REG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Exploration Target Highlights Potential in Germany
Today 07:00
For best results when printing this announcement, please click on link below:
https://newsfile.refinitiv.com/getnewsfile/v1/story?guid=urn:newsml:reuters.com:20260528:nRSb0328Ga&default-theme=true
RNS Number : 0328G GreenX Metals Limited 28 May 2026
NEWS RELEASE 28 MAY 2026
EXPLORATION TARGET HIGHLIGHTS POTENTIAL FOR LARGE-SCALE COPPER-SILVER PROJECT
IN GERMANY
HIGHLIGHTS
· Exploration Target demonstrates potential for globally significant
copper endowment at Tannenberg Copper Project, Germany.
· Exploration Target captures hanging wall and footwall mineralisation
above and below the Kupferschiefer shale: a modern view of the deposit that
the 1940 historical estimate did not contemplate.
· Validated by Kupferschiefer mining in Poland, where up to 95% of
mineable copper at KGHM Polska Miedź S.A's operations is hosted in the same
footwall sandstone and hanging wall limestone units that host the Tannenberg
Exploration Target.
· Built on validated historical foundations: Exploration Target builds
on the 1940 National Socialist historical estimate area; the 1984 St Joe
historical estimate; validation via resampling and logging of 1980's core by
GreenX and digitised archive material collected since August 2024.
· An inflection point for the Project: With the Exploration Target
estimated, GreenX now transitions from archive synthesis to active
exploration, including accessing historical underground mines for Scoping
Study-level metallurgical test work, seismic survey evaluation and
commencement of an initial drill program.
GreenX Metals Limited (ASX:GRX, LSE:GRX, GPW:GRX, Germany-FSE:A3C9JR) (GreenX
or the Company) is pleased to announce an Exploration Target at the Tannenberg
Copper Project (Tannenberg or the Project), in Germany. The estimated range of
potential mineralisation in the Exploration Target is: 144 - 279
Mt at 0.9% - 1.4% Cu and 15 - 21 g/t Ag for 1.3 - 3.9 Mt Cu and 69 -
188 Moz Ag.
Cautionary Statement: The Exploration Target has been reported in accordance
with the 2012 edition of the JORC Code (JORC Code). The potential quantity and
grade of the Exploration Target is conceptual in nature. There has been
insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource for the reported
target areas. It is uncertain if further exploration will result in the
estimation of a Mineral Resource.
Table 1: Exploration Target for Tannenberg
Prospect Tonnes Cu Grade Range Ag Grade Range Contained Cu Range Contained Ag
Range Range
Zone 1 8 to 16 Mt 0.9 to 1.4% Cu 15 to 21 g/t Ag 0.1 to 0.2 Mt Cu 3.9 to 10.8 Moz Ag
Zone 2 40 to 78 Mt 0.4 to 1.1 Mt Cu 19.3 to 52.7 Moz Ag
Zone 3 96 to 186 Mt 0.9 to 2.6 Mt Cu 46.3 to 125.6 Moz Ag
Total 144 to 279 Mt 1.3 to 3.9 Mt Cu 69.4 to 188.4 Moz Ag
GreenX's Chief Executive Officer, Mr Ben Stoikovich, commented: "Today's
Exploration Target at Tannenberg is a result of 18 months of archive data
search and synthesis. It also marks an inflection point where we transition
from searching for archive data to ramping up our own exploration programs.
The modern understanding of the Kupferschiefer system, demonstrated by the
scale of Kupferschiefer mining operations in Poland today, shows that economic
copper mineralisation extends well beyond the thin shale horizon that
historical German exploration focused on. The size of the potential copper
endowment at Tannenberg in Hessen, Germany, in the same geological formation
of the world-class Polish deposits, justifies continued investment and
exploration".
Figure 1: Outline of the Exploration target and its relationship to previous
historical estimates and historical underground mining operations at
Tannenberg. Section A-B is shown in Figure 4.
EXPLORATION TARGET
The Exploration Target provides a modern view of the copper potential at
Tannenberg. Unlike the 1940 Historical Estimate, which assessed only the thin
Kupferschiefer shale horizon (refer to announcement dated 20 October 2025),
the Exploration Target captures mineralisation in the hanging wall above and
footwall below the shale. This is consistent with the modern understanding of
Kupferschiefer deposits as evidenced at KGHM Polska Miedź S.A's (KGHM) mining
operations in Poland. The sections below set out the historical foundations,
the modern thickness model and the supporting work that underpin the
Exploration Target.
Cautionary Statement: The Exploration Target has been reported in accordance
with the JORC Code. The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Target
is conceptual in nature. There has been insufficient exploration to estimate a
Mineral Resource for the reported target areas. It is uncertain if further
exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral Resource.
Figure 2: Top-down view of the Exploration Target wireframe at Tannenberg.
From historical mining district to Exploration Target
The Tannenberg Project has a long-documented history of drilling, mining, and
estimation work, providing well-defined and historically validated
copper-silver mineralisation that underpins today's Exploration Target.
A 95-hole drilling campaign was completed by the National Socialist Government
between 1935 and 1938 across the Richelsdorf Mining District. This dataset
formed the geological basis for the construction of three Kupferschiefer
copper mines within the Tannenberg licence area, Reichenberg, Wolfsberg and
Schnepfenbusch. These mines operated between the late 1930's and in some cases
up to the mid 1950's. GreenX has digitised and integrated this drillhole
database into its geological models (refer to announcement dated 11 September
2025).
The 1940 historical estimate, produced by Mansfeldsche Kupferschieferbergbau
AG (Mansfeld AG), is based on a spatially relevant subset of 18 holes from the
95-hole database and established 728,000 tonnes of contained copper* at an
average grade of 2.6% copper (in the narrow Kupferschiefer shale only) between
the Wolfsberg and Schnepfenbusch mines in the north and the Ronshausen area in
the south (see Figure 1). The historical estimate covers mineralisation from
a depth of 100 m in the north to 400 m in the southern end area near
Ronshausen (refer to announcement dated 20 October 2025).
