ATOMIC EAGLE LTD - Regulatory Filings 2026

ASX Announcement

10 March 2026

Uranium Resources increase by 24% following maiden drill program – Amendment

Atomic Eagle Limited ( ‘Atomic Eagle’ or ‘the Company’ ) ( ASX:AEU | OTCQB: AEUXF ) refers to the announcement released on 3 March 2026 titled ‘Uranium Resources increase by 24% following maiden drill program’ and advises that the announcement has been updated to include additional disclosures required under the the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, 2012 (the ‘JORC Code’) following consultation with the ASX.

Summary of changes to amended announcement:

additional JORC-related disclosure, including expanded Appendix A and Appendix B disclosure, environmental and social disclosure, and drill hole/significant intercept information for drill holes used in the increased Mineral Resource Estimate; and
amended technical and compliance wording to better explain the basis of the increased Mineral Resource Estimate, the previously reported components, and Competent Person sign-off.

Investors should refer to the attached amended announcement. The Company also confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in this market release.

Approved for release by the Board of Atomic Eagle Limited.

For further information, please contact:

Phil Hoskins

Nathan Ryan

Chief Executive Officer Investor and Media Relations

Atomic Eagle Limited NWR Communications E: [email protected] E: P: +61 8 6382 1805 P: +61 420 582 887

E: [email protected] P: +61 420 582 887

ASX Announcement

10 March 2026

Uranium Resources increase by 24% following maiden drill program

Atomic Eagle Limited (‘ Atomic Eagle ’ or ‘ the Company ’) ( ASX:AEU | OTCQB: AEUXF ) is pleased to announce a 24% increase in total Mineral Resources at its Muntanga Uranium Project (‘ Muntanga ’ or the ‘ Project ’) in Zambia, following completion of the Company’s maiden drilling campaign at the Project.

Highlights

Total Mineral Resources increased by 11.4 Mlbs to 58.8 Mlbs U ₃ O ₈ at 309ppm, representing a 24% increase.
Maiden pit ‑ constrained Mineral Resource Estimates (MRE) completed for:
Chisebuka: Inferred MRE of 19.9 Mt @ 220 ppm U ₃ O ₈ for 9.7 Mlbs
Muntanga East: Inferred MRE of 3.1 Mt @ 252 ppm U ₃ O ₈ for 1.7 Mlbs
Resource upgrade delivered at a low cost:
Discovery cost of US$0.05/lb relative to spot uranium price of US$89/lb.
Atomic Eagle will commence the largest drill program at the Project in almost 20 years later this month, targeting resource growth.
Atomic Eagle is well funded for aggressive exploration with $19.2 million cash (31 Dec 2025).

Atomic Eagle CEO Phil Hoskins said:

“To deliver a 24% increase in total resources from our maiden drill program – and to do so at a cost of just US$0.05 per pound – is a strong endorsement of our exploration approach and the potential scale of the uranium resources across our Muntanga Project area.

This resource upgrade is a great start to achieving the Exploration Target we announced for the Project late last year. The Company aims to materially increase the mineral resource to underpin a significantly larger uranium mine in Zambia.

We’re embarking on the largest drill program for the Project in almost 20 years later this month and we see clear scope for this program to significantly expand the Project’s resource inventory and unlock further value for shareholders.”

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Mineral Resource Estimate

Table 1 below incorporates the maiden MRE for Chisebuka and Muntanga East into the MRE for the entire Muntanga Project. The Measured and Indicated Resource remains at 50.4Mt @ 359ppm U3O8 for a total of 40.0 Mlbs U3O8 whilst the Inferred Resource increases to 35.8Mt @ 238ppm U3O8 for a total of 18.8 Mlbs U3O8 . The location of the new resources within the entire Project area is shown in Figure 1 below.

Table 1: Mineral Resource Estimate for the Muntanga Uranium Project, including Chisebuka and Muntanga East highlighted

CATEGORY	U3O8 CUT- OFF	DEPOSIT	TONNES	U3O8 GRADE	U3O8 METAL
	[ppm]		[Mt]	[ppm]	[Mlb]
Measured	110	Gwabi	1.1	254	0.6
	90	Njame	2.5	358	2
Indicated	90	Muntanga	8.6	369	7
	90	Dibbwi	3.2	253	1.8
	90	Dibbwi East	31.3	372	25.7
	110	Gwabi	2.7	374	2.2
	90	Njame	1.0	306	0.7
Total M&I			50.4	359	40.0
Inferred	90	Muntanga	3.4	278	2.1
	90	Dibbwi	1.0	213	0.5
	90	Dibbwi East	7.1	252	3.9
	110	Gwabi	0.2	272	0.1
	90	Njame	1.1	329	0.8
	90	Chisebuka	19.9	220	9.7
	90	Muntanga East	3.1	252	1.7
Total Inferred			35.8	238	18.8
TOTAL			86.2	309	58.8

Notes :

Mineral resources are constrained within an optimised pit shell using a uranium price of US$100/lb, mining costs of US$3.30/t, processing costs of US$9.00/t, additional mining costs of US$0.55/t, G&A costs of US$1.50/t, Transport costs of US$1.50 and a royalty of 5 %.
Mineral Resources are reported at a range of U3O8 ppm cut-off grades within the optimised pit shell.
Mineral Resources are inclusive of mineralisation in the low-grade U3O8 80 ppm halo but reported above the relevant cut-off and classed as Inferred Resources. This mineralisation represents approximately 5 % of the total Mineral Resources metal (Mlb) for Dibbwi, Dibbwi East, Muntanga. Njame and Gwabi. For Muntanga East and Chisebuka, a 90ppm grade cut off was used to define the mineralisation.
Mineral Resources are not Ore Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability. There is no certainty that all or any part of the Mineral Resources will be converted into Ore Reserves in the future.
All figures have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy of the estimate.
The Mineral Resources in Table 1 (with the exception of Chisebuka and Muntanga East) were previously announced by the Company’s announcement titled ‘Tombador to Acquire GoviEx Uranium Inc.’ released to the ASX on 19 August 2025 and the report titled “Prospectus” released to the ASX on 6 October 2025 and 20 November 2025.

Appendix A and B of this announcement contain detailed supporting information for the updated MRE.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 2 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [517 x 363] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Location of Chisebuka and Muntanga East Resources within the Muntanga Project Licence Area[1]

Chisebuka Mineral Resource Estimate

The Chisebuka target is located in the southernmost tenement (Kariba Valley) of the Company’s large licence package (see Figure 1 above). Chisebuka was first identified by the previous owner, African Energy Resources, in 2007 when it carried out mapping, soil sampling and ground radiometric surveys over the area. African Energy Resources drilled 73 holes for 5,729m on a 400m x 100m grid that intersected mineralisation, was open in all directions, but was not followed up.

Atomic Eagle identified the Chisebuka target as a high priority exploration target. The historical drilling was infilled by closer spaced drilling at 200m x 100m over the entire Chisebuka target (3.5km x 1.5km), and a smaller, shallower, higher-grade area was targeted for further infill drilling at 100m x 100m to generate the current MRE.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 3 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [517 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Chisebuka MRE outline within Grade x Thickness contour

Atomic Eagle, and independent mineral resource estimation specialist Snowden Optiro, prepared an MRE for the Chisebuka target that incorporated results of the recently completed 69-hole (7,235m) infill drill program. Whilst a total of 131 holes for 12,395m have been drilled into Chisebuka, the MRE was estimated around the area of higher-grade mineralisation drilled to 100m x 100m spacing informed by 42 holes (Figure 2).

Atomic Eagle’s maiden Inferred Mineral Resource for Chisebuka is estimated at 19.9Mt at 220ppm U3O8 for 9.7Mlb at a 90ppm cut off. The remaining area of Chisebuka will be targeted in the coming 2026 drill program to further define areas of shallow higher-grade mineralisation aimed at expanding the MRE. Chisebuka is now the second largest deposit in the Project area and is likely to support a separate heap leach operation for processing prior to PLS, resin or eluate transportation to a central processing facility.

The results of the MRE have been reported as Mineral Resources that have "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction", or RPEEE, and lie within optimised pit shells defined by cost of mining and processing, as well as other criteria, including losses in mining and metallurgical recoveries. Further information on the methodology of estimating the MRE for Chisebuka is provided further below.

Muntanga East Mineral Resource Estimate

The Muntanga East target is located on the Muntanga Mining Licence (13880-HQ-LML), 5km north-east of the Muntanga resource (9.1 Mlb U3O8) and 8km north-east of the Dibbwi East resource (29.6 Mlb U3O8) (see Figure 1). Muntanga East was first identified by previous owner Denison Mines Corp (Denison) as a discrete radiometric anomaly. Denison drilled 16 holes for 1,203m across 2008 and 2012 but never followed up on the intercepts.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 4 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Given its proximity to Muntanga and Dibbwi East, the Muntanga East target was identified as a high priority exploration target. The 2025 drill program successfully confirmed and expanded on historical drilling intercepting a near-surface (<50m), flat-lying zone of uranium mineralisation 1,000m long, 600m wide and up to 20m thick (Figure 3).

==> picture [517 x 355] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Muntanga MRE outline within Grade x Thickness contour

Atomic Eagle and Snowden Optiro prepared an MRE for Muntanga East that incorporated results of the recently completed infill drill program comprising 75 holes for 4,799m. Atomic Eagle’s maiden Inferred Mineral Resource for Muntanga East is estimated at 3.1Mt at 252ppm U3O8 for 1.7Mlb at a 90ppm cut off. The Muntanga East deposit is likely to provide a low strip-ratio addition to the mining inventory given its proximity to the central Muntanga and Dibbwi East resources.

The MRE has been reported as Mineral Resources with "reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction", or RPEEE, and lie within optimised pit shells defined by cost of mining and processing, as well as other criteria, including losses in mining and metallurgical recoveries (see Appendix A). Further information on the methodology of estimating the MRE for Muntanga East is provided further below.

Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology

Drilling at Muntanga East started in July 2025, following a review of prospective areas in close proximity to the existing ore bodies at the Muntanga Project in Southern Zambia. The drilling was carried out over two phases, in July and then in September 2025. The open hole percussion technique (DTH) was used to reduce the drilling grid to a 100m x 100m spacing, this was followed by drilling of 10 diamond drillholes, at PQ size for metallurgical sampling and gamma-grade verification.

The Muntanga East deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup. The mineralisation occurs within the sandstones that dip very shallowly to the southeast (0[o] to 5[o] ),

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 5 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

very similar to the nearby Muntanga deposit. The mineralisation appears to be mostly secondary type, meta autunite and carnotite along fracture surfaces and disseminated within the sandstone.

At Chisebuka, drilling was carried out initially on a 200m x 100m grid, using DTH percussion drilling, a small area to the north was targeted and drilled to a 100m x 100m drill spacing to be able to define an Inferred Resource.

The Chisebuka deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup. The mineralised zone occurs within sandstones, that dip shallowly to the southeast (15[o] to 20[o] ) and trend in a northeast to southwest direction and occur within two major lenses, that extend from surface to a depth of 150m, and possibly beyond. Normal faulting appears to have had a significant effect on the location of mineralisation.

The uranium grade at the Muntanga project is determined using a down hole geophysical tool, a calibrated gamma tool, whilst the drill core is photographed, marked up, geologically logged and core samples marked up. Quarter core samples were sent to ALS laboratories for analysis using ICP-MS. Standard QAQC protocols were followed by inserting Standards, Blanks, Duplicates every 20 samples. Half core was sent to Mintek labs in South Africa for metallurgical testing. The remaining core is kept at Muntanga core farm for reference.

