{"success":true,"data":{"pressRelease":{"id":"78744","rtpr_id":"nGNExQl9K","ticker":"FFM","exchange":"ASX","all_tickers":["FFM"],"title":"Exceptional assays show why high-grade core stands to super-charge early production profile at FireFly’s Green Bay","author":"Globe Newswire","published_at":"2026-07-02T01:57:40.881Z","article_body":"Latest assays such as 42m @ 6.1% CuEq and 9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq, which demonstrate\nthe outstanding continuity of the high-grade zone, will feed into the\nimpending economic studies\n\nKEY POINTS\n* Drilling returns more exceptional results which extend the high-grade core\nzone and confirm the strong continuity of the mineralisation\n* Given the strength of the results, FireFly will incorporate them into an\nupdated resource model underpinning the economic studies; This means these\nstudies will now be completed in July-August 2026\n* The results, generated primarily from infill drilling, will be reflected in\nthe Measured & Indicated Resource category; This category is central to the\neconomic studies\n* The results are particularly important because they demonstrate the strong\ncontinuity and grade of the high-grade core zone, which will be a key input to\nthe upcoming economic studies\n* The assays continue to demonstrate strong continuity of mineralisation\nacross the upper copper-gold Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) lenses, the\nfootwall stringer-style copper zone and the rich high-grade core zone which\nlies between the two\n* Drilling in the +800m-long high-grade core zone has returned more continuous\nthick intersections including:      * 42.0m @ 6.1% copper equivalent\n(CuEq)(1) (4.7% Cu & 1.4g/t Au) including a high-grade VMS zone of 9.8m @\n16.5% CuEq (12.7% Cu & 4.0g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-053\n* 51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq (4.0% Cu & 0.9g/t Au) including an upper zone grading\n17.0m @ 9.1% CuEq (7.5% Cu & 1.7g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-054\n* 50.2m @ 4.0% CuEq (3.5% Cu & 0.4g/t Au) in hole MUG26-036\n* 34.4m @ 5.0% CuEq (3.8% Cu & 1.2g/t Au) including an upper zone grading\n14.3m @ 7.6% CuEq (5.2% Cu & 2.5g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-028\n \n* The high-grade core zone remains open with the deepest hole drilled to date\nreturning 49.0m @ 6.1% CuEq (see ASX announcement dated 16 October 2025).\n* The upper VMS zones also continue to deliver spectacular copper and gold\nintersections, including: * 20.7m @ 7.7% CuEq (5.9% Cu & 1.9g/t Au) in hole\nMUG26-013 (~ true thickness)\n* 13.6m @ 6.8% CuEq (5.7% Cu & 1.1g/t Au) in hole MUG26-029 (~ true thickness)\n* 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq (5.4% Cu & 1.4g/t Au) in hole MUG25-279 (~ true thickness)\n* 25.9m @ 6.4% CuEq (5.5% Cu & 1.0g/t Au) in hole MUG26-044 (~ true thickness)\n* 18.6m @ 6.1% CuEq (4.5% Cu & 1.7g/t Au) in hole MUG26-038 (~ true thickness)\n* 9.2m @ 6.1% CuEq (1.8% Cu & 4.9g/t Au) in hole MUG25-281 (~ true thickness)\n \n* Significant intersections were also returned from close-spaced drilling in\nthe footwall zone stringer-style mineralisation.  These include: * 35.7m @\n3.3% CuEq (3.1% Cu & 0.2g/t Au) in hole MUG25-278 (~ true thickness)\n* 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq (3.5% Cu & 0.3g/t Au) in hole MUG26-008 (~ true thickness)\n* 43.5m @ 3.0% CuEq (2.6% Cu & 0.4g/t Au) in hole MUG25-285 (~ true thickness)\n \n* The current Green Bay Mineral Resource currently stands at 50.4Mt @ 2.0%\nCuEq in the Measured & Indicated (M&I) category and a further 29.3Mt @ 2.5%\nCuEq in the Inferred category (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). \n\n* The high-grade core zone contains 8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq of M&I, and an\nadditional 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq of Inferred, Mineral Resource (see ASX\nannouncement dated 18 November 2025).  \n* Six rigs continue to operate underground at the Ming Mine\n* Regional exploration continues with drilling of geophysical targets; Maiden\ndrilling has commenced at the Tilt Cove project \n* The Company is well funded to achieve its growth objectives with ~A$219.9\nmillion in cash and liquid investments as at 31 March 2026\n________________________________\n(1 Metal equivalent for drill results reported in this announcement have been\ncalculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz, silver\nprice of US$25/oz and zinc price of US$2,500/t. Metallurgical recoveries have\nbeen set at 95% for copper, 85% for precious metals and 50% for zinc. CuEq(%)\n= Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.0822) + (Zn(%) x 0.15038). In the\nopinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent\ncalculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold based on\ncurrent market conditions, metallurgical test work, and historical performance\nachieved at the Green Bay project whilst in operation.)\n\n FireFly Managing Director Steve Parsons said: “These are exceptional results with extremely high grades over substantial widths. They also demonstrate the strong \n continuity of this mineralisation. This is an outstanding combination of grade and width. The continuing of this mineralisation is a very positive indicator for the \n upcoming economic studies, which will assess the potential development scenarios for Green Bay. “These results will be included in the economic studies, which are in the \n process of being completed, enabling us to demonstrate the financial benefits of such a rich core of mineralisation. “With six rigs drilling underground, as well as \n regional exploration in progress, we intend to keep growing and upgrading the resource in parallel with economic and technical studies”. \n\nPERTH, Australia, July 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FireFly Metals Ltd (ASX,\nTSX: FFM) is pleased to announce more exceptional drilling results that\ndemonstrate the strong continuity of the high-grade mineralisation at the\nGreen Bay Copper-Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.\n\nRecent drilling has continued to focus on upgrading the existing Mineral\nResource as part of the economic studies on the upscaled restart of mining at\nGreen Bay.\n\nInfill drilling of the high-grade convergent core zone (Core Zone) continues\nto return exceptional copper and gold intersections over considerable\nthicknesses.  Latest results from the Core Zone include 42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq and\n51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq further demonstrating continuity of what is shaping as an\neconomically significant part of future mining plans being considered in the\nupcoming economic studies.  The Core Zone has a current Mineral Resource of\n8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq M&I and 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq Inferred with significant\npotential to grow (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). The deepest\nhole drilled to date returning an intersection of 49.1m @ 6.1% CuEq (see ASX\nannouncement dated 16 October 2025). \n\nDrilling of the VMS lodes has confirmed the presence of strong copper and gold\nmineralisation to the west and down-plunge of existing mine development. \nThis is significant because the strike width of the sulphide horizons now\nextends beyond 400m in places and significantly enhances the copper tonnes per\nvertical metre in the deposit.  Recent intersections include 20.7m @ 7.7%\nCuEq, 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq and 25.9m @ 6.4% CuEq.\n\nSelect holes were extended to test mineralisation in the lower footwall zone\nthat hosts copper stringer-style mineralisation.  Results returned included\nthick high-grade zones of 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq, 35.7m @ 3.3% CuEq and 43.5m @\n3.0% CuEq.  \n\nThe drill results reported in this announcement will be incorporated into an\nupdated mid-year Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE).  The current MRE for the\nGreen Bay project stands at 50.4Mt @ 2.0% CuEq M&I and 29.3Mt @ 2.5% CuEq\nInferred (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). \n\nThe mid-year MRE upgrade will underpin the Preliminary Economic Assessment\n(PEA) / Scoping Study that is nearing completion.  The study is anticipated\nfor release in July-August 2026 to enable the recent drilling and the upgraded\nMRE to be incorporated into the mine plan and project economics.  This\nassessment will highlight multiple potential development scenarios for the\nfuture operation at Green Bay.\n\nDrilling continues underground with six rigs focused on a combination of both\ninfill drilling and extending the known Mineral Resource in the high-grade VMS\nzones. \n\nRegional exploration is starting to accelerate following the winter period. \nUntil recently, work has focused on target generation utilising both\ngeophysics, prospecting and historic data compilation.  Two surface rigs are\ncurrently testing geophysical anomalies at Green Bay.  Maiden drilling at the\nCompany’s Tilt Cove project has commenced.\n\nFireFly is well funded to continue its growth drilling, economic studies and\npre-construction early works activities.  The Company has ~A$219.9M in cash\nand liquid investments as at 31 March 2026.\n\n\n\n(Figure 1: Long section through the Green Bay Ming underground mine\nhighlighting the location of select drill results from this announcement only.\nResults from both the high-grade copper-gold VMS zone and broad copper\nFootwall Zone are shown.  The large scale DHEM conductor (green) beyond the\nedge of the current Mineral Resource highlights strong potential for the\nMineral Resource to continue. Drill assays >0.5% copper are shown in red. All\nintersections downhole thickness.  Refer to Appendix B for all drill results\nand locations.)\n\nAbout the Drilling Results\n\nDrilling at the Ming underground copper-gold mine recommenced following\nFireFly’s acquisition of the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project in October\n2023.  In total, FireFly has completed ~192,000m of underground diamond\ndrilling up to 31 May 2026. \n\nThis announcement contains the results of 67 completed drill holes.  The\ndrilling results focus on infill drilling and holes targeting the lateral\nmargins of the mineralisation.  Logging and analysis of additional drill\nholes is ongoing. \n\nThere are two distinct styles of mineralisation present at the Ming Mine,\nconsisting of a series of upper copper-gold rich VMS lenses underlain by a\nbroad copper-rich stringer zone, known as the Footwall Zone (FWZ).\n\nThe FWZ is extensive, with the copper stringer mineralisation observed over\nthicknesses of ~150m and widths exceeding 200m.  The known strike of the\nmineralisation defined to date is three kilometres and it remains open\ndown-plunge. \n\nThe high-grade Core Zone consists of the VMS and the upper FWZ mineralisation\nwhere the two styles converge down-plunge. The Core Zone has a current Mineral\nResource of 8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq M&I and 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq.   \n\nSix drill rigs are currently operating underground, with the focus split\nbetween both step-out extension (two rigs) and infill Mineral Resource\nconversion drilling (four rigs).\n\nAll drilling reported in this announcement has been conducted from the 805L\ndrill drive.  Whilst this development is currently being utilised for\nexploration, it will form an important part of future mine infrastructure for\nthe potential upscaled operation.\n\nAdditional development has been completed from this drive to position the rigs\nto test for high grade extensions of the 1806 and 1807 VMS lodes.  The\nlocation of drill platforms and holes reported in this announcement are\npresented in Figure 2. Significant assay results are presented in Appendix B\nof this announcement.\n\n\n\n(Figure 2:  Isometric view of the Ming Mine 805L Exploration Drive showing\nthe location of drill platforms and drilling reported in this announcement.\nAssay results greater than 0.5% Cu are shown in red.)\n\nResource Conversion Drilling\n\n805L Exploration Drive Crosscut 3 West\n\nThe drilling reported from the mid-section of the 805L Exploration drive\n(Crosscut 3 West) focused on upgrading the data density of the Inferred\nMineral Resource reported in MRE announced by the Company on 18 November 2025\n(November 2025 MRE).   \n\nDrilling focused on conversion of the western peripheral margins of the\nhigh-grade VMS zones which will potentially form an important high-grade\ncomponent in the early years of an upscaled restart of production at the Ming\nMine.  The zones at the margins of the VMS lenses are typically gold-rich\nwhich is likely the result of lateral variations in both fluid composition and\nfluid depositional temperature.\n\nResults from the 805L Crosscut 3 are summarised in Table 1.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_257 VMS 285.1 287.4 2.3 3.20 4.9 31.3 1.36 7.68 Multiple gold-rich VMS zones separated by post-mineral gabbro \n VMS 291.4 296.7 5.3 0.80 1.6 6.2 0.24 2.17 \n MUG25_262 VMS 262.9 269.2 6.3 1.72 1.4 11.7 0.83 3.08 VMS zone at outer western margin \n MUG25_264 VMS 254.8 261.6 6.8 2.49 2.5 28.7 2.24 5.12 Copper-gold VMS zone \n MUG25_272 VMS 465.2 489.8 24.7 1.39 2.6 20.8 0.38 3.74 Multiple gold-dominated VMS zones including a 2.6m intersection grading 9.9g/t Au \n VMS 501.4 504.0 2.6 4.38 9.9 38.3 1.80 13.14 \n MUG26_001 FWZ 526.8 528.8 2.0 1.17 0.1 1.2 0.06 1.26 Isolated copper stringers in the FW \n MUG26_039 VMS 340.9 347.0 6.1 4.40 3.7 27.9 1.33 7.91 VMS with high-grade copper and gold \n\n(Table 1: Drill results from the 805L Exploration Drive Crosscut 3 West.  All\nresults presented are downhole intervals.  Based on drill angles and\ninterpreted geology the true thickness is approximately 60-75% of the reported\ndownhole interval for holes drilled in the 805L Crosscut 3.)\n\n880R 1807 Crosscut\n\nDrilling completed from the 880L 1807 Remuck was designed to test down-plunge\nextents of the western margin of the VMS lodes.  The three holes that\nsuccessfully reached target intersected copper and/or gold rich VMS style\nmineralisation (Table 2).\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG26_002 VMS 308.2 315.2 7.0 4.62 2.7 27.3 0.40 7.09 Copper and gold rich VMS zone \n MUG26_023 VMS 273.2 281.7 8.6 1.80 2.0 20.7 2.97 4.05 Zinc-rich copper and gold zone \n MUG26_043 VMS 422.8 425.3 2.4 0.38 2.2 13.7 0.06 2.29 Thin gold-dominated VMS zone at the margins of the channel \n\n(Table 2: Drill results from the 880R 1807 Crosscut.  All results presented\nare downhole intervals.  Based on drill angles and interpreted geology the\ntrue thickness is approximately 75-80% of the reported downhole interval for\nholes drilled in the 880R 1807 crosscut.)\n\n880R Remuck 1 and 2\n\nThe drilling completed from the 880 Remuck bays 1 and two focused on infill\ndrilling of the eastern high-grade VMS zones with select holes continued\ndeeper into the footwall stringer mineralisation.\n\nThe VMS mineralisation intersected to the east is typically copper-dominant\nwith moderate to locally high-gold grades.\n\nResults from the 880R Remuck bays are summarised in Table 3.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_246 VMS 314.3 318.4 4.1 5.40 2.0 13.8 1.14 7.33 High grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_250 FWZ 505.9 511.8 5.9 1.56 0.1 1.4 0.04 1.64 Multiple zones of moderately grading footwall stringer veins from ~506m to ~580m \n FWZ 528.8 539.0 10.2 1.79 0.1 1.5 0.02 1.87 \n FWZ 546.3 562.4 16.2 1.31 0.1 1.3 0.02 1.37 \n FWZ 567.5 579.4 11.9 1.59 0.1 1.7 0.03 1.66 \n MUG25_255 VMS 319.8 330.3 10.5 3.05 1.8 16.5 1.50 4.86 Thick zone of copper dominated VMS mineralisation \n MUG25_260 VMS 322.8 332.5 9.8 5.04 1.8 12.9 1.34 6.80 Thick and high-grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_263 VMS 342.1 345.0 2.9 1.25 0.5 3.3 0.60 1.78 Thin VMS zone with gabbro dykes \n MUG25_265 VMS 326.5 330.3 3.8 2.43 1.2 13.9 1.98 3.82 Copper-gold VMS \n MUG25_270 VMS 329.4 338.8 9.4 2.66 1.4 12.5 2.03 4.26 An upper copper-gold VMS underlain by a gold rich zone devoid of copper \n VMS 340.5 348.0 7.5 0.03 1.1 7.4 0.56 1.08 \n MUG25_277 VMS 329.5 341.3 11.8 2.32 1.2 11.2 1.56 3.62 Thick moderately grading VMS zone with both copper and gold \n MUG25_283 VMS 365.3 369.2 3.9 1.39 1.2 16.8 0.67 2.62 VMS zone at mineralisation margins \n\n(Table 3: Drill results from the 880R Remuck 1 and 2 drill cuddies.  All\nresults presented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n900L Crosscuts 7 and 8\n\n900L Crosscuts 7 and 8 were mined during 2026 as drill platforms to test the\nwestern zones of the VMS mineralisation.\n\nWork completed from the 900L crosscuts 7 and 8 was focused on infilling and\nextending the western margins of the Ming North VMS lode.  This drilling\nsuccessfully demonstrated both down-plunge and lateral continuity of the\nzones, highlighted by intersections including 20.7m @ 7.7% CuEq, 9.3m @ 7.0%\nCuEq and 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq.\n\nSelect holes were extended to test footwall mineralisation.\n\nDrilling completed from the 900L Crosscuts 7 and 8 reported in this\nannouncement is summarised in Table 4.  \n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_261 VMS 400.3 403.4 3.1 7.99 2.6 19.0 1.65 10.55 High-grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_267 VMS 390.1 399.4 9.3 5.10 1.6 20.3 2.94 7.00 Thick zone of copper-dominated high grade VMS \n MUG25_273 VMS 375.9 378.2 2.3 4.04 1.4 14.9 0.56 5.41 Multiple VMS horizons intersected separated by ~13m \n VMS 391.1 396.9 5.8 1.95 0.8 4.2 0.17 2.66 \n MUG25_279 VMS 384.2 401.9 17.8 5.40 1.3 15.8 0.36 6.69 Thick high-grade upper VMS grading into sericite-rich upper-footwall stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 413.0 415.0 2.0 1.85 0.1 1.7 0.06 1.99 \n FWZ 423.1 426.0 2.9 1.36 0.1 1.1 0.18 1.49 \n MUG25_280 VMS 383.5 387.7 4.2 2.71 1.1 13.4 2.96 4.20 Copper-gold VMS horizon \n MUG26_003 VMS 404.0 416.8 12.8 3.02 2.0 12.6 3.33 5.28 Thick copper and gold VMS \n MUG26_013 VMS 375.0 395.7 20.7 5.90 1.9 14.1 0.74 7.71 Massive sulphide zone transitioning into footwall stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 411.0 416.8 5.8 3.39 0.2 3.8 0.22 3.63 \n MUG26_015 VMS 389.5 400.0 10.6 3.72 1.7 20.0 3.57 5.82 VMS zone with strong copper and gold grades with high silver and zinc contents \n MUG26_029 VMS 377.0 390.6 13.6 5.72 1.1 15.4 0.40 6.83 Chalcopyrite-dominated VMS zone \n MUG26_031 VMS 373.5 382.7 9.2 2.18 1.0 14.6 2.75 3.56 Moderately grading pyrite-dominated VMS \n MUG26_038 VMS 369.7 388.3 18.6 4.48 1.7 17.2 0.80 6.13 Thick zone of copper and gold mineralisation grading into footwall stringers \n MUG26_042 VMS 387.3 398.8 11.6 2.94 2.5 19.1 0.78 5.23 Copper-gold VMS \n MUG26_046 VMS 391.0 395.5 4.5 3.05 3.1 30.9 1.61 6.09 Polymetallic copper-gold VMS intersection with high silver grade \n\n(Table 4: Drill results from the 900L Crosscuts 7 and 8.  All results\npresented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n900L Crosscuts 5 and 6\n\nThe 900L crosscuts 5 and 6 are the northern-most drill positions in the 805L\nexploration drive.  Drilling completed from crosscuts 5 and 6 reported in\nthis announcement focused on the conversion of Inferred Mineral Resources to\nthe higher confidence M&I category for inclusion in the upcoming economic\nstudies.\n\nThe drilling successfully demonstrated continuity of the convergent high-grade\ncore zone, with notable intersections including 42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq, 51.5m @\n4.9% CuEq, 34.4m @ 5.0% CuEq and 50.2m @ 4.0% CuEq.\n\nInfill drilling of the footwall stringer zone successfully confirmed thick and\ncontinuous mineralisation with key intersections including 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq,\n35.7m @ 3.3% CuEq and 30.1m @ 2.1% CuEq.\n\nA summary of the results of drilling from the 900L Crosscuts 5 and 6 is\npresented in Table 5.