·    Tenement:

o  The Molaoi Project is covered by a single tenement "Exploration and Mining lease M1 (Molaoi Apidia)" in the Laconia Municipality in Greece.

o  Lease M1 is owned by Hellenic Minerals S.A, a 100% subsidiary of Rockfire Resources PLC.

o  Hellenic does not own any freehold land within the Lease area.

o  Hellenic has a lease with the Greek Government over the "METVA" area, which is used for core storage. METVA is also the location of the portal to the old decline and the crushing facility (since removed) used during trial mining.

o  The Consultant is unaware of any other commercial interests in the Lease.

o  The Consultant is aware that hills  to the west of the mining lease and wholly outside the lease boundaries are designated wilderness areas controlled by the central Greek government.  This area is designated Natura 2000 (ORI ANATOLIKIS LAKONIAS - GR2540007) protected under the Birds Directive.

o  The Environmental Permit submitted by Hellenic has an exclusion zone around the limits of the Natura reserve.  This impacts ground-disturbing exploration in the northern part of the tenement.  Hellenic intends to apply to reduce the exclusion zone to match the legal minimum measurements for such exclusion zones.  Once this application is made, and if successful, the exclusion zone will not have any encroachment on the mining lease.

·    Security of mineral and land tenure:

o  Lease M1 was granted for 30 years from March 2022.

o  The Lease permits Hellenic to explore for and exploit minerals.

o  Hellenic is required to negotiate access and operational rights with freehold landowners, and to compensate them for disturbance.

o  There are no known other impediments to operating in the area or within the Lease.

·    Historical exploration by other parties:

·    The Molaoi Project was discovered and initially explored by the Greek government geological department (IGME) in the 1980s, and subsequently continued with IGME in joint venture with a local company METVA.

·    IGME completed the generative exploration work:

o  Stream sediment sampling

o  Geological mapping

o  Soil sampling

o  Core drilling of ~175 drill holes for 29,800 m.

o  Resource estimations (not compliant with any modern reporting codes).

o  Trial underground mining (decline and 700m drive development on 2 levels).

o  Underground channel sampling

o  Underground bulk sampling.

o  Metallurgical test-work.

·    METVA completed high-level technical studies and feasibility studies.

·    Appraisal of past exploration:

o  IGME's exploration very effectively identified the presence of a layered VMS base metal deposit at Molaoi.

o  Their drilling exploration (particularly) clearly defined a mineralised zone ~1.4 km long N/S containing several layers.

o  IGME estimated ~2 Mt @ 11% zinc in their principal layer (WB) - not very different from modern estimations of a layer presumed to be the same.

·    Deposit type:

o  The Molaoi deposit was initially considered as being a zinc dominant 'Kuroko style" Volcanogenic Massive sulphide (VMS) system.

o  Debate as to the validity of the VMS model is ongoing.

o  There is a significant body of evidence which suggests that these zinc VMS deposits are actually structurally controlled hydrothermal (epigenetic) systems (possibly intrusion related).

·    Geological setting:

o  The geological and structural studies indicate a complex setting of east-dipping andesite lavas and tuffs along with clay-carbonate sediments and numerous fault breccias.

o  The package may have undergone at least three folding events (contentious).  At least one folding event is noted as being isoclinal.

o  Given the structural complexity and the relatively good level of continuation (+1,400 m long) of the zinc mineralized zones it could be unlikely that the mineralization is primary in nature, as suggested by the VMS model.  As such, the hydrothermally derived model (possibly intrusion related) could be adopted.  In any event the mineralisation is clearly generally thinly layered regionally but locally may reach 15-20 m thick.

·    Mineralisation style:

o  Base metal mineralisation is contained within thin (typically <6 m) sub-parallel east-dipping layers.

o  The thin mineralized zone layers are typically hosted in fault breccias and are represented by massive/semi-massive sulphides surrounded by zones of disseminated sulphides.

o  The sulphides consist of sphalerite, galena, and pyrite. The primary elements of interest are Zn, Pb, Ag, +/-Ge.  Low levels of cadmium have been recorded within the deposit, it is unclear as to whether or not Cd is a credit or a detriment to the mineralization at this stage.