All the geological data collected in the field is loaded on MX deposit database software.

The drill collars and eU3O8 data were loaded into Datamine and a block model created using categorical indicator kriging to domain and define the mineralisation, followed by Ordinary Kriging of eU3O8 into the block model. Snowden Optiro then applied economic constraints to generate optimised pit shells that capture those mineral resources considered to have reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction (RPEEE). Figures 2 and 3 are examples of the Mineral Resources at Chisebuka and Muntanga East that lie inside and outside the engineered pit shells. The Mineral Resources that are constrained to the optimised pit shells are then reported above a 90 ppm eU3O8 cut-off.

==> picture [517 x 364] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Chisebuka block model 3D view looking northeast of the uranium resources and open pit shells (grey)

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 6 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 351] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Muntanga East block model 3D view looking northeast of the uranium resources and open pit shells (grey)

The key assumptions used to develop the pit shells were as follows:

U3O8 price assumption – base case is US$100/lb U3O8.
Metallurgical Recovery 90%.
Mining parameters include:
Mining dilution 10%.
Mining loss 5%.
Pit slope angles 39 degrees.
Mining cost – US$3.30 per tonne mined.
Processing cost – average US$9 per tonne of feed.
General & Admin cost – US$1.50 per tonne of feed.
Royalty 5%.

Next Steps

Atomic Eagle is planning a major exploration drill program across the broader Muntanga Project area in 2026, planned to be the largest undertaken at the Project in almost two decades.

Upcoming drilling will focus on:

Expanding newly defined resources at Chisebuka; and
Testing additional priority targets across the Project area including Namakande and Muntanga North.

‑ Atomic Eagle believes the Muntanga Project area remains materially under drilled relative to its scale, providing strong leverage to continued exploration success. The Company remains well funded to undertake an aggressive resource expansion campaign, with a cash balance of $19.2 million as at 31 December 2025.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 7 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Technical Note – Grade Determination

Uranium grade can be measured indirectly by measuring the radioactivity emitted by the daughter products of uranium during decay, using a gamma tool containing a sodium iodide (NaI) crystal, which records counts per second when hit by gamma rays. These counts are converted to uranium grade (ppm eU3O8) by applying a K factor, a dead time correction and other correction factors as required such as casing, hole size, mud density. The K factor and the dead time is unique to each tool and is determined during calibration.

The gamma tool used by Atomic Eagle has been calibrated at the Grand Junction calibration pits by Mt Sopris prior to arrival on site and the tool was run weekly in a lined test hole to test repeatability. Furthermore, the results from the Atomic Eagle logging tool were compared with results from logging contractors Terratec, who logged most of the holes during the last 4 years, and a further calibration factor was applied to the company’s gamma results to be consistent with older data. Diamond drill holes will be drilled in future drill programs and the gamma tool will be verified against the assay data to confirm the result.

Competent Person’s Statement –Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Estimate

March 2026 MRE

The information in this announcement relating to the Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Estimate, is based on information compiled and supervised by Mr Jerome Randabel, who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Randabel is a geologist with 30 years of experience in mineral exploration and mining, with the last 24 years having worked in sediment-hosted uranium deposits in Australia and Africa. He is consultant to Atomic Eagle. Mr Randabel has sufficient experience relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the exploration activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code (2012 Edition). Mr Randabel consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

January 2024 MRE

The information in this announcement that relates to the Mineral Resource Estimate for the Muntanga Uranium Project (with the exception of Chisebuka and Muntanga East) is extracted from the Company’s ASX announcement titled ‘Tombador to Acquire GoviEx Uranium Inc.’ released to the ASX on 19 August 2025 and the report titled “Prospectus” released to the ASX on 6 October 2025 and 20 November 2025, which are available to view at: ASX Announcements -Atomic Eagle.

Atomic Eagle confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original report and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the previously announced Mineral Resource Estimate for the Muntanga Uranium Project continue to apply and have not materially changed. Atomic Eagle confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original report and that the Competent Person’s consent remains in place for subsequent releases by Atomic Eagle of the same information in the same form and context, until the consent is withdrawn or replaced by a subsequent report or accompanying consent.

JORC Table 1

A material information summary is provided as Appendix A and a summary of JORC Table 1 information is provided in Appendix B to this announcement.

Approved for release by the Board of Atomic Eagle Limited.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 8 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

For further information, please contact:

Phil Hoskins

Chief Executive Officer

Atomic Eagle Limited E: [email protected] P: +61 8 6382 1805

Nathan Ryan

Investor and Media Relations NWR Communications E: [email protected] P: +61 420 582 887

About Atomic Eagle

Atomic Eagle Limited (ASX: AEU) is an ASX-listed mineral resource company focused on exploration and development of uranium assets in Africa, with the 100%-owned district-scale Muntanga Uranium Project in Zambia as its core asset. The Muntanga Project area spans four mining licences and two exploration licences over a 146km strike length covering 1,136km[2] , adjacent to Lake Kariba. The Muntanga Uranium Project contains a Measured and Indicated Resource of 50.4Mt @ 359ppm U3O8 for a total of 40.0 Mlbs U3O8 and an Inferred Resource of 35.8Mt @ 238ppm U3O8 for a total of 18.8 Mlbs U3O8 .

Muntanga benefits from excellent infrastructure, being located near the town of Chirundu close to the Zimbabwe border, with sealed road access to Chirundu, Siavonga Lusaka (the capital). This network gives the project easy access to Lusaka’s international airport and to Namibia’s port of Walvis Bay via Livingstone (about 560km west) providing export routes to both western and eastern markets.

==> picture [510 x 347] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 9 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix A: Material Information Summaries Section 5.8 Geological Interpretation and Estimation Parameters

The following is a material information summary relating to the Mineral Resource estimate, consistent with ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1 requirements. Further details are provided in the JORC Code Table 1 (Appendix 3).

Location, geology and geological interpretation

The Muntanga Project is in the Southern Province of the Republic of Zambia and comprises four mining licences: Kariba Valley, Muntanga, Dibbwi and Chirundu, and two exploration licences: Chirundu Extension and Nabbanda. The Muntanga and Dibbwi mining licences comprise the Muntanga East, Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East deposits. The Chirundu mining licence contains the Njame and Gwabi deposits and Kariba Valley holds the Chisebuka deposit.

The project area is located some 100 km to the south of the capital Lusaka and is readily accessible via sealed roads that run to Siavonga, Gwembe and Chirundu and local dirt tracks that run tot local villages and farms.

The Project area is situated within the Karoo Supergroup, which comprises thick, carboniferous to late Triassic age, terrestrial sedimentary strata and is widespread across much of what is now southern Africa. The Karoo Supergroup was deposited within an extensive foreland basin created when compression and accretion along the southern margin of Gondwana resulted in the formation of the Cape Fold Belt to the south. To the north, crustal extension due to thermal doming following the assembly of the Pangean supercontinent around 320 million years ago, resulted in the formation of a northeasterly trending series of rift basins (Yeo, 2010). The rifting is believed to have been associated with the breakup of Gondwanaland during the Permian Period, followed by the opening of the proto-Indian Ocean in the Jurassic; with a final episode related to the development of the East African Rift system in the late Cretaceous and early Tertiary times.

During the Cenozoic, the East African Rift System propagated south-westerly across the continent and led to the reactivation of the Karoo rift basins as well as the formation of new fault depressions, such as the Okavango Rift (Laletsang et al., 2007; Kinabo et al., 2007), the southeastern extension of the mid-Zambezi and Luangwa rift systems.

The Karoo Supergroup in the Project area consists of three formations within the Lower Karoo; the Siankondobo Sandstone Formation, overlain by the Gwembe Coal Formation, which itself is overlain by the Madumabisa Mudstone Formation. The Siankondobo Sandstone Formation consists of fine clastic sediments with a basal diamictite and conglomerate overlain by siltstones and sandstones. The Gwembe Coal Formation is comprised of carbonaceous mudstones and siltstones interspersed with coal seams and sandstones, while the Madumabisa Mudstone Formation ‑ consists of a thick sequence of non carbonaceous grey mudstones with calcareous bands. The Madumabisa Formation is unconformably overlain by the Upper Karoo which consists of four formations; the Escarpment Grit is overlain by the Interbedded Sandstone and Mudstone Formation, followed by Red Sandstone which is finally capped by the Jurassic Bakota Basalt Formation. The Escarpment Grit comprises a 400 m thick series of continental arenaceous silici ‑ clastic sediments with interbedded mudstones. Although locally referred to as Escarpment Grits, this group is a correlative of the Beaufort Group elsewhere in the Karoo Supergroup and contains interbedded mudstones and fine-grained sandstones, as well as grits and conglomerates.

The Project is situated in the mid-Zambezi Rift Valley. In the region, known uranium mineralisation typically occurs within the Upper Karoo whereas the Lower Karoo hosts much of the coal reserves of Zambia, Zimbabwe and South Africa. At the Project, all of the known uranium mineralisation occurs within the Escarpment Grit. Similar sandstonehosted uranium mineral deposits occur in many of the Karoo rift basins including Letlhakane in the Kalahari Basin of Botswana and Kayelekera in the Rukuru Basin of Malawi. The underlying Madumabisa Mudstone appears to have acted as an impermeable barrier controlling the base of the mineralisation. The Escarpment Grit itself shows a wide variation in lithology which is typical of continental sediments. Uranium mineralisation appears to have been introduced after sedimentation (epigenetic) and occurs as fillings into pore spaces, fractures, joints, coatings on sand grains and occasionally along steeply dipping cross beds.

The Escarpment Grit Formation consists of coarse to very coarse-grained sandstones that are locally conglomeratic and fine upwards into more fine-grained sandstones and intercalated mudstones. Silicified wood is abundant locally. AGIP geologists historically distinguished two informal members in the Escarpment Grit suggesting a change in fluvial style. A lower “Braided Facies” member is characterised by relatively poorly sorted sandstones and pebbly sandstones with mudclasts and thin discontinuous mudstones, and an overlying “Meandering Facies” member is characterised by

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 10 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

well-sorted upward-fining sandstones (i.e., point bar deposits) with mudclasts and pebble-lag layers, interbedded with laterally extensive mudstones.

Stratabound uranium mineralisation in the Escarpment Grit is known in the lower part of the “Meandering Facies” at Njame, and the upper part at Dibbwi. Association with boundaries between sandstone-dominated stratigraphic units suggests that permeability contrast is a factor controlling uranium mineralisation. Widespread soft-sediment folds suggest syn-depositional seismic activity and fault re-activation, with potential seismic pumping of diagenetic fluids contributing to the mineralisation event.

Regionally, the Muntanga uranium deposit and other uranium occurrences in southern Zambia, lie near the northwest margin of the Mid-Zambezi Graben. This structure is essentially a half-graben, with its faulted footwall against the Precambrian crystalline rocks on the northwestern Zambian side, and passive onlap on crystalline basement rocks on the southeastern Zimbabwean side. The Mid-Zambezi Graben is subdivided into two major sub-basins by the northeast-trending Kamativi - Chizarira - Matusadona basement block. The north sub-basin is fault-bounded on both its margins and is, hence, a true graben. Cyclic upward fining of Karoo strata (Catuneanu et al., 2005) reflects episodic, fault-controlled subsidence in the graben.

At Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East, northeast-trending faults likely controlled deposition of the Escarpment Grit “Braided Facies”, and fault-related folds may control blind mineralisation in the Dibbwi and Dibbwi East area. The Muntanga area of the Mid-Zambezi Valley is characterised by a series of northeast-trending, fault-bounded cuestas or fault blocks, uplifted to the northwest and dipping to the southeast. Three major northeast-trending anastomosing fault systems can be distinguished in the Muntanga area: the Lusitu, Dibbwi and Bungua Mountain fault zones. There are numerous minor faults of limited extent trending northwest to north.

Minor north- to northwest-trending faults, with extents of less than four kilometres, crosscut the major fault systems. In contrast with the major faults, they appear to be normal faults. These minor faults likely formed in response to differential uplift on the major faults. One of these extends southerly into the Dibbwi East mineral deposit.

At Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East, uranium mineralisation appears to be later than at least some of the normal faults which cut the Escarpment Grit Formation. This is evident from the good correlation of the radiometric logging data between adjacent holes within the Muntanga deposit separated by interpreted faulting (Lusambo, 2011).

The source of the uranium is believed to be the surrounding Proterozoic gneisses and plutonic basement rocks. Having been weathered from these rocks, the uranium was dissolved, transported in solution and precipitated under reducing conditions in siltstones and sandstones. Post-lithification fluctuations in the groundwater table caused dissolution, mobilisation and redeposition of uranium in reducing, often clay-rich zones and along fractures.

Mineralisation is not strictly associated with a particular unit in the stratigraphic section. It is observed to occur in both the fine-grained and coarser material and in mudstones, especially where fractures and mud balls occur. Some mineralisation occurs in association with manganese oxide or disseminated with pyrite. Mineralisation in some bore holes is seen to occur where there was a grey alteration, limonite and feldspar alteration and in dark grey mudstones (Sakuwaha, 2011). The strata dip in the south-easterly direction and mineralisation seems to occur along dip.

Uranium mineralisation occurs in a number of different associations, namely disseminated uranium mineralisation, uranium mineralisation associated with mudstones and siltstones, fracture-hosted uranium mineralisation and primary uranium mineralisation.

At Njame, the uranium mineralisation occurs at the interface between siltstones and sandstones at redox boundaries. Approximately 25 % of the Njame mineralisation is siltstone hosted, with the balance in coarser-grained sandstones and grits. Drilling identified two main mineralised horizons; the thickest, most consistent and highest grade is the lower horizon within the second sequence from the base. Drilling was carried out along the entire length of the 5 km long system, with uranium mineralisation encountered along the entire length. The siltstone horizons are generally laterally continuous for hundreds of metres, except where younger grit/ sandstone channels have cut through them. There is a clear stratigraphic control on mineralisation at the deposit scale, although structural control may be present on a larger scale.

Similarly to Njame, the uranium mineralisation at Gwabi is related to the redox front; there is one main mineralised horizon which appears to be controlled by both lithology and the redox boundary. It is hosted by the coarse-grained ‑ sediments that are interpreted to be the along strike continuation of the Escarpment Grits which host the Njame uranium mineralisation. Uranium mineralisation at the Gwabi deposit occurs in red, oxidised, coarse-grained

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 11 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

sandstones, grits and pebble conglomerates which overlie a green, non ‑ mineralised, reduced silty ‑ shale horizon. This is interpreted to represent a major redox boundary and maybe the regional unconformity between the upper and lower Karoo.

The Chisebuka deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup. The mineralised zone occurs within sandstones, that dip shallowly to the southeast (20[o] ) and trend in a northeast-to southwest direction and occur within two major lenses, that extend from surface to depth of 150m, and possibly beyond. Normal faulting appears to have had a significant effect on the location of mineralisation

The Muntanga East deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup, The mineralisation occurs within the sandstone that dip very shallowly to the southeast (0[o] to 5[o] ), very similar to the nearby Muntanga Deposit. The mineralisation appears to be moistly secondary type, meta autunite and carnotite along facture surfaces and disseminated within the sandstone.

Drilling techniques

The table below summarises the drilling techniques undertaken over the Muntanga East and the Chisebuka mineralised areas that were used in the resource estimate. The DTH and some DDH drilling has been undertaken by Atomic Eagle in 2025, whilst RC, and some DDH was undertaken by AFR and Denison Mines in 2008 to 2012.

Muntanga East	Muntanga East
Type	Number	Meters
DTH	58	3,848
RC	8	423
DDH	18	1,432.13
Total	84	5703.13
Chisebuka
RC	17	1,452
DTH	25	2,208
Total	42	3,660
Total	126	9,363

The DDH used conventional double tube techniques as the rock is competent. Recoveries were usually greater than 90%, except where broken ground/faulting was encountered, PQ sized core used to collect samples for metallurgical purposes (half core), with a quarter core sent for assays, and a quarter kept at the core farm for reference.

The DTH drilling is a down the hole hammer percussion technique, and no samples were recovered due to contamination. All holes were logged with a gamma tool to determine in situ grade.

Historic: For the RC, drilling faced sampling technique was used and the samples were collected in plastic bags under a cyclone to be later split into sub samples.

Sampling and Assaying

All DDH holes were logged for lithology, structure, alteration, mineralisation and geotechnical characteristics. From 2008 to 2012, data were entered into DHLogger software on laptops in the field and then transferred into a Fusion database. Hard copies of drill logs are stored at the site. In 2021 to 2025, the DDH core data were collected using the Seequent MX Deposit Application, with data stored directly in the cloud. Most of the core mark-ups and photography were done on the drill pad so that the quality of the core was not lost during transport to the core farm. The core was then logged geologically using the descriptions outlined above and then marked up for sampling.

Prior to core logging, down-hole geophysical probe information was reviewed, with the major lithological contacts, structures and mineralised horizons being inferred from the gamma and conductivity readings. These inferences are then reviewed alongside the core. The core was then measured and metre marked, and the core recovery, longest

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 12 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

piece and scintillometer readings were recorded. The diamond core was then cut using a core saw at the core farm at Muntanga, and the samples dispatched to ALS Global sample prep lab in Kitwe Zambia, where the pulps are then couriered to their main laboratory in South Africa for assay.

QAQC protocol during the 2025 drilling programme followed well documented procedures, where field duplicates, field standards (CRMs), field blanks and laboratory standards that were submitted at a rate of one duplicate, one standard and one blank within sample batches of 20 samples.

The sample analysis undertaken by ALS Global (ALS) has used their ME-MS61 technique which involves a four-acid digest followed by ICP-MS and ICP-AES.

Bulk density

A total of 450 bulk density measurements have been collected across the Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East deposits. A global dry bulk density of 2.1 t/m3 has been assigned for tonnage reporting for all three deposits. There are some variations related to lithology and redox state. However, the individual sample populations are not significant. A wax coating was used in 88 % of the volume displacement density determinations, taking the rock’s porosity into account to prevent overstating the density. The CV of the density values is in the order of < 0.06. Therefore, the use of a mean density value is suitable for the current MRE

Estimation methodology

After reviewing the available data, it was decided to adopt a Categorical Indicator Kriging (CIK) approach to flag the data into mineralised and non-mineralised domains. A eU3O8 grade of 100 ppm was chosen as the indicator. Values equal to or greater than 100ppm U3O8 are set to 1 and those values less than 100ppm U3O8 are set to 0. The transformed data is then kriged and the resultant values range between 0 and 1 and represent the probability of the block being above the indicator grade. A threshold value is then selected to discriminate the two domains one being above the indicator grade, the other below it. Ordinary Kriging (OK) was then undertaken on the data with the drill data flagged into the mineralised and non-mineralised domains. Grade caps were applied for the Muntanga East deposit 300 ppm and 1,750 ppm eU3O8 was applied to the low and high grade domains respectively. Grade caps were applied for the Chisebuka deposit 550 ppm and 2,300 ppm eU3O8 was applied to the low and high grade domains respectively. eU3O8 grades were interpolated into blocks 50 m x 50 m x 1 m and 25 m x 25 m x 1 m (easting, northing, RL) for Chisebuka and Muntanga, respectively. Sub-celling was used to honour geological and topographical surfaces. A search strategy at the variogram range was used, with. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 samples was used. The search ranged from 150 to 250m the plane of the mineralization and 5m vertically. Hard boundaries were applied to the domains. Spatial and statistical analysis was undertaken in Supervisor software and Datamine software was used to generate the Mineral Resource Estimate.

Cut-off grades

The Mineral Resource Estimate for the Muntanga East and Chisebuka deposits have been reported above a 90 ppm U3O8 cut-off. The cut-off grade selected by Atomic Eagle is based on previous work carried out on the Muntanga project.

Mining factors

The Mineral Resource has been reported under conditions where the Company believes there are reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction through open pit mining methods. The parameters used were derived from the nearby deposits of the Muntanga project and are listed below.

U3O8 prices assumption – base case is US$100/lb U3O8.
Metallurgical Recovery 90%
Mining parameters include:
mining dilution 10%
Mining loss 5%
pit slope angles 39 degrees
Mining cost – US$3.30 per tonne mined.
Processing cost – average US$9 per tonne of feed.
General & Admin cost – US$1.50 per tonne of feed.
Royalty 5%

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 13 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Metallurgical factors or assumptions[2]

Metallurgical recovery of 90% is based on similarities to the nearby deposits where by the recovery from metallurgical testing at Muntanga Project exiting deposits where recoveries were determined from metallurgical test works, including column leach test and bottle roll tests of core samples from the Muntanga, Dibbwi East, Dibbwi and Njame deposits, Note that Gwabi being an outlier in a different geological setting.

Muntanga	93.0	%
Dibbwi	92.2	%
Dibbwi East	89.7	%
Njame	93.0	%
Gwabi	73.1	%

Mineral Resource classification

The Mineral Resource has been classified following the guidelines of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, 2012 (the JORC Code). The Mineral Resources have both been classified as Inferred on the basis of confidence in geological, grade and mineralogical continuity and by taking into account the quality of the sampling and assay data, and confidence in estimation of the U3O8 grade. The classification criteria were assigned based on the robustness of the grade estimate as determined from the drillhole spacing, geological confidence and grade continuity.

Environmental and social aspects

An environmental impact assessment (“EIA”) was prepared for the Chirundu (Njame and Gwabi) sites in 2008. This was based on baseline data collected between March 2007 and February 2008 (AFR, 2008). Similarly, an environmental impact study was prepared for the Project in 2009 by African Mining Consultants (“AMC”) as part of the Denison Feasibility Study (MDM, 2009).

In September 2025, GoviEx filed the environmental and social impact assessment (“ESIA”) with the Zambian Environmental Management Agency (“ZEMA”). ZEMA had previously provided a “no objection” notice to the draft ESIA submission. The ESIA was based on the earlier studies and included an update of the baseline studies and assessment of the impacts based on the project design. The ESIA is being reviewed together with the project’s Resettlement Action Plan (“RAP”), ensuring that environmental and social impacts, stakeholder engagement, and resettlement planning are fully integrated. The regulatory consultation process for the ESIA and RAP is expected to take approximately 6 -12 months.

Mineral Resource Estimate – Drill Hole Information

The holes below are drilled holes used in the updated Mineral Resources reported in this announcement. This drill hole information has been previously reported by the Company in its ASX announcements dated 11 December 2025, 14 January 2026, and 21 January 2026. Collar ID’s commencing with M are for Muntanga East and CH are Chisebuka.