A later historical estimate from 1984 was produced by St Joe Explorations GmbH
(St Joe), based on limited drilling between 1980 and 1984 (refer to
announcements dated 2 August 2024 and 28 April 2025). The St Joe historical
work estimated (20 October 2025) 169,000 tonnes of contained copper and 6.5
million ounces of contained silver within the small section of zone 3. St
Joe assayed wider intersections and found that the mineralisation was up to
3.45 m thick. This is considerably thicker than the narrow Kupferschiefer
shale assayed and estimated by Mansfeld AG in 1940. St Joe provided the first
modern indication that economic mineralisation extends beyond the
Kupferschiefer shale itself.
Cautionary statement for historical estimates: The historical estimates
referenced in this announcement are not reported in accordance with the JORC
Code. A competent person has not done sufficient work to classify the
historical estimates as a mineral resource or ore reserve in accordance with
the JORC Code. It is uncertain that following evaluation and/or further
exploration work that the historical estimates will be able to be reported as
a mineral resource or ore reserve in accordance with the JORC Code.
Modern thickness model
The modern understanding of the Kupferschiefer deposit model, as evidenced at
KGHM's Polish mining operations on the same geological setting as Tannenberg,
shows that up to 95% of mineable copper can be hosted in the footwall
sandstone and hanging wall limestone, with mineralisation often occurring up
to 30 m above and 60 m below the Kupferschiefer shale horizon.
Applying the thick mineralisation concept to the historically defined
Tannenberg footprint produces a statistically-derived mineralised thickness of
1.7 m - 3.3 m, compared with the 20 cm - 60 cm (shale-only) thickness
used in the 1940 historical estimate. The 1.7 m - 3.3 m thickness is
consistent with the wider intercepts confirmed by St Joe in the 1980s and has
now been independently validated by GreenX's resampling of available archived
core.
COMPLETION OF ARCHIVE CORE logging and sampling
After relogging a total of 4,389 m of archived core and taking 2,368 new
samples, GreenX has now brought its work on the archived core to a close. This
program was initiated after the discovery that drill core had been retained in
the archives of the Hessisches Landesamt für Naturschutz, Umwelt und Geologie
(HLNUG) for over 40 years since drilling. This new logging and sampling has
been conducted in accordance with industry standard practices and has
facilitated the estimation of the Exploration Target ranges. In addition to
the validation of the historical copper and silver grades around the
historical mining areas (see announcement date 20 November 2025), the data has
demonstrated that the copper and silver mineralisation persists many
kilometres away from the historical copper mines (Wolfsberg, Schnepfenbusch,
and Reichenberg).
Figure 3: Location map of 1980s Archive drillholes recently logged and assayed
by GreenX.
Upcoming and ONGOING Work Programs
GreenX is advancing a coordinated suite of exploration activities which will
test the validity of the Exploration Target identified at Tannenberg,
including:
· Mineralogical and desktop metallurgical analysis of material
collected from archive core - Q2 2026;
· Accessing historical underground mines for scoping study-level
metallurgical test work, chip sampling, as well as mapping and surveying for
3D modelling - 2H 2026;
· Collation and digitisation of historical geological, mine
development, and production data - ongoing;
· Analysis of the use of seismic surveys to aid future drilling
campaigns including collecting petrophysical measurements for seismic forward
modelling - Q2 2026;
· Seismic survey, if appropriate - commencement H2 2026; and
· Initial drill program - commencement late 2026.
Exploration target: Drillhole database audit and verification
GreenX logged, sampled, and assayed available archive core at Tannenberg
(Archive). The work was done by Palsatech in a specialist logging facility in
Sweden. MSA Mining Consulting UK Ltd's (MSA-UK) independent competent person
visited the facility while Archive core was being processed. All intercepts
with significant Cu-Ag mineralisation were drilled by St Joe's during their
1980s exploration drilling.
The 1930s National Socialist drillhole database was compiled by GreenX
geologists, transcribed from hard copy, historical records. An independent
audit and verification of the data against these records was not undertaken by
MSA-UK. Given that the intention is to declare an Exploration Target, this is
not considered a material risk by MSA-UK.
Data validation was undertaken during the import routine in the form of
correcting issues such as from/to errors and preparing the data in a format
that can readily be imported into three-dimensional modelling software.
Exploration target: Geological Modelling
A geological model was constructed in Leapfrog Geo. Although a number of
mapped faults cross the area, only five, relevant fault structures were
considered in the model (Figure 1). Four stratigraphic units, namely the
Basement, Rotliegend, Zechstein and Buntsandstein were modelled. Due its
narrowness and the lateral scale of the model, which spans several kilometres,
the Kupferschiefer layer was modelled only as the contact between the
Rotliegend and Zechstein. Displacement by faulting is data driven, where the
relative position of the stratigraphic units on either side of the fault
determines the vertical displacement (Figure 4).
A conceptual mineralisation model was constructed from the drillhole data
using a threshold value of 0.30 % Cu. This value was based on the
log-probability plot for the combined dataset (Figure 5), which shows a break
in the grade population around this threshold. This is a reasonable value, as
it incorporates mineralisation in the footwall Rotliegend, the Kupferschiefer
and the hanging wall Zechstein.
In addition to the grade threshold, a minimum thickness of 1.5 m was applied
during the modelling process, based on regulation and practise at copper mines
in Poland Where necessary, low-grade samples falling below the threshold were
incorporated into the mineralised zone to achieve the minimum thickness,
provided the full composite grade satisfied the threshold value. Due to the
sampling bias in the National Socialist dataset, only data generated from
1980s era drilling was used to constrain the thickness of the mineralisation
model.
However, the National Socialist data was used to infer lateral continuity of
the mineralisation. In order to not overstate tonnages, the mineralisation was
truncated against the modelled faults, extrapolated no more than 500 metres
beyond the data and limited within the Tannenberg license boundary.
