ASTRON LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021

May 11, 2021

12 May 2021

==> picture [153 x 64] intentionally omitted <==

Donald Minerals Sands Project - Mineral Separation

Metallurgical Testwork Update - Updated Announcement

KEY OUTCOMES

• Confirmation of the ability to produce a high quality Rare Earth Elements concentrate from a froth flotation technique, with total Rare Earth Elements (“REE”) of 51.2% with low impurity levels, at recoveries of up to 94.6% from HMC.

• Achieved high quality zircon final product with low impurities (ZrO2 > 66%, TiO2 < 0.15%,Fe2O3 < 0.1%, Al2O3 < 0.1%), recoveries of zircon final products up to 90.8% from HMC, of which >80% is assay proven to be of premium specification.

• Titania (titanium dioxide) product recoveries of up to 94.4% from HMC, with the potential to produce a 65% Ti concentrate.

• Overall test results provide confidence in relation to the mineral separation process to be employed for final product separation of the finer, WIM-style materials, as well as confidence that commercial scale recovery of final products is achievable by the processes employed.

Astron Corporation Limited (Astron) (ASX: ATR) previously announced on 30 March 2021 the results of mineral separation metallurgical testwork for the Donald project. This announcement is being rereleased as Astron has been advised that certain additional information (including tables under the JORC Code, 2012 edition) were required to be included in this announcement.

Accordingly, Astron updates the results of metallurgical test work relating to its Donald mineral sands project, located in regional Victoria. Pilot scale process work has been undertaken on 1,000 tonnes (t) of ore recovered from a test pit and subsequently produced a 24 tonne sample of heavy mineral concentrate (HMC) for purposes of pilot testing the processing of HMC into final product streams.

The metallurgical test work has been undertaken at facilities operated by Mineral Technologies. The test work and evaluation has included the production of zircon, a titania (titanium dioxide) concentrate, and a rare earth element (REE) concentrate. The work represents a key part of the work stream for the potential commercialisation of the Donald resource; one of the largest undeveloped mineral sands ore bodies globally.

The metallurgical test work forms an integral part of determining the full scope of the Donald mineral sands project, including: rare earth recovery; zircon and titania production stream and product specifications (suitable for customer testing and offtake arrangements); determination of concentrating and processing flow sheet and configuration on site; further pilot work and the move to a detailed

0

feasibility study during 2021 to allow completion of project economics for determination of project funding strategies.

Donald Project – Background

The Donald mineral sands project is located in the Wimmera region of Victoria, 60 kilometres from Horsham and near the township of Minyip.

Donald represents one of the largest known zircon and titanium ore bodies in the world and a potentially significant new source of global supply. Based on an Ore Reserve Update, as announced on 18 February 2021, the Donald project area holds Ore Reserves of 602 million tonnes (mt) of ore with an average heavy mineral (HM) grade of 4.8% consisting of 310 mt of proved ore and 292 mt of probable ore. In total, the ore reserves equates to an approximate, in-situ ore body of 28.9 Mt of heavy minerals, comprised: 5.4 mt of zircon; 9.2 mt of ilmenite; 8 mt of higher titanium content products of rutile and leucoxene (Hi-Ti), as well as a significant REE component of 491 thousand tonnes (kt).

It is likely that the Donald project will produce four main product streams: a premium, ceramic grade zircon (expected to be 80% of total zircon, or ~95ktpa –100ktpa during Stage 1); a zircon 60 product (~20 – 25ktpa); a combined titania product, with a 65% titanium dioxide content (>200ktpa), suitable for slag production for both chloride and sulphate pigment production; and a REE concentrate (~15ktpa). Astron is now investigating a pit to final product on site, allowing the capture of the value-adding processing component within Australia (as opposed to offshore processing of HMC).

The initial stage of the planned Donald project will involve the mining and processing of the Ore Reserves contained within ML5532, located wholly within RL2002 (refer tenement map below). Mining operations are then planned to extend into the remainder of RL2002. The current Ore Reserves for the project encompass only RL2002; while a Mineral Resources is available for the entire area including RL2003.