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_247 VMS 441.8 444.1 2.3 3.68 5.9 64.8 0.62 9.12 Thin high-grade upper VMS zone with multiple lower footwall stringer intersections \n FWZ 533.2 539.0 5.9 1.52 0.2 1.7 0.15 1.71 \n FWZ 555.0 579.0 24.0 1.00 0.1 1.0 0.01 1.06 \n FWZ 602.5 622.0 19.6 1.40 0.1 1.9 0.01 1.45 \n MUG25_258 FWZ 517.0 529.0 12.0 1.33 0.2 1.3 0.10 1.51 Multiple footwall stringer style intersections highlighted by a thick zone grading 31.3m @ 2.1% CuEq from 628.8m \n FWZ 557.3 566.0 8.7 1.82 0.2 1.9 0.03 2.04 \n FWZ 598.0 603.2 5.2 1.39 0.1 1.2 0.01 1.46 \n FWZ 628.8 660.0 31.3 1.97 0.1 2.4 0.01 2.07 \n MUG25_266 VMS 457.0 459.9 2.9 1.81 0.9 10.3 3.56 3.19 Thin upper VMS underlain by two thick FW stringer zones both grading over 2% CuEq \n FWZ 512.0 529.8 17.8 1.86 0.4 2.6 0.02 2.18 \n FWZ 536.3 573.0 36.8 1.98 0.1 1.8 0.11 2.08 \n MUG25_276 VMS 464.3 469.0 4.8 0.87 1.5 13.6 0.90 2.38 Gold-dominant pyritic VMS above multiple FW stringer zone intersections \n VMS 473.0 479.0 6.0 3.53 2.1 28.9 0.58 5.58 \n FWZ 567.0 599.0 32.0 1.41 0.1 1.5 0.18 1.50 \n FWZ 607.0 613.0 6.0 1.62 0.1 2.5 0.15 1.74 \n MUG25_278 VMS 460.8 468.2 7.4 2.14 1.2 8.6 0.82 3.33 Strong upper VMS over two thick coherent zones of footwall stringer veins \n FWZ 484.1 519.8 35.7 3.07 0.2 3.2 0.04 3.27 \n FWZ 531.1 548.7 17.6 1.64 0.1 1.2 0.04 1.74 \n MUG25_281 VMS 509.2 518.4 9.2 1.79 4.9 21.5 0.49 6.09 Gold-dominated thick VMS with two coherent zones of stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 580.5 588.5 8.0 2.09 0.2 1.7 0.11 2.33 \n FWZ 612.8 642.9 30.1 1.92 0.1 2.0 0.32 2.06 \n MUG25_285 VMS / FWZ 461.1 506.4 45.3 2.61 0.4 4.3 0.29 3.01 Convergent zone with a high-grade upper VMS transitioning immediately into FW stringers \n MUG26_005 VMS 452.9 457.3 4.4 0.79 2.6 26.8 0.59 3.23 Gold-dominated upper VMS with multiple lower-grade stringer intersections between ~513m and 634m \n FWZ 513.3 519.0 5.7 1.57 0.2 2.7 0.13 1.79 \n FWZ 570.1 582.0 12.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.01 1.33 \n FWZ 595.0 602.8 7.8 1.12 0.0 1.1 0.01 1.17 \n FWZ 607.2 634.0 26.8 1.35 0.1 1.7 0.01 1.42 \n MUG26_008 VMS 484.2 489.9 5.8 2.90 0.4 6.0 0.25 3.30 Upper massive sulphide horizon with a high-grade upper footwall stringer zone ~24m beneath the VMS \n FWZ 513.3 538.5 25.3 3.54 0.3 3.8 0.06 3.79 \n FWZ 561.1 568.0 6.9 1.88 0.1 1.5 0.06 1.98 \n MUG26_022 VMS 506.2 510.1 3.9 2.51 4.3 65.1 0.86 6.72 Copper-gold VMS with multiple FWZ intersections \n FWZ 550.3 553.1 2.8 2.19 0.2 2.4 0.05 2.39 \n FWZ 563.3 575.9 12.6 1.55 0.4 2.1 0.02 1.88 \n FWZ 588.6 608.0 19.4 1.84 0.1 1.8 0.14 1.95 \n MUG26_028 VMS / FWZ 436.9 471.3 34.4 3.81 1.2 11.0 0.56 4.98 Convergent Core Zone including an upper VMS zone grading 14.3m @ 7.6% CuEq \n Including VMS 436.9 451.2 14.3 5.16 2.5 21.4 1.21 7.62 \n MUG26_036 VMS / FWZ 425.9 476.1 50.2 3.50 0.4 5.1 0.73 3.97 High-grade convergent Core Zone with VMS immediately grading into a high-grade enriched FW stringer zone grading 32.4m @ 4.7% CuEq \n Including VMS 425.9 437.7 11.8 2.25 0.6 7.4 2.87 3.22 \n Including FWZ 443.7 476.1 32.4 4.52 0.1 1.6 0.02 4.66 \n MUG26_040 VMS 571.0 573.0 2.0 3.21 1.9 7.7 0.20 4.89 Thin upper VMS over multiple zones of stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 604.0 612.0 8.0 2.06 0.3 2.3 0.10 2.34 \n FWZ 625.0 628.0 3.0 4.04 0.3 4.3 0.02 4.35 \n MUG26_044 VMS 468.2 494.1 25.9 5.48 1.0 8.4 0.21 6.43 High-grade thick VMS zone with some FW stringers towards the base \n MUG26_045 VMS 453.4 457.0 3.6 1.96 0.6 5.8 0.33 2.54 Moderate VMS \n MUG26_053 VMS / FWZ 413.1 455.1 42.0 4.74 1.4 10.0 0.84 6.13 Core Zone with an extremely high- grade upper VMS grading 9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq \n Including VMS 421.6 431.4 9.8 12.68 4.0 27.8 1.60 16.46 \n MUG26_054 VMS / FWZ 404.7 456.1 51.5 3.99 0.9 9.0 0.87 4.91 Core Zone with a high-grade zone grading 17m @ 9.1% CuEq \n Including VMS 415.0 432.0 17.0 7.48 1.7 17.4 0.72 9.09 \n\n(Table 5: Drill results from the 900L Crosscuts 5 and 6.  All results\npresented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n2026 Forward Work Plans\nThe FireFly growth strategy remains focused on advancing the Green Bay project\ntowards the resumption of upscaled copper and gold production.  Near term\nactivities remain focused on:\n* Upgrading the Mineral Resource, through infill drilling, from Inferred to\nM&I Mineral Resource\n* Mineral Resource Growth, through down-plunge drilling;\n* Completion of the Preliminary Economic Assessment in July/August 2026;\n* Advancement of permitting, engineering and early works to support future\ndevelopment scenarios; and\n* New Discoveries from both underground and surface regional exploration\ndrilling.\nGreen Bay (Ming Mine) Mineral Resource Development\n\nAs of 31 May 2026, the Company had completed ~192,000 metres of underground\ndiamond drilling.  Six underground rigs will continue to advance the\nunderground Mineral Resource conversion and extension activities for the\nforeseeable future. \n\nNear-term underground drilling will remain focused on infill definition to\nupgrade areas of Inferred to the higher confidence M&I Mineral Resources ahead\nof economic studies into resuming upscaled production at Green Bay. The\ndecision to focus on infill drilling is driven by numerous factors,\nincluding: \n* The requirement for a minimum of 70% M&I Mineral Resources in early-stage\neconomic studies.  Conversion drilling also has the potential to generate\nshareholder value through maximising the quantity of economic material\navailable for incorporation into mine plans resulting in longer mine life in\nthe initial study;\n* Future potential Ore Reserves can only be generated from M&I Mineral\nResources;\n* M&I Mineral Resources can be incorporated into Feasibility Studies; and\n* De-risking the project by further increasing confidence in the geological\nmodel and grade estimation.\nGreen Bay (Ming Mine) Mineral Resource Growth\n\nMineral Resource growth in coming months will be driven by testing down plunge\nextensions of the high-grade VMS channels parallel to the Ming North lode. \nDrilling in this announcement shows the 1806 VMS continues at depth and\nMineral Resource additions are expected from this zone.   \n\nA MRE update is planned and will incorporate drilling completed since the\nissue of the previous estimate in November 2025.  This update will be the\nestimate used to complete the first economic studies.       \n\nEconomic Studies\n\nEconomic and technical studies on the upscaled resumption of copper and gold\nproduction at Green Bay are well underway. \n\nThe study, intended for completion in July/August 2026, will meet the criteria\nof a Scoping Study (in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting\nof Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code 2012))\nand Preliminary Economic Assessment (in Canadian National Instrument NI 43-101\n– Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101)).\n\nThe study will consider various development scenarios for the project,\nincluding several haulage scenarios (e.g., shaft, decline), annual production\nrates (scale), and life of mine metal production. \n\nProject Development\n\nThe Company has secured conditional release from further Environmental\nAssessment by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for a start-up mining\nand processing operation (see ASX announcement dated 5 August 2025).  FireFly\nhas now satisfied conditions of the release and has commenced applying for\npermits.  The Company has commenced selective low-cost seasonal early works\nto prepare the Project for future development and construction.\n\nRegional & Generative Exploration\n\nRegional exploration is accelerating following a scheduled winter hiatus.\nRecent activity has focused on target generation incorporating both geophysics\nsurvey and interpretation, prospecting programs and compilation of historic\ndatasets. Two surface diamond drill rigs are currently testing geophysical\nanomalies in the areas south of the Ming Mine. A third surface rig has\ncommenced drilling at the Company’s Tilt Cove project.\n\nBalance Sheet and Funding Position\n\nFireFly is well-funded to execute its growth drilling program, economic\nstudies and pre-construction early works activities. As at 31 March 2026, the\nCompany has approximately A$219.9 million in cash and liquid investments. \n\n\n\n(Figure 3: Timeline of key activities at the Green Bay copper-gold project. \n)\n(1. Please note that timeframes are indicative and may be subject to change.)\n\n Steve Parsons Managing Director FireFly Metals Ltd +61 8 9220 9030 Jessie Liu-Ernsting Chief Development Officer FireFly Metals Ltd +1 709 800 1929 Paul Armstrong Media Read Corporate +61 8 9388 1474 \n\nABOUT FIREFLY METALS LTD\n\nFireFly Metals Ltd (ASX, TSX: FFM | OTCPK: FFMFF) is an emerging copper-gold\ncompany focused on advancing the high-grade Green Bay Copper-Gold Project in\nNewfoundland, Canada. The Green Bay Copper-Gold Project currently hosts 50.4Mt\nof Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at 2.0% for 1,016Kt copper\nequivalent (CuEq) and 29.3Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources at 2.5% for 722Kt\nCuEq, prepared and disclosed in accordance with the 2012 Edition of the\nAustralasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and\nOre Reserves (JORC Code 2012) and Canadian National Instrument 43-101 -\nStandards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). The Company has a\nclear strategy to rapidly grow the copper-gold Mineral Resource to demonstrate\na globally significant copper-gold asset.\n\nThe Company also holds a 90% interest in the Limestone Well Vanadium-Titanium\nProject in Western Australia.\n\nFurther information regarding FireFly Metals Ltd is available on the ASX\nplatform (ASX: FFM) or the Company’s website www.fireflymetals.com.au or\nSEDAR+ www.sedarplus.ca.\n\nCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTS\n\nMineral Resource Estimate – Green Bay Project\nThe Mineral Resource Estimate for the Green Bay Project referred to in this\nannouncement and set out in Appendix A was first reported in the Company’s\nASX announcement dated 18 November 2025, titled ‘Mineral Resource increases\n51% to 1.4Mt of copper and 1.1Moz of gold’ and is also set out in the\nTechnical Report for the Ming Copper-Gold Mine, titled ‘National Instrument\n43-101 Technical Report, FireFly Metals Ltd, Green Bay Ming Mine Copper-Gold\nProject, Newfoundland’ with an issue date of 1 December 2025 and a Mineral\nResource effective date of 18 November 2025, available on SEDAR+ at\nwww.sedarplus.ca.\n\nMineral Resource Estimate – Little Deer\nThe Mineral Resource Estimate for Little Deer referred to in this announcement\nwas first reported in the Company’s ASX announcement dated 29 October 2024,\ntitled ‘Resource Increases 42% to 1.2Mt of contained metal at 2% Copper\nEq’ and is also set out in the Technical Report for the Little Deer Copper\nProject, titled ‘Technical Report and Updated Mineral Resource Estimate of\nthe Little Deer Complex Copper Deposits, Newfoundland, Canada’ with an\neffective date of 26 June 2024, available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.\n\nMetal equivalents\nMetal equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results\nhave been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of\nUS$2,500/oz, silver price of US$25/oz and zinc price of US$2,500/t. Individual\nMineral Resource grades for the metals are set out in Appendix A of this\nannouncement. Individual grades for the metals for the reporting of metal\nequivalents for Exploration Results are set out in the ASX announcements in\nwhich the Exploration Results were first reported by the Company.\n\nCopper equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates do not include zinc and\nwere calculated based on the formula:\n\nCuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822).\n\nCopper equivalents for the Exploration Results include zinc and were\ncalculated based on the formula:\n\nCuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822) + (Zn(%) x\n0.15038)\n\nMetallurgical factors have been applied to the metal equivalent calculation.\nCopper recovery used was 95%. Historical production at the Ming Mine has a\ndocumented copper recovery of ~96%. Precious metal (gold and silver)\nmetallurgical recovery was assumed at 85% on the basis of historical\nrecoveries achieved at the Ming Mine in addition to historical metallurgical\ntest work to increase precious metal recoveries.\n\nIn the opinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent\ncalculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold based on\ncurrent market conditions, metallurgical test work, the Company’s\noperational experience and, where relevant, historical performance achieved at\nthe Green Bay project whilst in operation.\n\nExploration Results\nThe exploration results referred to in this announcement were first reported\nby the Company in the ASX announcements cross-referenced in this announcement.\n\nOriginal Announcements\nFireFly confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that\nmaterially affects the information included in the original announcements\nreferred to or cross-referenced in this announcement and that, in the case of\nMineral Resource Estimates, all material assumptions and technical parameters\nunderpinning the estimates in the original announcements continue to apply and\nhave not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in\nwhich the Competent Persons’ and Qualified Persons’ findings are presented\nhave not been materially modified from the original market announcements.\n\nMineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results\nMineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results are calculated in\naccordance with the JORC Code 2012 and NI 43-101.\n\nCompetent and Qualified Person Statements\nThe information in this announcement that relates to new Exploration Results\nis based on and fairly represents information compiled by Mr Darren Cooke, a\nCompetent Person who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.\nMr Cooke is a full-time employee of, and holds securities in, the Company. Mr\nCooke has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of\nmineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity\nbeing undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code\n2012. Mr Cooke has reviewed this announcement and consents to the inclusion in\nthis announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and\ncontext in which they appear.\n\nAll technical and scientific information in this announcement has been\nreviewed and approved by Group Chief Geologist, Mr Juan Gutierrez BSc, Geology\n(Masters), Geostatistics (Postgraduate Diploma), who is a Member and Chartered\nProfessional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a\nMember of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Gutierrez is a\nCompetent Person as defined in the JORC Code 2012 and a Qualified Person as\ndefined in NI 43-101. Mr Gutierrez is a full-time employee of, and holds\nsecurities in, the Company. Mr Gutierrez has sufficient experience that is\nrelevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under\nconsideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent\nPerson as defined in the JORC Code 2012 and a Qualified Person as defined in\nNI 43-101. Mr Gutierrez has reviewed this announcement and consents to the\ninclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the\nform and context in which they appear.\n\nFORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION\n\nThis announcement may contain certain forward-looking statements and\nprojections, including statements regarding FireFly’s plans, forecasts and\nprojections with respect to its mineral properties and programs.\nForward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as\n‘may’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘will’, ‘expect’,\n‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘forecast’, ‘milestone’, ‘objective’,\n‘predict’, ‘plan’, ‘scheduled’, ‘estimate’, ‘anticipate’,\n‘continue’, or other similar words and may include, without limitation,\nstatements regarding plans, strategies and objectives.\n\nAlthough the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement reflect\nmanagement’s current beliefs based upon information currently available to\nmanagement and based upon what management believes to be reasonable\nassumptions, such forward-looking statements and projections are estimates\nonly and should not be relied upon. They are not guarantees of future\nperformance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other\nfactors, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may\ninclude changes in commodity prices, foreign exchange fluctuations, economic,\nsocial and political conditions, and changes to applicable regulation, and\nthose risks outlined in the Company’s public disclosures.\n\nThe forward-looking statements and projections are inherently uncertain and\nmay therefore differ materially from results ultimately achieved. For example,\nthere can be no assurance that FireFly will be able to confirm the presence of\nMineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that FireFly’s plans for development of\nits mineral properties will proceed, that any mineralisation will prove to be\neconomic, or that a mine will be successfully developed on any of FireFly’s\nmineral properties. The performance of FireFly may be influenced by a number\nof factors which are outside of the control of the Company, its directors,\nofficers, employees and contractors. The Company does not make any\nrepresentations and provides no warranties concerning the accuracy of any\nforward-looking statements or projections, and disclaims any obligation to\nupdate or revise any forward-looking statements or projections based on new\ninformation, future events or circumstances or otherwise, except to the extent\nrequired by applicable laws.\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nGreen Bay Copper-Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate\n\nMing Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured 6.3 1.5 94 0.3 50 1.9 388 1.7 \n Indicated 41.2 1.7 708 0.4 488 3.2 4,320 2.1 \n TOTAL M&I 47.5 1.7 802 0.4 537 3.1 4,708 2.0 \n Inferred 23.1 2.0 456 0.7 553 5.9 4,379 2.6 \n\nLittle Deer Mineral Resource Estimate\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured - - - - - - - - \n Indicated 2.9 2.1 62 0.1 9 3.4 320 2.3 \n TOTAL M&I 2.9 2.1 62 0.1 9 3.4 320 2.3 \n Inferred 6.2 1.8 110 0.1 10 2.2 430 1.8 \n\nGREEN BAY TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured 6.3 1.5 94 0.3 50 1.9 388 1.7 \n Indicated 44.1 1.7 769 0.4 496 3.3 4,638 2.1 \n TOTAL M&I 50.4 1.7 863 0.3 546 3.1 5,026 2.0 \n Inferred 29.3 1.9 566 0.6 563 5.1 4,810 2.5 \n \n1. FireFly Metals Ltd Mineral Resource Estimates for the Green Bay Copper-Gold\nProject, incorporating the Ming Deposit and Little Deer Complex, are prepared\nand reported in accordance with the JORC Code 2012 and NI 43-101. \n2. Mineral Resources have been reported at a 1.0% copper cut-off grade.\n3. Metal equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates have been calculated\nat a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz and silver price of\nUS$25/oz.  Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for copper and 85%\nfor both gold and silver. These assumptions are made of the basis of\nhistorical production at the Ming Mine and additional metallurgical test work.\nCopper equivalent was calculated based on the formula: CuEq(%) = Cu(%) +\n(Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822).\n4. Totals may vary due to rounding.\nAPPENDIX B – Significant Intersection Table\n\nCollar co-ordinates and orientation are listed in the local Ming Mine grid,\nwhich is rotated +35 degrees from NAD83 True North.  Significant\nintersections reported are those above a 1% copper cut-off or 0.5g/t gold, and\ncontain a maximum of 6 metres of internal waste. Please refer to the\ncompliance statements for further details on parameters used in the copper\nequivalent calculation. All results are approximate true width (TW) unless\notherwise noted.