BUXTON RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2022

May 3, 2022

ASX Release May 4[th] 2022

==> picture [252 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

Buxton to advance 100% owned Yalbra Graphite Project

• Program of Works submitted with a view to delineating Indicated Resources at Australia’s highest grade graphite resource[1]

• Product test work ongoing

Buxton Resources Limited (ASX: BUX) (“Buxton” or “The Company”) is pleased to announce that a program of works (PoW) has been submitted to DMRIS for approval to undertake an infill drilling program at Buxton’s 100% owned Yalbra graphite deposit, Gascoyne Region, Western Australia (see Figure 1). The drilling program will commence subject to PoW approval and rig availability.

==> picture [463 x 274] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Yalbra Project is located approximately 280km inland from Carnarvon, Western Australia.

The Yalbra Project hosts a high-grade, outcropping graphite resource located in the most attractive mining jurisdiction in the world[2] . Buxton previously announced an expanded inferred JORC resource of 4.0Mt @ 16.1% TGC (total graphitic carbon), with the orebody demonstrating robust continuity of both grade and thickness, see Figure 2.

Graphite is a designated strategic critical mineral in the USA, EU, Japan and Australia, with global anode supply chain being currently 100% reliant on China. Recent buoyancy within the

1 As reported by S&P Capital IQ Pro, Buxton’s 100% owned Yalbra Project ranks 1st in Australia and 7th globally for graphite grade of Metals and Mining Properties with Reserves and Resources

2 Fraser Institute Annual Survey of Mining Companies April 12, 2022

Suite 1, First Floor Tel: 08-9380 6063 www.buxtonresources.com.au 14-16 Rowland Street info@buxtonresources.com.au Subiaco WA 6008

PO Box 661 Nedlands WA 6009

==> picture [228 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

graphite market (see Figure 3) has been driven largely by burgeoning global EV sales. This context provides a compelling justification for Buxton to undertake infill drilling to support delineation of a maiden Indicated Resource from within the existing Inferred Resource envelope.

‘Sighter’ metallurgical test work conducted by Elmore Ltd over the last 12 months has identified several new attractive processing options that will be tested immediately, with results expected during the 3[rd] calendar year quarter.

The combination of improving market conditions, promising results from metallurgical work (ongoing) and Project terrain which is highly amenable to siting a mining operation (see Figure 4), Yalbra is well positioned for subsequent advancement through feasibility studies and permitting.

==> picture [463 x 184] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Yalbra Project simplified geology with significant drilling intersections (> 10% TGC)

==> picture [385 x 270] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Natural Graphite Fines Prices (US$/t)[3]

3 Source: Syrah Resources Quarterly Activities Report Presentation – Period Ended 31 March 2022

==> picture [228 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [463 x 195] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Main Yalbra lode, looking north over gentle topography toward outcropping graphite (red line)

For further information, please contact:

Eamon Hannon Sam Wright Managing Director Company Secretary ehannon@buxtonresources.com.au sam@buxtonresources.com.au

Competent Persons

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr Eamon Hannon, Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and Mr Martin Moloney, Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Hannon and Mr Moloney are full-time employees of Buxton Resources. Mr Hannon and Mr Moloney have sufficient experience which is relevant to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a “Competent Person”, as defined in the 2012 edition of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Hannon and Mr Moloney consent to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this Report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on, and fairly represents, information compiled by Mr David Williams, a Competent Person, who is a Member of The Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Williams is employed by CSA Global Pty Ltd, an independent consulting company. Mr Williams has sufficient experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Williams consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Previously Reported Results

There is information in this announcement relating to results previously announced on:

• 1) 29 October 2021 - Quarterly Activities Report for period ending 30 September 2021 2) 9[th] July 2015 - Metallurgical Results Advance Yalbra Graphite Project

• 3) 24[th] October 2014 - Buxton Significantly Expands Graphite Resource at Yalbra

