluen t standa rds Min DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Ag-D mg/l............1........................ 7 2 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 44 4 7 18 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Ag-T mg/l............1........................ 7 16 7 7 8 19 7 17 7 7 36 4 7 13 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 7 Field mg/l alkalinity CaCO3 1 9 21 7 17 43 1 37 92 1 4 41 9 47 113 6 3 4 22 Al-D mg/l 2.4 22.8 38.1.1.2.6.7 6.2 15.5 3.8 43.5 122..5 7.7 36.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 2.2 6. 9..1.3.8.1.1.1.1.1.2 Al-T mg/l 2.6 18.9 36.2.2 2.5 13..8 6.6 26.6 4.1 4.8 132..6 6.2 37.1.1.2.8.1.2.6.1.3 1.3 2.1 5.9 13.3.2 1.2 7.4.1.1.2.1.6 3. As-D mg/l..2.11......1..15.66..1.6..................... 1 7 5 1 2 4 1 4 3 2 9 1 1 2 4 1 1 1 2 3 3 1 1 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 1 1 1 1 1 As-T mg/l.1..2.1........13.72...5..................... 3 8 1 3 8 1 2 7 4 4 6 1 7 4 1 1 3 1 2 3 1 1 2 1 2 5 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 Ba-D mg/l..2.7..2.5.....4.14..2.7......1..1.2....1.4.8..1.3..1.3 7 7 7 7 7 7 4 7 3 7 7 7 7 9 2 7 4 2 7 7 7 2 2 1 7 7 7 7 4 Ba-T mg/l..1.7.1.5.11..1.7..4.14..2.7.....1.1..1.2...1.4.8.14..1.4..1.4 7 7 8 1 4 7 8 7 7 7 7 8 7 1 3 8 6 3 7 8 3 8 2 4 7 6 3 9 7 Bi-D mg/l.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.15.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Bi-T mg/l.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3.16.1.2.4.1.1.4.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 Ca-D mg/l 2.1 5.1 14.6.4 1.9 3.3 1.6 3.2 8. 1.9 5.8 14. 16.9 29. 44.7 4.6 8.1 11.2 7.3 15.1 18.9 5.7 14.2 22.9 2.2 3.5 5.7.7 3.2 4.5 1.6 6.5 13.7 4.5 11.4 17. Ca-T mg/l 1.7 4.1 14.5 1.7 2.9 5.4 1.8 3.8 8. 2. 5. 14.8 17. 29.4 47.1 5.3 9.1 12. 8.7 18.4 29.2 6. 16.3 38.7 1.6 3.7 9. 2.5 4.8 8.4 1.9 6.3 13.7 4.7 13. 26.8 Cd-D mg/l.1.3.12.....1.3..31 1.25..1.1.........1............ 9 1 1 1 3 9 3 9 1 6 1 7 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 4 1 2 3 1 1 1 1 1 1 2 4 7 Cd-T mg/l.5..3.11.....2.7..27 1.35..1.1.........1............ 8 4 1 1 1 3 3 8 9 6 5 9 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 4 1 2 4 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 5 8 Cl-ion mg/l 3. 3.1 3.8 3. 9.6 33.8 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.8 11. 3. 3.1 4.4 3. 3.3 6.4 3. 3.1 4.6 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 6.3 16.1 3. 3. 3. 3. 3. 3.1 CN-free mg/l 1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 CN-T mg/l.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 CN-WAD mg/l.5.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.1 COD mg/l 15 11 18 24 11 21 41 11 16 44 11 49 114 11 18 36 11 15 26 11 13 16 11 16 27 11 19 56 11 31 11 15 33 96 12 19 29 Field 183 577 37 124 12 conductivit µs/cm 87 676 67 127 87 436 988 9 1627 5 959 7 127 262 86 157 322 7 252 548 123 337 86 291 13 188 1 279 y 2 5 7 4 7 Co-D mg/l.6.24.81....4.14.41.5.18.51.6.13.32........1.3.8.15.26...1....1.3.4 Co-T mg/l.5.17.75...1.1.13.41.3.17.55.6.12.32........1.4.4.16.39..1.4....1.3.6 Cr-D mg/l...2........1.6..1.5..................... 2 8 2 2 2 2 3 8 2 6 1 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cr-T mg/l...2......2..1.5...3..................... 2 6 2 2 4 2 5 2 3 6 2 5 6 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 2 3 2 2 3 2 2 2 2 2 2 Cr(VI)-D mg/l.........2..1.5...1...............2...... 3 5 6 3 5 5 5 8 1 3 3 1 3 7 7 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 4 5 5 3 8 7 3 5 5 3 5 5 Cr(VI)-T mg/l.1...2......1...1..1.3.................1.8... 3 9 3 3 5 5 5 6 4 3 6 4 3 2 1 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 5 5 3 1 6 3 5 5 Cu-D mg/l 11 66 137 9 58 111 14 36 69 6 17 37 1 3 1 24 36 1 2 Cu-T mg/l.3 9 56 148 7 59 188 27 73 6 18 37 1 4 8 23 46 1 3 Fe-D mg/l 2. 27.3 97.7.2.2.3.3 5. 16.9 4.2 25. 971. 318. 4.8 59.8 7.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2.2 1.4 6.1 14.9.2.3.4.2.3.6.2.2.2 Fe-T mg/l 2 2.4 23.4 92.9.2 1.1 6.1.4 5.7 21.5 2.5 236. 995. 322. 2.6 38.5 2.2.3.6.2.2.2.2.3.8 1.3 5.6 14..2.7 4.2.2.2.2.2.5 1.6 F-ion mg/l..1.2.1.2.2..1.2..1.2..1.2.2.2.2.1.2.2.1.2.2..1.2.1.3.4.1.2.2.2.2.2 Hg-D mg/l................................. n/a n/a n/a 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 Hg-T mg/l.2.......... #DIV......................... 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 /! 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 1 K-D mg/l.3.8 1.8.2 1. 4..2.7 1.9.2 1.3 3.6 2.6 4.2 5.4 1.4 2.2 2.9.9 1.8 2.5 1.9 3.6 5.8.2.6 1.4.5 1. 2.8 1.4 3.3 5.5 1.7 3.8 5.4 K-T mg/l.3.6 1.8.3.9 2.4.3.9 1.8.2 1.4 3.6 2.1 3.9 5.5 1.4 2.1 2.8 1.4 1.9 2.7 1.9 3.8 7..3.7 2..5 1. 2.3 1.5 3.1 5.5 2.4 3.9 5.6 Mg-D mg/l.6 1.7 6..6.6.7.6 1. 2.2.6 3.8 12. 26. 49. 96.6.6 1.7 2.4.6.6.6 2.7 6.9 12.6.6.7 1.2.6.8 1.1.6.9 1.7 3.1 1.3 15.9 Mg-T mg/l.6 1.4 6..6.7 1.3.6 1.7 6..6 3.4 12. 26.2 48.8 97.2 1.4 2.1 2.6.6.7 1.1 2.9 8.4 21.5.6.8 1.9.6 1. 1.4.6.9 1.9 3.6 12.4 28.8 Mn-D mg/l.4.15.37...1.2.5.15.4.15.43.74 1.26 2.16..3.6..1.2.94 3.7 7.72.4.7.17..1.1.2.8.19 1.57 4.61 7.16 7 6 2 7 8 5 2 7 5 7 5 6 7 4 6 7 7 6 7 1 3 4 7 9 7 8 3 9 Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max 55459 29 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Parameter Unit EDC effluen t standa rds Min DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Mn-T mg/l.4.12.36..1.5.2.5.16.5.15.47.75 1.29 2.23.1.4.13.1.2.6.66 3.73 1.9.2.1.4..2.9.1.7.25 1.53 4.91 9.2 9 9 3 7 6 7 4 9 1 2 1 6 5 5 5 4 5 5 4 7 5 1 7 4 4 5 9 7 Mo-D mg/l...........4.2..2.11..................... 3 4 6 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 3 1 2 3 5 6 3 6 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 Mo-T mg/l..13.74.....1.12..3.23..2.1...1...............2... 3 8 3 3 3 3 4 3 3 2 6 3 8 3 5 7 3 5 9 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 5 3 5 4 3 3 3 Na-D mg/l.3.9 3.1.5 1.5 5..3 1.1 3.1.3 1.9 6..3.8 3..6 1.7 2.5 1.9 4.4 8.8.3 1.5 4.2.3.4.7.5 2. 6.7.3.6 1.4.3.7 1.9 Na-T mg/l.3.8 3..3 1.6 5.4.3.8 3..3 1.4 6..3.9 3.4 1.2 1.9 2.6 2.5 5. 13.5.5 1.7 3.9.3.5 2..7 2.1 6.9.3.8 2.4.3.8 1.9 Ni-D mg/l.2.9.23....2.9.21.1.9.22.4.1.22.........2.4.8.12........2.3 6 5 3 3 3 5 9 6 9 4 6 8 3 8 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 9 4 4 4 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 1 1 Ni-T mg/l.5.1.7.21....2.9.28.2.9.26.4.1.24........1.2.3.8.18...2....1.2.6 6 4 2 3 3 6 4 9 8 1 8 5 3 3 3 3 3 3 3 6 6 3 5 2 3 3 3 5 NH3-N mg/l.4.9 1.9.3.5.9.3 1. 1.6.3 1. 2.5.3.8 1.5.3.3.7.3.3.3.3.3.3.3 1. 1.6.3.3.4.3.8 2.4.3.4.8 NO2-NO2 mg/l.1.1.1.1.4 1.6.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.3 1.1.1.2.6.1.1.2.1.1.1.1.2.8.1.1.3.1.1.4 NO3-NO3 mg/l 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2.8 5.5 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 2. 3.1 1.9 2.1 4.2 1.9 3.5 6.8 1.9 3.2 7.1 1.9 2.8 5. 1.9 1.9 1.9 1.9 3.3 8. 4.2 23.2 65.9 1.9 2.4 5. DO mg/l 4.3 7.6 12.1 3.1 7.5 11.5 3.4 7.5 11.4 4.3 7.4 11. 4.1 7.7 12.2.7 7.4 11. 2.5 7.4 11. 3.7 7.5 12.5 3.5 7.5 11.4 1.9 7.4 11.4 1.5 7.1 11.2 3.8 7.6 13.5 ORP mv 154 411 598 128 269 354 167 387 546 164 481 635 115 411 621 116 263 38 123 267 47 117 325 52 217 38 445 17 273 416 152 289 372 135 321 488 OrthoPO4 as P mg/l 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 1.2 Pb-D mg/l..1.6...1.....3.12..1.6.........1...........1.1 6 7 6 7 6 6 6 6 6 8 6 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 7 5 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 6 1 7 Pb-T mg/l.2..1.6..2.8..1.6..4.12..1.6........1.1......3.....2.6 6 6 6 3 4 6 4 6 6 1 6 6 7 6 6 9 6 9 6 6 6 6 9 6 6 6 8 5 1 ph-field S.U. 6-9 2.25 3.38 5.37 4.54 5.56 7.32 2.31 3.64 5.1 1.98 3.1 5.8 2.7 3.48 6.27 5.48 6.27 7.3 5.38 6.21 7.9 4.5 4.93 6.25 2.93 3.61 5.5 4.82 5.88 8.3 4.6 4.98 8.6 3.88 4.82 6.8 P-T mg/l 2.1.2.3.1.1.1.1.8 3..1 1. 2.4.1.4 1.2.1.1.3.1.1.1.1.1.1.1.4 1..1.1.2.2.3.4.1.1.2 Sb-D mg/l............1........................ 12 14 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 29 2 12 14 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 12 15 16 Sb-T mg/l............1........................ 12 13 16 12 15 25 12 14 16 12 23 2 12 14 16 12 14 16 12 14 2 12 14 16 12 14 16 12 14 16 12 14 16 12 14 16 Se-D mg/l..1.3.....1.2..2.7...1..................... 3 8 5 1 1 2 3 3 5 5 7 8 6 9 5 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 4 3 6 9 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 5 Se-T mg/l..1.3.....1.3..2.8..1.1............1......... 3 5 3 1 1 2 2 2 4 4 2 4 5 9 1 1 2 1 1 2 2 3 9 2 5 1 1 2 3 1 1 2 2 3 8 Si-T mg/l.9 2.9 5.8.6 5.5 25..4 1.5 3.9 1.1 8. 23.3 3.3 8.9 18.8 1.1 1.9 3.5 2.1 2.8 3.5 1.5 2.4 3.7.5 1.2 2.8.9 2.5 11.7.5 1.5 3.1.9 2.3 3.6 SO4-D mg/l 42. 334. 722. 165. 527. 123 418 197. 576. 24 214. 11. 255. 1. 23. 4.4 9.4 24.9 7.4 45.8 6.3 13.7 31. 2.7 11.6 18.3 31.2 83.6 52.5 2.8 7.9 2.7 1.3 4. 7.6 32.2 8 8.3. 8. 7 7 Sr-D mg/l..1.3..1.2...1..1.4.2.4.6.1.2.3.1.19.25.2.5.8...1..1.2..2.5..1.1 4 1 3 2 2 6 7 4 5 9 1 8 4 5 3 4 9 3 3 7 9 4 8 3 3 5 3 7 7 4 5 3 8 Sr-T mg/l...3..1.3...2..1.4.3.4.9.1.4.23.1.23.35.2.6.15...2.1.1.3..2.5..1.3 4 9 2 7 7 6 4 9 5 4 1 8 8 7 8 4 5 2 2 4 4 4 9 3 9 2 7 5 9 5 7 8 TDS mg/l 91 523 112 677 36 12 26 47 57 294 884 11 1834 381 946 22 61 129 4 73 134 57 146 329 72 28 396 2 44 119 14 7 191 63 17 37 Temperatur e oc 1.8 12.3 3.7.9 11.9 27.1 1.5 12.2 26. 1.9 12.7 29.1.7 11.8 25.6 2.4 11.9 31.4 1.2 12.3 25.7 2. 12.5 27.4 1. 12.2 27..6 12.2 27.1 1.2 12.3 28.2.7 12.4 25.5 TSS mg/l 5 1 79 355 6 193 117 17 3 26 181 1 494 2 4 259 2 15 6 1 7 39 2 21 116 1 33 37 1 14 676 2 6 34 6 65 21 Turbidity NTU.1 47.5 419. 33. 8. 113. 158. 15 555. 174. 249. 43. 218. 926. 11. 655. 42.3.1 14.3.2.1 38..1 17.1.1 6.7 54.4.1 13.8.1 19.8 22.2.1 4.5 12.8.1 7 7 8. 2 U-D mg/l..6.12.....3.7.1.5.15..3.9...........1.2..1.11...... 9 76 9 1 2 3 54 27 9 17 5 8 2 4 2 5 17 13 39 86 1 4 12 8 7 98 1 59 15 18 23 1 2 3 U-T mg/l.1.5.12...11..3.1..4.15..3.1..2.26..25 3.3.....1.3...11...... 1 56 5 2 87 55 8 4 59 32 82 2 3 44 3 13 85 2 5 1 7 52 1 89 15 2 25 1 3 7 V-D mg/l..1.4........2.8..1.4..................... 4 3 4 4 4 4 4 5 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 V-T mg/l..1.4...1..1.4..2.9...4..................... 4 4 5 4 4 9 4 8 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 4 6 4 4 4 4 4 4 Zn-D mg/l.66 5.5 19.1 19.2 13.3 5.1 13.3 2.8.4.15.44 1.26 5.49 1.14 8.12 4 2.2.3.6.2.2.4.38 1.4 2.42.62 1.49 3.34.4.9.26.2.6.15.98 2.66 3.8 Zn-T mg/l.5.61 3.67 18.5 19.6 1.4 53.6 14. 25..14.33.69.3 5.1 1.6 7.95 5.2.3.7.2.2.3.39 1.33 4..29 1.62 4.67.9.22.46.3.7.14.92 3.27 8.64 n/a = no analyses available DACOXBR and ALHS are not presented as only field parameters have been collected Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max Min Aver age Max 55459 3 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Ore grade tests The ore grade (oxide) tests have limited data recorded as they were set-up late in 215. The DACOXORE material has produced a leachate that is circum-neutral with relatively low electrical conductivity (Table 6-3). Some alkalinity is recorded in initial field analyses (starting at 7 mg/l CaCO 3), however this gradually decreases over time. One laboratory sample has been taken to date, results for which are presented in Table 6-4. Metal concentrations are relatively low, often below detection limits. Sulphate is only moderately elevated at 46 mg/l. The GNDIOOXORE leachate field analyses are presented in Table 6-5. The initial material used for the granodiorite oxidized ore rapidly produced an acidic leachate (ph < 4) with a high electrical conductivity (> 1 us/cm). In analysis of the material used for this experiment it is thought that it is a mix of oxide material and partially oxidized or mixed zone material, which is likely to contain a higher proportion of sulphides. These sulphides are easily oxidized and producing acidic leachate. Euromax have stated that they will not stockpile acid generating material on the oxide stockpile site. As part of engineering design the granodiorite material classified as oxidized was reclassified as upper oxidized granodiorite and lower oxidized granodiorite. This is to ensure that any partially oxidized granodiorite is not stockpiled and is instead treated appropriately as waste. The final FS excludes the lower zone of the oxidized material from the oxide stockpile. A smaller scale 1 kg irrigated experiment was set-up on upper GNDIOOXORE material, to solely represent and separately test the upper oxidized zone without any partial mixed material likely to be placed on the oxide stockpile. This experiment has limited results (Table 6-6), but the initial results suggest that the leachate from the upper oxidized granodiorite zone is neutral with low electrical conductivity and hence low total dissolved solids. Table 6-3 DACOXORE irrigated leach test field analyses Date Cumulative volume irrigated Effluent Collected Temp C ph Conductivity Turbidity DO ORP Alkalinity mg/l ml ml C S.U us/cm NTU mg/l mv CaCO3 21/8/215 131 425 22.4 5.29 664 5.53 5.8 442.7 n/a 22/8/215 131 475 22.1 5.68 497 2.53 5.17 415.8 n/a 26/8/215 141 175 23.5 5.25 5.3 32.5 4.43 249.4 n/a 3/9/215 166 65 24.9 6.3 319.9 4.8 4.46 222.5 69.77 4/9/215 166 275 23.1 5.32 318.1 36.9 4.93 256.1 n/a 17/9/215 18775 625 23.4 5.46 34.9 1.24 4.37 129.8 48.31 18/9/215 18775 125 23.3 6.25 277.6 63.4 4.73 114.3 n/a 25/9/215 225 175 23 5.63 263 14.2 4.81 129.1 n/a 26/9/215 225 3 1.8 6.33 245.8 11.2 8.45 25.4 24.35 29/9/215 21275 375 11.8 6.14 26.6 17.3 6.67 219.7 32.41 2/1/215 21275 375 21.8 5.84 24.1 3.52 5.44 151.1 31 15/1/215 2325 5 Not enough water 16/1/215 2425 3 2 6 17.6 12.6 5.34 142 3 17/1/215 2425 4 17.1 6.67 163.9 26.5 5.43 74 5 1/11/215 26625 25 19.9 6.24 266.7 22.2 6.54 138.9 n/a 11/11/215 26625 5 19.3 6.18 142.6 19.3 6.69 129.9 6 55459 31 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Table 6-4 Laboratory analysis of DACOXORE leachate Analyte Units EDC effluent standards Aluminium, Filtered as Al mg/l <.1 Ammoniacal Nitrogen as N mg/l.42 Result Antimony, trace filtered as Sb mg/l <.12 Arsenic, trace filtered as As mg/l.1.2 Barium, Filtered as Ba mg/l.86 Bismuth, Filtered as Bi mg/l <.2 Cadmium, Filtered as Cd mg/l.5 <.6 Calcium, Filtered as Ca mg/l 13.4 Chloride as Cl mg/l 38.3 Chromium, Filtered as Cr mg/l <.2 Cobalt, Filtered as Co mg/l.8 Copper, Filtered as Cu mg/l.3.12 Fluoride as F mg/l.3 Iron, Filtered as Fe mg/l 2 <.23 Lead, Filtered as Pb mg/l.2 <.6 Magnesium, Filtered as Mg mg/l 3.3 Manganese, Filtered as Mn mg/l.9 Molybdenum, Filtered as Mo mg/l <.3 Nickel, Filtered as Ni mg/l.5.5 Nitrate as NO3 mg/l 14.5 Nitrite as N mg/l.8 Nitrite as N2 mg/l <.28 Phosphate, Ortho as P mg/l <.6 Potassium, Filtered as K mg/l 5.32 Selenium, trace filtered as Se mg/l.77 Silver, Filtered as Ag mg/l.8 Sodium, Filtered as Na mg/l 27.2 Strontium, Filtered mg/l.58 Sulphate as SO4 mg/l 46.2 Uranium, Filtered as U ug/l <.31 Vanadium, Filtered as V mg/l <.4 Zinc, Filtered as Zn mg/l.5.146 55459 32 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Table 6-5 Original GNDIOOXORE leachate field analyses Date Cumulative volume Effluent Derived Temp ph Conductivity Turbidity DO ORP Alkalinity irrigated ml ml C S.U. us/cm NTU mg/l mv mg/l CaCO3 12/7/215 4 3 24.4 4.13 1565 n/a 4.68 44 13/7/215 45 4 24.2 3.98 1597 n/a 4.55 392 14/7/215 5 3 22.5 3.9 1451 n/a 5.2 411 24/7/215 8 25 28.4 3.67 1191 1.7 4.27 54 25/7/215 8 15 28.6 3.39 967 96.6 4.3 59 28/7/215 885 175 28.7 3.66 1182 8.9 3.88 483 29/7/215 935 125 28.5 2.99 977 13. 3.98 518 3/7/215 985 25 23.6 3.62 1173 2.4 4.75 486 31/7/215 985 25 23.4 3.48 747 8. 5.28 493 18/8/215 1135 25 23.3 3.48 79 72. 5.3 5 21/8/215 129 55 23.1 3.27 835 15.8 2.83 47 22/8/215 129 7 23.2 3.34 782 1.8 4.92 495 26/8/215 139 45 24. 3.75 788 2.1 4.97 463 27/8/215 139 45 23.6 3.81 785 1.6 5.14 47 2/9/215 149 5 24. 3.61 775 36.2 4.4 485 3/9/215 154 4 24. 3.52 68 4.3 4.22 499 4/9/215 154 375 23.7 3.5 66 4.3 4.78 489 15/9/215 164 1 23.1 3.88 72 2.8 4.52 286 16/9/215 16725 475 23.1 3.82 623.9 5.1 263 17/9/215 16725 225 23.1 3.74 642 1.3 5.27 268 25/9/215 17725 175 22.7 3.77 614 4.7 4.96 257 26/9/215 17725 35 11.9 4.13 543 1.6 7.36 385 27/9/215 17725 1 12.9 3.76 582 1.4 7.5 415 2/1/215 1875 45 21.7 3.52 55 1. 4.35 253 15/1/215 25 275 2. 3.81 535 3.9 4.99 243 16/1/215 215 6 2. 3.94 439.9 5.31 243 17/1/215 215 72 2.1 3.95 419 1.9 5.4 234 1/11/215 235 75 19.8 4.12 386 3.6 6.67 215 11/11/215 235 4 19.4 4.16 374 4.6 6.92 215 Table 6-6 Upper GNDIOOXORE initial field analyses results Date Cumulative volume irrigated Effluent Derived Temp ph Conductivity Turbidity DO ORP Alkalinity ml ml C S.U. us/cm NTU mg/l mv mg/l CaCO3 11/11/215 3925 15 2. 6.53 359 167 2.32 96 n/a 12/11/215 3925 15 19.9 5.79 371 14 5.74 133 n/a 6.2 Laboratory kinetic tests A selection of the highest generating ARD, as depicted by the field tests, was chosen for further laboratory kinetic tests. A sub-sample of weathered material from the DACUNOXUD and GDUNOXSW field kinetic tests was taken by the EOX environmental specialist and sent to Maxxam Analytics laboratory in Canada. The material was used to set-up two industry standard MEND methodology humidity cell tests (HCTs). The HCT test is an accelerated weathering test, which uses weekly cyclical flushing and drying cycles to simulate field weathering conditions but at an accelerated pace. Leachate is collected weekly and the results analysed for physico-chemical parameters including ph, EC, alkalinity and acidity. Every four weeks the leachate collected is also analysed for a full suite of metals and major ions. The tests are completed on material that has been uniformly crushed to less than 5mm. 55459 33 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK The results from the Ilovica HCT tests are presented in Table 6-7 and Table 6-8 in comparison with current project EDC effluent guidelines. The material under test has already been weathering in the field for approximately 2 years. The results seem to show a first flush response, with a very high electrical conductivity (EC) recorded in the first leachate produced. Both samples are producing acidic water, DACUNOXUD between ph 2.2 and 3.2, GDUNOXSW between 2.7 and 2.9. EC is initially very high in DACUNOXUD leachate at 591 us/cm, this dips to 373 us/cm by week 5, but increases to 746 us/cm in week 8. The EC in GDUNOXSW leachate starts relatively high at 276 us/cm and reduces to 874 us/cm in week 8. Arsenic, cadmium, copper, iron, zinc and mercury are all elevated above effluent guideline limits in DACUNOXUD in week zero but concentrations reduce over time. Copper, iron and zinc are elevated above effluent guidelines in the leachate from GDUNOXSW and these also reduce. 55459 34 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Table 6-7 DACUNOXUD initial HCT kinetic test results Parameter Unit EDC Effluent Discharge Standard Week number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ph ph Units 6-9 2.23 2.52 3. 3.16 3.17 3.18 3.11 2.99 2.9 EC us/cm 591 252 625 41 373 373 412 621 746 SO4 mg/l 442 1 n/a n/a n/a 62 n/a n/a n/a Acidity to ph4.5 mg/l 2975 259 88 44 45 52 57 13 17 Acidity to ph8.3 mg/l 54 857 146 74 64 68 75 134 127 Total Alkalinity mg/l <.5 <.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a Hardness CaCO3 mg/l 197 64 n/a n/a n/a 2.9 n/a n/a n/a Al-D mg/l 317 68 n/a n/a n/a.76 n/a n/a n/a Sb-D mg/l.2.3 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a As-D mg/l.1 1.8.73 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Ba-D mg/l.21.32 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Be-D mg/l.8.2 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Bi-S mg/l.37.2 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a B-D mg/l <.2 <.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a Cd-D mg/l.5 1.2.41 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Ca-D mg/l 39.5 13.6 n/a n/a n/a.7 n/a n/a n/a Cr-D mg/l.34.8 n/a n/a n/a.4 n/a n/a n/a Co-D mg/l.518.161 n/a n/a n/a.6 n/a n/a n/a Cu-D mg/l.3 46.7 14.3 n/a n/a n/a.5 n/a n/a n/a Fe-D mg/l 2 12 345 n/a n/a n/a 11 n/a n/a n/a Pb-D mg/l.2.15.2 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Mg-D mg/l 23.9 7.4 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Mn-D mg/l.97.29 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Hg-D mg/l <.4.8 n/a n/a n/a <.1 n/a n/a n/a P-D mg/l 3.12.2 n/a n/a n/a.6 n/a n/a n/a Mo-D mg/l.44.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a Ni-D mg/l.5.398.126 n/a n/a n/a.5 n/a n/a n/a K-D mg/l 7.32 1.28 n/a n/a n/a.67 n/a n/a n/a 55459 35 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK Parameter Unit EDC Effluent Week number Discharge Standard 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Se-D mg/l.71.83 n/a n/a n/a.6 n/a n/a n/a Si-D mg/l 6.9 3.5 n/a n/a n/a 9.3 n/a n/a n/a Ag-D mg/l.6.3 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Na-D mg/l 11.1 2.8 n/a n/a n/a.4 n/a n/a n/a Sr-D mg/l.16.7 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Sn-D mg/l <.8 <.2 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a U-D mg/l.15.31 n/a n/a n/a.9 n/a n/a n/a V-D mg/l.211.57 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Zn-D mg/l.5 31. 9.7 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Hg-D ug/l 2.11.4 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a Table 6-8 GDUNOXSW initial HCT kinetic test results Parameter Unit EDC Effluent Discharge Standard Euromax Resources (Macedonia) UK Ltd Week number 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 ph ph Units 6-9 2.91 2.94 2.86 2.87 2.89 2.92 2.73 2.77 2.85 EC us/cm 276 169 129 113 13 964 142 123 874 SO4 mg/l 176 815 n/a n/a n/a 244 n/a n/a n/a Acidity to ph4.5 mg/l 31 153 134 116 12 111 191 172 171 Acidity to ph8.3 mg/l 82 245 224 183 151 16 274 251 229 Total Alkalinity mg/l <.5 <.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a Hardness CaCO3 mg/l 973 745 n/a n/a n/a 13 n/a n/a n/a Al-D mg/l 67 27 n/a n/a n/a 4 n/a n/a n/a Sb-D mg/l.2.1 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a As-D mg/l.1.31.2 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Ba-D mg/l.12.5 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Be-D mg/l.16.1 n/a n/a n/a.2 n/a n/a n/a Bi-S mg/l <.5 <.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a 55459 36 4 April 216

