Exhibit 96.2

DATE AND SIGNATURE PAGE

This Report titled “S-K 1300 Technical Report Summary on the Blyvoor Tailings Retreatment Project, South Africa” was prepared for Blyvoor Gold Operations (Pty) Ltd. The Report is compiled in accordance with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Part 229 Standard Instructions for Filing Forms Regulation S-K subpart 1300. The effective date of this Report is 29 February 2024.

The Qualified Persons (“QPs”) responsible for this Report are Mr. Uwe Engelmann (Geology and Mineral Resources) and Mr. Daniel (Daan) van Heerden (Mineral Processing, Mineral Extraction, Economic Analysis and Mineral Reserves).

Signed at Little Falls, Gauteng, South Africa, on 31 May 2024.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

INFORMATION RISK

This Report was prepared by Uwe Engelmann and Daniel van Heerden (the QPs) of Minxcon (Pty) Ltd (“Minxcon”). In the preparation of the Report, the QPs utilised information relating to operational methods and expectations provided to them by various sources. Where possible, the QPs have verified this information from independent sources after making due enquiry of all material issues that are required in order to comply with the requirements of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Part 229 Standard Instructions for Filing Forms Regulation S-K subpart 1300. The authors of this report are not qualified to provide extensive commentary on legal issues associated with rights to the mineral properties and relied on the information provided to them by the issuer. No warranty or guarantee, be it express or implied, is made by the authors with respect to the completeness or accuracy of the legal aspects of this document.

OPERATIONAL RISKS

The business of mining and mineral exploration, development and production by their nature contain significant operational risks. The business depends upon, amongst other things, successful prospecting programmes and competent management. Profitability and asset values can be affected by unforeseen changes in operating circumstances and technical issues.

POLITICAL AND ECONOMIC RISK

Factors such as political and industrial disruption, currency fluctuation and interest rates could have an impact on future operations, and potential revenue streams can also be affected by these factors. The majority of these factors are, and will be, beyond the control of any operating entity.

FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS

Certain statements contained in this document other than statements of historical fact, contain forward-looking statements regarding the operations, economic performance or financial condition, including, without limitation, those concerning the economic outlook for the mining industry, expectations regarding commodity prices, exchange rates, production, cash costs and other operating results, growth prospects and the outlook of operations, including the completion and commencement of commercial operations of specific production projects, its liquidity and capital resources and expenditure, and the outcome and consequences of any pending litigation or enforcement proceedings.

Although the QPs believe that the expectations reflected in such forward-looking statements are reasonable, no assurance can be given that such expectations will prove to be correct. Accordingly, results may differ materially from those set out in the forward-looking statements as a result of, among other factors, changes in economic and market conditions, changes in the regulatory environment and other State actions, success of business and operating initiatives, fluctuations in commodity prices and exchange rates, and business and potential risk management.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

TABLE OF CONTENTS

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

FIGURES

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

TABLES

EQUATIONS

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

LIST OF UNITS AND ABBREVIATIONS

Units: The following units were used in this Report, and are in metric terms:-

Computation: It is noted that throughout the Report, tables may not compute due to rounding.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Abbreviations: The following abbreviations were used in this Report:-

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 1 - EXECUTIVE SUMMARY

The Blyvoor Gold Tailings Retreatment Project (“Project”) targets the re-treatment of the tailings storage facilities (“TSFs”) from the historical Blyvooruitzicht and Doornfontein mines that contain gold, with minor uranium and sulphide. The Project it situated 14 km southwest of the town of Carletonville and 80 km southwest of Johannesburg, Gauteng Province, South Africa.

The tailings material occurs on Blyvooruitzicht TSF No. 1 (or TSF No. 1), Blyvooruitzicht TSF No. 6 (or TSF No. 6), Blyvooruitzicht TSF No. 7 (“TSF No. 7”), Doornfontein TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3. The Project specifically aims to remine TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 at a newly established plant, with the newly reprocessed tailings being deposited onto an extended TSF No. 7 footprint. At a later stage, the Doornfontein TSFs will be remined with reprocessed tailings deposited onto the then vacant TSF No. 6 footprint.

The Project Area represents a disturbed site that has hosted mining-related activities for decades. Dolomitic lithologies underlie the TSFs, thus triggering the requirement for barriers in the form of appropriate linings. No further sensitive areas are identified within, or related to, the site.

The TSFs are currently all under ownership of Blyvoor Gold Operations (Pty) Ltd (or Blyvoor Ops), which is a wholly owned subsidiary of Blyvoor Gold (Pty) Ltd. In the case of the TSFs, Blyvoor Ops is the legal title holder to the immovable property (usufruct, servitudes and old plant structures) as well as movable property (TSFs). An Environmental Authorisation was granted on 19 February 2020 for tailings reclamation for TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7, deposition onto TSF No. 6 (thereafter onto the available footprint of the reclaimed TSF No. 7), and TSF care and maintenance activities for a 15-year life of mine (TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3). In accordance with the granted Environmental Authorisation, TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 are sanctioned for remining activities (under listing notice GNR 921) and deposition onto these footprints. Whilst these TSFs are being mined first in the mining sequence, application can be made to include the remainder of the TSFs in the current Environmental Authorisation. A water use licence inclusive of TSF reclamation activities was granted 14 May 2024.

The Project Area lies within Witwatersrand Basin which is synonymous to numerous current and historical gold mining operations. The TSFs represent layered man-made deposits of treated tailings material derived from ore extracted at the historic Blyvooruitzicht and Doornfontein gold mines, at which the Carbon Leader and Middelvlei Reefs economic placer horizons were exploited. The gold content represents the residue gold which was not extracted in the initial processing of the primary ores.

The surface operations have undergone various states of exploration and drilling on the Blyvoor TSFs No. 1, 6, 7 and Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2, 3 (2007, 2008, 2010, 2015, 2016). The most recent exploration programme concluding in November 2020 served to infill the existing drilling in TSFs No. 6 and 7 and enable the definition of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources in both. No additional drilling was performed on the other TSFs.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Mineral Resources were estimated for Blyvoor TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2 and 3 on existing data. An inverse distance to the power of 2 was utilised, and due to the limited data, lack of confidence in the QAQC and sampling procedures, an Inferred Mineral Resource was defined for all four of these facilities. Blyvoor TSFs No. 6 and 7 were re-estimated with updated information that included the infill drilling data. For TSF No. 6 previously only 13 drillholes were available and thus new drilling enables complete coverage of the TSF. TSF No. 7 had undergone detailed drilling in previous drilling programmes and the 2020 programme served to infill the drilling grid and increase the confidence in the existing database. Both TSFs were estimated with Ordinary Kriging.

The mine plan mines the total TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7, including Inferred Mineral Resources attributed to TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 (totalling 16 koz). These are not reflected in the Mineral Reserves as they are considered to fall within the Inferred Mineral Resource category. These ounces are however, not reflected in the Mineral Resource table as they will be entirely mined out.

The in situ Mineral Resources declared for the TSFs are shown in the following table. TSF No.6 and TSF No. 7 have been shown as zero as there is no residual Mineral Resource excluding Mineral Reserves for these two TSFs.

Mineral Resources for Blyvoor Gold Mine TSFs as at 29 February 2024

Notes:

The Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 Mineral Reserves, as delivered to the plant, are detailed in the table below. The Mineral Reserve contains 816 koz of gold in the Probable Mineral Reserve classification, from the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, after having applied modifying factors for conversion from Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves.

Mineral Reserves for Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 as at 29 February 2024

Notes:

The mining method planned to be used for the reclamation of the TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is hydraulic mining. The mining strategy involves a 12-month ramp up to 500 ktpm steady state-production. Mining will commence with targeting the high-grade areas located at upper portion of TSF No. 6 (Phase 1). Upon

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

completion of the first mining cut on TSF No. 6, mining will move to TSF No. 7 (Phase 2). The entire TSF No. 7 will be mined to create capacity for the new planned TSF. Lastly, the remainder of TSF No. 6 will be mined (Phase 3). A life of Project of 15 years is anticipated.

The process plant will accept reclaimed tailings from the hydro-mining operation and recover gold with a conventional carbon-in-leach cyanidation process. Leached gold will be adsorbed on activated carbon and stripped in an elution stage. The eluted gold will be plated and smelted into doré bars, sent to Rand Refinery for final smelting and then sold. Newly generated tailings will be deposited on a newly constructed TSF adjacent to the old plant and TSF No. 7. The new TSF footprint includes dolomite rock which was encountered at 3 m in one borehole and 60 m with another. This necessitated the development of a dolomite risk mitigation plan and further geotechnical studies to ensure a stable foundation for the new TSF.

Access to the Project Area is well established on an extensive paved road network surrounding the Project Area. The location of most of the Project’s infrastructure will be located on the old Blyvoor process plant site. This site has mostly been demolished with only derelict civil structures remaining and all infrastructure to support the Project will have to be re-established.

Grid power is available to the Project Area via a 22 kV overhead line running past the Project site and feeds from an Eskom consumer substation located 2.7 km east of the Project. Indications are that the power supply capacity on this line is 20 MVA. Power supply to the Project Area will have to be re-established by tying into the available line and feeding the Project intake and distribution substations. Power will be distributed to the various areas of consumption across the operation. A load estimate has been conducted based on the engineering design and equipment required for the Project. The Project notified maximum demand was estimated to be 8.4 MVA. Sufficient allocation is thus available for the Project.

It is intended that water supply to the Project will be sourced from the Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 Shaft. The Covalent Water Company (a subsidiary of Harmony) conducts dewatering of the old Blyvooruitzicht underground workings. This water is pumped to surface at a rate of 14,000 m³/day and released into a channel that flows into the Mooi River through the Wonderfonteinspruit. The Project will purchase water from the Covalent Water Company which will serve as make-up water for the Project and will augment the return water from the re-deposition of the re-treated tailings. A Project static water balance was conducted and it was estimated that during the dry season (April to September) a total of 14,000 m³/day of make-up water will be required for the Project and will be sufficient to service the hydraulic mining and processing facilities. Further sources of water include dirty surface run-off water collected. Capital provision has been made for the re-establishment of all supporting infrastructure to efficiently manage and operate the tailings retreatment Project.

The evaluator performed an independent mineral asset economic analysis on the Project and the diluted Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources in the LoM plan, for conversion to Mineral Reserves. The Discounted Cash Flow, or DCF, is based on the production schedule and all costs and capital associated to develop, mine and process the orebody. Relevant taxation and other operating factors, such as recoveries and stay-in-business costs were incorporated into the economic analysis to produce a cash flow over the life cycle of the Mine. The effective date of the economic analysis is 29 February 2024.