\n\n Hole Number Easting Northing RL Azi Dip Drilled Length (m) From (m) To Width Assay CuEq % \n (m) (m) \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_235 1,206.9 2,355.8 -917.0 182 - 68 234 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_242 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 210 5 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_246 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 215 -67 357 314.3 318.4 4.1 5.40 2.0 13.8 1.14 7.33 \n MUG25_247 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 176 -70 690 441.8 444.1 2.3 3.68 5.9 64.8 0.62 9.12 \n 498.0 501.5 3.5 1.33 0.5 1.8 0.07 1.75 \n 533.2 539.0 5.9 1.52 0.2 1.7 0.15 1.71 \n 555.0 579.0 24.0 1.00 0.1 1.0 0.01 1.06 \n 602.5 622.0 19.6 1.40 0.1 1.9 0.01 1.45 \n MUG25_248 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 224 -5 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_250 1,222.1 2,255.1 -906.4 162 -63 615 505.9 511.8 5.9 1.56 0.1 1.4 0.04 1.64 \n 528.8 539.0 10.2 1.79 0.1 1.5 0.02 1.87 \n 546.3 562.4 16.2 1.31 0.1 1.3 0.02 1.37 \n 567.5 579.4 11.9 1.59 0.1 1.7 0.03 1.66 \n MUG25_251 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 223 -75 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_255 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 223 -57 357 319.8 330.3 10.5 3.05 1.8 16.5 1.50 4.86 \n MUG25_256 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 172 -76 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_257 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 226 -9 363 285.1 287.4 2.3 ((1.6m TW)) 3.20 4.9 31.3 1.36 7.68 \n 291.4 296.7 5.3 ((4.8m TW)) 0.80 1.6 6.2 0.24 2.17 \n MUG25_258 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 172 -76 696 517.0 529.0 12.0 1.33 0.2 1.3 0.10 1.51 \n 557.3 566.0 8.7 1.82 0.2 1.9 0.03 2.04 \n 598.0 603.2 5.2 1.39 0.1 1.2 0.01 1.46 \n 611.0 614.0 3.0 1.20 0.0 0.9 0.01 1.24 \n 628.8 660.0 31.3 1.97 0.1 2.4 0.01 2.07 \n MUG25_260 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 227 -64 381 322.8 332.5 9.8 5.04 1.8 12.9 1.34 6.80 \n MUG25_261 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 185 -79 450 400.3 403.4 3.1 7.99 2.6 19.0 1.65 10.55 \n MUG25_262 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 229 -15 375 262.9 269.2 6.3 ((4.4m TW)) 1.72 1.4 11.7 0.83 3.08 \n MUG25_263 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 235 -70 414 342.1 345.0 2.9 1.25 0.5 3.3 0.60 1.78 \n MUG25_264 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 234 -22 375 254.8 261.6 6.8 ((4.8m TW)) 2.49 2.5 28.7 2.24 5.12 \n MUG25_265 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 227 -51 360 326.5 330.3 3.8 2.43 1.2 13.9 1.98 3.82 \n MUG25_266 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 175 -74 641 457.0 459.9 2.9 1.81 0.9 10.3 3.56 3.19 \n 476.7 478.7 2.0 1.91 0.3 3.9 0.05 2.21 \n 484.6 486.8 2.2 1.66 0.1 2.6 0.09 1.77 \n 512.0 529.8 17.8 1.86 0.4 2.6 0.02 2.18 \n 536.3 573.0 36.8 1.98 0.1 1.8 0.11 2.08 \n MUG25_267 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 193 -74 429 390.1 399.4 9.3 5.10 1.6 20.3 2.94 7.00 \n MUG25_268 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 48 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_269 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 210 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_270 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 233 -57 375 329.4 338.8 9.4 2.66 1.4 12.5 2.03 4.26 \n 340.5 348.0 7.5 0.03 1.1 7.4 0.56 1.08 \n MUG25_271 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 147 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_272 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 223 7 540 465.2 489.8 24.7 ((16.0m TW)) 1.39 2.6 20.8 0.38 3.74 \n 501.4 504.0 2.6 ((1.7m TW)) 4.38 9.9 38.3 1.80 13.14 \n MUG25_273 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 197 -68 408 375.9 378.2 2.3 4.04 1.4 14.9 0.56 5.41 \n 391.1 396.9 5.8 1.95 0.8 4.2 0.17 2.66 \n MUG25_274 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_275 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 143 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_276 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 711 464.3 469.0 4.8 0.87 1.5 13.6 0.90 2.38 \n 473.0 479.0 6.0 3.53 2.1 28.9 0.58 5.58 \n 543.9 547.0 3.1 1.31 0.1 1.1 0.16 1.42 \n 567.0 599.0 32.0 1.41 0.1 1.5 0.18 1.50 \n 607.0 613.0 6.0 1.62 0.1 2.5 0.15 1.74 \n MUG25_277 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 230 -64 375 329.5 341.3 11.8 2.32 1.2 11.2 1.56 3.62 \n MUG25_278 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 175 -78 642 460.8 468.2 7.4 2.14 1.2 8.6 0.82 3.33 \n 484.1 519.8 35.7 3.07 0.2 3.2 0.04 3.27 \n 531.1 548.7 17.6 1.64 0.1 1.2 0.04 1.74 \n MUG25_279 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 471 384.2 401.9 17.8 5.40 1.3 15.8 0.36 6.69 \n 413.0 415.0 2.0 1.85 0.1 1.7 0.06 1.99 \n 423.1 426.0 2.9 1.36 0.1 1.1 0.18 1.49 \n MUG25_280 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 205 -64 411 383.5 387.7 4.2 2.71 1.1 13.4 2.96 4.20 \n MUG25_281 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -83 753 509.2 518.4 9.2 1.79 4.9 21.5 0.49 6.09 \n 580.5 588.5 8.0 2.09 0.2 1.7 0.11 2.33 \n 595.0 598.0 3.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.09 1.38 \n 612.8 642.9 30.1 1.92 0.1 2.0 0.32 2.06 \n 725.4 728.4 3.0 1.56 0.3 4.6 0.04 1.81 \n MUG25_282 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 190 -78 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_283 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 236 -43 438 365.3 369.2 3.9 1.39 1.2 16.8 0.67 2.62 \n MUG25_284 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 206 -78 36 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_285 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 190 -78 575 461.1 506.4 45.3 2.61 0.4 4.3 0.29 3.01 \n MUG26_001 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 232 8 547 526.8 528.8 2.0 ((1.2m TW)) 1.17 0.1 1.2 0.06 1.26 \n MUG26_002 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 192 -20 357 308.2 315.2 7.0 ((5.6m TW)) 4.62 2.7 27.3 0.40 7.09 \n MUG26_003 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 206 -78 432 404.0 416.8 12.8 3.02 2.0 12.6 3.33 5.28 \n MUG26_004 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 159 -73 72 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_005 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 179 -73 690 452.9 457.3 4.4 0.79 2.6 26.8 0.59 3.23 \n 513.3 519.0 5.7 1.57 0.2 2.7 0.13 1.79 \n 546.5 550.0 3.5 1.55 0.2 1.9 0.04 1.70 \n 570.1 582.0 12.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.01 1.33 \n 595.0 602.8 7.8 1.12 0.0 1.1 0.01 1.17 \n 607.2 634.0 26.8 1.35 0.1 1.7 0.01 1.42 \n MUG26_006 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_007 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 209 -72 9 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_008 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 191 -89 620 484.2 489.9 5.8 2.90 0.4 6.0 0.25 3.30 \n 513.3 538.5 25.3 3.54 0.3 3.8 0.06 3.79 \n 561.1 568.0 6.9 1.88 0.1 1.5 0.06 1.98 \n MUG26_009 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 209 -72 423 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_010 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 6 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_011 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 22 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_012 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 191 -38 330 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_013 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 453 375.0 395.7 20.7 5.90 1.9 14.1 0.74 7.71 \n 411.0 416.8 5.8 3.39 0.2 3.8 0.22 3.63 \n MUG26_014 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 230 -4 429 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_015 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 213 -67 414 389.5 400.0 10.6 3.72 1.7 20.0 3.57 5.82 \n MUG26_016 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 200 -36 351 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_017 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 111 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_018 962.6 2,163.8 -877.0 209 -36 348 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_019 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 51 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_020 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 222 -75 459 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_021 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 21 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_022 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 657 506.2 510.1 3.9 2.51 4.3 65.1 0.86 6.72 \n MUG26_022 550.3 553.1 2.8 2.19 0.2 2.4 0.05 2.39 \n 556.8 559.4 2.6 1.12 0.0 1.2 0.02 1.17 \n 563.3 575.9 12.6 1.55 0.4 2.1 0.02 1.88 \n 588.6 608.0 19.4 1.84 0.1 1.8 0.14 1.95 \n 615.5 618.8 3.3 1.10 0.0 1.0 0.06 1.15 \n MUG26_023 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 185 -49 339 273.2 281.7 8.6 ((6.4m TW)) 1.80 2.0 20.7 2.97 4.05 \n MUG26_024 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 16 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_025 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 9 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_026 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 25 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_027 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 12 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_028 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 531 436.9 471.3 34.4 3.81 1.2 11.0 0.56 4.98 \n Including 436.9 451.2 14.3 5.16 2.5 21.4 1.21 7.62 \n MUG26_029 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 441 377.0 390.6 13.6 5.72 1.1 15.4 0.40 6.83 \n MUG26_030 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 199 -3 18 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_031 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 205 -58 408 373.5 382.7 9.2 2.18 1.0 14.6 2.75 3.56 \n MUG26_032 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 235 -7 414 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_033 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 199 -3 426 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_034 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 171 -84 444 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_035 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 2 75 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_036 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 187 -66 555 425.9 476.1 50.2 3.50 0.4 5.1 0.73 3.97 \n Including 425.9 437.7 11.8 2.25 0.6 7.4 2.87 3.22 \n MUG26_036 Including 443.7 476.1 32.4 4.52 0.1 1.6 0.02 4.66 \n MUG26_037 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 205 -2 441 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_038 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 194 -62 423 369.7 388.3 18.6 4.48 1.7 17.2 0.80 6.13 \n MUG26_039 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 4 420 340.9 347.0 6.1 ((4.3m TW)) 4.40 3.7 27.9 1.33 7.91 \n MUG26_040 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 40 -87 780 571.0 573.0 2.0 3.21 1.9 7.7 0.20 4.89 \n 604.0 612.0 8.0 2.06 0.3 2.3 0.10 2.34 \n 625.0 628.0 3.0 4.04 0.3 4.3 0.02 4.35 \n MUG26_041 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 221 5 474 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_042 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 206 -29 477 387.3 398.8 11.6 ((10.4m TW)) 2.94 2.5 19.1 0.78 5.23 \n MUG26_043 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 210 -1 477 422.8 425.3 2.4 ((1.8m TW)) 0.38 2.2 13.7 0.06 2.29 \n MUG26_044 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 191 -81 657 468.2 494.1 25.9 5.48 1.0 8.4 0.21 6.43 \n MUG26_045 1,174.0 2,400.0 -916.1 198 -68 507 453.4 457.0 3.6 1.96 0.6 5.8 0.33 2.54 \n MUG26_046 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 209 -38 438 391.0 395.5 4.5 3.05 3.1 30.9 1.61 6.09 \n MUG26_047 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 196 -12 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_048 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 1 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_049 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_050 1,174.0 2,400.0 -916.1 210 -65 489 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_051 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 196 -12 411 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_052 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_053 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 534 413.1 455.1 42.0 4.74 1.4 10.0 0.84 6.13 \n Including 421.6 431.4 9.8 12.68 4.0 27.8 1.60 16.46 \n MUG26_054 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 202 -51 495 404.7 456.1 51.5 3.99 0.9 9.0 0.87 4.91 \n Including 415.0 432.0 17.0 7.48 1.7 17.4 0.72 9.09 \n MUG26_055 964.9 2,163.3 -877.5 198 -49 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C – JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION\n\nTable 1\n\nSection 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section apply to\nall succeeding sections)\n\n Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary \n Sampling techniques * Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under * This deposit is sampled by diamond drilling ( DD ) completed by FireFly and by previous operators. A total of 1,636 drill holes for a total of ~389,200m at depths ranging from 6 to 1,771m. Included within these figures is ~192,000m drilled by FireFly to 31 May 2026. \n 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. * DD sample intervals are based on geological observations. All the core is sampled in 1m intervals with some smaller samples down to minimum core length of 0.3m to accommodate geological and mineralisation contacts. Half NQ diamond drill core was submitted for analysis. \n * Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. * DD sampling by previous operators assumed to be to industry standard at that time. \n * Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. The following is a summary of the core sampling procedure: * All sample collection, core logging, and specific gravity determinations were completed by FireFly under the supervision of a professionally qualified registered geologist. \n * In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3 kg * NQ core was marked for splitting during logging and is sawn using a diamond core saw with a mounted jig to assure the core is cut lengthwise into equal halves. Whole core sampling was used for BQ core. \n 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 * Half of the cut core is placed in clean individual plastic bags with the appropriate sample tag. \n problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. * QA/QC samples are inserted into the sample stream at prescribed intervals. \n * The samples are then placed in rice bags for shipment to the offsite laboratory’s facility. \n * The remaining half of the core is retained and incorporated into FireFly’s secure core library located on the property. \n * FireFly drill analysis was completed at ISO-certified Eastern Analytical laboratories. The samples are dried, crushed, and pulverised. Samples are crushed to approximately -10 mesh and split using a riffle splitter to approximately 300 g. A ring mill is used to pulverize the sample split to 98% passing -150 mesh. Sample pulps and rejects are picked up at Eastern by FireFly staff and returned directly to the Project site. Sample rejects are securely stored at \n the FireFly site. \n 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 * Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ (47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ (36mm) where grade control programs. \n of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). * FireFly diamond drilling exclusively NQ (47.8 mm diameter) size with core oriented by REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n Drill sample recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. * Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ (47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ (36mm) where grade control programs. FireFly diamond drilling is exclusively NQ (47.8 mm diameter) size with core oriented by REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n * Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. * All care is taken to ensure the full recovery of the core, yet certain drilling conditions, such as broken ground, can impede 100% recovery. \n * 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. * There is no known relationship between sample recovery and grade. Drilling conditions have been noted to be competent in historical reports. FireFly core recovery averages >95%. \n * Core recovery is recorded for each run and assessed by the logging geologist. Recovery is measured as the length of core recovered divided by the length of the drill run. No systematic relationship between sample recovery and grade has been identified. \n * FireFly does not believe that sample bias has occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. \n 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 The following steps are completed during the core logging procedure: * Sample security and chain of custody start with the removal of core from the core tube and boxing of drill core at the drill site. \n and metallurgical studies. * The boxed core remains under the custody of the drill contractor until it is transported from the drill to the secure onsite core facility. \n * Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. * Core boxes are opened and inspected to ensure correct boxing and labelling of the core by the drill contractor. \n * The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. * The core is meter marked, cleaned and oriented with the orientation line drawn using the marks form REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n * The drill core is geologically logged, photographed, and then marked and tagged for sampling and splitting. \n * Core logging describes variations in lithology, alteration, and mineralisation. \n * Data associated with core logging and related assay results and other downhole information including orientation surveys are recorded in the AcQuire database system. \n * Measured parameters include structural orientation with respect to core axis, lost core as a percentage of recovered length, and fracture density which are determined by the intensity and thickness of mineralisation at specific intervals. \n * Each core sample is assigned a tag with a unique identifying number. Sample lengths are typically one metre but can be smaller depending on zone mineralogy and boundaries. \n * Sample core that is not mineralised is marked in 1.0 metre lengths. \n * Wing samples are marked at 0.5 metres and sampled at the extremities of mineralised intervals to ensure anomalous grades do not continue into the surrounding wall rock. \n * 100% of the core is logged. \n Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. * FireFly drilling is NQ. Three drill holes were completed with a BQ tail. \n * If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. * For NQ diameter the core was sawn in half following a sample cutting line determined by geologists during logging and submitted for analysis on nominal 1m intervals or defined by geological boundaries determined by the logging geologist. \n * For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. * Historic diamond drilling has been half core sampled. \n * Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. * Samples are dried at approximately 60°C , crushed and pulverised. Samples are crushed in a Rhino jaw crusher to approximately 80% -10mesh, and split using a riffle splitter to approximately 250-300g. The remainder of the sample is bagged, labelled and stored as coarse reject. A ring mill is used to pulverise the sample split to 95% passing -150 mesh. Sample pulps are picked up at Eastern Analytical by FireFly staff and returned directly to the Project site. \n * 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. * For pre-FireFly samples, sample preparation, analytical procedures and QA/QC used on the property were reviewed by independent consultants WSP in 2018, stating in their report that sampling practices meet industry standards and display acceptable levels of accuracy and precision. \n \n* Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. * All core sampled in the prospective intervals when required wing samples are marked from 0.5 metres up to 5m and sampled at the extremities of mineralised intervals to ensure anomalous grades do not continue into the surrounding wall rock. \n * No purpose lab audit has been completed. FireFly personnel have visited the Eastern