Challenger Underground MRE Doubles to 230koz @ 3.65 g/t Au

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

TOTAL

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

—

—

—

0.11

4.82

17

1.64

3.60

190

1.75

3.68

207

Challenger Deeps

(below 90mRL)

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.21

3.50

23

0.21

3.50

23

—

—

—

0.15

2.23

10

0.05

1.94

3

0.20

2.15

14

—

—

—

0.01

6.66

2

0.00

3.3

0.2

0.01

6.1

2

—

—

—

0.18

0.86

5

0.20

0.69

4

0.38

0.77

9

—

—

—

0.21

0.89

6

0.07

0.68

1.63

0.29

0.84

8

—

—

—

3.19

0.54

56

—

—

—

3.19

0.54

56

—

—

—

5.13

0.31

52

—

—

—

5.13

0.31

52

—

—

—

8.98

0.51

148

2.17

3.18

222

11.2

1.03

370

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

TOTAL

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.98

2.84

89.4

0.98

2.84

89.4

Challenger Deeps

(below 90mRL)

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.21

3.50

23.0

0.21

3.50

23.0

—

—

—

0.17

2.69

14.8

0.48

3.61

55.2

0.65

3.36

70.0

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.03

10.7

11.6

0.03

10.7

11.6

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.40

0.95

12.2

0.40

0.95

12.2

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

—

3.19

0.54

55.5

—

—

—

3.19

0.54

55.5

—

—

—

5.13

0.31

51.8

—

—

—

5.13

0.31

51.8

—

—

—

8.49

0.45

122

2.09

2.84

191

10.6

0.92

313

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

TOTAL

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Oxide

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.00

0.62

—

0.00

0.62

0

Transitional

—

—

—

0.01

1.34

0

0.01

1.00

0

0.01

1.14

1

Fresh

—

—

—

0.18

2.12

12

0.11

1.89

7

0.30

2.03

19

Subtotal

—

—

—

0.19

2.10

13

0.12

1.82

7

0.31

1.99

20

Oxide

—

—

—

0.16

1.20

6

—

—

—

0.16

1.20

6

Fresh

—

—

—

0.05

1.40

2

—

—

—

0.05

1.40

2

Subtotal

—

—

—

0.22

1.23

9

—

—

—

0.22

1.23

9

—

—

—

0.41

1.63

21

0.12

1.82

7

0.53

1.68

29

Measured

Indicated

Inferred

TOTAL

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Mt

g/t Au

Koz Au

Oxide

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.00

0.62

—

0.00

0.62

0

Transitional

—

—

—

0.01

1.34

0

0.01

1.00

0

0.01

1.14

1

Fresh

—

—

—

0.18

2.12

12

0.11

1.89

7

0.30

2.03

19

Subtotal

—

—

—

0.19

2.10

13

0.12

1.83

7

0.31

1.99

20

Oxide

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.17

1.20

7

0.17

1.20

7

Fresh

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.06

1.40

3

0.06

1.40

3

Subtotal

—

—

—

—

—

—

0.23

1.30

10

0.23

1.30

10

—

—

—

0.19

2.10

13

0.35

1.48

17

0.54

1.70

30

Cut off

Resource

Area

Tonnes

Grade
(Au g/t)

Gold (koz)

> 0.3 g/t

Indicated

M lodes

50,000

1.98

3.20

SEZ lodes

96,000

2.36

7.28

W lodes

10,000

6.66

2.11

SW lodes

182,000

0.86

5.05

CH3 lode

212,000

0.89

6.07

> 0.3 g/t

Inferred

M lodes

50,000

1.98

3.20

SEZ lodes

4,000

1.40

0.18

W lodes

2,000

3.33

0.24

SW lodes

198,000

0.69

4.39

CH3 lode

74,000

0.68

1.63

> 1.0 g/t

Indicated

M lodes

98,000

3.99

12.6

SEZ lodes

6,000

2.69

0.52

W lodes

7,000

19.1

4.02

> 1.0 g/t

Inferred

M lodes

1,120,000

3.93

141.4

SEZ lodes

430,000

2.24

30.86

W lodes

88,000

6.12

17.39

2,627,000

2.84

240.1

Indicated Material

tonnes (t)

Grade (Au g/t)

Gold (koz)

TSF1

3,190,000

0.54

55.5

TSF2

5,130,000

0.31

51.8

Total

8,330,000

0.40

107.3

Optional Presentation

Resource Cut Off Assumptions

Open Pit

Underground

Area

Units

Value

Value

Challenger Gold Project

• 370koz Au + fully permitted Central Gawler Mill (CGM)

Tarcoola Gold Project

• 29koz Au in fully permitted open pit mine near CGM
• Tolmer discovery grades up to 84g/t Au & 17,600g/t Ag

Tunkillia Gold Project

• 1.6Moz Au & 3.1Moz Ag JORC Mineral Resources
• Competitive 120kozpa gold & 250kozpa silver project

Wudinna Gold Project

• 279koz Au project located southeast of Tunkillia
• Significant optionality, adjacent to main highway

Sampling techniques

Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.