11 December 2025

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 14 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Collar ID	East (mE)	North (mN)	RL (mASL)	Depth (m)	Date	DIP (˚)
CHDTH2066	606042	8157812	620	153	29/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2067	608072	8160444	677	117	30/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2068	608179	8160263	717	180	30/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2069	607875	8160015	691	138	30/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2070	608420	8160324	699	130	31/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2071	607953	8159870	674	130	31/07/2025	-90
CHDTH2072	608278	8160089	669	138	6/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2073	608510	8160150	673	170	2/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2074	608420	8160648	676	140	3/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2075	607210	8159643	642	155	12/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2076	606951	8159292	623	118	13/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2077	608816	8160808	637	140	4/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2078	608454	8161080	648	125	5/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2079	606630	8159018	622	120	5/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2080	606228	8158936	620	153	6/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2081	606049	8158881	626	125	6/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2082	605975	8158537	626	135	7/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2083	606929	8158929	616	118	7/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2084	607373	8158921	600	155	7/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2085	607726	8159852	693	151	9/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2086	607455	8159593	704	120	22/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2087	607025	8159945	699	119	24/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2088	606419	8159434	648	115	26/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2089	606690	8159790	711	120	28/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2090	606330	8159608	726	119	29/08/2025	-90
CHDTH2145	607609	8160114	686	127	22/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2146	608052	8160178	694	127	22/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2147	607993	8160268	722	128	23/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2148	607555	8160185	682	137	23/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2149	607486	8160276	685	83	24/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2150	607939	8160357	691	83	24/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2151	607880	8160425	682	83	24/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2152	607391	8160424	689	84	24/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2153	607818	8160509	684	81	25/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2154	607760	8160587	687	81	25/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2155	607449	8160339	696	80	25/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2156	607597	8160471	692	83	26/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2157	606328	8159168	626	84	26/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2158	607696	8160665	691	83	26/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2159	606257	8159234	638	82	27/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2160	606652	8159388	649	83	27/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2161	606580	8159472	651	83	28/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2162	607643	8160053	680	83	28/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2163	607716	8160245	686	83	28/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2164	607665	8160335	687	83	29/11/2025	-90
CHDTH2165	607725	8159922	674	83	1/12/2025	-90

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 15 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

14 January 2026

Collar ID	East (mE)	North(mN)	RL ( mASL_)	Dip	Depth (m)
CHDTH2166	607173	8160032	684	-90	82.7
CHDTH2167	607110	8160112	687	-90	81.4
CHDTH2168	606770	8159858	706	-90	83
CHDTH2169	606854	8159793	680	-90	83
CHDTH2170	607008	8160002	707	-90	83
CHDTH2171	606543	8159610	689	-90	81.2
CHDTH2172	607486	8159278	614	-90	83
CHDTH2173	606171	8159422	702	-90	82
CHDTH2174	607439	8159372	646	-90	100
CHDTH2175	606469	8159649	694	-90	83
CHDTH2176	606228	8159291	648	-90	83
CHDTH2177	607570	8160303	681	-90	83
CHDTH2178	607355	8159436	659	-90	90
CHDTH2179	607641	8160209	675	-90	83
CHDTH2180	607661	8160545	685	-90	83
CHDTH2181	607719	8160459	681	-90	83
CHDTH2182	607781	8160382	686	-90	83
CHDTH2183	607967	8160476	669	-90	83
CHDTH2184	607834	8160294	694	-90	83
CHDTH2185	607914	8160554	678	-90	83
CHDTH2186	607843	8160649	668	-90	83
CHDTH2187	607405	8160253	698	-90	81.3
CHDTH2188	607553	8160052	670	-90	83

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 16 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

21 January 2026

Collar ID	East (mE)	North (mN)	RL (mASL)	DIP (˚)	DEPTH ( m)
MEDTH2113	664579	8196342	615	-90	60
MEDTH2114	664505	8196394	609	-90	60
MEDTH2115	664414	8196451	630	-90	60
MEDTH2116	664353	8196363	628	-90	60
MEDTH2117	664523	8196266	610	-90	60
MEDTH2118	664686	8196149	613	-90	60
MEDTH2119	664722	8196019	597	-90	60
MEDTH2120	664774	8196099	609	-90	60
MEDTH2121	664812	8195960	598	-90	60
MEDTH2122	664550	8196125	618	-90	60
MEDTH2123	664384	8196231	606	-90	60
MEDTH2124	664303	8196285	626	-90	60
MEDTH2125	664270	8196422	627	-90	60
MEDTH2126	664410	8196094	624	-90	60
MEDTH2127	664490	8196041	623	-90	60
MEDTH2128	664357	8196014	627	-90	60
MEDTH2129	664271	8196072	636	-90	60
MED2130	665028	8196294	582	-90	68.3
MED2131	664980	8196211	583	-90	51.8
MED2132	664920	8196477	585	-90	70
MED2133	664809	8196320	587	-90	70
MED2134	664834	8196175	591	-90	69.4
MED2135	664866	8196033	584	-90	70
MED2136	664607	8196200	600	-90	65
MED2137	664639	8196432	600	-90	70
MED2138	664438	8196314	611	-90	50.3
MED2139	664915	8196099	583	-90	60.94
MEDTH2140	664333	8196156	608	-90	64
MEDTH2141	664244	8196199	622	-90	64
MEDTH2142	664598	8196068	595	-90	64
MEDTH2143	664330	8196511	618	-90	65
DADTH2093	641199	8180533	607	-90	100
DADTH2094	641327	8180417	601	-90	100
DADTH2095	641495	8180268	608	-90	100
DADTH2096	639913	8178589	564	-90	83
DADTH2097	639777	8178723	583	-90	100
DADTH2098	639631	8178868	589	-90	100
MWDTH2054	658939	8192835	588	-90	65
MWDTH2055	658718	8192794	598	-90	65
MWDTH2056	658605	8192807	607	-90	75
DBDTH2057	656189	8185426	552	-90	158
DBDTH2058	655936	8185695	564	-90	94

The holes below are historically drilled holes used in the updated Mineral Resources reported in this announcement. These drill holes have not been previously reported. Collar ID’s commencing with M are for Muntanga East and CH are Chisebuka.

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 17 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Collar ID	East (mE)	North (mN)	RL (mASL)	DIP (˚)	AZI (˚)	DEPTH (m)
MED56600-01	664185	8196121	623	-90	360	80
MED56600-02	664511	8195888	604	-90	360	50
MED57000-01	664429	8196422	606	-90	360	50
MEC57000-01	665095	8195982	574	-90	360	48
MEC57400-01	664732	8196756	606	-90	360	50
MEC57000-02	664753	8196188	590	-90	360	55
MEC57400-02	665375	8196375	583	-90	360	55
MEC57400-03	665038	8196576	580	-90	360	55
MEC57800-01	665360	8196726	571	-90	360	55
MEC57800-02	664991	8196998	590	-90	360	55
MED1214	664591	8196291	602	-90	360	120
MED1216	664302	8196251	617	-90	360	120
MED1218	664512	8196146	604	-90	360	120
MED1220	664867	8196004	584	-90	360	120
MED1264	665221	8196873	576	-90	360	120
CHI011	607300	8160263	709	-90	360	70
CHI012	607266	8160346	707	-90	360	58
CHI014	607222	8160410	716	-90	360	115
CHI015	607378	8160132	683	-90	360	94
CHI028	607358	8160076	677	-90	360	64
CHI036	607563	8160504	696	-90	360	58
CHI037	607614	8160422	685	-90	360	85
CHI038	607664	8160332	677	-90	360	90
CHI039	607715	8160246	685	-90	360	90
CHI040	607762	8160163	693	-90	360	88
CHI041	607978	8160630	666	-90	360	94
CHI042	608030	8160544	670	-90	360	90
CHI043	607881	8160800	695	-90	360	67
CHI044	607927	8160716	676	-90	360	80
CHI045	608076	8160457	676	-90	360	103
CHI060	607419	8160044	671	-90	360	103
CHI061	607463	8159952	659	-90	360	103

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 18 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Mineral Resource Estimate – List of Significant Intercepts

The holes below are significant intercepts used in the updated Mineral Resources reported in this announcement. These significant intercepts have been previously reported by the Company in its ASX announcements dated 11 December 2025, 14 January 2026, and 21 January 2026. Hole ID’s commencing with M are for Muntanga East and CH are Chisebuka.

11 December 2025

Hole_ID	From	To	eU3O8 ppm	Intervals
CHDTH2068	115.2	117.25	110.0	2.05
CHDTH2068	153.95	156.05	165.4	2.1
CHDTH2068	157.65	159.65	129.5	2
CHDTH2069	113	135.5	383.1	22.5
CHDTH2071	14.3	16.45	342.7	2.15
CHDTH2072	28.3	31.4	170.1	3.1
CHDTH2072	33.3	36.65	345.4	3.35
CHDTH2072	45.1	49.2	270.4	4.1
CHDTH2072	116.35	119.55	164.6	3.2
CHDTH2074	86.7	93.45	212.7	6.75
CHDTH2078	33.1	37.25	166.0	4.15
CHDTH2078	40.55	43.4	365.5	2.85
CHDTH2084	59.5	61.65	118.9	2.15
CHDTH2085	128.95	131.3	99.6	2.35
CHDTH2085	131.4	133.45	111.2	2.05
CHDTH2085	133.75	141.75	196.4	8
CHDTH2085	150.35	152.65	134.2	2.3
CHDTH2086	21.95	25.3	103.5	3.35
CHDTH2086	39.3	41.5	359.0	2.2
CHDTH2086	57.45	60.3	367.4	2.85
CHDTH2087	27.9	30.15	152.4	2.25
CHDTH2087	38	40.45	116.9	2.45
CHDTH2087	41.85	44.65	156.6	2.8
CHDTH2087	47.8	51.45	243.3	3.65
CHDTH2087	52.35	56.1	177.6	3.75
CHDTH2087	73.6	76.25	139.5	2.65
CHDTH2087	88.2	91.8	214.1	3.6
CHDTH2088	11.5	14.15	141.0	2.65
CHDTH2088	24.65	29.4	274.1	4.75
CHDTH2088	29.7	32.15	288.9	2.45
CHDTH2088	36.95	39.25	156.9	2.3
CHDTH2088	41.35	47.45	230.2	6.1
CHDTH2088	54.15	56.75	132.4	2.6
CHDTH2088	58.2	65.7	165.6	7.5
CHDTH2088	74.2	82.65	199.3	8.45
CHDTH2088	86.15	88.15	103.6	2
CHDTH2088	88.25	91.05	102.8	2.8
CHDTH2088	93.85	113.2	287.2	19.35
CHDTH2145	95.35	99.4	185.5	4.05