KINETIC TESTWORK EDC Week number Parameter Unit Effluent Discharge 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 Standard B-D mg/l <.5 <.5 n/a n/a n/a <.5 n/a n/a n/a Cd-D mg/l.5.41.24 n/a n/a n/a.4 n/a n/a n/a Ca-D mg/l 75 76 n/a n/a n/a 16 n/a n/a n/a Cr-D mg/l.157.5 n/a n/a n/a.4 n/a n/a n/a Co-D mg/l.44.31 n/a n/a n/a.7 n/a n/a n/a Cu-D mg/l.3 58 37 n/a n/a n/a 6 n/a n/a n/a Fe-D mg/l 2 116 35 n/a n/a n/a 16 n/a n/a n/a Pb-D mg/l.2.15.3 n/a n/a n/a.2 n/a n/a n/a Mg-D mg/l 191 135 n/a n/a n/a 22 n/a n/a n/a Mn-D mg/l 4.4 3. n/a n/a n/a.5 n/a n/a n/a Hg-D mg/l.2.2 n/a n/a n/a <.1 n/a n/a n/a P-D mg/l.74.6 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Mo-D mg/l.3.1 n/a n/a n/a.2 n/a n/a n/a Ni-D mg/l.5.35.24 n/a n/a n/a.4 n/a n/a n/a K-D mg/l 11.1 5.8 n/a n/a n/a 2.1 n/a n/a n/a Se-D mg/l.8.5 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Si-D mg/l 16.4 38.5 n/a n/a n/a 15.9 n/a n/a n/a Ag-D mg/l.4.3 n/a n/a n/a.2 n/a n/a n/a Na-D mg/l 6.6 4.1 n/a n/a n/a.7 n/a n/a n/a Sr-D mg/l.8.1 n/a n/a n/a.3 n/a n/a n/a Sn-D mg/l <.2 <.2 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a U-D mg/l.12.7 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a V-D mg/l.2.2 n/a n/a n/a.1 n/a n/a n/a Zn-D mg/l.5 37 23 n/a n/a n/a 3 n/a n/a n/a Hg-D ug/l 2.6.4 n/a n/a n/a <.2 n/a n/a n/a 55459 37 4 April 216