Both the ZAR/USD exchange rate and USD commodity prices are in real money terms. The table below illustrates the forecasts for the first three years as well as the long-term forecast used in the financial model. Both the price forecast and the short-term exchange rate forecast are taken as the median of various analyst and bank forecasts, with the long-term prices calculated in-house. The medium and long-term exchange rate forecast was calculated in-house using the inflation adjusted purchasing price parity of the

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ZAR to USD. The long-term gold price was estimated as the real term average between the two gold price support levels over the past 10 years, i.e. USD1,900/oz. The inflation rate forecasts were sourced from the International Monetary Fund (“IMF”).

Macro-Economic Forecasts and Commodity Prices over the Life of Mine

Source: Median of various Banks and Broker forecasts (Consensus, March 2024); Minxcon; IMF

Costs reported for the Project, which consists of hydro mining, plant and other operating costs are displayed in the following table. Other costs in the Adjusted Operating Costs category include the central and technical services, general and administration, human resources, and other services costs. Other costs for the AISC category include the corporate management costs. The costs are displayed per feed tonne as well as per recovered gold ounce. Costs are primarily based on the December 2020 PFS which have been escalated to current terms as at effective date of 29 February 2024 using appropriate escalation indices from the Steel and Engineering Industries Federation of Southern Africa (“SEIFSA”) Price and Index Pages (“PIPS”).

Project Cost Indicators

Notes:

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The Project cash flow is illustrated in the figure below. The total capital including the sustaining capital amounts to USD124 million over the mine life. The Mine has a peak funding requirement of USD91 million on a cumulative annual cash flow basis. The payback period of the Project is 3.0 years from start of production.

Undiscounted Cash Flow

The value derived for the income approach only reflects the diluted Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources in the LoM plan, for conversion to Mineral Reserves. The Mineral Reserve is economically viable with a best estimated NPV of USD56 million (USD56 million attributable to Blyvoor Ops) at a real discount rate of 11.4%. The IRR of the Project was calculated 27.0%. The Project has an all-in cost margin of 34% with a break-even gold price of USD1,244/oz. The following table shows a summary of the economic analysis.

Project Economic Analysis Summary - Real Terms

For the DCF, the grade, gold price and exchange rate have the most significant impact on the sensitivity of the Project followed by the mining operating costs as illustrated in the figure below. The Project is least sensitive to capital and plant and other operating costs.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Project Sensitivity (NPV_11.4%)

Legal Aspects and Tenure

The reclamation of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is authorised through a granted EA, EMPr and WUL including TSF reclamation activities. The underlying geology across the area comprises amongst others dolomitic units, and appropriate linings are required over the footprint of newly established TSF sites.

Geology and Mineral Resources

TSFs No. 6 and 7 are sufficiently drilled to enable the classification of Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. It is believed that the variability of the gold distribution is adequately represented by the information obtained from the drillholes. The greatest variability exists vertically, for this reason the block model was estimated at a very high resolution vertically to adequately capture the variability that is expected in a layered deposit such as a TSF. Some grade variability is evident in TSFs No. 6 and 7. Some of the older drilling has limited surface coverage and QAQC information, however the more recent infill drilling on TSF No. 6 and 7 with detailed QAQC and sampling detail serves to increase the confidence and confirm the grades achieved in these areas.

Blyvoor TSF No. 1 and Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2 and 3 are all stated as Inferred Mineral Resources, due to a limited number of drillholes in each of these TSFs. Upgrading these to Indicated Mineral Resources would require additional drilling to increase the confidence in the data.

The densities utilised in the estimation process are the historical density figures. These figures are in line with the average densities for Witwatersrand gold mine TSFs. Check density tests were conducted during the 2020 drilling campaign, but the results were inconclusive with TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 returning lower than expected densities with average dry densities of 1.34 t/m³ and 1.43 t/m³ respectively. It was therefore deemed prudent to use the historical densities of 1.53 t/m³ and 1.51 t/m³ respectively, which were deemed more in line with average TSF material densities.

Mining

The mining sequence is strategical, ensuring that the ramp up to steady state production, is in line with the planned processing plant capacity. A 12-month ramp up to steady state production of 500 ktpm is considered

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

practical and achievable. The mining sequence allows for the creation of sufficient capacity on the new planned TSF footprint.

The mine plan targets only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, with an anticipated LoM of 15 years. The Project has upside potential in the upgrading and inclusion of Inferred Mineral Resources in the LoM plan. An additional 510 koz of gold could potentially be included in the LoM plan by upgrading the Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources. The inclusion would add an additional ten years to the LoM.

Engineering and Infrastructure

Although the Project is located on historic operations most of the infrastructure required to support the Project has been decommissioned or reclaimed. Sufficient provision has been made with regards to mining and shared infrastructure to re-establish the Project Area and to enable the Project to be managed and operated efficiently.

Processing

Metallurgical testwork indicates recovery is a function of feed grade, and a residue grade of 0.14 g/t can be expected with a CIL process. Tailings can be treated at a rate of 500 ktpm, and the new TSF design can accommodate this rate of deposition. The new TSF will have enough capacity to store the entire volume of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 during the initial 15-year life.

Economic Analysis

The Project plan including only the diluted Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources in the LoM plan, for conversion to Mineral Reserves is financially feasible. The updated Mineral Reserve can therefore be declared. The DCF value of USD56 million for the Project (USD56 million attributable to Blyvoor Ops) was calculated at a real discount rate of 11.4%. The Project has an IRR of 27.0% calculated based on a funding requirement of USD91 million.

The Project financials are most sensitive to grade, commodity prices, and exchange rate. The Project financials are least sensitive to mining capital expenditure and mining and other operating costs.

The all-in sustaining costs for the Project amounts to USD5.07/feed tonne over the LoM, which equates to USD982/oz. The all-in cost for the Project was calculated as USD5.42/feed tonne over the LoM, which equates to USD1,244/oz. The Project therefore has a break-even gold price of USD1,244/oz including capital with an all-in cost margin of 34% over the LoM, which is comparable to similar gold tailings retreatment operations in the Witwatersrand Basin.

Legal Aspects and Tenure

In light of no material risks for the current operations, it is recommended that consideration be given to their environmental audit report outcomes and ensure action plans are in place to deal with non-conformances that may affect the TSF project execution. The Project owners and operators must adhere to environmental and sustainability principles as set out in the MPRDA and NEMA.

Geology and Mineral Resources

Blyvoor TSF No. 1 and Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2 and 3 are all stated as Inferred Mineral Resources due to a limited number of drillholes in each of these TSFs. In addition, this older drilling information have limited

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

QAQC and sampling information and thus have a lower level of confidence. Additional infill drilling is recommended, to add additional Measured and Indicated tonnes that could be considered for extraction along with TSFs No. 6 and 7. This conversion to Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, if the drilling is successful, would allow for additional conversion into Mineral Reserves for a further possible 8 years of Project life.

It is recommended that with further study work additional density testwork be done to confirm the historical density figures.

Mining

It is recommended that additional drilling is conducted to upgrade Inferred Mineral Resources to Indicated and Measured Mineral Resources for potential inclusion in the Mineral Reserve estimate. Drilling on the remaining TSFs may be conducted while producing from TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7.

Engineering and Infrastructure

Although sufficient provision has been made for the required infrastructure to support the Project at the planned production rate it will be required to refine the detailed designs for the construction phase and to refine the associated capital and operating cost estimations. Communications should commence with CWC to negotiate the purchase of water, and the associated costs of doing so, from their dewatering at Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 Shaft.

Processing

Complete detailed design of the new TSF that incorporates a Dolomite Risk Mitigation Plan.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 2 - INTRODUCTION

Item 2 (a) - Issuer Receiving the Report; Authors

Minxcon (Pty) Ltd (“Minxcon”) was commissioned by Blyvoor Gold Operations (Pty) Ltd (“Blyvoor Ops” or “the Company”) to compile a Technical Report Summary (“TRS”) on the Blyvoor Gold Tailings Retreatment Project (“Project”), situated in Gauteng Province, South Africa.

The authors of this TRS are Uwe Engelmann and Daniel van Heerden, both of whom are Qualified Persons (“QP”). Mr. Engelmann was responsible for Sections 1-11 and jointly for Sections 20-25 of this TRS, while Mr. van Heerden was responsible for Sections 12-19 and jointly for Sections 20-25 of this TRS.

Item 2 (b) - Terms of Reference and Purpose of the Report

Minxcon was commissioned to prepare the TRS on the Mine in accordance with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission Part 229 Standard Instructions for Filing Forms Regulation S-K subpart 1300 (“S-K 1300”). This TRS follows the guidelines as prescribed by S-K 1300, and only such terms as defined in §229.1300-1305 have been utilised. The TRS is structured in accordance with the format prescribed in §229.601(b)(96).

The Project targets the retreatment of tailings storage facilities (“TSFs”) that contain gold, with minor uranium and sulphide. The purpose of this TRS is to present the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves of the Project as at the Company financial year end 29 February 2024. The Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves are stated at the effective date of 29 February 2024.

The basis for the Mineral Reserves stated in this TRS is a pre-feasibility study (“PFS”). The PFS was completed in 2020, with monetary values escalated to current terms as at 29 February 2024. The PFS is still deemed valid.

No TRS has previously been filed by Blyvoor Ops for the Project in terms of S-K 1300.

All monetary figures in this TRS are expressed in United States Dollars (“USD”).

Item 2 (c) - Sources of Information and Data Contained in the Report

Minxcon has relied on the following reports/opinions:-

Minxcon has verified the information as far as possible. Additional information was sourced from those references listed in 0 and are duly referenced in the text where appropriate.

Item 2 (d) - Qualified Persons’ Personal Inspection of the Property

The Qualified Persons (“QP”, as such term is defined in S-K 1300) for this TRS are Mr. U. Engelmann and Mr. D. van Heerden.