·    Drill hole information:

o  All known historical and recent drill hole information (collar survey, hole orientation and length, and down-hole mineralised intercept depths and composite assays) are given in Appendices to the Report.

o  IGME's historical drilling from the 1980s comprised ~175 core drill holes for 29,800 m.

o  Missing IGME data:  There was a limited number of historical IGME/METVA drill holes (from late in their exploration) for which only collar positions are known (effectively from mapped locations).  No drill hole logs or assays for these particular holes were made available by IGME, and the IGME database did not contain details on these holes, other than collar positions.  The Consultant presumes these holes were drilled by METVA and the data was lost when METVA ceased to operate in the 1990s.

o  Hellenic's recent drilling from 2023 comprises 12 core drill holes for 1,866 m.

o  Hellenic's recent drilling from 2024 comprises 7 core drill holes for 2,149 m.

o  The adjacent plan diagram illustrates the great majority of historical IGME hole collar locations (blue crosses) in the southern part of the Lease area (the remaining few are to the NW out of the diagram).

o  The diagram also illustrates all recent Hellenic hole collar locations (red dots).

o  Most collars line up on E/W cross-sections (blue lines) spaced 100 m apart.

·    Reporting of data weighting, averaging and cutting:

o  NA - exploration intercept results are not being reported independently.

o  However, as part of the MRE interpreted layers, mineralisation is fully tabulated in Appendices to the Report.

·    Aggregation of intercepts:

o  NA - exploration intercept results are not being reported in this MRE Report.

o  However, as part of the MRE interpreted layer mineralisation, grades are tabulated as length-weighted composites across layer intercepts in Appendices to the Report.

·    Metal equivalent assumptions:

o  NA here.  Full details of zinc equivalent assumptions and calculation are given in Table 1, Section 3 below (estimation and reporting of Resources).

·    Mineralisation width / intercept width relationship:

o  All reported interpreted layer intercepts comprised down-hole from and to depths fully encompassing the mineralisation.

o  Thus, the mineralisation width equalled the intercept width at whatever angle the hole was to the mineralisation.

·    Hole geometry wrt mineralisation geometry:

o  Mineralisation geometry was universally interpreted as being in thin, roughly sub-parallel, steeply E-dipping (50° ±10°) N/S-striking layers separated by thicker waste (barren) layers.

o  Mineralised layers in the zone close to a drill hole were assumed to have their bounding surfaces roughly parallel (i.e. not folded).

o  Since the N/S strike was appreciated, the vast majority of drill hole plan (XY) orientations were ~E/W (±30°), normal to the strike of the mineralised layers.

o  Apart from various (mostly old) vertical drill holes, the vast majority of holes were drilled to cross mineralisation layers as close to normal to their E dip as practicable and so were angled steeply west (down 60-70° to west).

o  Thus, drilling aimed to have down-hole intercept widths close to mineralised layer true widths.

·    Relevant diagrams have been included within the main body of the Report or in Appendices to the Report.

·    N/A - exploration results are not being reported in this MRE Report.

·    Other data:

o  Other exploration data collected from the Project, and used to guide the interpretation and inform this MRE generally, included:

§ Density determinations by Rockfire - reported elsewhere (see below).

§ Bulk sample - from IGME's trial underground mining.

§ Metallurgical test-work by IGME on the bulk sampling.

§ Metallurgical test-work by Hellenic on original core drilled by IGME.

o  NA here.  Relevant details are given in Table 1, Section 3 below (estimation and reporting of Resources) and in the body of the Report.

·    Data integrity:

o  No information exists regarding the nature, quality, or appropriateness of the historical data validation by IGME (Rockfire 2022).

o  Rockfire checked historical raw drill hole collar and sample assay data in 2022.  Where possible they checked and made minor corrections to collar coordinates, hole depths, hole orientation, assay data overlaps and assay duplicates.

o  The use of an Italian government laboratory (ITMI) based in Rome for the historical results was validated by the Rockfire's re-sampling program which utilized Australian Laboratory Services (ALS).

o  New topography data was cross-checked against historical geological and topography mapping and found to match closely.

o  Drill hole data was supplied in computerised MS Excel spreadsheet form.

