CANYON RESOURCES LIMITED — Proxy Solicitation & Information Statement 2026

Feb 4, 2026

5 February 2026

==> picture [158 x 57] intentionally omitted <==

GENERAL MEETING - NOTICE AND PROXY FORM

Dear Shareholder,

Canyon Resources Limited (ABN 13 140 087 261) ( Canyon or the Company ) advises that a general meeting of shareholders will be held at the Park Business Centre, 45 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth Western Australia 6005 on Monday, 9 March 2026 at 2:00pm (AWST)( Meeting ).

If the Company makes any alternative arrangements to the way in which the Meeting is held, Shareholders will be notified by way of an announcement on ASX and the details will also be made available on the Company’s website at https://canyonresources.com.au.

In accordance with section 110D(1) of the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth), the Company will not be sending hard copies of the Notice of Meeting ( Notice ) to shareholders unless a shareholder has made a valid election to receive such documents in hard copy. The Notice can be viewed and downloaded from the Company’s website at https://canyonresources.com.au or ASX at www.asx.com.au (ASX code – CAY).

The Company strongly encourages shareholders to lodge a directed proxy form prior to the meeting. Shareholders can lodge their vote by following the instructions on your enclosed personalised proxy form.

Your proxy form must be received by 2:00pm (AWST) on Saturday, 7 March 2026, being not less than 48 hours before the commencement of the Meeting. Any proxy forms received after that time will not be valid for the Meeting.

Shareholders may submit questions in advance of the Meeting by email to the Company Secretary at info@canyonresources.com.au by 5.00pm (AWST) on Monday, 2 March 2026. Shareholders who physically attend the Meeting will also have the opportunity to ask questions during the Meeting.

The Notice is important and should be read in its entirety. If you are in doubt as to the course of action you should follow, you should consult your financial adviser, lawyer, accountant or other professional adviser.

If you have any difficulties obtaining a copy of the Notice, please contact the Company’s share registry, Computershare, on 1300 850 505 (within Australia) or +61 3 9415 4000 (overseas).

The Company encourages shareholders to provide an email address so we can communicate with you electronically for items such as notices of meeting and annual reports. Shareholders can still elect to receive some or all of their communications in physical or electronic form, or elect not to receive certain documents such as annual reports. To review or update your communication preferences, please contact the Company’s share registry, Computershare, on www.investorcentre.com/contact.

Yours sincerely

Kudzai Mtsambiwa

Company Secretary

==> picture [219 x 79] intentionally omitted <==

CANYON RESOURCES LIMITED A C N 1 4 0 0 8 7 2 6 1

NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING

A general meeting of Canyon Resources Limited will be held at the Park Business Centre, 45 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth WA 6005 on Monday, 9 March 2026 at 2.00pm (AWST)

This Notice and the accompanying Explanatory Memorandum should be read in its entirety. If Shareholders are in doubt as to how they should vote, they should seek advice from their accountant, solicitor or other professional adviser prior to voting.

CANYON RESOURCES LIMITED A C N 1 4 0 0 8 7 2 6 1

NOTICE OF GENERAL MEETING

Notice is hereby given that a general meeting of shareholders of Canyon Resources Limited ( Company ) will be held at the Park Business Centre, 45 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth WA 6005 on Monday, 9 March 2026 at 2.00pm (AWST) ( Meeting ).

The Explanatory Memorandum provides additional information on matters to be considered at the Meeting. The Explanatory Memorandum and the Proxy Form form part of this Notice.

The Directors have determined pursuant to regulations 7.11.37 and 7.11.38 of the Corporations Regulations 2001 (Cth) that the persons eligible to vote at the Meeting are those who are registered as Shareholders on Saturday, 7 March 2026 at 2.00pm (AWST)

The Company advises that a poll will be conducted for all Resolutions.

Terms and abbreviations used in this Notice and the Explanatory Memorandum will, unless the context requires otherwise, have the meaning given to them in Schedule 1.