Mr. Engelmann conducted a site visit on 1 July 2020 accompanied by representative of Blyvoor Ops team. The site visit was aimed at conducting a physical assessment and inspection of the Project Area, assisting with setting up an exploration drilling programme, and providing guidance on the sampling for the purposes of conducting assay testwork and metallurgical testwork. During the site visit TSF No. 6, TSF No. 7, the old Blyvoor processing facility and the proposed new TSF location were inspected. On 21 September 2020 a team from Minxcon reinvestigated the site and assessed infrastructure provision. Mr van Heerden conducted

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

a site visit on 15 January 2021 and was accompanied by the Blyvoor Op’s Mineral Resources Manager. TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 and the proposed process plant location were visited. No more recent site visits have taken place.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 3 - PROPERTY DESCRIPTION AND LOCATION

The Project comprises the following TSFs that were created during the operation of the underground Blyvooruitzicht and Doornfontein gold mines that targeted the Middelvlei Reef and Carbon Leader Reef in the Far West Rand Goldfield. The TSFs contain gold, with minor uranium and sulphide:-

The Project aims to remine TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 at a newly established plant, with newly reprocessed tailings being deposited onto an extended TSF No. 7 footprint. At a later stage, the Doornfontein TSFs will be remined with reprocessed tailings deposited onto the vacant TSF No. 6 footprint. The adjacent Blyvoor underground gold mine are depositing tailings onto TSF No. 6 since late 2019. This was not considered in the evaluation of the Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves of the TSF.

The Project will require the construction of a new TSF (as an eastern extension to the current TSF no. 7 area) that will be utilised for the deposition of tailings material subsequent to the processing of the reclaimed tailings.

Item 3 (a) - Location of the Property

The town of Carletonville lies immediately north of TSF No. 1, in the southwestern extremity of the Gauteng Province, South Africa. The town of Fochville lies 14 km due southeast. To the northeast, Johannesburg can be accessed over a road network of 80 km.

The TSFs, illustrated in Figure 1, are centred on the co-ordinates (WGS84 system) displayed in Table 1.

Table 1: Co-ordinate Locations and Surface Areas Covered by Each TSF

Item 3 (b) - Area of the Property

The TSFs are located on the farms Blyvooruitzicht 116 IQ and Varkenslaagte 119 IQ. The TSF surface areas and the farms on which they are located are depicted in Table 1.

The extension of TSF No. 7 will cover an additional area of some 2.2 km² and the new plant area is planned over a footprint area of some 0.3 km², situated immediately northeast of the extension. These areas are further described in Item 15.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 1: Location of Project Area

Item 3 (c) - Mineral Deposit Tenure

The TSFs are currently all under ownership of Blyvoor Ops, which is currently a wholly owned subsidiary of Blyvoor Gold (Pty) Ltd. Blyvoor Ops is the legal title holder to the immovable property. The current and post-transaction company structure is illustrated in Figure 2.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 2: Company Structure

Mining rights in South Africa are issued by the Department of Mineral Resources and Energy (“DMRE”) in accordance with the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, No 28 of 2002 (“MPRDA”). However, as described by Leyden (2020), “Historic Dumps are not regulated under the MPRDA and, as a consequence, mining rights under the MPRDA cannot be granted over such dumps. The Blyvoor Mining Right therefore does not give Blyvoor Gold Capital the right to mine the TSFs save for that portion of TSF No. 6 which constitutes a New Dump [which constitutes a residue stockpile]. The right to mine Historic Dumps is derived from the common law ownership of such dumps.”

The regulatory framework regarding TSF reclamation is governed by the dates on which the TSF was created, and the final tailings deposited thereon. All the Project TSFs were initially established in the period 1948-1969 and prior to the enactment of the MPRDA, i.e. prior to 2004. Deposition onto all TSFs, with the exception of TSF No. 6, ceased in the 1980s to 1990s.

Rights to reclaim the TSF material requires an Environmental Authorisation (“EA”) in terms of the National Environmental Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 (“NEMA”). An application for an EA relating to mining right number MR143GP was submitted on 13 February 2019 by Blyvoor Gold Capital (Pty) Ltd (“Blyvoor Capital”), a subsidiary of Blyvoor Gold (Pty) Ltd. Mining Right MR143GP covers the underground Blyvoor Mine (the historical Blyvooruitzicht Mine) upon which lease area the Blyvoor TSFs are located. Application was included in this application for the tailings mining operations, which includes the TSFs and associated infrastructure, under Blyvoor Ops. The EA was granted on 19 February 2020 under reference number GP 30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (143) EM with an approved environmental management programme (“EMP”), dated February 2019 compiled by Digby Wells that serves as an update and realignment from the previously approved EMP, dated 2000, with subsequent unapproved 2007 and 2012 amendments to refocus on current activities. Under the EA, the following TSF-related activities have been approved:-

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

In accordance with the granted EA, TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 are sanctioned for remining activities (under listing notice GNR 921) and deposition onto these footprints. Whilst these TSFs are being mined first in the mining sequence, application can be made to include the remainder of the TSFs in the current EA. Application is also required to alter or extend the footprint of TSF No. 7.

The approved EA allows for care and maintenance of TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3. Application for amendment to include reclamation (mining) of these TSFs is required to be submitted and approved prior to remining of these TSFs. Blyvoor Ops will make such application whilst mining at TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is taking place. These applications are considered an administrative procedure in the normal course of business.

Leyden (2020), describes that the properties on which the TSFs are situated are owned by a third party, Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mining Company Limited (in provisional liquidation) (“BGMC”). Blyvoor Ops has registered usufructs as listed in Table 2. The usufructs have a validity period of 99 years. Blyvoor Ops has further servitudes registered, including services and roads to the former BGMC treatment plant, and services from TSF No. 1 to main road at the Doornfontein TSFs.

Table 2: Registered Usufructs to Blyvoor Ops

The QPs have not identified any threat to the current EA with continued annual obligations to tenement security and conformance to government notices and directives. Blyvoor Ops will initially rely on the existing Blyvoor Capital rights and permits with respect to the Mining Right, the EA and water use licence under a duly signed agreement for this purpose.

Item 3 (d) - Royalties and Payments

The current Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act came into effect on 1 March 2010. The law requires all companies extracting minerals in South Africa to pay royalties at a rate of between 0.5% and 7% based on gross sales. Companies are taxed on either the refined or unrefined formula:-

Historic TSFs are not regulated by the MPRDA, which means that royalty payments are not applicable. With the exception of a portion of TSF No. 6, all the remaining TSFs are historic TSFs. No practical split could be made for TSF No. 6 between historic deposition and recent deposition. The QPs therefore treated all TSFs as historic.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Item 3 (e) - Environmental Liabilities

In terms of Regulation 54(2) of the MPRDA, financial provision is required for the interim and final rehabilitation activities on the site. The provision is required to be reviewed annually for adequacy and amended to compensate for new activities and/or inflation.

Blyvoor Capital has made provision for the rehabilitation liability estimated in January 2019 which include both surface and underground mining assets, the TSFs as well as historic defunct assets totalling ZAR366 million. Digby Wells updated this estimation to ZAR464 million in 2023, which has been escalated by one year to ZAR492 million by Minxcon for financial modelling purposes. Blyvoor Ops will need to reimburse Blyvoor Capital for their share of guarantees funded as they relate to the TSFs, as well as fund their share of liabilities. The QPs apportioned a payment schedule provided by Blyvoor Capital to Blyvoor Ops for the economic analysis. Blyvoor Ops’ share of the liabilities is estimated to be ZAR319 million which will be funded through guarantees.

There are currently no mechanisms in place regarding unplanned closure, however provision for unplanned closure is factored into the rehabilitation liability.

Item 3 (f) - Permits to Conduct Work

Further permits or plans relating to the planned operations are described in the sections to follow that are required to be in place by the EA ((DMR Ref No. GP30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (143) EM) noted in condition 1, 2, 11, and 19.

A water use licence (“WUL”) no. 10/C23E/GJACEFGI/14399 in terms of the National Water Act, No. 36 of 1998 (“NWA”) was issued to Blyvoor Capital for the Mine on 14 May 2024 and is valid until 14 May 2044. This supersedes the previously issued WUL no. 08/C23E/AEFGJ/1000 issued 19 July 2011 and valid until 19 July 2021. The objective of the new WUL was to be as close as possible to the previous licence with regards to operations, extraction, and deposition. Although some of the infrastructure may not be applicable to the TRS project, wastewater treatment plants for the Blyvoor Village was removed from the new application as they are not owned by Blyvoor Gold. Also removed from the application were Blyvoor TSF No. 1, emergency return water dam and PS Shaft Rock Dump.

Blvoor Capital has a valid provisional Atmospheric Emissions Licence (“PAEL”), reference number (PAEL/GP/WR-BGC/04/09/2023-6545-VAR) issued 10 November 2023 in terms of the National Environmental Management: Air Quality Act, No. 39 of 2004 (“NEMAQA”) issued by Department of Environment, Forestry and Fisheries for the entire mining right area. This PAEL will allow for 12 months of monitoring from the date of commissioning of the listed activities, during which time emission measurements are required to be made and submitted to the authorities. Subject to these measurements being within legal limits and meeting all PAEL conditions for six consecutive months, an Atmospheric Emissions Licence (“AEL”) valid for five years will be issued. The TSF project need not apply for a separate AEL but should engage with DFFE to establish if the re-treatment of tailings will trigger an additional listed activity other than Subcategory 4:17 noted and if so, a subsequent variation of the PAEL undertaken.

A valid Certificate of Registration (“COR”) issued 15 January 2024 to Blyvoor Capital National Nuclear Regulator (“NNR”) in terms of the National Nuclear Regulatory Act, 1999, relating to the tailings project is in place and applicant should ensure adherence to the conditions of authorisation of Part 1 and specified NNR requirements in Part 2.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

As noted by Leyden (2020), “Under the Tailings Operational Agreement Blyvoor Capital has agreed to support Blyvoor Operations to ceed or obtain its own permits, approvals and licenses”. This includes permits, approvals and licenses such as a WUL, an AEL and a NNR COR.

The QPs are not aware of any further permits in addition to those described above, which are required for the operations.

Blvoor Capital to develop an auditable maintenance plan to ensure that all critical environmental equipment is maintained as required and a discussion on the implementation and compliance with the maintenance plan be included in the annual audit reports.

Additionally, an alien management programme to control alien invasive plant species and must entail the identification of areas where such infestation occurs and the extent.