Furthermore, mined out areas where discounted from the mineralisation model.
Three areas were considered, a larger area to the southwest, Zone 3, where the
model is informed by a combination of Archive and National Socialist data and
two smaller areas across fault boundaries towards the northeast, Zone 1 and
Zone 2, as shown in Figures 1 and 2.
Zone 3 has an areal extent of approximately 6 km by 3.5 km. The mineralisation
thins out towards the southwest and northwest where drillholes tend to have
low-grade copper intercepts that do not meet the minimum thickness criteria,
therefore being excluded from the model. Towards the northeast, the
mineralisation terminates against a northwest-southeast running fault. Zone 2
is located adjacent to Zone 3 on the northeast side of the bounding fault,
with an extent of 3.1 km in the northwest to southeast direction and 2.8 km in
the northeast direction. Zone 1 is narrow, bound by two parallel faults and
has an areal extent of 1.8 km by 900 m. Both Zones 1 and 2 have been
restricted in extent from known mined out areas to the north.
Figure 4: Pseudo 3D cross section of modelled stratigraphic units and zones of
the Exploration Target estimate. Section (A-B) is also shown in Figure 1.
Modified from MSA-UK.
Figure 5: Log probability plot of the copper grades from Archive database.
Modified from MSA-UK
Exploration target: GRADE AND THICKNESS ESTIMATION
As per the requirements for declaring an Exploration Target, grade and
tonnages need to be expressed in ranges. The lateral extent of the mineralised
zones is restricted by structural features and the license boundary, with
little room for extrapolation. Therefore, tonnage ranges are given by assuming
a variable thickness of the mineralised zones, which is supported by the
dataset. Only the Archive data was used to derive grade and thickness ranges
as it provides a complete vertical profile through the mineralised zone.
Samples captured within the Zone 3 mineralised area were selected and
composited to full thickness, resulting in ten composite samples. Full
thickness composites were used to derive both grade and thickness ranges for
the Exploration Target because this approach minimises the variability of the
smaller sample intervals, thus reducing sampling bias and avoiding
artificially inflated grades when estimating grade ranges. An additional
drillhole, Ro 45, located to the north outside of the area of interest was
also used to supplement the data. This hole was included as it is the only
Archive drillhole outside of the modelled area that meets the minimum criteria
and was incorporated to support the statistical analysis given the limited
number of available data points. The remaining Archive holes were not
considered as they fall outside the modelled extents of the mineralisation.
The list of drillholes, copper and silver grades and accumulated grades are
shown in Table 2 below.
Table 2: List of full thickness composites for grade and thickness estimation
Hole ID From To Thickness Cu Ag Accumulated Copper Grade Accumulated Silver Grade
(m) (%) (g/t) Cu % per metre Ag g/t per metre
Ro 15 285.6 289.3 3.7 1.19 16.6 4.41 61.5
Ro 17 481.25 483 1.75 0.89 18.2 1.56 31.9
Ro 18 209 210.76 1.76 3.00 28.7 5.28 50.6
Ro 19 339 342 3 1.38 16.2 4.13 48.5
Ro 20 377 378.68 1.68 1.33 14.6 2.24 24.5
Ro 22 435.76 439.4 3.64 0.94 16.0 3.43 58.1
Ro 23 366 367.5 1.5 2.69 55.3 4.04 83.0
Ro 25 533.38 534.89 1.51 1.32 27.9 2.00 42.2
Ro 35 379.15 381 1.85 0.35 10.5 0.65 19.5
Ro 38 536.25 539.5 3.25 0.56 11.4 1.83 37.2
Ro 45 268.34 270.37 2.03 1.62 20.5 3.29 41.7
Source: MSA-UK
Statistics were derived for the length-weighted copper and silver grades and
composite sample lengths as shown in Table 3.
Table 3: Summary statistics of mineralised drillhole composites
Variable Minimum Maximum Mean Median Lower Upper Coefficient of Variation
Quartile Quartile
Thickness (m) 1.50 3.70 2.33 3.00 1.68 3.25 0.37
Cu grade (%) 0.35 3.00 1.28 1.19 0.89 1.38 0.63
Ag grade (g/t) 10.5 55.3 19.4 16.2 14.6 20.5 0.65
Source: MSA-UK
An attempt was made to derive grade and thickness ranges using a two-sided
confidence interval method on the dataset however this statistical approach
resulted in very narrow ranges which are not representative of the inherent
variability of the data. Therefore, the interquartile range (IQR) was used
instead to define the lower and upper grade and thickness ranges. In this
case, the IQR is considered appropriate for this small dataset, as it provides
a measure of dispersion around the median, thus reducing the influence of
grade and thickness outliers. The resultant ranges are therefore a more
realistic representation of the dataset (Table 4).
Table 4: Exploration Target lower and upper ranges for grade and thickness
Variable Lower Range Upper Range
Thickness (m) 1.7 3.3
Cu (%) 0.9 1.4
Ag (g/t) 15 21
Source: MSA-UK
Note: Grade and thickness ranges rounded to one decimal place to
reflect this is an estimate
Density data is not currently available for the project, therefore average
densities were sourced from available literature (Taylor, R.D and Anderson,
E.D., 2010). An assumption was made for a three metre thick mineable width
with the Kupferschiefer shale representing 0.40 m of the total thickness,
while the Zechstein and Rotliegend have assumed thicknesses of 1.30 m. Average
densities were assigned as shown in Table 5.
Table 5: Assumed average densities per stratigraphic unit
Stratigraphic Unit Rock Type Thickness (m) Density (t/m(3))
Zechstein Limestone 1.30 2.75
Kupferschiefer Shale 0.40 2.40
Rotliegend Sandstone 1.30 2.55
Source: Taylor, R.D and Anderson, E.D., 2010
A weighted, average relative density for the three-metre-thick mineralised
zone is calculated as 2.62 t/m(3).
