ATHENA RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

Mar 8, 2022

09 March 2022

The Company Announcements Office Australian Stock Exchange Limited 4 Floor, 20 Bridge Street SYDNEY, NSW 2000

Resources Byro Base Metals Project

==> picture [64 x 7] intentionally omitted <==

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

ACN 113 758 900
----- End of picture text -----

COMPLETION OF MILLY MILLY LITHOLOGICAL LOGGING AND ASSAY ANALYSIS.

Further to the completion of the base metal drilling announcement on 19 October 2021, Athena Resources Limited (“Company”) is pleased to announce the preliminary results from the Milly Milly Target Areas. Study works include lithological logging, cross-sectional interpretation, and assay results.

Highlights and findings from these works include.

Discovery of high-grade graphite seams from successful target drilling of an MLTEM conductor from hole AHRC0096 at Milly Milly within Area 2.

Graphite Intersections include

• 3m @ 4.83%C from 102m including 1m @ 13.02%C from 103m,

• 3m @ 3.16%C from 107m including 1m @ 5.28%C from108m,

• 2m @ 1.68%C from 120m including 1m @ 2.22%C from120m.

Confirmation that lithology within the Conduit Target in Area 3 is a high MgO olivine dunite and directly related to the main Milly Milly intrusion.

Nickel Intersection Includes

• 11m @ 0.46%Ni from 9m including 1m @ 0.82%Ni from 12m.

Discovery of a new package of prospective rock types in close proximity to the recently refined gravity anomaly within Area 2 at Milly Milly.

• The new package includes felsic -intermediate and ultramafic rock types.

• The sequence is not directly associated with the main Milly Milly intrusion and may represent an eruptive sequence.

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Milly Milly Drilling Summary

Drilling has been completed in 3 targets Areas at the Milly Milly intrusion within tenement E09/1637, based on the coincidence of MLTEM conductors, gravity anomalies, aeromagnetic data and geochemical path finder elements.

A Reverse Circulation drilling campaign was completed in October 2021 for a total of 7 holes and 1148m of drilling. The drilling included two holes drilled at Area 1, four holes drilled at Area 2 and one hole at Area 3 (Figure 1 & Table 1).

==> picture [404 x 454] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Milly Milly Drill Target Areas 1-3 with drill collars on updated gravity and magnetic base image. The colours are representing gravity, with the low responses being blue, grading to high responses in red.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 2 of 17

1.MillyMilly RC Drill Collars	1.MillyMilly RC Drill Collars	1.MillyMilly RC Drill Collars
Prospect	Target	Hole ID	East	North	Dip	Azi	EOH
MillyMilly	Area 1	AHRC0093	438101	7120753	-80	90	150
MillyMilly	Area 1	AHRC0094	438100	7120794	-80	90	150
MillyMilly	Area 2	AHRC0096	435840	7123285	-60	90	150
MillyMilly	Area 2	AHRC0098	435719	7124000	-60	90	200
MillyMilly	Area 3	AHRC0099	436225	7124268	-80	90	198
MillyMilly	Area 2	AHRC0102	435794	7123519	-60	90	150
MillyMilly	Area 2	AHRC0103	435764	7123770	-60	90	180

Table 1. Milly Milly RC Drill Collars

Area 2 MLTEM Target

AHRC0096 was drilled to a depth of 150m targeting a MLTEM conductor with target estimated at 100m to 120m. The plate was intersected within AHRC0096 at a depth of 103m down hole.

From surface the hole intersected a sequence metapelite to 102m containing moderate graphite. At 102 to 110m a zone of concentrated flaky graphite was intersected, best result was 3m @ 4.83%C from 102m including 1m @ 13.02%C from 103m and is interpreted as the conductive source of the EM response.

From 107m to 113m the graphite is intercalated with an unclassified ultramafic of moderate MgO containing trace sulphides. From 113 the remainder of the hole was metapelite to 150m. Casing was successfully deployed and DHTEM was completed confirming the graphite as conductive sequence. Intersections include,

• 3m @4.83%C from 102m including 1m @13.02%C from 103m,

• 3m @3.16%C from 107m including 1m @ 5.28%C from108m,

• 2m @1.68%C from 120m including 1m @ 2.22%C from120m.

==> picture [292 x 276] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Flaky Graphite Chips from AHRC0096 at 103m.