analytical facilities on several occasions and observed that lab practices and equipment overall cleanliness meet industry standards. \n * Pre-FireFly BQ core was entirely crushed for the assays. \n * Field duplicates were completed using ¼ core and inserted into the sample series at a rate of 2% of samples. Analysis results were acceptable considering the style of mineralisation being heterogeneous with stockwork stringers of chalcopyrite. \n * Sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. \n 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. * All FireFly and Rambler Metals and Mining PLC ( Rambler ) results reported in this announcement were analysed by Eastern Analytical in Springdale, NL. \n * For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, * 34 elements were determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma ( ICP ). A 200mg subsample is totally dissolved in four acids and analysed by ICP-OES. \n calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. * Ore grade elements, Cu, Zn, Pb, Fe and Ag are dissolved via 3 acid digestion and analysed by atomic adsorption ( AA ). \n * Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of * Gold assays were determined by fire assay with atomic adsorption finish. \n bias) and precision have been established. * As part of the QA/QC program duplicate, blank and Certified Reference Material ( CRM ) samples are inserted alternately. Blanks are inserted one every 50 samples. CRMs are inserted every 20 samples. Field duplicates are taken approximately one every 40 samples. Blanks and CRMs are also randomly inserted in zones of suspected high grades. The minimum insertion rate for CRMs is 5%, which FireFly adheres to. Historical data collected by Rambler was also subject \n to a similar rigorous QA/QC regime. \n * In addition to the Company QAQC samples (described earlier) included within the batch the laboratory included its own CRMs (Certified Reference Materials), blanks and duplicates. \n * Sample assay results continue to be evaluated through control charts, log sheets, sample logbook and signed assay certificates to determine the nature of any anomalies or failures and failures were re-assayed at the laboratory. \n Verification of sampling and assaying * The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. * FireFly routinely sends sample pulps for independent umpire lab check to SGS laboratory in Burnaby. Results correlate very well with Eastern Analytical results. \n * The use of twinned holes. * There are no purpose twinned holes in the dataset but a comparison of the results of different drilling generations showed that results were comparable. \n * Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. * FireFly logging data, assay certificates and other relevant information are stored in an AcQuire database and on a site server. \n * Discuss any adjustment to assay data. * All pre-FireFly logging data was completed, core marked up, logging and sampling data was entered directly into an MX deposit or Fusion database. \n * FireFly has not adjusted assay data and is not aware of any adjustments made by Rambler to the assay data. WSP completed an independent audit in 2018 where a representative number of assay certificates were compared to digital assay database and no discrepancies were found. \n 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 * Drill collars were surveyed by the FireFly mine survey crew upon completion of the drill program. \n estimation. * The set-ups for the underground drill collars were marked by the FireFly mine survey crew, and the drilling contractor was expected to set up properly on line. A FireFly geologist checked the underground drill set-up during the drilling program to ensure accuracy. \n * Specification of the grid system used. * Downhole surveys are completed using a Reflex Sprint IQ gyro multi-shot instrument to provide azimuth and dip reading down the hole. The Reflex Sprint IQ gyro instrument is calibrated at least once a year to ensure accuracy of results. \n * Quality and adequacy of topographic control. * Previous drilling has been set-out and picked up in both national and local grids using a combination of GPS and Survey instruments and are assumed to be to industry standards. Directional surface holes completed using Devico® technology. \n * The underground development has been picked up by surveyors creating high confidence in the topographic control which drill holes, both historical and recent, are referenced against. \n * Collar coordinates are recorded in local mine grid. Survey data was collected in mine grid and in UTM grid (NAD83 Zone 21). \n * Topographic control is from Digital Elevation Contours ( DEM ) 2019 and site surveyed DGPS pickups, which is considered adequate. \n Data spacing and distribution * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Spacing for the exploration data reported in this announcement is variable. Most of the results are infill drilling, and intersections are typically less than 90m from another drill hole. \n * 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 * The data spacing and distribution is considered sufficient to establish geological and/or grade continuity. \n estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. * The data will be incorporated into future Mineral Resource updates. Appropriate Mineral Resource classifications will be applied at that time. \n * Whether sample compositing has been applied. * Core is sampled to geology contacts; sample compositing is not applied until the estimation stage. \n 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. * Underground drill hole orientation for FireFly holes reported in this announcement was sub-perpendicular to the mineralisation. Mineralised intersections are approximate true width unless otherwise noted. \n * 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 * Historically this has been variable in places where low angle drilling to the mineralisation has been completed in zones without suitable drilling platforms. \n assessed and reported if material. * No material sampling bias is considered to have been introduced by the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures. \n Sample security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * Core was placed in wooden core boxes close to the drill rig by the drilling contractor. The core was collected daily by the drilling contractor and delivered to the secure core logging facility on the Ming Mine site. Access to the core logging facility is limited to FireFly employees or designates. \n Audits or reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. * Regular reviews of DD sampling techniques are completed by Senior Geologists and Resource Geologists and conclude that sampling techniques are satisfactory and industry standard. \n * All recent FireFly sample data has been extensively QAQC reviewed internally and externally. \n * Pre FireFly data audits were conducted as part of NI-43-101 resource estimation by independent consultants WSP in 2018. It was WSP’s opinion that the drilling, sampling and logging procedures put in place by Rambler met acceptable industry standards and that the information can be used for geological and resource modelling. \n\n\n\nSection 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria in this section apply\nto all succeeding sections)\n\n Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary \n 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. * FireFly owns a mineral land assembly consisting of one map-staked mineral license (023175M) and two mining leases (141L and 188L) totalling 955.4 ha and registered in \n * The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate in the area. the name of FireFly Metals Canada Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of FireFly Metals Limited. All of these mineral lands are contiguous and, in some cases, overlapping \n and are located in the area of the former Ming and Ming West mines. In early 2015 the mineral license 023175M replaced the original license 014692M by claim reduction as \n requested by Rambler. All lands are in good standing with the Provincial Government, and FireFly is up to date with respect to lease payments (for leases) and required \n exploration expenditure (for licenses). \n * FireFly holds all the permits required to operate the Ming Mine at its historic production rate. \n Exploration done by other parties * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. * Ming Mine Early History: Auriferous sulphides and copper were found in the area in 1905 by Enos England. \n * The Main Mine sulphide zone was found in 1935 about 600ft north of the Enos England discovery. In 1940, the Newfoundland government drilled 18 diamond drill holes \n totalling 5,000ft. \n * An airborne electromagnetic survey was flown from 1955 to 1956. \n * The Ming Mine was discovered in 1970 by a helicopter borne AEM system. A large low grade stringer type copper deposit was later discovered in the footwall 300ft to \n 500ft below the Ming mineralisation during mining operations and delineated by 36 diamond drill holes. Mining ceased at the Ming Mine in 1982 because of low copper \n prices. \n * In 1988, the property was awarded to the Rambler Joint Venture Group (a Consortium of Teck Exploration, Petromet Resources Ltd, and Newfoundland Exploration Company \n Ltd). Exploration consisted of ground geophysics and soil geochemistry, resulting in discovery of the Ming West deposit. 48 diamond drill holes (25,534ft) were completed. \n \n* Altius Minerals Corporation: Under the terms of an option to purchase agreement with Ming Minerals, Altius conducted exploration on the Rambler property in 2001, 2003, \n and 2004. In 2001, a litho-geochemical program was initiated to chemically fingerprint rocks of the hanging wall and footwall to the sulphide deposits. \n * Rambler Metals and Mining PLC: Rambler Metals and Mining is a UK-based company listed on London’s Alternate Investment Market (AIM). Rambler held a 100% interest in the \n Ming property and between 2005 and 2023 and conducted a multi-phase diamond drilling program consisting of surface drilling, directional drilling, and underground \n delineation drilling. A total of 220,704m from 1,365 diamond drill holes were completed by Rambler. Between 2012 and 2022 the Ming Mine produced 3Mt at 1.86% Cu and 0.71% \n Au for total of 55Kt of copper and 68Koz of gold. \n * The Ming Mine was placed on care and maintenance in February 2023. \n * In October 2023, AuTECO Minerals Ltd (now FireFly Metals Ltd) acquired the project from the administrator. \n * FireFly conducted drilling to test down plunge extent of VMS lodes. \n * An underground exploration drive is in progress to allow further drilling at more favourable drill angles. \n Geology * Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. * The Green Bay project is a Noranda-type Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide ( VMS ) hosted by Cambrian-Ordovician metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of the Pacquet \n Harbour Group. The style of mineralisation, alteration, host rock, and tectonism most closely resembles other VMS deposits throughout the world. The deposit consists of \n several individual massive sulphide lens and their underlying stockwork zones. It is thought that the stockwork zone represents the near surface channel ways of a \n submarine hydrothermal system and the massive sulphide lens represents the accumulation of sulphides precipitated from the hydrothermal solutions, on the sea floor, above \n and around the discharge vent. The Ming deposits are polymetallic (Cu, Au, Ag ± Zn) massive sulphides that occur along the flank of a felsic dome. The Ming deposits have \n undergone strong deformation and upper greenschist to amphibolite facies metamorphism. The massive sulphide bodies are now thin and elongate down the plunge of the \n regional lineation (30-35ºNE). Typical aspect ratios of length down-plunge to width exceed 10:1, and the bodies exhibit mild boudinage along the plunge. The foot wall \n stock work comprises mainly of quartz-sericite-chlorite schist, which hosts disseminated and stringer pyrite and chalcopyrite with minor sphalerite, galena, and \n pyrrhotite with locally significant gold contents that could represent a discordant stockwork stringer feeder zone. The mineralisation is crosscut by younger mafic dykes. \n Drill hole Information * A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: * easting and northing of the drill hole collar * Refer to Appendix B in this announcement \n * elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in meters) of the drill hole collar \n * dip and azimuth of the hole \n * down hole length and interception depth \n * hole length. \n \n * 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. \n 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. * All drill hole intersections are reported above a lower cut-off grade of 1% copper or 0.5g/t gold. A maximum of 6m of internal waste was allowed. \n * 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. * For samples of varying lengths, a length-weighted average is applied for the reported intersection. The formula is (S(Cu grade % x sample length)/Total Interval Width). \n * The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated. The weighted average of the intersection must exceed the cut-off grades stated above. Minimum sampling interval of 0.5m is enforced. Geological contacts are enforced in \n sampling and frequently provide boundaries for intersections due to grade associated with varying lithotypes. Maximum internal dilution of 6m below the cut-off grade is \n incorporated into the reported intersections, stopping smearing of narrow high grades over broad distances. Consideration is also given to potential minimum mining widths \n as part of the test for prospects of eventual economic extraction. \n * An example of the calculation is from hole MUG24_060, from 191.7m: \n Sample 1: Length - 0.5m; Grade - 1.8% Cu \n Sample 2: Length - 0.75m; Grade – 0.08% Cu \n Sample 3 Length – 1.05m; Grade – 2.02% Cu \n Sample 4: Length – 1.05m; Grade – 2.42% Cu \n Sum of Lengths / Intersection width - 3.35m \n Intersection grade is: \n ((0.5x1.8) + (0.75x0.08) + (1.05x2.02) + (1.05x2.42))/3.35 = 1.68% \n The competent person determined to include of the 0.75m @ 0.08% Cu in the intersection because in a mining scenario, it is unlikely that this internal dilution could be \n separated. * Metal equivalents for the drilling at the Green Bay Project have been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz, silver price of \n US$25/oz and zinc price of $2,500/t. Individual grades for the metals are set out in Appendix B of this announcement. \n * The following metallurgical recovery factors have been applied to the calculation of metal equivalents: * Copper: 95% \n * Gold/Silver: 85% \n * Zinc: 50% \n \n * Recovery factors applied are based on historical processing of Ming ore at Nugget Pond and future processing plant configurations based on historical metallurgical test \n work. \n * It is the Company’s view that all elements in the copper equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold. \n * Copper equivalent was calculated based on the formula CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822) + (Zn(%) x 0.15038) \n Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths * These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. * All intersections reported in the body of this announcement are down hole, however they approximate the true thickness of mineralisation. \n * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. * The majority of the drill holes in the database are drilled as close to orthogonal to the plane of the mineralized lodes as possible. A number of drill holes have \n * 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’). intersected the mineralisation at high angles. \n * Only down hole lengths are reported, however all holes are drilled ~perpendicular to the known trend of mineralisation. \n 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. * Maps and sections are included in the body of this announcement as deemed appropriate by the competent person. \n * Plan view of drill holes reported in this announcement is presented following this table. \n Balanced reporting * Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. * All significant assays (above a 1% copper or 0.5g/t gold cut-off and containing a maximum of 6m of internal waste) received from the current drill program have been \n reported in Appendix B. \n 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. * Appropriate plans are included in the body of this announcement. \n * Underground Downhole Electromagnetics ( DHEM ) was completed by Southern Geoscience & Eastern Geophysics Ltd. See ASX announcement dated 7 May 2025 for further \n technical details on the DHEM surveys. \n * The TX surface loop size was 1km x 1km \n Further work * The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). * FireFly will be conducting drill testing of additional mineralisation as well as step-out drilling of existing lodes to further enhance the Mineral Resources quoted in \n * Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. this announcement. More information is presented in the body of this announcement. \n * Diagrams in the main body of this announcement show areas of possible Mineral Resource extension on existing lodes. The Company is mining an exploration drive to enable \n effective drill testing of down plunge extensions. \n\nPlan view of drilling in this announcement\n\n\nFigures accompanying this announcement are available at:\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/10c97426-fa69-42f3-8af2-328d51b234ef\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/fbad24b1-abdc-4b6b-b4e7-8b89c8f21bcb\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/92804581-08de-45fd-aec3-2079dc759100\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/9e81b0ca-82e1-4f04-abe0-3e3a47fd640d","article_body_html":"","raw_payload":{"data":{"id":"nGNExQl9K","title":"Exceptional assays show why high-grade core stands to super-charge early production profile at FireFly’s Green Bay","author":"Globe Newswire","ticker":"FFM","created":"2026-07-02T01:57:40.881Z","tickers":["FFM"],"exchange":"ASX","article_body":"Latest assays such as 42m @ 6.1% CuEq and 9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq, which demonstrate\nthe outstanding continuity of the high-grade zone, will feed into the\nimpending economic studies\n\nKEY POINTS\n* Drilling returns more exceptional results which extend the high-grade core\nzone and confirm the strong continuity of the mineralisation\n* Given the strength of the results, FireFly will incorporate them into an\nupdated resource model underpinning the economic studies; This means these\nstudies will now be completed in July-August 2026\n* The results, generated primarily from infill drilling, will be reflected in\nthe Measured & Indicated Resource category; This category is central to the\neconomic studies\n* The results are particularly important because they demonstrate the strong\ncontinuity and grade of the high-grade core zone, which will be a key input to\nthe upcoming economic studies\n* The assays continue to demonstrate strong continuity of mineralisation\nacross the upper copper-gold Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide (VMS) lenses, the\nfootwall stringer-style copper zone and the rich high-grade core zone which\nlies between the two\n* Drilling in the +800m-long high-grade core zone has returned more continuous\nthick intersections including:      * 42.0m @ 6.1% copper equivalent\n(CuEq)(1) (4.7% Cu & 1.4g/t Au) including a high-grade VMS zone of 9.8m @\n16.5% CuEq (12.7% Cu & 4.0g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-053\n* 51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq (4.0% Cu & 0.9g/t Au) including an upper zone grading\n17.0m @ 9.1% CuEq (7.5% Cu & 1.7g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-054\n* 50.2m @ 4.0% CuEq (3.5% Cu & 0.4g/t Au) in hole MUG26-036\n* 34.4m @ 5.0% CuEq (3.8% Cu & 1.2g/t Au) including an upper zone grading\n14.3m @ 7.6% CuEq (5.2% Cu & 2.5g/t Au) (~ true thickness) in hole MUG26-028\n \n* The high-grade core zone remains open with the deepest hole drilled to date\nreturning 49.0m @ 6.1% CuEq (see ASX announcement dated 16 October 2025).