Exploration target: ESTIMATION
According to the JORC Code, an Exploration Target is "a statement or estimate
of the exploration potential of a mineral deposit in a defined geological
setting where the statement or estimate, quoted as a range of tonnes and a
range of grade (or quality), relates to mineralisation for which there has
been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource". The code states
that the terms "Resource" and "Reserves" must not be used in this context to
refer to the potential quantity and grade of the target.
The base case for the mineralisation is based on the areal extent of copper
mineralisation, above a threshold of 0.30 % Cu, that meets a minimum thickness
criteria of 1.50 m. Surfaces created in Leapfrog Geo were used to model
lateral continuity of the mineralised zones and derive areas for three zones.
Thickness ranges were derived from the Archive data and using an assumed
average density of 2.62 t/m(3), lower and upper ranges of tonnages were
calculated as shown in Table 6.
Table 6: Tonnage ranges for each zone
Zone Area (m(2)) Thickness (m) Density (t/m(3)) Tonnage (Mt)
Lower Upper Lower Upper
Zone 1 1,800,000 1.7 3.3 2.62 8 16
Zone 2 9,000,000 40 78
Zone 3 21,500,000 96 186
Total 43,000,000 144 279
Source: MSA-UK.
Note: m(2) = square metres; m = metres; t/m(3) = tonnes per cubed
metre; Mt = Million Tonnes
Areas are rounded to the nearest 100,000 m(2) to reflect this is an estimate
Tonnages are rounded to the nearest 1,000,000 tonne to reflect this is an
estimate
Grade and thickness ranges rounded to one decimal place to reflect this is an
estimate
Full thickness composite grade data was used to derive grade ranges for
copper, with the estimated contained copper ranges shown in Table 7.
Table 7: Copper grade and contained metal ranges for each Zone
Zone Tonnage (Mt) Cu Grade (%) Contained Cu (Mt)
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Zone 1 8 16 0.9 1.4 0.1 0.2
Zone 2 40 78 0.4 1.1
Zone 3 96 186 0.9 2.6
Total 144 279 1.3 3.9
Source: MSA-UK
Note: Mt = Million Tonnes.
Tonnages are rounded to the nearest 1,000,000
tonne to reflect this is an estimate
Grade and thickness ranges rounded to one
decimal place to reflect this is an estimate
Similarly, silver grade ranges were used to derive contained silver lower and
upper scenarios for each zone as shown in Table 8.
Table 8: Silver grade and contained metal ranges for each Zone
Zone Tonnage (Mt) Ag Grade (g/t) Contained Ag (Moz)
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
Zone 1 8 16 15 21 3.9 10.8
Zone 2 40 78 19.3 52.7
Zone 3 96 186 46.3 125.6
Total 144 279 69.4 188.4
Source: MSA-UK
Note: Mt = Million Tonnes; Moz - million troy ounces g/t - gram per
metric tonne;
Tonnages are rounded to the nearest 1,000,000
tonne to reflect this is an estimate
Ounces are rounded to the nearest 100,000 troy
ounce to reflect this is an estimate
Grade and thickness ranges rounded to one
decimal place to reflect this is an estimate
1 troy ounce (oz) = 31.1034768 grams
The Exploration Target for the combined Tannenberg mineralisation is shown in
Table 9. As per the JORC Code, it must be stated that the potential quantity
and grade of the Exploration Targets are conceptual in nature, that there has
been insufficient exploration to estimate Mineral Resources and that it is
uncertain if further exploration will result in the estimation of Mineral
Resources.
Table 9: Tannenberg Combined Exploration Target
Tonnages (Mt) Cu (%) Ag (g/t) Contained Cu (Mt) Contained Ag (Moz)
Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper Lower Upper
144 279 0.9 1.4 15 21 1.3 3.9 69.4 188.4
Source: MSA-UK.
Note: Mt = Million Tonnes; Moz - million troy ounces; g/t - gram per
metric tonne;
Tonnages are rounded to the nearest 1,000,000
tonne to reflect this is an estimate
Contained copper and silver ounces are rounded
to the nearest 100,000 troy ounce to reflect this is an estimate
Grade and thickness ranges rounded to one
decimal place to reflect this is an estimate
1 troy ounce (oz) = 31.1034768 grams
INCENTIVE SECURITIES
In order to incentivise management and align their interests with
shareholders, the Company will issue incentive options which will only vest if
the following project milestone at Tannenberg is achieved:
· Class C: the public announcement by GreenX of an independently
assessed JORC Code inferred resource of at least 1,500,000 tonnes of contained
copper equivalent at a minimum resource grade of 1% Cu Equivalent** (or
equivalent, with a cut-off grade of 0.3% Cu equivalent).
Holder Class C
A$1.50 options expiring
31 May 2031
Mr Benjamin Stoikovich 1,500,000
(subject to shareholder approval)
Mr Mark Pearce 600,000
(subject to shareholder approval)
Other key employees and consultants (to be issued under the Company's 5,600,000
shareholder approved equity incentive plan)
**Cu Equivalent means any combination of Cu, Ag, Ni, Co, Cr, Pt, Pd, Au, Rh,
Ru, Ir, Os, Zn and/or Pb.
ENQUIRIES
Ben Stoikovich Kazimierz Chojna
Chief Executive Officer Investor Relations - Poland
+44 207 478 3900 Kim Eckhof
ir@greenxmetals.com Investor Relations - UK/Germany
Competent Persons Statement - EXPLORATION TARGET
The information in this announcement that relates to the Exploration Target is
based on information compiled by Mr Rui Goncalves, a Competent Person who is
registered with the South African Council of Natural Scientific Professions, a
Recognised Professional Organisation' included in a list promulgated by ASX
from time to time. Mr Goncalves is a full-time employee of MSA Mining
Consulting UK Ltd, an independent consulting company. Mr Goncalves has
sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type
of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken, to
qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the
'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and
Ore Reserves'. Mr Goncalves consents to the inclusion in this announcement of
the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it
appears.
