ASX:QML $0.059
QMines Logo 2

MT CHALMERS DRILLING CONTINUES TO DELIVER HIGH-GRADE COPPER & GOLD INTERSECTIONS

23 September 2026ASX: QMLMt ChalmersDRILLING RESULTS

The following sections are AI-generated from the announcement content and are provided as supplementary reader aids only.

What This Announcement Means

QMines has released new drill results from its Mt Chalmers copper-gold project near Rockhampton, Queensland, as part of a large 10,000-metre drilling campaign. The headline result is a 44-metre wide zone of copper mineralisation grading 1.03% copper — that’s a broad, continuous zone sitting above the project’s average resource grade, which is a positive sign for the deposit’s overall scale. Within that zone, there are higher-grade pockets including 2 metres at 5.52% copper, which is very high-grade for this style of deposit.

One drill hole (26MCDD011) had to be abandoned when the drill rods got stuck — but importantly, it was still in mineralisation when drilling stopped, meaning there is untested copper below 150.5 metres at that location. Another hole (26MCDD013) hit a thin but extremely high-grade zone containing zinc, lead, gold, silver and copper all at once, confirming the polymetallic richness of the upper part of the deposit. These results are feeding directly into the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), which will determine whether the project can be developed into a mine.

With 19 holes still awaiting assay results and two drill rigs still turning, QMines expects to keep releasing news regularly through to the end of the year. The next batch of results is expected from a barge-mounted drill rig operating beneath the flooded historic open pit — an area that hasn’t been drilled since 1982 and could hold significant upside.

Key Takeaways

  • Hole 26MCRD005 returned a broad 44m intersection grading 1.03% Cu from 103m depth, including 2m at 5.52% Cu — above the current Mt Chalmers Mineral Resource global copper grade of 0.75% Cu.
  • Hole 26MCDD011 was abandoned at 150.5m while still in mineralisation, with the final 0.5m sample returning 2.05% Cu, leaving the system untested at depth at that location.
  • Hole 26MCDD013 intersected high-grade semi-massive sulphide mineralisation grading 1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au and 60.6g/t Ag from 53.9m.
  • Assays are pending on 19 holes for 2,314m, with two rigs continuing to drill and barge drilling results beneath the historic open pit expected next.

Key Facts

Best copper intersection (26MCRD005)
44m @ 1.03% Cu, 0.15g/t Au, 2.3g/t Ag from 103m
High-grade copper sub-interval
2m @ 5.52% Cu, 0.97g/t Au, 9.3g/t Ag from 108m
Best polymetallic intersection (26MCDD013)
1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au, 60.6g/t Ag from 53.9m
Holes with assays pending
19 holes for 2,314m
Mt Chalmers Mineral Resource (total)
11.3Mt @ 0.75% Cu, 0.42g/t Au, 0.23% Zn, 4.60g/t Ag

Official ASX Announcement

Highlights

  • QMines is progressing a 10,000m multi-rig drilling campaign at Mt Chalmers, supporting the Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) and testing extensions to the copper-gold deposit.
  • 26MCRD005 intersected a broad 44m zone of copper mineralisation on the eastern side of the Mt Chalmers open pit, returning:
    • 44m @ 1.03% Cu, 0.15g/t Au and 2.3g/t Ag from 103m; including
    • 10m @ 2.20% Cu, 0.35g/t Au and 4.7g/t Ag from 103m; including
    • 2m @ 5.52% Cu, 0.97g/t Au and 9.3g/t Ag from 108m.
  • 26MCDD013 intersected high-grade semi-massive sulphide mineralisation, returning:
    • 1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au and 60.6g/t Ag from 53.9m.
  • 26MCDD011 intersected multiple zones of copper mineralisation and was abandoned at 150.5m while still in mineralisation, returning:
    • 7m @ 1.02% Cu from 111m; including
    • 2m @ 2.53% Cu; and
    • 24m @ 0.46% Cu from 121m; with
    • The final 0.5m sample returning 2.05% Cu at the end of hole.
  • 26MCDD012 intersected shallow precious and base-metal mineralisation together with a broader zinc-lead zone, returning:
    • 5m @ 0.99g/t Au, 55.5g/t Ag, 1.84% Zn and 1.09% Pb from 45m; including
    • 2m @ 1.91g/t Au and 118g/t Ag; and
    • 17.4m @ 1.55% Zn, 0.63% Pb and 12.7g/t Ag from 116.6m.
  • 26MCDD014 intersected further copper mineralisation, returning:
    • 9m @ 0.69% Cu from 86m; including
    • 1m @ 2.45% Cu from 94m.
  • Importantly, the next results are expected from the highly anticipated barge drilling program beneath the historic Mt Chalmers open pit, an area not drilled since 1982.
  • With assays pending on 19 holes for 2,314m and two rigs continuing unabated, QMines expects strong news flow through to year end.

Overview

QMines Limited (ASX:QML) (QMines or Company) is pleased to report assay results from a further six drill holes completed at its 100%-owned Mt Chalmers copper-gold project near Rockhampton, Queensland. The drilling forms part of the Company’s 10,000m multi-rig campaign supporting the Mt Chalmers Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS).

The strongest copper result was returned from hole 26MCRD005, which intersected 44m @ 1.03% Cu from 103m, including a higher-grade interval of 10m @ 2.20% Cu and 2m @ 5.52% Cu. The mineralisation comprises a broad zone of chalcopyrite stringers on the eastern side of the historic Mt Chalmers open pit.

