Updated Mineral Resource Estimate

NZX and Media Release
12 October 2026




Barrytown critical minerals project resource base increases to 35 million
tonnes at an exceptional high-grade 21% total heavy mineral.


Taiko Critical Minerals Limited (NZCN: 5824110)
c/o PriceWaterhouseCoopers, Level 26 PwC Tower, 15 Customs Street West,
Auckland Central, Auckland 1010, New Zealand
www.taikocm.co.nz
Tāiko Critical Minerals Limited (NZX: TCM) (Tāiko or the Company) has completed the
Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE) for the Cargill South block.
Together with the previously reported MRE’s for Coates South, Canoe Creek and Barrytown
Farms blocks, it establishes a resource base at its Barrytown, West Coast Project of 35Mt of
which 21% is Total Heavy Mineral (THM).
Key Points
 11,632 metres of drilling completed, and 11,133 samples tested
 JORC Code (2012) Competent Person sign off for,
o 34.1Mt @ 21% Measured & Indicated (M&I) THM for 2.2Mt ilmenite, 3.1Mt
garnet, 48kt zircon
o 0.9Mt @ 23% Inferred THM for 80kt ilmenite, 90kt garnet, 2kt zircon
 More than 5km of mineralised strandline
 This is significant as the M&I Resource underpins the project economic studies
The attached report covers Cargill South, the last of the four blocks to be assessed.
Tāiko already holds resource consents for the Coates South block, a Wet Concentrator Plant
at Barrytown and a Mineral Separation Plant at Rapahoe, which secure its “Mine to Market”
development strategy.
An application for consents to enable Taiko to extend the project, developing Canoe Creek,
Barrytown Farms and the Cargill South blocks is being assessed by the Fast Track expert panel,
with a decision due by 8 December 2026, subject to any delays.
Chief Executive Robert Brand said: “The extensive exploration and testing conducted by
independent experts and reported by a Competent Person in compliance with the JORC Code
(2012) provides Taiko with a high level of confidence on what is in the ground at Barrytown.
That, and the imminent Fast-track decision provides the key foundation for our feasibility
study.”
ENDS
For further information please contact:
Robert Brand
Chief Executive Officer
Mobile: +61 421 388 222
Email: robert.brand@taikocm.co.nz
Website: www.taikocm.co.nz

Page 2 of 3
ABOUT TĀIKO CRITICAL MINERALS
Tāiko is a New Zealand incorporated company preparing to extract, refine and export critical minerals
from privately owned farmland on the West Coast of the South Island of New Zealand, near
Greymouth. The Company has strong mana whenua support, with resource consents through to
implementation.
Tāiko plans to develop and produce ilmenite, zircon, garnet, and other critical minerals. The company’s
“mine to market” strategy involves refining these critical minerals at a planned Mineral Separation
Plant on the West Coast and exporting them to global customers. The Company’s operations are in
start-up phase and are therefore pre-revenue.
BARRYTOWN CRITICAL MINERALS PROJECT
The Company’s core asset is the Barrytown Critical Minerals Project, contained on Mining Permit ML
60785 covering 1250ha of coastal heavy mineral sands located ~30 km north of Greymouth.
Tāiko has been granted resource consents to mine the mineral resource from the Coates South Block
property near Greymouth.
The Company has entered into a conditional Sale and Purchase Agreement with Barrytown Farms
Limited to acquire approximately 304 hectares of farmland on the Barrytown Flats, securing access
rights for the core mining blocks of the project.
The Company has also been granted resource consents to construct and operate a mineral separation
plant at nearby Rapahoe, which will produce high value critical minerals from the mineral resource.
In addition, Tāiko will transport refined minerals via established rail infrastructure to South Island
ports for export to global customers.
MINERAL RESOURCE
Tāiko has reported a JORC Code (2012) compliant Mineral Resource for the Barrytown Critical Minerals
Project comprising 34.1Mt @ 21% Measured & Indicated Total Heavy Mineral and 0.9Mt @ 23%
Inferred Total Heavy Mineral
PROJECT DEVELOPMENT
The Company lodged its substantive application for resource consent under the Fast Track Approvals
Act 2024 on 8 June 2026. The application covers mining of the mineral resource extension of the
Coates South Block contained in the Canoe Creek, Barrytown Farms and Cargill South Blocks.
Tāiko has received strong support from Mana Whenua Te Rūnanga o Ngāti Waewae, whose vital input
is helping to shape the project from resource consents through to implementation.
COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT
The Mineral Resource information in this announcement is based on information compiled under the
supervision of Mathijs van de Ven (MAusIMM) and Michael Gazley (MAusIMM, MAIG) of RSC, who are
Competent Persons as defined in the JORC Code (2012). Both have sufficient experience relevant to
this style of mineralisation and consent to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in
which it appears.

Page 3 of 3
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES
All references to mineral resource estimates should be read in conjunction with the reports listed in
the table below.
Location Title of Document Competent person Report & (NZX
release) date
Barrytown
Farms and
Coates South
Initial Mineral Resource Estimate
for the Barrytown Critical Minerals
Project
Mr Rene Sterk MSc FAusIMM
(CP(Geo) MAIG (RPGeo) MSEG
20 Jan 2026
(pre NZX listing)
Barrytown
Farms and
Coates South
Listing Profile – Taiko Critical
Minerals Limited
Mr Rene Sterk MSc FAusIMM
(CP(Geo) MAIG (RPGeo) MSEG
5 Mar 2026
(NZX: 5 Mar 26)
Canoe Creek Canoe Creek Mineral Resource
Estimate
Mathijs van de Ven (MAusIMM)
Michael Gazley (MAusIMM,
MAIG)
4 May 2026
(NZX: 13 May 26)
Canoe Creek Initial Mineral Resource Estimate
for the Canoe Creek Block at the
Barrytown Critical Minerals Project
Mathijs van de Ven (MAusIMM) 6 May 2026
(NZX: 13 May 26)
Cargill South Initial Mineral Resource Estimate
for the Cargill South Block at the
Barrytown Critical Minerals Project
Mathijs van de Ven (MAusIMM)
Michael Gazley (MAusIMM,
MAIG)
11 Oct 2026
(NZX: 12 Oct 26)
The above reports were prepared by RSC and can be found at www.taikocm.co.nz/mineral-resource-
information.
All disclosures made in this document with reference to mineral resources estimates are quoted as
per those documents. Taiko confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that will or
may materially affect the information included in this market announcement. In the case of mineral
resource estimates, all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates
continue to apply and have not materially changed since the date of the above reports.
FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS
This announcement may contain forward-looking statements based on management’s expectations.
Actual results may differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statements.
Forward-looking statements, opinions, and estimates included in this document are based on
assumptions and contingencies which are subject to change without notice. These statements are
provided as a general guide only and should not be relied upon as a guarantee of future performance.
Project development pathways, timelines, production targets, and commercial outcomes are
indicative only and are based on current expectations. Actual timing and outcomes may vary
depending on technical, regulatory, funding, and market conditions. Tāiko does not undertake to
update forward-looking statements except as required by applicable law.
PUBLIC DISCLOSURES
This announcement should be read in conjunction with Taiko’s NZX announcements. It is not intended
to provide a comprehensive overview of all material information relating to the Company and should
not be relied upon as a substitute for those disclosures.

Page 1 of 25


11 OCTOBER 2026

Initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the Cargill South Block
at the Barrytown Critical Minerals Project

Highlights:
 Initial Mineral Resource estimate for the Cargill South Block classified in accordance with
the JORC Code (2012).
 Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources of 9.3 Mt @ 11.5% valuable heavy minerals
(VHM) at Cargill South, within a total Mineral Resource of 9.7 Mt @ 11.2% VHM.
 Total Mineral Resources for the Barrytown Project now stand at 35.0 Mt @ 15.9% VHM,
including Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources of 34.1 Mt @ 15.8% VHM.
Tāiko Critical Minerals Limited (Tāiko) is pleased to announce an initial mineral resource
estimate (MRE) for the Barrytown Project’s Cargill South Block, West Coast, South Island, New
Zealand, reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012). The MRE was completed based on
the results of aircore (AC) and sonic drilling undertaken in 2025. The Cargill South Block covers
an area of 92 ha at the southernmost extent of Tāiko’s 1,250 ha mining permit (MP 60785) at
the Barrytown Project.
The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) has classified a Measured Mineral Resource of 4.3
Mt at 4.8% ilmenite, 8.2% garnet and 0.1% zircon; an Indicated Mineral Resource of 5.0 Mt at
3.7% ilmenite, 6.3% garnet and 0.1% zircon, and an Inferred Mineral Resource of approximately
0.4 Mt at 2.1% ilmenite, 3.2% garnet and 0.1% zircon. The Mineral Resource is reported at a cut-
off grade of 1% ilmenite (in situ) and within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm (‘sand
fraction’, Table 1, Table 2). The specified products are individual concentrates rich in ilmenite,
garnet and zircon recovered from the 45 μm to 2 mm size fraction. The Competent Person
(Mathijs van de Ven) considers the product specifications and marketability acceptable.
Table 1: Cargill South Block in-situ Mineral Resource, reported at a 1% ilmenite (in situ) cut-off.
Category
Density
(g/cm
3
)
In-Situ
Mass (Mt)
In-Situ Grade (%) Material Content (kt)
Ilm Gar Zir VHM THM Ilm Gar Zir VHM THM
Measured 2.0 4.3 4.8 8.2 0.1 13.2 16 210 350 5 560 670
Indicated 2.0 5.0 3.7 6.3 0.1 10.1 13 180 320 4 510 660
Measured +
Indicated
2.0 9.3 4.2 7.2 0.1 11.5 14 390 670 9 1,070 1,330
Inferred 2.0 0.4 2.1 3.2 0.1 5.3 7 10 10 0 20 30
Total 2.0 9.7 4.1 7.0 0.1 11.2 14 400 680 9 1,090 1,360
Notes:
1. The Mineral Resource is classified in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).
2. The Mineral Resource is reported at a 1% in-situ ilmenite grade cut-off.
3. Zircon material content is the tonnes of zircon within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
4. Garnet material content is the tonnes of garnet within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
5. Ilmenite material content is the tonnes of ilmenite within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
6. VHM % is the summed grade of ilmenite, garnet, and zircon.
7. Total heavy minerals (THM)% is calculated for each interval as the sum of ilmenite, garnet, zircon, allanite, Fe-oxide, epidote,
rutile, titanite and monazite contained within the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm and estimated by OK.
8. The material content is reported within the sand fraction and rounded to the nearest 10 kt except zircon.

Page 2 of 22
9. The Mineral Resource is reported on a dry tonnes basis.
10. The effective date of the Mineral Resource is 11 October 2026.
11. The Mineral Resource is rounded to reflect the level of confidence in the estimate at the time of reporting.
12. Totals may vary due to rounding.
Table 2: Cargill South Block Mineral Resource products.
Category
In-Situ
Mass (Mt)
Sand
(%)
Sand
(kt)
Product Grade (%) Material Content (kt)
Ilm Gar Zir VHM THM Ilm Gar Zir VHM THM
Measured 4.3 50.9 2,180 9.5 16.1 0.2 25.8 30 210 350 5 560 670
Indicated 5.0 57.7 2,900 6.3 10.8 0.1 17.3 22 180 320 4 510 660
Measured +
Indicated
9.3 54.6 5,070 7.8 13.2 0.2 21.2 26 390 670 9 1,070 1,330
Inferred 0.4 47.8 200 4.0 6.2 0.1 10.3 14 10 10 0 20 30
Total 9.7 54.3 5,270 7.6 12.9 0.2 20.7 26 400 680 9 1,090 1,360
Notes:
1. The Mineral Resource is classified in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).
2. The Mineral Resource is reported at a 1% in-situ ilmenite grade cut-off.
3. Zircon material content is the tonnes of zircon within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
4. Garnet material content is the tonnes of garnet within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
5. Ilmenite material content is the tonnes of ilmenite within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
6. VHM% is the summed grade of ilmenite, garnet, and zircon within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
7. Total heavy minerals (THM)% is calculated for each interval as the sum of ilmenite, garnet, zircon, allanite, Fe-oxide, epidote,
rutile, titanite and monazite contained within the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm and estimated by OK.
8. The material content is reported within the sand fraction and rounded to the nearest 10 kt except zircon.
9. The Mineral Resource is reported on a dry tonnes basis.
10. The effective date of the Mineral Resource is 11 October 2026.
11. The Mineral Resource is rounded to reflect the level of confidence in the estimate at the time of reporting.
12. Totals may vary due to rounding.
PROJECT SUMMARY
The Barrytown Project is a coastal heavy mineral sands project located ~30 km north of
Greymouth, West Coast, New Zealand (Figure 1). The project covers a ~17 km long, ~2 km wide
flat-lying coastal plain (Barrytown Flats) adjacent to the Tasman Sea, with the Paparoa Ranges
to the east. The Cargill South Block is located at the southern end of the project and shares
similar geology, mineralisation style, and development context with the rest of the blocks in the
Barrytown Project. All blocks are accessible via State Highway 6 and are proximal to the ports
of Greymouth and Westport, providing logistical advantages for future development.
TENURE & OWNERSHIP
The Barrytown Project consists of one mineral mining permit (MP) 60785 and one exploration
permit (EP) 60917, granted by New Zealand Petroleum & Minerals (NZP&M; Table 3, Figure 1).
The Cargill South Block MRE is fully contained within MP 60785. NZP&M issues permits to
prospect, explore, and mine Crown-owned minerals in New Zealand. All gold (Au), silver (Ag),
uranium (U), and petroleum in New Zealand are statute minerals owned by the Crown.
Ownership of other minerals (e.g. ilmenite, garnet, and zircon) depends on the legislation in
place at the time the land was alienated from the Crown. Non-statute minerals of interest within
MP 60785 are primarily owned by the Crown, except for several road parcels and private land
parcels. Approximately 11% of the Cargill South Block consists of privately held minerals.