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

Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. “RC drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay”). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information

Challenger open pit and underground resources

All primary samples used in the estimate are from either diamond drilling and included chip sampling and sludge drilling where available, or from RC drilling completed in early 2026.

Core has been whole core sampled for UG BQ drilling or half core sampled for NQ surface drilling. The sample volume for the half NQ sample is approximately 13% lower than the whole core BQ sample. Face samples weigh between 2 and 5 kg. Sludge samples are collected from 78 mm open production holes. The open hole is capped by the stuffing box of the sludge rig, allowing for sample collection.

No second half core sampling or other formal sampling imprecision work on primary sampling has been undertaken. Primary samples are not weighed.

The deposit contains particulate gold and has a high level of imprecision in the data based on duplicate crushed material subsampling results in work undertaken by the onsite laboratory.

Based on the current nature of the drillhole assay data and its distribution/location the models produced can only be used for a global estimate and are suitable for Scoping level Studies. It is considered that for better local estimation larger primary sample volumes are required given the particulate gold present in the deposit (whole HQ core or UG RC drilling).

Face chip and open hole percussion ‘sludge’ samples have been collected for grade control during the mine’s operation. Analysis of their subsampling and analytical imprecision indicates they have similar imprecision to DDH data. There is no sampling QAQC data from chip sampling or sludge drilling, yet they have been included to increase the number of available samples for interpolation given sampling and assay imprecision in the data.

Sampling during Barton Gold’s 2026 RC drill programs at Challenger was obtained through the reverse circulation (RC) method.

One-metre splits were constrained by chute and butterfly valves to derive a 2-4kg split on the cyclone.

3m composite samples were also collected from the upper parts of drill holes where gold mineralisation was not anticipated as informed by previous drilling results, to be assayed as check on confirmation of no materially significant mineralisation being present. 3m samples were submitted for laboratory analysis at Bureau Veritas (Adelaide). The samples were analysed by method FA1 where the 2-3kg split sample received at the laboratory is weighed, dried, crushed to 10mm, pulverized to 75 micron and split to provide a 40g sample for fire assay analysis.

1m samples were submitted for laboratory analysis at Australian Laboratory Service (ALS). The sample preparation was conducted by ALS (Adelaide) using methods CRU-32a & SPL-32a where samples are weighed, dried, crushed to -5mm and a nominal 500g split derived. Splits are analysed by ALS (Perth) using the photon assay method (Au-PA01).

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Aircore (AC) &/or reverse circulation (RC) drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which nominal 7kg (AC) or 20kg (RC) samples were obtained, to derive a 40g charge for fire assay analysis of gold.

Drilling techniques

Drill type (e.g. core, RC, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Diamond drilling data used is dominantly whole core BQ /LTK48 with some half core NQ drilling in surface holes. Sparce surface holes are the only data below ~70RL.

Oriented core has not been used in underground drilling. Surface drilling has been oriented with a spear technique, but the data was not available for this work.

All surface drilling has been single shot electronic surveyed on 30m nominal intervals.

Sludge drilling was a routine grade control process and utilised a converted underground blasthole rig drilling 76mm diameter holes. Holes were drilled through a collar stuffing box established within an oversize collar hole. Samples were collected into a rotating sample bag holder below the stuffing box outlet. Sample weights were not collected. Sludge holes were dominantly steeply inclined into the backs of the drives.

2026 RC drilling by Barton Gold used a face-sampling 5 ¾” RC drilling technique undertaken by Kennedy Drilling using a SREPS SR650 drilling rig with auxiliary compressor delivering a nominal 1000psi / 2200cfm air.

Drill holes were surveyed using the OMNIx42 north seeking gyro orientation system at 5m intervals down hole.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

AC & RC drilling was undertaken on TSF1 to derive samples for assaying and metallurgical investigations. AC drilling only was undertaken on TSF2.

Drill sample recovery

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

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

Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Recovery data was collected at the logging stage with core loss logged as a specific lithology.

The gneissic host rock and gold bearing quartz veining is very competent and core loss is not significant based on a review of the database and core photos from past underground and surface drilling.

As loss is a logged interval, it is not assayed as no sample exists in total loss zones. Where core loss resulted in poor core (low RQD) assays do occur in core loss affected intervals the average grade in the database is 3 g/t Au

No relationship between grade and recovery has been identified in previous work.

RC drilling

Drilling recoveries were qualitatively described for each drilled interval in the field database along with an estimation of moisture content. In general recoveries were good, in the order of 25-35kg for each one-metre interval. Minor water was encountered in some drill holes and moist samples comprise <1% of sampling overall. No reduced sample weights were recorded with moist intervals and a review of results does not indicate contamination between adjacent samples. Samples submitted to the laboratory were weighed on a dry, as-received basis and reported along with assay results.

No relationship between grade and recovery has been identified

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Drilling recoveries were qualitatively described for each drilled interval in the field database along with an estimation of moisture content. Poor recovery was generally confined to (waste rock) sheeting above TSF1.