Metallurgical Test Work – Background

In 2018 and 2019, Astron excavated and processed ore from a test pit and recovered a 1000 tonne bulk sample suitable for the pilot production of a heavy mineral concentrate. 24 tonnes of HMC was produced from a pilot scale heavy mineral concentration plant. A 75kg batch sample was extracted from the HMC for confirmatory and optimisation testing to confirm the suitability of a hybrid processing approach.

Astron advises that the test results obtained have been satisfactory; and provide confidence that commercial scale recovery of final products is achievable by the process employed.

Summary of Results

Rare Earth Recoveries

• Flotation testing using conventional reagents produced a mixed rare earth concentrate stream containing 51.2% total REE with low impurities;

2

• using CeO2 as a tracer, rare earth mineral recovery to final rare earth mineral concentrate was calculated to be up to 94.6% relative to HMC, using a wet process only;

• further separation to a light rare earth concentrate with mineral assemblage of 51.3% of light REE (La, Ce, Pr, Nd, Sm, Eu, Gd) and a heavy rare earth concentrate containing 26.1% heavy REE (Tb, Dy, Ho, Er, Tm, Yb, Lu, Y) was achieved.

Zircon Recoveries

• High quality zircon specifications with assemblage characteristics of ZrO2 > 66.0%, TiO2 0.15%, Fe2O3 < 0.1%, Al2O3 < 0.1%, were achieved;

• optimisations of the downstream circuits has the potential to significantly improve ZrO2 recovery to 90.6% relative to HMC;

• recovery to high quality zircon was calculated to be 72.6% relative to HMC;

• an additional 18% of zircon is expected to report as a zircon product with >60% ZrO2.

Titania Product Recoveries

• The metallurgical test work produced a combined titania concentrate with 64.9% titanium dioxide content (TiO2);

• opportunities were identified to lower the silica content within the titania concentrate to enable processing to produce a chlorinatable slag.

Figure 1. Astron’s final product samples (REEC, zircon, non-magnetic concentrate, magnetic concentrate respectively)

==> picture [453 x 122] intentionally omitted <==

Process Flowsheet

A detailed process flow sheet is being developed, which is likely to contain the following main elements:

• a wet concentrator plant containing spirals for production of a heavy mineral concentrate

• a flotation circuit to recover the REE concentrate from the heavy mineral concentrate;

• wet high intensity magnetic separation (“WHIMS”) for production of a magnetic concentrate (consisting of ilmenite) and non-magnetic (consisting of Hi-Ti and zircon) product stream;

• a gravity non-magnetic upgrade circuit containing spirals for further separation of the zircon products from the Hi-Ti products; and

• a mineral processing circuit, including electro-static separation, to produce a final zircon production stream.

3

Key Findings

• Associated with the recovery of the REE prior to separation of the mineral sands constituents of the HMC, the subsequent concentrate had a natural radioactivity of under 9 becquerel/gram (Bq/g), meeting export regulatory requirements;

• The recent scope of works confirms the practicality of conducting downstream final product mineral separation in Australia, and Astron intends to investigate opportunities for an integrated mining, concentrating and final product separation concept locally for the Donald project; and

• given test results were achieved via a small scale, batch process, it can be anticipated that on a continuing operating basis, further improvements in recoveries and grades may be expected.

Future Areas of Technical and Market Investigation

• Following this test work, Astron will move towards final conceptual design considerations, as well as consecutively engaging in definitive pilot scale processing work;

• Astron has conducted opacification tests on its premium zircon product (at its own laboratory test facilities in Yingkou, China) and plans to release the results of these tests shortly, these results are integral to potential customer engagement and off-take discussions; and

• Astron intends to commence the process of providing product samples of both the titania and zircon products to selected customers for testing and as part of these product off-take discussions.

For further information, please contact:

Tiger Brown, Managing Director +61 3 5385 7088

Joshua Theunissen, Australian Company Secretary +61 3 5385 7088

joshua.theunissen@astronlimited.com

12 May 2021

This announcement is authorised for release to ASX by the Board of Directors of Astron

About Astron Corporation Limited

Astron Corporation Limited (ATR: ASX) is an ASX listed company, with extensive (30 years+) experience in mineral sands processing, technology and downstream product development, as well the marketing and sale of zircon and titania (titanium dioxide) products, most notably in China. Astron conducts a mineral sands trading operation based in Shenyang, China and operates a zircon and titanium chemicals and metals research and development facility in Yingkou, China. The company’s prime focus is upon the development of the large, long-life and attractive zircon assemblage Donald mineral sands deposit in the Murray Basin, Victoria. Donald has the ability to represent a new major source of global supply in mineral sands. Astron is also the owner of the Niafarang mineral sands project in Senegal, West Africa. Niafarang is a high-grade coastal mineral sands deposit, planned to be developed using simple dredge mining and processing methodology.