Athena Resources Limited

Page 3 of 17

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Extent of the Discovery

==> picture [363 x 258] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. MLTEM Response and Targeted Drilling.

The discrete moderate to high conductance zone was identified from moving loop electromagnetic The modelled conductor from the MLTEM response dips steeply to the west and plunges south. The depth extent is 150-200m. The top of the plate is near surface at 30m.

==> picture [348 x 260] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Geochemistry and VTEM Response AHRC0023 and AHRC0024.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 4 of 17

Hole AHRC0096 also followed up holes AHRC0023 (435656mE, 7123212mN) and AHRC0024 (435829mE, 7123239mN). The historic drilling targeting a 2010 VTEM anomaly (Figure 4). These holes intersected elevated PGM and base metal path finder elements but were not assayed for carbon/graphite. Rock chips in hole AHRC0023 contained flaky graphite chips from 87 to 92m and AHRC0024 contained flaky graphite chips from 123 to 127m.

Hole AHRC0024 is located 47m south of AHRC0096 and AHRC0023 is 75m to the south. From drilling to date and geophysics it is interpreted the graphite extends over a 100m strike length and to a depth of 200m. Further work is required to define the full extent of this discovery.

Area 3 Conduit Target

The Conduit target had remained untested until the current program. The target contains coincident anomalous surface geochemistry, favourable aeromagnetic signatures and has been structurally identified as a potential feeder conduit from the Milly Milly intrusion using 3D gravity modelling.

==> picture [307 x 323] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5 . Milly Milly Intrusion 3D Gravity Model and Interpreted Conduit Location

AHRC0099 was drilled centrally within the interpreted conduit (top left, Figure 5), towards the southeast, dipping at 80[0 ] to a depth of 198m. From surface within the regolith, the hole drilled a weathered zone in the upper saprolite to lower saprock at 53m of ultramafic origin.

Athena Resources Limited

Page 5 of 17

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Assays returned 11m @ 0.46%Ni from 9m including 1m @ 0.82%Ni from 12m within the weathered zone. From fresh rock at 53m the hole intersected a sequence of variable serpentinite ultramafic dunite to 82m, of similar lithology to the main Milly Milly intrusion. At 82m the hole intersected a 91m unit of yet to be classified mafic, possibly a later intrusive. The remainder of the hole from 173m to end of hole at 198m intersecting a dominantly ultramafic dunite unit as above. Deployment of casing was unsuccessful and DHTEM was not completed.

Area 2 Lithology Target

A further 3 holes were drilled in Drill Target Area 2 to determine if a prospective rock type was associated with the strong, discrete gravity anomaly striking northwest from hole AHRC0096 (Figure 1, red to pink colours). The three holes were drilled parallel to the gravity anomaly (Figure 5, orange), intersecting units of felsic - intermediate and ultramafic rock types.

AHRC0098 was drilled to a depth of 200m intersecting a 65m thick sequence of yet to be classified ultramafic, (possibly picrite) from 133m with mineral assemblage talc, chlorite, actinolite, amphibole, biotite with trace sulphides logged. No elevated sulphides were encountered.

AHRC0103 was drilled 230m south of AHRC0098 to a depth of 150m. Within the pelite were two small units at 47m - 53m and 73m-76m of distinctive and dominantly felsic origin possibly metamorphosed rhyolite. From 76m to 116m a 40m intermediate to ultramafic unit was encountered. From lithological logging the assemblage is reported as amphibole dominant with bladed actinolite, minor tremolite, biotite and trace sulphides. The unit remains unclassified awaiting geochemical analysis. No elevated sulphides were encountered.

AHRC0102 was drilled 251m south of AHRC0103 to a depth of 180m. Within the pelite were three small units at 82m - 83m and 99m-101m and 110m-114m of distinctive and dominantly felsic origin possibly metamorphosed rhyolite. From 125m to 161m a 36m a mafic to intermediate unit was encountered. From lithological logging the assemblage is reported as amphibole dominant with bladed actinolite, biotite and minor quartz and trace sulphides throughout. No elevated sulphides were encountered.

Casing was successfully deployed and DHTEM was completed. A weak off hole response was recorded from DHTEM at depth in all holes. Further geophysical assessment is required.