• 4) 21[st ] August 2014 - High Grade Graphite Intercepts from Diamond Drilling

• 5) 5[th] August 2014 - High Grade Graphite Intercepts at Yalbra

• 6) 25[th] July 2014 - 127 metres @ 13.4% TGC from Yalbra Graphite Drilling

Appendix 1: JORC Table 1

==> picture [228 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

Section 1: Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	Drilling Commentary
Sampling Techniques	Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling was employed to generate 1 m samples, split1:8 at the rig to provide a bulk sample and an assay sample. Mineralised samples were submitted as single metre split samples or, for low or non- mineralised samples, multiple metres, and composite spear samples were generated from the bulk samples. Duplicate samples were taken on average every 20th sample (both split and composites) to provide checks on sample representivity
Drilling Techniques	Drilling was planned on nominal 50 m spaced sections across the Yalbra prospect. A total of 3,425 m of 5 and 3/4 inch RC drilling, 419.2 m of diamond drilling and 305.5 m of RC/diamond tail drilling has been completed at 2 prospects. Drill holes were generally drilled at -55 degree dip to the south. Several drill holes were drilled to scissor the mineralisation (drilled at opposing azimuths) in an attempt to determine the dip of the mineralisation bands.
Drill Sample Recovery	The RC bulk sample recovery was routinely examined for representivity. The analysis laboratory records received sample weights, and the company retrieved this data for analysis. It is not believed that any bias has occurred due to loss orgain of sample.
Logging	100% of the drill holes were geologically logged by qualified and experiencedgeologists, recording relevant data to a set template to metre intervals. All logging included lithological features, mineral assemblages, mineralisationpercentages and basic graphite flake characteristics, all qualitative by nature.All data was codified to a set company codes system. This offers sufficient detail for the purposes of interpretation and further studies.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	All 1 m intervals were cone (rotary) split at the drill rig cyclone, producing a 4–5 kg analysis sample and a 20 kg bulk. Each 1 m mineralised sample was then 50:50 riffle split to produce an analysis sample of 2–2.5 kg. Non- mineralised analysis samples were prepared as multiple metres (generally 4m composite) spear samples. Sample preparation is consistent with industry best practice. Field QC procedures involved the use of certified reference material assay standards, blanks and duplicates for company QC measures, and laboratory standards, replicate assaying and barren washes for laboratory QC measures. The insertion rate of each of these QA/QC measures averaged approximately 1:20. The sample size is deemedappropriate for the material and analysis method.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	The samples were analysed at Genalysis Intertek in Perth, Australia. Sample preparation included drying, crushing, splitting and pulverizing. A split of the sample was analysed using an ELTRA analyser to determine total graphitic carbon content (TGC). The detection limits and precision for the TGC analyses are considered to be adequate for the purpose of resource estimation. The laboratory procedures are considered to be appropriate for reporting TGC according to industry best practice. Company QA/QC samples were employed at 5-8% of total samples analysed. The results of the company-inserted and laboratory-inserted standards, blanks and sample repeats demonstrate that the accuracy andprecision of TGC results is acceptable.

		Significant mineralisation intersections were verified by alternative
		companypersonnel. No twin holes were drilled. All data was collected
	Verification of sampling & assaying	initially on paper logging sheets, codified to the Company's templates. This data was hand entered to spread sheets and validated by company geologists. This data was then imported to a Microsoft Access Database,
		and then validated using MapInfo software. No adjustments to assay data
		have been made.
		All surface surveying was completed using a handheld GPS to MGA94 /
		Zone 50 South grid system, to an accuracy of approximately 5 m. All
		down-hole surveying was carried out using a Reflex Ez-Trak multi-shot
	Location of data points	survey tool at 30m intervals down hole. Point surface data was derived from Real Time Kinematic (RTK) GPS equipment. The point data file into
		Datamine and adigital terrain model (DTM) surface was created using
		those points. This DTMwas used as a control during the creation of the
		block model supportingtheMineral Resource estimate.
		Drill spacing at this point of the exploration program is irregular;
	Data spacing & distribution	however the drill pattern approximates 50 m along-strike by 20-100 m down-dip throughout the Mineral Resource area. Data has been
		composited to 1 m.
	Orientation of data in relation to	The orientation of the drilling is not expected to introduce sampling bias.
	geological structure
		Samples were packaged and stored in secure storage from the time
	Sample security	of gathering through to submission. Laboratory best practice methods were employed by the laboratory upon receipt.
		CSA conducted a field review of the sampling techniques and data
	Audits or reviews	collection methods. It was considered by CSA that these aspects were
		acceptable for the resource estimation.