§ Historical collar location data was spot-checked against plotted plans matched closely.

§ Hole collars (where visible) were checked against new aerial photography matched closely.

§ A good number of historical and all new hole collar locations were confirmed during the site visit.

§ No reporting of historical assays was available to allow checking.  However Rockfire's re-sampling of core retained at HSGME correlated well and provided confidence about the accuracy of past assaying.

·    Data validation:

o  The Consultant databased all data into Minex geological software.

o  Topography data:  New topography data was contoured and compared again historical topography contours and found to match closely.

o  Drill hole data:  Gross software error data checking occurred with all drill holes during its databasing.  This caught a very minor number of collar, survey, sample depth and assay value inconsistencies.  All data issues were satisfactorily resolved and corrected by reference to logs and through common sense.  Drill holes were plotted in plan and cross-section and compared with plots in old reports.

·    Site visits:

o  The Consultant (CP for the Resource estimation and this Report) visited the site in late April 2024 in the company of Rockfire's CEO and various Hellenic (Rockfire's Greek subsidiary) personnel.

o  The visit formed a specific and comprehensive due diligence on the Project - all of which confirmed the Project's setting, geology, mineralisation and exploration.

o  The visit confirmed all geographical and (limited) geological features and presumptions of the Project area necessary for the Resource estimation.

o  Geographically the Consultant gained impressions of the Project general location, its access from the sealed road running the length of the Project area and mineral lease and the valley topography bounded by hills.  The Consultant traversed much of the southern part of the tenement on foot.

o  An impression was gained of the steeply east-dipping basement volcanics and overlying limestones.

o  A number of gossanous mineralisation outcrops were visited.

o  The Consultant confirmed the precise location of a broad selection of historical drill hole collar locations and almost all recent drill hole collar locations.

·      Geology and mineralisation 'style' interpretation:

o  The historical geological interpretation was that of a VMS type base metal deposit.

o  Zinc mineralisation occurs in a sequence of thin sub-parallel layers dipping steeply eastward and hosted within volcanic rocks.

·      Confidence in the geological interpretation:

o  The Consultant became highly confident in the VMS mineralised layer interpretation after the site inspection and data familiarization

·    Data nature, assumptions & geological controls:

o  Interpretation was based on historical descriptions and interpretations; field outcrop inspections; and interpretation of assay data.

o  The basic assumptions and geological controls were:

§ High grade primary base metal mineralisation on flat sea floors typical of other VMS deposits - interspersed by barren sediments in the geological column.

§ Occurrence of narrow sharp (distinct contacts) high-grade drill hole intercepts correlated between holes into layers.

·    Alternative interpretations:

o  The data overwhelmingly supports the current layered geology and mineralisation style interpretation and the Consultant cannot envisage an alternative one.

o  If the current interpretation was not implemented a simple semi-layered 3D grade modelling method would produce a similar Resource but much less sharp grade boundary focused.

·    Use of geology and grade continuity:

o  The geological layered VMS model appreciated early in the Project history directed most drill hole orientation to be steeply west across strike and across dip of the perceived attitude of east-dipping layers.

o  Geological grade continuity was tightly controlled by obvious correlation of mineralised intercepts in the drill holes.

o  Grade estimation was controlled within the plane of the mineralisation layering by the use of an un-folding block model - which forced continuity in the plane of the layers.

o  Grades in each layer were segregated with a unique data population domain number. 

o  Block grade estimation also employed a strong vertical direction distance weighting factor (2) to minimise vertical continuity and emphasise continuity within the layer.

·      Deposit dimensions:

o  Coordinates of the area encompassing the Lease:

§ Long polygon oriented NW/SE.

§ Lease ~7 km long NW/SE

§ Lease ~1.5 km wide SW/NE

§ Lease area ~9.4 km².

o  Resource model area:

§ Area in the SE of the tenement formed the area of all recent exploration:

o  Layer model area (of all combined layers):

§ N/S strike ~2.2 km

§ E/W width ~900 m

§ Depth ~500 m

·    ESTIMATION TECHNIQUES

·    Estimation combined several techniques:

o  Mineralised layer structures - gridded DTM surfaces.

o  Grades - "un-folding" block modelling for grade interpolation and regular block modelling for reporting.