\n* The upper VMS zones also continue to deliver spectacular copper and gold\nintersections, including: * 20.7m @ 7.7% CuEq (5.9% Cu & 1.9g/t Au) in hole\nMUG26-013 (~ true thickness)\n* 13.6m @ 6.8% CuEq (5.7% Cu & 1.1g/t Au) in hole MUG26-029 (~ true thickness)\n* 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq (5.4% Cu & 1.4g/t Au) in hole MUG25-279 (~ true thickness)\n* 25.9m @ 6.4% CuEq (5.5% Cu & 1.0g/t Au) in hole MUG26-044 (~ true thickness)\n* 18.6m @ 6.1% CuEq (4.5% Cu & 1.7g/t Au) in hole MUG26-038 (~ true thickness)\n* 9.2m @ 6.1% CuEq (1.8% Cu & 4.9g/t Au) in hole MUG25-281 (~ true thickness)\n \n* Significant intersections were also returned from close-spaced drilling in\nthe footwall zone stringer-style mineralisation.  These include: * 35.7m @\n3.3% CuEq (3.1% Cu & 0.2g/t Au) in hole MUG25-278 (~ true thickness)\n* 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq (3.5% Cu & 0.3g/t Au) in hole MUG26-008 (~ true thickness)\n* 43.5m @ 3.0% CuEq (2.6% Cu & 0.4g/t Au) in hole MUG25-285 (~ true thickness)\n \n* The current Green Bay Mineral Resource currently stands at 50.4Mt @ 2.0%\nCuEq in the Measured & Indicated (M&I) category and a further 29.3Mt @ 2.5%\nCuEq in the Inferred category (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). \n\n* The high-grade core zone contains 8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq of M&I, and an\nadditional 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq of Inferred, Mineral Resource (see ASX\nannouncement dated 18 November 2025).  \n* Six rigs continue to operate underground at the Ming Mine\n* Regional exploration continues with drilling of geophysical targets; Maiden\ndrilling has commenced at the Tilt Cove project \n* The Company is well funded to achieve its growth objectives with ~A$219.9\nmillion in cash and liquid investments as at 31 March 2026\n________________________________\n(1 Metal equivalent for drill results reported in this announcement have been\ncalculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz, silver\nprice of US$25/oz and zinc price of US$2,500/t. Metallurgical recoveries have\nbeen set at 95% for copper, 85% for precious metals and 50% for zinc. CuEq(%)\n= Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.0822) + (Zn(%) x 0.15038). In the\nopinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent\ncalculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold based on\ncurrent market conditions, metallurgical test work, and historical performance\nachieved at the Green Bay project whilst in operation.)\n\n FireFly Managing Director Steve Parsons said: “These are exceptional results with extremely high grades over substantial widths. They also demonstrate the strong \n continuity of this mineralisation. This is an outstanding combination of grade and width. The continuing of this mineralisation is a very positive indicator for the \n upcoming economic studies, which will assess the potential development scenarios for Green Bay. “These results will be included in the economic studies, which are in the \n process of being completed, enabling us to demonstrate the financial benefits of such a rich core of mineralisation. “With six rigs drilling underground, as well as \n regional exploration in progress, we intend to keep growing and upgrading the resource in parallel with economic and technical studies”. \n\nPERTH, Australia, July 01, 2026 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- FireFly Metals Ltd (ASX,\nTSX: FFM) is pleased to announce more exceptional drilling results that\ndemonstrate the strong continuity of the high-grade mineralisation at the\nGreen Bay Copper-Gold Project in Newfoundland and Labrador, Canada.\n\nRecent drilling has continued to focus on upgrading the existing Mineral\nResource as part of the economic studies on the upscaled restart of mining at\nGreen Bay.\n\nInfill drilling of the high-grade convergent core zone (Core Zone) continues\nto return exceptional copper and gold intersections over considerable\nthicknesses.  Latest results from the Core Zone include 42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq and\n51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq further demonstrating continuity of what is shaping as an\neconomically significant part of future mining plans being considered in the\nupcoming economic studies.  The Core Zone has a current Mineral Resource of\n8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq M&I and 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq Inferred with significant\npotential to grow (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). The deepest\nhole drilled to date returning an intersection of 49.1m @ 6.1% CuEq (see ASX\nannouncement dated 16 October 2025). \n\nDrilling of the VMS lodes has confirmed the presence of strong copper and gold\nmineralisation to the west and down-plunge of existing mine development. \nThis is significant because the strike width of the sulphide horizons now\nextends beyond 400m in places and significantly enhances the copper tonnes per\nvertical metre in the deposit.  Recent intersections include 20.7m @ 7.7%\nCuEq, 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq and 25.9m @ 6.4% CuEq.\n\nSelect holes were extended to test mineralisation in the lower footwall zone\nthat hosts copper stringer-style mineralisation.  Results returned included\nthick high-grade zones of 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq, 35.7m @ 3.3% CuEq and 43.5m @\n3.0% CuEq.  \n\nThe drill results reported in this announcement will be incorporated into an\nupdated mid-year Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE).  The current MRE for the\nGreen Bay project stands at 50.4Mt @ 2.0% CuEq M&I and 29.3Mt @ 2.5% CuEq\nInferred (see ASX announcement dated 18 November 2025). \n\nThe mid-year MRE upgrade will underpin the Preliminary Economic Assessment\n(PEA) / Scoping Study that is nearing completion.  The study is anticipated\nfor release in July-August 2026 to enable the recent drilling and the upgraded\nMRE to be incorporated into the mine plan and project economics.  This\nassessment will highlight multiple potential development scenarios for the\nfuture operation at Green Bay.\n\nDrilling continues underground with six rigs focused on a combination of both\ninfill drilling and extending the known Mineral Resource in the high-grade VMS\nzones. \n\nRegional exploration is starting to accelerate following the winter period. \nUntil recently, work has focused on target generation utilising both\ngeophysics, prospecting and historic data compilation.  Two surface rigs are\ncurrently testing geophysical anomalies at Green Bay.  Maiden drilling at the\nCompany’s Tilt Cove project has commenced.\n\nFireFly is well funded to continue its growth drilling, economic studies and\npre-construction early works activities.  The Company has ~A$219.9M in cash\nand liquid investments as at 31 March 2026.\n\n\n\n(Figure 1: Long section through the Green Bay Ming underground mine\nhighlighting the location of select drill results from this announcement only.\nResults from both the high-grade copper-gold VMS zone and broad copper\nFootwall Zone are shown.  The large scale DHEM conductor (green) beyond the\nedge of the current Mineral Resource highlights strong potential for the\nMineral Resource to continue. Drill assays >0.5% copper are shown in red. All\nintersections downhole thickness.  Refer to Appendix B for all drill results\nand locations.)\n\nAbout the Drilling Results\n\nDrilling at the Ming underground copper-gold mine recommenced following\nFireFly’s acquisition of the Green Bay Copper-Gold Project in October\n2023.  In total, FireFly has completed ~192,000m of underground diamond\ndrilling up to 31 May 2026. \n\nThis announcement contains the results of 67 completed drill holes.  The\ndrilling results focus on infill drilling and holes targeting the lateral\nmargins of the mineralisation.  Logging and analysis of additional drill\nholes is ongoing. \n\nThere are two distinct styles of mineralisation present at the Ming Mine,\nconsisting of a series of upper copper-gold rich VMS lenses underlain by a\nbroad copper-rich stringer zone, known as the Footwall Zone (FWZ).\n\nThe FWZ is extensive, with the copper stringer mineralisation observed over\nthicknesses of ~150m and widths exceeding 200m.  The known strike of the\nmineralisation defined to date is three kilometres and it remains open\ndown-plunge. \n\nThe high-grade Core Zone consists of the VMS and the upper FWZ mineralisation\nwhere the two styles converge down-plunge. The Core Zone has a current Mineral\nResource of 8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq M&I and 10.9Mt @ 3.8% CuEq.   \n\nSix drill rigs are currently operating underground, with the focus split\nbetween both step-out extension (two rigs) and infill Mineral Resource\nconversion drilling (four rigs).\n\nAll drilling reported in this announcement has been conducted from the 805L\ndrill drive.  Whilst this development is currently being utilised for\nexploration, it will form an important part of future mine infrastructure for\nthe potential upscaled operation.\n\nAdditional development has been completed from this drive to position the rigs\nto test for high grade extensions of the 1806 and 1807 VMS lodes.  The\nlocation of drill platforms and holes reported in this announcement are\npresented in Figure 2. Significant assay results are presented in Appendix B\nof this announcement.\n\n\n\n(Figure 2:  Isometric view of the Ming Mine 805L Exploration Drive showing\nthe location of drill platforms and drilling reported in this announcement.\nAssay results greater than 0.5% Cu are shown in red.)\n\nResource Conversion Drilling\n\n805L Exploration Drive Crosscut 3 West\n\nThe drilling reported from the mid-section of the 805L Exploration drive\n(Crosscut 3 West) focused on upgrading the data density of the Inferred\nMineral Resource reported in MRE announced by the Company on 18 November 2025\n(November 2025 MRE).   \n\nDrilling focused on conversion of the western peripheral margins of the\nhigh-grade VMS zones which will potentially form an important high-grade\ncomponent in the early years of an upscaled restart of production at the Ming\nMine.  The zones at the margins of the VMS lenses are typically gold-rich\nwhich is likely the result of lateral variations in both fluid composition and\nfluid depositional temperature.\n\nResults from the 805L Crosscut 3 are summarised in Table 1.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_257 VMS 285.1 287.4 2.3 3.20 4.9 31.3 1.36 7.68 Multiple gold-rich VMS zones separated by post-mineral gabbro \n VMS 291.4 296.7 5.3 0.80 1.6 6.2 0.24 2.17 \n MUG25_262 VMS 262.9 269.2 6.3 1.72 1.4 11.7 0.83 3.08 VMS zone at outer western margin \n MUG25_264 VMS 254.8 261.6 6.8 2.49 2.5 28.7 2.24 5.12 Copper-gold VMS zone \n MUG25_272 VMS 465.2 489.8 24.7 1.39 2.6 20.8 0.38 3.74 Multiple gold-dominated VMS zones including a 2.6m intersection grading 9.9g/t Au \n VMS 501.4 504.0 2.6 4.38 9.9 38.3 1.80 13.14 \n MUG26_001 FWZ 526.8 528.8 2.0 1.17 0.1 1.2 0.06 1.26 Isolated copper stringers in the FW \n MUG26_039 VMS 340.9 347.0 6.1 4.40 3.7 27.9 1.33 7.91 VMS with high-grade copper and gold \n\n(Table 1: Drill results from the 805L Exploration Drive Crosscut 3 West.  All\nresults presented are downhole intervals.  Based on drill angles and\ninterpreted geology the true thickness is approximately 60-75% of the reported\ndownhole interval for holes drilled in the 805L Crosscut 3.)\n\n880R 1807 Crosscut\n\nDrilling completed from the 880L 1807 Remuck was designed to test down-plunge\nextents of the western margin of the VMS lodes.  The three holes that\nsuccessfully reached target intersected copper and/or gold rich VMS style\nmineralisation (Table 2).\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG26_002 VMS 308.2 315.2 7.0 4.62 2.7 27.3 0.40 7.09 Copper and gold rich VMS zone \n MUG26_023 VMS 273.2 281.7 8.6 1.80 2.0 20.7 2.97 4.05 Zinc-rich copper and gold zone \n MUG26_043 VMS 422.8 425.3 2.4 0.38 2.2 13.7 0.06 2.29 Thin gold-dominated VMS zone at the margins of the channel \n\n(Table 2: Drill results from the 880R 1807 Crosscut.  All results presented\nare downhole intervals.  Based on drill angles and interpreted geology the\ntrue thickness is approximately 75-80% of the reported downhole interval for\nholes drilled in the 880R 1807 crosscut.)\n\n880R Remuck 1 and 2\n\nThe drilling completed from the 880 Remuck bays 1 and two focused on infill\ndrilling of the eastern high-grade VMS zones with select holes continued\ndeeper into the footwall stringer mineralisation.\n\nThe VMS mineralisation intersected to the east is typically copper-dominant\nwith moderate to locally high-gold grades.\n\nResults from the 880R Remuck bays are summarised in Table 3.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_246 VMS 314.3 318.4 4.1 5.40 2.0 13.8 1.14 7.33 High grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_250 FWZ 505.9 511.8 5.9 1.56 0.1 1.4 0.04 1.64 Multiple zones of moderately grading footwall stringer veins from ~506m to ~580m \n FWZ 528.8 539.0 10.2 1.79 0.1 1.5 0.02 1.87 \n FWZ 546.3 562.4 16.2 1.31 0.1 1.3 0.02 1.37 \n FWZ 567.5 579.4 11.9 1.59 0.1 1.7 0.03 1.66 \n MUG25_255 VMS 319.8 330.3 10.5 3.05 1.8 16.5 1.50 4.86 Thick zone of copper dominated VMS mineralisation \n MUG25_260 VMS 322.8 332.5 9.8 5.04 1.8 12.9 1.34 6.80 Thick and high-grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_263 VMS 342.1 345.0 2.9 1.25 0.5 3.3 0.60 1.78 Thin VMS zone with gabbro dykes \n MUG25_265 VMS 326.5 330.3 3.8 2.43 1.2 13.9 1.98 3.82 Copper-gold VMS \n MUG25_270 VMS 329.4 338.8 9.4 2.66 1.4 12.5 2.03 4.26 An upper copper-gold VMS underlain by a gold rich zone devoid of copper \n VMS 340.5 348.0 7.5 0.03 1.1 7.4 0.56 1.08 \n MUG25_277 VMS 329.5 341.3 11.8 2.32 1.2 11.2 1.56 3.62 Thick moderately grading VMS zone with both copper and gold \n MUG25_283 VMS 365.3 369.2 3.9 1.39 1.2 16.8 0.67 2.62 VMS zone at mineralisation margins \n\n(Table 3: Drill results from the 880R Remuck 1 and 2 drill cuddies.  All\nresults presented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n900L Crosscuts 7 and 8\n\n900L Crosscuts 7 and 8 were mined during 2026 as drill platforms to test the\nwestern zones of the VMS mineralisation.\n\nWork completed from the 900L crosscuts 7 and 8 was focused on infilling and\nextending the western margins of the Ming North VMS lode.  This drilling\nsuccessfully demonstrated both down-plunge and lateral continuity of the\nzones, highlighted by intersections including 20.7m @ 7.7% CuEq, 9.3m @ 7.0%\nCuEq and 17.8m @ 6.7% CuEq.\n\nSelect holes were extended to test footwall mineralisation.\n\nDrilling completed from the 900L Crosscuts 7 and 8 reported in this\nannouncement is summarised in Table 4.  \n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_261 VMS 400.3 403.4 3.1 7.99 2.6 19.0 1.65 10.55 High-grade copper and gold VMS \n MUG25_267 VMS 390.1 399.4 9.3 5.10 1.6 20.3 2.94 7.00 Thick zone of copper-dominated high grade VMS \n MUG25_273 VMS 375.9 378.2 2.3 4.04 1.4 14.9 0.56 5.41 Multiple VMS horizons intersected separated by ~13m \n VMS 391.1 396.9 5.8 1.95 0.8 4.2 0.17 2.66 \n MUG25_279 VMS 384.2 401.9 17.8 5.40 1.3 15.8 0.36 6.69 Thick high-grade upper VMS grading into sericite-rich upper-footwall stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 413.0 415.0 2.0 1.85 0.1 1.7 0.06 1.99 \n FWZ 423.1 426.0 2.9 1.36 0.1 1.1 0.18 1.49 \n MUG25_280 VMS 383.5 387.7 4.2 2.71 1.1 13.4 2.96 4.20 Copper-gold VMS horizon \n MUG26_003 VMS 404.0 416.8 12.8 3.02 2.0 12.6 3.33 5.28 Thick copper and gold VMS \n MUG26_013 VMS 375.0 395.7 20.7 5.90 1.9 14.1 0.74 7.71 Massive sulphide zone transitioning into footwall stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 411.0 416.8 5.8 3.39 0.2 3.8 0.22 3.63 \n MUG26_015 VMS 389.5 400.0 10.6 3.72 1.7 20.0 3.57 5.82 VMS zone with strong copper and gold grades with high silver and zinc contents \n MUG26_029 VMS 377.0 390.6 13.6 5.72 1.1 15.4 0.40 6.83 Chalcopyrite-dominated VMS zone \n MUG26_031 VMS 373.5 382.7 9.2 2.18 1.0 14.6 2.75 3.56 Moderately grading pyrite-dominated VMS \n MUG26_038 VMS 369.7 388.3 18.6 4.48 1.7 17.2 0.80 6.13 Thick zone of copper and gold mineralisation grading into footwall stringers \n MUG26_042 VMS 387.3 398.8 11.6 2.94 2.5 19.1 0.78 5.23 Copper-gold VMS \n MUG26_046 VMS 391.0 395.5 4.5 3.05 3.1 30.9 1.61 6.09 Polymetallic copper-gold VMS intersection with high silver grade \n\n(Table 4: Drill results from the 900L Crosscuts 7 and 8.  All results\npresented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n900L Crosscuts 5 and 6\n\nThe 900L crosscuts 5 and 6 are the northern-most drill positions in the 805L\nexploration drive.  Drilling completed from crosscuts 5 and 6 reported in\nthis announcement focused on the conversion of Inferred Mineral Resources to\nthe higher confidence M&I category for inclusion in the upcoming economic\nstudies.\n\nThe drilling successfully demonstrated continuity of the convergent high-grade\ncore zone, with notable intersections including 42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq, 51.5m @\n4.9% CuEq, 34.4m @ 5.0% CuEq and 50.2m @ 4.0% CuEq.\n\nInfill drilling of the footwall stringer zone successfully confirmed thick and\ncontinuous mineralisation with key intersections including 25.3m @ 3.8% CuEq,\n35.7m @ 3.3% CuEq and 30.1m @ 2.1% CuEq.\n\nA summary of the results of drilling from the 900L Crosscuts 5 and 6 is\npresented in Table 5.\n\n Hole Number Style From To Width Assay CuEq Comments \n (m) (m) (m) % \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_247 VMS 441.8 444.1 2.3 3.68 5.9 64.8 0.62 9.12 Thin high-grade upper VMS zone with multiple lower footwall stringer intersections \n FWZ 533.2 539.0 5.9 1.52 0.2 1.7 0.15 1.71 \n FWZ 555.0 579.0 24.0 1.00 0.1 1.0 0.01 1.06 \n FWZ 602.5 622.0 19.6 1.40 0.1 1.9 0.01 1.45 \n MUG25_258 FWZ 517.0 529.0 12.0 1.33 0.2 1.3 0.10 1.51 Multiple footwall stringer style intersections highlighted by a thick zone grading 31.3m @ 2.1% CuEq from 628.8m \n FWZ 557.3 566.0 8.7 1.82 0.2 1.9 0.03 2.04 \n FWZ 598.0 603.2 5.2 1.39 0.1 1.2 0.01 1.46 \n FWZ 628.8 660.0 31.3 1.97 0.1 2.4 0.01 2.07 \n MUG25_266 VMS 457.0 459.9 2.9 1.81 0.9 10.3 3.56 3.19 Thin upper VMS underlain by two thick FW stringer zones both grading over 2% CuEq \n FWZ 512.0 529.8 17.8 1.86 0.4 2.6 0.02 2.18 \n FWZ 536.3 573.0 36.8 1.98 0.1 1.8 0.11 2.08 \n MUG25_276 VMS 464.3 469.0 4.8 0.87 1.5 13.6 0.90 2.38 Gold-dominant pyritic VMS above multiple FW stringer zone intersections \n VMS 473.0 479.0 6.0 3.53 2.1 28.9 0.58 5.58 \n FWZ 567.0 599.0 32.0 1.41 0.1 1.5 0.18 1.50 \n FWZ 607.0 613.0 6.0 1.62 0.1 2.5 0.15 1.74 \n MUG25_278 VMS 460.8 468.2 7.4 2.14 1.2 8.6 0.82 3.33 Strong upper VMS over two thick coherent zones of footwall stringer veins \n FWZ 484.1 519.8 35.7 3.07 0.2 3.2 0.04 3.27 \n FWZ 531.1 548.7 17.6 1.64 0.1 1.2 0.04 1.74 \n MUG25_281 VMS 509.2 518.4 9.2 1.79 4.9 21.5 0.49 6.09 Gold-dominated thick VMS with two coherent zones of stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 580.5 588.5 8.0 2.09 0.2 1.7 0.11 2.33 \n FWZ 612.8 642.9 30.1 1.92 0.1 2.0 0.32 2.06 \n MUG25_285 VMS / FWZ 461.1 506.4 45.3 2.61 0.4 4.3 0.29 3.01 Convergent zone with a high-grade upper VMS transitioning immediately into FW stringers \n MUG26_005 VMS 452.9 457.3 4.4 0.79 2.6 26.8 0.59 3.23 Gold-dominated upper VMS with multiple lower-grade stringer intersections between ~513m and 634m \n FWZ 513.3 519.0 5.7 1.57 0.2 2.7 0.13 1.79 \n FWZ 570.1 582.0 12.