Page 3 of 22

Figure 1: Map of permitted areas and location of Cargill South block.
Table 3: Permit details for the Barrytown Project.
Permit Status Registered Holder Date Granted Expiry Date Area (ha)
MP
60785
Active
Tāiko Critical Minerals
Limited (100%)
21 July 2022 20 July 2042 1,250
EP
60917
Active
Tāiko Critical Minerals
Limited (100%)
19 April 2024 18 April 2029 245

Page 4 of 22
GEOLOGICAL SETTING & MINERALISATION
The Barrytown shoreline deposits are Pleistocene–Holocene immature beach placer sands that
occur along the West Coast, South Island, New Zealand. The shoreline beach deposits are quartz,
feldspar, lithic (mostly grey schist fragments) sands that contain elevated heavy mineral (HM)
abundances, predominantly garnet and ilmenite with minor zircon, rare-earth element (REE)
bearing minerals, and Au (Lee, 1991; Wells and Haverkamp, 2020). The HM have been
concentrated in a series of beach strandlines and are considered to have originated from the
Alpine Schist of the Southern Alps, transported to the coast by rivers, mostly to the south of the
Barrytown Project, and transported north by longshore drift (Bradley et al., 2002; Ritchie et al.,
2019).
The key controls on HM distribution across the Barrytown Project area are:
 the supply of HM through physical weathering;
 the downstream persistence of the HM and their availability in the fluvial or marine
environment; and
 a depositional sorting process to concentrate the HM.
The mineralisation process begins inland with the erosion of metamorphic and sedimentary
rocks, which supplies sand, silt, clay, and HM to stream drainages. Streams and rivers carry the
sediments to the coast, where they are deposited and redistributed in a variety of environments,
such as deltas, the beach face (foreshore), the shoreface, barrier islands, dunes, and tidal
lagoons (Van Gosen et al., 2014). Aeolian dune, foreshore, shoreface, and lagoonal environments
have been identified as the most significant sites of heavy mineral sands deposition (Force,
1991). The upper part of the beach face, the foreshore, is the principal zone of mineral
separation (Force, 1991). Breaking waves carry a charge of turbulent sediment-laden water from
the lower, submerged beach face onto the foreshore, where the backwash winnows lighter
minerals, thus concentrating HM.
DRILLING TECHNIQUES
OVERVIEW
Tāiko (formerly TiGa Minerals and Metals Limited) drilled a total of 882 drillholes at the
Barrytown Project in 2022–2025 over four different resource blocks using predominantly aircore
(AC) drilling and some sonic drilling (Figure 2).
CARGILL SOUTH
In the Cargill South Block, 198 AC holes (BAC264–461) were drilled for a total depth of 2,658 m,
with an average depth of 13.4 m (Table 4, Figure 3). Eight AC holes were twinned by a second
AC hole, giving an AC twinning rate of 4%. Samples were collected from all AC holes. A further
12 sonic holes were drilled in the Cargill South Block for a total of 165 m, each positioned as a
twin of an AC hole (Figure 3). All holes are short and vertical; no downhole surveys were
completed, which the Competent Persons consider to be a low risk. Data from these drillholes
form the basis of the Cargill South MRE.
All AC drilling was completed by Alton using an ADL multipurpose rig mounted on an MST-600VD
crawler, fitted with a three-inch hammer (~76 mm) and 200 psi (400 cfm) compressor. Sonic
drilling was carried out by Pro-Drill using a Fraste XL1 remote-tracked rig operating at 150 Hz,
with an inner drill bit diameter of 79 mm and outer bit diameter of 104 mm, producing 79-mm-
diameter core.
Planned drillhole collar locations were surveyed in advance of drilling by Davis Ogilvy & Partners
Ltd using a Trimble RTK GNSS with R10 rover and base units; drill points were set out to an

Page 5 of 22
accuracy of typically 0.1 m or better. Completed drillhole collars were surveyed by RSC during
the drill programme using a handheld Garmin GPSMAP 67i instrument (accuracy ~3 m). Some
drillholes had to be moved to more accessible locations due to poor ground conditions. All collars
were draped onto topography for estimation.
Table 4: Summary of drilling at Cargill South.
Drill type
Cargill South Block
No. Holes Metres (m)
Aircore 198 2,6580
Sonic 12 165
Programme Total 210 2,823

Figure 2: Overview map of the 2022–2025 resource drilling programme at the Barrytown Critical Minerals
Project.

Page 6 of 22

Figure 3: Overview map of the 2025 resource drilling programme at Cargill South Block.
MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE SUMMARY
This section summarises the material information used to prepare the Cargill South MRE. Further
detail is given in the attached JORC Code (2012) Table 1, Sections 1 to 3.
GEOLOGICAL INTERPRETATION
Geological domains were interpreted from downhole pXRF geochemistry and geological logging.
Three geological domains were modelled using implicit techniques: clay-rich overburden, a
mixed sand–clay zone, and sand. A Rb/Sr ≈ 1.4 was used to define the boundary between clay-
rich material and clay-poor sand. Part of the Cargill South block was historically mined for gold
by dredging. This area was interpreted from aerial photography and grade data and modelled as
a separate dredge domain, which has little/no overburden and less-pronounced grade zonation.

Page 7 of 22
Grades in the sand and dredge domains have bimodal heavy mineral distributions and each
domain was split into high-grade and low-grade estimation domains using a nominal 8% garnet
threshold. The interpretation was refined spatially to ensure consistency between the domains
and interpreted geology. Given the strong geological continuity, high-data density, and
relatively simple geology, the Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) is of the opinion that
alternative interpretations are not likely to deviate materially from the current model and are
unlikely to have a material impact on the MRE. Mineralisation remains open to the north, south
and east.
Grain size fractions were estimated directly into the geological domains (clay-rich overburden,
mixed sand–clay zone, and sand) and the dredged domain, without further subdomaining. The
topography surface is a 1-m resolution LiDAR digital elevation model with vertical accuracy of
±0.2 m (95%).
SAMPLING & SUB-SAMPLING TECHNIQUES
AC samples were collected at 1-m intervals through the inner tube and cyclone, weighed in the
field, logged by RSC geologists, and bagged whole. Sonic core (79 mm diameter) was logged,
recovery measured, and core was sampled in 1-m intervals or as defined by lithological
boundaries. Sonic intervals shorter than 1 m were composited to 1 m for estimation. Samples
were dried, weighed, and screened to the 45 μm to 2 mm (sand) fraction at the New Zealand
Institute of Metals and Minerals Research (NZIMMR), Greymouth, then rotary split and pulverised
to produce a pulp for pXRF analysis. Further splits were retained for laboratory XRF, sink-float,
and SEM analysis. Duplicates from the first and fifth splits demonstrate no material bias for the
key elements.
Comparison of dry AC weight data with twin sonic drillholes indicates that AC sample recovery
was not consistently controlled in the saturated, unconsolidated ground, and that AC sample
mass increased with depth. Moreover, the sonic twin drillholes indicate that HM grades from AC
samples are biased low (AC < sonic) by approximately 6–16% in the high-grade sand domain and
6–7% in the high-grade dredged domain. By contrast, AC grades are biased high (AC > sonic) in
the low-grade domains, most likely due to downhole smearing. The Wilcoxon signed-rank test
demonstrates that these biases are statistically significant (p<0.1) across garnet, ilmenite and
zircon for all domains except for the high-grade sand domain. The analysis is hindered by the
paucity of AC-sonic sample pairs (N =12–48), but results are consistent with observations from
sonic twin holes at Canoe Creek (Gazley et al., 2026).
The Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) consider the AC data sufficient
to support Inferred and Indicated Mineral Resources, but not sufficient on their own to support
Measured Mineral Resources, and consider the risk associated with the data quality moderate
with respect to the classification of an Indicated or Measured mineral resource. The grade biases
is taken into account in the estimation methodology and classification described in the following
sections.
SAMPLE ANALYSIS & QUALITY CONTROL
RSC analysed 2,842 pulverised samples by pXRF using an Evident Vanta VMR instrument in a test
stand, following the approach of Fisher et al. (2014) and Gazley and Fisher (2014). The data
were calibrated against seven certified reference materials analysed in each session, and pXRF
repeat analyses indicate a precision of 1–3% (RMSCV). A representative subset of 86 samples (72
AC and 14 sonic) was analysed by fused-bead XRF at ALS Geochemistry, Brisbane (ME-XRF30), as
a check on the pXRF data.
A further 112 samples were submitted for sink-float analysis (tetrabromoethane, SG 2.92–2.96)
at Diamantina Laboratories, Perth. Seventy samples (58 AC and 12 sonic), selected to span the
full chemical range, were analysed by SEM-based automated mineralogy (Bruker AMICS) at Middle
Earth Petrographics, Christchurch. Total heavy mineral (THM) grades from SEM and sink-float

Page 8 of 22
analyses demonstrate good agreement (slope 1.07, intercept -2.33%, R² = 0.988). The Competent
Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) consider the sample preparation and analytical
workflow fit for purpose.
MINERAL GRADE DETERMINATION
Ilmenite, garnet, and zircon grades were calculated for each sample from pXRF data (Ca, Fe, K,
Mn, Si, Ti, and Zr) using linear regression models trained on the 70 samples analysed by SEM.
Tested on samples withheld from training, the models have mean absolute errors of 0.8%
ilmenite and 1.7% garnet for samples above 1% ilmenite. Iron values are slightly low relative to
SEM-derived values at higher grades, which may contribute to a small conditional bias in
modelled ilmenite and garnet grades in high-grade domains; the Competent Persons (Michael
Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) consider this effect small relative to the model errors, but note
that it acts preferentially in the high-grade sand and dredged domains, which carry the majority
of the reported material content. The valuable heavy mineral (VHM) grade is the sum of ilmenite,
garnet, and zircon grades. Total heavy minerals (THM)% is calculated for each interval as the
sum of ilmenite, garnet, zircon, allanite, Fe-oxide, epidote, rutile, titanite and monazite
contained within the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm (based on model grades calculated
from pXRF data).
ESTIMATION METHODOLOGY
Grades were estimated in a block model with parent blocks of 20 m × 60 m × 1 m (sub-blocked
to 5 m × 15 m × 0.5 m), based on a nominal drill spacing of 30 m × 120 m, using 1-m composites
and hard domain boundaries. In the high-grade sand and high-grade dredged domains, which
contain approximately 90% of the contained VHM, ilmenite, garnet, and zircon grades were
estimated by kriging with variance of measurement error (KVME) in Isatis Neo. The KVME method
was selected based on the observation that AC data are biased low compared to sonic data;
KVME gives more weight to the sonic samples than to the low-biased AC samples. The low-grade,
mixed and overburden domains were estimated by ordinary kriging (OK). The KVME estimation
method was tested for the low-grade domains at Canoe Creek and found to have minimal impact.
Variograms for the high-grade domains have low normalised nuggets (0.10), increasing to 0.20–
0.40 in the other domains, and ranges that typically exceed the drill spacing. Search
neighbourhoods (300 m × 130 m × 10 m, using a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 24 samples)
were based on a kriging neighbourhood analysis completed for the Canoe Creek Block, which has
the same drill spacing and similar geology. Top caps were applied in the overburden, mixed, and
low-grade domains.
Estimates were validated against the input composites using mean and median comparisons
(Figure 4), swath plots, and cross-sections. In the high-grade domains (representing ~90% of
contained VHM in the MRE), KVME mean grades are 2-11% higher than the mean of all composites
(sonic + AC), but 5–22% lower than the declustered sonic mean. Because sonic composites
represent only 6–7% of the data in these domains, the KVME estimated grades fall between the
sonic and sonic+AC sample grades (Figure 4). For the low-grade domains (representing ~10% of
contained VHM in the MRE), OK estimates reproduce input grades (sonic+AC) mostly within 10%
but are biased high compared to the sonic mean and median grades (Figure 4). The Competent
Persons recommend that additional twin drilling is completed at Cargill South to obtain a twin
proportion of at least 20% and achieve a more robust reweighting of the sample grades through
the KVME method.
The proportions of the three size fractions (<45 μm, 45 μm to 2 mm, and >2 mm) were estimated
by OK using the same variogram model for each domain to preserve the interdependent nature
of the variables (i.e. proportions summing to 100%). In-situ grades were determined based on
the grade of the product fraction and the proportion of the product size fraction.