·    Mineralised layer structure surface modelling:

o  Software:  Modelling and estimation was done in Minex Genesis software.

o  Deposit type:  Interpreted as a strongly "layered" VMS deposit.

o  Estimation methods: 

§ Geological structural layer modelling employed computerised gridded DTM surface interpolation.

§ Interpolated layers were built into an "un-folding" block model to guide block grade interpolation.

o  Appropriateness of estimation methods: 

§ Combination of surface interpolation followed by "un-folding" grade estimation along the layers considered best suited to deposit type.

§ The surface DTM method's appropriateness stems from its 3D computational capability and rigor when applied to thin "layer" deposits where manual interpretation between relatively widely spaced drill hole data points cannot match interpolation in 3D. 

§ Gridded surfaces allow simple mathematical operations within and between surfaces, including preventing over-laps. 

§ Bounding layer surfaces were interpolated from down-hole drill hole layer intercepts for each layer to give hanging wall (structure roof, SR) and foot wall (structure floor, SF) boundary surfaces.

§ "Un-folding" block model trending grade estimation as continuity in the plane of the layers considered to most closely achieve the strong observed grade trends within and along the layers.

o  Roof/floor/thickness:  Here the layer surfaces computation order was:

§ Overall 23 individual layers were interpreted in drill holes, of which 18 had enough data to model.  Layer list adjacent:

§ Floor surfaces were interpolated from the layer lower intercept depths.

§ Thicknesses were interpolated from the down-hole lengths of the layer intercepts.

§ Roof surfaces were computed by addition of the thickness surfaces to the floor surfaces.

o  Algorithm: 

§ Floor surface modelling used a trending growth algorithm to interpolate smooth natural surfaces (as opposed to straight line methods) as a regular fine mesh.  Through extrapolation this method honours local inflections away from the reference plane mean orientation.  Mesh point interpolations grow out from data points until all mesh points are estimated.

§ A long default scan distance of 1,000 m was used to produce a smooth regional surface for the method.

o  Algorithm: 

§ Thickness surface modelling used an inverse distance squared algorithm to keep interpolated values within data limits  (preventing extrapolation). 

§ A long scan distance of 500 m was used to avoid holes in surfaces caused where distances were great between drill holes. 

§ At the edges surfaces were only expanded 80 m beyond peripheral drill holes.

o  Coordinates and grid mesh size: 

§ Surfaces were interpolated within a coordinate area encompassing all drill holes with interpreted layer intercepts.

§ The adjacent figure shows a number of layers in plan view, illustrating their slightly differing locations.

§ The DTM mesh point dimensions of all surface gridded DTMs were 10*10 m.  This was considered fine enough to produce smooth surfaces honouring layer intercepts well but not be greatly finer than the ~50*100-200 m drill hole spacing.

o  Orientation: 

§ All layer surfaces were effectively sub-parallel and dipping ~45-50° to the east. 

§ The adjacent figure looks horizontally northwards at a selection of layer floors.

§ Modelling could have used an inclined reference plane dipping parallel to the layers.

§ However to avoid rotational complications all layers were modelled with respect to an (assumed) horizontal reference plane at 0 RL.

o  Boundary: 

§ No limiting boundary polygons were used.

§ Surfaces were interpolated to 80 m outside peripheral drill hole intercepts by layer.

§ This distance was less than the typical drill hole spacing (~50-100*100-200 m)

o  Stratigraphic model build:  After independent interpolation of each layer's roof and floor the suite of surfaces was 'built' into a valid model using processes to correct potential cross-overs between and within lodes.  This process resulted in near zero loss.

o  Surface naming:

§ File:  Molaoi_20240508.GRD

§ Bounding surfaces:  Layer name + suffix SR and SF.

§ Thickness surfaces:  Layer name + suffix ST.

·      Data population domains: 

o  Samples and blocks (see below) in layers were uniquely identified and segregated by domain number for assay analysis and block grade estimation.

o  Domains were set in the drill hole database and in the block models.

o  Domain numbers given above with the layer names (see layer Table above).