A further 57m to the south, hole 26MCDD011 intersected multiple zones of copper mineralisation including 7m @ 1.02% Cu from 111m and 24m @ 0.46% Cu from 121m. The hole was abandoned at 150.5m after the drill rods became stuck, while still in mineralisation, with the final 0.5m sample returning 2.05% Cu. The mineralised system therefore remains untested below the end of hole at this location.

Drilling also returned high-grade polymetallic mineralisation within the upper sulphide horizons. Hole 26MCDD013 intersected semi-massive sulphide mineralisation grading 1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au and 60.6g/t Ag from 53.9m, while hole 26MCDD012 returned shallow gold-silver-zinc-lead mineralisation of 5m @ 0.99g/t Au, 55.5g/t Ag, 1.84% Zn and 1.09% Pb from 45m including 2m @ 1.91g/t Au and 118g/t Ag.

Figure 1: Location of Projects and Infrastructure at Mt Chalmers, Develin Creek and Mt Mackenzie.
Figure 1: Location of Projects and Infrastructure at Mt Chalmers, Develin Creek and Mt Mackenzie.

Management Comment

QMines Exploration Manager, Tom Bartschi, said:

“These results continue to build confidence in the scale and continuity of the Mt Chalmers mineralised system.

The 44m intersection in 26MCRD005 is a strong result, particularly the higher-grade copper intervals within it, while 26MCDD011 is also encouraging given the hole ended in mineralisation and remains untested below 150.5m.

The high-grade zinc, lead, gold and silver mineralisation intersected in 26MCDD013 and 26MCDD012 also reinforces the polymetallic nature of the deposit and the value of the upper sulphide horizons.

This drilling was primarily designed to support the DFS geometallurgical program, so achieving these geological results while also generating fresh core for metallurgical testwork is a great outcome. The new data will now be incorporated into the geological and resource models as the DFS drilling program continues.”

Drilling & Assay Results

The 2026 drilling campaign continues to define the copper-rich stringer and upper polymetallic sulphide zones at Mt Chalmers. The strongest copper result from this batch was returned from hole 26MCRD005, while 26MCDD012 and 26MCDD013 intersected shallow gold-silver-zinc-lead mineralisation within the upper sulphide sequence.

Figure 2: Mt Chalmers project plan showing the location of drill holes.
Figure 2: Mt Chalmers project plan showing the location of drill holes.

Broad High-Grade Copper Zone

Hole 26MCRD005 was drilled on the eastern side of the open pit and intersected a broad zone of chalcopyrite-pyrite stringer mineralisation hosted within intensely silicified volcanic rocks. The hole returned:

  • 44m @ 1.03% Cu, 0.15g/t Au and 2.3g/t Ag from 103m; including
  • 10m @ 2.20% Cu, 0.35g/t Au and 4.7g/t Ag from 103m; including
  • 2m @ 5.52% Cu, 0.97g/t Au and 9.3g/t Ag from 108m.

The 44m intercept sits above the current Mt Chalmers Mineral Resource global copper grade of 0.75% Cu and is consistent with the tenor of adjacent historical drilling on the section.

Figure 3: Cross section A-A' through hole 26MCRD005, looking southeast, window thickness 12.5m.
Figure 3: Cross section A-A’ through hole 26MCRD005, looking southeast, window thickness 12.5m.

Approximately 57m to the south, hole 26MCDD011 intersected further copper mineralisation returning 7m @ 1.02% Cu from 111m, including 2m @ 2.53% Cu and 24m @ 0.46% Cu from 121m, including 1m @ 2.64% Cu. The hole was abandoned at 150.5m after the drill rods became stuck while still in mineralisation, with the final 1.5m returning 0.95% Cu, including 0.5m @ 2.05% Cu. Mineralisation below the end of hole remains untested at this position.

Further west, hole 26MCDD014 intersected chalcopyrite and pyrite stringers returning 9m @ 0.69% Cu from 86m including 1m @ 2.04% Cu from 87m and 1m @ 2.45% Cu from 94m.

Shallow High-Grade Gold-Silver-Zinc Lens

Drilling also intersected shallow high-grade polymetallic mineralisation within the upper sulphide sequence. Hole 26MCDD013 intersected a semi-massive sulphide unit from 53.9m, returning:

  • 1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au and 60.6g/t Ag.

The interval was logged as lithic tuff containing chalcopyrite-rich clasts with disseminated sphalerite and galena. Core recovery through the sulphide interval was poor, so the downhole thickness remains uncertain.

Nearby, 26MCDD012 returned:

  • 5m @ 0.99g/t Au, 55.5g/t Ag, 1.84% Zn and 1.09% Pb from 45m; including
  • 2m @ 1.91g/t Au and 118g/t Ag from 45m.

The hole also intersected a deeper zinc-lead zone of 17.4m @ 1.55% Zn, 0.63% Pb and 12.7g/t Ag from 116.6m. Core recovery through this deeper interval averaged 62%, and the grade and width should therefore be treated cautiously pending further drilling.