Page 9 of 22

Figure 4: Waterfall chart for the heavy mineral grade estimate by domain.

Page 10 of 22
BULK DENSITY
Dry bulk density was determined on 182 sonic samples from dried weights and core volumes; no
independent check measurements were made. After comparison with densities calculated from
HM grade and porosity, 58 unreliable measurements were excluded (half-cored samples, dry
weight exceeding wet weight, or samples under 5,000 g), leaving 124 bulk density results. For
the sand domains, median bulk densities are within 3% of those at Canoe Creek. An equivalent
of the dredge domain does not exist at Canoe Creek for comparison.
Median values were assigned to the blockmodel by domain: 2.35 t/m³ for high-grade sand, 2.01
t/m³ for low-grade sand and mixed, 1.88 t/m³ for dredge, and 1.49 t/m³ for overburden. The
use of OK-estimated densities was tested and found to have minimal impact on the MRE. The
Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers the bulk density estimate a low-to-moderate
risk to the classification objectives.
CLASSIFICATION STATEMENT
The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) has classified a Measured Mineral Resource of 4.3
Mt at 4.8% ilmenite, 8.2% garnet and 0.1% zircon; an Indicated Mineral Resource of 5.0 Mt at
3.7% ilmenite, 6.3% garnet and 0.1% zircon, and an Inferred Mineral Resource of ~0.4 Mt at
2.1% ilmenite, 3.2% garnet and 0.1% zircon. The Mineral Resource is reported at a cut-off grade
of 1% ilmenite (in situ) and within a particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm (‘sand fraction’,
Table 1, Table 2). The Mineral Resource has been classified in accordance with the JORC Code
(2012) and is presented graphically in Error! Reference source not found.. Table 1
summarises tonnes and in-situ grades, determined on the basis of the grade of the product
fraction and the proportion of the product size fraction to the whole. Table 2 details the
proportion of the product size fraction for each resource category and the HM grade inside the
product size fraction, which is higher than the in-situ HM grade.
In accordance with Clause 49 of the JORC Code (2012), the Competent Person (Mathijs van de
Ven) has considered the likely product and its specifications. The specified products are
individual concentrates rich in ilmenite, garnet and zircon recovered from the 45 μm to 2 mm
size fraction. The Mineral Resource is reported in terms of the minerals on which the project is
based and includes the specification of these minerals.
The Measured portion of the Mineral Resource has been determined from an assessment of
geological and grade continuity, drill spacing, kriging statistics and availability of sonic twin
drilling. Blocks that are in the high-grade sand or high-grade dredge domains and less than 100
m from a sonic drillhole were classified in the Measured category. Geological evidence is derived
from adequately detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing gathered through
appropriate techniques from drillholes, including SEM-based automated mineralogy, and is
sufficient to confirm geological and grade continuity between points of observation where data
and samples are gathered. The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) acknowledges the
presence of a demonstrated low bias in the AC data for the key mineralised domains (high-grade
sand and high-grade dredge) and notes that the AC data alone would not be sufficient to support
a Measured classification. However, the Competent Person deems it appropriate to classify parts
of the resource as Measured for these two domains given that: the tenor of bias is constrained
by 12 twin sonic drillholes to be a low bias; the likely impact of the bias is a conservative
estimate for these domains; and a grade correction has been applied through the estimation
methodology to mitigate the impact of the bias. The Competent Person acknowledges that
blocks classified as Measured may still be subject to a HM grade low bias of up to 4 percentage
points (median block grade < median sonic grade) resulting in a conservative estimate for the
blocks classified as Measured. A larger number of sonic twin holes (>20%) is required for a robust
re-weighting of the AC data in the estimate).
Blocks within a perimeter representing half the average drillhole spacing, but not meeting the
Measured criteria were classified in the Indicated category. For this portion of the MRE, evidence

Page 11 of 22
is sufficient to assume, but not confirm, geological and grade continuity due to the quantified
low bias in the AC data away from sonic control. The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven)
acknowledges that Indicated blocks in the low-grade domains may be subject to a high bias in
HM grade of up to 3 percentage points (median block grade > median sonic grade). These domains
contribute <20% of the total contained VHM in the Indicated category.
Blocks that are outside the half drillhole spacing perimeter, but within a perimeter representing
~1 times the drillhole spacing were classified in the Inferred category. For this portion of the
MRE, geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade continuity.
The Mineral Resource is a global estimate. The confidence in the Mineral Resource is reflected
in the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred classifications, which have been assigned based on the
drill spacing, data quality and geological and grade continuity.

Figure 5: Classified Mineral Resource for Cargill South at a 1.0% in-situ ilmenite cut-off. Perspective view
looking northeast. Portions to the west are too close to the shoreline to meet RPEEE requirements.
CUT-OFF GRADE
The Mineral Resource is reported above a cut-off grade of 1% ilmenite (in situ), the cut-off
adopted in the “Draft Barrytown Sands Feasibility Study” (London, 2023) for the nearby Coates
South Block and used for the Canoe Creek MRE (Gazley et al., 2026). The tonnage is sensitive to
the cut-off grade, but the contained VHM is less so. At a 2% ilmenite cut-off, the Mineral Resource
would be 6.8 Mt at 14.3% VHM (980 kt VHM), compared with 9.7 Mt at 11.2% VHM (1,090 kt VHM)
at 1%.
MINING AND METALLURGICAL METHODS AND PARAMETERS
The Mineral Resource assumes bulk, low-selectivity mining by dredge or excavator, with more
than 95% recovery of the sand unit. These are the assumptions of the draft feasibility study for
Coates South (London, 2023), in which engineering and design were completed to 20–30%
precision, and of earlier studies (Banaszak et al., 2018). Metallurgical assumptions are based on
test work on bulk samples from Coates South and earlier programmes. The Competent Person
(Mathijs van de Ven) considers these applicable to Cargill South because the Coates South and
Canoe Creek blocks, ~5 km and ~3 km to the north, are geologically very similar. This work
demonstrates reasonable pathways to produce marketable concentrates containing ilmenite,

Page 12 of 22
garnet, and zircon.

Figure 6: Limit of RPEEE for the Cargill South Block based on a dredge-mining operation, black line.
REASONABLE PROSPECTS FOR EVENTUAL ECONOMIC EXTRACTION
Mining of the Cargill South Block requires resource consents, which had not been granted as at
the effective date of the MRE. A substantive application under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024
is being considered (see Environmental Factors and Risks). The Competent Person (Mathijs van
de Ven) considers it likely that the required consents will be granted under the current legislative
framework. However, the reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE)
depend on that outcome. On this basis, and taking into account the mining, metallurgical and
economic parameters described above, the Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers
the Mineral Resource a realistic inventory of mineralisation that, under assumed and justifiable
technical, economic and development conditions, might in whole or in part become
economically extractable.

Page 13 of 22
A pit optimisation has not been completed for Cargill South. The RPEEE limits were instead
defined using criteria from a preliminary optimisation by AMC Consultants for a dredge-mining
operation at Canoe Creek (Error! Reference source not found.). Blocks are included in the
Mineral Resource only if they are:
 within 12 m of the surface;
 outside a 50 m standoff from protected natural reserves and the shoreline; and
 below the uppermost 0.4 m (topsoil).
The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers this approach appropriate at the current
stage of study, and notes that a Cargill South-specific optimisation would be required to support
Ore Reserve estimation.
PRODUCT SPECIFICATION & MARKETABILITY
The specified products are individual concentrates rich in ilmenite, garnet and zircon recovered
from the 45 μm to 2 mm size fraction. Impurities and deleterious characteristics were assessed
using SEM data. Based on experience with similar projects and products in New Zealand, the
Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers that reasonable markets exist for these
concentrates, most likely in China, North America, and/or Europe.
KEY RISKS & RECOMMENDATIONS
The main risks to the MRE identified by the Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van
de Ven) are as follows:
 AC sampling bias: HM grades from AC samples are biased low in high-grade domains and
high in low-grade domains. Sonic data make up about 6–7% of the composites and are
insufficient to fully correct the bias.
 Bulk density: No independent check measurements were made, and density is assigned
by domain rather than estimated.
 Study basis: The cut-off grade, RPEEE limits, and mining and metallurgical assumptions
are based on studies of the neighbouring Coates South and Canoe Creek blocks, not
Cargill South.
 Consents: Mining requires resource consents that had not been granted as at the
effective date of the MRE.
The Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) recommend a regular sonic
drilling programme (approximately 120 m × 90 m spacing) to resolve the residual grade bias,
improved quality control of density and sample-processing data at NZIMMR, and a Cargill South-
specific pit optimisation before Ore Reserve estimation.
ENVIRONMENTAL FACTORS AND RISKS
The Barrytown Project is located in an area of high average annual rainfall and high groundwater
levels. As at the effective date of the MRE, Tāiko holds resource consents to mine the Coates
South Block and to construct and operate a mineral separation plant at Rapahoe. The Barrytown
Mineral Sands Project is a listed project under Schedule 2 of the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024.
A substantive application under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, covering the Canoe Creek,
Barrytown Farms, and Cargill South blocks, was lodged with the Environmental Protection
Authority on 8 June 2026 and accepted as complete on 29 June 2026. The application was at the
written comments stage, and no decision had been issued as at the effective date of the MRE.
The Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) consider that Tāiko is working
towards an outcome where it is likely that resource consents will be granted for mining the

Page 14 of 22
Cargill South Block, and note that if resource consents are not granted, this could have a negative
effect on the MRE’s prospects of eventual economic extraction.
The Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) note that Tāiko and its
consultants regularly engage with iwi (indigenous Māori tribes) and hapū (Māori sub-tribes),
whose rohe (territory) includes some or all of the Barrytown Project area, or who may be directly
affected by the Barrytown Project, namely Ngāti Waewae. Ngāti Waewae gave its support to
Tāiko’s Coates South resource consent application to mine. The consent has since been granted,
subject to several mitigating measures. It is likely that the same expectations would apply to
any future mining of the Cargill South Block.
On balance, the Competent Persons (Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven) consider that the
environmental, social and governance factors are sufficiently well understood and proactively
managed to support the MRE’s reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction at the
effective date of the MRE.
SUMMARY OF MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATES AT THE BARRYTOWN PROJECT
There are three other current mineral resource estimates for the Barrytown Project, namely for
the Barrytown Farms, Coates South, and Canoe Creek Blocks. Barrytown Farms and Coates South
were completed in 2023 by RSC, and Canoe Creek was completed in 2026 by RSC. These are
summarised, along with the Cargill South MRE reported here, in Table 5.

Page 15 of 22
Table 5: In-situ Mineral Resource for the Barrytown Project, reported at a 1% ilmenite (in situ) grade cut-
off.
Deposit Category
In-Situ
Mass (Mt)
Sand
4

(%)
In-Situ Grade (%)
5
Material Content (kt)
10

Ilmenite Garnet Zircon VHM
6
THM
7,8,9
Ilmenite Garnet Zircon VHM THM
Cargill
South
Measured 4.3 50.9 4.8 8.2 0.1 13.2 16 210 350 5 560 670
Indicated 5.0 57.7 3.7 6.3 0.1 10.1 13 180 320 4 510 660
Inferred 0.4 47.8 2.1 3.2 0.1 5.3 7 10 10 0 20 30
Total 9.7 54.3 4.1 7.0 0.1 11.2 14 400 680 9 1,090 1,360
Canoe
Creek
Measured 1.15 64.4 11.7 13.8 0.24 26 32 130 160 3 300 370
Indicated 1.7 64.2 6.8 9 0.16 16 21 120 150 3 270 360
Inferred 0.5 67 12 14 0.3 26 33 70 80 2 140 180
Total 3.4 64.7 9.3 11.5 0.2 21 27 320 390 7 710 910
Barrytown
Farms
Measured 7.7 80 7.8 10.6 0.2 18.7 24.9 610 820 14 1,440 1,920
Indicated 5.8 76 9.2 12.2 0.2 21.6 28.5 530 710 11 1,250 1,650
Inferred - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 13.5 78 8.4 11.3 0.2 19.9 26.4 1,140 1,530 25 2,690 3,570
Coates
South
Measured 4.6 68.3 5.2 7.8 0.1 13.2 21 240 360 4 610 950
Indicated 3.8 66.4 5 6.4 0.1 11.5 19 190 240 4 440 710
Inferred - - - - - - - - - - - -
Total 8.4 67.4 5.1 7.2 0.1 12.4 20 430 610 8 1,040 1,660
Total
Measured 17.8 69.2 6.7 9.5 0.1 16.4 22 1,190 1,690 26 2,910 3,910
Indicated 16.3 66.8 6.3 8.7 0.1 15.2 21 1,020 1,420 22 2,470 3,380
M+I 34.1 68.0 6.5 9.1 0.1 15.8 21 2,210 3,110 48 5,380 7,290
Inferred 0.9 61.8 8.9 10.0 0.2 17.8 23 80 90 2 160 210
Total 35.0 67.9 6.6 9.2 0.1 15.9 21 2,290 3,200 50 5,540 7,500
Notes:
1. Estimates are rounded to reflect the level of confidence at the time of reporting.
2. The Mineral Resources are classified in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).
3. The Mineral Resources are reported at a 1% ilmenite grade cut-off.
4. Sand is defined as the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm.
5. In-situ grades are grades estimated for the particle size range 45 μm to 2 mm factored by the proportion of sand.
6. Valuable Heavy Minerals (VHM) % is the sum of ilmenite, garnet, and zircon.
7. Total heavy minerals (THM)% is calculated for each interval as sum of ilmenite, garnet, zircon, allanite, Fe-oxide, epidote,
rutile, titanite and monazite contained within the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm and estimated by OK.
8. For Canoe Creek, Barrytown Farms and Coates South, THM% was calculated from VHM grade for each block using a linear
regression based on the SEM data: -0.0043 × [VHM]² + 1.3811 × [VHM] + 2.2234.
9. For Coates South, Total Heavy Minerals (THM) % is calculated for each interval as [VHM] / 0.66 and estimated by OK.
10. The Material Content is reported within the sand fraction and rounded to the nearest 10 kt except zircon.
11. The Mineral Resource is reported on a dry tonnes basis.
12. The effective date of the Cargill South MRE is 11 October 2026.
13. The effective date of the Canoe Creek MRE is 4 May 2026.
14. The effective date of the Barrytown Farms MRE is 6 October 2023.
15. The effective date of the Coates South MRE is 10 February 2023.
16. Totals may vary due to rounding.