Large leach pad set-up Small leach pad set-up Field test set-up photographs PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 6-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document21

45 25 4 35 2 Rainfall (mm) 3 25 2 15 15 1 Leachate volume (litres) 1 5 5 Date Rainfall DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Measured rainfall and collected leachate volumes PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 6-2 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document21

3 25 Measured leachate volume (litres) 2 15 1 5 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 Cumulative rainfall between sampling events (mm) Blank DACDIST DACOX DACOXBR DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALHS ALOX FROC Cumulative rainfall between sampling events against measured sample volumes PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 6-3 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document21

25 DACOXORE 2 Volume (ml) 15 1 5 Date Distilled water irrigation Effluent produced 16 GNDIOOXORE 14 12 Volume (ml) 1 8 6 4 2 Date Distilled water irrigation Effluent produced Oxide ore irrigated leach field tests, irrigation volumes and leachate produced PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-4 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document81

1 DACDIST ph-f ph units DACOX ph-f ph units DACOXBR ph-f ph units DACUNOXBR ph-f ph units DACUNOXUD ph-f ph units GDUNOXSW ph-f ph Units GNDIO ph-f ph Units GNDIOCA ph-f ph units GRDIONON ph-f ph units AL ph-f ph Units ALHS ph-f ph units ALOX ph-f ph units FRCORE ph-f ph Units FROC ph-f ph units NON ph-f ph units Lower Limit (EDC effluent) Upper Limit (EDC effluent) ph 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 6/5/213 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST Cond-F µs/cm DACOX Cond-F µs/cm DACOXBR Cond-F µs/cm DACUNOXBR Cond-F µs/cm DACUNOXUD Cond-F µs/cm GDUNOXSW Cond-F µs/cm GNDIO Cond-F µs/cm GNDIOCA Cond-F µs/cm GRDIONON Cond-F µs/cm AL Cond-F µs/cm ALHS Cond-F µs/cm ALOX Cond-F µs/cm FRCORE Cond-F µs/cm FROC Cond-F µs/cm NON Cond-F µs/cm 7 6 Field conductivity (µs/cm) 5 4 3 2 1 6/5/213 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\LeachPadResults Document1 Field leach pads ph and conductivity PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-5 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

12 DACDIST Alk-C-F mg/l DACOX Alk-C-F mg/l DACOXBR Alk-C-F mg/l DACUNOXBR Alk-C-F mg/l DACUNOXUD Alk-C-F mg/l GDUNOXSW Alk-C-F mg/l GNDIO Alk-C-F mg/l GNDIOCA Alk-C-F mg/l GRDIONON Alk-C-F mg/l AL Alk-C-F mg/l ALHS Alk-C-F mg/l ALOX Alk-C-F mg/l FRCORE Alk-C-F mg/l FROC Alk-C-F mg/l NON Alk-C-F mg/l 1 Field alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) 8 6 4 2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST O-DO-F mg/l DACOX O-DO-F mg/l DACOXBR O-DO-F mg/l DACUNOXBR O-DO-F mg/l DACUNOXUD O-DO-F mg/l GDUNOXSW O-DO-F mg/l GNDIO O-DO-F mg/l GNDIOCA O-DO-F mg/l GRDIONON O-DO-F mg/l AL O-DO-F mg/l ALHS O-DO-F mg/l ALOX O-DO-F mg/l FRCORE O-DO-F mg/l FROC O-DO-F mg/l NON O-DO-F mg/l 16 14 12 Dissolved oxygen (mg/l) 1 8 6 4 2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\LeachPadResults Document1 Field leach pads field alkalinity and dissolved oxygen PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-6 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

DACDIST ORP-F mv DACOX ORP-F mv DACOXBR ORP-F mv DACUNOXBR ORP-F mv DACUNOXUD ORP-F mv GDUNOXSW ORP-F mv GNDIO ORP-F mv GNDIOCA ORP-F mv GRDIONON ORP-F mv AL ORP-F mv ALHS ORP-F mv ALOX ORP-F mv FRCORE ORP-F mv FROC ORP-F mv NON ORP-F mv 7 6 5 ORP (mv) 4 3 2 1 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST Turb-F NTU DACOX Turb-F NTU DACOXBR Turb-F NTU DACUNOXBR Turb-F NTU DACUNOXUD Turb-F NTU GDUNOXSW Turb-F NTU GNDIO Turb-F NTU GNDIOCA Turb-F NTU GRDIONON Turb-F NTU AL Turb-F NTU ALHS Turb-F NTU ALOX Turb-F NTU FRCORE Turb-F NTU FROC Turb-F NTU NON Turb-F NTU 12 1 8 Turbidity (NTU) 6 4 2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\LeachPadResults Document1 Field leach pads field ORP and turbidity PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-7 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Concentration (mg/l) Al-D mg/l 14 12 1 8 6 4 2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Concentration (mg/l) As-D mg/l.7.6.5.4.3.2.1 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON 1.4 Cd-D mg/l 1.2 Concentration (mg/l) 1.8.6.4.2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Field leach pads dissolved Al, As and Cd PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-8 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215 Document1

2 Cu-D mg/l Concentration (mg/l) 15 1 5 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON 12 Fe-D mg/l Concentration (mg/l) 1 8 6 4 2 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Concentration (mg/l) Ni-D mg/l.35.3.25.2.15.1.5 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Document1 Field leach pads dissolved Cu, Fe and Ni PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-9 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Concentration (mg/l) SO 4 -D mg/l 45 4 35 3 25 2 15 1 5 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Concentration (mg/l) TSS mg/l 2 15 1 5 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON 6 Zn-D mg/l Concentration (mg/l) 5 4 3 2 1 14/8/213 22/11/213 2/3/214 1/6/214 18/9/214 27/12/214 6/4/215 15/7/215 23/1/215 Date DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Document1 Field leach pads dissolved SO4, TSS and Zn PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 6-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

1 1 Field conductivity (us/cm) 1 1 1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 Field ph (ph) DACDIST DACOX DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW GNDIO GNDIOCA GRDIONON AL ALOX FROC NON Relationship between field ph and logarithmic field electrical conductivity PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 6-11 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document56

7 TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Tailings samples from metallurgical testing were generated during the latter part of the Ilovica FS in late-215. This material comprised: Dried and stored rougher Cu flotation tailings Dried and stored clean scavenger tailings A combined (8% rougher : 2% clean scavenger) tailings sample (from the above material) The above sample materials were subject to preliminary static and kinetic testing as described in the following sections. 7.1 Laboratory analyses All environmental testing of tailings was carried out at SGS, Cornwall, UK. The following environmental tests were completed on the samples. 7.1.1 Acid base accounting ABA analyses were completed on two rough flotation tailings samples and one clean scavenger tailings sample. The method used by SGS was the European EN 15875 method. The difference from other conventional methods is that it uses carbonate content as the basis for acid addition. This includes analytical determination of: 1. Acid potential (AP) calculation from total sulphur and sulphate speciation. Sulphide sulphur is determined by calculation. 2. The carbonate content is determined by dry combustion to give a carbonate rating (CR). 3. For determination of neutralisation potential (NP) the sample is digested in hydrochloric acid solution (to ph 2 2.5 with the volume of HCl determined by CR). After digestion, the solution is back titrated with sodium hydroxide to ph 8.3 to measure the amount of acid left in the solution. 4. The NNP and NPR are calculated from NP and AP. 7.1.2 NAG acidity and NAG leachates NAG acidity and NAG leachate analyses were completed on two rougher tails samples and a clean scavenger tailings sample. The method used by SGS is analogous to the method described in Section 5. 7.1.3 Bulk geochemistry The bulk geochemistry of a rougher flotation tailings sample was determined by ICP for the parameters Si, Hg, Ag, Al, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Ca, Cd, Co, Cr, Cu, Fe, K, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Na, Ni, P, Pb, Sb, Se, Sn, Sr, Ti, Th, Tl, Th, U, V, Y, Zn. 7.1.4 EU waste material static leach analysis The EU EN 12457-3 static leach test was completed on a sample of rougher scavenger tails and a sample of blended rougher-clean scavenger tailings (8:2 proportion). The method applied by SGS used a two stage leach process with the following steps: A moisture corrected 2:1 liquid to solid ratio leaching step for 6 hours Followed by a moisture corrected 8:1 liquid to solid ratio leach step for the remaining 18 hours. 55459 38 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION The combined results from these 2 leach steps can provide a dry weight of material leached at moisture corrected 1:1 liquid to solid ratio. The parameters analysed in the leachate are listed in Table 7-1. Table 7-1 Static leach test parameters analysed ph Alkalinity (mg/l CaCO3) Acidity (mg/l) Conductivity (us/cm) Cl (mg/l) Sulphate (mg/l) Hg (mg/l) Ag (mg/l) Al (mg/l) As (mg/l) B (mg/l) Ba (mg/l) Be (mg/l) Bi (mg/l) Ca (mg/l) Cd (mg/l) Co (mg/l) Cr (mg/l) Cu (mg/l) Fe (mg/l) K (mg/l) Li (mg/l) Mg (mg/l) Mn (mg/l) Mo (mg/l) Na (mg/l) Ni (mg/l) P (mg/l) Pb (mg/l) Sb (mg/l) Se (mg/l) Si (mg/l) Sn (mg/l) Sr (mg/l) Th (mg/l) Ti (mg/l) Tl (mg/l) U (mg/l) V (mg/l) W (mg/l) Y (mg/l) Zn (mg/l) 7.1.5 Humidity cell test A standard ASTM humidity cell test was performed on a rougher Cu flotation tailings sample by SGS. The test had been running for 16 weeks at the time of compilation of this report. Analyses of ph, Eh, conductivity and a full metal suite to a detection limit of.1 mg/l were performed weekly. 7.1.6 Saturated column test A saturated column (up-percolation test, EN 1445) was conducted on a rough flotation tailings sample by SGS. The test shows the likely leaching rate of the material under very slow leaching conditions (~15 cm/day) and is a once-through column test. The test is designed to show first flush of material from surface salts as well as an evolution to a long-term equilibrated point. Upflow leachate is collected over a 25 day period and the leachate is analysed at specific leachate to dried solid (L/S as l / kg) fractions, which are.1,.2,.5, 1, 2 and 1. The leachate is analysed for ph, conductivity, acidity, alkalinity and sulphate, as well as Al, Sb, As, Ba, Be, Bi, B, Cd, Ca, Cr, Co, Cu, Fe, Pb, Li, Mg, Mn, Mo, Ni, P, K, Se, Si, Ag, Na, Sr, Tl, Th, Sn, Ti, W, U, V, Y, Zn, by ICP-MS and Hg by CVA. 7.2 Results 7.2.1 ABA and NAG analyses The NP/AP for the tailings samples are presented on Figure 7-1. The rougher tails samples are both classified as non-acid generating, however, the clean scavenger tails are classified as potentially acid generating. The NNP versus total S is also presented on Figure 7-1. This shows a similar trend to that seen in waste samples, with NNP essentially a linear function of sulphur abundance. The NNP for each sample is also plotted against NAG ph. This classifies samples into the same categories as the NP/AP ratio, with rougher flotation tailings non-acid generating and the clean scavenger tails as potentially acid generating. The results of NAG leachate analysis for the rough flotation tailings are presented in Table 7-2. No parameters are found above EDC discharge criteria. 55459 39 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Table 7-2 NAG leachate analysis results for rough flotation tailings Parameter Unit EDC effluent standards EDC drinking water standards* Rough flotation tails ph ph 8.4 Conductivity us/cm 78 HCO3 mg/l CaCO3 27 Cl mg/l <2 SO4 mg/l 25 9.9 Hg mg/l <.1 Hardness mg/l CaCO3 3.4 Al mg/l.538 As mg/l.1.18 Ag mg/l.2 Ba mg/l.154 Be mg/l <.7 Bi mg/l <.7 B mg/l.36 Ca mg/l 12.1 Cd mg/l.5.6 Co mg/l <.4 Cr mg/l.1.322 Cu mg/l.3.64 Fe mg/l 2 <.7 K mg/l 4.19 Li mg/l.648 Mg mg/l.26 Mn mg/l.3 Mo mg/l.169 Na mg/l.88 Ni mg/l.5 <.1 P mg/l 2.5 Pb mg/l.2.8 Si mg/l 5.16 Sb mg/l.6 Se mg/l.74 Sn mg/l.38 Sr mg/l.178 Ti mg/l.16 Tl mg/l.2 Th mg/l <.1 U mg/l.25 V mg/l.138 W mg/l.137 Y mg/l.58 Zn mg/l.5 <.2 *Including EDC drinking water standards where missing a key EDC effluent standard 7.2.2 Bulk geochemistry The bulk geochemistry of the rough flotation tailings is presented in Table 7-3. The major ions making up the sample include silica, 32%, aluminium, 58%, potassium 34% and iron 31%. Trace metal concentrations are relatively low. 55459 4 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Table 7-3 Bulk geochemistry results for flotation tails Parameter Date Rougher flotation tails Silica % 31.5 Aluminium ppm 58 Potassium ppm 34 Iron ppm 31 Magnesium ppm 11 Sodium ppm 82 Calcium ppm 42 Titanium ppm 99 Manganese ppm 69 Barium ppm 58 Phosphorus ppm 44 Copper ppm 27 Chromium ppm 17 Nickel ppm 16 Zinc ppm 12 Strontium ppm 68 Vanadium ppm 57 Lead ppm 52 Molybdenum ppm 38 Yttrium ppm 9.2 Cobalt ppm 8.7 Thorium ppm 8.4 Lithium ppm 8 Tin ppm 7.1 Boron ppm 2 Beryllium ppm 1.8 Arsenic ppm 1.5 Thallium ppm 1.5 Uranium ppm 1.5 Cadmium ppm.45 Silver ppm.33 Bismuth ppm.28 Antimony ppm <.8 Selenium ppm <.7 Mercury ppm <.5 7.2.3 EU waste material static leach analysis The EU protocol 2 step static leach test (method as described in Section 7.1.4) results are presented in Table 7-4. Very little solute load is mobilized from the tailings. The overall ph of the material is high, reflecting the neutralization steps within the processing method. 55459 41 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Table 7-4 Analysis results for the two-step waste material static leach Parameter Unit EDC effluent standard s EDC drinking water standards * Rough flotation tails 2:1 leach 8:1 leach Blended rougher Rough and flotation scavenge tails r tails (8:2) Blended rougher and scavenge r tails (8:2) Sample weight g 175 175 248 237 Volume DI water ml 35 35 1327 1338 Initial ph ph 8.34 8.35 9.23 9.29 Final ph ph 8.39 8.39 9.19 9.11 Volume recovered ml 281 286 1247 1243 ph ph 9.29 9.8 9.42 9.38 Alkalinity mg/l as CaCO3 162 87 46 46 Acidity mg/l as CaCO4 <2 <2 <2 <2 Conductivity us/cm 31 672 111 138 Chloride mg/l 4.2 4.4 1.2.6 Sulphate mg/l 25 51 22 7.8 33 Mercury mg/l <. 1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Silver mg/l.5 1.183.6.24 Aluminium mg/l.265.16.149.113 Arsenic mg/l.1.17.38.37.82 Boron mg/l.175.182.312.313 Barium mg/l.151.446.125.171 Beryllium mg/l.1 <. <.7 1 7 <.7 Bismuth mg/l.1 <..12 9 7 <.7 Calcium mg/l 16.9 61.6 5.98 1.1 Cadmium mg/l.5.1 8.27.17.8 Cobalt mg/l.4.725.75.16 Chromium mg/l.1.111.144.17.124 Copper mg/l.3.326.133.158.186 Iron mg/l 2.65 <.7.4.35 Potassium mg/l 14.6 22.3 6.21 5.88 Lithium mg/l.39.346.96.969 Magnesium mg/l 4.5 1.1 1.18 1.37 Manganese mg/l.38.266.171.125 Molybdenum mg/l.361.453.445.477 Sodium mg/l 29.3 46.1 13.1 12.3 Nickel mg/l.5.7.8.2.2 Phosphorus mg/l 2.231.38.91.82 Lead mg/l.2.36.2.24.48 Antimony mg/l.9.16.4.1 Selenium mg/l.8.22.27.66 Silicon mg/l 7.95 8.8 11.4 11.9 Tin mg/l.6.4 <.1.8 Strontium mg/l.538.176.163.238 Thorium mg/l.3 <.1.1 <.1 Titanium mg/l.135.28.146.126 55459 42 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Parameter Unit EDC effluent standard s EDC drinking water standards * Rough flotation tails 2:1 leach 8:1 leach Blended rougher Rough and flotation scavenge tails r tails (8:2) Blended rougher and scavenge r tails (8:2) Thallium mg/l.4 5.39.12.12 Uranium mg/l.16 8.144.25.53 Vanadium mg/l.271.184.764.522 Tungsten mg/l.176.211.89.11 Yttrium mg/l.8 1.13.62.33 Zinc mg/l.5 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2 *Including EDC drinking water standards where missing a key EDC effluent standard 7.2.4 Humidity cell The weekly HCT results for rough Cu flotation tailings is presented in Table 7-5. The analytical suite is missing alkalinity but includes a comprehensive suite of metals. The ph gradually decreases through the 16 week period, suggesting that alkalinity is being consumed. The concentration of sulphate in the material is low from week 4 onwards, less than 5 mg/l, and the first flush only shows 129 mg/l. 7.2.5 Saturated column The saturated column test had a flow rate of 12.25 ml/hr and a linear velocity of 15 cm/day. The leachate collection dates and corresponding leachate to solid ratios are presented in Table 7-6. Chemical analyses on the leachate produced in the saturated column test is presented in Figure 7-2. The leachate is sampled at set times within the 25 day period, relating to the cumulative volume of leachate to dry sample weight ratio. The leachate produced through the test had a relatively similar ph, between ph 8.5 and 7.8, however the ph became more alkaline in the early stages of the test before becoming more acidic in the later stages. The first flush of the column in the initial leachate samples had a high electrical conductivity which decreases rapidly towards the end of the test as the liquid to solid ratio increases. The key major ion constituents in the leachate were calcium and sulphate. The first flush concentration of sulphate was particularly high, over 8 mg/l. The major ions follow the conductivity pattern, high initially in the first flush then decreasing with time and increased liquid to solid ratio. Iron was measured as below detection limits for all samples. Nickel, copper and arsenic are elevated (between.27 and.4 mg/l) in the first flush but all reduce to less than.5 mg/l by the 3 rd leachate collected and sampled. 55459 43 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Table 7-5 Weekly analysis results for tailings HCT Parameter Unit EDC effluent standards EDC drinking water standards* Week 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 ph ph 7.96 8.3 8.6 8.1 7.73 7.46 7.7 6.48 6.88 6.9 6.38 6.26 6.42 6.57 6.34 5.76 6.67 Eh SHE 38 43 378 413 436 363 351 417 429 442 445 47 523 417 434 432 433 Conductivit y µs/cm 643 191 27 138 21 17 23 25 26 21 31 28 26 37 34 34 34 SO4 mg/l 25 129.48 16.2.66 14.28 3.18 1.35 2.19 3.75 3.3 4.59 Not Taken 2.88 2.61 4.2 4.83 3.78 3.57 Al mg/l 1.92 21.18 6.61 32.36 39.39 2.47 1.82 1.65 1.16.78 Not Taken.22.44.31 5.33.45.19 As mg/l.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 B mg/l.1.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Ba mg/l.2.8.3.11.18.1.1.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.2 <.1 <.1 Be mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Bi mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Ca mg/l 37.22 12.44 2.6 1.59 4.28 1.21 1.32 1.7 1.59 2.21 Not Taken 1.33 1.13 2.27 2.9 1.93 1.57 Cd mg/l.5 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Co mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Cr mg/l.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 Cu mg/l.3.1.8.2.11.13.1.1.1.1.6 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.3 <.1 <.1 Fe mg/l 2.48 3.99 1.44 6.1 9.25.5.46.46.28.2 Not Taken.4.11.9 1.59.11.5 Hg mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 K mg/l 22.34 14.4 2.61 14.2 15.8 1.84 1.93 1.79 1.54 1.13 Not Taken.92.86 1.17 2.46.83.94 Mg mg/l 11.91 5.25 1.17 5.66 6.22.56.59.56.52.37 Not Taken.38.36.57 1.5.5.47 Mn mg/l.9.13.5.18.23.3.2.2.2.2 Not Taken.1.1.2.6.2.1 Mo mg/l.11.4.1.2.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Na mg/l 34.3 5.9 <.1 2.5.88 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1.3 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Ni mg/l.5 <.1.1 <.1.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 P mg/l 2.44.1.1.7.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Pb mg/l.2 <.1.2 <.1.2.4 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Sb mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Se mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1.2 <.1.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Si mg/l 4.56 2.24 5.71 28.53 38.92 1.66 1.46 1.46.87.46 Not Taken <.1.23.17 5.8.24.4 Sn mg/l.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Sr mg/l.14.5.1.4.2 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Ti mg/l.2.1.5.16.24.1.2.2.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.11 <.1 <.1 U mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 V mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 W mg/l.3.3 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 Zn mg/l.5.1.6.2.8.13.1.1.1.1.1 Not Taken <.1 <.1 <.1.2 <.1 <.1 *Including EDC drinking water standards where missing a key EDC effluent standard 55459 44 4 April 216