Table 1: Significant Intercepts reported in this announcement.
Hole From
(m)		 To
(m)		 Interval
(m)		 Cu
(%)		 Au
(g/t)		 Ag
(g/t)		 Zn
(%)		 Pb
(%)
26MCRD005 103.0 147.0 44.0 1.03 0.15 2.3 0.02 <0.01
incl. 103.0 113.0 10.0 2.20 0.35 4.7 0.03 0.01
incl. 108.0 110.0 2.0 5.52 0.97 9.3 0.05 <0.01
incl. 116.0 120.0 4.0 1.31 0.21 3.3 0.01 0.01
26MCDD011 111.0 118.0 7.0 1.02 0.19 5.4 0.10 0.04
incl. 116.0 118.0 2.0 2.53 0.21 7.5 0.03 0.02
26MCDD011 121.0 145.0 24.0 0.46 0.09 1.7 0.01 0.01
incl. 141.0 142.0 1.0 2.64 0.20 5.0 0.01 0.01
26MCDD011 149.0 150.5 1.5 0.95 0.08 1.9 0.01 <0.01
26MCDD012 45.0 50.0 5.0 0.12 0.99 55.5 1.84 1.09
incl. 45.0 47.0 2.0 0.15 1.91 118 1.73 1.06
26MCDD012 116.6 134.0 17.4 0.11 0.18 12.7 1.55 0.63
26MCDD013 53.9 55.4 1.5 1.35 7.11 60.6 11.73 6.85
incl. 54.1 55.4 1.3 1.55 8.19 68.0 13.30 7.86
26MCDD014 86.0 95.0 9.0 0.69 0.07 0.5 0.01 <0.01