No relationship between grade and recovery has been identified in previous work.

Logging

Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.

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

The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

All drill core is geologically (lithology, mineralisation, structure) and geotechnically (Q-system) logged down to cm-scale (for fine structures). Any leucosome greater than 0.20m in length is recorded as a separate lithology. The logging is quantitative in nature as lithology percentages and compositions are recorded and all geotechnical logging relies on measurements for calculation of Q.

All RC samples have a portion washed and placed into a chip tray for logging. This logging comprises qualitative geological records (lithology and mineralisation) on a sample scale (generally 1 m samples).

All Sludge samples have a portion washed and placed into a chip tray for logging. This logging comprises qualitative geological records (lithology and mineralisation) on a sample scale (generally 0.75-0.90m samples). As sludge drilling was done as a part of the production cycle, the chips were retained for a maximum of six months (the maximum ‘life cycle’ of any particular stope block) before being discarded. No photographs are retained of the sludge chips.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Barton Gold Aircore drilling of tailings facility material was not logged.

All Barton Gold RC drilling of tailings facility material (TSF1) was electronically logged for lithology, weathering and colour. Metre-by metre samples are stored in chip trays which are photographed and electronically stored. Data is stored in an MS Access database.

Subsampling techniques and sample preparation

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

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

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

Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.

Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in-situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.

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

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The full dataset is used (diamond drilling samples plus chip and sludge samples).

Core has been whole core sampled for UG BQ drilling or half core sampled for NQ2 surface drilling. The sample volume for either sample is approximately equal.

No second half core sampling or other formal sampling imprecision work on primary sampling has been undertaken.

The deposit contains particulate gold and has a high level of imprecision in the assay data based on duplicate crushed material subsampling results from work undertaken by the onsite laboratory.

The RC drilling program used an Ox sampling system cone splitter mounted on the cyclone with one-metre splits constrained by chute and butterfly valves to derive a 2-4kg split on the cyclone. The majority (>99.5%) of samples were dry and when samples were wet they were recorded in the sampling records. Field Duplicate samples are collected from a second chute from the cone splitter, which otherwise discards this portion of sample. Duplicate sampling was undertaken through targeted zones of mineralisation at a ratio of 1 in 2 samples, with 1 in 6 duplicates samples (ie 1 in 12 overall) submitted for initial analysis with the remaining samples retained for future analysis if warranted. Certified reference materials (CRMs) and coarse (field) blanks were included in the sampling sequence at a ratio of 1 in 50 each. The sampling, assaying and quality control workflows are considered to be appropriate to the style of mineralisation being assessed.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

AC samples were collected from the drill rig cyclone and passed through a 3-tier riffle splitter to derive 1m samples between 1-2kg in weight.

RC samples were derived from a cone splitter mounted beneath the cyclone to produce samples weighing approximately 1-2kg.

The majority of samples (>97%) from all TSF drilling were dry.

Duplicate samples were routinely collected for both AC and RC drilling utilising the sample splitting methods.

Quality of assay data and laboratory tests

The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.

For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.

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

Challenger open pit and underground resources

All pre-Barton sample types at Challenger are assayed on-site using the PAL1000 process which uses accelerated Cn leaching of a ~400 g crushed aliquot during pulverisation within a steel flask using grinding media plus an accelerant tablet. This technique has been applied due to the recognised high nugget of the deposit yet yields imprecise and at times biased data.

Primary samples are crushed to -10mm top size then rotary sample divided (RSD) to produce the flask charge. The resultant slurry is subsampled to ~100 ml and centrifuged with the leachate then diluted and read for Au via an AAS instrument.

As only leachable gold is recovered in the process the method is considered ‘partial’ although no indications of refractory/nonleachable Au were reported or recognised over the mine life.

Duplicate samples (1:25) indicate a high level of imprecision and bias in the primary assay vs duplicate. The bias is thought to be due to poor subsampling practices where operators hand grab material circumventing the effective working of the RSD.

CRM materials also run through the process indicate sporadic accuracy issues and blanks indicate a level of material carry over between flask charges can occur in the process.

External fire assay (FA) checks indicate an overall bias between PAL1000 data and external lab data where original PAL data is biased high compared to FA data. This is thought to be largely due to the larger charge size better capturing the nuggety gold (~400 g v 50 g). Biases in subsampling errors when obtaining the check samples from crushed residues should also be considered.

RC drilling

The fire assay method and photon assay method are both complete digestion and analysis methods. The photon assay method, when used in combination with RC drilling to derive a systematic reduced sample from a large primary sample, enables production of results considered more representative and with greater precision (repeatability) than the fire assay method. The fire assay is still considered appropriate for providing assessment, particularly in areas outside of predicted mineralisation.

Quality control (QC) procedures are described under subsampling techniques and preparation and the results of the QC analysis have confirmed acceptable levels of accuracy and precision in the results.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

1-2kg splits were sent to Bureau Veritas in Adelaide for preparation and analysis using a fire assay technique for gold. Bureau Veritas’ FA1 method uses a 40g lead collection fire assay with AAS finish to a 0.01 ppm detection limit.