4

COMPETENT PERSONS STATEMENT

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results and Mineral Resources for the Donald Project is based on information first reported in previous ASX announcements by the Company, as listed in this announcement. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcements and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates in the original announcements continuing to apply and have not materially changed. The information in this document that relates to the estimation of the Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Mr Pier Federici, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Federici is a full-time employee of AMC Consultants Pty Ltd and is independent of DMS, the owner of the Donald Project Mineral Resources. Mr Federici has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. The information in this document that relates to the estimation of the Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr Rod Webster, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Webster is a full-time employee of AMC Consultants Pty Ltd and is independent of DMS, the owner of the Donald Project Mineral Resources. Mr Webster has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not materially modified from the relevant original market announcement.

The information in this document that relates to the metallurgical performance and outcomes of testwork is based on information compiled by Mr Ross McClelland, a Competent Person who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr McClelland is the principal metallurgist and director of Metmac Services Pty Ltd. Mr McClelland has been involved with the metallurgical development of the Wimmera-style mineral sands resources for more than 30 years. He has provided metallurgical consultation services to DMS for more than 7 years. He qualifies as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Persons’ findings are presented have not been prematurely modified from the relevant original market announcement.

CAUTIONARY STATEMENT

Certain sections of this ASX Release contain forward looking statements that are subject to risk factors associated with, among others, the economic and business circumstances occurring from time to time in the countries and sectors in which the Astron group operates. It is believed that the expectations reflected in these statements are reasonable, but they may be affected by a wide range of variables which could cause results to differ materially from those currently projected.

The information contained in this Release is not investment or financial product advice and is not intended to be used as the basis for making an investment decision. Please note that, in providing this document, Astron has not considered the objectives, financial position or needs of any particular recipient. Astron strongly suggests that investors consult a financial advisor prior to making an investment decision.

This Release may include “forward looking statements” within the meaning of securities laws of applicable jurisdictions. Forward looking statements can generally be identified by the use of the words “anticipate”, “believe”, “expect”, “project”, “forecast”, “estimate”, “likely”, “intend”, “should”, “could”, “may”, “target”, “plan”, “guidance” and other similar expressions. Indications of, and guidance on, future earning or dividends and financial position and performance are also forward-looking statements. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors, many of which are beyond the control of Astron and its related bodies corporate, together with their respective directors, officers, employees, agents or advisers, that may cause actual results to differ materially from those expressed or implied in such statement. Actual results, performance or achievements may vary materially from any forward looking statements and the assumptions on which those statements are based. Readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements and Astron assumes no obligation to update such information.

6

Figure 2 Donald Project Tenement Map

==> picture [451 x 640] intentionally omitted <==

7

Figure 3. Bulk Test Pit - Costean location

==> picture [476 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

N
Note: Scale Bar provided for indicated purposes only 500m
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 3.1

==> picture [453 x 340] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

H. DRUMS ROAD
N
COSTEAN
GATE
FENCE
G D M RESOURCES
BANYENA COSTEAN
COSTEAN SITE LOCATION
Figure 8
NOT TO SCALE
O’SHANNESSYS ROAD
FENCE
H. MATTHEWS ROAD
----- End of picture text -----

8

APPENDIX A: DONALD DEPOSIT UPDATED ORE RESERVE & MINERAL RESOURCE STATEMENTS

Ore Reserves

Based on the supporting mine planning completed, pit inventories to support an Ore Reserve Estimate, in accordance with JORC 2012 are shown in Table 1.1. Ore has been classified as Proven Ore Reserve, based on Measured Mineral Resource and Probable Ore Reserve, based on Indicated Mineral Resource. The results of the Ore Reserve estimate reflect the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

Note that the Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of the Ore Reserve.