Page 16 of 22
The Mineral Resource Estimates for the Barrytown Farms and Coates South Blocks were
previously reported by Tāiko Critical Minerals Limited (formerly TiGa Minerals and Metals
Limited) in the public announcement entitled “Initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the
Barrytown Critical Minerals Project” dated 20 January 2026 (Competent Person: René Sterk),
and the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Canoe Creek Block in the public announcement
entitled “Initial Mineral Resource Estimate for the Canoe Creek Block at the Barrytown Critical
Minerals Project” dated 6 May 2026 (Competent Persons: Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de
Ven). The form and context of the Competent Person's findings have not been materially
modified. Tāiko confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially
affects the information included in those announcements, and that all material assumptions and
technical parameters underpinning the Mineral Resource Estimates continue to apply and have
not materially changed.
COMPETENT PERSON’S STATEMENT
The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources is based on and fairly
represents information and supporting documentation compiled under the supervision of the
Competent Persons, Michael Gazley (sampling and data quality) and Mathijs van de Ven
(domaining and resource estimation). Michael Gazley and Mathijs van de Ven consent to the
inclusion in the announcement of the matters based on this information in the form and context
in which it appears. The Competent Persons are employees of RSC Consulting and are
independent of Tāiko.
Michael Gazley is a Member of the AusIMM and a Member of the Australian Institute of
Geoscientists. Michael is the General Manager Geoscience and Exploration at RSC and holds a
PhD in Geology from Victoria University of Wellington, New Zealand. He is an expert in pXRF
data collection and interpretation, and in collecting, integrating, and interpreting diverse
chemical and mineralogical datasets using multivariate techniques in exploration and mining
settings. He has almost 20 years of experience working in a range of commodities globally,
including orogenic Au, epithermal Au, placer Au, shear-hosted Cu, IOCG, Cu-Au porphyry, Pb-
Zn-Ag deposits, Li and REE pegmatites, and HMS. Michael 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’.
Mathijs van de Ven is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM).
Mathijs is a Senior Resource Geologist for RSC, a global resource development consultancy, and
holds an MSc in Geology and Geochemistry from the Vrije Universiteit in Amsterdam. He has
eight years of experience working in Au, base metal, and high-tech metal exploration projects
in Australia, New Zealand, Indonesia, and Papua New Guinea and has authored and co-authored
several peer-reviewed research papers. Mathijs has experience in geological modelling, mineral
resource estimation, code-compliant reporting and QA/QC reviews, and has worked on resource
estimates of orogenic, epithermal and porphyry Au, VHMS Cu-Pb-Zn, skarn W, and HMS deposits.
Mathijs 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’.
In addition to preparing the Mineral Resource estimate, Tāiko has also contracted RSC to provide
limited contracting and other advisory services. The full nature of the relationship between RSC
and Tāiko, including any issue that could be perceived by investors as a conflict of interest, has
been disclosed.

Page 17 of 22
REFERENCES
Banaszak, P., Mann, S., Pearce, R. & Straface, D., 2018. Prefeasibility Study, Barrytown Mineral
Sands Project, New Zealand EP51803. Barrytown JV Limited.
Bradley, J., Chew, P. & Wilkins, C., 2002. Transport and distribution of magnetite and ilmenite
on Westland beaches of New Zealand; with comment on the accumulation of other high-
density minerals. Journal of the Royal Society of New Zealand, 32, 169–181.
Fisher, L., Gazley, M. F., Baensch, A., Barnes, S. J., Cleverley, J. & Duclaux, G., 2014. Resolution
of geochemical and lithostratigraphic complexity: a workflow for application of portable
X-ray fluorescence to mineral exploration. Geochemistry: Exploration, Environment,
Analysis, 14, 149–159.
Force, E. R., 1991. Geology of titanium-mineral deposits, Geological Society of America.
Gallagher, E., Wadman, H., McNinch, J., Reniers, A. & Koktas, M., 2016. A conceptual model for
spatial grain size variability on the surface of and within beaches. Journal of Marine
Science and Engineering, 4, 38.
Gazley, M. & Fisher, L., 2014. A review of the reliability and validity of portable X-ray
fluorescence spectrometry (pXRF) data. Mineral resource and ore reserve estimation–The
AusIMM guide to good practice, 69, 82.
Gazley, M., Van de Ven, M., Pocock, A., McKellar, Z., Doyle, S., Lilly, K. & Bertoli, O., 2026.
Canoe Creek Mineral Resource Estimate. RSC, Competent Person: M. Gazley, M. van de
Ven.
Lee, G., 1991. Statement of Ilmenite Sand Resources at Barrytown, MR4287. Westland Ilmenite
Ltd, Competent Person: Ministry of Economic Development New Zealand, Unpublished
Mineral Report, p. 401.
London, J., 2023. Draft Barrytown Sands Feasibility Study. Prepared by Palaris for TiGa Minerals
and Metals Ltd. Document No. BJL5790-001, p. 327.
Ritchie, T. W., Scott, J. M. & Craw, D., 2019. Garnet compositions track longshore migration of
beach placers in western New Zealand. Economic Geology, 114, 513–540.
Suggate, R., 1989. The postglacial shorelines and tectonic development of the Barrytown coastal
lowland, North Westland, New Zealand. New Zealand Journal of Geology and Geophysics,
32, 443–450.
Van Gosen, B. S., Fey, D. L., Shah, A. K., Verplanck, P. L. & Hoefen, T. M., 2014. Deposit model
for heavy-mineral sands in coastal environments. US Geological Survey, 2328-0328.
Wells, H. C. & Haverkamp, R. G., 2020. Characterization of the heavy mineral suite in a holocene
beach placer, Barrytown, New Zealand. Minerals, 10, 86.

Page 18 of 22
APPENDIX 1: DRILLHOLE COLLARS
Hole ID GPS_Easting GPS_Northing
Actual
Depth (m)
Date
Started
Date
Completed
Drill Type Hole type
BAC264 1460630 5321573 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC265 1460601 5321579 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC266 1460571 5321579 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC267 1460545 5321577 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC268 1460554 5321486 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC269 1460581 5321488 12
23/05/2025 23/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC270 1460612 5321487 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC271 1460643 5321484 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC272 1460659 5321369 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC273 1460631 5321369 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC274 1460600 5321368 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC275 1460570 5321368 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC276 1460538 5321369 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC277 1460530 5321248 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC278 1460554 5321248 12
24/05/2025 24/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC279 1460583 5321247 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC280 1460613 5321248 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC281 1460599 5321126 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC282 1460571 5321129 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC283 1460540 5321128 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC284 1460524 5321010 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC285 1460553 5321009 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC286 1460583 5321008 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC287 1460675 5321489 12
25/05/2025 25/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC288 1460706 5321489 15
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC289 1460736 5321488 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC290 1460765 5321489 14
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC291 1460661 5321577 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC292 1460690 5321369 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC293 1460720 5321367 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC294 1460748 5321368 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC295 1460778 5321368 12
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC296 1460793 5321350 15
26/05/2025 26/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC297 1460766 5321250 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC298 1460736 5321249 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC299 1460707 5321248 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC300 1460676 5321249 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC301 1460651 5321248 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC302 1460824 5321248 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC303 1460805 5321247 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC304 1460852 5321247 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC305 1460887 5321248 12
27/05/2025 27/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC306 1460902 5321247 15
28/05/2025 28/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC307 1460929 5321366 14
28/05/2025 28/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC308 1460900 5321367 12
28/05/2025 28/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC309 1460869 5321367 12
28/05/2025 28/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC310 1460839 5321366 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC311 1460943 5321486 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC312 1460915 5321487 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC313 1460885 5321488 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC314 1460856 5321488 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC315 1460826 5321487 12
29/05/2025 29/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC316 1460842 5321129 15
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC317 1460810 5321129 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC318 1460781 5321128 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary

Page 19 of 22
Hole ID GPS_Easting GPS_Northing
Actual
Depth (m)
Date
Started
Date
Completed
Drill Type Hole type
BAC319 1460749 5321130 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC320 1460722 5321126 15
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC321 1460719 5321122 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Twin
BAC322 1460691 5321127 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC323 1460662 5321128 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC324 1460632 5321128 12
30/05/2025 30/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC325 1460615 5321010 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC326 1460645 5321009 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC327 1460674 5321010 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC328 1460704 5321010 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC329 1460829 5321008 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC330 1460852 5321007 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC331 1460899 5321128 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC332 1460871 5321127 12
31/05/2025 31/05/2025
AC Primary
BAC333 1460795 5321003 12
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC334 1460764 5321008 12
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC335 1460736 5321006 15
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC336 1460888 5321010 15
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC337 1460911 5321009 15
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC338 1460944 5321007 12
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC339 1460972 5321007 15
1/06/2025 1/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC340 1461004 5321008 18
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC341 1460989 5321128 12
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC342 1460961 5321127 18
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC343 1460940 5321108 15
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC344 1461017 5320889 12
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC345 1460991 5320889 12
2/06/2025 2/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC346 1460963 5320873 18
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC347 1460928 5320888 12
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC348 1460898 5320901 15
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC349 1460866 5320882 15
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC350 1460867 5320879 15
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Twin
BAC351 1460840 5320887 15
3/06/2025 3/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC352 1460809 5320888 12
4/06/2025 4/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC353 1460781 5320888 9
4/06/2025 4/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC354 1460748 5320889 12
4/06/2025 4/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC355 1460716 5320889 12
5/06/2025 5/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC356 1460700 5320887 12
5/06/2025 5/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC357 1460704 5320767 15
5/06/2025 5/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC358 1460735 5320766 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC359 1460759 5320769 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC360 1460749 5320646 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC361 1460717 5320648 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC362 1460688 5320648 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC363 1460675 5320526 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC364 1460704 5320526 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC365 1460734 5320525 12
6/06/2025 6/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC366 1460760 5320526 15
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC367 1460779 5320417 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC368 1460754 5320418 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC369 1460644 5320528 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC370 1460614 5320527 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC371 1460584 5320529 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC372 1460549 5320525 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC373 1460532 5320526 12
7/06/2025 7/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC374 1460508 5320407 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary

Page 20 of 22
Hole ID GPS_Easting GPS_Northing
Actual
Depth (m)
Date
Started
Date
Completed
Drill Type Hole type
BAC375 1460538 5320406 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC376 1460570 5320416 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC377 1460598 5320409 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC378 1460718 5320405 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC379 1460689 5320408 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC380 1460660 5320409 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC381 1460630 5320409 12
8/06/2025 8/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC382 1460493 5320289 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC383 1460524 5320286 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC384 1460553 5320286 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC385 1460582 5320286 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC386 1460613 5320288 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC387 1460640 5320280 12
9/06/2025 9/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC388 1460943 5320289 15
10/06/2025 10/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC389 1460909 5320289 15
10/06/2025 10/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC390 1460877 5320288 15
10/06/2025 10/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC391 1460850 5320287 15
10/06/2025 10/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC392 1460875 5320405 15
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC393 1460819 5320288 14
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC394 1460844 5320407 15
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC395 1460793 5320289 15
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC396 1460811 5320403 15
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC397 1460757 5320287 15
11/06/2025 11/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC398 1460726 5320288 12
12/06/2025 12/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC399 1460700 5320294 15
13/06/2025 13/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC400 1460673 5320285 12
13/06/2025 13/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC401 1460900 5320399 15
13/06/2025 13/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC402 1460935 5320400 15
13/06/2025 13/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC403 1460968 5320412 15
13/06/2025 13/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC404 1460971 5320410 18
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Twin
BAC405 1460992 5320402 15
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC406 1460854 5320536 15
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC407 1460886 5320531 15
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC408 1460915 5320528 15
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC409 1460942 5320529 18
14/06/2025 14/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC410 1460973 5320525 17
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC411 1461002 5320523 18
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC412 1460978 5320524 21
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Twin
BAC413 1461037 5320517 18
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC414 1460805 5320514 15
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC415 1460834 5320520 18
15/06/2025 15/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC416 1461019 5320648 18
16/06/2025 16/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC417 1460988 5320653 21
16/06/2025 16/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC418 1460960 5320655 21
16/06/2025 16/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC419 1460930 5320657 18
16/06/2025 16/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC420 1460898 5320656 18
16/06/2025 16/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC421 1460869 5320657 18
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC422 1460841 5320657 15
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC423 1460811 5320665 15
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC424 1460798 5320641 15
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC425 1461033 5320769 21
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC426 1461004 5320767 21
17/06/2025 17/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC427 1460971 5320766 18
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC428 1460941 5320774 18
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC429 1460910 5320779 18
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC430 1460884 5320777 18
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary

Page 21 of 22
Hole ID GPS_Easting GPS_Northing
Actual
Depth (m)
Date
Started
Date
Completed
Drill Type Hole type
BAC431 1460856 5320779 15
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC432 1460827 5320780 15
18/06/2025 18/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC433 1460791 5320778 12
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC434 1461001 5320763 21
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Twin
BAC435 1460658 5320890 15
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC436 1460633 5320889 12
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC437 1460601 5320890 12
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC438 1460586 5320765 12
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC439 1460613 5320765 12
19/06/2025 19/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC440 1460643 5320769 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC441 1460663 5320771 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC442 1460657 5320648 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC443 1460630 5320649 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC444 1460605 5320639 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC445 1460604 5320637 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC446 1460572 5320639 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC447 1460538 5320643 12
20/06/2025 20/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC448 1460482 5320407 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC449 1460483 5320528 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC450 1460458 5320533 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC451 1460481 5320646 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC452 1460491 5320764 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC453 1460514 5320769 12
21/06/2025 21/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC454 1460499 5320888 12
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC455 1460533 5320884 12
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC456 1460562 5320889 12
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC457 1460542 5320770 12
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC458 1460538 5320768 12
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Twin
BAC459 1460510 5320646 13
22/06/2025 22/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC460 1460984 5321489 15
23/06/2025 23/06/2025
AC Primary
BAC461 1460630 5321579 12
23/06/2025 23/06/2025
AC Primary
BSN01 1460929 5321368 15
7/07/2025 7/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN02 1460653 5321245 12
8/07/2025 8/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN03 1460872 5321131 12
8/07/2025 8/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN04 1460678 5321009 12
9/07/2025 9/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN05 1460533 5320768 12
9/07/2025 9/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN06 1460842 5320883 15
10/07/2025 10/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN07 1460980 5321008 15
10/07/2025 10/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN08 1460840 5320663 15
11/07/2025 11/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN09 1460972 5320410 18
14/07/2025 14/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN10 1460857 5321488 12
15/07/2025 15/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN11 1460702 5321489 15
15/07/2025 15/07/2025
Sonic Twin
BSN12 1460552 5321490 12
15/07/2025 15/07/2025
Sonic Twin




Bradley, J., Chew, P. & Wilkins, C., 2002. Transport and distribution of magnetite and ilmenite on Westland
beaches of New Zealand; with comment on the accumulation of other high‐density minerals. Journal of
the Royal Society of New Zealand, 32, 169–181.
Force, E. R., 1991. Geology of titanium-mineral deposits, Geological Society of America.
Gazley, M., Van de Ven, M., Pocock, A., McKellar, Z., Doyle, S., Lilly, K. & Bertoli, O., 2026. Canoe Creek Mineral
Resource Estimate. RSC, Competent Person: M. Gazley, M. van de Ven.
Lee, G., 1991. Statement of Ilmenite Sand Resources at Barrytown, MR4287. Westland Ilmenite Ltd, p. 401.

Page 22 of 22
Ritchie, T. W., Scott, J. M. & Craw, D., 2019. Garnet compositions track longshore migration of beach placers in
western New Zealand. Economic Geology, 114, 513–540.
Van Gosen, B. S., Fey, D. L., Shah, A. K., Verplanck, P. L. & Hoefen, T. M., 2014. Deposit model for heavy-mineral
sands in coastal environments. US Geological Survey, 2328-0328.
Wells, H. C. & Haverkamp, R. G., 2020. Characterization of the heavy mineral suite in a holocene beach placer,
Barrytown, New Zealand. Minerals, 10, 86.

1
JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1
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 (eg 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 (eg
‘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
(eg submarine nodules) may warrant
disclosure of detailed information.
The Cargill South Heavy Mineral (HM) Mineral Resource was estimated based on mineral
grade data from 198 aircore (AC) and 12 sonic core drillholes drilled by Tāiko (then TiGa)
during the 2025 drill campaign.
 AC drilling was used to obtain 1-m samples, which were collected through a cyclone into
polyweave bags, geologically logged, and delivered to the sample preparation laboratory
at New Zealand Institute of Metals and Minerals Research (NZIMMR, Dunollie,
Greymouth).
 Sonic samples were collected in a plastic split and placed into a core box. The sonic
drilling samples were logged and sampled based on lithology with a maximum sample
length of 1 m; whole core was placed in a polyweave sample bag and delivered to
NZIMMR.
 All samples were dried, split using a rotary splitter to reduce sample size, then wet-
screened to derive a 45-μm to 2-mm fraction (sand fraction). This fraction was then dried
and split again into three sub-samples (P1–P3) for three analytical workflows: portable X-
ray fluorescence (pXRF)/XRF (P1), sink-float analyses (P2), and scanning electron
microscope (SEM)/Automated Mineralogy (AM) (P3).
 P1 samples were pulverised for pXRF and XRF analysis. All P1 samples were analysed
by pXRF and selected P1 samples were analysed by laboratory XRF to assess the quality
of the pXRF data.
 Selected P2 samples were split using a riffle splitter and submitted for sink-float analysis.
 Selected P3 samples were split using a riffle splitter mounted in epoxy, polished and
carbon-coated for SEM analysis.
 SEM-based AM data were used to train linear regression models to derive quantitative
mineralogy estimates (grades of ilmenite, garnet and zircon), from geochemical data. The
modal mineralogy data, derived from the pXRF geochemical data, provided the main input
for the mineral resource estimate (MRE).
 P2 samples were sent for float-sink analysis to quantify the total heavy mineral (THM)
content, which was used to cross-validate the mineralogy data (derived by SEM-AM and
derived from the linear-regression models) and valuable HM content.
 Mineralisation was determined visually through geological logging and observation of dark
minerals and garnet content. Overburden is easily recognisable from the grey to dark-grey
fine sand that contains ilmenite, garnet, and zircon. All samples below overburden were

2
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
analysed.
 The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the sample
preparation techniques to be appropriate for the classification of a high-confidence
resource in an HMS project.
Drilling
techniques
 Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-
hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka,
sonic, etc) and details (eg 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).
 Alton Drilling conducted AC drilling using an ADL multipurpose rig, mounted on an MST-
600VD crawler, using a 3-inch hammer (~76 mm) and a 200-psi (400 cfm) compressor.
 Pro-Drill conducted sonic drilling, using a Fraste XL1 remote-tracked rig, using 150-Hz
frequency, with an inner drill bit diameter of 79 mm and outer bit diameter of 104 mm,
producing 79-mm diameter core.
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.
 The wet weight of the 1-m AC samples was captured on site and compared against a
nominal expected sample mass of 6.2 kg/m, and the weight data were checked daily for
trends that could be indicative of problems affecting the sample quality. Since some
samples were wet and others dry, it sometimes proved difficult to spot trends.
 The sample recovery was approximated during the programme using wet weights,
moisture, a generic density, and drill-bit size.
 Alton Drilling actively worked to optimise AC sample recovery and quality. The driller
paused at the end of each metre to allow the sample to fully pass through the drill string.
The sample return hose and cyclone were cleaned during each rod change. Zones with
high clast-size variability or wood were difficult for the AC bit to penetrate, typically due to
the presence of large beach stones or buried trees.
 If the assessment of the wet sample weights recorded at the rig showed undesirable
trends, this was communicated with the drillers to determine the cause of these trends and
resolve any issues.
 Despite efforts to control sample recovery during the programme, sample weights for AC
samples show a consistent increase with depth. In the Competent Persons’ (Mathijs van
de Ven, Michael Gazley) opinion, a consistent weight increase with depth for AC drilling
can be expected in saturated, unconsolidated ground, as encountered at Cargill South,
and is one of the inherent challenges with the drilling method. Dry weight data indicate
that, despite attempts to control recovery at the rig, sample mass increased progressively
with depth. Comparison with 12 sonic twin holes indicates that the median AC recovery
within the mineralised zone is ~70%; for the key domain (Sand HG), the median
calculated AC recovery was 72%, with an interquartile range of 51–104%. The Competent
Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider this a moderate risk with respect
to the classification of a high-confidence mineral resource. Recovery percentages for AC
samples were determined by comparison of each sample weight against an expected
weight based on a modelled density. Density was modelled for each sample as a function
of porosity and heavy mineral grade, and hence the Competent Persons were unable to

3
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
assess whether a relationship exists between recovery and HM grade.
 For the sonic drilling, recovery was appraised in the field by assessing the core. Core loss
was attributed to discrete intervals in the logs, and remaining intervals were estimated to
be 100% recovered. Interval length statistics indicate that 75% of intervals had full 1-m
recovery.
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.
 A high-quality geological logging SOP was in place. For each metre, a handful of sample
material was placed in a chip tray, logged, and photographed. The geological data
captured were both qualitative and quantitative, including lithology, grain size, colour,
rounding, clay content, garnet grade and dark heavy-mineral grade. Other details logged
included sample weight, sample moisture and depth to the water table.
 All 2025 AC and sonic drillholes at Cargill South were geologically logged.
 The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the logging
procedures to be carried out to an appropriate standard to support a high-confidence
mineral resource classification.
Sub-sampling
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.
 Each 1-m sample was collected in a polyweave bag and taken to the sample preparation
facility at NZIMMR
 Samples were prepared at NZIMMR. Each primary sample was passed through a
Rocklabs Boyd Elite jaw crusher and rotary splitting device (RSD) combination (first split)
and then wet screened with 2-mm and 45-μm screens (first split). The 45-μm to 2-mm
fraction (sand fraction) was then dried and split into two equal splits (P1 and P2) using an
RSD (second split).
 P1 samples were pulverised at NZIMMR to 85% passing -75 μm and then split (P1
third split) using a scoop to create a 200-g sub-sample. The sub-sample was sent
to RSC Wellington for pXRF analysis, where 20 g was extracted using a spoon (P1
fourth split, ‘many increments’ approach) and poured into a 40-mm sample cup,
with one end covered by 4-μm polypropylene film. Based on the pXRF results, for
selected samples the entire pulp back was sent to ALS Brisbane, where a 0.66-g
aliquot was scooped (P1 fifth split) for XRF analysis.
 P2 samples (~200-g) were sent to Diamantina, and split using a riffle splitter to
generate samples of ~100 g for sink-float analysis.
 P3 samples were sent to Middle Earth Petrographics, split to 15 g using a
Humboldt micro and precision riffle splitter (P2 third split), and set in a 25-mm
epoxy round. The hardened epoxy was cut in half, remounted in a 30-mm epoxy
round, to expose the two cut faces, and polished with water-soluble, polycrystalline
diamond suspension (from 3 μm down to 1 μm). The polished surface was coated
with a conductive carbon film before SEM analysis.
 The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the sample

4
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
preparation techniques appropriate and industry standard for heavy mineral sand (HMS)
samples.
 No screen-size testing data were available for the wet screening at NZIMMR. Residual
slime was identified in the Cargill South samples on receipt, and samples were deslimed
again prior to sub-sampling, heavy mineral separation and SEM analysis. In the
Competent Person’s (Mathijs van de Ven) opinion, the risk associated with the second
split (wet screening) is low with respect to the objective of classifying at least Indicated
mineral resources; the Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) recommends that
NZIMMR completes sizing tests and verifies the completeness of washing and screening
before dispatch.
 A second split duplicate sample was collected for every 20 original samples, and a P1
fourth split repeat sample was collected for every 30 original samples. A P1 fifth split
repeat sample was collected by ALS approximately every 30 original samples. No repeat
or duplicate samples were collected for the other split stages. Assessment of the
duplicate and repeat sample data demonstrates that the splits were executed
consistently.
 The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the sample sizes
appropriate given the grain size of the material sampled.
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
(eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external
laboratory checks) and whether acceptable
levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and
precision have been established.
Portable X-Ray Fluorescence
 All P1 sub-samples were analysed at RSC using an Evident Vanta VMR portable XRF
instrument, with a 4 W, 50 kV rhodium anode and a large-area silicon-drift detector. The
instrument was operated using a field test stand and a laptop with the Vanta PC Software
(Vanta Digi Mining software version 2.1.1.0). The approach adopted by RSC follows
industry best practice, as outlined in Fisher et al. (2014) and Gazley and Fisher (2014).
Samples were analysed using 3-beam Geochem mode, with an analysis time of 15 s for
each beam.
 Blanks, seven certified reference materials (CRMs) and repeat measurements were used
for quality control. Each pXRF operator started their shift measuring the blank and seven
CRMs. After that, only one of the seven CRMs was measured, at a frequency of 1 in 20.
Repeat measurements were taken at a frequency of 1 in 20. All seven CRMs followed by
the blank were measured again at the end of each shift.
 The pXRF data were corrected using calibration plots derived from CRM results. The
calibration plots are based on the expected values of the CRM plotted against the
measured values (Fisher et al., 2014).
 The pXRF data were compared to laboratory (ALS) XRF data as a quality check. A total of
86 samples (72 AC and 14 sonic) were selected for XRF analysis that are representative
of the full range of variability of the pXRF dataset. The 0.66-g aliquot was fused with a Li-
borate flux (including Li-nitrate). Samples were analysed for whole-rock geochemistry
using ME-XRF30 + ME-GRA05, with 24 analytes (plus total and LOI). Lithium-borate

5
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
fusion and XRF finish is the standard industry method for the analysis of oxide iron (Fe)
ores. ALS Brisbane is an ISO/IEC 17025 accredited laboratory, and the Competent
Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers the risk associated with the laboratory XRF
analysis to be low.
 A comparison of the calibrated pXRF and laboratory XRF data confirmed that the pXRF
data have good precision (RMSCV of repeat analyses on the order of 1–3%). The
Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the calibrated pXRF
geochemical data fit for the purpose for deriving HM grade and used these data to
estimate an MRE that has a high-confidence classification.