TAILINGS CHARACTERISATION Table 7-6 Leachate to solid ratio and sample collection date Leachate to solid ratio Sample Collection [ml/g-dry] [Date Time] 2/7/15 11:14 AM.1 2/715 4:32 PM.2 2/7/15 1:6 PM.5 3/7/15 4:12 PM 1. 4/7/15 11:6 PM 2. 7/7/15 11:2 AM 5. 15/7/15 4:5 PM 1. 28/7/15 2:54 PM 55459 45 4 April 216

NAG ph Total S (%) AP (kg CaCO3/t) 3. 25. 2. PAG 15. 1. 5. UNC.. 2. 4. 6. NAG 8. 1. NP (kg CaCO3 / t) 119: rough flotation tails 18: rough flotation tails 26: clean scavanger tails 1:1 1:3 1 8 6 4 2-3. -25. -2. -15. -1. -5.. 5. NNP (kg CaCO3 / t) 119: rough flotation tails 18: rough flotation tails 26: clean scavanger tails 1. 8. UNC 6. NAG 4. PAG. -3. -25. -2. -15. -1. -5.. 5. NNP (kg CaCO3 / t) 119: rough flotation tails 18: rough flotation tails 26: clean scavanger tails NAG ph 4.5 Zero NNP Source P:\5517 Euromax_MKD_IlovitzaBaseline\4_WIP\48 Geochem\Tailings 2. UNC Document1 Tailings AP:NP and NNP versus total S and NNP versus NAG ph PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 7-1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonica) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: September 215

Leachate ph Trace metal concentration (mg/l) Leachate ph Major ion concentration (mg/l) Leachate ph Leachate conductivity (us/cm) 8.6 8.5 8.4 25 2 8.3 8.2 8.1 15 1 8. 7.9 7.8 5 2 4 6 8 1 12 Cumulative Liquid to Solid Ratio (ml/g) ph Electrical conductivity 8.6 8.5 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 8. 7.9 7.8 9 8 7 6 5 4 3 2 1 2 4 6 8 1 12 Cumulative Liquid to Solid Ratio (ml/g) ph Sulphate Calcium Magnesium Alkalinity Sodium 8.6 8.5.45.4 8.4 8.3 8.2 8.1 8. 7.9 7.8.35.3.25.2.15.1.5 2 4 6 8 1 12 Cumulative Liquid to Solid Ratio (ml/g) ph Arsenic Cadmium Iron Copper Nickel Saturated column leachate compositions PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 7-2 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document67

8 ARD/ML RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ILOVICA 8.1 Extrapolation of geochemical testwork data Extrapolation of the geo-environmental rock classification system for Ilovica to the geological block model has been undertaken by EOX in liaison with Tetratech, which in turn has permitted the assignment of an ARD risk class to each block within the model. The two stages in the process of allocating an ARD risk class to each block is summarized below. 8.1.1 Stage 1 classification of blocks by geo-environmental rock unit Table 8-1 shows the proportions of each rock class anticipated to be present on the pit shell face by mining phase, while Appendix B provides an analogous breakdown by rock class for the LOM waste schedule. Table 8-1 ARD material proportions exposed on the pit shell surface Block model codes Corresponding leach pad Stage Prestrip Starter Pit First pushback Final pit LOM Year -1 2 7 21 Surface area (2D) (m2) 25738 474942 589774 941198 DACMIX DACUNOXUD %. 1.9 2.5 1.2 DACMIXSW DACUNOXBR %..4 1.7 1.4 DACOX DACOX % 86. 47. 19.2 13.9 DACOXSW DACOX %..1.2 1.5 DACUNOXSW DACUNOXBR %. 4.2 18.4 12.5 DACUNOXUD DACUNOXUD %..7 1.7 7.6 GDIONON GRDIONON %. 9.6 5. 5.6 GDUNOXSW GDUNOXSW %. 1.1 2.1 2.6 GNDIOCA GNDIOCA %. 3.4 6. 6.8 GNDIOCAMIX GNDIOCA %..2.2.1 GNDIOMIX GNDIO %. 1.9 1.1.3 GNDIOMIXSW GDUNOXSW %. 1.5 1.2.1 GNDIONONMIX GRDIONON %. 1.6.4.3 GNDIONONSW GDUNOXSW %. 12.1 13. 17.2 GNDIOOX* GNDIO* %. 4.8 2.6.4 GNDOUNOX GNDIO %. 3.5 2.5 1.3 AL AL %.. 3.2 1.6 ALOX ALOX % 13.9 6. 9.1 8.5 MIX AL %.1.1.9 2.9 NON NON %...2 5.5 8.1.2 Stage 2: Assignment of ARD risk classes A system of thresholds to differentiate rock classes with respect to ARD generation potential was applied on the basis of results of static and kinetic testing described in the previous sections of this report. This denominates the following classes: 55459 46 4 April 216

ARD/ML RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ILOVICA Highly acid generating - applied to rock units for which average NNP is less than -1 kg CaCO 3/t and/or in which pad leachate ph is equal to or less than 3.. Acid generating - applied to units in which NNP is <-2 kg CaCO 3 /t, or in which NNP is negative with pad leachate ph levels of <4.. Mildly reactive - applied to units with an NNP between zero and -2 kg CaCO 3/t but no direct kinetic or static leach data to further define the unit. Intermediate - applied to samples where the NNP is between zero and -2 kg CaCO3/t and a corresponding pad leachate between ph 4 and 5. Sterile - applied to samples with NNP between +2 and -2 CaCO 3/t, subject to pad leachate ph 5.. Acid-Consuming - assigned to material with buffered pad leachate solution or an NNP of > 2 CaCO 3/t. The relationship between block model material code, kinetic test results and the assigned ARD risk class for each rock type is shown in Table 8-2. Where a block model code does not have a direct corresponding material code within the kinetic test dataset a conservative proxy assignment was chosen. Based on these assignments, all blocks within the block model were assigned a discrete ARD category. Table 8-2 Classification of ARD material into ARD risk category Block model unit Corresponding kinetic testwork ARD category DACMIX DACUNOXUD Acid generating DACMIXSW DACUNOXBR Acid generating DACOX DACOX Sterile DACOXSW DACOX Sterile DACUNOXSW DACUNOXBR Acid generating DACUNOXUD DACUNOXUD Highly acid generating GDIONON GRDIONON Intermediate GDUNOXSW GDUNOXSW Highly acid generating GNDIOCA GNDIOCA Acid consuming GNDIOCAMIX GNDIOCA Sterile GNDIOMIX GNDIO Acid generating GNDIOMIXSW GDUNOXSW Acid generating GNDIONON GRDIONON Acid generating GNDIONONMIX GRDIONON Acid generating GNDIONONSW GDUNOXSW Acid generating GNDIOOXUPPER GNDIO Sterile GNDIOOXLOWER GNDIOOXORE Acid generating GNDIOUNOX GNDIO Mildly reactive AL AL Acid generating ALOX ALOX Sterile MIX AL Acid generating NON NON Intermediate 55459 47 4 April 216

ARD/ML RISK CLASSIFICATION SYSTEM FOR ILOVICA 8.2 Integration with mine plan The ARD risk potential of waste material in the LOM schedule, as determined using the classification system described above, is summarized in Figure 8-1 and Table 8-3. The ARD risk potential of material exposed on the pit walls through LOM is presented in Table 8-4 and the final pit risk classification is presented in Figure 8-2. Unsurprisingly, the proportion of high risk material in both the pit walls and the waste stream increases through mine life, with greater pit extension into un-oxidized rock units. A significant proportion of acid generating material is projected to be exposed on the high wall above the level of water inundation within the pit following closure. This constitutes a particular concern in terms of the long-term quality of water within any future pit lake. The waste schedule indicates that most of the initial waste produced corresponds to sterile material (relating to oxidized dacites), which will be used for the initial TMF construction. The carbonate bearing material is located at depth within the pit and is mined later in mine life, from LOM year 6 to year 18. Highly acidic generative waste material begins to be produced from year 3 onwards, which is after the starter TMF embankment (end of LOM year 2). Acid generative material is mostly produced in LOM years 7 to 18. A small proportion of material is labelled as not attributed, this is explained in Section 9-1. Table 8-3 Overall waste material by ARD potential ARD category Waste (Mtons) Waste % Highly acid generative 2 1 Acid generative 63 31 Intermediate 7 3 Mildly reactive 5 2 Sterile 85 45 Acid consumptive 5 3 Not attributed 11 5 Totals 195 1 Table 8-4 ARD potential of the pit shell through LOM ARD category Stage Pre-strip Starter Pit First pushback Final pit LOM Year -1 2 7 21 Highly acid generative % 2 13 1 Acid generative % 27 48 53 Intermediate % 1 5 11 Mildly reactive % 4 2 1 Sterile % 1 58 31 24 Acid consumptive % 3 6 7 Not attributed % 55459 48 4 April 216