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.01 1.33 \n FWZ 595.0 602.8 7.8 1.12 0.0 1.1 0.01 1.17 \n FWZ 607.2 634.0 26.8 1.35 0.1 1.7 0.01 1.42 \n MUG26_008 VMS 484.2 489.9 5.8 2.90 0.4 6.0 0.25 3.30 Upper massive sulphide horizon with a high-grade upper footwall stringer zone ~24m beneath the VMS \n FWZ 513.3 538.5 25.3 3.54 0.3 3.8 0.06 3.79 \n FWZ 561.1 568.0 6.9 1.88 0.1 1.5 0.06 1.98 \n MUG26_022 VMS 506.2 510.1 3.9 2.51 4.3 65.1 0.86 6.72 Copper-gold VMS with multiple FWZ intersections \n FWZ 550.3 553.1 2.8 2.19 0.2 2.4 0.05 2.39 \n FWZ 563.3 575.9 12.6 1.55 0.4 2.1 0.02 1.88 \n FWZ 588.6 608.0 19.4 1.84 0.1 1.8 0.14 1.95 \n MUG26_028 VMS / FWZ 436.9 471.3 34.4 3.81 1.2 11.0 0.56 4.98 Convergent Core Zone including an upper VMS zone grading 14.3m @ 7.6% CuEq \n Including VMS 436.9 451.2 14.3 5.16 2.5 21.4 1.21 7.62 \n MUG26_036 VMS / FWZ 425.9 476.1 50.2 3.50 0.4 5.1 0.73 3.97 High-grade convergent Core Zone with VMS immediately grading into a high-grade enriched FW stringer zone grading 32.4m @ 4.7% CuEq \n Including VMS 425.9 437.7 11.8 2.25 0.6 7.4 2.87 3.22 \n Including FWZ 443.7 476.1 32.4 4.52 0.1 1.6 0.02 4.66 \n MUG26_040 VMS 571.0 573.0 2.0 3.21 1.9 7.7 0.20 4.89 Thin upper VMS over multiple zones of stringer mineralisation \n FWZ 604.0 612.0 8.0 2.06 0.3 2.3 0.10 2.34 \n FWZ 625.0 628.0 3.0 4.04 0.3 4.3 0.02 4.35 \n MUG26_044 VMS 468.2 494.1 25.9 5.48 1.0 8.4 0.21 6.43 High-grade thick VMS zone with some FW stringers towards the base \n MUG26_045 VMS 453.4 457.0 3.6 1.96 0.6 5.8 0.33 2.54 Moderate VMS \n MUG26_053 VMS / FWZ 413.1 455.1 42.0 4.74 1.4 10.0 0.84 6.13 Core Zone with an extremely high- grade upper VMS grading 9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq \n Including VMS 421.6 431.4 9.8 12.68 4.0 27.8 1.60 16.46 \n MUG26_054 VMS / FWZ 404.7 456.1 51.5 3.99 0.9 9.0 0.87 4.91 Core Zone with a high-grade zone grading 17m @ 9.1% CuEq \n Including VMS 415.0 432.0 17.0 7.48 1.7 17.4 0.72 9.09 \n\n(Table 5: Drill results from the 900L Crosscuts 5 and 6.  All results\npresented are approximate true thickness unless otherwise stated.)\n\n2026 Forward Work Plans\nThe FireFly growth strategy remains focused on advancing the Green Bay project\ntowards the resumption of upscaled copper and gold production.  Near term\nactivities remain focused on:\n* Upgrading the Mineral Resource, through infill drilling, from Inferred to\nM&I Mineral Resource\n* Mineral Resource Growth, through down-plunge drilling;\n* Completion of the Preliminary Economic Assessment in July/August 2026;\n* Advancement of permitting, engineering and early works to support future\ndevelopment scenarios; and\n* New Discoveries from both underground and surface regional exploration\ndrilling.\nGreen Bay (Ming Mine) Mineral Resource Development\n\nAs of 31 May 2026, the Company had completed ~192,000 metres of underground\ndiamond drilling.  Six underground rigs will continue to advance the\nunderground Mineral Resource conversion and extension activities for the\nforeseeable future. \n\nNear-term underground drilling will remain focused on infill definition to\nupgrade areas of Inferred to the higher confidence M&I Mineral Resources ahead\nof economic studies into resuming upscaled production at Green Bay. The\ndecision to focus on infill drilling is driven by numerous factors,\nincluding: \n* The requirement for a minimum of 70% M&I Mineral Resources in early-stage\neconomic studies.  Conversion drilling also has the potential to generate\nshareholder value through maximising the quantity of economic material\navailable for incorporation into mine plans resulting in longer mine life in\nthe initial study;\n* Future potential Ore Reserves can only be generated from M&I Mineral\nResources;\n* M&I Mineral Resources can be incorporated into Feasibility Studies; and\n* De-risking the project by further increasing confidence in the geological\nmodel and grade estimation.\nGreen Bay (Ming Mine) Mineral Resource Growth\n\nMineral Resource growth in coming months will be driven by testing down plunge\nextensions of the high-grade VMS channels parallel to the Ming North lode. \nDrilling in this announcement shows the 1806 VMS continues at depth and\nMineral Resource additions are expected from this zone.   \n\nA MRE update is planned and will incorporate drilling completed since the\nissue of the previous estimate in November 2025.  This update will be the\nestimate used to complete the first economic studies.       \n\nEconomic Studies\n\nEconomic and technical studies on the upscaled resumption of copper and gold\nproduction at Green Bay are well underway. \n\nThe study, intended for completion in July/August 2026, will meet the criteria\nof a Scoping Study (in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting\nof Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code 2012))\nand Preliminary Economic Assessment (in Canadian National Instrument NI 43-101\n– Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101)).\n\nThe study will consider various development scenarios for the project,\nincluding several haulage scenarios (e.g., shaft, decline), annual production\nrates (scale), and life of mine metal production. \n\nProject Development\n\nThe Company has secured conditional release from further Environmental\nAssessment by the Province of Newfoundland and Labrador for a start-up mining\nand processing operation (see ASX announcement dated 5 August 2025).  FireFly\nhas now satisfied conditions of the release and has commenced applying for\npermits.  The Company has commenced selective low-cost seasonal early works\nto prepare the Project for future development and construction.\n\nRegional & Generative Exploration\n\nRegional exploration is accelerating following a scheduled winter hiatus.\nRecent activity has focused on target generation incorporating both geophysics\nsurvey and interpretation, prospecting programs and compilation of historic\ndatasets. Two surface diamond drill rigs are currently testing geophysical\nanomalies in the areas south of the Ming Mine. A third surface rig has\ncommenced drilling at the Company’s Tilt Cove project.\n\nBalance Sheet and Funding Position\n\nFireFly is well-funded to execute its growth drilling program, economic\nstudies and pre-construction early works activities. As at 31 March 2026, the\nCompany has approximately A$219.9 million in cash and liquid investments. \n\n\n\n(Figure 3: Timeline of key activities at the Green Bay copper-gold project. \n)\n(1. Please note that timeframes are indicative and may be subject to change.)\n\n Steve Parsons Managing Director FireFly Metals Ltd +61 8 9220 9030 Jessie Liu-Ernsting Chief Development Officer FireFly Metals Ltd +1 709 800 1929 Paul Armstrong Media Read Corporate +61 8 9388 1474 \n\nABOUT FIREFLY METALS LTD\n\nFireFly Metals Ltd (ASX, TSX: FFM | OTCPK: FFMFF) is an emerging copper-gold\ncompany focused on advancing the high-grade Green Bay Copper-Gold Project in\nNewfoundland, Canada. The Green Bay Copper-Gold Project currently hosts 50.4Mt\nof Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources at 2.0% for 1,016Kt copper\nequivalent (CuEq) and 29.3Mt of Inferred Mineral Resources at 2.5% for 722Kt\nCuEq, prepared and disclosed in accordance with the 2012 Edition of the\nAustralasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and\nOre Reserves (JORC Code 2012) and Canadian National Instrument 43-101 -\nStandards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (NI 43-101). The Company has a\nclear strategy to rapidly grow the copper-gold Mineral Resource to demonstrate\na globally significant copper-gold asset.\n\nThe Company also holds a 90% interest in the Limestone Well Vanadium-Titanium\nProject in Western Australia.\n\nFurther information regarding FireFly Metals Ltd is available on the ASX\nplatform (ASX: FFM) or the Company’s website www.fireflymetals.com.au or\nSEDAR+ www.sedarplus.ca.\n\nCOMPLIANCE STATEMENTS\n\nMineral Resource Estimate – Green Bay Project\nThe Mineral Resource Estimate for the Green Bay Project referred to in this\nannouncement and set out in Appendix A was first reported in the Company’s\nASX announcement dated 18 November 2025, titled ‘Mineral Resource increases\n51% to 1.4Mt of copper and 1.1Moz of gold’ and is also set out in the\nTechnical Report for the Ming Copper-Gold Mine, titled ‘National Instrument\n43-101 Technical Report, FireFly Metals Ltd, Green Bay Ming Mine Copper-Gold\nProject, Newfoundland’ with an issue date of 1 December 2025 and a Mineral\nResource effective date of 18 November 2025, available on SEDAR+ at\nwww.sedarplus.ca.\n\nMineral Resource Estimate – Little Deer\nThe Mineral Resource Estimate for Little Deer referred to in this announcement\nwas first reported in the Company’s ASX announcement dated 29 October 2024,\ntitled ‘Resource Increases 42% to 1.2Mt of contained metal at 2% Copper\nEq’ and is also set out in the Technical Report for the Little Deer Copper\nProject, titled ‘Technical Report and Updated Mineral Resource Estimate of\nthe Little Deer Complex Copper Deposits, Newfoundland, Canada’ with an\neffective date of 26 June 2024, available on SEDAR+ at www.sedarplus.ca.\n\nMetal equivalents\nMetal equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results\nhave been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of\nUS$2,500/oz, silver price of US$25/oz and zinc price of US$2,500/t. Individual\nMineral Resource grades for the metals are set out in Appendix A of this\nannouncement. Individual grades for the metals for the reporting of metal\nequivalents for Exploration Results are set out in the ASX announcements in\nwhich the Exploration Results were first reported by the Company.\n\nCopper equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates do not include zinc and\nwere calculated based on the formula:\n\nCuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822).\n\nCopper equivalents for the Exploration Results include zinc and were\ncalculated based on the formula:\n\nCuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822) + (Zn(%) x\n0.15038)\n\nMetallurgical factors have been applied to the metal equivalent calculation.\nCopper recovery used was 95%. Historical production at the Ming Mine has a\ndocumented copper recovery of ~96%. Precious metal (gold and silver)\nmetallurgical recovery was assumed at 85% on the basis of historical\nrecoveries achieved at the Ming Mine in addition to historical metallurgical\ntest work to increase precious metal recoveries.\n\nIn the opinion of the Company, all elements included in the metal equivalent\ncalculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold based on\ncurrent market conditions, metallurgical test work, the Company’s\noperational experience and, where relevant, historical performance achieved at\nthe Green Bay project whilst in operation.\n\nExploration Results\nThe exploration results referred to in this announcement were first reported\nby the Company in the ASX announcements cross-referenced in this announcement.\n\nOriginal Announcements\nFireFly confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that\nmaterially affects the information included in the original announcements\nreferred to or cross-referenced in this announcement and that, in the case of\nMineral Resource Estimates, all material assumptions and technical parameters\nunderpinning the estimates in the original announcements continue to apply and\nhave not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and context in\nwhich the Competent Persons’ and Qualified Persons’ findings are presented\nhave not been materially modified from the original market announcements.\n\nMineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results\nMineral Resource Estimates and Exploration Results are calculated in\naccordance with the JORC Code 2012 and NI 43-101.\n\nCompetent and Qualified Person Statements\nThe information in this announcement that relates to new Exploration Results\nis based on and fairly represents information compiled by Mr Darren Cooke, a\nCompetent Person who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.\nMr Cooke is a full-time employee of, and holds securities in, the Company. Mr\nCooke has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of\nmineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity\nbeing undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code\n2012. Mr Cooke has reviewed this announcement and consents to the inclusion in\nthis announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and\ncontext in which they appear.\n\nAll technical and scientific information in this announcement has been\nreviewed and approved by Group Chief Geologist, Mr Juan Gutierrez BSc, Geology\n(Masters), Geostatistics (Postgraduate Diploma), who is a Member and Chartered\nProfessional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a\nMember of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Gutierrez is a\nCompetent Person as defined in the JORC Code 2012 and a Qualified Person as\ndefined in NI 43-101. Mr Gutierrez is a full-time employee of, and holds\nsecurities in, the Company. Mr Gutierrez has sufficient experience that is\nrelevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under\nconsideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent\nPerson as defined in the JORC Code 2012 and a Qualified Person as defined in\nNI 43-101. Mr Gutierrez has reviewed this announcement and consents to the\ninclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the\nform and context in which they appear.\n\nFORWARD-LOOKING INFORMATION\n\nThis announcement may contain certain forward-looking statements and\nprojections, including statements regarding FireFly’s plans, forecasts and\nprojections with respect to its mineral properties and programs.\nForward-looking statements may be identified by the use of words such as\n‘may’, ‘might’, ‘could’, ‘would’, ‘will’, ‘expect’,\n‘intend’, ‘believe’, ‘forecast’, ‘milestone’, ‘objective’,\n‘predict’, ‘plan’, ‘scheduled’, ‘estimate’, ‘anticipate’,\n‘continue’, or other similar words and may include, without limitation,\nstatements regarding plans, strategies and objectives.\n\nAlthough the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement reflect\nmanagement’s current beliefs based upon information currently available to\nmanagement and based upon what management believes to be reasonable\nassumptions, such forward-looking statements and projections are estimates\nonly and should not be relied upon. They are not guarantees of future\nperformance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other\nfactors, many of which are beyond the control of the Company, which may\ninclude changes in commodity prices, foreign exchange fluctuations, economic,\nsocial and political conditions, and changes to applicable regulation, and\nthose risks outlined in the Company’s public disclosures.\n\nThe forward-looking statements and projections are inherently uncertain and\nmay therefore differ materially from results ultimately achieved. For example,\nthere can be no assurance that FireFly will be able to confirm the presence of\nMineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that FireFly’s plans for development of\nits mineral properties will proceed, that any mineralisation will prove to be\neconomic, or that a mine will be successfully developed on any of FireFly’s\nmineral properties. The performance of FireFly may be influenced by a number\nof factors which are outside of the control of the Company, its directors,\nofficers, employees and contractors. The Company does not make any\nrepresentations and provides no warranties concerning the accuracy of any\nforward-looking statements or projections, and disclaims any obligation to\nupdate or revise any forward-looking statements or projections based on new\ninformation, future events or circumstances or otherwise, except to the extent\nrequired by applicable laws.\n\nAPPENDIX A\n\nGreen Bay Copper-Gold Project Mineral Resource Estimate\n\nMing Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured 6.3 1.5 94 0.3 50 1.9 388 1.7 \n Indicated 41.2 1.7 708 0.4 488 3.2 4,320 2.1 \n TOTAL M&I 47.5 1.7 802 0.4 537 3.1 4,708 2.0 \n Inferred 23.1 2.0 456 0.7 553 5.9 4,379 2.6 \n\nLittle Deer Mineral Resource Estimate\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured - - - - - - - - \n Indicated 2.9 2.1 62 0.1 9 3.4 320 2.3 \n TOTAL M&I 2.9 2.1 62 0.1 9 3.4 320 2.3 \n Inferred 6.2 1.8 110 0.1 10 2.2 430 1.8 \n\nGREEN BAY TOTAL MINERAL RESOURCE ESTIMATE\n\n TONNES COPPER GOLD SILVER CuEq \n (Mt) Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade Metal Grade \n (%) (‘000 t) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (g/t) (‘000 oz) (%) \n Measured 6.3 1.5 94 0.3 50 1.9 388 1.7 \n Indicated 44.1 1.7 769 0.4 496 3.3 4,638 2.1 \n TOTAL M&I 50.4 1.7 863 0.3 546 3.1 5,026 2.0 \n Inferred 29.3 1.9 566 0.6 563 5.1 4,810 2.5 \n \n1. FireFly Metals Ltd Mineral Resource Estimates for the Green Bay Copper-Gold\nProject, incorporating the Ming Deposit and Little Deer Complex, are prepared\nand reported in accordance with the JORC Code 2012 and NI 43-101. \n2. Mineral Resources have been reported at a 1.0% copper cut-off grade.\n3. Metal equivalents for the Mineral Resource Estimates have been calculated\nat a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz and silver price of\nUS$25/oz.  Metallurgical recoveries have been set at 95% for copper and 85%\nfor both gold and silver. These assumptions are made of the basis of\nhistorical production at the Ming Mine and additional metallurgical test work.\nCopper equivalent was calculated based on the formula: CuEq(%) = Cu(%) +\n(Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822).\n4. Totals may vary due to rounding.\nAPPENDIX B – Significant Intersection Table\n\nCollar co-ordinates and orientation are listed in the local Ming Mine grid,\nwhich is rotated +35 degrees from NAD83 True North.  Significant\nintersections reported are those above a 1% copper cut-off or 0.5g/t gold, and\ncontain a maximum of 6 metres of internal waste. Please refer to the\ncompliance statements for further details on parameters used in the copper\nequivalent calculation. All results are approximate true width (TW) unless\notherwise noted.\n\n Hole Number Easting Northing RL Azi Dip Drilled Length (m) From (m) To Width Assay CuEq % \n (m) (m) \n Cu % Au g/t Ag g/t Zn % \n MUG25_235 1,206.9 2,355.8 -917.0 182 - 68 234 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_242 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 210 5 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_246 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 215 -67 357 314.3 318.4 4.1 5.40 2.0 13.8 1.14 7.33 \n MUG25_247 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 176 -70 690 441.8 444.1 2.3 3.68 5.9 64.8 0.62 9.12 \n 498.0 501.5 3.5 1.33 0.5 1.8 0.07 1.75 \n 533.2 539.0 5.9 1.52 0.2 1.7 0.15 1.71 \n 555.0 579.0 24.0 1.00 0.1 1.0 0.01 1.06 \n 602.5 622.0 19.6 1.40 0.1 1.9 0.01 1.45 \n MUG25_248 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 224 -5 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_250 1,222.1 2,255.1 -906.4 162 -63 615 505.9 511.8 5.9 1.56 0.1 1.4 0.04 1.64 \n 528.8 539.0 10.2 1.79 0.1 1.5 0.02 1.87 \n 546.3 562.4 16.2 1.31 0.1 1.3 0.02 1.37 \n 567.5 579.4 11.9 1.59 0.1 1.7 0.03 1.66 \n MUG25_251 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 223 -75 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_255 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 223 -57 357 319.8 330.3 10.5 3.05 1.8 16.5 1.50 4.86 \n MUG25_256 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 172 -76 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_257 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 226 -9 363 285.1 287.4 2.3 ((1.6m TW)) 3.20 4.9 31.3 1.36 7.68 \n 291.4 296.7 5.3 ((4.8m TW)) 0.80 1.6 6.2 0.24 2.17 \n MUG25_258 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 172 -76 696 517.0 529.0 12.0 1.33 0.2 1.3 0.10 1.51 \n 557.3 566.0 8.7 1.82 0.2 1.9 0.03 2.04 \n 598.0 603.2 5.2 1.39 0.1 1.2 0.01 1.46 \n 611.0 614.0 3.0 1.20 0.0 0.9 0.01 1.24 \n 628.8 660.0 31.3 1.97 0.1 2.4 0.01 2.07 \n MUG25_260 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 227 -64 381 322.8 332.5 9.8 5.04 1.8 12.9 1.34 6.80 \n MUG25_261 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 185 -79 450 400.3 403.4 3.1 7.99 2.6 19.0 1.65 10.55 \n MUG25_262 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 229 -15 375 262.9 269.2 6.3 ((4.4m TW)) 1.72 1.4 11.7 0.83 3.08 \n MUG25_263 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 235 -70 414 342.1 345.0 2.9 1.25 0.5 3.3 0.60 1.78 \n MUG25_264 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 234 -22 375 254.8 261.6 6.8 ((4.8m TW)) 2.49 2.5 28.7 2.24 5.12 \n MUG25_265 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 227 -51 360 326.5 330.3 3.8 2.43 1.2 13.9 1.98 3.82 \n MUG25_266 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 175 -74 641 457.0 459.9 2.9 1.81 0.9 10.3 3.56 3.19 \n 476.7 478.7 2.0 1.91 0.3 3.9 0.05 2.21 \n 484.6 486.8 2.2 1.66 0.1 2.6 0.09 1.77 \n 512.0 529.8 17.8 1.86 0.4 2.6 0.02 2.18 \n 536.3 573.0 36.8 1.98 0.1 1.8 0.11 2.08 \n MUG25_267 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 193 -74 429 390.1 399.4 9.3 5.10 1.6 20.3 2.94 7.00 \n MUG25_268 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 48 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_269 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 210 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_270 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 233 -57 375 329.4 338.8 9.4 2.66 1.4 12.5 2.03 4.26 \n 340.5 348.0 7.5 0.03 1.1 7.4 0.56 1.08 \n MUG25_271 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 147 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_272 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 223 7 540 465.2 489.8 24.7 ((16.0m TW)) 1.39 2.6 20.8 0.38 3.74 \n 501.4 504.0 2.6 ((1.7m TW)) 4.38 9.9 38.3 1.80 13.14 \n MUG25_273 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 197 -68 408 375.9 378.2 2.3 4.04 1.4 14.9 0.56 5.41 \n 391.1 396.9 5.8 1.95 0.8 4.2 0.17 2.66 \n MUG25_274 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_275 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 143 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_276 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 187 -75 711 464.3 469.0 4.8 0.87 1.5 13.6 0.90 2.38 \n 473.0 479.0 6.0 3.53 2.1 28.9 0.58 5.58 \n 543.9 547.0 3.1 1.31 0.1 1.1 0.16 1.42 \n 567.0 599.0 32.0 1.41 0.1 1.5 0.18 1.50 \n 607.0 613.0 6.0 1.62 0.1 2.5 0.15 1.74 \n MUG25_277 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 230 -64 375 329.5 341.3 11.8 2.32 1.2 11.2 1.56 3.62 \n MUG25_278 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 175 -78 642 460.8 468.2 7.4 2.14 1.2 8.6 0.82 3.33 \n 484.1 519.8 35.7 3.07 0.2 3.2 0.04 3.27 \n 531.1 548.7 17.6 1.64 0.1 1.2 0.04 1.74 \n MUG25_279 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 162 -72 471 384.2 401.9 17.8 5.40 1.3 15.8 0.36 6.69 \n 413.0 415.0 2.0 1.85 0.1 1.7 0.06 1.99 \n 423.1 426.0 2.9 1.36 0.1 1.1 0.18 1.49 \n MUG25_280 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 205 -64 411 383.5 387.7 4.2 2.71 1.1 13.4 2.96 4.20 \n MUG25_281 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -83 753 509.2 518.4 9.2 1.79 4.9 21.5 0.49 6.09 \n 580.5 588.5 8.0 2.09 0.2 1.7 0.11 2.33 \n 595.0 598.0 3.