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 19 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Hole_ID	From	To	Grade	Intervals
CHDTH2145	100.8	102.85	109.8	2.05
CHDTH2145	105.55	107.7	145.5	2.15
CHDTH2145	111.05	113.65	156.7	2.6
CHDTH2145	113.75	116.85	208.6	3.1
CHDTH2145	117.55	124	297.7	6.45
CHDTH2147	121.55	125.6	203.3	4.05
CHDTH2148	16.6	19.75	239.4	3.15
CHDTH2148	63	65.6	168.3	2.6
CHDTH2148	70.45	72.7	148.5	2.25
CHDTH2148	78.7	80.9	129.3	2.2
CHDTH2148	107.45	109.65	129.1	2.2
CHDTH2149	30.55	33.25	123.2	2.7
CHDTH2149	37.85	40	194.2	2.15
CHDTH2149	45.8	50.9	191.7	5.1
CHDTH2149	51	55.85	264.0	4.85
CHDTH2149	66.2	68.45	259.1	2.25
CHDTH2150	73.75	76.6	376.4	2.85
CHDTH2151	5.2	10.25	279.0	5.05
CHDTH2151	10.35	24.4	195.2	14.05
CHDTH2151	28.3	32.8	546.9	4.5
CHDTH2151	49.85	54.8	219.5	4.95
CHDTH2151	62.9	65.35	114.5	2.45
CHDTH2153	13.5	29.9	1036.5	16.4
CHDTH2153	31.1	37.65	298.1	6.55
CHDTH2154	16.65	18.95	386.3	2.3
CHDTH2154	22.55	24.7	352.2	2.15
CHDTH2154	25.75	29.5	261.7	3.75
CHDTH2154	35.9	39.25	202.9	3.35
CHDTH2155	21.5	26.15	192.4	4.65
CHDTH2155	32.4	36.15	304.3	3.75
CHDTH2155	38	40.3	182.5	2.3
CHDTH2155	50.5	52.75	114.2	2.25
CHDTH2156	23.65	27.95	216.0	4.3
CHDTH2156	34.05	37.45	270.4	3.4
CHDTH2156	41	43.45	124.7	2.45
CHDTH2156	43.7	47.65	153.0	3.95
CHDTH2156	51.7	55.15	119.4	3.45
CHDTH2156	55.4	57.5	179.0	2.1
CHDTH2156	65.05	67.75	173.9	2.7
CHDTH2156	71.1	79.3	190.6	8.2

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 20 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Hole_ID	From	To	Grade	Intervals
CHDTH2157	70.05	72.8	155.2	2.75
CHDTH2158	30.95	35.45	145.3	4.5
CHDTH2159	46.2	49.2	112.2	3
CHDTH2161	14.45	17.7	300.0	3.25
CHDTH2161	24.15	26.4	142.5	2.25
CHDTH2161	30.65	74.25	215.0	43.6
CHDTH2162	74.85	81.05	210.9	6.2
CHDTH2163	29.65	31.7	101.9	2.05
CHDTH2163	32.15	61.5	438.8	29.35
CHDTH2163	63.15	66.15	176.5	3
CHDTH2164	4.6	18.55	293.8	13.95
CHDTH2164	51.1	55.6	151.1	4.5
CHDTH2164	65	67.3	141.5	2.3
CHDTH2165	62.3	64.5	125.8	2.2
CHDTH2165	69.65	71.8	151.5	2.15

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 21 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

14 January 2026

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)	Interval (m)
CHDTH2165	62.3	64.5	126	2.2
CHDTH2165	69.65	71.8	151	2.15
CHDTH2166	57.3	59.9	179	2.6
CHDTH2166	79.05	82.7	166	3.65
CHDTH2167	19.6	21.9	204	2.3
CHDTH2167	29.9	32.75	106	2.85
CHDTH2168	34.6	45.7	192	11.1
CHDTH2168	45.95	49.15	182	3.2
CHDTH2168	66.75	68.75	128	2
CHDTH2169	38.35	40.8	169	2.45
CHDTH2169	42.05	48.15	273	6.1
CHDTH2169	52.75	56.65	135	3.9
CHDTH2170	20.3	22.55	113	2.25
CHDTH2170	32.35	38.55	228	6.2
CHDTH2170	59.1	61.1	101	2
CHDTH2170	66.9	69.3	104	2.4
CHDTH2171	16.25	22.75	137	6.5
CHDTH2171	23.3	25.7	162	2.4
CHDTH2171	35.1	37.1	124	2
CHDTH2171	46.1	48.55	177	2.45
CHDTH2171	57.6	59.8	151	2.2
CHDTH2171	65.7	68.6	196	2.9
CHDTH2172	55.15	59.1	267	3.95
CHDTH2172	72.2	74.45	150	2.25
CHDTH2172	76.2	79.45	160	3.25
CHDTH2173	44.45	46.55	105	2.1
CHDTH2174	43.7	46.55	238	2.85
CHDTH2174	47.15	50	195	2.85
CHDTH2174	51.85	54.55	166	2.7
CHDTH2174	57.55	59.9	216	2.35
CHDTH2174	61	63.2	130	2.2
CHDTH2174	65.85	68.05	143	2.2
CHDTH2174	69.2	71.45	152	2.25
CHDTH2174	80.05	83.05	167	3
CHDTH2174	85.05	88	145	2.95
CHDTH2176	5.3	10.1	133	4.8
CHDTH2177	42.4	49.3	280	6.9
CHDTH2177	54.45	59.65	214	5.2
CHDTH2177	60.75	63.55	157	2.8
CHDTH2177	73.1	76.35	302	3.25
CHDTH2178	26.4	32.05	122	5.65
CHDTH2178	59.55	63.2	190	3.65
CHDTH2178	65.3	68.4	235	3.1
CHDTH2178	71.75	74	159	2.25

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal

dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 22 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)	Interval (m)
CHDTH2179	21.35	34.8	305	13.45
CHDTH2179	35.35	41.05	119	5.7
CHDTH2180	25	35.4	243	10.4
CHDTH2180	38.2	44.8	177	6.6
CHDTH2180	47.45	51.25	215	3.8
CHDTH2180	54.55	56.65	160	2.1
CHDTH2180	71.05	73.85	334	2.8
CHDTH2181	10.75	16.25	219	5.5
CHDTH2181	22.1	26.2	117	4.1
CHDTH2181	28.1	35.6	188	7.5
CHDTH2181	61.15	63.5	107	2.35
CHDTH2181	71.45	73.45	119	2
CHDTH2182	7.05	27.25	454	20.2
CHDTH2182	29.25	39.7	630	10.45
CHDTH2182	61.15	63.8	172	2.65
CHDTH2182	65.25	69.3	155	4.05
CHDTH2182	71.1	73.25	104	2.15
CHDTH2183	58.55	69.25	411	10.7
CHDTH2184	57.95	62.65	207	4.7
CHDTH2184	63.8	74.5	199	10.7
CHDTH2184	76.8	81.2	247	4.4
CHDTH2185	14.25	21.25	159	7
CHDTH2185	29.85	69.95	371	40.1
CHDTH2186	6.55	9.7	526	3.15
CHDTH2186	12.95	15.3	137	2.35
CHDTH2186	16.8	18.95	130	2.15
CHDTH2186	20.7	27.3	173	6.6
CHDTH2186	53.95	57.25	361	3.3
CHDTH2186	68.65	71.3	232	2.65
CHDTH2186	73.65	77.9	295	4.25
CHDTH2187	11.4	14.55	113	3.15
CHDTH2187	18.65	25.9	359	7.25
CHDTH2187	27.5	33.55	194	6.05
CHDTH2187	34.6	66.75	343	32.15
CHDTH2187	68.15	70.5	218	2.35
CHDTH2187	71.05	76.35	184	5.3
CHDTH2187	78.85	81.2	328	2.35
CHDTH2188	5	12.45	147	7.45
CHDTH2188	21.2	25.4	125	4.2
CHDTH2188	30.45	36.45	195	6
CHDTH2188	60.15	62.8	387	2.65
CHDTH2188	72.7	74.75	221	2.05

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 23 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

21 January 2026

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)
MED2130	24.1	38.3	14.2	335
MED2130	43.7	48.1	4.40	897
MED2131	25.65	33.35	7.70	231
MED2131	36.3	39.55	3.20	272
MED2132	55.65	56.9	1.35	131
MED2132	62.45	63.5	1.05	147
MED2133	53.3	54.3	1.00	112
MED2135	14	34.9	20.9	236
MED2136	32.1	34.3	2.20	150
MED2136	40.05	41.4	1.35	404
MED2137	62.95	64.55	1.60	167
MED2138	32.4	34.5	2.10	275
MED2139	13.4	37.55	24.15	323
MED2139	39.3	40.6	1.30	126
MED2139	48.9	50	1.10	152
MED2139	51.65	53.05	1.40	110
MEDTH2033	51.47	52.52	1.05	149
MEDTH2034	65.19	66.24	1.05	237
MEDTH2035	34.65	36	1.35	171
MEDTH2035	37	38.1	1.10	259
MEDTH2035	45.3	46.95	1.65	121
MEDTH2035	51.65	52.75	1.10	97
MEDTH2036	36.9	37.95	1.05	262
MEDTH2036	38.65	50.7	12.05	501
MEDTH2036	51.75	54.3	2.55	466
MEDTH2037	55.2	56.7	1.50	338
MEDTH2037	57.5	61.1	3.60	175
MEDTH2037	64.1	65.3	1.20	168
MEDTH2037	69.7	70.75	1.05	120
MEDTH2039	28.85	29.9	1.05	111
MEDTH2039	43.65	49.65	6.0	306
MEDTH2039	50.95	52.6	1.65	196
MEDTH2042	18.65	19.65	1.00	119
MEDTH2042	22.45	24.5	2.05	110
MEDTH2042	27.7	30	2.30	146
MEDTH2042	31.1	32.4	1.30	112
MEDTH2042	32.45	36	3.55	128
MEDTH2043	26.15	31.6	5.45	160
MEDTH2043	32.9	36.4	3.50	219
MEDTH2043	37.7	38.75	1.05	162
MEDTH2043	40.55	42.55	2.00	546
MEDTH2043	44.1	45.6	1.50	299
MEDTH2043	53.4	54.75	1.35	137
MEDTH2043	58	59.15	1.15	151

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 24 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)
MEDTH2043	61.4	62.4	1.00	90
MEDTH2043	63.9	65.1	1.20	93
MEDTH2044	45.55	51.3	5.75	838
MEDTH2044	63.4	64.6	1.20	314
MEDTH2045	26.55	28.15	1.60	125
MEDTH2045	38.65	40.65	2.00	122
MEDTH2046	41.25	44.4	3.15	170
MEDTH2048	10.6	17.15	6.55	1230
MEDTH2048	23.05	24.7	1.65	217
MEDTH2049	20.2	23.05	2.85	335
MEDTH2052	20.4	21.9	1.50	111
MEDTH2052	22.55	23.85	1.30	258
MEDTH2052	24.45	25.45	1.00	106
MEDTH2052	26.55	28.85	2.30	207
MEDTH2052	30.85	33.2	2.35	293
MEDTH2053	11.75	13.2	1.45	124
MEDTH2053	15.3	16.7	1.40	185
MEDTH2053	24.5	26.15	1.65	300
MEDTH2059	41.85	43.1	1.25	84
MEDTH2060	28.15	38.3	10.15	140
MEDTH2060	39.8	44.25	4.45	102
MEDTH2061	10.65	15.6	4.95	198
MEDTH2061	19	22.7	3.70	138
MEDTH2063	10.45	12.5	2.05	136
MEDTH2064	48.45	49.45	1.00	638
MEDTH2064	53	54.7	1.70	110
MEDTH2064	56.15	57.3	1.15	120
MEDTH2064	58.05	60.35	2.30	217
MEDTH2065	55.15	57.25	2.10	498
MEDTH2092	45.5	46.5	1.00	196
MEDTH2099	17	19.5	2.50	159
MEDTH2100	17.05	19.4	2.35	134
MEDTH2101	23.2	25	1.80	110
MEDTH2101	31.4	32.65	1.25	166
MEDTH2101	37.7	40.7	3.00	199
MEDTH2101	43.05	44.1	1.05	114
MEDTH2101	44.65	47.6	2.95	187
MEDTH2101	52.1	57	4.90	184
MEDTH2102	16.05	17.3	1.25	181
MEDTH2102	35.95	37.6	1.65	238
MEDTH2104	48.25	62.75	14.5	391
MEDTH2105	34.5	39.8	5.30	145