Table 1.1 Donald Mineral Sands Ore Reserve for RL 2002 at February 2021

Classification Tonnes (mt)	Slimes Oversize HM Ilmenite Leucoxene Rutile Zircon (%) (%) (%) (%HM) (%HM) (%HM) (%HM)	Monazite (%HM)
Within ML5532 Proved 170 Probable 24	14.2 11.9 5.3 31.4 22.1 7.1 18.8 13.4 12.5 4.9 33.2 21.3 6.7 20.2	1.9 2.0
Total 194	14.1 12.0 5.3 31.6 22.0 7.0 19.0	1.9
Within RL2002 Outside of ML5532 Proved 140 19.1 7.1 5.6 31.0 18.4 9.6 21.2 Probable 268 15.8 14.4 4.0 32.3 19.5 7.5 17.0		1.8 1.6
Total 408 16.9 11.9 4.5 31.8 19.0 8.4 18.8		1.8
Total within Donald Deposit (RL2002) Proved 310 16.4 9.8 5.4 31.2 20.4 8.2 19.9 Probable 292 15.6 14.2 4.1 32.4 19.7 7.4 17.3		1.8 1.6
Total 602 16.0 11.9 4.8 31.7 20.1 7.9 18.8		1.7

Note

1. The ore tonnes have been rounded to the nearest 1mt and grades have been rounded to one decimal place.

2. The Ore Reserve is based on indicated and Measured Mineral Resource contained with mine designs above an economic cut-off. The economic cut-off is definited as the value of the products less the cost of processing

3. Mining recovery and dilution have been applied to the figures above.

The JORC Code 2012 Table 1, Section 4 to support the Ore Reserve Estimate is included in Appendix B of the Donald Project Ore Reserve Statement released 18 February 2021. The Ore Reserve estimates have been compiled in accordance with the guidelines defined in the 2012 JORC Code.

Mineral Resources

Astron Corporation last reported the Mineral Resource on 7[th] April 2016 in accordance with JORC 2012. Below is an exact of the AMC report (AMC 115075) prepared to support the Mineral Resource. The Mineral Resource estimate was reported in accordance with the JORC Code for the heavy minerals (HM) and valuable heavy minerals (VHM) Content for MIN5532 and RL 2002 of the Donald Heavy Mineral Sands Deposit and for RL2003, RLA2006 (since been amalgamated into RL2003) of the Jackson Heavy Mineral Sands Deposit.

The Mineral Resource estimate was reported in accordance with the JORC Code for the heavy minerals (HM) and valuable heavy minerals (VHM) content has been used for the preparation of the Ore Reserve. Only the resource containing valuable heavy minerals (VHM) content has been used for the preparation of the Ore Reserve.

9

Table 1.2 Mineral Resource at a 1% Cut-off

Classification Tonnes (mt)	HM Slimes Oversize (%) (%) (%)
Within ML5532 Measured 372 Indicated 75 Inferred 7	4.5 14.4 12.8 4.0 13.8 13.1 3.5 13.5 10.6
Subtotal 454	4.4 14.2 12.8
With RL2002 Outside of ML5532 Measured 343 Indicated 833 Inferred 1,595	3.9 19.8 8.1 3.3 16.2 13.5 3.3 15.7 6.0
Subtotal 2,771	3.4 16.4 8.5
Total within Donald Deposit (RL2002) Measured 715 Indicated 907 Inferred 1,603	4.2 17.0 10.6 3.4 16.0 13.4 3.4 15.7 6.0
Subtotal 3,225	3.6 16.1 9.1
Total within Jackson Deposit (RL2003) Measured 0 Indicated 1,903 Inferred 584	0.0 0.0 0.0 2.8 19.0 5.8 2.9 16.7 3.3
Subtotal 2,497	2.9 18.5 5.2
Total Donald Project Measured 715 Indicated 2,811 Inferred 2,187	4.3 18.1 11.1 3.0 17.9 8.2 3.3 16.4 5.5
Total 5,712	3.2 16.9 7.3

Note

1. The total tonnes may not equal the sum of the individual resources due to rounding.

2. The cut-off grade is 1% HM.

3. The figures are rounded to the nearest: 10M for tonnes, one decimal for HM, Slimes and Oversize.

4. For further details including JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 and cross sectional data, see previous announcements dated 7 April 2016, available at ASX’s website at:

www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160407/pdf/436cjyqcg3cf47.pdf