Competent Persons Statement - Historical Estimate
The information in this announcement that relates to the historical estimates
were extracted from the ASX announcement dated 20 October 2025, titled 'GreenX
Uncovers Historical Estimate at Tannenberg Copper Project' (original
announcement) which is available to view at www.greenxmetals.com
(http://www.greenxmetals.com) . GreenX confirms that (a) it is not in
possession of any new information or data relating to the historical estimate
that materially impacts on the reliability of the estimates or GreenX's to
verify the historical estimates as mineral resources or ore reserves in
accordance with the JORC Code; (b) that the supporting information provided in
the original announcement referred to in ASX Listing Rule 5.12 continues to
apply and has not materially changed; and (c) the form and context in which
the Competent Person's findings are presented have not been materially
modified from the original announcement.
Competent Persons Statement - EXploration results
The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Results is
based on information compiled by Dr Matthew Jackson, a Competent Person who is
a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Dr Jackson is
a Technical Consultant for GreenX and is a holder of unlisted options in the
Company. Dr Jackson has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of
mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity
being undertaken, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012
Edition of the 'Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves'. Dr Jackson consents to the inclusion in
this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and
context in which it appears.
Forward Looking Statements
This release may include forward-looking statements, which may be identified
by words such as "expects", "anticipates", "believes", "projects", "plans",
and similar expressions. These forward-looking statements are based on
GreenX's expectations and beliefs concerning future events. Forward looking
statements are necessarily subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors,
many of which are outside the control of GreenX, which could cause actual
results to differ materially from such statements. There can be no assurance
that forward-looking statements will prove to be correct. GreenX makes no
undertaking to subsequently update or revise the forward-looking statements
made in this release, to reflect the circumstances or events after the date of
that release.
The information contained within this announcement is deemed to constitute
inside information as stipulated under the Regulation 2014/596/EU which is
part of domestic law pursuant to the Market Abuse (Amendment) (EU Exit)
Regulations (SI 2019/310) ("UK MAR"). By the publication of this announcement
via a Regulatory Information Service, this inside information (as defined in
UK MAR) is now considered to be in the public domain.
APPENDIX 1: EXPLORATION RESULTS AND JORC TABLES
Table 1: Historical drill hole information (1980's Drilling Campaign)
Hole ID Easting Northing Elevation Dip (°) Depth (m)
(m MSL)
Blankenheim 3553456 5644396 311 90 485
Braach 3548010 5651830 248 90 155
C/77 - B 10 3564020 5658490 236 90 49
DB 141.015-42 3549869 5658977 288 90 270
Herlefeld 1 3553100 5660760 360 90 150
Lengforst 3577840 5654380 283 90 100
Lüdersdorf 3551660 5647250 309 90 489
Mörshausen 3543400 5663670 257 90 412
Obergude 3549600 5659800 313 90 200
Quentel 3545790 5674350 373 90 445
Rengshausen 1 3537330 5653060 321 90 402
Ro 15 3559420 5645330 271 90 351
Ro 16 3559450 5644800 289 90 461
Ro 17 3559630 5644380 304 90 551
Ro 19 3559925 5645500 283 90 361
Ro 21 3558900 5646050 227 90 211
Ro 22 3560000 5644650 273 90 460
Ro 23 3558500 5645524 300 90 380
Ro 24 3555775 5644750 207 90 443
Ro 25 3560400 5644825 322 90 553
Ro 26 3558075 5645850 270 90 400
Ro 27 3556775 5647675 217 90 432
Ro 28 3561525 5643475 351 90 770
Ro 29 3554400 5647350 215 90 459
Ro 31 3557500 5649450 214 90 159
Ro 32 3553025 5642025 195 90 504
Ro 33 3558300 5646425 207 90 249
Ro 34 3558000 5649925 223 90 207
Ro 35 3560500 5645550 349 90 397
Ro 36 3558050 5648600 314 90 320
Ro 37 3556175 5645950 274 90 530
Ro 38 3562450 5645725 251 90 559
Ro 39 3568575 5655350 317 90 196
Ro 40 3550525 5660550 418 90 359
Ro 41 3557800 5645475 418 90 422
Ro 42 3559000 5645182 248 90 307
Ro 43 3555175 5642725 216 90 492
Ro 44 3549500 5650950 287 90 257
Ro 45 3567375 5655175 413 90 289
Ro 46 3568650 5656600 371 90 228
Ro 49 3552810 5639850 291 90 553
Schemmern 1 3557050 5665190 300 90 120
Sontra 1 3566470 5658290 291 90 15
Sterkelshausen 3543600 5652800 310 90 272
Weidenhausen 1 3567580 5675220 263 90 159
Weidenhausen 3 3568640 5676040 181 90 97
Note: Coordinates are DHDN / 3-degree Gauss-Kruger zone 3.