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 25 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Hole Id	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)
MEDTH2105	43	45.15	2.15	294
MEDTH2106	25.55	26.6	1.05	106
MEDTH2106	40.95	47.45	6.50	272
MEDTH2106	48.5	50.2	1.70	337
MEDTH2106	54.85	56.15	1.30	183
MEDTH2107	46.9	49.6	2.70	360
MEDTH2108	46.95	50.9	3.95	184
MEDTH2108	53.15	54.15	1.00	113
MEDTH2109	59.95	60.95	1.00	334
MEDTH2110	29.3	30.65	1.35	110
MEDTH2110	45.15	46.55	1.40	135
MEDTH2110	51.4	53.2	1.80	115
MEDTH2110	60.9	62.15	1.25	186
MEDTH2111	50.7	51.9	1.20	119
MEDTH2111	53	54	1.00	187
MEDTH2111	55.75	57.05	1.30	125
MEDTH2112	47.9	49.15	1.25	112
MEDTH2112	55.35	56.5	1.15	211
MEDTH2113	42.25	43.3	1.05	131
MEDTH2113	45.95	51.65	5.70	300
MEDTH2114	53.75	55.25	1.50	129
MEDTH2115	35.3	37.05	1.75	187
MEDTH2116	5.25	6.35	1.10	144
MEDTH2116	12.5	14.45	1.95	190
MEDTH2116	21.25	22.6	1.35	231
MEDTH2116	29.4	30.45	1.05	121
MEDTH2116	31.3	32.4	1.10	252
MEDTH2117	21.6	23	1.40	134
MEDTH2117	34.45	35.85	1.40	414
MEDTH2117	38.65	40.4	1.75	175
MEDTH2117	41.75	44.15	2.40	213
MEDTH2118	34.05	35.8	1.75	170
MEDTH2118	42.2	46.45	4.25	464
MEDTH2119	40.55	41.75	1.20	167
MEDTH2119	45.9	48.1	2.20	252
MEDTH2119	50.9	51.95	1.05	138
MEDTH2120	41.85	45.65	3.80	162
MEDTH2121	12	14.25	2.25	102
MEDTH2121	14.85	16.7	1.85	134
MEDTH2121	27.75	32.15	4.40	354
MEDTH2121	37.1	39.95	2.85	169
MEDTH2122	21.65	23.1	1.45	130
MEDTH2122	23.5	24.7	1.20	144
MEDTH2122	27.55	30.05	2.50	235

eU3O8 intercepts calculated from down hole gamma survey data using 100ppm cut-off, minimum width 2m with max 1m internal dilution

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 26 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

The holes below are significant intercepts from historically drilled holes used in the updated Mineral Resources reported in this announcement. These significant intercepts have not been previously reported. Hole ID’s commencing with M are for Muntanga East and CH are Chisebuka.

Hole ID	From (m)	To (m)	Interval (m)	Grade (eU3O8ppm)
MEC57000-02	12.56	14.06	1.5	181
MEC57000-02	44.76	48.86	4.1	438
MEC57400-01	31.02	32.02	1	141
MEC57400-01	33.52	34.82	1.3	154
MEC57400-03	27.6	28.7	1.1	400
MEC57400-03	44	45	1	115
MED1214	48.85	54.15	5.3	126
MED1216	10.15	12.95	2.8	180
MED1216	17.35	21.15	3.8	222
MED1216	21.45	25.65	4.2	123
MED1218	18.15	19.55	1.4	116
MED1218	25.35	27.25	1.9	201
MED1218	28.45	31.35	2.9	236
MED1218	32.05	33.45	1.4	244
MED1218	36.75	37.85	1.1	98
MED1220	13.25	14.35	1.1	99
MED1220	14.55	22.65	8.1	221
MED1220	23.35	35.15	11.8	193
MED1220	40.65	41.65	1	108
MED1220	41.75	43.05	1.3	129
MED1220	52.35	54.15	1.8	149
MED1264	29.45	30.85	1.4	127
MED56600-01	10.3	11.8	1.5	184
MED56600-01	16.9	18.7	1.8	156
MED56600-01	21	22.6	1.6	147
MED56600-01	26.1	28.5	2.4	129
MED57000-01	15.62	17.42	1.8	239
MED57000-01	22.92	26.02	3.1	161
MED57000-01	32.22	36.22	4	404
MED57000-01	39.62	42.62	3	151
CHI011	22	23	1	121
CHI011	33	34	1	131
CHI011	38	40	2	141
CHI011	49	50	1	105
CHI012	34	35	1	128
CHI014	71	72	1	102
CHI014	75	76	1	160
CHI014	89	90	1	162
CHI014	91	92	1	143
CHI015	67	68	1	139
CHI015	76	77	1	342
CHI015	78	80	2	272
CHI015	82	84	2	145
CHI015	88	89	1	133

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 27 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

CHI028	48	49	1	121
CHI028	51	52	1	173
CHI036	22	23	1	133
CHI036	51	53	2	137
CHI037	23	25	2	229
CHI037	32	33	1	435
CHI037	34	35	1	402
CHI037	47	49	2	138
CHI038	4	7	3	293
CHI038	8	9	1	193
CHI038	10	17	7	339
CHI038	45	46	1	180
CHI038	52	55	3	199
CHI038	65	66	1	233
CHI038	73	74	1	200
CHI038	80	81	1	175
CHI038	83	85	2	231
CHI039	34	41	7	751
CHI039	45	49	4	217
CHI039	52	56	4	296
CHI039	58	60	2	258
CHI039	63	64	1	420
CHI040	82	84	2	148
CHI040	85	87	2	114
CHI041	25	26	1	120
CHI041	71	72	1	101
CHI041	73	74	1	136
CHI041	77	78	1	167
CHI041	83	84	1	176
CHI041	87	88	1	216
CHI041	90	91	1	679
CHI042	23	25	2	269
CHI042	52	54	2	244
CHI042	63	64	1	215
CHI042	69	70	1	121
CHI043	4	5	1	224
CHI043	22	23	1	138
CHI043	25	26	1	138
CHI043	33	35	2	187
CHI043	59	60	1	143
CHI043	64	65	1	344
CHI044	31	32	1	143
CHI044	57	58	1	120
CHI045	58	59	1	223
CHI045	62	63	1	235
CHI045	64	66	2	205
CHI045	87	88	1	1035
CHI045	92	93	1	221

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 28 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [596 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

CHI045	94	95	1	413
CHI045	98	99	1	151
CHI060	47	49	2	138
CHI060	63	64	1	221
CHI061	92	93	1	119
CHI061	95	97	2	188

==> picture [236 x 18] intentionally omitted <==

Page 29 of 46

Atomic Eagle Limited | ASX:AEU | www.atomiceagle.com.au

==> picture [841 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix B: JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘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 (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• At Chisebuka, the primary method of grade determination was through gamma logging for equivalent uranium (eU3O8) using a Mt Sopris natural gamma sonde equipped with a Sodium Iodide crystal. The sonde is brand new and was only used for the data collection this year and was calibrated at the Grand Junction calibration facility (Colorado) in 2024 by the supplier prior to delivery. • Readings were obtained at 1cm intervals downhole. • Gamma readings provide an estimate of uranium grade in a volume extending approximately 40 cm from the hole and thus provide much greater representivity than laboratory assays using core or chip samples. • Chemical assays will be used to check for correlation with gamma probe grades; disequilibrium is not considered an issue for the project. • At Muntanga East large diameter PQ (90mm) diamond drill holes have been interspersed with the DTH holes to get a spread across the resource area. Selected quarter core intervals will be prepared using a diamond saw and sent to an accredited laboratory for cross-referencing the gamma probe results. Industry standard QAQC measures such as certified reference materials, blanks and repeat assays were used. • Well‑documented procedures were used for RC sample logging. In general, RC chips were logged immediately after drilling whereas the core was logged after being carefully joined up and marked on a V‑trough. The information recorded included lithological, structural, geotechnical, weathering/ oxidation and mineralogical logs. For cored holes, the mineralised zones of each were selected at the discretion of the logging geologist. • The RC samples were collected as follows: `o` RC drill chips were collected at 1m intervals down‑hole using a cyclone into PVC bags prior to splitting. `o` The collected samples were riffle split using multiple passes through a single-stage riffle splitter; a final

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		sample of approximately 2 kg was collected for submission to the laboratory for analysis. `o` In wet holes, the samples were left to dry as best possible and then homogenised and quartered by hand. • RC chip trays were systematically logged by collecting the sieved RC chips and storing them in a tray, with each labelled compartment of the tray containing the chips from 1 m
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	• Open hole hammer (DTH) (diameter of 150mm) was the main drilling technique used; no samples were collected for assay as the quality of the samples is not considered representative. All holes were logged using a gamma sonde. • All holes were surveyed using a Mt Sopris QL40-DEV tool to define the inclination and drift of holes. • Additionally, PQ (90mm) core was drilled to collect metallurgical and assay material (quarter core). Drilling was done using standard tube method. Core recovery is usually 90% or better. • Denison’s 2007 to 2012 drilling campaigns consisted of DDH and RC drilling, predominately drilled vertically, along with some inclined holes. Limited checks on hole deviation demonstrated deviations of less than 2°. All DDH were drilled at angles ranging from 55° to 80°, and at a number of azimuths although dominantly towards 135° or 315°. Down-hole survey measurements were taken using a single-shot camera at 15 m down-hole intervals. • RC drilling at Chisebuka was completed by Capital Drilling (Zambia) Limited using rig types typically similar to Schramm 450, medium-sized truck-mounted rigs with air capability of 1,100 cfm/350 psi. All RC drilling was completed with a 5” face hammer.
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.	• No detail has been provided regarding core recovery in historical drilling • At Chisebuka, no core or drill chips were collected for sampling as the uranium grades are determined from down hole gamma log data. • The lenses of uranium mineralisation at Chisebuka dip approximately 15o, it is assumed that intercepts are close to true width. • At Muntanga East, during diamond drilling, cores are measured for recovery on a run-by-run basis as the core is removed from