10

Table 1.3 Mineral Resource where VHM Data is Available at a Cut-off of 1% HM

Classification Tonnes (mt)	Slimes Oversize HM Ilmenite Leucoxene Rutile Zircon (%) (%) (%) (%HM) (%HM) (%HM) (%HM)	Monazite (%HM)
Within ML5532 Measured 264 Indicated 49 Inferred 5	14.2 12.2 5.4 31 22 7 19 13.6 12.1 4.9 33 22 7 20 13.5 10.2 4.2 36 20 7 22	2 2 3
Total 317	14.1 12.1 5.3 32 22 7 19	2
Within RL2002 Outside of ML5532 Measured 185 19.1 7.3 5.5 31 19 9 21 Indicated 454 15.9 13.2 4.2 33 19 7 17 Inferred 647 15.2 5.8 4.9 33 17 9 18		2 2 2
Total 1,286 16.0 8.6 4.8 33 18 8 18		2
Total within Donald Deposit (RL2002)
Measured 448 16.2 10.2 5.4 31 21 8 20		2
Indicated 503 15.7 13.1 4.3 33 20 7 18		2
Inferred 652 15.2 5.8 4.9 33 17 8 18		2
Total 1,604 15.6 9.3 4.9 32 19 8 18		2
Total within Jackson Deposit (RL2003)
Measured
Indicated 668 18.1 5.4 4.9 32 17 9 18		2
Inferred 155 15.1 3.1 4.0 32 15 9 21		2
Total 823 17.6 5.0 4.8 32 17 9 19		2
Total Donald Project Measured 448 16.2 10.2 5.4 31 21 8 20 Indicated 1,171 17.1 8.7 4.6 32 18 8 18 Inferred 807 15.2 5.3 4.7 33 17 9 19		2 2 2
Total 2,427 16.3 7.0 4.8 32 18 8 19		2

Note

1. The total tonnes may not equal the sum of the individual resources due to rounding.

2. The cut-off grade is 1% HM.

3. The figures are rounded to the nearest: 1mt for tonnes, one decimal for HM, Slimes and Oversize and whole numbers for zircon, ilmenite, rutile + anatase, leucoxene and monazite.

4. Zircon, ilmenite, rutile + anatase, leucoxene and monazite percentages are report as a percentage of the HM.

5. Rutile + anatase, leucoxene and monazite resource has been estimated using fewer samples than the other valuable heavy minerals. The accuracy and confidence in their estimate is therefore lower.

6. For further details including JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 and cross sectional data, see previous announcements dated 7 April 2016, available at ASX’s website at www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20160407/pdf/436cjyqcg3cf47.pdf

11

APPENDIX B: DONALD MINERAL SANDS TESTPIT TABLE 1 SECTION 1, 2 & 3

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling techniques	•	Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific	•	One bulk ore and five bulk density samples were taken from the Donald
		specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals		deposit in March 2018.
		under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF	•	The bulk sample was taken from the top of the mineralized zone at 9m
		instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad		below the surface to a depth of 16m, totaling a 7m thickness.
		meaning of sampling.	•	The bulk sample suitable for metallurgical test work was dug using a Cat
	•	Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the		330 excavator.
		appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	•	The test pit was benched and dug in two blocks with the top block
	•	Aspects of the determination of mineralization that are Material to the Public		approximately 17m long x 6m wide x 5m deep and the lower block 7m
		Report.		long x 6m wide x 2m deep.
	•	In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be	•	Both blocks formed the one bulk sample which was used for
		relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m		metallurgical test work.
		samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire	•	The mineralized Loxton Sands were also sampled by hand shovels to
		assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where		depths of approximately 0.3 m for five bulk density samples used to
		there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual		measure the bulk density, moisture content, Atterberg limits and particle
		commodities or mineralization types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant		size distribution.
		disclosure of detailed information.	•	These samples weighing 1 to 1.5 kg were placed in sealed plastic bags.
Drilling techniques	•	Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast,	•	No drilling was undertaken
		auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard
		tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is
		_oriented and ifso, by what method, etc). _
Drill sample recovery	•	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and	•	No drilling as undertaken.
		results assessed.	•	No relationship between recovery and grade were found in the bulk
	•	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative		sample as the total material within the tested mineralized zones was
		nature of the samples.		sampled.
	•	Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and	•	The bulk sample contained 5.1% HM, 2.22% TiO2and 0.67 % ZrO2
		whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of	•	The Mineral Reserves stating 4.8 % HM, 2.87 % TiO2and 0.90 % ZrO2
		fine/coarse material.
Logging	•	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically	•	During excavation the following was recorded:
		logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,		o Lithologies
		mining studies and metallurgical studies.		o Induration
	•	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean,		o Material hardness
		channel, etc) photography.
	•	_The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. _
Sub-sampling	•	Ifcore, whether cut or sawnand whether quarter, halfor allcore taken.	•	Five sub-samples (1to 5kg)were taken forbulkdensity testing.