Significant Intercepts

Table 2 – Significant intercepts, 0.20% Cu lower cut off, maximum 2m internal dilution.
Hole ID Easting Northing RL
(m)		 Dip
(°)		 Azi
(°)		 EOH
(m)		 From
(m)		 To
(m)		 Interval
(m)		 Cu
(%)		 Au
(g/t)		 Zn
(%)		 Pb
(%)		 Ag
(g/t)		 Status
2026_GT01 260,171 7,421,333 130.1 −75 110 129.9 – – – – – – – – Not sampled (geotechnical)
2026_GT02 260,061 7,421,202 139.5 −70 185 140.0 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
2026_GT03 259,846 7,421,069 106.3 −85 175 75.5 48.0 51.0 3.0 0.10 0.30 1.90 0.80 16 Previously reported
2026_GT04 259,676 7,421,328 90.5 −65 15 60.5 – – – – – – – – Not sampled (geotechnical)
2026_GT05 259,857 7,421,514 136.5 −65 20 87.1 – – – – – – – – Not sampled (geotechnical)
2026_GT06 259,767 7,421,482 137.1 −90 0 45.3 – – – – – – – – Not sampled (geotechnical)
26MCRD001 260,003 7,421,420 128.0 −75.1 240 8.3 – – – – – – – – Abandoned at 8.3m; not sampled
26MCRD002 260,013 7,421,420 125.3 −75.1 240 211.5 90 91 1 0.43 0.21 1.28 – 7.3 Previously reported
and 107 142 35 2.88 0.75 0.02 – 3.3
incl. 110 141 31 3.22 0.83 0.02 – 3.6
and 146 150 4 0.89 0.21 0.02 – 2.2
and 160 161 1 1.01 0.11 0.01 – 2.1
and 178 179 1 0.55 0.06 0.04 – 0.8
26MCDD003 259,733 7,421,242 96.0 −60 100 102.0 20.0 24.5 4.3 1.0 1.7 8.9 3.7 57 Previously reported
and 28.5 34.0 5.5 0.5 2.5 11.4 4.7 29
and 54.0 72.0 18.0 1.7 2.7 – – 2
incl. 54.0 66.0 12.0 2.0 3.8 – – 2
incl. 61.0 62.0 1.0 3.3 20.3 – – 5
26MCRD004 260,073 7,421,292 125.6 −75 321 141.6 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCRD005 260,074 7,421,304 125.6 −75 143 156.1 103.0 147.0 44.0 1.03 0.15 0.02 <0.01 2.3 Reported herein
incl. 103.0 113.0 10.0 2.20 0.35 0.03 0.01 4.7
incl. 108.0 110.0 2.0 5.52 0.97 0.05 <0.01 9.3
incl. 116.0 120.0 4.0 1.31 0.21 0.01 0.01 3.3
incl. 134.0 135.0 1.0 2.30 0.13 0.01 <0.01 3.4
incl. 145.0 146.0 1.0 3.80 0.24 0.01 0.01 4.6
and 153.3 156.1 2.8 0.38 0.05 <0.01 <0.01 0.9
26MCRD006 260,011 7,421,429 125.5 −70 10 213.4 133 135 2.0 0.56 0.09 0.01 0.01 0.8 Previously reported
and 138 170 32.0 1.99 0.39 0.02 0.01 2.6
incl. 149 159 10.0 3.21 0.39 0.01 0.01 3.5
incl. 152 159 7.0 4.18 0.51 0.01 0.01 4.3
and 163 170 7.0 2.14 1.00 0.01 <0.01 3.1
26MCDD007 259,794 7,421,207 94.7 −55 310 132.4 40 48 8 0.37 0.23 0.05 – 2.3 Previously reported
54 56 2 0.70 0.44 0.03 – 1.2
60 61 1 0.62 0.22 0.02 – 0.8
66 82 16 1.17 1.58 0.03 – 2.5
incl. 80 82 2 4.22 5.38 0.03 – 7.4
89 110 21 0.84 0.83 0.10 – 2.1
incl. 93 98 5 1.52 1.09 0.11 – 2.5
114 115 1 0.80 0.15 0.01 – 1.1
26MCDD008 259,903 7,421,098 102.9 −75 270 159.5 56 81 25.0 0.19 2.08 2.56 1.79 92 Previously reported
incl. 56 69 13.0 0.29 3.51 3.89 2.99 119
incl. 56 63 7.0 0.35 5.79 5.16 4.40 147
incl. 67 69 2.0 0.56 1.52 5.72 3.20 219
incl. 71 77 6.0 0.12 0.82 1.69 0.72 114
and 88 94.0 6.0 0.03 0.20 0.48 0.43 5.6
and 120 122 2.0 0.02 0.09 0.83 0.44 5.9
26MCDD009 259,848 7,421,114 102.1 −76 294 138.4 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD010 259,798 7,421,203 94.5 −74 147 131.9 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD011 260,078 7,421,247 138.1 −85 72 150.5 111.0 118.0 7.0 1.02 0.19 0.10 0.04 5.4 Reported herein; abandoned at 150.5m
incl. 116.0 118.0 2.0 2.53 0.21 0.03 0.02 7.5
and 121.0 145.0 24.0 0.46 0.09 0.01 0.01 1.7
incl. 141.0 142.0 1.0 2.64 0.20 0.01 0.01 5.0
and 149.0 150.5 1.5 0.95 0.08 0.01 <0.01 1.9
26MCDD012 259,914 7,421,087 104.7 −75 175 164.4 45.0 50.0 5.0 0.12 0.99 1.84 1.09 55.5 Reported herein
incl. 45.0 47.0 2.0 0.15 1.91 1.73 1.06 118
and 89.0 94.0 5.0 0.02 0.23 0.30 0.12 18.7
and 101.0 102.0 1.0 0.01 0.34 0.11 0.06 7.9
and 105.0 106.0 1.0 0.13 0.16 1.41 0.70 18.6
and 107.0 108.0 1.0 0.05 0.25 1.01 0.39 13.5
and 110.6 112.1 1.5 0.08 0.08 1.28 0.52 8.6
and 116.6 134.0 17.4 0.11 0.18 1.55 0.63 12.7
26MCDD013 259,816 7,421,102 104.7 −60 334 57.4 53.9 55.4 1.5 1.35 7.11 11.73 6.85 60.6 Reported herein; abandoned at 57.4m
incl. 54.1 55.4 1.3 1.55 8.19 13.30 7.86 68.0
and 50.2 50.5 0.3 <0.01 0.06 0.29 0.07 546
26MCDD014 259,704 7,421,311 92.9 −65 101 147.1 81.0 82.0 1.0 1.12 0.08 0.02 0.01 2.7 Reported herein
and 86.0 95.0 9.0 0.69 0.07 0.01 <0.01 0.5
incl. 87.0 88.0 1.0 2.04 0.16 0.01 <0.01 1.9
incl. 94.0 95.0 1.0 2.45 0.20 0.01 <0.01 1.0
and 100.0 101.0 1.0 0.23 0.06 0.02 <0.01 <0.5
26MCDD015 260,044 7,421,123 113.4 −60 278 140.6 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD016 259,862 7,421,232 91.1 −90 0 33.8 – – – – – – – – Abandoned at 33.8m; not sampled
26MCDD017 259,865 7,421,231 91.1 −89 162 121.4 27.0 28.0 1.0 0.07 0.08 1.03 0.01 0.9 Reported herein
and 33.0 34.0 1.0 0.31 0.01 1.29 0.01 2.0
and 37.0 38.0 1.0 0.28 0.71 0.01 0.06 3.6
and 53.0 57.0 4.0 0.08 0.06 1.03 0.01 1.3
and 103.0 104.0 1.0 0.29 0.09 0.03 <0.01 2.2
and 114.0 115.0 1.0 0.25 0.08 0.02 <0.01 3.9
26MCDD018 260,013 7,421,144 112.9 −60 300 141.2 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCRC019 259,718 7,421,527 133.8 −90 0 36.0 1.0 2.0 1.0 0.06 0.20 0.11 0.09 3.5 Reported herein; historic mine backfill
and 5.0 7.0 2.0 0.25 0.29 0.29 0.12 9.3
26MCRC020 259,739 7,421,499 135.9 −90 0 31.0 1.0 7.0 6.0 0.15 0.39 0.61 0.29 9.5 Reported herein; historic mine backfill
26MCRC021 259,766 7,421,469 138.2 −90 0 26.0 2.0 7.0 5.0 0.17 0.28 0.10 0.07 3.2 Reported herein; historic mine backfill
26MCRC022 259,788 7,421,439 139.1 −90 0 31.0 1.0 21.0 20.0 0.19 0.73 0.18 0.17 8.0 Reported herein; historic mine backfill
incl. 6.0 7.0 1.0 0.09 1.10 0.05 0.22 9.7
incl. 14.0 19.0 5.0 0.23 1.11 0.36 0.26 12.7
26MCDD023 259,862 7,421,194 91.4 −90 0 114.5 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD024 259,665 7,421,206 94.1 −60 109 90.3 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD025 259,876 7,421,260 91.1 −89 161 125.7 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD026 259,619 7,421,057 94.2 −60 270 153.3 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD027 259,898 7,421,238 91.5 −90 0 67.7 – – – – – – – – Abandoned at 67.7m; assays pending
26MCDD029 259,898 7,421,289 91.3 −90 0 123.1 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD031 259,596 7,421,064 92.4 −60 270 145.0 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD043 259,915 7,421,315 91.2 −90 0 119.8 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCRC045 259,469 7,421,237 84.0 −75 80 151.0 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD046 259,545 7,421,073 92.4 −60 270 141.2 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD047 259,979 7,421,317 91.5 −90 0 66.6 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD048 259,936 7,421,237 91.3 −90 0 63.0 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD049 260,222h 7,421,835 100.0 −60 230 – – – – – – – – – Drilling in progress
26MCDD050 259,911 7,421,214 91.3 −90 0 119.9 – – – – – – – – Assays pending
26MCDD051 259,972 7,421,320 91.2 −90 0 – – – – – – – – – Drilling in progress
MB-J 259,438 7,421,702 93.0 −90 0 71.0 – – – – – – – – Reported herein (water bore); not sampled