Table 2: Archive drill hole assays (2025 Logging and Resampling Program)
Hole Intersect (m) Cu Ag
ID (%) (g/t)
From To Interval
Ro 15 285.6 286.24 0.64 0.44 6
Ro 15 286.24 287 0.76 0.71 11
Ro 15 287 287.56 0.56 0.73 10
Ro 15 288.2 288.76 0.56 3.09 39
Ro 15 288.76 289.3 0.54 2.39 37
Ro 17 481.25 481.6 0.35 0.32 5
Ro 17 481.6 481.96 0.36 1.43 17
Ro 17 481.96 482.3 0.34 1.54 31
Ro 17 482.3 482.55 0.25 1.60 52
Ro 19 339 339.5 0.5 2.00 26
Ro 19 339.5 340.5 1 1.58 19
Ro 19 340.5 341.5 1 1.36 15
Ro 19 341.5 342 0.5 0.38 3
Ro 21 199 199.25 0.25 1.10 13
Ro 21 202 202.5 0.5 0.33 3
Ro 22 435.76 436.26 0.5 0.54 8
Ro 22 436.26 436.76 0.5 0.55 1
Ro 22 436.76 437.26 0.5 0.73 16
Ro 22 437.26 437.76 0.5 0.57 9
Ro 22 437.76 438.26 0.5 0.92 15
Ro 22 438.26 438.63 0.37 0.30 3
Ro 22 438.63 438.95 0.32 4.53 89
Ro 22 438.95 439.4 0.45 0.47 9
Ro 23 366 366.5 0.5 0.85 17
Ro 23 366.5 367 0.5 2.83 75
Ro 23 367 367.5 0.5 4.40 74
Ro 23 367.5 268.5 1 0.27 4
Ro 25 533.38 533.89 0.51 3.15 66
Ro 25 533.89 534.39 0.5 0.73 15
Ro 26 388.47 388.75 0.28 0.24 21
Ro 26 388.75 389 0.25 0.67 16
Ro 32 486.6 487 0.4 0.38 6
Ro 33 242.7 243.08 0.38 1.27 39
Ro 35 379.15 379.5 0.35 0.63 18
Ro 35 379.5 380 0.5 0.33 10
Ro 35 380 380.5 0.5 0.31 10
Ro 38 536.25 536.66 0.41 0.91 15
Ro 38 536.66 537 0.34 1.70 35
Ro 38 537 537.5 0.5 0.34 7
Ro 38 537.5 538 0.5 0.30 8
Ro 38 538.35 538.7 0.35 0.30 6
Ro 38 538.7 539 0.3 0.39 7
Ro 38 539 539.5 0.5 0.48 10
Ro 41 414 414.53 0.53 0.83 20
Ro 41 414.53 414.85 0.32 0.30 3
Ro 45 268.34 269 0.66 2.10 33
Ro 45 269 269.63 0.63 1.53 21
Ro 45 269.63 270 0.37 1.48 10
Ro 45 270 270.37 0.37 1.06 8
Note: Only assay results equal to or greater than 0.3% copper are included in
this table.
JORC Code, 2012 Edition - Table 1 Report
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 1980's Drilling Campaign
specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the
minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF · All 1980's analyses reported in this announcement were from diamond
instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad drill core. The core for the holes was 47 mm diameter in all cases, except Ro
meaning of sampling. 17 and Ro 15 where core was 60 mm in diameter. Due to the historical nature of
the drilling results reported herein, it is not possible to comment on the
· Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity quality of the drilling used to produce the results described.
and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.
· Sampling of ¼ core was conducted during multiple exploration phases
· Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to between 1980 and 1987 within the licence area by St Joe.
the Public Report.
· The 1980's information was collated from original hard copy reports
· In cases where 'industry standard' work has been done this would be from that era and a State Survey Database. Assays, geological logging and
relatively simple (e.g. 'reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m gamma ray logs were conducted by St Joe Explorations and Mansfeld AG. No other
samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire information is available for the exploration drilling.
assay'). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there
is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or · No details covering the representivity of the samples for 1980's
mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of assays were reported by the authors.
detailed information.
2025 Logging and Resampling Program
· The core used for the program had been sampled to varying degrees
during the 40 years in storage. Sampling restrictions were placed on the
program by the owners. As such, two sampling protocols were used: ¼ core
sampling and sliver sampling.
· Where ¼ core sampling was employed, the program used industry
standard methods to take 25% of the core which was originally extracted from
the hole.
· Sliver sampling was employed where only 25% of the core was available
in order to leave core in the box to maintain the archive correctly. In this
case 20% of the remaining 25% was sampled using a specialist saw. Where this
resulted in low sample mass, the interval lengths were increased in order to
maintain suitable representivity.
· For the intervals from most holes (Ro 38, Ro 17, Ro 25 and Ro 45), ¼
core was sampled for the majority of the samples and sliver sampling for the
remaining narrow intervals.
· For the hole Ro 23, 79% of the sampling was conducted using the
sliver method and the remaining using ¼ core.
· For the intervals from Ro 15 only sliver sampling was used.
· A handheld XRF was used to assist with confirming the representivity
of the sliver sampling and determining sample.
· Due to the extremely fine-grained mineralisation and matrix of
Kupferschiefer Mineralisation (e.g. Rahfeld, 2018), the heterogeneity of the
sampled materials is known to be extremely low. By comparison with other
deposits, fundamental sampling error (FSE) is likely to be between 2-5%
coefficient of variation (Absalov, 2011). This means that the introduction of
error from sub-sampling of the core and samples will be negligible and very
low sample sizes are suitable for assessing grade.
· In order to further validate the low FSE, in the sliver samples. pXRF
measurements were made at spacings of 5-10cm where sliver samples were taken.
The results of the pXRF measurements confirmed that a very low error was found
and that the use of sliver samples is suitable for assessing grade.
· A handheld XRF was used only for validation of sliver samples and
assisting with selection of sample intervals. The Olympus Vanta (V2MR)
configured with the GeoChem(3) calibration. A reading time of 40 seconds was
used. A blank standard or CRM was analysed daily before the start of work.
Procedures were in place to ensure correct operation.
· Sampling ¼ core followed industry standard procedures. The same side
of the core was sampled throughout each hole. The samples were cut using an
automated saw designed for core cutting in order to eliminate any sample loss.
· The use of sliver sampling is uncommon in many deposits, although
known to be used in some sedimentary hosted copper deposits similar to the
Kupferschiefer. Due to the extremely fine-grained mineralisation and matrix of
Kupferschiefer Mineralisation (e.g. Rahfeld, 2018), the heterogeneity of the
sampled materials is known to be extremely low. By comparison with other
deposits, FSE is likely to be between 2-5% coefficient of variation (Absalov,
2011). This means that the introduction of error from sub-sampling of the core
and samples will be negligible and very low sample sizes are suitable.
Drilling techniques · Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary 1980's Drilling Campaign
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, The samples were all taken from core and the core for the holes was 47 mm
whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). diameter in all cases, except Ro 17 and Ro 15 where core was 60 mm in
diameter. No other details of the drilling are available.