·      Drill hole sample analysis:

o  Base metals (zinc, lead and silver) were the focus of the Project - and mineralised drill hole intercepts were interpreted as layers based on grade.

o  Brief analysis was performed for the principal base metal zinc in the layers with most intercepts.

o  Brief interpretations showed the mineralised intercepts to be sharply anomalous against waste between layers.

·      Grade continuity control 'un-folding' block model: 

o  An 'un-folding' 3D block model (MOL1_D/Z.GR3) was built within the geological layer surface models to provide domain control within layers and to control grade trending continuity within and along the layers (the 'Z' direction in a Minex 'Z-grid' block model).  Dimensions tabulated adjacent:

o  Rotation:  As the layers were essentially in an ~45°E dipping plane the Z-grid required no rotating to have its Z axis normal to that plane (see below).

o  Extent:  The un-folding block model was given a smaller and tighter plan extent than the default used for interpolating the layers.  The extent covered all 18 layers being modelled.

o  Block size:  XY block size set at 10 * 40 m to be roughly 25% of the minimum drill hole spacing of ~50 * 1-200 m (some holes 100 * 200 m).

o  Block Z size and number: 

§ Block numbers set according to layer average vertical thicknesses. 

§ Aim to approximate Z block size 0.5 m.

§ Each mineralised layer given unique domain number.

§ Parameters tabulated adjacent:

·      Grade block estimation:

o  3D block grades were estimated into individual grade block models for each element.  The block grade models had the same coordinate parameters as the un-folding model (see above).

o  Estimation parameters tabulated:

o  Continuity:  Data search directions within the layers were controlled by the un-folding block model, and layer data was segregated by domain number.  A vertical (Z) distance weighting of 1.5 was used to enhance continuity in the plane (XY) of the layering.

o  Compositing:  Down-hole drill hole sample compositing done to 0.5 m + residuals +50%.

o  Algorithm:  Inverse distance squared (ID2) done in a single pass.  Interpolation of grades in two passes (to overcome issues of very localised highly anomalous grades) was considered but not undertaken because of the limited numbers of high grade samples in particular.  In a 2 pass estimation an initial 1st pass uses all samples whilst a 2nd pass uses only high grade samples with severely restricted scan distances to over-write blocks close to the high grades.

o  Scan distance: 

§ A scan of 250 m was used to ensure grades were estimated in all blocks.

§ Distance was ~25% longer than generally longest N/S distances between drill holes.

§ In practice the boundary limit around the layer surfaces (and hence block model) limited actual scans to <80 m.

o  Data limits: 

§ No lower cut or clip limits were applied or required as the layer intercept interpretation process had effectively applied a lower 0.2 % zinc cut-off already.

§ No upper cut of clip was applied because of 1) the limited number of anomalous high grades, 2) their short intervals, and 3) the positive desire to allow the few high grades to register higher grades in some blocks.

o  Estimation stats tabulated:

·      Grade reporting block model:

o  A normal "orthogonal-shaped" block model (MOL1.G3*, simply called a block model or a block database) was built from the un-folding block model.  Parameters tabulated adjacent:

o  Block sizes/numbers to cover the same coordinates as the un-folding block model.

o  Primary block sizes were based on the un-folding block model for X and Y.  Z assigned a fixed 10 m vertically to be the same as X for the ~45° east dipping layers.  So primary blocks 10 * 40 * 10 m.

o  Primary blocks sub-blocked 5 * 2 * 5 to increase resolution across strike along layer surfaces.  So minimum sub-block potentially 2 * 20 * 2 m.

o  Block grades were loaded from the individual grade block models (see above).

o  Other variables, such as grade totals and JORC classification variables, were computed using SQL macros.