1

Criteria					JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
techniques			and		•	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether	•	One bulk mineralised sample of 1000 tonnes was sent for metallurgical
sample	preparation					sampled wet or dry.		testing.
					•	For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample
						preparation technique.
					•	Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise
						representivity of samples.
					•	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ
						material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half
						sampling.
					•	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being
						_sampled. _
Quality	of assay		data		•	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory	•	The following laboratory tests were carried on the bulk sample as a
and laboratory tests						procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.		whole:
					•	For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the		o	Moisture content
						parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and		o	Density separation by size fraction.
						model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.		o	Particle size -250 um to +20 um were used in the analysis.
					•	Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks,		o	Bulk density by size fraction
						duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of		o	THM content
						accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.		o	TiO2, ZrO2, CeO2, Fe2O3and Al2O3were analysed and
									percentages were calculated.
								• Duplicates were prepared with no other laboratories were used.
Verification				of	•	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative	•	No twin samples were collected or assayed.
sampling assaying			and		• •	company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data	•	The intersection of the mineralized zone was recorded by the site geologist.
						storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	•	No adjustments to the data were undertaken.
					•	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.
Location		of	data		•	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-	•	The position of the bulk sample was mapped and surveyed
points						hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral
						Resource estimation.
					•	Specification of the grid system used.
					•	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.
Data	spacing		and		•	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	A single bulk	sample was taken.
distribution					•	Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree	•	The size of the sample (1000 tonne) was sufficient to identify grade,
						of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and		lithology continuity and for metallurgical test work.
						Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.	•	No compositing was applied
					•	_Whether sample compositing has been applied. _
Orientation		of data		in	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible	•	The bulk sample was unbiased in regards to the style of mineralisation
relation	to	geological				structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.		for metallurgical test work. The bulk sample consists of mineralisation
									2

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
structure	•	If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key		taken from two blocks. Most material was taken from the top block
		mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this		sample. It was taken in mineralisation from 9m to 14m below surface
		should be assessed and reported if material.		(510 bank cubic metres) and the lower block was taken in mineralisation
				from 14m to 16m depth (84bank cubic metres).
			•	The mineralisation style is similar in both blocks and representative for
				metallurgical test work.
			•	The bulk sample dimensions are very small in regard to the large
				dimensions of the deposit (approx. 3km width and over 10km long).
				There is no bias in relation to the orientation of the sample.
Orientation of data in	•	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible	•	The bulk sample was unbiased in regards to the flat lying nature of
relation to geological		structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.		mineralisation for metallurgical test work. Most material was taken from
structure	•	If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key		the top block sample. It was taken in mineralisation from 9m to 14m
		mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this		below surface (510 bank cubic metres) and the lower block was taken in
		should be assessed and reported if material.		mineralisation from 14m to 16m depth (84bank cubic metres.
			•	The mineralisation style is similar in both blocks and representative for
				metallurgical test work.
			•	This bulk sample dimensions are very small in regard to the large
				dimensions of the deposit (approx. 3km width and over 10km long)
Sample security	•	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	The five bulk density samples were stored in sealed bags on private
				land controlled by the company.
			•	The bulk sample was stored on location and loaded into covered bulk
				trucks and transported to the processing plant in Queensland.
Audits or reviews	•	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•	Only internal reviews were carried out.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement and	•	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements	•	This sample was taken within MIN5532 which is located within RL2002
land tenure status		or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships,		owned by Donald Mineral Sands (refer to Figure 2).
		overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national	•	AMC has been informed by Astron Limited that no third parties or other
		park and environmental settings.		interests impact on the exploration licence.
	•	The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known	•	AMC is not aware of any known impediments to the tenure being in
		impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		existence.
			•	Land use is broad acre cropping