This is the first time this area has been drilled identifying a new and yet unclassified greenstone assemblage. Ongoing geochemical modelling is underway to determine the prospectivity and relationship between the units and the Milly Milly Intrusion.

The discovery of ultramafic rock types has greatly increased the exploration potential of Area 2.

Area 1 Drill Targets

A broad, kilometre scale low conductance MLTEM response was identified at 50m to 100m below surface. Previous drilling identified prospective lithology with anomalous copper, nickel and PGE elements. An EM anomaly extended from the weathered zone at 50m depth to 100m depth in fresh rock. Drilling tested if the anomaly is associated with a reef style disseminated nickel/copper sulphide occurrence common to the Bushveld type layered intrusive model.

Athena Resources Limited

Page 6 of 17

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

==> picture [482 x 245] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6. MLTEM Response and Targeted Drilling

Drilling results

AHRC0093 was drilled to a depth of 150m intersecting a shallow regolith and then thick sequence of high MgO serpentinite ultramafic, (dunite). Trace sulphides were recorded but no elevated sulphides were encountered. The hole was scheduled for DHTEM but deployment of casing failed.

AHRC0094 was drilled to a depth of 150m intersecting a shallow regolith and then a thick sequence of high MgO serpentinite ultramafic, (dunite). trace sulphides were recorded but no elevated sulphides were encountered. Casing was successfully deployed and DHTEM was completed.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 7 of 17

ABOUT ATHENA RESOURCES LIMITED

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Athena Resources Limited (ASX:AHN), which is based in Perth was listed on the ASX in 2006 and currently has 813 million shares on issue. Athena owns a 100% interest in the Byro Project through its subsidiaries Complex Exploration and Byro Exploration where it is exploring for copper, nickel, PGE’s and iron ore.

==> picture [376 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7. Project Location

INTERESTS IN MINING TENEMENTS

AthenaResourcesLimited100%	TenementType
Byro Exploration	E–Exploration License
E09/1507
E09/1552
E09/1637
E09/1781
E09/1938
Byro Project Mining	M - MiningLease
M09/166
M09/168

Submissions for extension of terms for tenements E09/1507 and E09/1552 were granted by the Department of Mines, Industry Regulation and Safety for a further 2-year term.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 8 of 17

This announcement was authorised by the Board.

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Yours faithfully

E W Edwards

Executive Director

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 9 of 17

CAUTIONARY NOTES AND DISCLOSURES

Disclosures

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

All data and Information of material nature referred to within this Report with reference to the Milly Milly and Moonborough intrusions have previously been reported on the ASX platform in compliance with the relevant JORC compliance reporting format at the time of data acquisition.

Cautionary Notes and Forward Looking Statements

This announcement contains certain statements that may constitute “forward looking statements”. Such statements are only predictions and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, which could cause actual values, results, performance achievements to differ materially from those expressed, implied or projected in any forward looking statements.

JORC Code Compliance Statement

Some of the information contained in this announcement is historic data that have not been updated to comply with the 2012 JORC Code. The information referred to in the announcement was prepared and first disclosed under the JORC Code 2004 edition. It has not been updated since to comply with the JORC Code 2012 edition on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported.

Competent Persons Disclosure

Mr Kelly is an employee of Athena Resources and currently holds securities in the company.

Competent Person Statement

The information included in the report was compiled by Mr Liam Kelly, an employee of Athena Resources Limited. Mr Kelly has had over twenty years’ experience as a geologist in mining and exploration and is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, (306501). Mr Kelly has sufficient relevant experience in the styles of mineralisation and deposit styles under consideration to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in “The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC Code 2012 Edition)”. The historical information included is compliant with the relevant JORC Code, 2004 Edition , and new information announced post that version of the JORC Code is compliant with the JORC Code 2012 Edition. Mr Kelly consents to the inclusion of the information in the report in the context and format in which it appears.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 10 of 17

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report template

==> picture [63 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.	•All sample used in this announcement were taken from Reverse Circulation (RC), drilling. •At one-meter intervals a 5kg sample was split from a rotary cyclone using industry standard procedures.
	• Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	•Sample return was kept dry. •The cyclone was cleared at regular intervals to limit contamination between intervals.
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• 5kg of sample was combined pulverised and ground in lab conditions to obtain P80/45 micron • Au, Pt, Pd using standard Fire assay. All other elements using various acid digestions and ICP finish. • Sb,Te,Sb using D1 dige st low temp mixed acid, ICP finish • Cs,Ga,In,Rb,W using D4Z Fusion and weak acid, ICP finish • Ag, As, Ba, Be, Bi, Cd, Co, Cu, Li, Mo, Ni, Pb, Sc, Sr, Th, U, V, Zn using D3 4 Acid Including HF, ICP finish