Resource & Reserve Estimates

Ore Reserve – Mt Chalmers1

Deposit Reserve Category Tonnes (Mt) Cut Off (% Cu) Cu (%) Au (g/t) Zn (%) Ag (g/t) S (%)
Mt Chalmers Proved 5.1 0.3% 0.72 0.58 0.25 4.70 5.80
Mt Chalmers Probable 4.5 0.3% 0.57 0.37 0.29 5.50 3.60
Total 9.6 0.3% 0.65 0.48 0.27 5.20 4.30

Mineral Resource Estimate – Mt Chalmers1

Deposit Resource Category Tonnes (Mt) Cut Off (% Cu) Cu (%) Au (g/t) Zn (%) Ag (g/t) S (%)
Mt Chalmers Measured 4.2 0.3% 0.89 0.69 0.23 4.97 5.37
Mt Chalmers Indicated 5.8 0.3% 0.69 0.28 0.19 3.99 3.77
Mt Chalmers Inferred 1.3 0.3% 0.60 0.19 0.27 5.41 2.02
Total 11.3 0.3% 0.75 0.42 0.23 4.60 4.30

Mineral Resource Estimate – Develin Creek2

Deposit Resource Category Tonnes (Mt) Cut Off (% Cu) Cu (%) Zn (%) Au (g/t) Ag (g/t) Not in Mine Plan
Develin Creek Indicated 4.22 0.3% 0.98 1.08 0.16 6.0
Develin Creek Inferred 0.48 0.3% 0.61 0.41 0.10 3.5
Total 4.70 0.3% 0.94 1.00 0.15 5.7

Mineral Resource Estimate – Woods Shaft3

Deposit Resource Category Tonnes (Mt) Cut Off (% Cu) Cu (%) Au (g/t) Zn (%) Ag (g/t) Not in Mine Plan
Woods Shaft Inferred 0.54 0.3% 0.50 0.95 – –
Total 0.54 0.3% 0.50 0.95 – –

Mineral Resource Estimate – Mt Mackenzie4

Deposit5 Resource Category Tonnes (Mt) Cut Off (Au g/t) Cu (%) Au (g/t) * Zn (%) Ag (g/t) Not in Mine Plan
Mt Mackenzie Indicated 3.77 0.4 – 0.99 7.3
Mt Mackenzie Inferred 1.45 0.4 – 1.07 4.9
Total 5.22 0.4 – 1.01 6.7

*cut-off grade: 0.35 g/t Au for oxide, 0.55 g/t Au for primary.

  1. ASX Announcement – Mt Chalmers PFS Supports Viable Copper & Gold Mine, 30 April 2024. Rounding errors may occur.
  2. ASX Announcement – Develin Creek Resource Upgrade Unlocks Expansion Planning, 23 February 2026. Rounding errors may occur.
  3. ASX Announcement – Maiden Woods Shaft Resource, 22 November 2022. Rounding errors may occur.
  4. ASX Announcement – Mt Mackenzie Resource Upgrade delivers 32% Increase in Gold With70% Now in Indicated, 5 August 2025. Rounding errors may occur.

Regulatory Statements

Forward-Looking Statements

This document may include forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements include, but are not limited to, statements concerning QMines Limited planned exploration program and other statements that are not historical facts. When used in this document, the words such as “could,” “plan,” “expect,” “intend,” “may”, “potential,” “should,” and similar expressions are forward-looking statements. Although QMines believes that its expectations reflected in these forward- looking statements are reasonable, such statements involve risks and uncertainties and no assurance can be given that further exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral Resource.

Competent Person Statements

Exploration Results and Exploration Targets

The information in this document relating to Exploration Results and Exploration Targets has been compiled under the supervision of Tom Bartschi, a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Bartschi has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and the activities undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person under the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Bartschi has consented to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Ore Reserve Estimate

The information in this report relating to the Open Pit Optimisation and the Ore Reserve Estimate is based on work compiled by Gary McCrae, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr McCrae is a full time employee of Minecomp Pty Ltd and has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and the work undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person under the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr McCrae has consented to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Mineral Resource Estimate

The information in this report relating to Mineral Resource estimation is based on work completed by Stephen Hyland, a Competent Person and Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Hyland is Principal Consultant Geologist with Hyland Geological and Mining Consultants and has the required experience relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and the work undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person under the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Hyland is also a Qualified Person under the rules of the Canadian Instrument NI 43 101. Mr Hyland has consented to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Compliance Statement

With reference to previously reported Exploration results and mineral resources, the Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcement and, in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that all material assumptions and technical parametres underpinning the estimates in the relevant market announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement.