Item 3 (g) - Other Significant Factors and Risks

From the evidence available, it is the opinion of the QPs that mining at TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 can commence as a valid EA and WUL is in place. It is noted that as the Project currently stands, Blyvoor Ops will not hold all the authorisations it requires to independently conduct the Project. Notwithstanding, Blyvoor Ops can still be held liable for arising environmental impacts. Condition No. 4.8 of the EA (DMR Ref No. GP30/5/1/2/3/2/1 (143) EM) states, “Non-compliance with any condition of this EA or EMPr may result in the issuing of a directive in terms of section 28 and or a compliance notice in terms of section 31L of the NEMA.” Regulation 34 of the Environmental Impact Assessment (“EIA”) Regulations (GNR 982 of 4 December 2014 as amended) provides as follows “Auditing of compliance with environmental authorisation, environmental management programme and closure plan.” The Blyvoor Capital Environmental Audit Report (unpublished draft report, dated 17 May 2024) by Shangoni Management Services (Pty) Ltd) noted that Blyvoor Capital demonstrated a low level of compliance against the management commitments and should ensure adequate implementation of mitigation measures in compliance with EMP and the EA granted for its activities.

As noted previously, Blyvoor Ops will initially rely on the existing Blyvoor Capital rights and permits with respect to the Mining Right, the EA and water use licence under a duly signed agreement for this purpose.

The QPs are not aware of any past material violations or fines. There is reasonable basis to believe that all governmental requirements for the Project have been obtained or can be obtained. The Project owners and operators must adhere to environmental and sustainability principles as set out in the MPRDA.

The QPs are not aware of any further factors or risks that may affect access, title or right or the ability to perform work on the property.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 4 - ACCESSIBILITY, CLIMATE, LOCAL RESOURCES, INFRASTRUCTURE AND PHYSIOGRAPHY

Item 4 (a) - Topography, Elevation and Vegetation

The surface topography of the mining lease area is characterised by undulating hills and forms part of the northern slopes of the Gatsrand Ridge. Elevations vary from some 1,400 m to 1,680 m above mean sea level. One distinct watercourse carries seasonal rainwater from the higher catchment areas across the eastern side of the property to the Wonderfonteinspruit.

The mine area is located in the Gauteng Shale Mountain Bushveld and Carletonville Dolomite Grassland vegetation types (Mucina & Rutherford (2006) as noted in the EMP Update for Tailings Reclamation & Underground Mining at Blyvooruitzicht Gold, dated February 2017 by Golder Associates. The vegetation is characterised by short (3–6 m), semi-open thicket, dominated by a variety of woody species. The understory is dominated by a variety of grasses. Some of the ridges form plateaus that support scrubby grassland. Carletonville Dolomite Grassland occurs on undulating plains dissected by rocky chert ridges. The grassland is sour in nature due to severely frosty winters, combined with regular burning. Trees and shrubs typically occur on rocky outcrops and protected areas. Typical grassland is restricted to the exposed sites in the irregular, undulating landscape. This veld type is not suited for crop production due to the shallow and rocky nature of the soils. Grazing of livestock is limited due to the dominance of sour grass species, which results in a low nutrient status of the fodder during winter.

This area is typical of the transitional-type grassland between the high inland plateau and the bushveld of the lower inland plateau, with the resultant low incidence of tree species. The vegetation type in question is considered vulnerable and has a conservation target of 24%. However, only a small portion of it is protected, and 23% is being transformed, primarily through cultivation (17%), urbanization (4%), forestry (1%), and mining (1%). The 2000 EMP in 2000 identified 16 types of trees, shrubs, and grass at the Blyvooruitzicht section, 22 types of grass at the Doornfontein section, and 33 tree, shrub, and flowering plant species at the Doornfontein section inclusive of exotic and invasive species on mine property.

Item 4 (b) - Access to the Property

The Project Area is directly accessible via the R501 main tarred road that connects Carletonville and Potchefstroom. The R501 regional road leading from the N12 national road past the town of Carletonville and in a western direction on to Potchefstroom. From the R501, the Mine is accessed via a direct tarred road onto the lease area that branches off the R501. This road is in a relatively good state of repair and no work or design will be required on this road. Numerous all-weather gravel roads provide access to the various TSFs and Project sites.

Oberholzer is the closest railway station, located approximately 12 km northeast of the Project Area and just north of Carletonville, and is situated on the Johannesburg-Klerksdorp railway line. The O.R. Tambo and Lanseria International Airports in the Johannesburg area support high volumes of daily domestic and international flights. The Carletonville Aerodrome is located some 5 km north of the Project Area.

Item 4 (c) - Climate and Length of Operating Season

The climate in Carletonville is warm and temperate and classified as Cwb by Köppen and Geiger (climate-data.org). Cwb is characterised by a subtropical highland climate or temperate oceanic climate with dry winters, where the ‘C’ refers to mild temperature, the ‘w’ refers to dry winter and the ‘b’ refers to warm summers. Temperatures are warm to mild with an average annual temperature of 15.9°C in Carletonville (climate-data.org). The dominant wind direction in the vicinity of the Project Area is northwest to

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

northeast. There are no major climatic conditions that will hinder mining activities. Operations can continue year-round.

The Project Area is located in the Highveld climatic zone, which receives average annual precipitation of about 900 mm on its eastern border to about 650 mm in the west. Rainfall occurs mainly in the summer months from October to March in the form of showers and thundershowers. Maximum rainfall occurs in January, and winters are typically dry. The average annual rainfall at Carletonville is 660 mm (climate-data.org). Several distinct watercourses carry seasonal rainwater from the higher catchment areas across the property to the Wonderfonteinspruit (Golder Associates, 2016).

Item 4 (d) - Infrastructure

The local Carletonville region is a well-established mining area. Skilled and semi-skilled labour are readily available, along with all service requirements. The nearby towns of Carletonville and Fochville provide a full range of urban amenities, including medical and educational facilities, financial, retail, and commercial services. Telephone and mobile phone services are reliable, as are the high-speed internet facilities.

Power supply in the general area is well-established. Historically the Blyvoor process plant was supplied by a single 22 kV overhead line (“OHL”) that is fed from an Eskom consumer substation located 2.7 km east of the project area. 3 x 22 kV OHL’s fed from this line and supplied power to the Blyvoor process plant intake substation The line feeding from the Eskom consumer substation is still in place and only a short new OHL needs to be established from this line to the new project intake substation. The historical Blyvoor process facility was significantly larger than the new tailings retreatment plant with a much larger power supply requirement. Supply to the tailings retreatment project will thus be more than sufficient. The reliability of the power supply from Eskom throughout the country is however questionable with rolling blackouts (load shedding) occurring regularly due to the utility’s constraints in generating capacity.

Potable water can be sourced from the Rand Water Board Utility through the Merafong Municipality supply infrastructure which is available on the property. Potable water will be supplied from the project main service water supply. The water will be treated through a potable water treatment plant.

Water in underground workings in the West Rand, and particularly the Carletonville area, is well reported. The Covalent Water Company (Pty) Ltd (“CWC”), pump water to surface from the existing Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 Shaft and Blyvooruitzicht No. 6 Shaft. CWC have been granted servitudes at Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 Shaft and Blyvooruitzicht No. 6 Shaft for access to the existing pumping infrastructure. CWC currently has no use for the water pumped from the underground workings and releases the water into a channel that in turn flows into the Mooi River. The water quality is such that it does not require to be treated prior to releasing it into the river. The water capacity available as well as the quality of the water is ideal for the Project and it is thus planned that the tailings retreatment operation will purchase water from CWC that has been dewatered from Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 shaft (in closest proximity to the project – 2.4 km northwest).

In the unlikely event of a shortfall of water, make-up water can be purchased from Rand Water.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 5 - HISTORY

Item 5 (a) - Prior Ownership and Ownership Changes

The farm Blyvooruitzicht was initially farmed by one Pieter Daniel Roux. Following successful exploration over the property in the early 1930s, Rand Mines showed interest in the new potential goldfield and acquired ground on the farm Blyvooruitzicht No. 640. This ground belonged to a deceased estate administered by Standard Bank. BGMC was registered on 10 June 1937. At that time, what is currently the MR143GP lease area was divided into Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine in the east owned by Rand Mines and Doornfontein Gold Mine in the west, owned by Goldfields South Africa.

In June of 1971, Barlow Rand Ltd purchased Rand Mines. In 1995, Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine and Doornfontein Gold Mine merged to form the greater Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine under Rand Mines. In 1997, DRDGold Ltd (“DRD”) purchased the greater Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine from Rand Mines. In November 2011, DRD sold its shareholding in BGMC to Village Main Reef.

Village Main Reef was placed into business rescue in 2013 and most of their assets were placed into liquidation. BGMC was placed under provisional liquidation in August 2013. In 2014-2016, Blyvoor Capital and Blyvoor Ops purchased assets from the liquidators of BGMC. Resulting from the liquidation, AngloGold Ashanti Limited (“AGA”) (now under Harmony) purchased Blyvooruitzicht No. 4 Shaft and Blyvooruitzicht No. 6 Shaft and took over water pumping activities through these shafts through their subsidiary CWC. This action was necessary to protect their down dip mines, being Savuka, Tau Tona and Mponeng.

In 2015, Blyvoor Ops purchased all TSFs excluding TSF No. 4 and No. 5 footprints – (these TSF’s tailings were previously reprocessed).

Item 5 (b) - Historical Exploration and Development

Mining commenced at Blyvoor Mine in the 1930s and continued until the mine went into liquidation in 2013. Table 3 presents the historical/previous (pre-2020) exploration across the TSFs. Also, in 2015 Blyvoor Capital purchased the Blyvooruitzicht processing plant. This facility was later transferred to Blyvoor Ops.

Table 3: Historical Exploration

For the period 1942 to mine closure in 2013, 38.1 Moz of gold was recovered from Blyvooruitzicht Gold Mine. An additional 0.2 Moz was recovered from Blyvoor Mine from end 2019 to 2023. An additional 19.5 Moz was recovered from Doornfontein Gold Mine before the merger with BGMC.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 6 - GEOLOGICAL SETTING, MINERALISATION AND DEPOSIT

Item 6 (a) - Regional Geology

The Project Area lies within the late Archaean (2.7-2.8 Ga) Witwatersrand Basin. This basin comprises up to 7,000 m thick interbedded sequence of argillaceous and arenaceous sedimentary rocks mainly dipping at shallow angles towards the centre of the basin and extend laterally for some 350 km northeast-southwest and 120 km northwest-southeast on the Kaapvaal Craton. The upper portion of the basin-fill (Central Rand Group), which contains the sedimentary reefs or mineralised zones, outcrops at its northern extent near Johannesburg. Further west, south and east the basin is overlain by a combination of up to 4,000 m of younger Archaean, Proterozoic and Mesozoic volcanic and sedimentary rocks.