Barton Gold’s RC and AC programs includes a comprehensive QAQC component with Field Duplicate samples taken at intervals of every 50^th sample; Certified Standards (selection of OREAS CRM’s considered most appropriate for expected grade and composition) were inserted at frequencies of every 50th sample submitted; blanks inserted in sequence at every 50th sample submitted. Additionally, the laboratories provided their internal QAQC which included check samples, CRM’s, blanks and repeats.

No geophysical studies were used in the course of Barton Gold drilling programs.

Verification of sampling and assaying

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

The use of twinned holes.

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

Discuss any adjustment to assay data.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

PAL1000 assays are duplicated during the primary batch at 1:25 (termed R1 assays) but are also duplicated on request (termed R2 assays) to verify assays over 2 g/t Au. R2 sample requests also include flanking intervals. Analysis of original assay / R1 and original assay / R2 paired data for the Challenger Deeps area indicates original samples are around 7% higher grade on average than R1 duplicates and 13% higher than R2 duplicates. These biases are believed to come from improper subsampling where hand grabbing of duplicate ‘splits’ from crushed residue bags reduces fines content.

Imprecision is a material issue for the data as is relatively small aliquot in the PAL1000 compare to the ‘industry standard’ of total sample preparation by pulverising mill. The verification of specific significant intersections is difficult in this high nugget environment where 50-60% of gold is recovered in the gravity circuit.

No holes within Challenger Mine are twinned, data processing and management uses an access database.

Alternative company personnel have verified significant intersections from the 2026 drilling program contributing to the MRE.

No twinned holes were undertaken on the programs included in this MRE.

All data collected in the reported program including collar details, drilling records, sampling records and geological logs are recorded directly into spreadsheets in the field which includes comprehensive interval validation processes.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Four AC holes were twinned with RC on TSF1, with 73 sample pairs show a good correlation between drilling methods. RC results returned a +ve bias in samples less than 0.8 g/t and AC assays returned a +ve bias in samples above 0.8 g/t with all quantiles within 10% error bars.

Significant intersections were reviewed and verified by alternative company personnel.

Location of data points

Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and downhole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.

Specification of the grid system used.

Quality and adequacy of topographic control.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

All drillhole collars have been surveyed in by site surveyors using total station equipment. Underground drilling has used the mine survey control system to establish drill hole, sludge and chip sample location.

Surface drilling within Challenger Deeps has hole lengths of 1500-1600m. Survey errors in long holes compound creating locational uncertainty particularly critical for narrow lode deposits such as at Challenger. This locational uncertainty can impact confidence in interpretation where lode intercepts cannot be confidently correlated over long distances/depths.

Data is located within a metric grid based on the surveyed mine coordinate system. For grid conversion see the prior public report (2017 resource statement, local -> AMG).

Topographic control is not critical in this environment as the terrain is very flat and the site under survey control due to mining activity / statutory requirements.

2026 RC drilling

Gyro downhole surveys (at 10m intervals) and assay results were provided in digital format.

No adjustments were made to any assay data.

All RC drill collars were sited using a hand-held DGPS system. The co-ordinates of completed drill holes are updated following survey pickup of drill holes using a Leica DGPS system with 0.01m horizontal accuracy.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Collar positions for TSF drill holes were set out with a differential GPS utilising UTM co-ordinates in the GDA94 (EPSG:4283) datum.

Challenger Mine Reduced Level (RL) = AHD + 1000m so AHD 193m level = 1193mRL.

Transformations between AMG84 (EPSG:20353) and local grids: origin, azimuth

AMG origin and azimuth conversions are based on the following coinciding points.

Challenger Mine Grid North 0° = 329.0° MAGNETIC

Challenger Mine Grid North 0° = 333° 14’41” AMG84 (EPSG:20353) (grid bearing + 26°45’19” = AMG84 (EPSG:20353) bearing)

Challenger Mine Grid 31° = Magnetic North 0°

Data spacing and distribution

Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.

Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.

Whether sample compositing has been applied.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Data spacing in the resource areas are variable and in general significantly less in the Challenger Deeps (former) resource below 90 mRL than in the Remnants around production areas. Diamond drilling is on a nominal 20-25m vertical x 10-15m horizontal grid while chip sampling exists on most faces and along sidewalls on 3m intervals. Sludge drilling is on 10-20m spaced up-hole rings along drives.

Sampling intervals has been dominantly 1 m in diamond drilling, RC drilling and face chips while sludge drilling has been sampled on 0.8-1.0 m intervals.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Drill holes for evaluating the TSFs were undertaken on an equidimensional 50m x 50m spacing which is considered appropriate for the style of mineralisation contained with the TSF’s.

No sample compositing has been applied.

Orientation of data in relation to geological structure

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

If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Diamond drilling platforms were limited underground, and so highly skewed angles can exist between the drillhole and lodes on the extremities of the pattern coverage.