About QMines

QMines Limited (ASX:QML) is a Queensland focused copper and gold development Company. The Company owns 100% of the Mt Chalmers (copper-gold) and Develin Creek (copper-zinc) deposits, located within 90km of Rockhampton in Queensland. Mt Chalmers is a high-grade historic mine that produced 1.2Mt @ 2.0% Cu, 3.6g/t Au and 19g/t Ag between 1898-1982.

Following several resource updates, the Mt Chalmers, Develin Creek and Mt Mackenzie projects now have Reserves of 9.6Mt and combined Resources of approximately 22Mt.1 QMines’ objective is to make new discoveries, commercialise existing deposits and transition the Company towards sustainable copper production.

1 ASX Announcement – Develin Creek Resource Upgrade. 23 February 2026

Projects & Ownership

Mt Chalmers 100%
Develin Creek 100%
Mt Mackenzie 100%

QMines Limited  ACN 643 312 104

Directors & Management

  • Andrew Sparke
    Executive Chairman
  • Peter Caristo
    Executive Director (Technical)
  • Thomas Bartschi
    Exploration Manager & Site Senior Executive (Competent Person)
  • Elissa Hansen
    Non-Executive Director & Company Secretary
  • Richard Wittig
    Development Manager

Contacts

View Appendix — JORC Code 2012 Table 1

JORC Table — Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.)

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling techniques
  • Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.
  • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.
  • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.
  • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
  • Diamond core (PQ3 and HQ3) was sampled on nominal 1m.
  • 26MCDD011 to 26MCDD017 were sampled as quarter core for assay, with the adjacent quarter retained for metallurgical testwork and the remaining half retained. 26MCRD005 was sampled as half core, except 130m to 131m which was quartered for a field duplicate.
  • Sampling was selective, covering logged alteration and sulphide zones. Sampled intervals are listed. The RC precollar of 26MCRD005 (0 to 30m) was sampled separately; core from 30m to 86m, logged as chloritic volcaniclastic units without visible sulphide mineralisation, was not sampled.
  • RC holes (26MCRC019 to 26MCRC022 and MB-J) were sampled on 1m intervals through a rig mounted cone splitter.
  • A portable XRF was used during logging as a guide only. No pXRF results are reported.
Drilling techniques
  • Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc.) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).
  • Diamond drilling by UDS (United Drilling Services) using DESCO rigs on land and a Hanjin DB8 rig on a barge mounted pontoon. Holes were collared in PQ3 and continued in HQ3 triple tube. 26MCRD005 used a 5 5/8 inch RC precollar to 30m followed by HQ3 core.
  • Core was oriented where ground conditions allowed. 26MCDD017 was not oriented.
  • RC holes were drilled with a 5 5/8 inch face sampling hammer.
Drill sample recovery
  • Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.
  • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.
  • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.
  • Core recovery was measured for every run against driller’s depths. Average recoveries: 26MCRD005 97.5%, 26MCDD011 96.7%, 26MCDD012 92.6%, 26MCDD013 85.0%, 26MCDD014 84.8%, 26MCDD017 99.3%. Triple tube was used to maximise recovery.
  • Recovery through the 26MCRD005 intercept (103m to 147m) was 99.8% and through the 26MCDD011 and 26MCDD014 intercepts was effectively 100%. Recovery was poor in three reported intervals: 26MCRD005 150.1m to 153.1m (24%), 26MCDD012 116.6m to 134.0m (62%) and 26MCDD013 54.1m to 57.1m (43%). Grade bias from preferential loss of friable sulphide or talc altered material cannot be excluded in these intervals and they are footnoted.
  • RC recovery was not measured quantitatively. Sample weights were recorded by the laboratory (0.05kg to 3.2kg). 26MCRC019 had no returns from 0m to 6m and three samples could not be assayed for gold due to sample weight.
Logging
  • Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.
  • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc.) photography.
  • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.
  • All diamond core was geologically logged in full by QMines geologists. Logging included weathering, oxidation, lithology, alteration, veining, brecciation, sulphide abundance, sulphide mineralogy, structure and mineralisation. Core was also geotechnically logged where appropriate, including core recovery, RQD, fracture frequency and structural observations. Logging was qualitative to semi-quantitative and was completed at a level of detail considered sufficient to support geological interpretation, Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical domaining. All core was photographed wet and dry prior to cutting and sampling.
Subsampling techniques and sample preparation
  • If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.
  • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled wet or dry.
  • For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.
  • Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.
  • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in-situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.
  • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.
  • Diamond core was cut longitudinally using a diamond core saw. Quarter core was taken consistently from the same side of the orientation line for the assay stream. One quarter was submitted for assay, one quarter was retained for metallurgical testwork and the remaining half core was retained by QMines. Quarter-core field duplicates were collected as part of the QAQC program. Samples were submitted to ALS Laboratories in Brisbane for preparation using industry-standard drying, crushing, splitting and pulverising procedures. Pulverising performance was monitored by laboratory QC, with checks returning 96.5% to 98.5% passing 75µm against a 95% specification. Sample sizes and preparation procedures are considered appropriate for the grain size and style of mineralisation encountered, noting that coarse chalcopyrite occurs locally within the stringer zones.
  • Ground competence within the mineralised zone is lower than in the surrounding waste, with mean RQD below 70% in samples at or above 0.3% Cu against >80% below that grade. Quarter core splitting of rubbly core is less reproducible than splitting of intact core, and received sample masses within that interval are correspondingly lighter and more variable. This is a sub-sampling representivity consideration rather than a recovery issue, as recovery over the same interval is 98.9%.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests
  • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.
  • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.
  • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.
  • Samples were analysed by ALS Laboratories in Brisbane. Gold was determined using Au-AA25, comprising a 30g fire assay with AAS finish. Multi-element analysis was completed using ME-ICP61, comprising four-acid digestion with ICP-AES finish. The four-acid digestion is considered total for the elements reported.
  • Over-range copper, zinc and sulphur results were re-analysed using ore-grade methods Cu-OG62, Zn-OG62 and S-OG62. Every over-range copper, zinc, silver, lead and sulphur result in the reported assay stream carries a corresponding ore-grade determination. No primary sample returned an over-range lead result. No gold result approached the upper limit of Au-AA25 and no gravimetric re-assay was required, and no silver result approached the upper limit of ME-ICP61.
  • QMines’ QAQC program included certified reference materials, coarse blanks and quarter-core field duplicates inserted into the sample stream at routine intervals.
Verification of sampling and assaying
  • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.
  • The use of twinned holes.
  • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
  • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
  • Significant assay results were checked against the original laboratory certificates, geological logs and the Company’s geological database. Reported intersections were independently recalculated using length-weighted primary assay data and reviewed by QMines geological personnel and the Competent Person. Laboratory results were imported directly into the Company’s database from laboratory-supplied digital files without manual transcription. The compositing dataset was checked to confirm that certified reference materials, blanks and field duplicates were excluded and that no sample interval was counted more than once. No twinned drillholes are reported herein. No adjustments have been made to primary assay values other than standard treatment of below-detection-limit values where required for statistical purposes.
Location of data points
  • Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.
  • Specification of the grid system used.
  • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
  • Drillhole collar coordinates are reported in GDA2020, MGA Zone 56, with elevations on AHD(d). Final collar coordinates, elevations, dip, azimuth and end-of-hole depths are provided in the drillhole collar table in this announcement.
  • Site survey control at Mt Chalmers was installed by Masters Surveying Pty Ltd and connected to GDA2020 MGA Zone 56 and AHD(d). Collar positions were observed by QMines personnel against that control using an RTK GNSS rover hired from Masters Surveying and operated through the Emlid Flow field application, with a stated coordinate observation accuracy of ±50mm. Masters Surveying attended site to establish the unit and instruct QMines personnel in its use.
Data spacing and distribution
  • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.
  • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.
  • Whether sample compositing has been applied.
  • The holes not on a regular grid. They lie within or adjacent to areas of existing drilling and will be combined with that data in future resource modelling. No compositing has been applied other than the calculation of reported intervals
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure
  • Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.
  • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
  • The drillholes were designed to intersect the interpreted Mt Chalmers mineralised stratigraphy and underlying copper-gold stringer zone at an appropriate angle. Mineralisation geometry in the immediate vicinity of the reported holes has not yet been sufficiently constrained to determine true widths. All intersections are therefore reported as downhole lengths. No material sampling bias arising from drillhole orientation has been identified.
Sample security
  • The measures taken to ensure sample security.
  • Samples were placed into individually numbered calico bags and recorded by QMines personnel. Calico bags were grouped into sealed polyweave or bulk bags for transport. Samples were transported by QMines personnel or an authorised commercial freight provider directly to ALS Laboratories in Brisbane under documented chain-of-custody procedures. Sample dispatch records were reconciled against laboratory receipt notifications.
Audits or reviews
  • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.
  • Drilling, logging, sampling, assay and QAQC data were internally reviewed by QMines technical personnel and the Competent Person. No external audit of the specific drilling and assay dataset reported in this announcement has been completed. The procedures are consistent with QMines’ established drilling and sampling protocols and are considered appropriate for the reporting of Exploration Results.