Waste (tonnes) 8,, 7,, 6,, 5,, 4,, 3,, 2,, 1,, - 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 21 22 23 24 25 26 27 28 29 3 31 32 33 34 35 36 37 38 39 4 41 42-1 1 2 3 4 5 6 7 8 9 1 11 12 13 14 15 16 17 18 19 2 LOM period and year Highly acid generative Acid generative Intermediate Mildly reactive Sterile Acid consumptive Not attributed LOM waste schedule by ARD risk classification PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE: 8.1 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd. PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document87

Final pit material classification and ARD risk PROJECT: Ilovica Gold-Copper Project FIGURE #: 8-2 CLIENT: Euromax Resources (Macedonia) Ltd PROJECT #: 55459 DRAWN: JD CHECKED: TMW DATE: February 216 Document28

9 PROJECT SPECIFIC ARD RISKS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS 9.1 Waste rock ARD potential and implications for project material balance The FS level mine plan for Ilovica outlined in Section 2 (above) contemplates open pit exploitation of approximately 1 Mt of ore per annum over a mine life of 21 years, during which waste rock will be extracted at a strip ratio which within the context of most open pit operations is relatively low. As a consequence the facility development plan contemplates that the consumption of virtually all waste rock will be possible through progressive TMF embankment construction. The viability of this is understood by SWS to be based on the pretext that most waste rock will be classifiable as construction suitable. Basic static testing of the majority of discrete LAM assemblages within the area encompassed by the FS level pit design supports the assertion that sulphide S abundances will be sufficiently high to induce a substantial ARD risk within approximately 45% of the total waste tonnage to be generated. Most of the remaining waste is likely to be relatively inert, with only a small component of the rock mass possessing any significant carbonate neutralization capacity. Table 9-1 provides a summary of the ARD classifications considered applicable to each major LAM unit of the Ilovica deposit (as described in Section 8) with initial estimates also provided of the geochemical suitability of each unit for use in embankment construction. For purposes of suitability classification, material is considered of poor utility if, on the basis of static and kinetic testing, it is considered likely to both generate acid and to argillize significantly. Most units with Intermediate ARD classifications are regarded as of fair geochemical status for construction use, while most oxide and fresh units are considered of good construction quality from geochemical perspective. Whilst these categorizations need to be substantiated with geotechnical tests, the categories infer that, based solely on geochemistry, there is a possibility that a significant amount of material could be subject to a change in geotechnical characteristics over time. Other factors will of course impact this such as porosity of the material, waste rock storage conditions and ground water geochemistry. A final consideration in the analysis of waste rock properties with respect to TMF embankment construction suitability relates to the GNDIOCA unit. This, in isolation, is likely to be of high competency, however, if mixed with PAG material the dissolution of carbonate groundmass and/or veinlets may substantially reduce competence. This should be investigated by project geotechnical engineers. Observations of weathering behavior made during geochemical field pad tests may act as a guide for further quantification by geotechnical engineers to the competency of some types of waste rock. Typically, the oxide material and fresh granites placed on the leach pads have shown little geo-mechanical breakdown. In contrast, the following material types have undergone significant degradation and argillization: DACUNOXBR DACUNOXUD GDUNOXSW 55459 49 4 April 216

PROJECT SPECIFIC ARD RISKS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS Table 9-1 Summary of ARD classifications and associated construction suitability of LAM units ARD UNIT Description Estimated waste material (using block model geological codes and waste schedule) ARD category Other geochemical risks Geochemical Construction utility DACMIX Dacite, mixed zone 2.2 Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain DACMIXSW Dacite, mixed zone, stockwork 2.7 Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain DACOX Dacite, oxidised 26.2 Sterile Fe, Zn Fair DACOXSW Dacite, oxide, stockwork / brecciated 1.6 Sterile Uncertain Fair DACUNOXSW Dacite, unoxidised, Cu, Fe, Cd, 4.4 Acid generative brecciated / stockwork Ni, Zn Poor DACUNOXUD Dacite, unoxidised, SO4, Cu, Fe, Highly acid hydrothermally 8.8 As, Cd, Ni, generative undisturbed Zn Poor GNDIOMIX Granodiorite, mixed zone 1.6 Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain GNDIOMIXSW Granodiorite, mixed zone, stockwork 1.3 Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain GNDIOOXUPPER Granodiorite, oxidised, 2.3 Sterile Uncertain Good GNDIOOXLOWER upper 1 metres Granodiorite, oxidised, lower 1 metres 4.3 Acid generative SO4, Cu, Fe, Zn GNDIOUNOX Granodiorite, unoxidised 2.4 Mildly reactive Uncertain Fair GDUNOXSW GNDIOCA GNDIOCAMIX Granodiorite, unoxidised, stockwork Granodiorite, carbonate bearing, unoxidised Granodiorite, carbonate bearing, mixed zone 1.1 2.5 Highly acid generative Acid consumptive SO4, Cu, Fe, Zn None Poor Poor Good.2 Sterile Uncertain Good GNDIONON Granodiorite, nontronitic 2.7 Acid generative Cu, Zn Poor GNDIONONMIX Granodiorite, nontronitic, mixed zone.7 Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain GNDIONONSW Granodiorite, nontronitic, stockwork 4.5 Acid generative Uncertain Poor ALOX Granite, oxide zone 14.5 Sterile Fe, Zn Good MIX Granite, mixed zone 3. Acid generative Uncertain Uncertain AL Granite, altered 7.1 Acid generative Cu, Fe, Zn Poor NON Granite, nontronitic.6 Intermediate Uncertain Fair None Not classified within block model 5.3 9.2 Sulphate and metal leaching potential Material likely to correspond to oxidised material as block model - topography boundaries were not completely aligned In the event of placement of acid generating waste rock within the TMF embankment, the production of low ph (ca. 2 3) seepage will generally be accompanied by sulphate and metal/metalloid mobilization. Due to the complexity of sulphide mineralization at Ilovica, the range of contaminants of concern is likely to encompass Cu, Fe, Mn, Cd, Ni, As and Zn. The presence of Cd and Ni within pad leachates, and thus by inference the likely occurrence of these metals at elevated concentrations in waste rock seepage is particularly concerning due to their tendency to be removed with limited efficiency by conventional lime-based ARD treatment. 55459 5 4 April 216

PROJECT SPECIFIC ARD RISKS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS 9.3 Risks associated with tailings geochemistry Static testing performed for Ilovica samples (Section 5) has confirmed that analogous magnitudes of ARD risk are inherent to both ore and waste rock. The process flow-sheet considered within the 215 FS involves a two stage flotation and CIL sequence, the former of which will produce approximately 8% of the total tailings tonnage. Pyrite should be strongly partitioned into the clean scavenger tailings. The cyanide destruction level for the tailings stream is thought to be in the region of.21 mg/l WAD CN but is still to be confirmed by testwork. While co-disposal of the CIL and flotation tailings is currently contemplated, this may result in a significantly greater ARD risk, in addition to a more pervasive residual CN risk for the entire tailings tonnage than would be the case for any alternative strategy involving isolated CIL tailings storage. However, there will be a 5:1 dilution of any residual cyanide levels post-cyanide destruction through the whole tailings body. Preliminary analysis of rougher and clean scavenger tailings has been completed and the results described in Section 7. Further tailings will be generated in engineering studies in early 216 and these will be analysed to confirm the preliminary geochemical results. 9.4 Sources of poor quality water The potential sources of poor quality water envisaged during development of the Ilovica project include: Waste rock forming the TMF embankment. Pit sump and dewatered groundwater. Seepage emanating from the oxide stockpile Tailings seepage and runoff ROM stockpile, both seepage and runoff Other construction materials Chemical storage within process plant Potential municipal waste landfill site The data and classification systems presented within this report have been used to produce facility scale geochemical models to predict the water quality of the sources listed above. This work was completed as part of the project environmental impact assessment. 9.5 Initial identification of impacts and mitigation options The potential water quality impacts and mitigation options are fully described in the project environmental impact assessment and associated geochemical modelling study. During operations the project will operate a zero discharge policy with recycling and re-use of water from mine facilities and contact areas. Runoff and dewatering streams from the open pit will be collected within a sump and sent for re-use at the processing plant. The tailings facility will be managed with a decant pond and tailings supernatant will be collected and pumped back for use at the processing plant. Key potential impacts from the mine facilities which require further mitigation measures to be incorporated into design include: 1. Management of a poor quality pit lake overflow in closure 2. Management of poor quality tailings and TMF embankment seepage in operations 3. Management of poor quality tailings and TMF embankment seepage and runoff in closure. 4. Management of poor quality seepage and runoff from the oxide stockpile. Options analysis for the engineering design currently anticipates removal of the oxide stockpile from the project description, due to poor economics. In this case the material will be treated as waste and incorporated within the 55459 51 4 April 216

PROJECT SPECIFIC ARD RISKS AND MITIGATION OPTIONS TMF embankment. The mitigation of poor quality water discharging from the TMF and open pit in closure is currently planned to be by capture of the water and treatment for discharge to the environment. The operational management of the TMF is to be defined in the detailed design phase. Additionally, during the detailed design stage of the project further data collection and evaluation will be completed on the following: Incorporate the encapsulation of the ARD producing material within the TMF or tailings, in terms of both timings (mine scheduling) and material volumes. Ensuring the seepage pond downstream of the TMF is designed to collect maximum tailings seepage. Evaluate the consolidation of tailings and corresponding reduction in permeability to re-assess potential seepage rates and pathways. In addition, update the TMF water balance to better define seepage volumes from the TMF through LOM and any reduction in seepage in closure. Re-evaluate geochemical conceptualisation and any modelling of the TMF once all tailings laboratory analyses are complete and comprehensive seepage volumes derived from the updated water balance. Should water quality models still predict poor quality water impacting the water courses downstream of the TMF following the additional work listed above then capture and treatment of TMF seepage as a mitigation measure will be considered and costed. 55459 52 4 April 216

1 SUMMARY 1.1 Summary of environmental geochemistry of the Ilovica project The Ilovica porphyry is analogous to many Late Tertiary porphyry systems of central Europe and Asia with respect to its lithological setting, alteration and mineralization. These factors exert the first-order controls of the environmental geology of the deposit, and of the associated water quality challenges which may be anticipated during future exploitation. A simplified geo-environmental model for Ilovica can be conceptualized as comprising: (i) a phyllic to argillic core, developed within a multiple phase porphyry-breccia complex and characterized by a high abundance (up to several percent) of primary sulphides dominated by pyrite and chalcopyrite; (ii) a zone of potassic alteration, grading laterally to weaker propyllitized rock with sporadic sulphide veining and stockworking; (iii) a peripheral zone of relatively fresh or weakly mineralized granite and granodiorite; and (iv) a superimposed zone of leaching and secondary oxide mineralization. Static and kinetic testing performed for samples representing the major LAM units of the Ilovica deposit has elucidated a consistent trend of increasing acid-generation capacity with increasing alteration/mineralization intensity. This is evident within both ore and waste grade rock to an analogous extent. Within the oxidized zone, the loss of primary sulphides and/or their replacement with phases such as chalcocite and covellite has significantly reduced acid generation propensity. With the exception of a minor component of the deposit which is subject to calcite enrichment, neutralization capacity is negligible throughout both the primary sulphide and oxide zones. In practical terms, this permits prediction of the net acid production risk throughout the deposit as a linear function of sulphide S content. Based on data compiled to the end of 215, a 1% S threshold can be regarded as reasonable for the discrimination of material which is net acid forming for sulphide material. For oxide material the sulphide content estimated by methods such as ABA analysis can be over-estimated by the presence of alunite (Section 5.4.3). Therefore, leach pad data is a more accurate estimation of acid generation potential for oxide material. An ARD risk classification system for the principal LAM units of the Ilovica deposit has been applied to the entire area of the pit optimization adopted for FS level project design. This suggests that around 45% of waste-grade material will be potentially acid forming. The generation of acidity (to ph levels of <3) during weathering of this fraction of the waste assemblage has been confirmed through field-scale pad tests to be routinely accompanied by mobilization of sulphate to concentrations in the g/l range, plus a suite of metals/metalloids including Cu, Fe, Mn, Ni, Cd and As to aggregate concentrations of several hundred mg/l. The differing degrees of potential acid generation (from strong to weak) has been modelled through the 3D block model as part of the ARD risk classification system. This will be used in detailed design to model a year by year production of waste rock, which will be used for detailed waste management and mitigation plans. 1.2 Integration with environmental impact and engineering studies 1.2.1 Execution of facility scale geochemical modelling A provisional numerical geochemical modelling plan, as outlined in the initial geochemical review (SWS, 215), was formulated by SWS to define estimates of LOM contact water chemistry and the associated development of strategies for the mitigation of geochemical risks to a level commensurate with the FS phase of project advancement. This work was completed as part of the project environmental impact assessment. 1.2.2 Detailed risk and mitigation strategy design Given the magnitude of ARD risk and attendant water protection challenge inherent to future mine development at Ilovica, the formulation of a robust mitigation plan for all potential ARD source-terms is regarded as a critical 55459 53 4 April 216

SUMMARY component of FS level project design. Analysis and refinement of these strategies are founded on numerical geochemical modelling for each major source-term including the open pit, TMF, any WRF which may be deployed and the oxide/primary ore stockpiles. Critical areas of engineering design addressed within the FS include: 1.2.3 Closure a. A seepage capture system for the TMF. b. A system to capture and convey acid water from waste rock seepage/runoff, from stockpiles and from the pit dewatering system. c. Definition of a materials balance for progressive rehabilitation of PAG rock storage areas. d. Management of rebounded water within the pit and mitigation of the eventual pit lake overflow. Effective management of ARD risks following closure of any future Ilovica mine is likely to be challenging. The development and economic analysis of closure plans for the main ARD source-terms has commenced as part of the project impact assessment. This integrates both facility scale geochemical modelling and hydrological analysis of the post-closure setting of the pit and the TMF. The treatment of any discharge from these facilities in the postclosure period is unlikely to be feasible using passive technology due to the level of net acidity which will characteristically prevail and thus active treatment options are being considered. 55459 54 4 April 216

11 REPORT LIMITATIONS This report has been prepared for the specific purpose identified herein at the request of and for the use of the Client. Observations, conclusions, and recommendations contained herein are opinions based upon the scope of services, information obtained through observations and measurements taken by at certain points and certain times, and interpretation and extrapolation of secondary information from published and unpublished material. The report may infer the configuration of strata, ground, and groundwater conditions both between data points and below the maximum depth of investigation. The report also may deduce temporal trends and averages for climatic, hydrological, and water quality parameters. Such interpretations and extrapolations are only indicative and no liability is accepted for variations between the opinions expressed herein and conditions that may be identified at a later date through direct measurement and observation. Unless otherwise agreed in writing by, accepts no responsibility for any use of, or reliance on any contents of this report by any person, on any ground, for any loss, damage, or expense arising from such use or reliance. Should any information contained in this report be used by any unauthorized third parties, it is done so at their own risk. 55459 55 April 4, 216