In general, drillhole intercepts in the remnant areas are at high angles to the lodes and so are well oriented for lode definition.

Face sampling is ideally located across lode trends given drives follow the orebody. Wall sampling and sludge drilling is less optimally oriented often located along or parallel to the structure and its boundaries. All lode models were primarily developed on drilling data with local adjustments made using sub-optimally oriented data where required.

Lode trends are well established from mining activity on the levels above and below and interpretation. In general, the lode boundary models show a high level of geological continuity and the shoots are strongly anisotropic.

The RC drill holes were oriented to optimally test predicted mineralised structures and positions. The majority of drill holes were drilled on sections perpendicular to the strike of mineralisation, with some adjustments required on account of logistical constraints dictated by existing surface infrastructure availability of drilling sites.

No material bias has been introduced on account of drilling orientations and subsequent modelling will account for variations in the drilling orientations with respect to the modelled mineralisation.

On account of the complex, variable and sometimes steeply dipping orientation to mineralised lodes, most reported intersections will be inconsistent with respect to true width of mineralisation.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Mineralisation in the TSFs follows sedimentary depositional processes and vertical drilling suitably achieves unbiased sampling.

Sample security

The measures taken to ensure sample security.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Samples were not transported off site for analysis, so the chain of sample custody was very short. Sample submission paperwork was used for all batches submitted to the onsite lab.

2026 RC drilling

Barton Gold staff oversaw the sampling on the RC drill rig and maintained oversight of sample security whilst onsite during the drilling programs. Split samples were inserted into pre-printed calico bags. These tied bags were, in batches of 5, ziplocked into labelled poly-weave bags which were inserted into ziplocked Bulka-bags. The bulka bags were strapped onto pallets and either transported and delivered to the laboratory by Barton Gold personnel, or loaded by a Barton Gold representative on to a semitrailer for transport to the laboratories in Adelaide. The trailers were not unloaded whilst in transit.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Barton Gold staff oversaw the sampling on the AC &RC drill rigs and maintained oversight of sample security whilst onsite during the drilling programs. Split samples were inserted into pre-printed calico bags. These tied bags were, in batches of 5, ziplocked into labelled poly-weave bags which were inserted into Bulka-bags. The bulka bags were strapped onto pallets and either transported and delivered to the laboratory by Barton Gold personnel or loaded by a Barton Gold representative on to a semitrailer for transport to the laboratories in Adelaide. The trailers were not unloaded whilst in transit.

Audits or reviews

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

Challenger open pit and underground resources

A review of the operation in 2018 by SRK Consulting found no concerns with assay data. A more recent internal peer review of the exploration data processes has been completed by Barton Gold which has included a detailed review of the assay, survey and QAQC data.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Sampling techniques and data was reviewed by the independent consultant in the preparation of a Mineral Resource Estimate using the TSF data sets.

Mineral tenement and land tenure status

Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.

The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.

All Challenger mineral resources are contained within ML6103 and ML6457 (“Challenger Deeps”, not reported in this release). The Mining Leases (ML’s) are held 100% by a wholly-owned subsidiary company of Barton Gold Holdings Ltd (Barton). . The Mining Lease is covered by a registered Native Title determination held by the Antakirinja Matu-Yankunytjatjara Aboriginal Corporation (AMYAC. AMYAC have the benefit of a production royalty for gold produced from the Challenger ML’s.

The Challenger tenements lie within the Mobella pastoral lease. There are no conservation reserves or areas with elevated environmental value with the Challenger tenements.

The Challenger tenements lie with the Woomera Prohibited Area (WPA) and Barton maintains the required approvals to operate within the WPA.

There are no known risks to the security of the Challenger tenements at the time of reporting and there are established statutory processes under the SA Mining Act to facilitate the renewal of the Challenger tenements at the end of their current terms. There are no known impediments to obtaining future licences.

Exploration done by other parties

Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The data used for the estimation and reporting of mineral resources in this release includes that produced by the various operators of the Challenger Gold Mine since its discovery in 1995 and operations between 2002-2018, prior to being placed under care and maintenance. The data has been appraised as fit for purpose with relevant commentary contained within these JORC tables.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

No previous appraisal of the TSF’s has previously been undertaken.

Geology

Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Challenger occurs within the Mulgathing Complex of the Gawler Craton and the area is characterized by Archaean to mid-Proterozoic gneissic country rock. Original granulite facies metamorphism is overlaid by retrograde amphibolite facies recrystallization around 1650 – 1540 Ma (Tomkins, 2002). Saprolitic clays extended to 50 m depth within the ore zone, reflecting a deeper base of oxidation.

High-grade gold mineralisation is associated with coarse-grained quartz veins with feldspar, cordierite and sulphides dominated by arsenopyrite (and related löllingite) , pyrrhotite and lesser telluride. These veins are interpreted as migmatites that have undergone partial melting, with this melting reflecting a precursor hydrothermal alteration event (McFarlane, Mavrogenes and Tomkins, 2007).