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 11 of 17

		Commentary •Reverse Circulation (RC) •Original samples recovered from cyclone splitter using 1m intervals •Collection of RC cuttings both chips and fines •No bias was observed between recovery and sample quality or loss or gain •Original drill chips were geologically logged as well as recording major geotechnical features observable in chip over the full depth of the holes. •RC Drilling •Original samples were dry rotary split • Best practice ICP analysis as per ALS and Intertek Laboratories • ICP analysis acid digestions selected on fit for purpose basis by laboratory. •Industry standard sampling preparation procedures were used. Lab results are reviewed and checked for deviation using lab certified references and in house analysis
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	•Reverse Circulation (RC)
Drill sample recovery	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	•Original samples recovered from cyclone splitter using 1m intervals •Collection of RC cuttings both chips and fines •No bias was observed between recovery and sample quality or loss or gain
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • The total length and percentage of _the relevant intersections logged. _	•Original drill chips were geologically logged as well as recording major geotechnical features observable in chip over the full depth of the holes.
Sub- sampling techniques and sample preparation	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.	•RC Drilling
	• If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	•Original samples were dry rotary split
	• For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique.	• Best practice ICP analysis as per ALS and Intertek Laboratories • ICP analysis acid digestions selected on fit for purpose basis by laboratory.
	• Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.	•Industry standard sampling preparation procedures were used. Lab results are reviewed and checked for deviation using lab certified references and in house analysis

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 12 of 17

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • 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. •Sample blended and pulverized using industry standard procedures by ALS Laboratories. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. •Original average drill sample size from splitter was 5kg, average grain size is 2-20mm. Sample sizes taken are large enough to be representative of the whole rock constituents. Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. • ICP multi acid digest techniques are suitable for the analysis of most mineralogical ores, metallurgical products and complex matrices. • No ground geophysical measurements were taken • Lab QAQC involved internal lab standards, certified reference Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. •Summary inspection by Geologist •No adjustments have been made to readings •Assays have been verified using standard QA QC methods •All primary data from drilling and assay is recorded in a data base. •All reserve samples in storage are catalogued in the database and stored in marked steel drums. 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 •GPS +/- 10m Sample locations were measured with Garmin hand held GPS. Accuracy is within +/-5m	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • 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. •Sample blended and pulverized using industry standard procedures by ALS Laboratories. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. •Original average drill sample size from splitter was 5kg, average grain size is 2-20mm. Sample sizes taken are large enough to be representative of the whole rock constituents. Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. • ICP multi acid digest techniques are suitable for the analysis of most mineralogical ores, metallurgical products and complex matrices. • No ground geophysical measurements were taken • Lab QAQC involved internal lab standards, certified reference Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. •Summary inspection by Geologist •No adjustments have been made to readings •Assays have been verified using standard QA QC methods •All primary data from drilling and assay is recorded in a data base. •All reserve samples in storage are catalogued in the database and stored in marked steel drums. 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 •GPS +/- 10m Sample locations were measured with Garmin hand held GPS. Accuracy is within +/-5m	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary • 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. •Sample blended and pulverized using industry standard procedures by ALS Laboratories. • Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled. •Original average drill sample size from splitter was 5kg, average grain size is 2-20mm. Sample sizes taken are large enough to be representative of the whole rock constituents. Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. • ICP multi acid digest techniques are suitable for the analysis of most mineralogical ores, metallurgical products and complex matrices. • No ground geophysical measurements were taken • Lab QAQC involved internal lab standards, certified reference Verification of sampling and assaying • The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data. •Summary inspection by Geologist •No adjustments have been made to readings •Assays have been verified using standard QA QC methods •All primary data from drilling and assay is recorded in a data base. •All reserve samples in storage are catalogued in the database and stored in marked steel drums. 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 •GPS +/- 10m Sample locations were measured with Garmin hand held GPS. Accuracy is within +/-5m
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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.	•Sample blended and pulverized using industry standard procedures by ALS Laboratories.
	• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	•Original average drill sample size from splitter was 5kg, average grain size is 2-20mm. Sample sizes taken are large enough to be representative of the whole rock constituents.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• ICP multi acid digest techniques are suitable for the analysis of most mineralogical ores, metallurgical products and complex matrices. • No ground geophysical measurements were taken • Lab QAQC involved internal lab standards, certified reference
Verification of sampling and assaying	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	•Summary inspection by Geologist •No adjustments have been made to readings •Assays have been verified using standard QA QC methods •All primary data from drilling and assay is recorded in a data base. •All reserve samples in storage are catalogued in the database and stored in marked steel drums.
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	•GPS +/- 10m Sample locations were measured with Garmin hand held GPS. Accuracy is within +/-5m