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.09 1.38 \n 612.8 642.9 30.1 1.92 0.1 2.0 0.32 2.06 \n 725.4 728.4 3.0 1.56 0.3 4.6 0.04 1.81 \n MUG25_282 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 190 -78 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_283 1,117.0 2,190.3 -894.0 236 -43 438 365.3 369.2 3.9 1.39 1.2 16.8 0.67 2.62 \n MUG25_284 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 206 -78 36 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG25_285 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 190 -78 575 461.1 506.4 45.3 2.61 0.4 4.3 0.29 3.01 \n MUG26_001 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 232 8 547 526.8 528.8 2.0 ((1.2m TW)) 1.17 0.1 1.2 0.06 1.26 \n MUG26_002 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 192 -20 357 308.2 315.2 7.0 ((5.6m TW)) 4.62 2.7 27.3 0.40 7.09 \n MUG26_003 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 206 -78 432 404.0 416.8 12.8 3.02 2.0 12.6 3.33 5.28 \n MUG26_004 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 159 -73 72 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_005 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 179 -73 690 452.9 457.3 4.4 0.79 2.6 26.8 0.59 3.23 \n 513.3 519.0 5.7 1.57 0.2 2.7 0.13 1.79 \n 546.5 550.0 3.5 1.55 0.2 1.9 0.04 1.70 \n 570.1 582.0 12.0 1.27 0.1 1.1 0.01 1.33 \n 595.0 602.8 7.8 1.12 0.0 1.1 0.01 1.17 \n 607.2 634.0 26.8 1.35 0.1 1.7 0.01 1.42 \n MUG26_006 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_007 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 209 -72 9 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_008 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 191 -89 620 484.2 489.9 5.8 2.90 0.4 6.0 0.25 3.30 \n 513.3 538.5 25.3 3.54 0.3 3.8 0.06 3.79 \n 561.1 568.0 6.9 1.88 0.1 1.5 0.06 1.98 \n MUG26_009 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 209 -72 423 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_010 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 6 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_011 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 22 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_012 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 191 -38 330 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_013 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 155 -73 453 375.0 395.7 20.7 5.90 1.9 14.1 0.74 7.71 \n 411.0 416.8 5.8 3.39 0.2 3.8 0.22 3.63 \n MUG26_014 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 230 -4 429 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_015 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 213 -67 414 389.5 400.0 10.6 3.72 1.7 20.0 3.57 5.82 \n MUG26_016 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 200 -36 351 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_017 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 111 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_018 962.6 2,163.8 -877.0 209 -36 348 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_019 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 51 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_020 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 222 -75 459 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_021 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 21 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_022 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 190 -87 657 506.2 510.1 3.9 2.51 4.3 65.1 0.86 6.72 \n MUG26_022 550.3 553.1 2.8 2.19 0.2 2.4 0.05 2.39 \n 556.8 559.4 2.6 1.12 0.0 1.2 0.02 1.17 \n 563.3 575.9 12.6 1.55 0.4 2.1 0.02 1.88 \n 588.6 608.0 19.4 1.84 0.1 1.8 0.14 1.95 \n 615.5 618.8 3.3 1.10 0.0 1.0 0.06 1.15 \n MUG26_023 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 185 -49 339 273.2 281.7 8.6 ((6.4m TW)) 1.80 2.0 20.7 2.97 4.05 \n MUG26_024 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 16 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_025 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 9 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_026 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 25 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_027 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 12 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_028 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 197 -75 531 436.9 471.3 34.4 3.81 1.2 11.0 0.56 4.98 \n Including 436.9 451.2 14.3 5.16 2.5 21.4 1.21 7.62 \n MUG26_029 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 166 -78 441 377.0 390.6 13.6 5.72 1.1 15.4 0.40 6.83 \n MUG26_030 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 199 -3 18 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_031 1,056.9 2,298.9 -899.7 205 -58 408 373.5 382.7 9.2 2.18 1.0 14.6 2.75 3.56 \n MUG26_032 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 235 -7 414 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_033 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 199 -3 426 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_034 1,096.0 2,286.3 -899.1 171 -84 444 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_035 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 2 75 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_036 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 187 -66 555 425.9 476.1 50.2 3.50 0.4 5.1 0.73 3.97 \n Including 425.9 437.7 11.8 2.25 0.6 7.4 2.87 3.22 \n MUG26_036 Including 443.7 476.1 32.4 4.52 0.1 1.6 0.02 4.66 \n MUG26_037 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 205 -2 441 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_038 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 194 -62 423 369.7 388.3 18.6 4.48 1.7 17.2 0.80 6.13 \n MUG26_039 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 4 420 340.9 347.0 6.1 ((4.3m TW)) 4.40 3.7 27.9 1.33 7.91 \n MUG26_040 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 40 -87 780 571.0 573.0 2.0 3.21 1.9 7.7 0.20 4.89 \n 604.0 612.0 8.0 2.06 0.3 2.3 0.10 2.34 \n 625.0 628.0 3.0 4.04 0.3 4.3 0.02 4.35 \n MUG26_041 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 221 5 474 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_042 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 206 -29 477 387.3 398.8 11.6 ((10.4m TW)) 2.94 2.5 19.1 0.78 5.23 \n MUG26_043 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 210 -1 477 422.8 425.3 2.4 ((1.8m TW)) 0.38 2.2 13.7 0.06 2.29 \n MUG26_044 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 191 -81 657 468.2 494.1 25.9 5.48 1.0 8.4 0.21 6.43 \n MUG26_045 1,174.0 2,400.0 -916.1 198 -68 507 453.4 457.0 3.6 1.96 0.6 5.8 0.33 2.54 \n MUG26_046 1,062.6 2,299.0 -899.2 209 -38 438 391.0 395.5 4.5 3.05 3.1 30.9 1.61 6.09 \n MUG26_047 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 196 -12 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_048 1,137.5 1,972.0 -842.4 212 1 45 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_049 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_050 1,174.0 2,400.0 -916.1 210 -65 489 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_051 964.7 2,163.4 -877.5 196 -12 411 No Significant Assays \n MUG26_052 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n MUG26_053 1,185.8 2,352.2 -916.1 198 -70 534 413.1 455.1 42.0 4.74 1.4 10.0 0.84 6.13 \n Including 421.6 431.4 9.8 12.68 4.0 27.8 1.60 16.46 \n MUG26_054 1,255.5 2,355.8 -916.9 202 -51 495 404.7 456.1 51.5 3.99 0.9 9.0 0.87 4.91 \n Including 415.0 432.0 17.0 7.48 1.7 17.4 0.72 9.09 \n MUG26_055 964.9 2,163.3 -877.5 198 -49 15 Abandoned due to excessive downhole deviation \n\n\n\nAPPENDIX C – JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION\n\nTable 1\n\nSection 1 - Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section apply to\nall succeeding sections)\n\n Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary \n Sampling techniques * Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under * This deposit is sampled by diamond drilling ( DD ) completed by FireFly and by previous operators. A total of 1,636 drill holes for a total of ~389,200m at depths ranging from 6 to 1,771m. Included within these figures is ~192,000m drilled by FireFly to 31 May 2026. \n 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. * DD sample intervals are based on geological observations. All the core is sampled in 1m intervals with some smaller samples down to minimum core length of 0.3m to accommodate geological and mineralisation contacts. Half NQ diamond drill core was submitted for analysis. \n * Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. * DD sampling by previous operators assumed to be to industry standard at that time. \n * Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. The following is a summary of the core sampling procedure: * All sample collection, core logging, and specific gravity determinations were completed by FireFly under the supervision of a professionally qualified registered geologist. \n * In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3 kg * NQ core was marked for splitting during logging and is sawn using a diamond core saw with a mounted jig to assure the core is cut lengthwise into equal halves. Whole core sampling was used for BQ core. \n 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 * Half of the cut core is placed in clean individual plastic bags with the appropriate sample tag. \n problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. * QA/QC samples are inserted into the sample stream at prescribed intervals. \n * The samples are then placed in rice bags for shipment to the offsite laboratory’s facility. \n * The remaining half of the core is retained and incorporated into FireFly’s secure core library located on the property. \n * FireFly drill analysis was completed at ISO-certified Eastern Analytical laboratories. The samples are dried, crushed, and pulverised. Samples are crushed to approximately -10 mesh and split using a riffle splitter to approximately 300 g. A ring mill is used to pulverize the sample split to 98% passing -150 mesh. Sample pulps and rejects are picked up at Eastern by FireFly staff and returned directly to the Project site. Sample rejects are securely stored at \n the FireFly site. \n 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 * Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ (47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ (36mm) where grade control programs. \n of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). * FireFly diamond drilling exclusively NQ (47.8 mm diameter) size with core oriented by REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n Drill sample recovery * Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. * Historic diamond drilling was predominately NQ (47.8 mm diameter) with some BQ (36mm) where grade control programs. FireFly diamond drilling is exclusively NQ (47.8 mm diameter) size with core oriented by REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n * Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. * All care is taken to ensure the full recovery of the core, yet certain drilling conditions, such as broken ground, can impede 100% recovery. \n * 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. * There is no known relationship between sample recovery and grade. Drilling conditions have been noted to be competent in historical reports. FireFly core recovery averages >95%. \n * Core recovery is recorded for each run and assessed by the logging geologist. Recovery is measured as the length of core recovered divided by the length of the drill run. No systematic relationship between sample recovery and grade has been identified. \n * FireFly does not believe that sample bias has occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. \n 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 The following steps are completed during the core logging procedure: * Sample security and chain of custody start with the removal of core from the core tube and boxing of drill core at the drill site. \n and metallurgical studies. * The boxed core remains under the custody of the drill contractor until it is transported from the drill to the secure onsite core facility. \n * Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. * Core boxes are opened and inspected to ensure correct boxing and labelling of the core by the drill contractor. \n * The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. * The core is meter marked, cleaned and oriented with the orientation line drawn using the marks form REFLEX ACT III core orientation tool. \n * The drill core is geologically logged, photographed, and then marked and tagged for sampling and splitting. \n * Core logging describes variations in lithology, alteration, and mineralisation. \n * Data associated with core logging and related assay results and other downhole information including orientation surveys are recorded in the AcQuire database system. \n * Measured parameters include structural orientation with respect to core axis, lost core as a percentage of recovered length, and fracture density which are determined by the intensity and thickness of mineralisation at specific intervals. \n * Each core sample is assigned a tag with a unique identifying number. Sample lengths are typically one metre but can be smaller depending on zone mineralogy and boundaries. \n * Sample core that is not mineralised is marked in 1.0 metre lengths. \n * Wing samples are marked at 0.5 metres and sampled at the extremities of mineralised intervals to ensure anomalous grades do not continue into the surrounding wall rock. \n * 100% of the core is logged. \n Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation * If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. * FireFly drilling is NQ. Three drill holes were completed with a BQ tail. \n * If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. * For NQ diameter the core was sawn in half following a sample cutting line determined by geologists during logging and submitted for analysis on nominal 1m intervals or defined by geological boundaries determined by the logging geologist. \n * For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. * Historic diamond drilling has been half core sampled. \n * Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. * Samples are dried at approximately 60°C , crushed and pulverised. Samples are crushed in a Rhino jaw crusher to approximately 80% -10mesh, and split using a riffle splitter to approximately 250-300g. The remainder of the sample is bagged, labelled and stored as coarse reject. A ring mill is used to pulverise the sample split to 95% passing -150 mesh. Sample pulps are picked up at Eastern Analytical by FireFly staff and returned directly to the Project site. \n * 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. * For pre-FireFly samples, sample preparation, analytical procedures and QA/QC used on the property were reviewed by independent consultants WSP in 2018, stating in their report that sampling practices meet industry standards and display acceptable levels of accuracy and precision. \n \n* Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. * All core sampled in the prospective intervals when required wing samples are marked from 0.5 metres up to 5m and sampled at the extremities of mineralised intervals to ensure anomalous grades do not continue into the surrounding wall rock. \n * No purpose lab audit has been completed. FireFly personnel have visited the Eastern analytical facilities on several occasions and observed that lab practices and equipment overall cleanliness meet industry standards. \n * Pre-FireFly BQ core was entirely crushed for the assays. \n * Field duplicates were completed using ¼ core and inserted into the sample series at a rate of 2% of samples. Analysis results were acceptable considering the style of mineralisation being heterogeneous with stockwork stringers of chalcopyrite. \n * Sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. \n 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. * All FireFly and Rambler Metals and Mining PLC ( Rambler ) results reported in this announcement were analysed by Eastern Analytical in Springdale, NL. \n * For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, * 34 elements were determined by Inductively Coupled Plasma ( ICP ). A 200mg subsample is totally dissolved in four acids and analysed by ICP-OES. \n calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. * Ore grade elements, Cu, Zn, Pb, Fe and Ag are dissolved via 3 acid digestion and analysed by atomic adsorption ( AA ). \n * Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of * Gold assays were determined by fire assay with atomic adsorption finish. \n bias) and precision have been established. * As part of the QA/QC program duplicate, blank and Certified Reference Material ( CRM ) samples are inserted alternately. Blanks are inserted one every 50 samples. CRMs are inserted every 20 samples. Field duplicates are taken approximately one every 40 samples. Blanks and CRMs are also randomly inserted in zones of suspected high grades. The minimum insertion rate for CRMs is 5%, which FireFly adheres to. Historical data collected by Rambler was also subject \n to a similar rigorous QA/QC regime. \n * In addition to the Company QAQC samples (described earlier) included within the batch the laboratory included its own CRMs (Certified Reference Materials), blanks and duplicates. \n * Sample assay results continue to be evaluated through control charts, log sheets, sample logbook and signed assay certificates to determine the nature of any anomalies or failures and failures were re-assayed at the laboratory. \n Verification of sampling and assaying * The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. * FireFly routinely sends sample pulps for independent umpire lab check to SGS laboratory in Burnaby. Results correlate very well with Eastern Analytical results. \n * The use of twinned holes. * There are no purpose twinned holes in the dataset but a comparison of the results of different drilling generations showed that results were comparable. \n * Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. * FireFly