Economically important, gold-bearing conglomeratic zones generally occur on regional unconformities. These are commonly referred to as “reefs” or placers. The reefs occur in goldfields that are geographically separated. These are namely the Welkom, Klerksdorp, Carletonville, West Rand, Central Rand, East Rand, South Rand, and Evander Goldfields. Locally, the Project falls within the Carletonville Goldfield, or Far West Wits Line, that, in addition to gold, produced uranium and pyrite (for sulphuric acid production) as by-products.

Item 6 (b) - Local and Property Geology

The TSFs represent man-made deposits of treated tailings material derived from ore extracted at the historical Blyvooruitzicht and Doornfontein gold mines. The gold content represents the residue gold which was not extracted in the initial processing of the primary ores.

At Blyvoor, two economic placer horizons were exploited. These are namely the Carbon Leader and Middelvlei Reefs and occur in quartzites of the Main Reef Conglomerate Formation of the Johannesburg Subgroup of the Central Rand Group. The Carbon Leader is a high grade, carbon-rich reef and is the principle economic horizon at Blyvoor. The Middelvlei Reef is the second economic horizon at Blyvoor and lies stratigraphically 50 m to 75 m above the Carbon Leader. The Middelvlei Reef is characterised by lower grades than the Carbon Leader.

Cross sections of the TSFs No. 1, 6 and 7 are illustrated inFigure 3.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 3: TSF No. 1, 6 and 7 Sections

Cross sections of the Doornfontein TSFs are illustrated in Figure 4.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 4: Doornfontein TSF Sections

As the TSFs are man-made, the requirements for a stratigraphic column as required in terms of paragraph (b)(96)(iii)(B)(6) of S-K 1300 are not appropriate or applicable.

Item 6 (c) - Mineralisation and Deposit Type

The TSFs are a man-made stratified deposit from the residue product of processing of gold ores of the Witwatersrand Supergroup. They comprise fine grained material that contains gold mineralisation which was not extracted during previous metallurgical processes. The TSFs were formed by pumping milled and treated material into paddocks on top of dams and allowing the tailings to dry. As such, the geological model for these deposits is a layered deposit.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 7 - EXPLORATION

Item 7 (a) - Non-Drilling Work

No satellite or aerial photographic interpretation, geophysical surveys, or other exploration have been undertaken over the TSFs.

Item 7 (b) - Drilling

A total of six phases of auger drilling were undertaken on TSF No. 7, two phases on TSF No. 6 and only one phase on TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3.

In 2007, Dump and Dune (Pty) Ltd conducted the drilling on all six TSFs using a lightweight and man portable handheld auger, which is powered by a 1,400 kW hydraulic motor. A core barrels and extension rods length utilised were 1.5 m, 3 m or 4.5 m. The core barrel comprised a rotating spiral encased in a counter rotating stainless steel core barrel of 50 mm diameter. All drilling, sampling and bagging was done under the supervision of the project geologist on site, who accompanied the drill crew at all times (Whittaker, 2017).

The typical auger drilling procedure was executed as follows:-

Depth to end of tailings could not be determined accurately as the exact point of bottom intersection was not known unless bedrock was encountered. If soil was penetrated the exact depth of soil could not be calculated due to material expansion in the auger and unknown loss from the base of the auger on withdrawal. Depth estimations were made according to the amount of material in the bags after separating tailings and sub-soil. Accuracy is estimated at better than 0.5 m. Once completed, each drillhole was marked with an aluminium tag with the drillhole number for later surveying (the 2020 drillholes were marked with a 1.5-meter PVC pipe with the hole number clearly marked using paint marker). Auger drillholes were drilled perpendicular to the surface of the TSF. Most drillholes did not penetrate to the underlying soil or bedrock. Some drillholes could not be completed due to collapsing sidewalls. On completion, the drillhole positions were surveyed. Their positions were not permanently marked as this would have interfered with ongoing operations, i.e., TSFs were being ploughed for rehabilitation and dust control, while TSF No. 6 was at the time an active deposition site in 2007 (Whittaker, 2016). Minxcon is of the opinion that the other drilling campaign (2008, 2010, 2015, 2016) followed the same procedure as the same drilling company was involved. No down hole surveys were conducted.

The same procedures were employed during the 2020 drilling programme. All the drillholes were drilled by means of auger drilling to a depth of less than 50 m, it is reasonable to assume that these drillholes are approximately vertical due to the stratified nature of deposition. The geometry of the mineralisation is also considered in the geological modelling and Mineral Resource estimation process.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Drilling was conducted in six phases and sampling was conducted under the supervision of experienced personnel (DEJ Whittaker and A&B Global Mining Consultants) with standard operating procedures in place. Samples were collected at an interval of 1.5 m.

During sampling, the first two 1.5 m samples, i.e. down to 3 m depth, were collected by laying the rods horizontally on trestles and reversing the motor to discharge the samples directly into plastic bags. The auger was then removed from the outer sleeve over a plastic sheet and cleaned and the material added to the sample. Material from the longer 4.5 m rods was sampled manually by rotating the inner spiral in the opposite direction with a hand crank. The first part of the sample is collected from the nose of the core barrel, the remainder from the plastic sheet on extraction of the inner auger as above. Sleeve, auger and sheet were cleaned with brushes after each sample. All reasonable measures were taken to ensure full sample recovery. Each sample bag was numbered with permanent marker pen and a sample ticket containing the dump name, drillhole number, sample number and ticket number attached. This was placed within a miniature Ziploc bag to protect it against damage and stapled to the sample bag. Bags were sealed within a half hour of sample extraction.

No data pertaining to the sample recoveries and results are recorded as part of the auger drilling programmes. No splitting of samples was carried out during any drilling campaigns. Data pertaining to the sample reject is not available.

Minxcon is not aware of any other factors that may have resulted in sample bias.

A summary of the drillholes and samples taken at each TSF is presented in Table 4.

Table 4: Drillhole and Sample Summary

The auger drillhole collar positions on TSF No. 1, TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 are presented in Figure 5, Figure 6 and Figure 7, respectively.

The auger drillhole collar positions on Doornfontein TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3 are presented in Figure 8, Figure 9 and Figure 10  respectively respectively.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 5: Drillhole Collars for TSF No. 1

Figure 6: Drillhole Collars for TSF No. 6

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 7: Drillhole Collars for TSF No. 7

Figure 8: Drillhole Collars for Doornfontein TSF No. 1

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 9: Drillhole Collars for Doornfontein TSF No. 2

Figure 10: Drillhole Collars for Doornfontein TSF No. 3

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

No detailed logging was conducted on the drillholes as the tailings are very uniform in terms of macroscopic features, colour and grain size. Lithological logs (“from” and “to” depth, colour and lithology) are available for the 2010 and 2016 drilling campaigns, of which the 2016 logs were the most detailed. The logging undertaken is suitable for this type of deposit and may be utilised for Mineral Resource estimation. Basic logs were compiled for the 2020 drilling that detailed TSF material as well as soil intersections, which could be utilised in delineating the base of the TSFs.

Item 7 (c) - Hydrogeology

The TSFs are manmade deposits that occur above ground. Hydrogeological characterisation is not deemed applicable by the QPs to this type of deposit.

Item 7 (d) - Geotechnical

The TSFs are manmade deposits. Geotechnical testing is not deemed applicable by the QPs to this type of deposit.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 8 - Sample Preparation, Analyses and Security

Item 8 (a) - Sample Handling Prior to Dispatch

During the 2007 drilling and sampling campaign, each sample bag was numbered with a permanent marker pen and a sample ticket containing TSF name, drillhole number and sample numbers was attached. A sample ticket was placed within a miniature Ziploc bag to protect it against damage and then stapled to the sample bag. Sample bags were sealed within a half hour of sample extraction. All samples were transported to and stored in a secure and locked facility on the Blyvoor Gold Mine premises until they were dispatched in a closed vehicle to ALS Chemex Laboratories.

Data pertaining to the 2008 and 2010 sample security and chain of custody is not available. Minxcon is of the opinion that the retention policy and storage of physical samples would have been similar to the 2007 drilling campaign. During 2015 and 2016, drilling and sampling was overseen by A&B Global Mining consultants who handed the samples to the client daily for safe keeping before being dispatched to the laboratory. For the 2020 drilling, a detailed chain of custody form was completed, in triplicate each time samples changed hands. It was signed off by the site geologist to the driver transporting the samples, who signed it off to the laboratory assistant. The completed chain of custody was filed and stored.

Item 8 (b) - Sample Preparation and Analysis Procedures

During 2007 auger drilling, all samples collected were dispatched to ALS Chemex Laboratories for analysis. ALS Chemex Laboratories is in Edenvale, Gauteng and is a SANAS certified Laboratory, in accordance with the recognised internal standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, with accreditation number T0387. Samples were assayed for gold by fire assay, Uranium by XRF, Total Sulphur by Leco Furnace and Infrared Spectroscopy for Sulphur. This laboratory is accredited for both the gold and uranium assays.

No record of the laboratory or analytical method utilised for gold analysis in 2008 and 2010. It is believed that Blyvooruitzicht internal laboratory was used.

During 2015 and 2016 drilling, samples were dispatched to Super Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd in Springs, Gauteng for gold analysis. Super Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd is a SANAS certified Laboratory, in accordance with the recognised internal standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, with accreditation number T0494. Samples were assayed for Au by fire assay.

The 2020 drilling was submitted to SGS Randfontein which is a SANAS certified Laboratory, in accordance with the recognised internal standard ISO/IEC 17025:2005, with accreditation number T0265. Samples were assayed for Au by fire assay Au by lead fusion, followed by AAS finish.

The standard method for sample preparation technique that was carried out at ALS Chemex Laboratories is summarised as follows:-

Data pertaining to the 2008, 2010, 2015 and 2016 sample preparation techniques are not available.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Bulk Density Determination

In 2007, Geostrada Engineering Materials Laboratory conducted bulk density sampling over all six TSF using a Troxler Roadreader™ nuclear moisture / density gauge, Model 3430. This method uses a radiometric method rather than a mass/volume physical measurement. The methodology had been verified at Crown Gold Recoveries (DRDGold), where tonnage reconciliation exercises are routinely conducted (Whittaker, 2016). The procedure and results for the bulk density measurements is described in the Surface Mineral Resource audit report by Whittaker 2016. The bulk density measurements were averaged per TSF (Table 5).