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 13 of 17

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control. •MGA_GDA94 Zone 50 •Topographic surface recorded with handheld Garmin Data spacing and distribution • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied. •Spacing is randomly biased by drill collar location. •Mineralisation domains have not demonstrated continuity in either grade or geology. Therefore, cannot support the definition of a Mineral Resource or Reserve, and the classifications under the 2012 JORC Code. 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. •This report refers to assay results that are not affected by orientation. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. • No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in this data at this point Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Chain of custody was maintained from sample site to lab Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • No reviews of data management systems has been carried out	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control. •MGA_GDA94 Zone 50 •Topographic surface recorded with handheld Garmin Data spacing and distribution • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied. •Spacing is randomly biased by drill collar location. •Mineralisation domains have not demonstrated continuity in either grade or geology. Therefore, cannot support the definition of a Mineral Resource or Reserve, and the classifications under the 2012 JORC Code. 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. •This report refers to assay results that are not affected by orientation. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. • No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in this data at this point Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Chain of custody was maintained from sample site to lab Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • No reviews of data management systems has been carried out	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control. •MGA_GDA94 Zone 50 •Topographic surface recorded with handheld Garmin Data spacing and distribution • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied. •Spacing is randomly biased by drill collar location. •Mineralisation domains have not demonstrated continuity in either grade or geology. Therefore, cannot support the definition of a Mineral Resource or Reserve, and the classifications under the 2012 JORC Code. 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. •This report refers to assay results that are not affected by orientation. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. • No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in this data at this point Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Chain of custody was maintained from sample site to lab Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • No reviews of data management systems has been carried out
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	•MGA_GDA94 Zone 50 •Topographic surface recorded with handheld Garmin
Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied.	•Spacing is randomly biased by drill collar location. •Mineralisation domains have not demonstrated continuity in either grade or geology. Therefore, cannot support the definition of a Mineral Resource or Reserve, and the classifications under the 2012 JORC Code.
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.	•This report refers to assay results that are not affected by orientation.
	• If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	• No orientation based sampling bias has been identified in this data at this point
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• Chain of custody was maintained from sample site to lab
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• No reviews of data management systems has been carried out

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	**JORC Code explanation **	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.	•Tenement referred to in this report, E09/1637 is 100% Athena owned and operated within native title claim WAD 6033/98, made on behalf of the Wajarri Yamatji People.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 14 of 17

		Commentary •The tenements are in good standing and no known impediments exist. •See tenement listing attached. •Historic exploration within the project area largely confined to south of a line extending from Imagi Well to the Byro East intrusion (Melun Bore). The earliest work with any bearing on Athena’s activities is that of Electrolic Zinc Co (1969) exploring for chromatite at Imagi Well, followed closely by Jododex Australia (1970-1974) at Byro East. Much of the exploration of a more regional nature is of limited use either because of the vagaries of the accuracy of positional information and the limited range of elements analysed. More recent surveys pertinent to Athena’s current investigations include that of Redback Mining (1996-2002), Yilgarn Mining Limited (2003-2008) and Mithril (2007, JV with Yilgarn) at Byro East, and Western Mining Corporation (1976-1979) and Precious Metals Australia at Imagi Well. Newcrest Mining carried out a limited reconnaissance RAB drilling programme for platinum just to the east of Byro homestead (1998-1990). • Upper amphibolite to granulite metamorphic facies with mafic to ultramafic intrusive. Granite and migmatite are common
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	•The tenements are in good standing and no known impediments exist. •See tenement listing attached.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	•Historic exploration within the project area largely confined to south of a line extending from Imagi Well to the Byro East intrusion (Melun Bore). The earliest work with any bearing on Athena’s activities is that of Electrolic Zinc Co (1969) exploring for chromatite at Imagi Well, followed closely by Jododex Australia (1970-1974) at Byro East. Much of the exploration of a more regional nature is of limited use either because of the vagaries of the accuracy of positional information and the limited range of elements analysed. More recent surveys pertinent to Athena’s current investigations include that of Redback Mining (1996-2002), Yilgarn Mining Limited (2003-2008) and Mithril (2007, JV with Yilgarn) at Byro East, and Western Mining Corporation (1976-1979) and Precious Metals Australia at Imagi Well. Newcrest Mining carried out a limited reconnaissance RAB drilling programme for platinum just to the east of Byro homestead (1998-1990).
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• Upper amphibolite to granulite metamorphic facies with mafic to ultramafic intrusive. Granite and migmatite are common