·      Grade block manipulation:

o  Zinc equivalent (ZnEq) calculated with an SQL from zinc, lead and silver

o  Elements factorised on 3 month average metals prices to 25^th July 2024 and historical Molaoi metallurgical recoveries.  Computations tabulated:

·      Check estimates:

o  Resource estimate could be partially checked (for 1 layer and minor parts of 3 others) against historic estimates (non-JORC) made by IGME in the 1980s during the original exploration; and against Rockfire's 2022 (JORC estimate); and against SRK's 2023 (non-JORC) reconciliation of Rockfire's estimate.

o  Those estimates of historic layer West Zone B could approximately be checked against this layer L3 as they covered similar areas and the new recent drilling by Hellenic did not increase the area but represented internal in-fill drilling simply supplying more grades.  The comparison also appears valid as densities were similar and Rockfire's ZnEq calculation was similar to here as parameters had not changed dramatically.  Comparisons are tabulated adjacent:

o  Rockfire's comparison to IGME's estimate had 15% more tonnes at 15% less zinc grade, resulting in virtually the same contained zinc - a close comparison.

o  Similary SRK's comparison to Rockfire had 14% more tonnes at a similarly lower zinc grade, resulting in contained zinc being 6% less - also a close comparison.

o  GeoRes's comparison to Rockfire and SRK had 13% more tonnes then Rockfire (and the same as SRK) at slightly lower zinc grades than both, resulting in 14% less contained zinc then Rockfire and 9% less than SRK.

o  GeoRes considers that its L3 estimate reconciles well with Rockfire's and very well with SRK's.

o  All other 17 layers interpreted here were not estimated in the pas and cannot be checked.

·      By-product recovery:

o  Elements other than base metals and germanium were effectively not considered in this Resource estimate, hence most potential by-products were not considered.

o  However germanium has recently been assayed for and is a common by-product of some zinc deposits.

o  GeoRes provides a quantity estimate for germanium, and considers that the significant tonnage and reasonable grade would position germanium as by-product if it proves amenable to extraction from residues of zinc beneficiation.

·      Deleterious elements:

o  No deleterious elements have been considered or are known of

·      Block size - sample size relationship:

o  Situation:

o  Block sizes:  Major block sizes were moderate at 10 * 40 * 10 m - and not considered too small for the typical data spacing.  Sub-blocking (5*2*5) reduces those sizes along the edges of layers in a proportionate way.

o  Sample spacing: 

o  Down-hole sampling was typically of the order of 1 m.

o  Drill N/S section spacing was typically 100 m, sporadically 200 m.

o  Hole E/W spacing on section was ~50 to 100 m.

o  Data search distances:  Maximum ~250 m.

o  Distance relationships:

o  Plan block sizes were considered well-proportioned to drill hole spacing (20-25% in X and Y).

o  Vertical block sizes were considered very well-proportioned to down-hole sampling intervals (100% bigger in Z).

·      Model - SMU relationship:

o  No specific focus on selective mining units (SMU) occurred.

o  However The primary 10*40*10 m block size, with potential sub-blocking to 2*20*2 m, would be similar in size to an underground mining SMU - given that the Consultant considers that mining by underground would be probable.

o  IGME's underground mining was done in drives of those dimensions.

·      Correlation between variables:

o  No work on variable correlation was done.

o  However it was clear that the base metals were typically closely corelated, a feature used extensively through the mineralised layer intercept interpretation.

·      Geological interpretation control of estimate:

o  Previously described in detail - mineralised intercept interpretation layer by layer in each drill hole sub-parallel to volcanic layering.

o  In summary - the block grade estimates were fundamentally controlled by the geological interpretation of strong layered sub-parallel mineralization.  Mineralised layers were specifically modelled to match layer shapes and grades estimated in them were confined by domain control and by the use of 'un-folding' modelling to emphasise layer continuity along them.

·      Grade cutting/capping use:

o  No grade cutting of clipping was used.

o  Justification for this was

o  Layer interpretations had effectively already clipped out low grades (below 300 ppm TREO).

o  Highly anomalous grades were relatively uncommon and where they existed the Consultant considered that they should be incorporated to realistically allow the known high grade shutes to be represented.  The fact that REEs consist of 15 individual elements, each individually estimated here before being combined into totals meant that high values in any one of the elements had limited impact overall.

o  The Consultant considers that individual anomalously high grades could potentially be clipped in future estimation, after consideration hole-by-hole, if they were found to be completely isolated.

·      Estimate validation:

o  Block geology validation:

§ Volume report:  Initial check to compare volumes reported within geological layer model surfaces with volumes reported from the blocks built from them.  Expect almost exact match.  Checks all considered acceptable.