3

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Exploration done by		•	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•	Drilling by CRA Exploration Pty Ltd in 1980’s.
other parties				•	Drilling and bulk sampling by Zirtanium Ltd in 2000, 2002 and 2004.
Geology		•	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	•	WIM-style mineralisation, fine grained heavy mineral deposit within the
					Loxton Sands.
				•	The deposit can be described as a Tertiary aged succession of marine,
					coastal and continental sediments deposited with heavy minerals in the
					area. The deposit consists of a solitary or composite broad, lobate sheet-
					like body of considerable aerial extent, highly sorted and associated with
					fine to very fine- grained micaceous sand with minor silt, clay and gravel
					beds. The HM occurs in parallel and cross laminated beds within the host
					unconsolidated sand, In the Donald deposit the HM mineralisation varies
					from 4m to over 18m in thickness. These WIM deposits are thought to
					represent accumulations formed below the active wave base in a near
					shore marine environment, possibly representing the submarine
					equivalent of the coarse-grained beach or strand style HM deposits.
					Minor coarse-grained deposits can occur at the top part of the Loxton
					Sands.
Drill hole	Information	•	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration	•	Previous drilling was used to identify the location of the bulk sample.
			results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill	•	The sample was taken within the following co-ordinates (projection
			holes:		MGA94):
			o easting and northing of the drill hole collar		o Easting – 659,826.4 m to 659,832.6 m
			o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of		o Northing – 5,953,155.6 m to 5,953,172.5 m
			the drill hole collar		o Depth from surface - 9 m
			o dip and azimuth of the hole
			o down hole length and interception depth
			o hole length.
		•	If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information
			is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of
			_the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case. _
Data	aggregation	•	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum	•	The information reported is the aggregation of samples taken by an
methods			and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off		excavator within a single bulk sample.
			grades are usually Material and should be stated.	•	A single bulk sample grade is reported within the -250 um to +20 um
		•	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade results		size fraction as containing 5.1 % HM.
			and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such	•	No metal equivalents are reported.
			aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such
			aggregations should be shown in detail.
		•	The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be
			clearly stated.
Relationship between		•	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration	•	The bulk sample was taken in two blocks, the top block sample was

4

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
mineralisation widths			Results.		taken in the mineralisation from 9m to 14m below surface for 510 bank
and intercept lengths		•	If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is		cubic metres and 17m long x 6m width x 5m deep and the lower block
			known, its nature should be reported.		was taken in mineralisation from 14m to 16m depth for 84bank cubic
		•	If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be		metres and 7m long x 6m width x 2m deep).
			a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	•	The mineralisation in the two blocks is a similar style and flat lying and
					representative for metallurgical test work.
Diagrams		•	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts	•	Refer to Figure 3 for location of bulk sample.
			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.
Balanced	reporting	•	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable,	•	The bulk sample is the complete Exploration Results being reported.
			representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be
			_practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results. _
Other	substantive	•	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	•	In 2010 a bulk sample within MIN5532 was taken using various
exploration data			including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey		composited drill holes around hole D10_044.
			results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of	•	Test work was completed in 2010 to compare results from test pit bulk
			treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical		sample taken in 2005.
			and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	•	The entire Loxton Sands horizon was sampled resulting in a composited
					low-grade sample of 2%HM head grade.
				•	In 2005 a test pit within EL4433 (now RL2003), material was processed
					at Mildura pilot plant and formed the basis of a process flow sheet
					design at the time.
				•	In 2000 a Caldwell hole near MIN5532 was drilled. Test work was
					carried out in 2001 and 2004 to develop process flow sheet design and
					determine HM, oversize, slimes and valuable mineral recoveries.
Further work		•	The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions	•	The pit used to provide the bulk sample was rehabilitated in 2020.
			or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	•	No additional bulk sampling is proposed at the moment.
		•	Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the
			main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this
			_information is not commercially sensitive. _