Sink-Float Analysis
 Approximately 200 g of each of 112 samples (98 AC and 14 sonic) was sent to
Diamantina Laboratories, Perth, Western Australia, for sink-float analysis. Based on visual
inspection by Diamantina staff, the samples were deslimed again to remove residual
slime. Once the samples were fully deslimed, a sub-sample was generated using a riffle
splitter, weighed, and the HM were separated using tetrabromoethane (specific gravity,
SG = 2.92–2.96) in a static separation. Samples were then washed using acetone to
recover the float fraction and the HM fraction. Both fractions were dried and weighed. The
HM fraction was calculated based on the initial and final weights. Once dry, both fractions
were returned to RSC for SEM analysis.

Automated Mineralogy by SEM-based Energy-dispersive X-ray Spectroscopy
 The collection of quantitative mineralogical data by SEM-based energy-dispersive X-ray
spectroscopy (EDS) is known as automated mineralogy (AM). P3 sub-samples (70; 58 AC
and 12 sonic) were analysed at RSC’s Perth office in a Hitachi SU-3900 SEM, with 2
Quantax Q655-60-129 XFlash® EDS silicon-drift detectors, using Bruker’s AMICS
software to control the SEM and process the data. Analysis was undertaken in particle
mode, whereby backscatter intensity was used to segment the sample into individual
grains for EDS spot analyses, to quantify the mineralogy of the sample, in a fast and
efficient manner. The EDS spectra for each point were compared to a library of minerals.
This library of minerals was updated from the generic database, to be specific to the
Barrytown Project. A mineral was allocated to each point analysis, and thus, each area of
the sample and mineral grades were then calculated for each sample.
 As part of processing the AMICS data, a geochemical composition for each sample was
calculated from the measured mineral grades in the samples, and this was used as an
internal check on the chemistry of the minerals. No other quality control samples were
analysed.
 A comparison of paired pXRF and AM data confirmed that the AM data were sufficiently
precise in all elements included in the linear regression model, and highly precise in the

6
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
elements contributing most strongly to the model (Fe, Ti and Mn). The Competent Persons
(Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the AM data fit for training linear regression
models to derive quantitative mineralogy (ilmenite, garnet and zircon grades).

Linear Regression Modelling
 Linear regression models were built using the linear regression algorithm, in the scikit
learn package in Python, (sklearn.linear_model.LinearRegression) to derive quantitative
mineralogy (ilmenite, garnet and zircon grades) from geochemical data (pXRF) based on
seven elements: Ca, Fe, K, Mn, Si, Ti, Zr. SEM-derived AM data from 70 samples were
used as training data.
 The performance of the models was evaluated using test-and-train datasets with bootstrap
sampling (Python's scikit-learn machine-learning library). The performance metrics were
calculated using data previously unseen by models. Modelled mineral grades were also
compared with SEM-derived mineral grades as a check of model performance.
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.
 An RSC senior geologist reviewed the logging of HMS intervals during the AC drilling
programme.
 Twelve sonic twin holes were drilled to validate the 2025 AC drilling, at a maximum
distance of ~5 m from the original AC drillholes. Sonic drilling is regarded as the superior
drilling method in unconsolidated sands and is expected to yield a superior sample. The
twin drilling data suggest a low bias in the AC HM grade values. The Wilcoxon signed-
rank test demonstrates that this bias is statistically significant (p<0.1) across minerals for
all domains except for the high-grade sand domain. The analysis is hindered by the
paucity of AC-sonic sample pairs (N=12–48). Heavy mineral grade values from AC drilling
are ~6–16% lower than grade values from sonic drilling in the high-grade sand domain
and ~6–7% lower in the high-grade dredged domain. By contrast, in the low-grade sand,
low-grade dredged and overburden domains, grade values from AC drilling are up to
100% higher than grade values from sonic drilling.
 These findings corroborate existing data from four sonic holes at the Coates South Block
and 13 sonic holes at the Canoe Creek Block. Based on the sonic data, the Competent
Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers the AC data acceptable with respect to the
classification of an Inferred or Indicated Mineral Resource but not acceptable with respect
to the DQO of classifying a Measured Mineral Resource based on AC data alone. The
Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers that the 12 sonic drillholes are
sufficient to support classification of some Measured Mineral Resources.
 The high biases in the background domains may seem alarming. However, the
Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) notes that percentage differences on low-grade
domains can be misleading since the baseline grade is low. The Competent Person
emphasises that these domains contribute <30% of resource tonnage and <10% of the
contained VHM, which is primarily hosted in the high-grade sand and high-grade dredged

7
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
domains. Overall, given that AC data are biased low in the key estimation domains, the
Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers the overall risk to the project is
moderate. The quality of the AC data was considered in the classification of the mineral
resource.
 No analytical data were adjusted.
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.
 RSC surveyed all drill collars at drillhole completion once the drill rig had moved off the
drillhole using a handheld Garmin GPS Map67i with ~3-m accuracy. Planned collar
locations were set out in advance by Davis Ogilvy & Partners Ltd using a Trimble RTK
GNSS, typically to 0.1 m or better. Drillhole collar elevations were draped on the digital
elevation model (DEM). Because all holes were drilled vertically and are short (<30 m), no
downhole orientation surveys were completed.
 The grid system used is New Zealand Transverse Mercator 2000 (NZTM2000), which is
based on the NZGD2000 datum using the GRS80 reference ellipsoid. The vertical datum
is NZVD2016.
 A 1-m resolution DEM, with accuracy specifications of ±1.0 m (95%) horizontal and ±0.2 m
(95%) vertical, was derived from LiDAR data collected in 2020 and 2021. This is
considered high quality and adequate for a Measured classification.
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.
 Holes were drilled on a grid with a line spacing of 120 m (N–S) and hole spacing of 30 m
(E–W).
 In the Competent Persons’ (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) opinion, drillhole and
downhole sample spacing and distribution are sufficient to establish the degree of
geological and grade continuity appropriate for the mineral resource estimation
procedures and classifications applied.
Orientation of
data in
relation to
geological
structure
 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves
unbiased sampling of possible structures and
the extent to which this is known, considering
the deposit type.
 If the relationship between the drilling
orientation and the orientation of key
mineralised structures is considered to have
introduced a sampling bias, this should be
assessed and reported if material.
 All holes were drilled vertically, which is approximately perpendicular to the sub-horizontal
mineralised sands; hence, sampling is considered unbiased with respect to the sampling
orientation.

8
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sample
security
 The measures taken to ensure sample
security.
 Alton Drilling staff placed a metal sample tag into the polyweave sample bag, then closed
the bag with a zip tie, which was attached by a second zip tie to a duplicate metal sample
tag labelled with the sample number. Alton Drilling staff then transferred samples and a
chip tray from the rig to the sample storage area at the end of each drillhole. The drillhole
was logged using the chip tray in the storage area, and sample bags were then batched
and delivered by RSC staff to NZIMMR within 24 hours of drillholes being completed. At
NZIMMR, sample submission batches were placed into large polyweave bulka bags,
which were then closed to protect drill samples from the weather. A securely locked gate
at NZIMMR restricts access to the site.
Audits or
reviews
 The results of any audits or reviews of
sampling techniques and data.
 The Competent Person (Michael Gazley) responsible for the exploration data is a
geologist from RSC, who visited the site in July 2025 to audit/review the sampling
techniques and data collection procedures employed on site.

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 Cargill South Mineral Resource is located in the south of the Barrytown Flats, West
Coast, New Zealand, and is fully contained within mining permit (MP) 60785, which grants
Tāiko the right to mine Crown-owned gold, garnet, ilmenite and zircon. Non-statute
minerals of interest (ilmenite, garnet, zircon) in the Cargill South Block are primarily
Crown-owned, except for some private land parcels where these minerals are privately
owned. Approximately 11% of the Cargill South Block consists of privately held minerals.
 Mining permit 60785 has an expiry date of 20 July 2042. The Competent Person (Michael
Gazley) has reviewed the relevant access arrangements and is satisfied that Tāiko has
sufficient landowner permission to access the Barrytown Project area. Mining of the Cargill
South Block is subject to the granting of resource consents; a substantive application
under the Fast-track Approvals Act 2024, covering the Canoe Creek, Barrytown Farms,
and Cargill South blocks, was lodged on 8 June 2026 and accepted as complete on 29
June 2026, and no decision had been issued as at the effective date of the MRE (11
October 2026).
Exploration
done by other
parties
 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration
by other parties.
 Since the late 1860s, gold has been prospected and mined from the Barrytown area and
involved bucket line dredging and small sluice operations that worked the terraces along
the Barrytown Flats.
 Records indicate that targeted Au exploration of the wider Barrytown Flats, including

9
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
drilling, commenced in the 1930s as dredging in the area began to decline. Exploration in
the 1930s and 1940s was conducted by NZ Gold Options (1931–1932), NZ Prospecting
and Mining Ltd (1935–1937), Whites Electric Dredging Company (1936–1941) and
Barrytown Dredging Company Ltd (1937–1945). Within the Cargill South Block, Barrytown
Dredging Company Ltd drilled 39 holes (444.1 m) and three keystone sampler holes
(33.98 m, 1937–1938), New Zealand Gold Options Ltd drilled three keystone sampler
holes (23.47 m, 1932) and six other holes (48 m), and Carpentaria Exploration Company
drilled six holes (75.5 m), all targeting Au.
 From the 1960s, investigating ilmenite potential became the main objective of work on the
Barrytown flats, including efforts by Carpentaria Exploration Company, Mineral Resources
(NZ) Ltd, Amax Exploration NZ Ltd, Fletcher Challenge and North Broken Hill Peko
Limited (later known as Westland Ilmenite Ltd).
 Carpentaria Exploration Company drilled six churn holes (75.59 m) targeting HMS within
the Cargill South Block from 1968–1973. By March 1972, Carpentaria had produced 167
tonnes of ilmenite in pilot-scale production at Barrytown; no records are available detailing
the source of the mined material.
 In the mid-1980s (1985–1986), Fletcher Challenge drilled four churn holes (28.5 m;
BPR0098–BPR0101) targeting Au within the Cargill South Block.
 In August 2013, Pacific Mineral Resources drilled 16 AC holes (250 m; WTBT029–
WTBT044) targeting HMS within the Cargill South Block. Historical drillhole information
was not used to inform the Cargill South MRE due to data quality limitations.
 In 2008, NZ Gold undertook an airborne geophysical survey of the Barrytown Flats,
comprising magnetic and radiometric data.
Geology
 Deposit type, geological setting and style of
mineralisation.
 The Barrytown Project is a HMS deposit located on the western coast of the South Island
of New Zealand.
 The Barrytown shoreline beach deposits are quartz, feldspar, lithic (mostly grey schist
fragments) sands that contain elevated HM grades, predominantly garnet and ilmenite
with minor zircon and Au.
 The HM have been concentrated in a series of beach strandlines and are typically
considered to have originated from the Alpine Schist of the Southern Alps, transported to
the coast by rivers, mostly to the south of the Barrytown Project, and transported north by
longshore drift. Drilling at Barrytown has confirmed three broad north-trending zones of
concentrated HM, coincident with buried shorelines, which overlie gravel and marine sand
units. Part of the Cargill South Block was historically dredge-mined, which has mixed and
redistributed the sand in that portion of the block.
 The HM-bearing sands developed along, and behind, the beachfront in sandy barriers
transported by longshore drift and pushed up from the sea by wave action. These sandy
barrier deposits have become stranded as the coastline prograded, allowing lagoonal