§ Plots:  Visual cross-sectional plot comparison of block boundaries with geological model surface intersections.  Particular focus on validity of the blocks in each layer (possibly corrupt if the raw surfaces overlapped).  Also check of block domain assignments.  Comparisons considered good.

o  Block grade estimate validation:

§ Estimate stats:  Initial basic check to compare overall (not on a lode/domain basis) stats given during the block estimation - input drill sample stats with output estimated grade stats.  Expect reasonable but not exact match.  Particular focus on closeness of the maximums and the raw averages.  Results considered acceptable.

§ Plots:  Methodical visual cross-sectional plot comparison of colour-coded block grades with annotated drill hole samples.  Comparisons considered acceptable.

·    Estimate reconciliation:

o  Estimate reconciliation:  Described above under "Check estimates" for the L3 layer.  Not possible for other layers as they were not previously interpreted.

o  The Consultant's overall view here was that the past 2022 Resource estimate by Rockfire was completely valid in itself (and as confirmed by SRK's 2023 review) but only represented a very small proportion of this Resource.

·    Moisture: 

o  Tonnage was calculated using dry density.

·    Resource grade cut-off:

·    A lower cut-off of 4% zinc was used in reporting Resources.

·    Basis:

o  Zinc was the predominant base metal in the deposit.

o  A 4% zinc cut-off was seen as reasonable and conservative when compared to a wide range of similar VMS deposits.

o  The value was also seen to be appropriate to envisaged underground mining.

o  The 400 ppm cut-off also corresponded to the bottom end of direct tonnage correlation in the grade/tonnage curve.

o  A 4% cut-off lies approximately mid-way down the left-hand linear portion of the grade/tonnage curve and well away from smaller tonnages associated with the high grade tail produced by higher cut-offs.

o  The Consultant agrees with SRK's 2023 comment that an alternative cut-off method could be based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR) value where each metal's value contributes.  However the Consultant did not go into that deeper level of refinement considering that the deposit is open in all directions and that further exploration could be expected to alter parameters to the good.

·      Mining factors & assumptions:

o  The Consultant assumed future extraction by underground "narrow vein" type mining.

o  Underground mining was undertaken successfully at Molaoi (within the current Lease) by IGME in the 1980s.  That mining involved a 700 m decline and then drives on two levels.

o  Narrow vein type mining would be highly applicable to the deposit's layers, in scale and geological form.  It would also minimize dilution by being highly selective.

o  Envisaged mineral processing would be concentration by flotation on site. Underground bulk sampling and metallurgical test-work in the 1980s produced high recoveries >90%.

o  Exports of concentrates would presumably be highly feasible through trucking on local sealed roads to local ports.

·    Metallurgical assumptions:

o  Past metallurgical test work on bulk samples from IGME's 1980's underground mining showed Molaoi's (fresh) sulphide ore to be amenable to simple flotation separation, with high recoveries reported (95.8 % for Zn, 91.8 % for Pb, and 91 % for Ag).

o  Test-work on oxidized material proved inconclusive.

o  Results of that test work was used in various historical process flow studies.

o  The possibility of germanium extraction as a by-product was apparently not studied in the past - but would be suggested by the good quantities indicated in this estimate.

·    Environmental factors/assumptions:

o  The Consultant is generally unaware of any potentially negative impacts of the Project environmentally.

o  Envisaged underground mining would minimize environmental impacts in comparison the opencut mining.

o  Underground mining could potentially reduce waste by back-filling stopes.

o  Flotation concentration on site would pose minimal environmental risk.

o  Further concentration and smelting is not envisaged on-site and would occur where the flotation concentrated would be shipped to (potentially Northern Greece).

·    Bulk density:

o  A considerable number of density measurements were undertaken by Rockfire.

o  Measurements were used to produce a regression formula (SG = [2.5481 + (0.0284 * Zn%)]) for density based on zinc content.

o  Density determination using water displacement method:   Density was determined from the weight and volume of samples of 10-15 cm long pieces of core.  Volume was determined by wrapping the core in plastic and measuring its displacement of water.  Rockfire found this to be reliable with sample weights >700 g.

o  The Consultant used a default density of 2.7 t/m³ for the Resource estimate.  This value was seen to be very close (within 2%) when applied to the average zinc grades in the Resource.