Three main types of leucosome/vein styles have been defined:

1. quartz dominant veins, which may be remnant premetamorphic mineralised veins

2. polysilicate veins, which are dominant in the main ore zones and host the majority of the mineralisation

3. pegmatitic veins, which are unmineralised, late stage, with cross-cutting relationships.

The gold mineralisation is structurally controlled through emplacement of the partial melt into relatively low-strain positions. McFarlane, Mavrogenes and Tomkins (2007), using Monazite geochronology proposed a 40 Ma period between 2460 and 2420 Ma of repeated high-temperature events.

The Challenger Structure can be defined as a laterally extensive shear zone with shoots that plunge 30° to 029° (AMG). These ore shoots are defined by leucosome veins, which are characteristically ptygmatically folded. The small-scale folding is parasitic to the overall larger scale folding that can be interpreted from drill core. The folding is interpreted as prepeak metamorphism along with gold mineralisation. Post-folding, the Challenger shoots were subjected to extreme WNW-ESE shortening and extension directed shallowly to the NE.

Reference:

Androvic, P, Bamford, P, Curtis, J, Derwent, K, Giles, A, Gobert, R, Hampton, S, Heydari, M, Kopeap, P and Sperring, P, 2013. Challenger Gold Mine, Australasian Mining and Metallurgical Operating Practices, AusIMM. 1097-1112.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

TSF1 comprises material derived entirely from the Challenger main pit and initial underground workings. TSF2 is predominantly comprised of material derived from Challenger underground ore, with the upper 3m comprising co-processed material from the Perseverance Mine at Tarcoola, located approximately 130km to the SE of the Challenger Mine.

Tailings volume estimations were derived from surveyor records. TSF1 hosts a higher-grade outer ring in the upper part of the dam (“beach” facies), with gold grades exceeding 0.7 g/t Au, while the inner upper and lower layers (“pond facies”) range between 0.3 and 0.5 g/t Au. The lower proportion of TSF2 exhibits grades broadly consistent with the lower-grade material from the central upper part of TSF1 and is overlain by tailings with approximately 0.2 g/t Au.

Drillhole information

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

• Easting and northing of the drillhole collar
• Elevation or RL (Reduced Level – Elevation above sea level in metres) of the drillholecollar
• Dip and azimuth of the hole
• Downhole length and interception depth hole length.

If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The drilling results referred to in this release relate to an existing mining area with extensive previous drilling. All previous drilling relevant to providing material context to the current estimate have been used. No new exploration results relating to the Challenger mine deposits are reported in this release.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Drill collars for the AC and RC drilling reported in this release are provided in Table 1, appended to this release.

Data aggregation methods

In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.

Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.

The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Samples are commonly collected on 1 m intervals, Down hole sample intervals were composited to one metre lengths (length weighted).

High grade outliers were determined for each estimation domain, and threshold caps were applied.

Two extreme high-grade outliers were quarantined before grade capping analysis, the resulting top cut determined was applied to all samples (including the quarantined samples).

No metal equivalents were calculated.

Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths

These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.

If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drillhole angle is known, its nature should be reported.

If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. “downhole length, true width not known”).

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The geometry of the mineralisation is well understood. Drill hole angles relative to known mineralisation is highly variable due to the constrained nature of underground drilling. Underground drill fans from predetermined drill cuddies offer a variety of drill intercept angles. A 3D interpretation honouring the drill holes (snapped to drill holes) is the only suitable option.

RC drillholes have been designed to intersect the mineralisation zone as perpendicular as possible.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

The vertical drilling on the TSF’s accurately reflects the true thickness of mineralisation.

Diagrams

Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drillhole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.

Balanced reporting

Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.

Other substantive exploration data

Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.

Further work

The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).

Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Further work is required to expand the resource model to cover the existing mine workings beneath 215 mRL Fault and to increase the confidence of mineralisation in some locations (ie increasing from inferred to indicated)

Database integrity

Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.

Data validation procedures used.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Logging data is recorded on laptops and transferred to the access database with validation steps by the geology department. Similarly, digital assay files are also transferred internally from the onsite, in-house laboratory then loaded and validated by the geology department.

Written data validation procedures were not sighted. The mine was in operation for over 13 years with established procedures for data management.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

The database is currently managed by Barton Gold using MS Access. There is no historical drilling data pertaining to the TSFs.

Basic database validation checks were run, including collar locations, drill holes plot on topography, checks for missing intervals, overlapping intervals and hole depth mismatches.

Site visits

Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.

If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.

A site visit was undertaken by the CP on the 23^rd and 24^th of September 2026. The Competent Person reviewed three drill holes (2 at Challenger and one from SW) were reviewed for lithology, mineralisation style, drill recovery, and geotechnical characteristics. Challenger Underground workings, development faces, stope panels, and ore drives were inspected to verify geological interpretation, mining method execution, and reconciliation practices. The northern wall of SEZ pit was inspected to gauge correlations between the wider surface exposure and the underground exposure (upper levels of SEZ lode).

The project is well established, with a long history of mining.

Geological interpretation

Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.

Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.

The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.

The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.

The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The lode arrangement, trends, continuity, and models are interpreted using understanding from prior experience mining the deposit on the levels above and/or below.

Lodes were modelled on diamond drilling data with significant adjustment to account for face chip and sludge data.

The constraining lodes for the mineralisation have proved to be extremely continuous on a broad scale due to the highly dominant structural control on the deposit. The shoots have been mined or traced for over 2,400 m down plunge and across a major fault offset (215 level fault) yet the distribution of grade within lodes is considered difficult to model (high Coefficient of variations within individual lodes) and predict locally based on diamond and sludge drilling data; this is attributed to the high nugget of the mineralisation and subsequent sampling and assay data imprecision.

Lode models were based on a combination of geology and grade data.

The approach was to model the structure across its full width and not sub-domained into higher grade intervals or shoots within the structure. The sampling and assay imprecision requires a ‘whole of structure’ approach as modelling discrete high-grade zones will likely overstate high grade continuity and hence Au metal. Consideration was given to the width and extents of observed shoots; search ellipses and the number of informing samples were restricted to reflect trends in the raw data.

Within each modelled structure, natural breaks in mineralisation could be observed and several sub-domains were defined between these consistent low grades breaks within the larger structural domain. M1 is one continuous lode, M2 has 16 sub domains, M3 has 12 sub domains and SE Zone has 4 Sub domain areas. West lode has eight sub domains and SW has one low grade and one higher grade sub domain.

Once the lode envelopes were modelled grades were then estimated within the domain using the lode envelope as a hard boundary constraint with a trend based on the lodes local geometry to guide anisotropy (dynamic anisotropy). Sample grades across the modelled contact shows a sharp contact between very weakly mineralised country rock. The lodes boundaries and the 0.5 g/t Au grade threshold is considered appropriate for mineralised lode definition in preference to a higher threshold.

Two sets of barren dykes, mafic and lamprophyre, cross-cut the lodes have been removed from the resource classification.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

The geological characteristics of the TSFs are previously described under the Geology heading of Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results.

Dimensions

The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The areas of interest include lodes which variably extend from the top of fresh rock near surface down to the 215 level (215 mRL), a minor offsetting structure in the deposit. The structural lodes continue and have been mined down to below the 215 fault (a major offsetting structure), This area is considered to be the Challenger Deeps lodes and are known to extend 600 m down plunge with a further 360 m of lode interpreted to extend below to base of mining

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

TSF1 has a footprint at the upper surface of approximately 370m diameter and is equidimensional. TSF2 has an irregular shape and forms part of an integrated landform with the adjacent TSF1 and waste rock facilities. It has a long axis length of approximately 550m at surface (NW-SE) and orthogonal width to this of approximately 500m at surface (NE-SW).

The thickness of tailings in TSF1 ranges from 17m-21m, noting there is a 2m capping of waste rock emplaced on top of the TSF as part of previous site remediation work.

The thickness of tailings in TSF2 ranges from ~14-17m. There is no capping on TSF2.

The rock constructed access is removed from the estimated volumes.

Both TSF facility had central decant wells installed during their construction with access provided by a rock-constructed access way.

Estimation and modelling techniques

In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.

Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.

Any assumptions about correlation between variables.

Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.

Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.

The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.

Grades estimation is by Ordinary Kriging constrained by wireframe models of the lodes.

Input data is a combined DDH, sludge and chip sampling database for the estimates above the 215 mRL.

Sample length was standardised (composited) at 1m however sample diameter/volume varies within and between the data types.

Extreme sample grades were removed from the outlier analysis, outliers and extreme samples were controlled via top cutting / capping

No cut-off grade was applied to the estimation of the TSF mineral resource as it is assumed hydraulic mining methods will be deployed which will result in all material being mined and processed. Accordingly, there are no bounding limits to the mineral resource other than the bounding structure of the TSF’s

Data imprecision, spacing and lode interpretation / location at depth due to sparse data and potential survey error remain major uncertainties in the estimates.

Modelling of domains was undertaken in Leapfrog and spatial analysis and grade estimation undertaken in Surpac.

Sample length was standardised (composited) at 1m however

Moisture

Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture.

Cut-off parameters

The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

The resource is reported above a 0.3 g/t Au lower cut-off. Considering likely open pit mining, conventional heap leach or CIL processing and administration costs a head grade of 0.3 g/t is assumed profitable.

Key Assumptions:

• 1.4 m minimum mining width (2 x sub block width),

• Open Pit Mining and Processing cost of AUD$30.86/tonne for mineralised material.

. • Underground Mining and Process cost of AUD $125/tonne for mineralised material.

• Mining and Process cost of AUD $13/tonne for tailings.

• Gold price AUD 5000/oz

• 94% Metallurgical recovery from hard rock

• 70% Metallurgical recovery of tailings

• 5.0% Dilution Open Pit, 15% Dilution Underground

• 6.0% Royalty

These assumptions are in line with costs used in the Tunkillia Scoping Study, reported previously by Barton Gold in 2025.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

A bulk density value of 1.5t/m³ was assigned to the TSF resource models. Bulk density was determined empirically by an acquisition program of 14 soft sediment cores (spread widely from across TSF2) which were collected and analysed to determine dry weights and corresponding volumes to calculate dry bulk densities.