Table 5: Bulk Density Measurements Conducted in 2007

During the 2020 drilling programme, density measurements were taken on the old Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7. Samples were collected and the wet and dry densities calculated at each of the planned drill collars. A total of 55 samples were collected, 48 on TSF No. 6 and 7 on TSF No. 7 respectively. The samples were taken utilising the “pipe” method which uses low volume mass/volume physical measurements. Unfortunately, the results were inconclusive with TSF No. 6 returning an average dry density of 1.34 t/m³ and TSF No. 7 an average dry density of 1.43 t/m³, which were deemed too low for this material, suggesting that an error must have occurred in the process of density measurements. For this reason, the historical density figures were used for this estimation. It is however, recommended that with further study work the historical densities be checked using a nuclear densitometer or soil density gauge.

Item 8 (c) - Quality Assurance and Quality Control

External QAQC samples (one high grade CRM, one low grade CRM, blank and duplicates) were inserted in the 2007, 2008 and 2020 sampling campaign. No QAQC data is available for 2007, 2008 and 2010 sampling campaign. In 2016, samples were analysed in duplicate whereas in 2015 only internal laboratory QAQC was implemented.

During 2007 drilling campaign, a standard QAQC programme was followed, where two certified reference materials (“CRMs”) were inserted per 16 auger samples and blank and duplicate sample for every 16^th auger sample.

A total of 17 high grade AMIS0029 were utilised during sampling and no major issues were identified as all samples reported above 10 g/t (upper laboratory detection limit), Minxcon is of the opinion that that AMIS0029 was not a representative CRM of the material being sampled. A high-grade CRM of approximately 0.5 g/t to 1.0 g/t should have been utilised, that is more comparable to the expected grades. A total of 20 low grade AMIS0045 samples were utilised of which three samples failed beyond three standard deviations on the lower side of the mean. One blank sample fails the QAQC with the assay value of 0.35 g/t and this might be due to sample swop or contamination at the laboratory. Duplicate samples show an excellent correlation coefficient (R²) of 0.9943. ALS sample analysis vs Blyvoor sample analysis QAQC shows a poor correlation coefficient (R²) of 0.6751. Due to the results consistently under or overreporting the results, it can be concluded that there is no significance bias, but low reproducibility (precision) of the results between laboratories.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

No QAQC data is available for the 2008 and 2010 drilling campaign (TSF No. 7). It is presumed that the sample analysis was undertaken at the Blyvooruitzicht internal Laboratory.

For the 2015 drilling campaign (TSF No. 7), data pertaining to the CRMs, blanks and duplicate utilised during sampling process were not available at the time of reporting. The CRMs used by Superlabs internal QAQC were not representative of the TSF material being sampled and a lower grade CRM, duplicate and blank samples should have been inserted in the sampling sequences. A total of nine low AMI0208 samples were utilised at Superlabs of which all samples pass the QAQC within one standard deviation. For AMIS0430 QAQC, all samples are within one standard deviation on the lower side of the mean. A locally prepared reference standard (Chips 2) with a value of 2.02 g/t was utilised at Superlabs. A total of 26 chips and two reference samples were analysed and they all fall within the specified limit.

Limited data pertaining to the QAQC followed during 2016 drilling campaign (TSF No. 7) is available. The duplicate results presented a good correlation coefficient (R2) of 0.9349. The original duplicate results from the laboratory were not available to Minxcon at the time of reporting. No other QAQC data is available.

For the 2020 drilling campaign, QAQC Standards (two different types), laboratory duplicates and blanks were inserted in the sample sequence as every 10^th sample alternating in order, respectively. For every batch of samples sent to the laboratory, at least 5% of those samples were sent as check samples to a referee laboratory. These samples were selected at random.

During the drilling, 36 duplicates, 35 blanks, 29 referee samples and 72 standards were inserted as part of the QAQC procedures. As part of the SGS laboratories internal QAQC programme, 53 blanks, 82 standards and 63 blanks were inserted. The bulk of the standards used are representative of the expected grades being assayed, except for one. However, the results are acceptable with minimal failures for all standards. The blank analysis for 2020 show one failure with the remainder plotting within expected ranges. For the Blyvoor sample run, a certified blank (AMIS 577), made from silica powder with a gold value of zero, was selected. The blank material used for SGS’s internal QAQC was not specified. A good correlation of original with duplicate is observed from the results of the duplicate analysis for both internal SGS duplicates and duplicates submitted as part of the drilling campaign.

Plotting of the analysis results revealed only eight failures in the database. A slight positive bias is seen in the standards. The results plot within acceptable limits and do not constitute a significant error. Referee samples from ALS against the original SGS results showed a good correlation with original assays, except for three samples plotting outside a 10% confidence envelope.

The QAQC results and procedures followed during the 2020 campaign show results are suitable for inclusion into the estimation database.

Item 8 (d) - Adequacy of Sample Preparation, Security and Analytical Procedures

This section sets out the opinion of the QPs regarding the adequacy of sample preparation, security, and analytical procedures.

Appropriate QAQC samples were inserted during the 2007 and 2020 sampling campaign. Data pertaining to the 2008 and 2010 QAQC is not available. The 2015 and 2016 campaign relied on the internal laboratory QAQC procedures and the certified material were not representative of the deposit (Whittaker, 2016). Despite lack of QAQC data in 2015 and 2016, Minxcon is of the opinion that sampling was conducted to best industry standard techniques. Detailed Sampling and QAQC procedures are available for the 2020 programme.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

It is the opinion of the QP responsible for the Mineral Resources of this Report that the database utilised for the Mineral Resource estimation is adequate and appropriate. It is the QP’s opinion that the bulk density determination method was conducted according to industry best practice and therefore deemed reliable to use for the Mineral Resource estimation.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 9 - DATA VERIFICATION

Item 9 (a) - Data Verification Procedures

The databases for all TSFs were supplied in the form of Microsoft Excel™ spreadsheets. The drillhole databases included collar file, assay file, survey files as well as lithological logs for both TSF No. 6 (2020 drilling campaign) and TSF No. 7 (2010, 2016 and 2020 drilling campaign). Original laboratory certificates for 2008, 2010 and 2016 drilling campaign were not available for cross validation.

The QP cross-validated the 2007, 2015 and 2020 assay database with the original laboratory certificates as supplied by the Company. The QP found no copy and paste, or transcription errors between the databases. In addition, the QP cross checked and validated the data (lithological and assay logs) in Datamine Studio EM™ software as far as possible.

Historical Audits and reviews were conducted by Coffey Mining from 2002 - 2011, Minxcon in 2012 and DEJ Whittaker in 2016 and no risk or concerns were raised.

Item 9 (b) - Limitations on/Failure to Conduct Data Verification

No data verification limitations were encountered.

Item 9 (c) - Adequacy of Data

It is the view of the QP responsible for the Mineral Resources of this Report, Mr Engelmann, that the Project data is adequate for the purposes of conducting Mineral Resource estimation in line with the requirement as outlined by the requirements of S-K 1300.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 10 - MINERAL PROCESSING AND METALLURGICAL TESTING

Item 10 (a) - Nature and Extent of Testing and Analytical Procedures

Auger drilling was completed on the TSFs to obtain samples for metallurgical testwork. Several drilling campaigns have been done in the past and used for different tests. Testwork was done by Superlabs, Maelgwyn Mineral Services (“Maelgwyn”) and SGS in 2015, 2016 and 2017, respectively. Superlabs conducted bottle roll leach tests with activated carbon to simulate a carbon-in-leach (CIL) processing route. Maelgwyn used their proprietary Aachen reactor to simulate a CIL process with pre-oxidation step. SGS conducted a diagnostic leach test to determine the gold distribution among the minerals in the sample.

The tests were used to estimate the expected recovery and major reagent consumptions. As expected, the recovery was found to be higher for higher grade samples.

The consumption rates of the two major reagents (cyanide and lime) were also estimated from the Superlabs and Maelgwyn testwork.

Cyanide consumption for the bottle roll tests undertaken by Superlabs was significantly higher than the CIL tests preceded with oxidation done by Maelgwyn. This is expected as the dissolved oxygen is known to increase the speed of the gold cyanidation reaction. As the large-scale plant will also employ a similar pre-oxidation step as the Maelgwyn testwork, this average cyanide consumption was used as the estimate for the full-scale plant.

The lime consumption was more similar between the two laboratories and an average of all the tests was taken as estimate for the full-scale plant.

Item 10 (b) - Basis of Assumptions Regarding Recovery Estimates

The samples from the auger drilling in TSF No. 7 are assumed to be representative of both TSF No. 6 and 7 as they were produced from the same mining area, and the measured Mineral Reserve grade for the two TSFs are similar at 0.32 g/t and 0.31 g/t, respectively. Some grade and recovery variations are expected, but the model used to fit the experimental data is assumed to adequately account for this. Despite that the assumption may not necessarily be accurate in respect of a common mining area, the measured Mineral Reserve grade supports this claim. It is however recommended to perform additional testwork to increase the confidence level of the claim of similarity. The well-tested and widely used CIL process was selected to recover the gold from the TSF material. This process will also incorporate an oxidation step before cyanidation to improve leaching kinetics and lower the cyanide consumption as indicated in the Maelgwyn tests.

Other operations that treat similar surface stockpiles also use the CIL technology, but some of these operations incorporate a grinding step prior to pre-oxidation and leaching. The material from TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is expected to be sufficiently fine, and the lower grade does not warrant the additional expensive grinding step. Testwork has been performed and supports the plant design proposal which excludes re-grinding.

Item 10 (c) - Representativeness of Samples and Adequacy of Data

The samples measured from current production are considered reliable and representative. As a result, they can be used to adequately predict future performance.

The QPs are of the opinion that TSF gold recoveries are well understood as they are based on various comparable operations in the region which employ a similar process plant design, and which do not differ in many respects from the process plant design employed to recover gold from RoM originating from

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

underground gold mining operations. Blyvoor Capital currently operates such a process plant which is designed to achieve acceptable recovery of gold from reef ore which is sourced from underground mining operations.

Item 10 (d) - Deleterious Elements for Extraction

No deleterious elements have been identified which could otherwise negatively affect the processing plant and for which the plant has not been provided with adequate processing capacity thereof. During 2007 over-sized material and carbon were removed. Representative particle size distribution was used for the plant design. The process includes detoxification capacity to render cyanide below allowable threshold. Rainwater run-off from the tailings dam is channelled within bund walls to a sump from where it is returned to the plant as makeup water.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 11 - MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES

Item 11 (a) - Assumptions, Parameters and Methods Used for Resource Estimates

The databases for all TSFs were supplied as Microsoft Excel™ spreadsheets. The drillhole databases included collar file, assay file, survey files as well as lithological logs for both TSF No. 6 (2020 drilling campaign) and TSF No. 7 (2010, 2016 and 2020 drilling campaigns). The 2007 and 2008 drillhole data had limited detail. The database for Mineral Resource estimation was visually checked for errors and inconsistency and validated in Datamine Studio EM™ as well as Leapfrog Edge™ software. The gold (Au) field was also checked for zero and null values and replaced with 0.0005 (half the detection limit). Geological drillholes and statistics per TSFs are presented in Table 6.