Athena Resources Limited

Page 15 of 17

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

		Commentary •Samples were taken from drill holes AHRC0093, AHRC0094, AHRC0098, AHRC0099, AHRC0102 and AHRC0103 for ICP analysis. •For hole details refer to all drill hole information (Table 1), within the announcement. •No information has been excluded •No weighting, min max, ave, truncation or cut off techniques were used in this report •No metal equivalent is referred to in this report •No metal equivalent is referred to in this report •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the geometry of mineralisation or drill hole angle.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o hole length.	•Samples were taken from drill holes AHRC0093, AHRC0094, AHRC0098, AHRC0099, AHRC0102 and AHRC0103 for ICP analysis. •For hole details refer to all drill hole information (Table 1), within the announcement.
	• 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.	•No information has been excluded
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.	•No weighting, min max, ave, truncation or cut off techniques were used in this report
	• 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.	•No metal equivalent is referred to in this report
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	•No metal equivalent is referred to in this report
	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.
	• If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported	•The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the geometry of mineralisation or drill hole angle.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 16 of 17

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Relationship between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths • 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’). •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the width or down hole length. 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. •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical by nature. All relevant data is tabulated within the body of the announcement. 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. • This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken. 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. •This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken Further work• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Further metallurgical work will be undertaken to obtain definitive and conclusive data to be incorporated into design concepts for further exploration. • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. •The planned drilling information is commercially sensitive and is not included in this report.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Relationship between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths • 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’). •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the width or down hole length. 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. •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical by nature. All relevant data is tabulated within the body of the announcement. 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. • This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken. 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. •This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken Further work• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Further metallurgical work will be undertaken to obtain definitive and conclusive data to be incorporated into design concepts for further exploration. • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. •The planned drilling information is commercially sensitive and is not included in this report.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Relationship between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths • 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’). •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the width or down hole length. 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. •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical by nature. All relevant data is tabulated within the body of the announcement. 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. • This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken. 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. •This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken Further work• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Further metallurgical work will be undertaken to obtain definitive and conclusive data to be incorporated into design concepts for further exploration. • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. •The planned drilling information is commercially sensitive and is not included in this report.	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Relationship between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths • 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’). •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the width or down hole length. 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. •The test work announced in this report is metallurgical by nature. All relevant data is tabulated within the body of the announcement. 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. • This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken. 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. •This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken Further work• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Further metallurgical work will be undertaken to obtain definitive and conclusive data to be incorporated into design concepts for further exploration. • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. •The planned drilling information is commercially sensitive and is not included in this report.
Criteria	JORC Code explanation Commentary
Relationship between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths	• 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’).	•The test work announced in this report is metallurgical. There is no relationship to the width or down hole length.
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. _	•The test work announced in this report is metallurgical by nature. All relevant data is tabulated within the body of the announcement.
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. _	• This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken.
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. _	•This report contains all meaningful assay results for the test procedures undertaken
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	Further metallurgical work will be undertaken to obtain definitive and conclusive data to be incorporated into design concepts for further exploration.
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	•The planned drilling information is commercially sensitive and is not included in this report.

Athena Resources Limited

Level 3 І 101 St Georges Terrace І Perth І Western Australia І 6000 PO Box 2704 І Perth І Western Australia І 6001 Ph +61 411 649 551 E joe@pathwayscorporate.com.au W athenaresources.com.au

Page 17 of 17