APPENDIX A: ADDITIONAL DATA

APPENDIX A: COMPILATION OF ADDITIONAL GEOCHEMISTRY DATA Table 1-1 213-214 ABA analysis results ARD UNIT Sample No. ph Stotal % Ssulphide % (calculated) Ssulphate % (HClleachable) MPA (kg CaCO3/t) NP (kg CaCO3/t) NNP (kg CaCO3/t) OX ILABA 1 8.3.1.1.1.16 2.35 2.19 15. OX ILABA 2 6.55.9.7.2 2.19. -2.19. OX ILABA 3 5.92.28.24.4 7.5. -7.5. OX ILABA 4 6.17.33.3.3 9.38 2.17-7.21.2 OX ILABA 5 5.69.33.3.3 9.38. -9.38. OX ILABA 42 5.62.3.28.2 8.75. -8.75. AL ILABA 6 3.47 5.6 4.98.8 155.63.28-155.35. AL ILABA 7 5.61 3.3 3..3 93.75.3-93.46. AL ILABA 8 5.25 4.65 4.62.3 144.38. -144.38. AL ILABA 9 4.29 3.65 3.62.3 113.13. -113.13. ALHS ILABA 1 4.11 9.1 9.5.5 282.81. -282.81. DACOXBR ILABA 11 5.11 4.65 4.51.14 14.94. -14.94. DACOXBR ILABA 12 5.35 2.67 2.62.5 81.88. -81.88. DACOXSW ILABA 13 5.13.6.3.3.94. -.94. DACOXSW ILABA 14 5.27.14.9.5 2.81. -2.81. DACOXUD ILABA 15 5.86.5.2.3.63. -.63. DACOXUD ILABA 16 6.25.12.9.3 2.81 5.2 2.2 1.8 DACUNOXBR ILABA 17 4.29 1.44 1.41.3 44.6. -44.6. DACUNOXBR ILABA 18 4.61 2.67 2.63.4 82.19.4-82.15. DACUNOXBR ILABA 19 4.13 3.6 3.56.4 111.25. -111.25. DACUNOXBR ILABA 2 4.7 3.31 3.28.3 12.5. -12.5. DACUNOXUD ILABA 21 4.39 6.11 6.6.5 189.38. -189.38. DACUNOXUD ILABA 22 3.82 4.25 4.19.6 13.94.39-13.55. DACUNOXUD ILABA 23 4.1 4.12 4.8.4 127.5. -127.5. DACUNOXUD ILABA 24 4.45 3.98 3.93.5 122.81.4-122.78. DACDIST ILABA 25 4 3.64 3.59.5 112.19. -112.19. GNDIONON ILABA 26 6.41.27.26.1 8.13.27-7.86. GNDIONON ILABA 27 4.99.23.22.1 6.88.86-6.2.1 GNDIONON ILABA 28 6.69.37.36.1 11.25 5.5-5.75.5 GNDIONON ILABA 29 5.6.98.96.2 3. 4.26-25.75.1 NON ILABA 3 6.66.33.31.2 9.69 2.65-7.4.3 NON ILABA 31 6.43.41.39.2 12.19 2.45-9.74.2 NON ILABA 32 6.46.43.3 13.44 2.59-1.85.2 GNDIOCA ILABA 33 9.1.12.11.1 3.44 53.21 49.77 15.5 GNDIOCA ILABA 34 9.26.4.3.1.94 14.13 13.19 15.1 GNDIOCA ILABA 35 8.62.1.1.1.16 67.5 67.34 432. GNDIOCA ILABA 67 8.58.8.7.1 2.19 11.46 9.27 5.2 GNDIOCA ILABA 68 8.68.1.1.1.16 17.78 17.62 113.8 GDUNOXSW ILABA 36 6.28 3.18 3.15.3 98.44.77-97.67. GDUNOXSW ILABA 37 6.43 1.4 1.37.3 42.81.25-42.56. GDUNOXSW ILABA 38 4.75 3.59 3.54.5 11.63. -11.63. GDUNOXSW ILABA 57 7.82 1.21 1.19.2 37.19 13.79-23.4.4 GDUNOXSW ILABA 58 8.22.91.88.3 27.5 24.7-2.8.9 GDUNOXSW ILABA 59 8.63.22.2.2 6.25 4.9 34.65 6.5 FR ILABA 39 6.46.1.5.1 1.56. -1.56. FR ILABA 4 6.26.1.5.1 1.56. -1.56. FR ILABA 41 6.79.1.5.1 1.56. -1.56. MIX ILABA 43 4.67 1.1 1.6.4 33.13.41-32.72. MIX ILABA 44 4.61 1.14 1.1.4 34.38. -34.38. NP/A P Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A1 March 15, 216

ARD UNIT Sample No. ph Stotal % Ssulphide % (calculated) Ssulphate % (HClleachable) MPA (kg CaCO3/t) NP (kg CaCO3/t) NNP (kg CaCO3/t) UNOX ILABA 45 4.95 2.85 2.82.3 88.13.41-87.72. DACOX ILABA 46 5.27.9.1.9.16. -.16. DACMIX ILABA 47 6.44.23.22.1 6.88 2.25-4.63.3 DACMIX ILABA 48 5.52.14.12.2 3.75.85-2.91.2 DACUNOX ILABA 49 5.38.16.15.1 4.69 2.29-2.4.5 GDIOOX ILABA 5 5.32.6.5.1 1.56. -1.56. GDIOOX ILABA 69 6.62.1.1.1.16 7.1 6.85 44.8 GDIOOX ILABA 7 6.47.1.1.1.16 4.93 4.77 31.5 GDIOOX ILABA 71 6.85.2.2.1.63 5.48 4.86 8.8 GDIOMIX ILABA 51 6.21.18.16.2 5..4-4.6.1 GDIOMIX ILABA 52 7.8.4.3.1.94. -.94. GDIOUNOX ILABA 53 7.78.34.32.2 1. 3.28-6.72.3 OGGNDIONON ILABA 54 5.44.69.63.6 19.69. -19.69. OGGNDIONON ILABA 55 6.9.44.41.3 12.81 1.2-11.8.1 OGGNDIONON ILABA 56 5.7.3.28.2 8.75 1.27-7.49.1 OGGNDIONON ILABA 6 6.41.53.49.4 15.31 1.37-13.94.1 OGGNDIONON ILABA 62 7.66 1.19 1.16.3 36.25. -36.25. OGGNDIOCA ILABA 61 8.2 1.9 1.6.3 33.13 24.71-8.42.7 OGGNDIOCA ILABA 63 8.3 1.96 1.93.3 6.31 75. 14.69 1.2 DAC OG ILABA 64 4.2 1.8 1.65.15 51.56. -51.56. DAC OG ILABA 65 4.55.66.61.5 19.6. -19.6. DAC OG ILABA 66 3.68 2.83 2.75.8 85.94. -85.94. NP/A P Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A2 March 15, 216

Table 1-2 215 ABA analysis results HCl Sulphide Acid Mod. ABA Net Paste Total Total Sample ID Lith Alt Test type Extractable Sulphur Generation Neutralization Fizz Rating Neutralization ph Carbon S Sulphur (by diff.) Potential Potential Potential Units ph Units wt% wt% wt% wt% Kg CaCO3/T Kg CaCO3/T N/A Kg CaCO3/T ILABA13 Potassic Static 8.24.22.19.1.18 5.6 21.8 SLIGHT 16.2 ILABA14 Argillic Static 6.11 <.2 3.2.2 3.18 99.4 -.5 NONE -99.9 ILABA16 Argillic Static 4.73 <.2 2.6.3 2.3 63.4-1.3 NONE -64.7 ILABA17 Phyllic Static 4.76 <.2 5.6.3 5.3 157.2 -.3 NONE -158 ILABA18 Phyllic Static 4.51 <.2 6.89.1 6.88 215. -.3 NONE -215 ILABA19 Phyllic Static 4.56 <.2 5.28.2 5.26 164.4 -.8 NONE -165 ILABA124 DAC phyllic Static 4.37 <.2 6.2.3 5.99 187.2-1.3 NONE -189 ILABA125 DAC Argillic Static 4.39 <.2 5.6.4 5.56 173.8-1.8 NONE -176 ILABA126 DAC Argillic Static 4.2.3 4.19.4 4.15 129.7-1.5 NONE -131 ILABA127 DAC Phyllic Static 4. <.2 4.14.4 4.1 128.1-1.8 NONE -13 ILABA128 DAC Phyllic Static 4.42 <.2 2.6.2 2.58 8.6-1.3 NONE -81.9 ILABA129 DAC Phyllic Static 4.59 <.2 4.48.2 4.46 139.4-1.3 NONE -141 ILABA141 GNDIO Potassic Static 8.2.36 3.18 <.1 3.18 99.4 35.5 SLIGHT -63.9 ILABA142 GNDIO Potassic Static 8.47.58.13 <.1.13 4.1 49.8 SLIGHT 45.7 ILABA143 GNDIO Potassic Static 5.87.13 3.1.2 2.99 93.4 2.3 NONE -91.1 ILABA144 GNDIO Argillic Static 6.22.21 1.34.2 1.32 41.3 2.8 NONE -38.5 ILABA145 GNDIO Argillic Static 4.17 <.2 4.62.4 4.58 143.1-2.3 NONE -145 ILABA146 GNDIO Argillic Static 3.96 <.2 2.78.6 2.72 85. -1.3 NONE -86.3 ILABA15 GNDIO CA Leach pad 8.24.7.86.1.85 26.6 6. MODERATE 33.4 ILABA153 GNDIO NON Leach pad 6.9.5 1.55.2 1.53 47.8 3. NONE -44.8 ILABA156 GNDIO. Leach pad 8.39.9.23.1.22 6.9 13.5 NONE 6.6 ILABA159 GNDIO UNOXSW Leach pad 4.88.3 4.19.3 4.16 13. -.3 NONE -13 ILABA162 GNDIOXORE. Leach pad 4.44 <.2.14.9.5 1.6-1.8 NONE -3.4 ILABA163 DACOXORE. Leach pad 5.38 <.2.17.4.13 4.1 -.5 NONE -4.6 ILABA13 DAC OX Leach pad 6.57.2.77.7.7 21.9. NONE -21.9 ILABA131 DAC OXBR Leach pad 6.68 <.2 1.2.6.96 3.. NONE -3. ILABA132 DAC UNOXUD Leach pad 4.12 <.2 5.34.5 5.29 165.3 -.3 NONE -166 ILABA135 DAC UNOXBR Leach pad 4.58 <.2 4.36.3 4.33 135.3 -.5 NONE -136 ILABA138 DAC DIST Leach pad 4.18 <.2 5.17.3 5.14 16.6-1.8 NONE -162 ILABA11 NON Leach pad 5.29 <.2 1.99.2 1.97 61.6 1.8 NONE -59.8 ILABA113 AL Leach pad 4.48 <.2 5.43.2 5.41 169.1-1.3 NONE -17 ILABA116 ALHS Leach pad 4.19 <.2 6.91.2 6.89 215.3-1.5 NONE -217 ILABA118 ALOX Leach pad 6.47.2.36.2.34 1.6.3 NONE -1.3 ILABA165 Core Plant Static 6.89 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.6 1.5 NONE 1.5 ILABA166 Core Plant Static 7.82 <.2 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.6 1.5 NONE 1.5 ILABA164 Fresh outcrop Static 6.87.7 <.2 <.1 <.2 <.6 1.5 NONE 1.5 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A3 March 15, 216

Table 1-3 215 NAG test results and leachates Sample ID ILABA13 ILABA16 ILABA19 ILABA126 ILABA127 ILABA143 ILABA146 Lith DAC DAC GNDIO GNDIO Alt Potassic Argillic Phyllic Argillic Phyllic Potassic Argillic Parameter Units Sample Weight g 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 2.5 Volume Used ml 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. 25. ph ph Units 1.2 2.57 2.2 2.8 2.42 2.52 2.36 EC us/cm 157.3 1551. 31. 416. 36. 1879. 1775. SO4 mg/l 34.6 25 43 574 333 271 26 Total Alkalinity mg/l 54.1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Bicarbonate mg/l 34.1 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Carbonate mg/l 15.7 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Hydroxide mg/l <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Hardness CaCO3 mg/l 98.7 5.11 3.9 7.83 6.16 35.2 48.7 Dissolved Aluminum mg/l 1.28 4.42 5.2 7.55 6.32 2.73 2.72 (Al) Dissolved Antimony mg/l.689.34 <.2 <.2 <.2.587 <.2 (Sb) Dissolved Arsenic (As) mg/l.344.279.641.553.146.859.114 Dissolved Barium (Ba) mg/l.872.9.624.946.923.793.1 Dissolved Beryllium mg/l <.1.868.5.4.345.318.585 (Be) Dissolved Bismuth (Bi) mg/l <.5.155 <.5.151 <.5.12 <.5 Dissolved Boron (B) mg/l.421.85.117.195.78.156 <.5 Dissolved Cesium (Cs) mg/l.76.357.163.482.46.95.176 Dissolved Cadmium mg/l <.5.113.516.223.199.368.386 (Cd) Dissolved Calcium mg/l 39.5 1.4 1.21 2.61 1.97 7.93 4.71 (Ca) Dissolved Chromium mg/l.177.824.133.915.591.293.362 (Cr) Dissolved Cobalt (Co) mg/l.64.271.551.13.56.416.467 Dissolved Copper (Cu) mg/l.182 15.9 5.12 1.2 3.17 6.52 4.85 Dissolved Lanthanum mg/l <.5.321.311.19.221.119.442 (La) Dissolved Iron (Fe) mg/l.176 23.2 42.4 31.3 27.4 4.7 16. Dissolved Lead (Pb) mg/l.556.55.765.132.293.816.517 Dissolved Lithium (Li) mg/l <.5 <.5.52 <.5.55.137.154 Dissolved Magnesium mg/l <.5.389.211.318.297 3.73 8.96 (Mg) Dissolved Manganese mg/l.525.162.116.645.68 9.56.257 (Mn) Dissolved Phosphorus (P) mg/l.78.67.56.16.5.48.58 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A4 March 15, 216