Table 6: Classical Statistics for the TSFs

Block models were created considering the drillhole spacing and sample size. Mineral Resource estimation was completed in in Datamine Studio EM™ software for TSF No. 1 and Doornfontein TSF’s. Leapfrog Edge™ was utilised for TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7.

Based on the statistical analysis and limited number of samples it was decided not to cap or cut the data for use in the estimation for TSF No. 1 or Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2 or 3. TSFs No. 6 and 7 had a large enough database to warrant outlier analysis. The probability plot for TSF No. 6 is illustrated in Figure 11 and TSF No. 7 in Figure 12. Both domains were capped at 1.5 g/t for the estimation.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 11: Outlier Analysis for TSF No. 6		Figure 12: Outlier Analysis for TSF No. 7

The drillhole data for all TSFs was composited on a 1.5 m composite which is the standard sub-sampling length for all TSFs.

Variograms could be generated for TSF No. 6 and No. 7; the parameters are detailed in Table 7. An attempt was made at generating and modelling semi-variograms for the remaining TSFs with the associated drillhole composite, however the lack of data and relatively wide drillhole spacing (>300 m grid) between drillholes precluded the generation of valid variograms.

Table 7: Variogram Parameters for TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7

Bulk density determination is described in Item 8 (b).

The estimation parameters are shown in Table 8. The search volume was utilised for TSF No. 6 and No. 7 to aid in Mineral Resource classification. The search range 2 is 1.5 X the variogram range and search range 3 is 2 X the variogram range.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Table 8: Estimation Parameters for the 2020 Mineral Resource Estimation

The estimation results for TSF No.1 are shown in Figure 13. The estimations for TSF No. 6 and No. 7 are illustrated in Figure 14 and Figure 15, these were both conducted in Leapfrog Edge^TM, all other estimates were performed in Datamine RM^TM. The estimates for Doornfontein TSFs No. 1, 2 and 3 are illustrated in Figure 16, Figure 17 and Figure 18 respectively.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 13: Mineral Resource Estimation for TSF No. 1

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 14: Mineral Resource Estimation for TSF No. 6

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 15: Mineral Resource Estimation for TSF No. 7

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 16: Mineral Resource Estimation for Doornfontein TSF No. 1

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 17: Mineral Resource Estimation for Doornfontein TSF No. 2

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 18: Mineral Resource Estimation for Doornfontein TSF No. 3

As part of reconciliation of model to drillhole data, swath plots for were created with 200 m swaths running from north to south and east to east as well as 20 m vertical swath for TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 1, Doornfontein TSF No. 2 and Doornfontein TSF No. 3.

Doornfontein TSF No. 1 swath plot present good correlation between the model and data. The swath plots for Doornfontein TSF No. 2 present good correlation between the model and data. The swath plot for Doornfontein TSF No. 3 show best correlation between the model and data. Swaths plots were also generated for the ordinary krig estimates versus an Inverse distance estimate for TSF No. 6 and 7. A good correlation with data is shown with both domains, particularly vertically.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The QP undertook an initial assessment of the deposits to determine the reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction (“RPEEE”).

Due to the TSFs occurring on the surface and the ease of extraction, there are sufficient expectations for economic extraction.

There are no social, environmental or governance issues identified for the Project that could have a material modification to the planned Mineral Resource estimation programme, or that are likely to remain material despite the implementation of proposed mitigation measures.

The QP deems the total Mineral Resource as stated in this TRS to have RPEEE.

The Mineral Resource classification is a function of the confidence of the whole process from drilling, sampling, geological understanding and geostatistical relationships. The following aspects or parameters were considered for Mineral Resource classification:-

The classification criteria applied is displayed in Table 9.

Table 9: Classification Criteria Applied

This criterion is applied to TSF No. 6 and 7. While for TSF No.1, Doornfontein TSF No.1, 2 and 3, an Inferred Mineral Resource is defined due to limited samples and lack of historical sampling and QAQC data. The Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources for TSF No. 6 and No. 7 are mined out completely and are thus not presented in the Mineral Resources statement exclusive of Mineral Reserves.

The Mineral Resources are declared with no cut-off applied as most of the TSF’s are expected to be totally reclaimed due to the nonselective hydraulic mining methodology and the average grades of the TSFs have a higher grade than the calculated pay limit of 0.14 g/t. No geological loss or modifying factors are applied for Mineral Resource purposes. Tonnages are stated in metric tonnes, columns may not add up due to rounding. Mineral Resources are reported as falling within the boundary limits of the mineral licenses. Inferred Mineral Resources have a low level of confidence and while it would be reasonable to expect that the majority of Inferred Mineral Resources would upgrade to Indicated Mineral Resources with continued exploration, due to the uncertainty of Inferred Mineral Resources, it should not be assumed that such upgrading would occur.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The mine plan mines the total TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7, as depicted in Figure 19, including 16 koz of Inferred Mineral Resources attributed to TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7. These 16 koz are not reflected in the Mineral Reserves as they are considered to fall within the Inferred Mineral Resource category.

Figure 19: Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 Mineral Resource Model

Consequently, there will be no further contributions to Mineral Resource base from TSF No. 6 and TSF No.7. and have therefore been shown as zero as there is no residual Mineral Resource excluding Mineral Reserves for these two TSFs.

The in situ Mineral Resources for the TSFs as at 29 February 2024 are presented in Table 10. The Mineral Resources are reported as exclusive of Mineral Reserves and are 100% attributable to Blyvoor Ops.

Table 10: Mineral Resources for Blyvoor Gold Mine TSFs as at 29 February 2024

Notes:

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Item 11 (b) - Individual Grade of Metals

Mineral Resources for gold have been estimated for the TSFs. No other metals or minerals have been estimated for the Project.

Item 11 (c) - Factors Affecting Mineral Resource Estimates

The QPs are not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, and political or other factors that will materially affect the Mineral Resource estimates. There are no modifying factors, by-products or deleterious elements currently identified.

The QPs are of the opinion that there is sufficient data density and confidence in the data to define Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources. The total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources are converted to Mineral Reserves, thus are not presented in the Mineral Resource estimation.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 12 - MINERAL RESERVE ESTIMATES

Item 12 (a) - Key Assumptions, Parameters and Methods

The mining design and schedule was completed using the Mineral Resource model as presented in this TRS. The Mineral Resources in the LoM plan include only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources. The Mineral Resources are adjusted with Mineral Reserve conversion factors to convert the Mineral Resources into Mineral Reserves.

Only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources were included in the Mineral Reserve statement. Mineral Reserves are reported for the TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7. Only material from TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 was included in the estimation. The Mineral Reserves are reported as material delivered to the processing plant before recovery. Mineral Resources in the Measured and Indicated categories were converted into Mineral Reserves in the Proved and Probable categories, having considered confidence in the Mineral Resources and the modifying factors applied.

Minxcon used the updated Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 Mineral Resource model as at 29 February 2024. The Mineral Resource models used in the mine design and schedule of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 are illustrated in Figure 21.

Hydro mining will be employed, which entails re-mining the entire TSF and therefore no cut-off were applied to the TSF’s planned to be mined although the entire TSF’s will exceed the pay-limit which was used for the cut-off. The Mineral Resources in the LoM plans are above the calculated pay limit. The pay-limit calculation as per the 2020 PFS is detailed in Table 11.

Table 11: Pay-Limit Calculation

The mining strategy involves targeting the highest-grade area first, which is the upper portion of TSF No. 6. Mining then moves to TSF No. 7, depleting the entire dam. The grade of TSF No. 7 is slightly lower than the grade in the upper portion of TSF No. 6, but higher than the grade in the lower portion of TSF No. 6. This strategy will ensure that a more constant grade profile is maintained throughout the project.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

All relevant processing, metallurgical, infrastructure, economic, marketing, legal, environmental, social and governmental factors have been taken into consideration for the conversion from Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves, however these factors have had no material impact on the Mineral Reserve estimation. No minimum mining dimension has been applied due to the selected mining method. Hydro mining of the TSFs does not require a minimum mining dimension to be applied.

The Mineral Reserve conversion factors applied to the Mineral Resources to convert to Mineral Reserves are detailed in Table 12. Mineral Reserve conversion factors have been applied equally to Measured Mineral Resources and to Indicated Mineral Resources. The Mineral Reserve conversion factors applied have been derived from industry standards associated with hydro mining of TSFs.

Table 12: Mineral Reserve Conversion Factors Applied

Dilution accounts for any material that may be mined with the TSF material, such as soil, which has no gold content and dilutes the grade of the mined material. This may occur during mining of TSF No. 7 at the contact of the bottom of the TSF and the soil.

Ore loss has been applied to account for material containing gold that is lost during the mining process. This may occur during the washing and flow of the TSF slurry product along trenches and sumps where fines could be lost.

The following additional factors were considered:-

All Mineral Reserves were categorised and reported in accordance with the guidelines of §229.1302(e)(2) of S-K 1300.

The Mineral Resources within the LoM plan were adjusted with mining dilution, increasing the tonnage and thereby diluting the grade. Ore loss reduces the tonnes and content in the Mineral Resource. Dilution does not influence the gold content but increases the mined tonnes, diluting the grade. The mine call factor reduces the content that is available to be recovered. TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 Mineral Reserves, as delivered to plant and as at 29 February 2024, are detailed in Table 13.

Table 13: Mineral Reserves for Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 as at 29 February 2024

Notes:

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The Mineral Reserve contains 816 koz of gold in the Probable Mineral Reserve classification, derived from Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources, after having applied modifying factors for conversion from Mineral Resources to Mineral Reserves.

TSF No. 6 contains Measured Mineral Resources of 30,782 kt at a grade of 0.30 g/t containing 298.70 koz of gold which have been converted into Probable Mineral Reserves. A total of 14,086 kt at a grade of 0.28 g/t containing 125.65 koz of gold from the Indicated Mineral Resource classification has been converted into Probable Mineral Reserves.