10
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
deposits to accumulate in the swales along the eastern side of the barriers. This
depositional process has had the effect of producing elongated zones of HM enrichment
on the former beaches, being surrounded by lower-grade finer sands and silty sediments
in the swales.
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:
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.
 A total of 2,825 metres were drilled in 210 holes during May–July 2025, including 198 AC
holes (BAC264–461) for a total of 2,660 m, and 12 sonic holes for a total of 165 m.
 AC holes have an average depth of 13.4 m.
 No downhole surveys were conducted on any holes due to the vertical orientation of the
drillholes, and shallow nature of the drilling (<30 m).
 Drillhole information, including collar locations, elevations and lengths, are stored in the
Project database.
Data
aggregation
methods
 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting
averaging techniques, maximum and/or
minimum grade truncations (eg 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.
 No Exploration Results (such as drillhole intersections) are reported.
 No aggregation, cutting or averaging were employed.
 No metal or mineral equivalent grades are reported.
Relationship
between
mineralisatio
n widths and
 These relationships are particularly important
in the reporting of Exploration Results.
 If the geometry of the mineralisation with
 No Exploration Results are reported.
 The HM were concentrated in relatively flat-lying shoreline deposits that have been
intersected by vertical drillholes sampled in 1 m intervals. The drillhole intersections are

11
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
intercept
lengths
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 (eg ‘down hole length,
true width not known’).
considered to represent true widths to <1 m of the mineralisation widths.
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.
 Plan view maps, geological cross-sections and various other figures are included in the
associated announcement to demonstrate the geological context and relationship between
drillholes and 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.
 No exploration results are being reported.
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.
 The presence and orientations of HM strandlines were previously interpreted in
geophysical surveys, and drilling has confirmed these interpretations.
 Metallurgical test work in 2017 established a process flowsheet for the HMS —
incorporating screening, gravity, electrostatic and magnetic separation — that
demonstrated ilmenite and garnet products could be produced. Bulk samples collected
from the Coates South Block in 2022 were tested by IHC Robbins (London, 2023), and
test work on a bulk sample from the Canoe Creek Block is ongoing.
 Mineral composition and inclusion data were collected by quantitative EDS in 2025 on
samples from the adjacent Canoe Creek Block; no systematic variation in garnet
chemistry was identified between strandlines, and this work was not repeated for Cargill
South. Results from the Canoe Creek Block confirmed the garnet population is dominated
by almandine, along with a more spessartine-like composition and a population
intermediate between the two. The median grain size for garnet in the sand fraction is ~90
μm. Ilmenite grains in the Barrytown deposit contain multiple large inclusions of other
minerals e.g. albite, epidote, titanite, quartz. The median grain size for ilmenite in
screened samples is ~75 μm.
Further work
 The nature and scale of planned further work
(eg tests for lateral extensions or depth
extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).
 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of
 Feasibility work, including metallurgical testing and environmental studies, is ongoing.
 Resource consenting for the Barrytown Project is ongoing; the Cargill South Block is
included in the substantive Fast-track Approvals Act 2024 application lodged in June
2026.

12
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
possible extensions, including the main
geological interpretations and future drilling
areas, provided this information is not
commercially sensitive.
 Drilling is planned in the Newall Block, which aims to test the continuity of mineralisation
between Canoe Creek in the north to Barrytown Farms in the south. The Competent
Persons recommends a regular (~120 m x 90 m spaced) sonic drill programme at Cargill
South (as well as at the Newall, Barrytown Farms, Canoe Creek, and Coates South
blocks) to further resolve the grade bias in the AC data. A pit optimisation specific to the
Cargill South Block would be required to support Ore Reserve estimation.
Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources
(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Database
integrity
 Measures taken to ensure that data has not
been corrupted by, for example, transcription
or keying errors, between its initial collection
and its use for Mineral Resource estimation
purposes.
 Data validation procedures used.
 Data from the 2025 drilling programme are stored in a Microsoft Access database
maintained by RSC. Validation scripts were used when importing data. Additional
automatic error identification and visual data checks were performed when the drilling data
were imported into Leapfrog Geo.
Site visits
 Comment on any site visits undertaken by
the Competent Person and the outcome of
those visits.
 If no site visits have been undertaken
indicate why this is the case.
 On 10–11 July 2025, Michael Gazley, RSC’s General Manager Geoscience and
Exploration, visited the site and observed the on-site drilling and sampling procedures,
and the sample preparation procedures at the NZIMMR facility. Dr Gazley checked
whether all processes were performed in conformance with SOPs and checked core trays
and chip trays against the database and logging sheets.
 On behalf of the Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley), Sean Doyle,
planned and managed field exploration activities at the Cargill South Block from March
2025 to July 2025. Mr Doyle was on site from 10–12 April, 4–9 May, 20–28 May, and 8–19
June 2025, and ensured that the processes on site were completed in accordance with the
relevant standard operating procedures (SOPs).
 Dr Gazley and Mr Doyle checked whether all processes conformed to standard operating
procedures (SOPs) and industry standards, and checked chip trays against the database
and logging sheets. In the Competent Person’s (Michael Gazley) opinion, the procedures
were appropriate, followed industry standard and, in most cases represented good
practice.
Geological
interpretation
 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty
of) the geological interpretation of the mineral
deposit.
 Nature of the data used and of any
assumptions made.
 The 2025 drilling campaign confirmed the presence of a contiguous shoreline deposit
within the Cargill South Block, within a well-understood framework of the Barrytown Flats.
Geological continuity is straightforward between drillholes, and the deposit is not
structurally complex. The Competent Persons (Michael Gazley, Mathijs van de Ven) are
confident in the geological interpretation.

13
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
 The effect, if any, of alternative
interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation.
 The use of geology in guiding and controlling
Mineral Resource estimation.
 The factors affecting continuity both of grade
and geology.
 Grade continuity is dependent on the orientation of strandlines and second-order
strandlines, as evidenced in the drilling and geophysical data. Heavy mineral deposition in
a marine placer environment is controlled by the supply of minerals through physical
weathering, the downstream persistence of the minerals, their availability in the fluvial and
marine environments, and the depositional sorting process to concentrate the HMs. The
most effective mineral enrichment process occurs during storms or other periods of high
wave energy, ultimately resulting in a sequence of fine sand laminations of heavier and
lighter minerals.
 Factors affecting the geological and grade continuity would be local variances not
captured at the current drill spacing and secondary erosional and depositional processes
disturbing the geological continuity.
 Three primary geological domains were interpreted based on lithological logging and
downhole pXRF data from the 2025 drilling campaign: clay-rich overburden, mixed (sand
+ clay), and sand. The ratio of Rb/Sr (~1.4) was used to model the boundary between the
clay-rich zones and clay-poor sand. A non-primary, non-geological domain was also
modelled for the portion of the block that was historically dredge mined. Using aerial
photography, an outline was interpreted for the dredged area which was consistent with
the grade data.
 Given the well-understood geological setting and the high data density, alternative
interpretations of the geology are not likely to deviate much from the current geological
model and are unlikely to materially impact the MRE.
Dimensions
 The extent and variability of the Mineral
Resource expressed as length (along strike
or otherwise), plan width, and depth below
surface to the upper and lower limits of the
Mineral Resource.
 The MRE is constrained within the Cargill South blockmodel which spans 1,400 m across
strike (E-W), and 1,740 m along strike (N-S) and down to 40 m maximum depth.
 The MRE was constrained below 0.4 m of topsoil and limited to a depth of 12 m to meet
reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction (RPEEE)
Estimation
and
modelling
techniques
 The nature and appropriateness of the
estimation technique(s) applied and key
assumptions, including treatment of extreme
grade values, domaining, interpolation
parameters and maximum distance of
extrapolation from data points. If a computer
assisted estimation method was chosen
include a description of computer software
and parameters used.
 The availability of check estimates, previous
estimates and/or mine production records
and whether the Mineral Resource estimate
takes appropriate account of such data.
 The Cargill South MRE was estimated using a combination of ordinary kriging (OK) and
kriging with variance of measurement error (KVME) and was informed by 1-m composites
of AC and sonic data. Estimation wireframes were not constrained laterally; extrapolation
was constrained to within 50% of the drillhole spacing for blocks classified in the
Measured and Indicated categories, and to 100–150% of the drillhole spacing for blocks
classified as Inferred. Forty-six sonic drill intervals <1 m were composited to 1 m.
 Modal mineralogy data (grades of ilmenite, garnet and zircon) modelled from pXRF
analyses on the sand fraction (45-μm to 2-mm fraction), are the main input into the MRE.
Size fraction proportions (proportion of 45-μm to 2-mm fraction) derived from sample
weight data provide the second key input.

Heavy Mineral Grade

14
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
 The assumptions made regarding recovery of
by-products.
 Estimation of deleterious elements or other
non-grade variables of economic significance
(eg sulphur for acid mine drainage
characterisation).
 In the case of block model interpolation, the
block size in relation to the average sample
spacing and the search employed.
 Any assumptions behind modelling of
selective mining units.
 Any assumptions about correlation between
variables.
 Description of how the geological
interpretation was used to control the
resource estimates.
 Discussion of basis for using or not using
grade cutting or capping.
 The process of validation, the checking
process used, the comparison of model data
to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation
data if available.
 Geological domains form a good first-order approximation of the mineralised domains, but
do not constitute robust domains for estimation. The geological sand and non-geological
dredge domains were refined based on a bimodality in the HM grade data into high-grade
and low-grade sand and dredged domains. The high-grade sand and high-grade dredged
domains were modelled at a nominal 8% garnet cut-off, refined spatially to match
interpreted geological continuity.
 Heavy mineral mineralisation is hosted primarily in the high-grade sand and high-grade
dredged domains (72% of MRE tonnes), with minor HM contained within the low-grade
sand, low-grade dredged, mixed and overburden domains.
 A 3-D block model consisting of 20 m x 60 m x 1 m (x-y-z) parent blocks and sub-blocked
to 5 m x 15 m x 0.5 m was used based on drill spacing (30 m E–W, 120 m N–S). Blocks
were estimated using 3 x 5 x 1 (x-y-z) discretisation points.
 Heavy mineral grade values were composited to 1-m intervals. Top caps were not applied
in the high-grade sand and high-grade dredged domains, but were applied in the
overburden, mixed, low-grade sand and low-grade dredged domains to prevent the
influence of extreme grades and to partially address the known positive bias in the AC
data in these domains. Capping values were selected with reference to the sonic
population statistics.
 Variograms were modelled on 1-m composites and are characterised by low nugget effect
ratios (≤0.1 in the high-grade domains; ≤0.4 in the background domains) and ranges of
150–830 m along the major axis. Downhole smearing in the AC data may result in a low
bias in modelled nugget ratios; sensitivity testing on the modelled nugget ratios indicated
an impact of <0.2% on tonnes and grade of Measured and Indicated blocks. The same
variogram was used for ilmenite, garnet and zircon.
 The interpolation of HM grade into blocks was completed using a single search passes,
using a minimum of four and a maximum of 24 samples. Over 99.9% of blocks was filled
on the first pass. Blocks requiring two search passes are located near the edge of the
informing data. The search ellipsoid was optimised based on drill spacing and available
samples to find sufficient samples for estimation. First-pass search ellipsoids were ~300 m
x 130 m x 10 m for the primary mineralised domains. Second-pass search ellipsoids were
twice the size of the first ellipsoid. All domain boundaries were implemented as hard
boundaries.
 For the overburden, mixed, low-grade sand and low-grade dredged domains, HM grades
were estimated using OK in Seequent Leapfrog Edge. For the high-grade sand and high-
grade dredged domains, HM grades were estimated using KVME in Isatis Neo. The KVME
approach was selected based on the observation that HM grades from AC data are biased
low compared to twin sonic intervals (Section 1). The variance of measurement errors, 퐶휖,
can then be used in the kriging system to increase the variance of pairs of independent
AC measurements made at the same location (diagonal of the kriging matrix), which

15
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
translates to a lower weight being placed on AC samples vs Sonic samples, everything
else being equal. The sonic mean kriging variance obtained from this step was used as
the variance of measurement error, 퐶휖, for the KVME implementation of each grade
variable. The variance of measurement error, 퐶휖, was set to 42.31 for ilmenite, 72.01 for
garnet and 0.01836 for zircon in the sand domain and 28.02 for ilmenite, 68.64 for garnet,
and 0.01529 for zircon in the dredge domain.
 The grade of valuable heavy minerals (VHM) has been calculated for each block as the
sum of the ilmenite, garnet and zircon grade. The THM grade, which includes VHM and
other heavy minerals (e.g. epidote, apatite), was determined for each interval as the sum
of ilmenite, garnet, zircon, allanite, Fe-oxide, epidote, rutile, titanite and monazite
(calculated from pXRF data) contained within the particle size range of 45 μm to 2 mm
and estimated in the blocks by ordinary kriging.
 No production data are available to reconcile the HM grades of the MRE. The KVME
method was not trialled for the background domains, given poor results in the background
domains in the Canoe Creek estimate. Sensitivity checks were run on modelled nugget
ratios and on the use of assigned, estimated and calculated densities, and found to have
minimal impact.
 No deleterious elements or minerals were estimated. The impact of mineral composition
and impurities was considered and determined to be insignificant to the proposed product
specifications.
 Block model HM grades were validated by comparing the input mean grades with the
block model mean grade, through review of swath plots, and by visual validation on cross-
section. For the high-grade sand and high-grade dredged domains, KVME mean grades
are 2–11% higher than the global composite mean (sonic + AC), but 5–22% lower than
the composite mean of the declustered sonic data.
 The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers that the parameters, and use of
OK and KVME, represent a suitable estimation technique at this stage of the Project; it
honours the spatial continuity of the estimated variables, provides the best-unbiased
estimate and minimises the predicted error variance. The Competent Person (Mathijs van
de Ven) attributes the biases detailed above relative to the sonic data to biases in the
informing data, rather than the estimation method. The KVME aims to reweight sample
data to address this bias but is hindered by the paucity of sonic twin drilling at the project
(~6% twin rate). The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) recommends that additional
twin drilling is completed at Cargill South to obtain a twin proportion of at least 20%.