JORC Table — Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status
  • Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.
  • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
  • The Mt Chalmers Project is located approximately 20 km northeast of Rockhampton in central Queensland. The project is held 100% by QMines Limited through its wholly owned subsidiaries and includes EPM25935 and associated exploration tenure. The relevant tenements are in good standing. The Company is not aware of any material tenure-related impediment to undertaking the drilling and technical programs described in this announcement.
Exploration done by other parties
  • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.
  • Mt Chalmers has been subject to historical mining and exploration by several previous operators, including mining between 1898 and 1982. Historical exploration included geological mapping, geochemical sampling, geophysical surveys, percussion drilling and diamond drilling. Available historical information has been progressively compiled and incorporated into the Company’s geological database and project interpretation. Historical work was generally completed using methods considered appropriate for the period; however, not all historical data were collected under modern QAQC protocols. The Exploration Results reported in Table 2 of this announcement relate to drilling completed by QMines.
Geology
  • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.
  • Mt Chalmers is a volcanic-hosted massive sulphide deposit located within the Permian Berserker Beds of the Berserker Graben. Mineralisation comprises an upper exhalite and massive-sulphide sequence containing variable zinc, lead, silver, gold and copper mineralisation, underlain by a copper-gold stringer and stockwork zone hosted by intensely silica- and chlorite-altered volcanic rocks.
Drill hole Information
  • A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: easting and northing of the drill hole collar; elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar; dip and azimuth of the hole; down hole length and interception depth; hole length.
  • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.
  • Drillhole identification, collar coordinates, elevation, dip, azimuth, end-of-hole depth and assay status for the completed drilling program are provided in the drillhole and significant-intercept table in this announcement. Coordinates are reported in GDA2020, MGA Zone 56.
Data aggregation methods
  • In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.
  • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail.
  • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.
  • Significant copper-gold intersections were calculated using a nominal lower cut-off grade of 0.3% Cu, with a maximum of 2 m consecutive internal dilution. Polymetallic intersections were calculated using a nominal lower cut-off grade of 1% Zn, with a maximum of 2 m consecutive internal dilution. Reported intersections are length-weighted downhole composites. No top cuts were applied. Values reported below the analytical detection limit were assigned half the relevant detection limit for compositing purposes. Included higher-grade intervals are reported where considered geologically and materially relevant. Metal-equivalent grades have not been reported. These criteria are consistent with the significant-intercept table in the announcement.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths
  • These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.
  • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.
  • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).
  • All Exploration Results are reported as downhole lengths. The drillholes were designed to intersect the interpreted mineralised stratigraphy and stringer system at a high angle; however, the geometry of the mineralised zones in the immediate vicinity of the reported intersections has not yet been sufficiently constrained to reliably calculate true widths. True widths have therefore not yet been determined. The relationship between downhole intercept length and true mineralisation width will be assessed following integration of the drilling with the current three-dimensional mineralisation wireframes and geological model.
Diagrams
  • Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.
  • Appropriate plans and cross-sections showing the locations and orientations herein are displayed relative to existing drilling, the current Mineral Resource outline and interpreted mineralisation. The figures are intended to show that the reported intersections occur within the existing drilled and modelled mineralised system and do not represent step-out exploration beyond the known limits of mineralisation.
Balanced reporting
  • Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.
  • All intervals from the holes reported herein that meet the stated 0.20% Cu, 1.0% Zn or 0.20g/t Au criteria are reported herein, including lower grade intervals as well as the principal intersections. Intervals affected by poor core recovery are footnoted. Water bore MB-J returned no significant intercepts and is listed as such.
  • Results from 26MCRC019 to 26MCRC022 are from historical mining fill, are not in situ mineralisation and are identified as such.
  • Previously reported results are reproduced for program context and are clearly identified as previously reported. Completed holes for which validated analytical results were not available at the date of this announcement are identified as assays pending and will be reported following receipt, QAQC validation and geological interpretation where material.
Other substantive exploration data
  • Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.
  • 26MCRD005 and 26MCDD011 to 26MCDD014 were completed as part of the geometallurgical drilling program supporting the Mt Chalmers DFS. Quarter core from selected intervals in 26MCDD011 to 26MCDD014 and 26MCDD017 has been cut for mineralogical, comminution and flotation testwork under the Company’s geometallurgical program.
  • The drilling also provides geological, structural, geotechnical, assay and bulk density information relevant to the Mineral Resource and DFS. Whole core density determinations are being collected over mineralised intervals, and reject material from the assay stream is being used for acid base accounting static testing in support of waste characterisation.
  • Metallurgical results will be reported separately when available.
Further work
  • The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
  • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.
  • Further work includes receipt, validation and interpretation of outstanding assays from the completed metallurgical and geotechnical drilling programs; comminution and flotation testwork using samples from the metallurgical holes; integration of the new drilling into the geological and Mineral Resource models; completion of in-pit pontoon drilling beneath the flooded historic pit; continuation of the Woods Shaft resource drilling program; and completion of slag and waste-stockpile characterisation drilling. The resulting geological, metallurgical, geotechnical, environmental and resource datasets will progressively inform the Mt Chalmers DFS, resource evaluation and subsequent drill planning.