AGENDA

1 RESOLUTION 1 – ISSUE OF TRANCHE 2 PLACEMENT SHARES TO EEA AND INCREASE OF VOTING POWER

To consider and, if thought fit, to pass with or without amendment, the following as an ordinary resolution :

"That, pursuant to and in accordance with item 7 section 611 of the Corporations Act and for all other purposes, Shareholders approve the acquisition by EEA and/or its nominee (and the EEA Associated Entities) of a Relevant Interest in Shares upon the issue of the EEA Shares, resulting in an increase to EEA's Voting Power in the Company (and the Voting Power of the EEA Associated Entities, or EEA’s nominee) to up to a maximum of 62.58% on the terms and conditions in the Explanatory Memorandum."

Voting Prohibition – Corporations Act

No votes may be cast in favour of this Resolution by:

• (a) the person proposing to make the acquisition and their associates; or

• (b) the persons (if any) from whom the acquisition is to be made and their associates.

Accordingly, the Company will disregard any votes cast in favour on this Resolution by A2MP and any of their associates.

Independent Expert's Report

Shareholders should carefully consider the Independent Expert's Report accompanying the Explanatory Memorandum in Schedule 2. The Independent Expert has determined that in the absence of a superior proposal, Resolution 1 is not fair but reasonable to Shareholders (other than EEA and its Associates).

2 RESOLUTION 2 – RENEWAL OF PLAN

To consider and, if thought fit, to pass with or without amendment, the following as an ordinary resolution :

" That, pursuant to and in accordance with Listing Rule 7.2, Exception 13(b) and for all other purposes, Shareholders approve the renewal of the Plan and the issue of up to a maximum of 40 million securities under the Plan to Eligible Employees (as defined in the Plan), known as the

P a g e | 1

“Employee Awards Plan”, a summary of the rules of which are set out in the Explanatory Memorandum (including Annexure A to the Explanatory Memorandum), as an exception to Listing Rule 7.1. "

Voting Exclusion

The Company will disregard any votes cast in favour of this Resolution by or on behalf of a person who is eligible to participate in the Employee Awards Plan or an associate of that person or those persons.

However, this does not apply to a vote cast in favour of this Resolution by:

• (a) a person as proxy or attorney for a person who is entitled to vote on this Resolution, in accordance with the directions given to the proxy or attorney to vote on this Resolution in that way; or

• (b) the Chairperson as proxy or attorney for a person who is entitled to vote on this Resolution, in accordance with a direction given to the Chairperson to vote on this Resolution as the Chairperson decides; or

• (c) a holder acting solely in a nominee, trustee, custodial or other fiduciary capacity on behalf of a beneficiary provided the following conditions are met:

• (i) the beneficiary provides written confirmation to the Shareholder that the beneficiary is not excluded from voting, and is not an associate of a person excluded from voting on this Resolution; and

• (ii) the Shareholder votes on this Resolution in accordance with the directions given by the beneficiary to the Shareholder to vote in that way.

In accordance with section 250BD of the Corporations Act, a vote on this Resolution must not be cast by a person appointed as a proxy, where that person is either a member of the Key Management Personnel or a Closely Related Party of such member.

However, a vote may be cast by such person if the vote is not cast on behalf of a person who is otherwise excluded from voting, and

• (a) the person is appointed as a proxy and the appointment specifies how the proxy is to vote; or

• (b) the person appointed as proxy is the Chairperson and the appointment does not specify how the Chairperson is to vote but expressly authorises the Chairperson to exercise the proxy even if the Resolution is connected with the remuneration of a member of the Key Management Personnel.

3 RESOLUTION 3 – ISSUE OF TRANCHE 2 PLACEMENT SECURITIES TO AFRILAND

To consider and, if thought fit, to pass with or without amendment, the following as an ordinary resolution :

"That, pursuant to and in accordance with Listing Rule 7.1 and for all other purposes, Shareholders approve the issue of up to 266,559,380 Shares to Afriland Bourse & Investissement pursuant to the Tranche 2 Placement, on the terms and conditions in the Explanatory Memorandum."

Voting Exclusion

The Company will disregard any votes cast in favour of the Resolution by Afriland (and/or its nominee(s)) and any other person who will participate in, or who will obtain a material benefit as a result of, the proposed issue of securities (except a benefit solely by reason of being a holder of ordinary securities in the Company) or an associate of that person (or those persons).