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		the core barrel at the drill site. All core recoveries recorded to date have been very high (>90%). • The lenses of uranium mineralisation at Muntanga East are flat- lying, hence vertical holes are drilled perpendicular to the mineralisation. Intercepts are considered as true widths. • There is no known relationship or bias between sample recovery and grade for the diamond drilling or the RC drilling.
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.	• Drill chip samples from RC and DTH drilling were laid out in piles next to the rigs for geological logging. They were logged for lithology, grain size, alteration, and colour. Representative samples were collected in chip trays for eventual relogging if required and storage at the Muntanga Camp core yard. • Down-hole geophysical logging was conducted to measure the electrical properties of the rock from which lithologic information can be derived and natural gamma radiation, from which an indirect estimate of uranium content can be made. The down- hole geophysical probes measure the following parameters: conductivity, resistivity, self-potential, single point resistance, deviation and natural gamma. • Down-hole gamma data collected by Atomic Eagle were converted into eU3O8 using the ALT Wellcad software. The final data were converted to a .csv format files for input into the master drill hole database. • All DDH were logged for lithology, structure, alteration, mineralisation and geotechnical characteristics. • Prior to core logging, down-hole geophysical probe information is reviewed, with the major lithological contacts, structures and mineralised horizons being inferred from the Gamma and conductivity readings. These inferences are then reviewed alongside the core. • The core is then measured and metre marked, and the core yard technician records core recovery, longest piece and scintillometer readings. • Once the core is marked up, a geologist records lithology, alteration, structure and faults.
Sub-sampling techniques	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	• No subsampling occurred at Chisebuka due to the drilling technique and sampling methods used. • At Muntanga East in 2025 quarter core was taken by diamond core saw for assay, which will be used to verify the gamma data.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
and sample preparation	• 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.	• Drilling conducted by OmegaCorp (2006) and Denison (2007 to 2012) included both percussion and diamond drilling. Drill core and/or chips were photographed, logged, marked for sampling, split, bagged, and sealed for shipment at their field logging facility. • From 2006 to 2008, the samples were transported in a dedicated truck from Zambia to Johannesburg, South Africa where Genalysis Laboratory Services (“Genalysis”) operates a dedicated sample preparation facility. Sample preparation was carried out via a process of drying, crushing and milling of RC and diamond core samples. Crushers were cleaned with a silica rock (waste rock) after every sample. Milling was done in a ring and puck pulveriser and contamination was avoided by cleaning with compressed air and silica rock (waste rock) after every sample. With every batch of 40 samples one waste rock blank was assayed, to monitor contamination. • From 2009 to 2012, sample preparation was undertaken at ALS Chemex in Johannesburg. Received sample information was verified by ALS personnel and logged in the ALS tracking system; a sample receipt and sample list were generated and sent to the appropriate authorised Denison personnel. Sample preparation consisted of weighing and drying of each sample, followed by fine crushing of the entire sample to 70 % passing -2 mm. A 250 g split was collected from each sample and pulverised to 85 % passing 75 microns for analysis. • For the Chisebuka samples, ALS Chemex Ltd was used as the principal analytical laboratory company for U3O8 analysis. The sample preparation was completed at ALS Chemex Johannesburg, with analytical analysis (i.e. assaying) of the sample pulps completed at either the ALS Chemex analytical laboratories in Johannesburg or Vancouver, Canada. The ALS Chemex laboratories in Johannesburg and Vancouver are both ISO 9001:2000 accredited.
Quality of assay data and	• 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	• The gamma probe is run weekly in a test hole to check for consistency, and re-logging of holes is also done on a routine basis. • The gamma tool used is run to facilitate a reliable conversion of down-hole radiometric probe data into equivalent uranium eU3O8, a deposit/probe-specific Radiometric-Grade correlation

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
laboratory tests	derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	must be established. However, prior to developing a Ra-Grade correlation raw probe data must be adjusted to account for gamma signature attenuation associated with the logging environment, such as the size of the drill hole, fluid presence within the drill hole, casing/steel parameters and probe correction factors. • QAQC programme including the use of standards, blanks and duplicates and will be inserted at a rate of 1 in 20 samples for the diamond drill core samples sent for assays • At Muntanga East, from 2009 to 2012 QC samples (reference materials, blanks and duplicates) were included with each analytical run, based on the rack size associated with the method. The rack size is the number of samples including QC samples within a batch. A blank was inserted at the beginning, standards were inserted at random intervals, and duplicates were analysed at the end of the batch. • Denison used standards provided by ALS Chemex for uranium assays. ALS Chemex standards were added to the sample groups by ALS Chemex personnel, using the standards appropriate for each group. In addition, for each assay group, an aliquot of Denison blank material was also included in the sample run. In a run of twenty samples, at least one ALS Chemex standard and one Denison blank were included. • At Chisebuka, QC samples, including blanks and certified reference materials (“CRM”), were inserted at a rate of one blank and CRM per 50 samples. • Pool sand, obtained from an area north of Lusaka (Katuba), was put into sample bags and used as “blank” samples. • Three certified standards were regularly inserted into the sample sequence as part of the QC protocols. These samples were inserted on a rotating basis • (Standard AMIS0004 or AMIS0045, alternating with Standard AMIS0029).
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.	• Significant intersections are reviewed internally. • All geological logs and geophysical data are held on MX deposit database. • From 2008 to 2012, data were entered into DHLogger software on laptops in the field and then transferred into a Fusion database. Hard copies of drill logs are stored at the site.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• The total gamma data is corrected for local conditions by comparing them with assay data and establish a radiometric- grade correlation which is made to use for mineral resource estimation purposes. • At Chisebuka, historical drillholes were twinned to confirm relationship between gamma grade and assays. • For historical data at Muntanga East, Probe calibration was undertaken initially in the USA, using the Grand Junction DOE pits prior to delivery to site. Further periodic checks were undertaken using drill hole MTC51600-04 as a standard. If problems were detected in the probes in the test hole located at Muntanga, the equipment was sent back to the USA for repair and calibration. • An exercise of repeat down-hole probing was completed by Denison on 14 selected drill holes to review the repeatability of the results from the down-hole radiometric probe. Although the exercise was based on a relatively small eU3O8 database, results of the study suggested that the down-hole probe was performing within acceptable limits. • CSA Global (“CSA”) conducted data verification exercises in 2009 and 2012 to support the historical MRE updates completed by CSA. The following items were included in their data verification process, including exploration protocols used by Denison: `o` Core sampling, sample preparation and assaying `o` QAQC control procedures `o` Drill hole collar and down-hole deviation surveys `o` Down-hole radiometric logging procedures and results and `o` Database validation. • No material issues were identified by CSA regarding data collected by Denison. For drill holes completed prior to Denison (circa 1980) on the Muntanga and Dibbwi deposits with collar prefixes ‘DDH’ and ‘DWD’, a number of data concerns were identified which could not be resolved due to insufficient information available. Therefore, these drill holes were excluded from use within the MRE process • At Chisebuka, historical information is not available regarding any verification done by AFR, however Atomic Eagle did twin 3 holes to compare the assays results, which showed good

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		correlation
Location of data points	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. • Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	• Collar positions were initially located using a handheld GPS and will be surveyed by a licensed surveyor at the end of the program using a real-time differential GPS • The projection used is UTM WGS84 Zone35South
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.	• As of 2025, The drill hole spacing is along 100m lines with drill holes spaced at 100m along the lines • In 2008-2012 the drill spacing of drilling at Muntanga East was at 400m line spacingf with 200m along lines, • At Chisebuka, the drilling was along 400m spaced lines and 100m along the lines • No sample compositing has been applied.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	• All holes are drilled vertically, with the mineralisation slightly dipping to the SE by 15 to 20 degrees at Chisebuka and between 3 to 5 degrees to the SE at Muntanga East • All drill intercepts are close to perpendicular to the orientation of the mineralisation and are considered to be true width. • In 2008 to 2012, some of the diamond drillholes holes and RC holes drilled by Dension or AFR were also inclined between at - 60o to -80o towards 335o
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• The bulk of the assay data is produced on-site using a gamma logging probe in a digital form and stored on secure, company computers.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• There has been no independent review of the sampling techniques and data at this stage. Calibration of the tool was done by Mt Sopris prior to delivery to site.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	• Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	• The Kariba Valley licence (38555-HQ-LML) was granted in 2025 for a period of 25 years and is valid until 8th January 2050, after which it can be renewed. It is 100% owned by Muchinga Energy Resources Limited, a subsidiary company of Atomic Eagle Limited. • The Muntanga licence (13880-HQ-LML) was granted in 2009 for a period of 25 years and is valid until 25 March 2035, after which it can be renewed. It is 100% owned by GoviEx Uranium Zambia Limited, a subsidiary company of Atomic Eagle Limited.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• The main period of exploration at Chisebuka took place between the late 1970s and mid 1980s initially by the Geological Survey of Zambia (“GSZ”), followed by AGIP SpA (“AGIP”), an Italian petroleum company. The AGIP exploration campaign included a regional ground radiometric surveying program which highlighted numerous radiometric anomalies along the northern shores of Lake Kariba including Dibbwi and Chisebuka. Several of the anomalies were investigated via more detailed ground radiometric surveying and subsequent drilling. Their campaign predominantly focused on the Muntanga and Dibbwi deposits. • African Energy Resources carried out radiometric surveys, mapping and drilling in 2006 to 2012, based on the previous work carried out by AGIP in the 1980’s.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	• The Project area is situated within the Karoo Supergroup, which comprises thick, carboniferous to late Triassic age, terrestrial sedimentary strata and is widespread across much of what is now southern Africa. • The Karoo Supergroup in the Project area consists of three formations within the Lower Karoo; the Siankondobo Sandstone Formation, overlain by the Gwembe Coal Formation, which itself is overlain by the Madumabisa Mudstone Formation. The Madumabisa Formation is unconformably overlain by the Upper Karoo which consists of four formations; the Escarpment Grit is overlain by the Interbedded Sandstone and Mudstone Formation, followed by Red Sandstone which is finally capped

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		by the Jurassic Bakota Basalt Formation. • The Project is situated in the mid-Zambezi Rift Valley. In the region, known uranium mineralisation typically occurs within the Upper Karoo. At the Project, all the known uranium mineralisation occurs within the Escarpment Grit. The underlying Madumabisa Mudstone appears to have acted as an impermeable barrier, focussing uranium mineralization to the overlying Escarpment Grit. • At Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East, uranium mineralisation appears to be later than at least some of the normal faults which cut the Escarpment Grit Formation. This is evident from the good correlation of the radiometric logging data between adjacent holes within the Muntanga deposit separated by interpreted faulting. • The source of the uranium is believed to be the surrounding Proterozoic gneisses and plutonic basement rocks. Having been weathered from these rocks, the uranium was dissolved, transported in solution and precipitated under reducing conditions in siltstones and sandstones. Post-lithification fluctuations in the groundwater table caused dissolution, mobilisation and redeposition of uranium in reducing, often clay- rich zones and along fractures. • The Chisebuka deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup, within the mid Zambezi valley. These are Cretaceous aged sandstones, that dip shallowly to the southeast. Normal faulting appears to have had a significant effect on the location of mineralisation • The Muntanga East deposit is hosted within the Braided Facies unit of the Escarpment Grit Formation of the Upper Karoo supergroup, with the mid Zambezi valley. These are Cretaceous aged sandstones that dip shallowly to the southeast.
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	• Drill collar information has been previously reported in ASX Announcements dated 11 December 2025, 14 January 2026, and 21 January 2026.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	`o` down hole length and interception depth `o` hole length. • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case.
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	• List of significant intercepts are reported in Appendix A of this announcement. These were calculated as using the following parameters: U3O8 at minimum width of 1m, internal dilution up to 0.5m waste with a minimum grade of final composite of 100ppm U3O8
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	• 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. • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• Drill hole orientations were mostly vertical as the dip angle of mineralisation is generally shallow dipping, between 15 to 20o and 3 to 5o at Muntanga East • It’s assumed that all downhole intercepts reported are close to true width.
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.	• Appropriate diagrams and sections have been provided in the attached press release. • The Company does not consider that cross-sections diagrams comprised solely of historical holes provide an accurate representation of the mineralisation as the drilling was widely spaced and therefore they have not been included in this announcement. The Company considers the figures disclosed in this announcement appropriately represent the deposit.
Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	• All intercepts have previously been reported and were calculated based on minimum width of 2m, internal dilution up to 01m waste with a minimum grade of final composite of 100ppm U3O8.
Other substantive	• 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	• None has been done at this stage of the program.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
exploration data	method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• Results from the drilling will be used to determine follow up drilling locations to close up the drill spacing and eventually prepare a mineral resource estimate • The diamond core will be used to prepare a geometallurgical model to help optimise the mine plan based on acid consumption and uranium mineralogy/extraction, and a preliminary mining study focused on pit optimisation using the updated the mineral resource model.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Table 1; Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

The following table provides a summary of important assessment and reporting criteria used for the reporting of the Chisebuka and Muntanga East Mineral Resource in accordance with the Table 1 checklist in The Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code, 2012 Edition) on an ‘if not, why not’ basis.