TSF No. 7 contains Measured Mineral Resources of 18,224 kt at a grade of 0.29 g/t containing 171.26 koz of gold which have been converted into Probable Mineral Reserves. A total of 21,184 kt at a grade of 0.32 g/t containing 220.55 koz of gold from the Indicated Mineral Resource classification has been converted into Probable Mineral Reserves.

Item 12 (b) - Multiple Commodity Reserve

Gold is the only commodity within the Blyvoor mining areas that is present in significant concentrations.

Item 12 (c) - Factors Affecting Mineral Reserve Estimation

No socio-economic, legal or political modifying factors were taken into account in the estimation of Mineral Reserves for the Blyvoor Mine. The QPs are not aware of any known environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, and political or other factors that will materially affect the Mineral Reserve estimates. No material issues were identified for the Project.

The Mineral Reserve conversion factors detailed in Table 12 were applied to the Mineral Resource for conversion to Mineral Reserves. The classification of Mineral Reserves can be affected by changes in the status of the factors. In particular, the gold price will affect the viability of the mineralised target.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 13 - MINING METHODS

The mining method that will be used for the reclamation of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is hydraulic mining. Hydraulic mining involves the use of high-pressure water monitors (water jets) to erode the TSF in strategic sections or cuts.

The hydro mining units can be either manually controlled or remote operated. Units can be mounted in a stationary position or trackless to allow for mining flexibility in terms of manoeuvrability. The product which is converted into a slurry by the water jets, is washed downstream of the unit for collection in a sump. The slurry is pumped from the sump via a slurry pipeline to the processing plant.

The mining layout for the depletion of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is illustrated in Figure 20. Mining of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 will be conducted sequentially to create capacity for depositing the newly retreated TSF material.

Figure 20: Blyvoor Ops Tailings Retreatment Project Layout

The mining strategy involves a 12-month ramp up to 500 ktpm steady state-production. Mining will commence with targeting the high-grade areas located at the upper portion of TSF No. 6 (Phase 1). Upon completion of the first mining cut on TSF No. 6, mining will move to TSF No. 7 (Phase 2). The entire TSF No. 7 will be mined to create capacity for the new planned deposition of retreated TSF material.

The final mining phase involves taking a second cut from TSF No. 6 (Phase 3), depleting the remainder of this TSF. The planned mining areas and grade distribution of TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 is illustrated in Figure 21.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 21: Blyvoor TSF No. 6 and TSF No. 7 Mining Areas and Grade Distribution

Item 13 (a) - Parameters Relevant to Mine Design

There are no geotechnical, hydrological or further parameters to those provided in Table 11 relevant to the mine design, as the TSFs represent surface, manmade deposits.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Item 13 (b) - Production Rates, Expected Mine Life, Mining Unit Dimensions, and Mining Dilution

A ramp up to 500 ktpm steady state production is planned over a 12-month period. A life of project of 15 years is anticipated. The diluted tonnes delivered to the plant is illustrated in Figure 22. The diluted content delivered to the plant is illustrated in Figure 23. Only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been included in the LoM plan. A total of 816 koz is contained in the LoM plan.

Figure 22: Diluted Tonnes Delivered to Plant

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Figure 23: Diluted Content Delivered to Plant

Item 13 (c) - Requirements for Stripping, Underground Development and Backfilling

The Project targets the remining of manmade TSFs. No stripping, underground development or backfilling are required.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

Item 13 (d) - Required Mining Fleet, Machinery and Personnel

The required equipment associated with the hydro mining of the TSFs will be provided by the selected mining contractor. The primary mining equipment will consist of water monitors, high pressure water system and slurry transfer system.

Ancillary mining equipment will be provided by the mining contractor as required. The ancillary mining equipment will consist of excavators, front end loaders, tractor loader backhoe (“TLB”) and utility vehicles.

Mining personnel requirements for the project will be determined by the mining contractor.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

ITEM 14 - RECOVERY METHODS

Item 14 (a) - Flow Sheets and Process Recovery Methods

The well-tested and widely used CIL process was selected to recover the gold from the TSF material. This process will also incorporate an oxidation step before cyanidation to improve leaching kinetics and lower the cyanide consumption as indicated in the Maelgwyn tests. Other operations that treat similar surface stockpiles also use the CIL technology, but some of these operations incorporate a grinding step prior to pre-oxidation and leaching. The material from TSF No. 6 is expected to be similar to that of TSF No. 7, which has been subjected to particle size distribution verification. The result showed a sufficiently fine size distribution. Thus, the grade does not warrant an additional and expensive re-grinding operation. The plant will consist of the circuits illustrated in Figure 24.

Figure 24: Block Flow Diagram of the Tailings Reclaim and Treatment Process

The process will involve washing the old tailings material from the TSFs and pumping it to a treatment plant. The slurry will be thickened and processed through the CIL route with a pre-oxidation step and a cyanide destruction step after leaching to detoxify the new tailings material. Gold adsorbed on activated carbon in the CIL stages will be stripped in an elution stage, and the eluted gold will be plated on steel cathodes in the electrowinning (EW) cells. The cathodes will be calcined, smelted, and cast into doré bars.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The hydro-mining will produce a slurry of all the material on the TSF including vegetation and other waste. Larger trash material will be removed at the hydro-mining site next to the TSF and slurry will be pumped to the process plant. Another stage of trash removal will be located at the process plant to remove the finer trash and would also catch coarse carbon granules.

Screening tailings will be thickened from a density of 1.21 t/m³ to 1.45 t/m³ with the recovered water being recycled back to the mining operation. Lime will also be added to the thickener to ensure the correct pH before leaching. The thickened tailings will be subjected to an oxygen assisted oxidation step through high shear reactors of the Aachen-type. From the oxidation tanks, the slurry will overflow into the leach train where cyanide is added. The leach train will consist of eight leach tanks where tailings slurry will flow from the first tank to the last, and activated carbon will flow counter-current to the slurry from the last tank to the first. Barren, carbon free slurry will be mixed with sodium metabisulphite (SMBS) to lower the residual free cyanide concentration before it is sent to the new TSF.

Loaded carbon will be removed from the first tank of the leach train and washed with a dilute solution of hydrochloric acid (HCl) to remove contaminants that could interfere the subsequent elution step. Acid washed carbon will be sent to an elution step where the adsorbed gold was stripped at high temperature in a sodium hydroxide (Caustic Soda) solution. The gold solution from the elution step will be passed through an electrowinning cell where the dissolved gold is plated on steel wool cathodes. The cathodes will be heated in a calcine where the iron and other less noble metals are oxidized and then the mixture will be smelted into doré bars and slag.

Stripped carbon from the elution step will be passed through a regeneration kiln to remove any organic contaminants and maintain its activity for gold adsorption. Fresh carbon will be added here, and the resulting stream will be screened to remove carbon fines.

There is a fully equipped assay laboratory which is located adjacent to the plant. The mine laboratory services are provided on a service contract by Super Laboratory Services and is not accredited, however plans indicate that accreditation is in progress, as it does have the necessary equipment required to prepare and analyse mine and plant samples. The sample preparation areas are demarcated for low grade and high-grade areas, especially where cross-contamination is a risk.

Good housekeeping standards are applied in the sample crushing and preparation and fire assay areas. As part of its external verification process the mine laboratory does not send samples away. However, to test their precision and accuracy, the laboratory makes use of standard reference material which it sources from AMIS from South Africa. The laboratory has acquired and installed an electronic tracking system. This facilitates implementation of a Laboratory Information Management system (LIMS) that reduces human error.

Item 14 (b) - Plant Design, Equipment Characteristics and Specifications

The process plant is designed to treat 500 ktpm through two identical 250 ktpm circuits. The acid wash, elution, EW, smelting and carbon regeneration sections are common to both circuits. New tailings will be deposited onto a new TSF facility that will be built adjacent to the process plant. The new TSF footprint will initially cover an old golf course, and it will later expand over the footprint of TSF No. 7.

A new TSF was designed by Tailex Management Services (Tailex); this is further described in Item 15 (b). The basin and walls of the new TSF will be lined with a geomembrane liner (liner) as per applicable regulations and standards. Drains will be installed on top of the liner and a seepage detection system underneath the membrane. Cyclones will be used to separate the coarse and fines fractions of the tailings, and the fines will be deposited in the basin while the coarse material will be used to raise the walls of the TSF in an upstream fashion.

	RESOURCE | RESERVE | VALUE

The mining of TSF No. 6 will allow its footprint to be used to deposit tailings again.

The process plant will be constructed next to the old process plant. Some of the equipment will be located at the mining operation next to the old TSFs, such as the sump pumps and trash screens. The plant layout is planned around two identical leach trains starting with the trash screens and thickeners, followed by the conditioning tanks, CIL tanks and detox tank. Shared infrastructure house in the centre of these two trains are the tower crane CIL office (Control Room) and Motor Control Centre (MCC). Reagent receipt and storage is to the side to allow easy access for trucks.

Item 14 (c) - Energy, Water and Process Materials Requirements

The operation of the plant is expected to be done by the Project owner, while mining and security will be outsourced. The plant manager will be the contract manager for these two business partners. Production and Maintenance will report to a Plant Superintendent and a Maintenance Engineer, while the Finance and HR functions will report directly to the Plant Manager.

The reagent and consumable consumptions are shown in Table 14. The forecasted consumptions are not expected to change significantly. Some of the higher consumptions of reagents was due to the high retention times of approximately 72 hours in the CIL circuit. This mainly affects carbon consumption due to the long exposure to agitation and abrasion in the CIL tanks, as well as cyanide consumption. Major reagents will be delivered to site through existing road infrastructure and stored on-site. Sodium cyanide (cyanide) will be delivered to site in liquid form with bulk tankers. The tankers will be offloaded into appropriate storage vessels. Lime will be supplied in bulk tankers and stored in a silo before being mixed with water before addition into the process. Oxygen will be delivered to site as liquid oxygen and the storage vessel will be provided and maintained by the supplier. SMBS will be delivered in bagged before being added to a mixing vessel. Water requirement must be sufficient to produce a slurry at 48% solid content. At 500 ktpm RoM, the water volume required is 715,000 m³ per month for processing.

Table 14: Summary of Reagent Consumption

Electricity will be sourced from Eskom through its existing transmission infrastructure. The installed electrical capacity was calculated for the equipment list with the rated power for each, and total 6,851 kW. The expected load for each type of equipment is between 75% and 90% of the installed capacity. Total expected load is 5,265 kW. Water for the process plant will be drawn from neighbouring underground workings.