Sample ID ILABA13 ILABA16 ILABA19 ILABA126 ILABA127 ILABA143 ILABA146 Lith DAC DAC GNDIO GNDIO Alt Potassic Argillic Phyllic Argillic Phyllic Potassic Argillic Parameter Units Dissolved Molybdenum mg/l.596.444.235.55.85.527.139 (Mo) Dissolved Nickel (Ni) mg/l.86.238.445.6.369.267.352 Dissolved Potassium mg/l 7. 6.95 4.2 4.72 4.43 7.73 4.6 (K) Dissolved Rubidium mg/l.217.18.11.122.136.197.115 (Rb) Dissolved Selenium mg/l.149.356.735.159.876.389.519 (Se) Dissolved Silicon (Si) mg/l 12.4 6.9 5.33 7.63 6.17 5.85 9.12 Dissolved Silver (Ag) mg/l <.5.17.964.318.399.251.533 Dissolved Sodium (Na) mg/l 5.36 3.4 3.44 3.79 3.62 3.23 3.19 Dissolved Strontium mg/l.3.241.24.246.246.275.141 (Sr) Dissolved Sulphur (S) mg/l 1 88 153 26 141 16 95 Dissolved Tellurium mg/l.61.72.313.554.721.266.164 (Te) Dissolved Thallium (Tl) mg/l.343.194.76.449.15.176.387 Dissolved Thorium mg/l <.5.12.158.24.135.21.219 (Th) Dissolved Tin (Sn) mg/l <.2.29 <.2 <.2 <.2 <.2.24 Dissolved Titanium (Ti) mg/l.68 <.5.59 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Dissolved Tungsten mg/l.38 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 (W) Dissolved Uranium (U) mg/l.15.621.238.822.769.977.379 Dissolved Vanadium mg/l.758.22.49.78.56.46.49 (V) Dissolved Zinc (Zn) mg/l.192 1.12.241.74.334 5.62.884 Dissolved Zirconium mg/l <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 <.1 (Zr) Dissolved Mercury (Hg) mg/l <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 <.5 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A5 March 15, 216

Table 1-4 215 whole rock analysis results Sample ID Lith Alt SiO2 Al2O3 Fe2O3 MgO CaO Na2O K2O TiO2 P2O5 MnO Cr2O3 Ba Ni Sr Zr Y Nb Sc LOI Total Units % % % % % % % % % % % ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % % ILABA13 Potassic 65.4 14.1 4.7 1.95 1.78 2.4 4.98.62.16.6.18 723 <2 196 169 18 9 8 3.8 99.7 ILABA14 Argillic 7.2 15.2 4.38.35.12.29 3.84.64.18 <.1.12 521 <2 95 192 14 11 8 4.6 99.9 ILABA16 Argillic 72.6 14.2 3.99.47.4.15 4.13.33.9 <.1.2 22 <2 17 14 18 6 5 3.7 99.8 ILABA17 Phyllic 68.6 14.4 6.31.22.1.21 2.73.62.2 <.1.22 582 <2 127 183 14 5 8 6.5 99.9 ILABA18 Phyllic 65. 14.7 8.51.31.8.18 3.13.6.16 <.1.12 42 <2 78 21 11 7 7 7.2 99.9 ILABA19 Phyllic 68.1 14.6 6.69.21.9.18 2.7.64.17 <.1.19 419 <2 124 182 1 12 7 6.3 99.9 ILABA124 DAC phyllic 61.5 16.8 8.12.81.6.36 4.9.53.7 <.1.14 627 <2 88 139 9 <5 11 7.4 99.9 ILABA125 DAC Argillic 61.6 17.8 7.16.5.11.62 3.66.54.16 <.1.15 74 <2 191 148 13 6 12 7.6 99.8 ILABA126 DAC Argillic 64.1 18. 5.48.4.11.5 3.57.56.14 <.1.14 561 <2 142 148 13 7 13 6.9 99.9 ILABA127 DAC Phyllic 64.2 17.4 5.94.46.1.43 3.43.55.11 <.1.9 784 <2 17 19 16 7 14 7.2 99.9 ILABA128 DAC Phyllic 66.9 17.6 4.3.49.7.32 3.48.52.5 <.1.13 685 <2 69 134 18 <5 11 6.3 99.9 ILABA129 DAC Phyllic 64.7 17. 6.3.26.1.31 3.45.56.14 <.1.15 43 <2 127 168 19 6 12 6.9 99.8 ILABA141 GNDIO Potassic 57.9 15.1 6.78 2.21 4.2 2.3 3.8.46.11.24.16 543 <2 317 137 17 6 11 4.7 97. ILABA142 GNDIO Potassic 59.2 16.3 4.76 2.4 4.58 2.37 3.7.49.13.19.14 625 <2 327 141 16 <5 11 6.2 99.9 ILABA143 GNDIO Potassic 66.9 15.2 5.62.8.18.11 4.63.44.1.15.12 449 <2 24 164 18 7 9 5.5 99.7 ILABA144 GNDIO Argillic 66.1 15.4 6.15.95.21.24 5.36.45.14.1.29 473 <2 42 137 17 7 8 4.6 99.8 ILABA145 GNDIO Argillic 65.9 14.6 7.1.9.8.14 3.1.43.5 <.1.17 577 <2 26 146 21 <5 9 7.4 99.8 ILABA146 GNDIO Argillic 65.7 15.4 5.81 1.76.11.18 3.45.49.6 <.1.11 385 <2 62 12 16 <5 11 6.9 99.9 ILABA15 GNDIO CA 59.7 15.9 5.24 2.3 4.62 1.98 3.62.47.12.38.1 582 <2 276 148 17 9 11 5.1 99.5 ILABA153 GNDIO NON 66.2 15.7 5.7 1.5.52.74 4.59.46.21.7.11 556 <2 74 132 16 8 9 4.6 99.8 ILABA156 GNDIO. 61.9 15.4 6.15 3.17 2.14 2.76 4..51.15.13.16 625 <2 39 151 16 9 12 3.3 99.7 ILABA159 GNDIO UNOXSW 66.6 13.7 7.92 1.77.1.16 3.13.43.6 <.1.14 477 <2 74 11 16 <5 9 5.8 99.8 ILABA162 GNDIOXORE. 69. 15.4 4.58.54.4.26 4.66.48.8 <.1.15 498 <2 42 122 1 1 11 4.8 99.9 ILABA163 DACOXORE. 66.8 17.1 5.4.7.1.25 3.69.55.8 <.1.12 611 <2 121 146 8 8 12 5.1 99.9 ILABA13 DAC OX 68.9 16.2 4.38.32.11.63 3.25.6.18 <.1.19 588 <2 229 145 6 6 12 5.2 99.9 ILABA131 DAC OXBR 65.6 16.8 6.18.2.1.95 2.84.69.19 <.1.15 594 <2 244 187 7 1 13 6.2 99.9 ILABA132 DAC UNOXUD 61.2 18.9 6.65.57.7.44 3.37.57.1 <.1.16 835 <2 19 159 13 <5 13 7.9 99.9 ILABA135 DAC UNOXBR 64.8 16.6 6.29.43.9.4 3.82.5.13 <.1.14 54 <2 119 157 12 9 1 6.6 99.8 ILABA138 DAC DIST 63.3 17.3 6.5.35.9.46 3.6.58.15 <.1.11 621 <2 25 138 12 7 12 7.3 99.8 ILABA11 NON 68.8 15.3 4.78 1.31.21.11 3.78.57.16.3.28 382 <2 27 167 2 5 1 4.7 99.8 ILABA113 AL 67.7 14.5 6.85.26.1.17 2.86.59.17 <.1.21 443 <2 14 169 12 5 8 6.6 99.9 ILABA116 ALHS 64.6 14.5 9.16.22.9.14 2.14.63.2 <.1.13 36 <2 18 187 14 8 8 8.1 99.9 ILABA118 ALOX 71.1 14.8 4.64.31.14.34 3.54.71.23 <.1.18 696 <2 121 211 11 11 8 4. 99.9 ILABA165 Core Plant 71.5 14.2 2.87.3.32 2.57 5.7.22.13.17.21 412 <2 71 11 37 <5 4 2.6 1 ILABA166 Core Plant 72.9 14.3 1.89.45 1.25 3.24 4..34.9.3.2 294 <2 17 133 26 9 5 1.5 1 ILABA164 Fresh outcrop 72.6 14.5 1.58.35 1.7 3.34 4.92.24.12.3.15 335 <2 89 114 36 9 4 1.1 1 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A6 March 15, 216

Table 1-5 215 Bulk geochemistry by aqua regia and ICP Sample ID Lith Alt Mo Cu Pb Zn Ag Ni Co Mn Fe As U Au Th Sr Cd Sb Bi V Ca P La Cr Mg Ba Ti B Al Na K W Hg Sc Tl S Ga Se Te Units ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppb ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm ppm % % ppm ppm % ppm % ppm % % % ppm ppm ppm ppm % ppm ppm ppm ILABA13 Potassic 6.7 174 24.4 74.1 5.3 6.7 434 2.55.8 1.4 116 5.5 75.4.1.2 41.99.46 15 64.92 46.58 <2 1.13.33.36.3 <.1 4.6.2.21 6 <.5 <.2 ILABA14 Argillic 5.1 283 7. 56.2 4.6 9. 11 2.52 7.7.6 28.9 3.3 7 <.1 1.7.8 <2.4.3 4 3 <.1 41 <.1 <2.15.9.11.1.1.4 <.1 2.93 <1 2.1 <.2 ILABA16 Argillic 12.6 143 2.9 133.6 3.7 6.8 21 1.85 41.9 1.5 77.5 3.6 18.2.4 1.2 <2.4.7 4 67.1 66 <.1 <2.22.8.2 <.1.11.7.8 2.7 <1 1.3.4 ILABA17 Phyllic 4.3 213 7.2 2 <.1 6.7 12.9 12 3.91 3.6.6 26.5 2.9 1 <.1.1.4 <2.3.6 4 52 <.1 62 <.1 <2.19.7.11 <.1 <.1.5.1 4.65 <1 3.3.2 ILABA18 Phyllic 2.6 388 5.5 18 <.1 5.9 22.8 9 5.22 8.7.6 25. 2.9 4 <.1.2.5 <2.3.3 4 3 <.1 24 <.1 <2.15.5.9 <.1 <.1.4.1 6.17 <1 3.4 <.2 ILABA19 Phyllic 15.3 647 7.8 28.2 6.7 12.3 13 4.1 27.7.5 67. 2. 5.7 <.1 1.1 <2.3.2 3 5 <.1 25 <.1 <2.16.7.11 <.1 <.1.4.2 4.75 <1 2.8 <.2 ILABA124 DAC phyllic 18.8 197 3.6 235.2 12.8 11.9 9 4.77 12.6.5 31.2 1.7 4 <.1 <.1 1.9 4.4.2 2 27.3 61 <.1 <2.28.15.17 <.1 <.1.6.3 5.7 <1 6.5.4 ILABA125 DAC Argillic 15.3 257 6.1 371.4 9.8 11.6 14 4.61 26.2.5 54.3 2.6 5.2.1 2.4 3.5.3 3 51.1 89 <.1 <2.26.27.17 <.1.1.7.3 5.39 <1 7.7.4 ILABA126 DAC Argillic 2.7 127 6.2 52 <.1 8.6 17.8 7 3.32 1..9 19.3 1.2 5.3 <.1 1. <2.4.2 2 32 <.1 72 <.1 <2.27.18.13 <.1 <.1.7.2 3.93 <1 3.9.3 ILABA127 DAC Phyllic 3.1 418 4.6 45.1 8. 12.6 8 3.49 8.4 1.1 47.9 2. 7.3 <.1.9 3.4.4 3 28.1 77 <.1 <2.26.19.14 <.1 <.1.9.5 4.17 <1 3.6.3 ILABA128 DAC Phyllic 2.4 743 2.6 95 <.1 6.1 12.3 11 2.8 2.7 1.3 116 4.6 7.5 <.1.4 3.5.5 7 36.2 68 <.1 <2.38.14.15 <.1 <.1 1.1.2 2.39 <1 2.9.2 ILABA129 DAC Phyllic 32.4 129 2.5 85 <.1 5.8 19.5 8 3.71.9.6 115 3.1 3 <.1 <.1.4 4.4.3 5 5 <.1 3 <.1 <2.29.13.15 <.1 <.1 1..3 4.38 <1 6.7.5 ILABA141 GNDIO Potassic 2.5 629 56 >1 7.7 8.1 12.9 18 3.94 3.2 1.8 538 6.7 5 165 3. 1.5 68 1.38.52 13 56 1.18 136.131 <2 1.33.52.66.2.52 8.2.3 2.8 6 2.2.8 ILABA142 GNDIO Potassic 1.4 168 52.3 249.2 6.1 9.2 138 2.85 1.6 1.6 1.5 9.3 59 1.4 <.1 <.1 69 2.15.67 14 51 1.23 57.7 <2 1.55.33.12 <.1.1 6.4 <.1.1 7 <.5 <.2 ILABA143 GNDIO Potassic 3.6 954 236 18 1.5 5.6 13.3 12 3.7 142 2.4 169 9.6 6 7.3 16.5.9 4.13.29 24 4.7 111 <.1 <2.26.6.26 <.1.49 1..9 2.92 <1 2.2.3 ILABA144 GNDIO Argillic 31.5 824 46.8 174.5 5.8 7.7 799 2.48 11.5 1.9 37.6 7.3 8 1.3.6.4 8.16.42 13 95.19 183.4 <2.4.8.33 <.1.2 1.4.2 1.32 1 1. <.2 ILABA145 GNDIO Argillic 6.4 111 12.5 24.1 6.4 12.6 31 3.83 2.4.9 182 4.6 5 <.1 <.1 1.2 1.6.8 6 47.12 9.1 <2.39.6.16.1.1 1.4.2 4.31 1 2.6.4 ILABA146 GNDIO Argillic 2.9 71 5.7 132 <.1 8.3 14.1 53 3.9 1.6.9 73.1 4.7 4 <.1 <.1.3 1.8.5 7 32.69 54.1 <2.78.6.13 <.1 <.1 1..2 2.86 2 2.2 <.2 ILABA15 GNDIO CA 2.3 435 47 33 2.3 6.5 1.7 273 2.91 1.1 1.8 195 8.2 61 24.2.5.6 6 2.24.58 16 38 1.11 87.5 <2 1.29.25.34 <.1.1 7..1.85 6 <.5.3 ILABA153 GNDIO NON 86.6 14 34. 13.6 6.1 12.1 527 2.59 14.9 2. 12 1.2 9.5.3.3 2.26.67 17 37.59 115.8 <2.78.12.26 <.1.3 2..2 1.62 3 1.9 <.2 ILABA156 GNDIO. 3.2 118 76.7 152 1.5 9.1 12.6 969 3.6 6. 1.5 184 9.3 52.6 2. 1. 83.52.69 18 58 1.7 152.159 <2 1.71.55.87 <.1.2 1..4.25 7 <.5.5 ILABA159 GNDIO UNOXSW 5.6 921 19.4 28.3 8.5 17.2 54 4.25 5.8.8 127 4.4 6.6.1.5 1.7.6 9 45.77 71.3 <2.87.1.17 <.1.3 1.1.2 4.23 2 2.8.2 ILABA162 ILABA163 GNDIO XORE DACOX ORE. 18 319 99.3 51.3 2. 1.2 16 2.38 19.1.7 367 8.7 5.2.3.4 24.3.11 13 47.2 18.9 <2.49.7.25 <.1.1 2.5.3.12 1.9.3. 69.5 195 36.3 23 2.8 1.8 1.2 1 2.96 59.8.3 312 4.6 8 <.1 2. 1.1 14.6.6 5 38.3 258.2 <2.42.9.18 <.1.92 1.3.2 <.5 3 1.1 1.2 ILABA13 DAC OX 5.5 51.9 18 114.5 2. 1. 17 2.81 117.3 185 2.5 13 <.1.5 2.8 14.6.13 3 6.1 113.2 <2.3.25.16.2.5 1.2.2.6 3 2.9 1.2 ILABA131 DAC OXBR 1.4 47.1 83.8 15.4 2.1.9 14 3.87 25.9.3 17.2 1.6 9 <.1 <.1 3.1 21.4.12 2 42 <.1 53.2 <2.28.35.14 <.1 <.1 1.6.2 <.5 6 2.5.4 ILABA132 DAC UNOXUD 4.3 256 32.4 18.4 12.3 13.9 1 4.16 1.8.5 145 1.7 5.8 <.1 1.5 3.4.2 3 35.2 78 <.1 <2.44.2.16 <.1.3.9.4 4.95 <1 5.9.6 ILABA135 DAC UNOXBR 27.6 131 7.1 115.2 7.5 11.8 9 3.58 12.7.9 15 1.8 6 1.2 <.1 1. 3.4.4 3 4.1 52 <.1 <2.25.16.14 <.1.1.8.4 4.2 <1 4.2.5 ILABA138 DAC DIST 7. 751 6.3 48.1 8.3 12.8 7 3.87 15.6.5 113 1.6 6.3 <.1.5 3.3.3 3 22 <.1 51 <.1 <2.21.15.12 <.1 <.1.6.4 4.6 <1 4.4.4 ILABA11 NON 16 796 34.1 144.5 7.9 17.8 177 2.38 6..9 49.5 7.4 7.4 <.1.7 8.16.57 14 88.42 139.1 <2.7.1.28 <.1.2 1.1.3 1.93 2 2.1 <.2 ILABA113 AL 21.4 244 6.9 33.1 6.6 15.1 14 4.14 2.9.4 31.2 1.9 5 <.1 <.1.5 <2.3.3 3 6 <.1 41 <.1 <2.24.8.12 <.1 <.1.5.2 4.92 <1 3.2 <.2 ILABA116 ALHS 2.8 361 5.8 89.1 5.7 12.6 1 5.24 12.5.3 56.1 1.4 4 <.1.1.8 <2.3.3 2 33 <.1 21 <.1 <2.18.4.9 <.1 <.1.5.2 6.26 <1 5.1.4 ILABA118 ALOX 6.9 8.8 21.6 21.2 2.2.8 16 2.82 39.7.5 14 3.2 11 <.1.2 1.2 8.5.16 5 57 <.1 11.1 <2.2.9.11 <.1.9.7 <.1 <.5 2 2.7.4 ILABA165 Core Plant 1. 6.6 14.7 12.1 1.8 3. 137 1.8 36. 24.8 12.2 11.9 1 1.8.3.8 8.9.62 32 76.8 21.4 <2.56.18.14 <.1.4 1.6.8 <.5 3 <.5.3 ILABA166 Core Plant.3 4.9 7.6 53 <.1 3.4 2.7 189 1.16 6.3 7.8 <.5 17.3 6 <.1 <.1.5 1.15.49 34 71.21 1.45 <2.65.21.36 <.1 <.1 1.9.4 <.5 4 <.5 <.2 ILABA164 Fresh outcrop.3 2.7 18.9 4 <.1 2.7 1.9 217 1.1 1.4 9.8 <.5 16.1 3 <.1.1 1. 1.1.61 3 66.17 13.46 <2.62.24.31 <.1 <.1 2..4 <.5 4 <.5 <.2 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A7 March 15, 216