However, this does not apply to a vote cast in favour of this Resolution by:

P a g e | 2

• (a) a person as proxy or attorney for a person who is entitled to vote on this Resolution, in accordance with directions given to the proxy or attorney to vote on this Resolution in that way;

• (b) the Chairperson as proxy or attorney for a person who is entitled to vote on this Resolution, in accordance with a direction given to the Chairperson to vote on this Resolution as the Chairperson decides; or

• (c) a holder acting solely in a nominee, trustee, custodial or other fiduciary capacity on behalf of a beneficiary provided the following conditions are met:

• (i) the beneficiary provides written confirmation to the holder that the beneficiary is not excluded from voting and is not an associate of a person excluded from voting, on the Resolution; and

• (ii) the holder votes on the Resolution in accordance with directions given by the beneficiary to the holder to vote in that way.

Date: 4 February 2026

By order of the Board

Company Secretary

P a g e | 3

CANYON RESOURCES LIMITED ACN 1 4 0 0 8 7 2 6 1

EXPLANATORY MEMORANDUM

1

INTRODUCTION

This Explanatory Memorandum has been prepared for the information of Shareholders in connection with the business to be conducted at the Meeting to be held at the Park Business Centre, 45 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth WA 6005 on Monday, 9 March 2026 at 2.00pm (AWST).

This Explanatory Memorandum forms part of the Notice which should be read in its entirety. This Explanatory Memorandum contains the terms and conditions on which the Resolutions will be voted.

This Explanatory Memorandum includes the following information to assist Shareholders in deciding how to vote on the Resolutions:

Section 1: Introduction Section 2: Action to be taken by Shareholders Section 3: Overview of Capital Raising Section 4: Resolution 1 – Issue of Tranche 2 Placement Shares to EEA and increase of Voting Power Section 5: Resolution 2 – Renewal of Plan Section 6: Resolution 3 – Issue of Tranche 2 Placement Securities to Afriland Schedule 1: Definitions Schedule 2: Independent Expert's Report

A Proxy Form is attached to the Notice.

2 ACTION TO BE TAKEN BY SHAREHOLDERS

Shareholders should read the Notice including this Explanatory Memorandum carefully before deciding how to vote on the Resolutions.

The Company advises that a poll will be conducted for all Resolutions.

2.1 Proxies

A Proxy Form is attached to the Notice. This is to be used by Shareholders if they wish to appoint a representative (a 'proxy') to vote in their place. All Shareholders are invited and encouraged to participate in the Meeting (see details below) or, if they are unable to attend, sign and return the Proxy Form to the Company in accordance with the instructions detailed in the Proxy Form. Lodgement of a Proxy Form will not preclude a Shareholder from attending and voting at the Meeting (subject to the voting exclusions detailed in the Notice).

To vote by proxy, please complete and sign the enclosed Proxy Form and lodge it by:

• (a) returning the completed Proxy Form to:

Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited GPO Box 242

P a g e | 4

Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia

• (b) faxing a completed Proxy Form to 1800 783 447 (within Australia) or +61 3 9473 2555(outside Australia);

• (c) by recording the proxy appointment and voting instructions via the internet using the details set out in the Proxy Form. Only registered Shareholders may access this facility and Shareholders will need their Holder Identification Number ( HIN ) or Securityholder Reference Number ( SRN ).

Proxy Forms must be received no later than 2.00pm (AWST) on Saturday, 7 March 2026, being at least 48 hours before the Meeting. Proxy Forms received later than this time will be invalid.

Please note that:

• (a) a member of the Company entitled to attend and vote at the Meeting is entitled to appoint a proxy;

• (b) a proxy need not be a member of the Company; and

• (c) a member of the Company entitled to cast two or more votes may appoint two proxies and may specify the proportion or number of votes each proxy is appointed to exercise. Where the proportion or number is not specified, each proxy may exercise half of the votes.

If a Shareholder appoints a body corporate as its proxy and the body corporate wishes to appoint an individual as its representative, the body corporate should provide that person with a certificate or letter executed in accordance with the Corporations Act authorising him or her to act as that body corporate’s representative. The authority may be sent to the Company or its share registry in advance of the Meeting or handed in at the Meeting when registering as a corporate representative.

2.2

Attendance at the Meeting

To vote in person, Shareholders are able to attend the Meeting at the time, date and place set out above. Based on the best information available to the Board at the time of the Notice, the Board considers it will be in a position to hold an 'in person' meeting to provide Shareholders with a reasonable opportunity to participate in and vote at the Meeting.