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Database integrity	•	Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example,	•	No new Mineral Resources are being reported based on the bulk
		_transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral _		sample

5

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			Resource estimation purposes.
		•	_Data validation procedures used. _
Site visits		•	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the	•	The Competent Person, Ross McClelland, visited the site and viewed
			outcome of those visits.		the excavation of the bulk sample as with the Metallurgical performance
		•	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.		of the pilot plant process.
Geological		•	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of	•	The previous drillhole data confirms the geological interpretation.
interpretation			the mineral deposit.	•	The HM is contained within the Loxton Sands unit which exists over the
		•	Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		entire tenements RL2003 and MIN5532.
		•	The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	•	No realistic alternative interpretations can be made.
		•	The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.	•	Geology and site observation was used to locate the top of the Loxton
		•	The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.		Sands and the mineralized zone.
Dimensions		•	The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along	•	Almost all of MIN5532 contains mineralization.
			strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower	•	The mineralization ranges in depth from 8 m to 22 m.
			limits of the Mineral Resource.	•	The bulk sample was taken froma depth of 9m to 16m in the
					mineralization.
Estimation	and	•	The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key	•	No new Mineral Resource estimation or reporting based on the bulk
modelling			assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,		sample is being carried out.
techniques			interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points.
			If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of
			computer software and parameters used.
		•	The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production
			records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of
			such data.
		•	The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.
		•	Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic
			significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).
		•	In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average
			sample spacing and the search employed.
		•	Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.
		•	Any assumptions about correlation between variables.
		•	Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource
			estimates.
		•	Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.
		•	The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model
			_data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data ifavailable. _
Moisture		•	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and	•	The bulk sample moisture content was determined to be 13.7%
			the method of determination of the moisture content.

6

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Cut-off parameters		•	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	•	No new Mineral Resource estimation or reporting based on the bulk
					sample is being carried out.
Mining factors	or	•	Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining	•	It is assumed the dry mining methods will be employed with the option of
assumptions			dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always		using wet mining methods.
			necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for
			eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the
			assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating
			Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this
			should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions
			_made. _
Metallurgical		•	The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is	•	Metallurgical testing of the bulk sample has shown:
factors	or		always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for		o A de-slimed fine sample product with elevated TiO2, ZrO2
assumptions			eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the		and CeO2can be produced.
			assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made		o The confirmed recoveries of in-size and in SG minerals to
			when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the		HMC, relative to the wet concentrator plant (WCP) feed
			case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical		are 88.5% for TiO2, 94.3% for ZrO2and 93.8% for CeO2.
			_assumptions made. _
Environmental		•	Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal	•	For Donald Mineral Sands mining license MIN5532 conditional approval
factors	or		options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable		has been obtained from the Victorian Government for mining of the
assumptions			prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential		deposit and placement of all waste material back into the mined-out
			environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage		void.
			the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields	•	Astron Limited has informed AMC that the current understanding is that
			project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of		there are no social or environmental issues which will impact on
			these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects		processing or mining of the deposit.
			have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the
			_environmental assumptions made. _
Bulk density		•	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If	•	Bulk density tests for the five locations where the bulk pre-sample was
			determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the		taken showed a range of;
			measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.	•	Wet 2.07 to 2.21 t/m3
		•	The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that	•	Dry 1.74 to 1.83 t/m3
			adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences	•	Bulk density was measured using the sand replacement method (AS
			between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.		1289.5.3.1)
		•	Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of
			_the different materials. _
Classification		•	The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence	•	No new Mineral Resource have been reported or classified based on the
			categories.		bulk sample.
		•	Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative
			confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in
			continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the
			data).

7

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the
			deposit.
Audits or reviews		•	The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	•	Previous Mineral Resource estimates based on drillhole samples have
					been audited by a third party independent consultancy, and they found
					no issues with the Mineral Resource estimate and reporting.
Discussion	of	•	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in	•	No new Mineral Resource have been reported or classified based on the
relative accuracy/			the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed		bulk sample.
confidence			appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical	•	There has been no production to date.
			or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within
			stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a
			qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and
			confidence of the estimate.
		•	The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if
			local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and
			economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the
			procedures used.
		•	These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be
			_compared with production data, where available. _

8