Drill sample recovery · Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and · Core recoveries were in most cases 100%. In the cases of two holes,
results assessed. recovery in the mineralised zone dropped to below 90% (75 and 86%).
· Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative · The recoveries reported here are measured from the core available for
nature of the samples. sampling in 2025.
· Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and · It is believed that low core recoveries in some cases may have been
whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of caused by researchers removing small sections of the core that contained
fine/coarse material. elevated copper. For that reason, a core recovery limit of 90% was used to
select which holes to report.
· Due to the same possibility of past researchers removing copper
enriched parts, it is possible that the intervals announced here may
under-report copper. The addition of the 90% core recovery selection criteria
has limited that effect.
Logging · Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and · Geological and geotechnical logging has been completed according to
geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral industry best practice and would be suitable to support Mineral Resource
Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. Estimation. Note that JORC Mineral Resources not reported in this
announcement.
· Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or
costean, channel, etc) photography. · Geological and geotechnical logging is qualitative. Wet and dry core
photos have been taken.
· The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.
1980's Drilling Campaign
· The entire hole was logged, the target zone is typically 2 m thick.
2025 Logging and Resampling Program
· All available core was logged. The amount of available core always
included the mineralised T1 stratigraphic horizon and was a minimum of 10m
above and below that unit. In most cases at least 90m of core was logged and
some cases the entire hole.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation · If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core 1980's Drilling Campaign
taken.
· Samples were sawn using ¼ core.
· If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and
whether sampled wet or dry. · Sample preparation techniques unknown.
· For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the · QAQC procedures are unknown.
sample preparation technique.
· Sample representativity measures are unknown.
· Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to
maximise representivity of samples. · Sample size collection likely to have been quarte-core based on
remaining drill cores.
· Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the
in situ material collected, including for instance results for field 2025 Logging and Resampling Program
duplicate/second-half sampling.
· Where ¼ core was sampled, industry standard sampling methods were
· Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the used.
material being sampled.
· Where sliver samples were taken, a small rock saw was used to take
20% of the ¼ core that was available.
· In all cases the same side of the core was sampled from top to
bottom.
· Industry standard and accredited techniques were used in all cases.
Samples were weighed, then crushed in a jaw crusher to 75% passing 2 mm. The
crushed sample was then split using a rotary splitter to 250 g. The sub sample
was then pulverised to 85% passing a 75 µm.
· All procedures were accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 standard.
· Screen tests were performed and reported for both crushing and
pulverising stages. The results showed that comminution met and exceeded the
standards above.
· Industry standard quality control methods were used. GRX used coarse
and pulp duplicates were inserted at a frequency of 1/50 each. Field
duplicates were not used due to restrictions on the proportion of core
available for sampling.
· The maximum error between crush duplicates was found to be 2.0% and
0% for Cu and Ag respectively, which supports the view the FSE is low and that
sliver sampling was representative of the mineralisation.
· For the ¼ core samples masses were between 0.19 kg and 7.89 kg. This
is appropriate.
· For the sliver samples, masses were between 0.1 kg and 0.84 Kg. This
is appropriate given the low FSE, validation by pXRF and low error seen in
coarse duplicates.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests · The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and 1980's Drilling Campaign
laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or
total. · Geochemical analysis was carried out by Robertson Research Ltd,
Wales, however the precise nature quality and appropriateness of the assaying
· For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, is unknown. The precise nature quality and appropriateness of the assaying is
the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and unknown.
model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.
2025 Logging and Resampling Program
· Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks,
duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of · Industry standard and accredited procedures were used. All samples
accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established. were analysed using a four-acid digestion with an Inductively Coupled Plasma -
Atomic Emission Spectroscopy (ICP-AES) finish. Where analyses were found to be
above detection limits, an Atomic Absorption Spectroscopy (AAS) finish was
used.
· All procedures were accredited to ISO/IEC 17025 standard.
· A handheld XRF was used only for validation of sliver samples and
assisting with selection of sample intervals. The Olympus Vanta (V2MR)
configured with the GeoChem(3) calibration. A reading time of 40s was used. A
blank standard or CRM was analysed daily before the start of work. Procedures
were in place to ensure correct operation.
· Quality Control samples were added at a rate of 10%. For every 100
samples, 4 Certified Reference Materials were used, two Pulp duplicates, two
crush duplicate and two blanks were inserted.
· Certified reference materials were matrix matched where possible and
included ore and cut-off grade materials for copper and silver.
Verification of sampling and assaying · The verification of significant intersections by either independent 1980's Drilling Campaign
or alternative company personnel.
· The 1980's drilling significant intersections were verified using the
· The use of twinned holes. 2025 logging and sampling program.
· Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data 2025 Logging and Resampling Program
verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.
· No verification completed.
· Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
· No twinned holes reported.
· 10% Electronic data records were verified against paper records,
focussing on ore grades.
· No adjustments made.
Location of data points · Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar · Location accuracy is unknown. The location of holes drilled by St Joe
and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Explorations comes from collar tables in historical reports. All other
Mineral Resource estimation. collar locations come from State/Federal databases.
· Specification of the grid system used. · Latitude and Longitude in degree, minutes and seconds were provided
by St Joe Explorations.
· Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
· Unknown
Data spacing and distribution · Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. · Between 400 m to 700 m
· Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish · Mineral Resources are not being reported.
the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral
Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. · Sample compositing was not undertaken.
· Whether sample compositing has been applied.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure · Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of · The target Kupferschiefer layer is flat to slightly dipping, vertical
possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the drilling therefore intercepts at right angles and is appropriate.
deposit type.
· No sampling bias introduced by intersection angles.
· 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.
Sample security · The measures taken to ensure sample security. 1980's Drilling Campaign
· Methods not known.
· Drill cores have been stored in a safe location in Germany.