Mining factors or assumptions

Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

No mining factors or assumptions have been applied to the resource.

MA considers the near surface Challenger project amenable to open pit mining methods and assumes the likely mining scenario will have 5 m benches and 2.5 m flitches. Below the potential open pit, access to the deposit is via rehabilitated decline. The mine has been dewatered down to the 300 level. These assumptions have influenced, composite length, block size and resource cut off parameters.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Hydraulic mining methods have been assumed for the future mining of the TSF resources. Hydraulic mining is largely non-selective and it is assumed all TSF material will be extracted.

Metallurgical factors or assumptions

The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

No metallurgical factors have been applied to the in-situ grade estimates.

Metallurgical Recovery is assumed, and a 95% gold recovery is used in the reasonable prospects of economic extraction analysis, no account of silver recovery is considered.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

Barton commissioned Pitch Black group to determine the recovery potential of the contained gold whilst also assessing the impact of potentially deleterious elements within the dormant tailings storage facilities. (Challenger TSF Metallurgical Test Work Report, April 2025) Recovery was determined to be 70% at a 38µm grind.

Environmental factors or assumptions

Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.

Bulk Density

Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.

The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.

Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Bulk Density (BD) of material at Challenger Gold Mine has been determined in two phases. The initial BD value for the Challenger rock mass was determined during the mine feasibility study, based on core samples from 1,200 to 1,090 mRL and was determined to be 2.72 for the Christie Gneiss, which comprises the Challenger deposit. A second pass of SG calculations were conducted in 2012 to determine if the SG had changed with depth. 158 samples were taken from the 320 to 240 mRL levels of both Gneiss and intrusive materials. As the host rocks of the Challenger deposit do not have any voids or variation in moisture content, these factors have not been taken into account. It was found that the SGs at the base of the mine comprise:

o Gneiss SG = 2.86

o Lamprophyre SG = 2.92

o Mafic SG = 2.91

2017 resource statement reported past reconciliation tonnes for the mine to EOM April 2016 are 99% against the mill.

It has been decided to apply:

o Completely weathered 1.5

o Highly weathered 2.3

o Moderately weathered 2.5

o Slightly weathered 2.7

o Fresh material 2.72

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

12 samples from 4 sites across TSF2 were used to determine bulk density with a value of 1.5t/m³ assigned to all the TSF materials. The bulk density values were derived empirically as described in Section 1 of this JORC table under the heading “Other substantive Exploration Data (bulk density)”.

Classification

The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.

Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).

Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

Challenger open pit and underground resources

Data distribution, development and estimation parameters along with the specific considerations below were used to determine resource classification.

Indicated

• May be developed on one level only.
• Does not have sufficient information to fully inform structural complexity, but shows lode presence (i.e. 25m spaced diamond drilling that cannot provide sufficient resolution to show up metre-scale parasitic folding).
• Does not have sufficient information to fully inform lode continuity (i.e. spacing of drilling such that it is difficult to determine which intercepts are which part of the system) , but shows lode presence.
• Drillhole spacing typically 20 x 20m diamond drilling in conjunction with occasional 5 to 10m ring spaced sludge drilling and face samples 3 to 4m apart.

Inferred

• Limited development had been undertaken adjacent to the resource.
• Sufficient information to infer the presence of a lode structure and assume grade continuity.
• Drillhole spacing not relevant as a single intercept, in conjunction with face sampling or sludge drilling and can be identified as part of the lode is used for the definition of the inferred resource.

The extensive use of face and sludge data has resulted in significant proportions of the estimate classified as Inferred Resources.

Tailings Storage Facilities (TSF’s)

The TSF resource is classified as Indicated, based on a drill spacing of approximately 35 m x 35 m. Grade distribution approximates a normal curve with low coefficients of variation, consistent with the expected homogenisation resulting from grade-controlled mill feed followed by grinding and processing a slurry through the CIL plant.

Audits or reviews

The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.

Discussion of relative accuracy/confidence

Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.

The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.

These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.

No geostatistical confidence limits have been estimated. The relative accuracy and confidence in the Mineral Resource Estimate is reflected in the Resource Categories.

The ordinary kriging result, due to the high level of smoothing, should only be regarded as a global estimate, and is suitable as a life of mine planning tool. Grade capping and tight search ellipses were used to restrict the influence of high-grade composites.

Inferred Mineral Resource has a lower level of confidence than that applying to an Indicated Mineral Resource and must not be converted to an Ore Reserve.

Should local estimates be required for detailed mine scheduling, the employment of techniques such as Uniform conditioning or conditional simulation should be considered, ultimately larger underground samples and grade control drilling is required.

The Challenger Deposit was discovered in 1995 and mined from 2002 and 2018 producing ~1.2 Moz gold.