Section 2: Reporting of Exploration Results

==> picture [228 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	Drilling Commentary
Mineral tenement & land tenure status	Buxton Resources owns an 100% interest in the E09/1985 (Yalbra) tenement. A 0.75% Gross Revenue royalty over the Yalbra project is held by Electric Royalties Ltd.(TSXV: ELEC)
	The tenement E09/1985 is in good standing and there are no known significant impediments to exploration or miningin the area.
Exploration done by other parties	No other parties were involved in the exploration program that generated data that was used in this Mineral Resource estimate.
Geology	The Yalbra area is located proximal to the boundary of the Yilgarn Block and the Gascoyne Province where Archaean rocks have undergone deformation and metamorphism during Lower Proterozoic orogenesis. The Archaean rock types comprise gneisses, amphibolites, granofels, quartzites and iron formations. The Yalbra mineralisation is characterised as multiple, very high grade bands of graphite schist hosted within gneissic rocks of intermediate composition.
Drill hole information	Not relevant for the reporting of Mineral Resource estimates. Drilling intersections were previously reported on 5thAugust and 21stAugust 2014.
Data aggregation methods	Not relevant for the reporting of Mineral Resource estimates. For intersections reported inFigure 2, Drilling intersections were previously reported on 5thAugust and 21stAugust 2014. No top cuts have been applied. A nominal 10% Total Graphitic Carbon lower cut-off has been applied in the determination of significant intercepts. High grade intercepts within broader low grade intervals have been separated as "including" results. No metal equivalent values are used in this report.
Relationship between mineralisation widths & intercept lengths	The majority of the drilling has been completed at an angle of -55° to the south. There are also some north-dipping holes. The mineralisation generally dips steeply to the south but is locally near vertical or steeplynorth-dipping.
Diagrams	Relevant diagrams are presented in the body of this report, and in previous market releases 5thand 21stAugust 2014.
Balanced reporting	Not relevant for the reporting of Mineral Resource estimates. Drilling intersections were previously reported on 5thAugust and 21stAugust 2014.
Other substantive exploration data	Additional mineralogical and graphite flake size and deportment information is provided in ASX Announcement 9th July 2015 - Metallurgical Results Advance Yalbra Graphite Project.
Further work	Further work programs are planned and include diamond and RC drilling, in addition to mineralogical and metallurgical test work. The planning is not sufficiently advanced to report at this stage. Diagrams highlighting the areas of possible extensions have been included in the body of the announcement.

==> picture [228 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

Section 3: Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	Commentary
Database integrity	In-house validation of internally generated (i.e. geological logging) and third party digital data (i.e. laboratory supplied assay data) includes original vs database checks, software validation, visual validation via data plotting and other means of validation. CSA Global completed additional checks for overlapping samples and sample intervals that extend beyond the hole depth. No issues were detected.
Site visits	A site visit was undertaken by a representative of the CP for Mineral Resources. The CP intends to visit the site before the Mineral Resource receives a higher classification level.
Geological interpretation	The CP is confident in the geological interpretation, although there are some uncertainties regarding the structural variability at depth. The geological interpretation is based upon surface mapping and information obtained from RC and diamond drill samples. The linking of interpreted TGC domains along strike was guided by the strike of the surface mapping. Geological continuity is observed in the surface mapping, with historical trenches demonstrating graphitic mineralisation. The mineralisation in some domains is cut off at depth as revealed by the assays in RC samples, with a structural control anticipated, to be tested by diamond drilling. A north-west striking fault cuts the geological and grade continuityat the eastern end of the resource.
Dimensions	The current Mineral Resource has a maximum strike extent of 450 m, a plan width varying between 3m and 20m, and a depth extent of 250 m below surface. The mineralisation modelled crops out at surface along its entire strike length.
Estimation and modelling techniques	The interpretation of the mineralisation domains were based upon a nominal 7% lower cut-off grade of TGC, based upon eight drill sections lines spaced 50–100 m apart. Six mineralisation domains were interpreted across the three sections. The domains were linked to form 3D wireframe solids using surface mapping as a guide. A model of fresh rock and Saprolite was created using lithological logging codes. Only drill holes completed in 2013 and 2014 were used to interpolate grade into the block model, with the historical drill hole data not used due to lack of quality control information regarding sample assays. The drill hole samples were flagged as being located within or outside of the mineralisation wireframes, and above or below the weathering DTM. A statistical analysis of the data was carried out, with histograms of the TGC results per domain recorded, with other basic statistical information. No high grade capping (top cuts) were used based upon an assessment of the distribution of sample grades within the mineralisation domains. Geological modelling and grade interpolation was carried out using Datamine software. Ordinary kriging was used to interpolate block grades with inverse distance used for validation. The search ellipse was aligned along strike and down dip of the domains, with radii of 50 m, and with a minimum of 8 and maximum of 32 samples used per block estimate. Dynamic anisotropy was adopted whereby the search ellipse was rotated according to the geometry of the mineralisation. Each of the mineralisation domains were treated as a hard envelope during grade interpolation. The weathering surface was not referred to during the grade interpolation (a soft boundary was applied). The vast majorityof samples were 1m in length. Compositing