2025 Logging and Resampling Program
· Full chain of custody tracking was completed for all transportation
of core and samples
Audits or reviews · The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. · No audits completed
Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results
(Criteria 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 · The Tannenberg 1 licence is held 100% by Group 11 Exploration GmbH
agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, (Group 11) a subsidiary of GreenX. The licences were awarded on the 6 June
partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, 2025 for a period of three years to 6 June 2028. The licence is free from
wilderness or national park and environmental settings. overriding royalties and native titles interests. There are historical mine
workings within the licence area, but no known historical sites of cultural
· The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with significance outside of mining.
any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.
· The Tannenberg 2 exploration licence is also held 100% by Group 11.
The licence was granted effective 22 April 2025 and is valid for three years
also until 6 June 2028.
· Within and surrounding both licence areas, there are environmental
protections zones with differing levels of protections. There are small areas
identified as Natura 2000 Fauna Flora Habitat Areas and Bird Sanctuaries.
Other environmental protection designated areas include Nature Reserves,
National Natural Monuments, Landscape Protection Area, and Natural Parks.
Based on due diligence and discussions with various stakeholders and
consultants, the presence of environmental protection areas does not preclude
exploration or eventual mining if conducted in accordance with applicable
standards and regulations.
· The landform across the license area comprises mostly of farmland,
forested areas, and small towns and villages.
· The licences are in good standing.
Exploration done by other parties · Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. · Exploration in the 1930's was carried out by Mansfeld AG and resulted
in 95 drill holes which were used to establish 3 mines in the area, with
recommendations for the opening of a further 2 which never materialised.
· Exploration was carried out by St Joe Explorations (in JV with the
Broken Hill Pty Co Ltd later BHP-Utah) between 1980 and 1987. Two projects
were undertaken. The Richelsdorf project within the licence area as well as
the Spessart-Rhoen project 85 km to the south. Hole IDs starting with 'Ro'
were drilled by St Joe Explorations.
· Historical mining took place within the licence area. Mining
activities ceased in the 1950's.
Geology · Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. · Mineralisation is of the classic Kupferschiefer type (copper slate)
within the Permian Zechstein Basin of Germany and Poland.
· The Zechstein Basin is hosted within the Southern Permian Basin (SPB)
of Europe. The SPB is an intracontinental basin that developed on the northern
foreland of the Variscan Orogen.
· Very high-grade copper mineralisation is generally associated with
the Kupferschiefer shale unit. However, minable copper mineralisation also
occurs in the footwall sandstone and hanging wall limestone units in Poland.
Mineralisation can be offset from the shale by up to 30 m above and 60 m
below.
Drill hole Information · A summary of all information material to the understanding of the · All drill hole collar information has been provided in Table 1
exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for and 2 of Appendix 1.
all Material drill holes:
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level - elevation above sea level in metres) of
the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception depth
o 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.
Data aggregation methods · In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, · Mineralised samples above a threshold of 0.30% Cu where selected to
maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and define a mineralised zone.
cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.
· Samples were composited to full thickness, length weighted composites
· Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade derived from individual assay intervals.
results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such
aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations · Not top cuts or grade caps were applied to the dataset.
should be shown in detail.
· No metal equivalents reported.
· The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values
should be clearly stated.
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths · These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of · Drilling was perpendicular to mineralisation and therefore intercept
Exploration Results. thicknesses are the same as mineralisation thicknesses.
· 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').
Diagrams · Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of · Relevant maps and sections are included at Figures 1, 2, 3, and
intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported 4. Also refer to maps included in announcements dated 2 August 2024 and 28
These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar April 2025, 11 September 2025 and 20 November 2025.
locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced reporting · Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not · All data was considered when defining mineralisation and geological
practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or continuity.
widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration
Results. · Drillholes with grade intercepts below a modelling threshold of 0.30%
Cu where not considered when calculating grade and thickness ranges.
· A minimum thickness of 1.50 m was imposed when defining the
mineralised zone. Sub-threshold intervals were incorporated only where the
overall composite grade remained above 0.30% Cu and the minimum thickness had
not yet been achieved.
· When defining grade ranges, one drillhole outside of the Exploration
Target was considered. The remaining holes did not meet the minimum threshold
and thickness criteria.
Other substantive exploration data · Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be · All substantive results are reported. Geological logs and downhole
reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical gamma logs are not reported here.
survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples - size and method of
treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical
and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.
Further work · The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral · Historical mine access and underground work planned for H2 2026 to
extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). support scoping-level metallurgical test work, chip sampling, mapping and 3D
model refinement.
· Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, · Ongoing collation and digitisation of historical geological maps,
provided this information is not commercially sensitive. mine development and production data from hard copies.
· If appropriate, undertake a seismic survey to assist with future
drilling campaigns (commencement H2 2026).
· Commencement of initial drilling campaign (late 2026).
This information is provided by RNS, the news service of the London Stock Exchange. RNS is approved by the Financial Conduct Authority to act as a Primary Information Provider in the United Kingdom. Terms and conditions relating to the use and distribution of this information may apply. For further information, please contact
rns@lseg.com (mailto:rns@lseg.com)
or visit
www.rns.com (http://www.rns.com/)
.
RNS may use your IP address to confirm compliance with the terms and conditions, to analyse how you engage with the information contained in this communication, and to share such analysis on an anonymised basis with others as part of our commercial services. For further information about how RNS and the London Stock Exchange use the personal data you provide us, please see our
Privacy Policy (https://www.lseg.com/privacy-and-cookie-policy)
. END MSCKZGZKZRKGVZG
Copyright 2019 Regulatory News Service, all rights reservedRecent news on GreenX Metals
See all newsREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Exploration Target Highlights Potential in Germany
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - New High Priority Targets Identified at ELN
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - Quarterly Activities Report March 2026
AnnouncementREG - Civil Aviation Auth. - DRAFT DECISION ON EXPANSION EARLY COSTS RECOVERY
AnnouncementREG - GreenX Metals Ltd - A$1.6m Received for Legal Costs from Poland
Announcement