View Original ASX Announcement

Frequently Asked Questions

The following Q&A is AI-generated from the announcement content and is provided as a supplementary reader aid only.

What was the best copper result from this round of drilling?

The strongest copper result came from hole 26MCRD005, which intersected 44m @ 1.03% Cu, 0.15g/t Au and 2.3g/t Ag from 103m depth. Within that zone, the highest-grade interval was 2m @ 5.52% Cu, 0.97g/t Au and 9.3g/t Ag from 108m.

Why was hole 26MCDD011 abandoned, and does it matter?

Hole 26MCDD011 was abandoned at 150.5m after the drill rods became stuck while still in mineralisation. The final 0.5m sample returned 2.05% Cu. This means the mineralised system remains untested below the end of hole at this location, which QMines considers encouraging for further drilling.

What is the significance of the polymetallic results from 26MCDD013?

Hole 26MCDD013 intersected semi-massive sulphide mineralisation grading 1.5m @ 11.73% Zn, 6.85% Pb, 1.35% Cu, 7.11g/t Au and 60.6g/t Ag from 53.9m. This reinforces the polymetallic nature of the deposit and the value of the upper sulphide horizons, though core recovery through the sulphide interval was poor so the downhole thickness remains uncertain.

What is the purpose of this drilling campaign?

The drilling forms part of QMines’ 10,000m multi-rig campaign supporting the Mt Chalmers Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS). It was primarily designed to support the DFS geometallurgical program, generating fresh core for metallurgical testwork while also delivering geological results.

When can investors expect more results?

With assays pending on 19 holes for 2,314m and two rigs continuing unabated, QMines expects strong news flow through to year end. The next results are expected from the barge drilling program beneath the historic Mt Chalmers open pit, an area not drilled since 1982.

How do these new results compare to the existing Mt Chalmers resource grade?

The 44m intercept in 26MCRD005 grading 1.03% Cu sits above the current Mt Chalmers Mineral Resource global copper grade of 0.75% Cu and is consistent with the tenor of adjacent historical drilling on the section.

QMines Support