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	• The DTH and the DDH core data were collected using tablets and the Seequent MX Deposit Application, with data stored directly in the cloud. Local backup and backup to the company’s cloud server were carried out regularly. Most of the core mark-ups and photography are done on the drill pad so that the quality of the core is not lost during transport to the core farm.
	• Data validation procedures used.	• Validation of the data was confirmed using mining software (Datamine) validation protocols, and visually in plan and section views.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.	• Mr Randabel, as Chief Geologist at GoviEx Uranium has directly supervised the field teams carrying out the exploration, resource drilling and sampling, and has been to site a number of times since 2017. He is familiar with the drilling techniques, sampling protocols used. Furthermore, he fully understands the geology, mineralisation and controls described in the document.
Geological interpretation	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. • Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. • The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. • The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. • The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	• The interpretation is of shallow flat lying to gently dipping uranium mineralisation precipitated under reducing conditions in siltstones and sandstones. Post-lithification fluctuations in the groundwater table caused dissolution, mobilisation and redeposition of uranium in reducing, often clay - rich zones and along fractures. This is considered appropriate based on the exploration work undertaken to date over the project area • All available data has been used in developing the geological interpretation, this includes open hole and DDH drilling. • Given the results of exploration to date there have been no alternative interpretations considered. • Geology has been used as the basis of the Mineral Resource Estimate. • Grade is likely controlled by the presence of organic material in the upper clays. Overall, there is relatively good continuity of grade and mineralization at the scale of the drilling and sampling done to date.
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource	• At Chisebuka the areal extent is approximately 750m * 650m, with the bulk of the mineralization within 50m of the surface. At Muntanga East the areal extent is approximately 1400m by 800m, with the bulk of the mineralization within 75m of the surface.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Estimation and modelling techniques	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.	• Software used: `o` Snowden Supervisor - geostatistics, variography, kriging neighbourhood analysis (KNA) and block model validation. `o` Datamine Studio RM – modelling of mineralisation domains, drillhole validation, compositing, block modelling, grade estimation, classification and reporting. • Block model and estimation parameters: `o` After reviewing the available data, it was decided to adopt a Categorical Indicator Kriging (CIK) approach to flag the data into mineralised and non- mineralised domains. A eU3O8 grade of 100 ppm was chosen as the indicator. Values equal to or greater than 100ppm eU3O8 are set to 1 and those values less than 100ppm eU3O8 are set to 0. The transformed data is then kriged and the resultant values range between 0 and 1 and represent the probability of the block being above the indicator grade. A threshold value is then selected to discriminate the two domains one being above the indicator grade, the other below it. Ordinary Kriging (OK) was then undertaken on the data with the drill data flagged into the mineralised and non-mineralised domains. `o` Data was composited to 1 m. `o` Variogram analysis was undertaken to determine the kriging estimation parameters used for OK estimation of eU3O8. `o` Variography was undertaken on the Muntanga and Chisebuka data sets. `o` eU3O8 grades were interpolated into blocks 50 m x 50 m x 1 m and 25 m x 25 m x 1 m (easting, northing, RL) for Chisebuka and Muntanga, respectively. Sub-celling was used to honour geological and topographical surfaces. A search strategy at the variogram range was used. A minimum of 10 and a maximum of 20 samples were used. The search ranged from 150 to 250m the plane of the mineralization and 5m vertically. `o` Hard boundaries were applied to the domains.
	• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	• The mineralised domains are considered geologically robust in the context of the interpretation applied to the estimate.
	• Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	• CVs and histograms were reviewed for each domain and high-grade outliers were noted. • Grade caps were applied for the Muntanga East deposit 300 ppm and 1,750 ppm eU3O8 was applied to the low and high grade domains respectively. Grade caps were applied for the Chisebuka deposit 550 ppm and 2,300 ppm eU3O8 was applied to the low and high grade domains respectively
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	• It is understood that no estimates have been previously reported for either deposit.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	• The assumptions made regarding recovery of by- products.	• No assumptions have been applied for the recovery of by-products.
	• Estimation of deleterious elements or other non- grade variables of economic significance (e.g., sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	• No other element was estimated
	• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.	• The nominal spacing of the drillholes is from 100m by 200m to approximately 50m by 50m where infill drilling has taken place. • Grade estimation was into parent blocks of 50 mE by 50 mN by 1 mRL and 25 mE by 25 mN by 1 mRL. • This block dimension was confirmed by kriging neighbourhood analysis and reflects the variability of the deposit as defined by the current drill spacing and mineralisation continuity determined from variogram analysis. • Sub-cells to a minimum dimension of 5 mE by 5 mN by 0.125 mRL were used to represent volume.
	• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	• Selective mining units were not modelled.
	• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	• No correlated variables have been investigated or estimated.
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	• Validation checks of the estimate occurred by way of global and local statistical comparison, comparison of the model average grade (and general statistics) and the declustered sample grade by domain, swath plots by northing, easting and elevation, visual check of drill data versus model data and comparison of global statistics for check estimates. • No production has been undertaken at the project to date.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• The tonnage was estimated on a dry basis.
Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied	• The Mineral Resource is reported above a cut-off grade of 90 ppm eU3O8, Atomic Eagle considers this an appropriate cut-off to be used for reporting the project’s mineral resource based on their experience with similar projects in Africa.
Mining factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.	• The Mineral Resource has been reported under conditions where the Company believes there are reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction through open pit mining methods. The parameters used were derived from the nearby deposits of the Muntanga project and are listed below. `o` U3O8 prices assumption – base case is US$100/lb U3O8. `o` Metallurgical Recovery 90% `o` Mining parameters include: `o` mining dilution 10% `o` Mining loss 5% `o` pit slope angles 39 degrees

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	`o` Mining cost – US$3.30 per tonne mined. `o` Processing cost – average US$9 per tonne of feed. `o` General & Admin cost – US$1.50 per tonne of feed. `o` Recoveries 90% `o` Royalty 5%
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	• Metallurgical recovery of 90% is based on similarities to the nearby deposits where by the recovery from metallurgical testing at Muntanga Project existing deposits where recoveries were determined from metallurgical test works, including column leach test and bottle roll tests of core samples from the Muntanga, Dibbwi East, Dibbwi and Njame deposits, Note that Gwabi being an outlier in a different geological setting3. Muntanga 93.0 % Dibbwi 92.2 % Dibbwi East 89.7 % Njame 93.0 % Gwabi 73.1 %
Environmental factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should	• In September 2025, GoviEx filed the environmental and social impact assessment (“ESIA”) with the Zambian Environmental Management Agency (“ZEMA”). ZEMA had previously provided a “no objection” notice to the draft ESIA submission. The ESIA built on the earlier studies and included a comprehensive update of the baseline studies and an assessment of the impacts based on the current project design. GoviEx is committed to developing the Project in accordance with International Finance Corporation (“IFC”) standards, and the ESIA process was scoped accordingly. • The Project will result in the resettlement of a number of villages and, accordingly, the ESIA is being reviewed together with the project’s Resettlement Action Plan (“RAP”), ensuring that environmental and social impacts, stakeholder engagement, and resettlement planning are fully integrated. Potential environmental impacts were systematically assessed using the source-pathway-receptor framework, and an environmental management plan (“EMP”) forms part of the ESIA documentation. • None of the identified impacts constitute a fatal flaw. Several potentially significant

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made	social and environmental impacts were identified; however, adequate mitigation measures were developed such that no unacceptable environmental or social risks are expected to persist following mitigation. The regulatory consultation process for the ESIA and RAP is expected to take approximately 6 to 12 months.
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. • The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	• A total of 450 bulk density measurements have been collected across the Muntanga, Dibbwi and Dibbwi East deposits. A global dry bulk density of 2.1 t/m3 has been assigned for tonnage reporting for all three deposits. There are some variations related to lithology and redox state. However, the individual sample populations are not significant. A wax coating was used in 88 % of the volume displacement density determinations, taking the rock’s porosity into account to prevent overstating the density. The CV of the density values is in the order of < 0.06. Therefore, the use of a mean density value is suitable for the current MRE.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories.	• The Mineral Resource has been classified as Inferred based on drillhole spacing, geological continuity and estimation quality parameters.
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e., 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).	• The Mineral Resource has been classified on the basis of confidence in geological and grade continuity and taking into account the quality of the sampling and assay data, data density and confidence in estimation of eU3O8 content (from the kriging metrics).
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	• The assigned classification of Inferred reflects the Competent Persons’ assessment of the accuracy and confidence levels in the Mineral Resource estimate.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• No external audits have been conducted on the Mineral Resource estimate. • Snowden Optiro undertakes internal peer reviews during the compilation of the Mineral Resource model and reporting.
	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate	• With further drilling it is expected that there will be variances to the tonnage, grade, and metal of the deposit. • The assigned classification of Inferred reflects the Competent Persons’ assessment of the accuracy and confidence levels in the Mineral Resource estimate. • It is the Competent Persons’ view that this Mineral Resource estimate is appropriate to the type of deposit and proposed mining style.

==> picture [842 x 50] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	• 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	• The Mineral Resource classification is appropriate at the global scale.
	• These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available	• No production data is available to make this assessment.

AI assistant

ATOMIC EAGLE LTD — Regulatory Filings 2026

64316_rns_2026-03-09_0a3545ad-86fb-4c76-8323-2e87ebad32c6.pdf

ASX Announcement

10 March 2026

Uranium Resources increase by 24% following maiden drill program – Amendment

Summary of changes to amended announcement:

For further information, please contact:

Phil Hoskins

Nathan Ryan

ASX Announcement

10 March 2026

Uranium Resources increase by 24% following maiden drill program

Highlights

Atomic Eagle CEO Phil Hoskins said:

Mineral Resource Estimate

Notes :

Chisebuka Mineral Resource Estimate

Muntanga East Mineral Resource Estimate

Mineral Resource Estimate Methodology

Next Steps

Technical Note – Grade Determination

Competent Person’s Statement –Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Estimate

March 2026 MRE

January 2024 MRE

JORC Table 1

For further information, please contact:

Phil Hoskins

Nathan Ryan

About Atomic Eagle

Appendix A: Material Information Summaries Section 5.8 Geological Interpretation and Estimation Parameters

Location, geology and geological interpretation

Drilling techniques

Sampling and Assaying

Bulk density

Estimation methodology

Cut-off grades

Mining factors

Metallurgical factors or assumptions[2]

Mineral Resource classification

Environmental and social aspects

Mineral Resource Estimate – Drill Hole Information

11 December 2025

14 January 2026

21 January 2026

Mineral Resource Estimate – List of Significant Intercepts

11 December 2025

14 January 2026

21 January 2026

Appendix B: JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

JORC Table 1; Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

More from ATOMIC EAGLE LTD

ATOMIC EAGLE LTD Regulatory Filings 2026