logging data, assay certificates and other relevant information are stored in an AcQuire database and on a site server. \n * Discuss any adjustment to assay data. * All pre-FireFly logging data was completed, core marked up, logging and sampling data was entered directly into an MX deposit or Fusion database. \n * FireFly has not adjusted assay data and is not aware of any adjustments made by Rambler to the assay data. WSP completed an independent audit in 2018 where a representative number of assay certificates were compared to digital assay database and no discrepancies were found. \n 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 * Drill collars were surveyed by the FireFly mine survey crew upon completion of the drill program. \n estimation. * The set-ups for the underground drill collars were marked by the FireFly mine survey crew, and the drilling contractor was expected to set up properly on line. A FireFly geologist checked the underground drill set-up during the drilling program to ensure accuracy. \n * Specification of the grid system used. * Downhole surveys are completed using a Reflex Sprint IQ gyro multi-shot instrument to provide azimuth and dip reading down the hole. The Reflex Sprint IQ gyro instrument is calibrated at least once a year to ensure accuracy of results. \n * Quality and adequacy of topographic control. * Previous drilling has been set-out and picked up in both national and local grids using a combination of GPS and Survey instruments and are assumed to be to industry standards. Directional surface holes completed using Devico® technology. \n * The underground development has been picked up by surveyors creating high confidence in the topographic control which drill holes, both historical and recent, are referenced against. \n * Collar coordinates are recorded in local mine grid. Survey data was collected in mine grid and in UTM grid (NAD83 Zone 21). \n * Topographic control is from Digital Elevation Contours ( DEM ) 2019 and site surveyed DGPS pickups, which is considered adequate. \n Data spacing and distribution * Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. * Spacing for the exploration data reported in this announcement is variable. Most of the results are infill drilling, and intersections are typically less than 90m from another drill hole. \n * 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 * The data spacing and distribution is considered sufficient to establish geological and/or grade continuity. \n estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. * The data will be incorporated into future Mineral Resource updates. Appropriate Mineral Resource classifications will be applied at that time. \n * Whether sample compositing has been applied. * Core is sampled to geology contacts; sample compositing is not applied until the estimation stage. \n 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. * Underground drill hole orientation for FireFly holes reported in this announcement was sub-perpendicular to the mineralisation. Mineralised intersections are approximate true width unless otherwise noted. \n * 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 * Historically this has been variable in places where low angle drilling to the mineralisation has been completed in zones without suitable drilling platforms. \n assessed and reported if material. * No material sampling bias is considered to have been introduced by the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures. \n Sample security * The measures taken to ensure sample security. * Core was placed in wooden core boxes close to the drill rig by the drilling contractor. The core was collected daily by the drilling contractor and delivered to the secure core logging facility on the Ming Mine site. Access to the core logging facility is limited to FireFly employees or designates. \n Audits or reviews * The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. * Regular reviews of DD sampling techniques are completed by Senior Geologists and Resource Geologists and conclude that sampling techniques are satisfactory and industry standard. \n * All recent FireFly sample data has been extensively QAQC reviewed internally and externally. \n * Pre FireFly data audits were conducted as part of NI-43-101 resource estimation by independent consultants WSP in 2018. It was WSP’s opinion that the drilling, sampling and logging procedures put in place by Rambler met acceptable industry standards and that the information can be used for geological and resource modelling. \n\n\n\nSection 2 - Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria in this section apply\nto all succeeding sections)\n\n Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary \n 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. * FireFly owns a mineral land assembly consisting of one map-staked mineral license (023175M) and two mining leases (141L and 188L) totalling 955.4 ha and registered in \n * The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a license to operate in the area. the name of FireFly Metals Canada Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of FireFly Metals Limited. All of these mineral lands are contiguous and, in some cases, overlapping \n and are located in the area of the former Ming and Ming West mines. In early 2015 the mineral license 023175M replaced the original license 014692M by claim reduction as \n requested by Rambler. All lands are in good standing with the Provincial Government, and FireFly is up to date with respect to lease payments (for leases) and required \n exploration expenditure (for licenses). \n * FireFly holds all the permits required to operate the Ming Mine at its historic production rate. \n Exploration done by other parties * Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. * Ming Mine Early History: Auriferous sulphides and copper were found in the area in 1905 by Enos England. \n * The Main Mine sulphide zone was found in 1935 about 600ft north of the Enos England discovery. In 1940, the Newfoundland government drilled 18 diamond drill holes \n totalling 5,000ft. \n * An airborne electromagnetic survey was flown from 1955 to 1956. \n * The Ming Mine was discovered in 1970 by a helicopter borne AEM system. A large low grade stringer type copper deposit was later discovered in the footwall 300ft to \n 500ft below the Ming mineralisation during mining operations and delineated by 36 diamond drill holes. Mining ceased at the Ming Mine in 1982 because of low copper \n prices. \n * In 1988, the property was awarded to the Rambler Joint Venture Group (a Consortium of Teck Exploration, Petromet Resources Ltd, and Newfoundland Exploration Company \n Ltd). Exploration consisted of ground geophysics and soil geochemistry, resulting in discovery of the Ming West deposit. 48 diamond drill holes (25,534ft) were completed. \n \n* Altius Minerals Corporation: Under the terms of an option to purchase agreement with Ming Minerals, Altius conducted exploration on the Rambler property in 2001, 2003, \n and 2004. In 2001, a litho-geochemical program was initiated to chemically fingerprint rocks of the hanging wall and footwall to the sulphide deposits. \n * Rambler Metals and Mining PLC: Rambler Metals and Mining is a UK-based company listed on London’s Alternate Investment Market (AIM). Rambler held a 100% interest in the \n Ming property and between 2005 and 2023 and conducted a multi-phase diamond drilling program consisting of surface drilling, directional drilling, and underground \n delineation drilling. A total of 220,704m from 1,365 diamond drill holes were completed by Rambler. Between 2012 and 2022 the Ming Mine produced 3Mt at 1.86% Cu and 0.71% \n Au for total of 55Kt of copper and 68Koz of gold. \n * The Ming Mine was placed on care and maintenance in February 2023. \n * In October 2023, AuTECO Minerals Ltd (now FireFly Metals Ltd) acquired the project from the administrator. \n * FireFly conducted drilling to test down plunge extent of VMS lodes. \n * An underground exploration drive is in progress to allow further drilling at more favourable drill angles. \n Geology * Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. * The Green Bay project is a Noranda-type Volcanogenic Massive Sulphide ( VMS ) hosted by Cambrian-Ordovician metavolcanic and metasedimentary rocks of the Pacquet \n Harbour Group. The style of mineralisation, alteration, host rock, and tectonism most closely resembles other VMS deposits throughout the world. The deposit consists of \n several individual massive sulphide lens and their underlying stockwork zones. It is thought that the stockwork zone represents the near surface channel ways of a \n submarine hydrothermal system and the massive sulphide lens represents the accumulation of sulphides precipitated from the hydrothermal solutions, on the sea floor, above \n and around the discharge vent. The Ming deposits are polymetallic (Cu, Au, Ag ± Zn) massive sulphides that occur along the flank of a felsic dome. The Ming deposits have \n undergone strong deformation and upper greenschist to amphibolite facies metamorphism. The massive sulphide bodies are now thin and elongate down the plunge of the \n regional lineation (30-35ºNE). Typical aspect ratios of length down-plunge to width exceed 10:1, and the bodies exhibit mild boudinage along the plunge. The foot wall \n stock work comprises mainly of quartz-sericite-chlorite schist, which hosts disseminated and stringer pyrite and chalcopyrite with minor sphalerite, galena, and \n pyrrhotite with locally significant gold contents that could represent a discordant stockwork stringer feeder zone. The mineralisation is crosscut by younger mafic dykes. \n Drill hole Information * A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: * easting and northing of the drill hole collar * Refer to Appendix B in this announcement \n * elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in meters) of the drill hole collar \n * dip and azimuth of the hole \n * down hole length and interception depth \n * hole length. \n \n * 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. \n 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. * All drill hole intersections are reported above a lower cut-off grade of 1% copper or 0.5g/t gold. A maximum of 6m of internal waste was allowed. \n * 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. * For samples of varying lengths, a length-weighted average is applied for the reported intersection. The formula is (S(Cu grade % x sample length)/Total Interval Width). \n * The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated. The weighted average of the intersection must exceed the cut-off grades stated above. Minimum sampling interval of 0.5m is enforced. Geological contacts are enforced in \n sampling and frequently provide boundaries for intersections due to grade associated with varying lithotypes. Maximum internal dilution of 6m below the cut-off grade is \n incorporated into the reported intersections, stopping smearing of narrow high grades over broad distances. Consideration is also given to potential minimum mining widths \n as part of the test for prospects of eventual economic extraction. \n * An example of the calculation is from hole MUG24_060, from 191.7m: \n Sample 1: Length - 0.5m; Grade - 1.8% Cu \n Sample 2: Length - 0.75m; Grade – 0.08% Cu \n Sample 3 Length – 1.05m; Grade – 2.02% Cu \n Sample 4: Length – 1.05m; Grade – 2.42% Cu \n Sum of Lengths / Intersection width - 3.35m \n Intersection grade is: \n ((0.5x1.8) + (0.75x0.08) + (1.05x2.02) + (1.05x2.42))/3.35 = 1.68% \n The competent person determined to include of the 0.75m @ 0.08% Cu in the intersection because in a mining scenario, it is unlikely that this internal dilution could be \n separated. * Metal equivalents for the drilling at the Green Bay Project have been calculated at a copper price of US$8,750/t, gold price of US$2,500/oz, silver price of \n US$25/oz and zinc price of $2,500/t. Individual grades for the metals are set out in Appendix B of this announcement. \n * The following metallurgical recovery factors have been applied to the calculation of metal equivalents: * Copper: 95% \n * Gold/Silver: 85% \n * Zinc: 50% \n \n * Recovery factors applied are based on historical processing of Ming ore at Nugget Pond and future processing plant configurations based on historical metallurgical test \n work. \n * It is the Company’s view that all elements in the copper equivalent calculation have a reasonable potential to be recovered and sold. \n * Copper equivalent was calculated based on the formula CuEq(%) = Cu(%) + (Au(g/t) x 0.82190) + (Ag(g/t) x 0.00822) + (Zn(%) x 0.15038) \n Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths * These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. * All intersections reported in the body of this announcement are down hole, however they approximate the true thickness of mineralisation. \n * If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. * The majority of the drill holes in the database are drilled as close to orthogonal to the plane of the mineralized lodes as possible. A number of drill holes have \n * 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’). intersected the mineralisation at high angles. \n * Only down hole lengths are reported, however all holes are drilled ~perpendicular to the known trend of mineralisation. \n 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. * Maps and sections are included in the body of this announcement as deemed appropriate by the competent person. \n * Plan view of drill holes reported in this announcement is presented following this table. \n Balanced reporting * Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. * All significant assays (above a 1% copper or 0.5g/t gold cut-off and containing a maximum of 6m of internal waste) received from the current drill program have been \n reported in Appendix B. \n 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. * Appropriate plans are included in the body of this announcement. \n * Underground Downhole Electromagnetics ( DHEM ) was completed by Southern Geoscience & Eastern Geophysics Ltd. See ASX announcement dated 7 May 2025 for further \n technical details on the DHEM surveys. \n * The TX surface loop size was 1km x 1km \n Further work * The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). * FireFly will be conducting drill testing of additional mineralisation as well as step-out drilling of existing lodes to further enhance the Mineral Resources quoted in \n * Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. this announcement. More information is presented in the body of this announcement. \n * Diagrams in the main body of this announcement show areas of possible Mineral Resource extension on existing lodes. The Company is mining an exploration drive to enable \n effective drill testing of down plunge extensions. \n\nPlan view of drilling in this announcement\n\n\nFigures accompanying this announcement are available at:\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/10c97426-fa69-42f3-8af2-328d51b234ef\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/fbad24b1-abdc-4b6b-b4e7-8b89c8f21bcb\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/92804581-08de-45fd-aec3-2079dc759100\n\nhttps://www.globenewswire.com/NewsRoom/AttachmentNg/9e81b0ca-82e1-4f04-abe0-3e3a47fd640d"},"type":"article","timestamp":"2026-07-02T01:57:41.040459736Z","server_sent_at_ms":1782957461040},"received_at":"2026-07-02T01:57:41.106Z","source_url":null},"analysis":{"id":"67987","press_release_id":"78744","analysis_json":{"industry":{"label":"Metals & Mining","sector":"Materials"},"redFlags":[],"eventType":"operations_update","narrative":"FireFly Metals reported exceptional drilling results at the Green Bay project, confirming high-grade continuity with intersections such as 42m at 6.1% copper equivalent (CuEq) and 9.8m at 16.5% CuEq within the Core Zone.\n\nThese results will be incorporated into an updated Mineral Resource Estimate to underpin a Preliminary Economic Assessment, which is now anticipated for release in July-August 2026.\n\nThe company remains well-funded with approximately A$219.9 million in cash and liquid investments, supporting six active underground rigs and regional exploration activities.","sentiment":"bullish","agentHooks":{"shouldPost":true,"suggestedAngle":"High-grade assays validate Green Bay's economic potential ahead of upcoming PEA."},"keyFigures":{"customDimensions":{"cash_position":"A$219.9 million","high_grade_core_m_i":"8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq","assay_intersection_1":"42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq","assay_intersection_2":"9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq","assay_intersection_3":"51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq","pea_release_timeline":"July-August 2026","total_drilling_completed":"~192,000m","current_inferred_resource":"29.3Mt @ 2.5% CuEq","current_measured_indicated_resource":"50.4Mt @ 2.0% CuEq"}},"quotedText":"These are exceptional results with extremely high grades over substantial widths. They also demonstrate the strong continuity of this mineralisation.","namedEntities":{"people":[{"name":"Steve Parsons","role":"Managing Director"},{"name":"Juan Gutierrez","role":"Group Chief Geologist"},{"name":"Darren Cooke","role":"Competent Person"},{"name":"Jessie Liu-Ernsting","role":"Chief Development Officer"},{"name":"Paul Armstrong","role":"Media Read Corporate"}],"products":["Green Bay Copper-Gold Project","Ming Mine","Tilt Cove project","Limestone Well Vanadium-Titanium Project"],"companies":[{"name":"FireFly Metals Ltd","ticker":"FFM"}],"dollarAmounts":[{"amount":"~A$219.9 million","context":"cash and liquid investments as at 31 March 2026"}]},"materialImpact":{"score":4,"reasoning":"Drilling results confirm exceptionally high-grade continuity (e.g., 16.5% CuEq) in the Core Zone, significantly de-risking the resource model ahead of the upcoming PEA. The strong cash balance of ~A$220M supports ongoing operations and development."},"tickerRelevance":{"others":[],"primary":"FFM"},"globalImportance":25,"audienceRelevance":35,"eventTypeSecondary":[],"importanceComponents":{"tickerTier":"small-mid-cap","eventGravity":"exploration-success","sectorWeight":"materials"}},"event_type":"operations_update","event_type_secondary":null,"sentiment":"bullish","material_impact_score":4,"narrative":"FireFly Metals reported exceptional drilling results at the Green Bay project, confirming high-grade continuity with intersections such as 42m at 6.1% copper equivalent (CuEq) and 9.8m at 16.5% CuEq within the Core Zone.\n\nThese results will be incorporated into an updated Mineral Resource Estimate to underpin a Preliminary Economic Assessment, which is now anticipated for release in July-August 2026.\n\nThe company remains well-funded with approximately A$219.9 million in cash and liquid investments, supporting six active underground rigs and regional exploration activities.","key_figures":{"customDimensions":{"cash_position":"A$219.9 million","high_grade_core_m_i":"8.8Mt @ 3.9% CuEq","assay_intersection_1":"42.0m @ 6.1% CuEq","assay_intersection_2":"9.8m @ 16.5% CuEq","assay_intersection_3":"51.5m @ 4.9% CuEq","pea_release_timeline":"July-August 2026","total_drilling_completed":"~192,000m","current_inferred_resource":"29.3Mt @ 2.5% CuEq","current_measured_indicated_resource":"50.4Mt @ 2.0% CuEq"}},"named_entities":{"people":[{"name":"Steve Parsons","role":"Managing Director"},{"name":"Juan Gutierrez","role":"Group Chief Geologist"},{"name":"Darren Cooke","role":"Competent Person"},{"name":"Jessie Liu-Ernsting","role":"Chief Development Officer"},{"name":"Paul Armstrong","role":"Media Read Corporate"}],"products":["Green Bay Copper-Gold Project","Ming Mine","Tilt Cove project","Limestone Well Vanadium-Titanium Project"],"companies":[{"name":"FireFly Metals Ltd","ticker":"FFM"}],"dollarAmounts":[{"amount":"~A$219.9 million","context":"cash and liquid investments as at 31 March 2026"}]},"model_name":"qwen3_6_27b_awq","prompt_hash":"sha256:727b4b9429a443af","schema_hash":"sha256:05005c02d9cffac9","created_at":"2026-07-04T10:02:12.569Z","global_importance":25,"audience_relevance":35,"importance_components":{"tickerTier":"small-mid-cap","eventGravity":"exploration-success","sectorWeight":"materials"}},"durationMs":null,"modelName":"george-droid-qwen-72b"}}