Table 1-6 215 XRD Mineralogical analysis Sample number Lith Alt Test type Andalusite Biotite 1M Calcite Al2SiO5 K(Mg,Fe)3( AlSi3O1)(O H)2 CaCO3 Calcite, magnesian Chalcopyrite (Ca,Mg)CO3 CuFeS2 Clinochlore IIb-4 (Mg,Fe 2+ )5Al(Si 3Al)O1(OH)8 Goethite α-fe 3+ O(OH) Hematite α-fe2o3 Illite/Muscovite 1M ~K.65Al2.Al.65S i3.35o1(oh)2- KAl2(AlSi3O1)( OH)2 Illite/Muscovite 2M1 ~K.65Al2.Al.65S i3.35o1(oh)2- KAl2(AlSi3O1)( OH)2 Jarosite K2Fe 3+ 6(SO4) 4(OH)12 Kaolinite 1A K- Feldspar Al2Si2O5(OH)4 KAlSi3O8 Fe 2+ Fe 3+ 2O4 Magnetite Natroalunite Plagioclase Pyrite ILABA13 Potassic Static 3.94 3.46 4.32.61 6.6.94 3.13 1.71 18.91 28.78.61 ILABA16 Argillic Static.48 37.3.23 4.6 57.68.25 ILABA19 Phyllic Static 1.68 25.77 4.45 1.11 9.37 2.71 54.3.89 ILABA126 DAC Argillic Static 42.47 4.89 8.11 44.1.53 ILABA127 DAC Phyllic Static 36.79 6.9.85 8.62 46.11.74 (Na,K)2Al6(S O4)4(OH)12 NaAlSi3O8 CaAl2Si2O8 FeS2 Pyrophyllit e 1A Al2Si4O1(O H)2 Quartz Rutile Siderite Sphalerite SiO2 TiO2 Fe 2+ CO3 (Zn,Fe)S ILABA143 GNDIO Potassic Static.29 14.19 26.28 2.13 3.21 5.96 46.29.35 1.19.1 ILABA146 GNDIO Argillic Static.28 3.87 36.27 3.4 5.84 49.6 1.11 ILABA15 GNDIO CA Leach pad 4.9 7.39 4.99 1.77 18.36 2.3 23.2 1.69 26.9.25.34 ILABA153 GNDIO NON Leach pad.18 5.55 5.63 28.32 11.65 3.46 3.42 41.25.55 ILABA156 GNDIO Leach pad 9.32.43.18 4.93 4.47 19.29 3. 33.18.52 24.68 ILABA159 GNDIO UNOXSW Leach pad.13 4.83 32.88.26 8.82 52.45.63 ILABA162 GNDIOXORE Leach pad 1.87 1.5 25.55 1.26 6.5 14.62 48.86.73 ILABA163 DACOXORE Leach pad.74 1.8 9.83 28.58 1.23 2.76.97 44. 1.8 ILABA13 DAC OX Leach pad 1.24 1.32 34.84 4.58 3.6 53.88 1.9 ILABA131 DAC OXBR Leach pad 2.22 2.37 33.94 6.37 2.17 5.91 2.3 ILABA132 DAC UNOXUD Leach pad 35.27 14.93.35 1.16 37.7 1.58 ILABA135 DAC UNOXBR Leach pad 39.43 5.12.99 7.86 45.61 1. ILABA138 DAC DIST Leach pad 38.29 6.39 1.63 8.75 43.86 1.8 ILABA11 NON Leach pad 1.8.2 3.48 5.7 29.59 4.37 54.52 1.7 ILABA113 AL Leach pad 1.15 2.58 28.44 4.6.82 9.43 52.48 1.3 ILABA116 ALHS Leach pad 2.55 2.61 21.29 6.18 1.55 12.28 2.7 5.42 1.5 ILABA118 ALOX Leach pad.22 1.49.74 35.48 1.48 2.24 57.19 1.17 ILABA165 ILABA166 ILABA164 Core Plant Core Plant Fresh outcrop Static.47 9.91 29.11 23.82 36.25.45 Static 2.18 7.87 21.37 31.36 37.22 Static 2. 6.17 27.45 31.42 32.96 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent DRAFT: 55459 A8 March 15, 216

APPENDIX B: LOM WASTE SCHEDULE AS ARD UNITS

NON MIX ALOX AL GNDIOUNOX GNDIOOXUPPER GNDIOOXLOWER GNDIONONSW GNDIONONOX GNDIONONMIX GNDIOMIXSW GNDIOMIX GNDIOCAMIX GNDIOCA GDUNOXSW GNDIONON DACUNOXUD DACUNOXSW DACOXSW DACOX DACMIXSW DACMIX Period Year Granite nontronite Granite mixed Granite altered oxidised Granite altered unoxidised Granodiorite unoxidised Granodiorite oxidised, above 1m depth of oxide layer Granodiorite oxidised below 1 m depth of oxide layer Granodiorite nontronite stockwork Granodiorite nontronite oxidised Granodiorite nontronite, mixed Granodiorite mixed, stockwork Granodiorite mixed zone Granodiorite carbonate mixed zone Granodiorite carbonate unoxidised Granodiorite unoxidised stockwork Granodiorite nontronite Dacite unoxidised undisturbed Dacite unoxidised stockwork Dacite oxidised stockwork Daciteoxidised Dacite mixed stockwork Dacite mixed No classification APPENDIX B: LOM WASTE MATERIAL BY ARD CODE none Total -1 1 43968 2815559 18191 3272818 2 22894 2791543 278381 3272818 3 132116 28421 352 3272819 4 19348 2995626 84144 3272819 1 5 717446 14565 9665 1114331 1737 6161 216 428 12 122326 11412 17427 4189 27466 448152 519 411 21 2752191 6 317 44658 1161 443325 149365 82564 996765 72859 5225 2752191 7 7172 73613 17289 12441 3772 2141 523 15542 154575 59334 7462 248523 1861 2835 29 46137 11294 2752193 8 453713 12195 35175 1565541 2647 2922 26526 885 8 147 583 8225 3591 22991 15342 178688 4443 5291 143 22155 273797 2 9 378929 127676 1785 148228 24155 866 1332 34572 3917 3176 56566 559 15257 135671 22392 979 445 12155 17182 257346 1 25278 67386 27448 91 45373 2851 33524 16394 953 75918 35413 28751 27467 449863 336117 8579 88413 67644 257346 11 368677 89576 19564 1241155 514 13321 1383 27591 644 16573 5292 67956 8288 4985 1914 27661 187235 22483 3616 7124 1194 257346 12 456931 61776 23657 15541 149 57878 5821 42366 18294 18754 2557 32884 15982 257346 3 13 263654 13618 19591 144689 5123 2725 26113 1122 1665 516 5752 41438 55672 2143 11184 2242 72596 18858 194111 198 257346 14 59854 22594 1493 1739369 33337 83 218615 411 3552 44 77 5123 2327 11323 23756 257346 15 17168 36588 4757 55 2253 12851 85952 29968 2487 7679 179628 243 257346 16 14393 35884 33668 414427 4378 14426 627424 389 179845 2218 78953 127924 23637 162 257346 4 17 33488 238356 419335 272368 22643 441158 67536 288 18738 1576 394 18147 162361 98348 197 42156 257346 18 12255 294695 69981 162278 57 395143 71447 3515 134136 154751 19697 437494 9683 47225 257346 19 3643 14312 19447 45182 3523 183171 1132831 68949 13973 19795 151 368538 45754 1631 257346 2 14557 8945 72799 8491 33158 55754 154987 2129 236 173646 1829 43646 4876 257346 5 21 12222 3366 19262 155395 157241 282994 42126 341563 3514 79281 257346 22 35791 3533 1175241 7354 21859 8978 6678 135296 281346 19884 257346 23 285826 353465 15463 4564 1921 298426 49669 113845 682639 283521 11282 179422 257346 24 63322 677 2234 22382 611756 222411 215261 13634 159712 14521 98871 257346 6 25 4681 6553 121655 313672 23568 18525 38228 19933 44528 482178 372842 257346 26 221784 21467 29584 52253 16611 18387 14263 12629 1171452 257346 27 13136 4187 121687 588758 95363 175953 21879 9725 92887 12864 1171673 67349 257346 28 274765 767485 19794 1922 136152 12987 542913 529644 2573545 7 29 42486 289211 11943 1668583 75291 3465 694841 1442 8235 275933 547 81627 136357 376 2616 372245 139985 27868 285929 1286375 1387 6784488 8 3 4652 273191 2483 299723 84165 271972 687738 45292 7634 694359 19817 4243 133872 32383 1569 289961 13444 384174 75283 138337 27755 8182297 9 31 442738 321554 28196 2416784 157162 57547 96178 8694 15389 61497 754 3887 9247 16255 13556 3717 7476 392363 171844 2266848 385147 5619 1413727 1 32 197195 68589 221284 192599 14163 34498 46839 2518 49187 751649 5948 15686 5842 2787 34598 21527 73495 21554 94319 181556 338838 7331 759139 11 33 53524 3351 471743 258621 28386 625191 122547 15994 4568 53894 861 26435 68949 53249 6888 556486 48373 22426 165782 265971 52186 429 12489577 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent Draft: 55459 B1 February 29, 216

NON MIX ALOX AL GNDIOUNOX GNDIOOXUPPER GNDIOOXLOWER GNDIONONSW GNDIONONOX GNDIONONMIX GNDIOMIXSW GNDIOMIX GNDIOCAMIX GNDIOCA GDUNOXSW GNDIONON DACUNOXUD DACUNOXSW DACOXSW DACOX DACMIXSW DACMIX Period Year Granite nontronite Granite mixed Granite altered oxidised Granite altered unoxidised Granodiorite unoxidised Granodiorite oxidised, above 1m depth of oxide layer Granodiorite oxidised below 1 m depth of oxide layer Granodiorite nontronite stockwork Granodiorite nontronite oxidised Granodiorite nontronite, mixed Granodiorite mixed, stockwork Granodiorite mixed zone Granodiorite carbonate mixed zone Granodiorite carbonate unoxidised Granodiorite unoxidised stockwork Granodiorite nontronite Dacite unoxidised undisturbed Dacite unoxidised stockwork Dacite oxidised stockwork Daciteoxidised Dacite mixed stockwork Dacite mixed No classification none Total 12 34 574249 7372 536155 3266663 42992 172414 52638 1444 8475 386123 2889 51551 14981 19214 47617 9228 26157 1872765 35471 7487 1395 1333665 13 35 81895 5789 14172 474371 268578 11927 4849 3382 561978 5613 49959 561927 2599 86249 352882 14 36 372579 221275 33726 243647 22353 559272 849168 8742 29189 38573 6881 1579 13647 16983 2934 118566 2676 568 146225 188798 477578 27529 9945738 15 37 39979 169522 414528 3664214 4514 592974 639929 185638 162759 169599 2493 9828 2591 36656 315926 98993 23481 2594 872634 1522691 359622 44142 118643 16 38 269232 125757 289619 299376 245255 45165 63528 275211 17499 113314 15 4159 1773 15792 76272 49111 7216 21739 1665456 1751865 479746 125219 1386375 17 39 421272 18977 312238 322179 441371 523864 4759 51488 16792 26373 16169 12443 16271 84343 1191285 53548 16732 65628 157949 196939 65138 58731 1269115 18 4 22551 143733 437555 4477779 364564 887857 923389 386241 27145 29533 132 4816 19627 1993 122444 12534 126 596 924865 12324 319338 3383 12479911 19 41 17949 666 64332 182677 452993 118791 32579 422349 2547 83429 136266 997911 11799 96952 719621 2 42 Total 1615557 4376697 544428 52447871 3147974 879276 17551921 5422487 21519 579295 483534 311456 2598643 136752 4189 98696 86227 4546863 485318 14164295 2892727 5917969 128966 199931624 Euromax Resources Ltd Julia Dent Draft: 55459 B2 February 29, 216

The Pump House, Coton Hill, Shrewsbury, Shropshire, SY1 2DP, United Kingdom