Grainsize Fractions
 The grainsize proportions (<45 μm, 45 μm–2 mm and >2 mm, i.e. slimes, sand, and
oversize fraction) were estimated using OK from 1-m composites in Seequent Leapfrog
Edge. The grainsize proportions were calculated by dividing size fraction weights,

16
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
obtained at NZIMMR, by dry sample weights. Weights of the slimes fraction were not
collected, and the proportion of slimes was determined based on total dry weight and the
combined weight of the other two size fractions. As a result, the size fractions are
interdependent (i.e. sum up to 100%) and the same estimation parameters were used for
each size fraction).
 The geological domains (overburden, mixed, sand, dredged) were used to estimate the
size fractions.
 No top-caps were applied due to the interdependent nature of the grain size fractions.
 Variograms were modelled on raw data of the sand fraction (mean ~50% of the sample;
~60% in the sand domain) and are characterised by moderate nugget effect ratios (0.20–
0.30) and ranges (150–400 m along major axis). Variograms were modelled based on the
product fraction, which shows the most structure, and the same variogram was applied to
the other size fractions within the same estimation domain to honour the interdependent
nature of the grain size fractions.
 The interpolation of grain size fractions into blocks was completed using a double-pass
search strategy with a minimum of four and a maximum of 32 samples; >99% of blocks
were estimated in the first pass. The search pass was optimised based on drill spacing
and available samples to find sufficient samples for estimation. The first-pass search
ellipsoid was ~300 m x 130 m x 10 m (minor range of 5 m in the dredge domain), and the
second-pass ellipsoid ~600 m x 260 m x 20 m. All domain boundaries were implemented
as hard boundaries based on observation of a sharp contact in downhole plots.
 No production data were available to reconcile the size fractions of the MRE.
Moisture
 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry
basis or with natural moisture, and the
method of determination of the moisture
content.
 Tonnages, HM grades, and size proportions are based on dry sample weight basis.
Cut-off
parameters
 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or
quality parameters applied.
 The Cargill South deposit is anticipated to be mined by dredging and due to high water
levels, dredging will commence from surface after stripping the topsoil. The anticipated
mining selectivity is low and a reporting cut-off of 0.0% would be more appropriate.
 Previous reported mineral resources for the Barrytown Flats Project have been reported at
a grade cut-off of 1.0% ilmenite that was determined in a feasibility study (London, 2023)
for Coates South (located ~5 km north of the Cargill South Block), and the same cut-off
was used for the Canoe Creek MRE (Pocock et al., 2026). That cut-off was based on a
conventional open-pit operation and assumed operating costs and HM recoveries.
 For consistency of reporting, the Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) has reported the
Cargill South MRE at a 1.0% in-situ ilmenite cut-off grade.

17
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Mining
factors or
assumptions
 Assumptions made regarding possible mining
methods, minimum mining dimensions and
internal (or, if applicable, external) mining
dilution. It is always necessary as part of the
process of determining reasonable prospects
for eventual economic extraction to consider
potential mining methods, but the
assumptions made regarding mining
methods and parameters when estimating
Mineral Resources may not always be
rigorous. Where this is the case, this should
be reported with an explanation of the basis
of the mining assumptions made.
 The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) has evaluated preliminary mining,
metallurgical, economic, environmental, social and geotechnical parameters established in
preliminary or internal, pre-feasibility and feasibility studies (Banaszak et al., 2018;
London, 2023) that have investigated various mining and processing methods for
extracting and concentrating the ilmenite, garnet, and zircon. The proposed method is a
bulk mining method (dredging or excavator) with low mining selectivity. A high level of
mining recovery of the sand unit (>95%) is assumed.
 AMC Consultants completed a preliminary pit optimisation on the Canoe Creek MRE,
based on a dredge mining operation. An equivalent optimisation was not completed for
Cargill South; instead, based on the Canoe Creek results, the Competent Person (Mathijs
van de Ven) has excluded blocks that do not have reasonable prospects for eventual
economic extraction (RPEEE). Specifically, the Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven)
has excluded blocks from the MRE that are:
 more than 12 m from surface;
 within a 50-m standoff zone from a protected natural reserve or shoreline; or
 less than 40 cm from surface (topsoil).
Metallurgical
factors or
assumptions
 The basis for assumptions or predictions
regarding metallurgical amenability. It is
always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction to consider
potential metallurgical methods, but the
assumptions regarding metallurgical
treatment processes and parameters made
when reporting Mineral Resources may not
always be rigorous. Where this is the case,
this should be reported with an explanation of
the basis of the metallurgical assumptions
made.
 The metallurgical assumptions for the Cargill South MRE have been based on the
metallurgical assumptions applied to the Coates South Block and Canoe Creek Block
MREs, which are located ~5 km and ~3 km north of the Cargill South Block respectively.
The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider the three deposits
to be geologically very similar.
 The metallurgical parameters established for Coates South Block were based on
2016/2017 and 2022 metallurgical testing results, which demonstrated reasonable
pathways to produce marketable concentrates containing ilmenite, garnet and zircon.
These pathways included screening, desliming, dry magnetic/electrostatic and wet gravity
mineral separation processes.
Environmen-
tal factors or
assumptions
 Assumptions made regarding possible waste
and process residue disposal options. It is
always necessary as part of the process of
determining reasonable prospects for
eventual economic extraction to consider the
potential environmental impacts of the mining
and processing operation. While at this stage
the determination of potential environmental
impacts, particularly for a greenfields project,
 Anticipated mine plans propose minimal use of reagents to minimise environmental risk;
for example, dewatering tailings by a cyclone before discharging into the mining void, and
capping tailings using overburden material.
 Tāiko has completed various environmental studies and plans as part of its mining
resource consent applications at Coates South Block, and the Competent Persons
(Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) assume that most of these findings will apply at
Cargill South. Groundwater levels are high and the Cargill South Block is very wet for
large parts of the year; effective groundwater management, including of run-off in relation
to surrounding areas of environmental sensitivity, will be key to successful mining. A

18
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
may not always be well advanced, the status
of early consideration of these potential
environmental impacts should be reported.
Where these aspects have not been
considered this should be reported with an
explanation of the environmental
assumptions made.
hydrogeological study was completed across the Barrytown Project area in 2022.
 The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) consider that Tāiko is
working towards an outcome where it is more likely than not that resource consent to mine
the Cargill South Block will be granted. A substantive application under the Fast-track
Approvals Act 2024 was lodged on 8 June 2026 and accepted as complete on 29 June
2026. The Competent Persons (Mathijs van de Ven, Michael Gazley) note that if resource
consents are not granted, it could negatively affect the prospects of eventual economic
extraction.
Bulk density
 Whether assumed or determined. If
assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If
determined, the method used, whether wet or
dry, the frequency of the measurements, the
nature, size and representativeness of the
samples.
 The bulk density for bulk material must have
been measured by methods that adequately
account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),
moisture and differences between rock and
alteration zones within the deposit.
 Discuss assumptions for bulk density
estimates used in the evaluation process of
the different materials.
 Dry bulk density data were collected for 182 sonic core drill samples using the sample
weight method. An SOP was in place for the collection of data to allow for bulk density
determination. Bulk density was calculated based on the length of the sample, the
diameter of the sonic drill bit, and the dry weight of the sample as measured by NZIMMR.
 After comparison with densities calculated from HM grade and porosity, 58 unreliable
measurements were excluded (half-cored, dry weight exceeding wet weight, or samples
under 5,000 g), leaving 124 measurements for assigning density by domain.
 The following median in-situ dry bulk densities were assigned by estimation domain to
calculate material tonnage: 1.49 g/cm
3
for the clay-rich overburden; 1.88 g/cm
3
for the
dredge domain; 2.01 g/cm
3
for the low-grade sand and mixed domains; and 2.35 g/cm
3
for
the high-grade sand.

Classification
 The basis for the classification of the Mineral
Resources into varying confidence
categories.
 Whether appropriate account has been taken
of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence
in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of
input data, confidence in continuity of
geology and metal values, quality, quantity
and distribution of the data).
 Whether the result appropriately reflects the
Competent Person’s view of the deposit.
 In accordance with Clause 49 of the JORC Code (2012), the likely product and its
specifications have been considered. The specified products are individual concentrates
rich in ilmenite, garnet and zircon recovered from the 45 μm to 2 mm size fraction. The
Mineral Resource is reported in terms of the minerals on which the Project is based and
includes the specifications of these minerals.
 The garnet, ilmenite, zircon and VHM Mineral Resources have been classified in the
Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories.
 The Measured portion of the resource has been determined from an assessment of data
quality, drillhole spacing, geological and grade continuity. Blocks that are in the high-grade
sand or high-grade dredged domains and less than 100 m from a sonic drill hole were
classified in the Measured category. Geological evidence is derived from adequately
detailed and reliable exploration, sampling and testing collected through appropriate
techniques from drillholes. Analysis of samples consisted of pXRF, XRF, SEM-based
automated mineralogy and sink float tests and is sufficient to confirm geological and grade
continuity between points of observation, where data and samples were collected.
Although AC data are biased low in these domains, the Competent Person deems a
Measured classification appropriate for this portion because the tenor of bias is

19
Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
constrained by 12 sonic twin holes to be a low bias, the likely impact of the bias is a
conservative estimate, and a grade re-weighting has been applied through the KVME
estimation method.
 Blocks within a perimeter representing half the average drillhole spacing but not meeting
the Measured criteria were classified in the Indicated category. For this portion of the MRE,
evidence is sufficient to assume, but not confirm, geological and grade continuity.
 Blocks that are outside the half drillhole spacing perimeter but within a perimeter
representing one drillhole spacing were classified in the Inferred category. For this portion
of the MRE, geological evidence is sufficient to imply but not verify geological and grade
continuity.
Audits or
reviews
 The results of any audits or reviews of
Mineral Resource estimates.
 RSC consultants estimated the Cargill South Mineral Resource. Internal peer review was
completed at various stages and issues were remedied as, and when, encountered.
Discussion of
relative
accuracy/
confidence
 Where appropriate a statement of the relative
accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral
Resource estimate using an approach or
procedure deemed appropriate by the
Competent Person. For example, the
application of statistical or geostatistical
procedures to quantify the relative accuracy
of the resource within stated confidence
limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed
appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
factors that could affect the relative accuracy
and confidence of the estimate.
 The statement should specify whether it
relates to global or local estimates, and, if
local, state the relevant tonnages, which
should be relevant to technical and economic
evaluation. Documentation should include
assumptions made and the procedures used.
 These statements of relative accuracy and
confidence of the estimate should be
compared with production data, where
available.
 The Mineral Resource is a global estimate.
 The confidence in the Mineral Resource is reflected in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred
classification which has been based on the drillhole spacing, data quality, and an
assessment of geological and grade continuity.
 Confidence in the accuracy of grade estimates is influenced by the known bias in the AC
data. The Competent Person considers the estimate of HM conservative in the high-grade
domains and notes that that blocks classified as Measured may be subject to a HM grade
low bias of up to 4 percentage points (median block grade < median sonic grade). The
Competent Person also notes a risk of overestimation in the low-grade domains, where
KVME grade re-weighting was not used. The Competent Person acknowledges that
Indicated blocks in the low-grade domains may be subject to a HM grade high bias of up to
3 percentage points (median block grade > median sonic grade). The low-grade domains
constitute <50% of Indicated tonnes and <20% of Indicated contained VHM and <10% of
the total contained VHM. The Competent Person considers this a low- to moderate risk the
project.
 The Competent Person (Mathijs van de Ven) considers the block model to be appropriately
estimated based on the validation of input and estimated grades through visual assessment,
domain grade-mean comparisons, and a review of swath plots.
 No production data are available for comparison.