·    Density accounting for rock variability:

o  Rockfire's dry density determinations were consistently made but could not fully account for rock variability due to the varied nature of mineralised intervals, and particularly by the broken and poor quality of parts of the mineralisation.

·    Assumptions behind density estimates:

o  Density determination relied heavily on sample recovery being 100%.

·    JORC classification:  See Section 20.2 in the Report.

o  Previous classification:  2022 Resources were classified as Inferred (according to JORC (2012 Edition) by the CP Mr Ed Fry for Rockfire.

o  Current classification:  The Consultant considered here that 100% of these base metal Resources should all be classified as Inferred, according to JORC (2012 Edition).

o  The "quantities" of germanium estimated alongside the base metals are not reported according to JORC and are un-classified.

o  Basis for Inferred classification:

§ The Consultant's opinion was that all data and its modelling strongly implies geological and grade continuity along thinnish layers at Molaoi. 

§ However the lack of assaying and geological logging for many parts of historical drill holes resulted in layers too frequently being implied from holes either side (over long distances (>200 m) in places) rather than being firmly interpreted.  Incomplete assaying and logging of historical drill holes meant that many layers geologically interpreted for this Resource could not be reliably interpreted in historical holes, requiring interpolation of their positions and assignment of zero thickness.

§ GeoRes accepts that "comprehensive" verification should not imply "complete" verification - but rather mean in a generalised sense that all combined old and new data meets a certain threshold of overall data compatibility.  The Consultant does not believe that threshold has been met.

§ The extent to which layer positions required interpolation would not "allow the application of Modifying Factors in sufficient detail to support mine planning".

§ Notwithstanding that this 2024 Resource includes data from new Hellenic drilling to add to the historical IGME drilling, GeoRes's classification position generally mirrors previous positions (particularly as detailed by SRK).  That is to say that the lack of "comprehensive" verification of historical data coupled with the inability to fully correlate it with new data prevents a higher classification.

·      Accounting for relevant factors:

o  The CP considers that appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors.

o  The most relevant factor influencing the Inferred decision was the incomplete knowledge of historical drill hole logging.

·      CP's view of classification: 

o  The CP has a very positive opinion of the deposit in scale and grade, and that it remains open in all directions.

o  The CP considers data analysis results, drill hole spacing, and Resource estimation methods used fully support the classification given.

o  The Consultant believes that a reasonable proportion of the current Inferred Resources would be very readily be upgraded to at least the Indicated class most cost-effectively by relatively minimal continued exploration drilling amongst the recent Hellenic 2023 and 2024 drill holes where they were closest and most evenly spaced to achieve an even spacing envisaged as <75 m.

o  Furthermore a more considerable portion of the current Resource could be upgraded by a larger program in-fill drilling between existed drill holes to halve the current along-strike 100 m E/W cross-section spacing to 50 m.

·    Audits:

o  The Project and the previous Rockfire 2022 Resource estimate was reviewed by SRK in 2023.

o  That "high level" review looked at Project data, exploration techniques and previous Resource estimates.  It included a site visit and computation of a check estimate.

o  On Rockfire's MRE SRK comments were positive and noted that:

§ The approach to modelling was the best possible considering the data available.

§ Rockfire's 2% zinc cut-off for interpreting layer intercepts could have been lower so as to include more lower grade intervals.

§ Block size used was too small relative to data spacing, but considering the Inferred status this was not material.

§ The Inferred classification was appropriate.

§ The reporting 4% zinc cut-off should be replaced by an NSR value.

§ Metal price assumptions should be long-term forecasts rather than spot prices.

§ SRK's check estimate returned figure very close to Rockfire's, thus validating it and proving Rockfire's estimation approach to be reasonable.

§ SRK noted the potential for additional Resources in the model area as additional lenses in both the hanging wall and the footwall and along strike.  They noted "The mineralisation drilled and modelled to date is quite continuous and suggests that it is likely that extensions to existing modelled zones, as well as additional zones of mineralisation, will be located with additional exploration".  They added that "There are additional significant intersections on the project that have not been modelled to date and suggest even further potential".

§ The Consultant strongly agrees with comments in the last paragraph, and included those additional intersections and more in this 2024 Resource.