	was completed to 1 m. No historical mining has taken place hence reconciliation was not possible. No by-products are anticipated to be produced during mining. No deleterious elements were modelled. The size of the blocks in the block model were 12.5 m(E) by 1 0m (N) by 12.5 m (Z), compared to a nominal 50 m drill hole spacing (E). The project is at a very early stage of development and choice of appropriate SMU was not a point of consideration. Only TGC was interpolated, with no other variables to correlate against. The geological interpretation acted as a hard boundary for the grade interpolation such that sample grades within one domain were not used to interpolate blocks in an adjacent domain. The model was validated by comparing the mean TGC grades of the blocks against the mean TGC grades of the samples, per domain. The block model was sliced in easting and RL sections and the interpolated block grades cross checked against the sample grades. A trend plot was generated on easting, northing and RL sections to test the trends of variability of sample grades against block grades. The CP had the model peer reviewed by another resource geologist not involved in the project, who critically checked each stage of the project, and found no fatal flaws. A comparison of the Mineral Resource estimate with the only previous Mineral Resource estimate shows that tonnage has increased by 78% while TGC grade has decreased by 20%. There has been an increase in total contained graphite by 43%. Broadly, the Mineral Resource estimation methodology remains similar between the two models. The differences can largely be explained largely by the completion of strike- extension drilling to the west of the project area, which is generally lower grade than the eastern resource area. The February 2014 mineralisation interpretation extended from 434,775 m E through 435,025 m E while the September mineralisation interpretation extended from 434,575 m E through 435,025 m E. There has also been a change in structural interpretation. The February 2014 model was based on a steep north-dipping interpretation while the September 2014 model was based on a south-dippinginterpretation.
Moisture	Tonnages are estimated on a drybasis.
Cut-off parameters	The Mineral Resource is reported above a 4% TGC cut-off grade, which was adopted following a review of more advanced graphite projects in Australia.
Mining factors or assumptions	The project is at an early stage of geological investigation; however, the Mineral Resource has a minimum plan width of 3 m for all domains. No assumption has been made regardingminingmethod.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	Initial petrographic studies show that significant portions of medium and coarse flake graphite occur in the samples. Observations show that graphite flakes generally range from 100 to 500 microns long and in some cases reach over 1mm in length. Additional petrography and metallurgical test work is required to better define likely product specifications.
Environmental factors or assumptions	At this early stage of exploration and resource definition, no environmental studies have been undertaken. Within the resource area at Yalbra topography is of low relief with several ephemeral streams cross cutting the area. Geological logging has noted the presence of a low percentage of pyrite in several rock units. This will require quantification and determination of impact on acid rock drainage at a laterdate.

		The bulk density values assigned to the block model by weathering
	Bulk density	profile are assumed values, based upon gravimetric density data. Density values of 2.17 t/m3, 2.33 t/m3and 2.50 t/m3were applied to the
		Saprolite,Saprock and fresh rock respectively.
		The Mineral Resource is entirely classified as Inferred, based upon an
		assessment of geological understanding of the deposit, drill hole
		spacing, number of drill holes per drill section, QA/QC of drill hole
		sampling and chemical analyses of the samples, and QA of drill hole
		collars, down hole surveys and the topographic DTMs. All relevant
		factors were considered when considering the classification level.
		Metallurgical testwork results were not available at time of preparation
		of the Mineral Resource estimate, inhibiting potential higher
	Classification	classification levels being assigned.
		The Inferred classification appropriately reflects the Competent
		Person’s view of the deposit.
		Subsequent to the Mineral Resource estimate, Buxton released
		results of metallurgical studies (ASX Announcement 9thJuly 2015)
		which demonstrate that commercial grades of flake graphite
		concentrate @ 91% C(t) can be produced with 30% in the medium
		and coarse flake categories. After acid leaching, the combined
		concentrate was upgraded to 99.5% C(t).
		The Mineral Resource was peer reviewed by a colleague of the CP who
	Audits or reviews	found no fatal flaws. There have been no higher level reviews or audits
		conducted.
		The Mineral Resource is classified as Inferred, being the lowest
		classification level allowed under JORC, and this reflects the relative
		accuracy of the Mineral Resource. Geological and grade continuity
	Discussion of relative accuracy/	between drill holes is implied but not verified. The CP considers that the
	confidence	main factors that could affect the accuracy of the Mineral Resource
		estimate are poorer than expected grade or geological continuity and
		current lack of information related to likely product specifications.