If it becomes necessary or appropriate to make alternative arrangements to those detailed in this Notice, Shareholders will be updated via the ASX announcements platform and on the Company's website at https://canyonresources.com.au/.

3 OVERVIEW OF CAPITAL RAISING

3.1 Capital Raising

On 25 September 2025, the Company announced that it had received firm commitments from investors (including EEA and Afriland) to undertake a capital raising to raise up to $215 million, comprising a two-tranche placement to raise approximately A$205 million ( Placement ) and an options exercise to raise approximately A$10 million ( Options Exercise ) (together, the Capital Raising ). Shareholders approved the issue of those options to EEA at the Company's annual general meeting on 29 November 2023.

The two tranche placement involves the issue of an aggregate of 790,130,693 Shares at an issue price of $0.26 per Share, together with an Options Exercise of 137,415,183 Options (with an exercise price of A$0.07) to institutional, sophisticated and professional investors ( Placement Investors ), comprising of:

• (a) Tranche 1 Placement: 136,923,077 Shares ( Tranche 1 Placement Shares ) to raise approximately A$36 million utilising the Company's existing placement capacity pursuant to Listing Rule 7.1 ( Tranche 1 Placement ); and

• (b) Tranche 2 Placement: 653,207,616 ( Tranche 2 Placement Shares ) to raise approximately A$170 million subject to Shareholder approval ( Tranche 2 Placement ), consisting of:

P a g e | 5

• (i) 266,559,380 ( Afriland Shares ) to raise approximately A$69 million; and

• (ii) 386,648,236 ( EEA Shares ) to raise approximately A$100 million.

The Tranche 1 Placement Shares were issued on 2 October 2025.

Shareholder approval to issue the Afriland Shares was received on 25 November 2025. However, the issue of the Afriland Shares was subject to Afriland receiving any and all necessary approvals from the Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale, the central bank for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, the Commission de Surveillance du marché financier de l’Afrique Centrale, the market regulator for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community and the Government of Cameroon. These approvals remain outstanding. Accordingly, as at the date of this Notice no Afriland Shares have been issued.

The issue price of each Share to be issued pursuant to the Capital Raising is $0.26 ( Issue Price ).

3.2 Use of funds

Proceeds from the Capital Raising, in conjunction with the Company's existing cash, will be allocated towards:

• (a) advancing the development of the Project, including the following:

• (i) CAPEX beyond stage 1;

• (ii) Rolling stock and rail corridor capacity works;

• (iii) inland rail facility – post stage 1 critical items; and

• (iv) Douala Port terminal works – complete LOM scope.

• (b) increase in investment in Camrail; and

• (c) corporate costs, general working capital and costs of the Placement.

3.3 Capital structure

The capital structure of the Company on completion of the Placement will be as follows:

	Shares	Options	Performance Rights
Securities on issue as at the date of the Notice	2,062,115,055	15,000,000	2,000,000
Afriland Shares to be issued	266,559,380	-	-
EEA Shares to be issued	386,648,236	-	-
TOTAL	2,715,322,671	15,000,000	2,000,000

Note : The above table assumes that the Company Resolution 1 is passed, the Afriland Shares are issued and no existing Options or performance rights are exercised or converted.

3.4 Indicative timetable

An indicative timetable for the Placement is detailed below.

Event Date

P a g e | 6

Dispatch of Notice of Meeting	Thursday, 5 February 2026
General meeting to approve EEA Shares	Monday, 9 March 2026
Settlement and issue of EEA Shares	Tuesday, 10 March 2026

4 RESOLUTION 1 – ISSUE OF TRANCHE 2 PLACEMENT SHARES TO EEA AND INCREASE OF VOTING POWER

4.1 General

Resolution 1 seeks Shareholder approval pursuant to and in accordance with item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act for the acquisition by EEA and/or its nominee (and the EEA Associated Entities) of a Relevant Interest in 386,648,236 Shares under the Tranche 2 Placement.

Since December 2022, the Company engaged EEA as a strategic partner who would play an essential role in the Company’s ability to move its Minim Martap Project through to development ( Strategic Partnership ). The issue of the EEA Shares and resulting increase in EEA's Relevant Interest in the Company subject to the Tranche 2 Placement is subject to shareholder approval under item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act.

Refer to section 3.1 for further details on the Tranche 2 Placement.

Resolution 1 is an ordinary resolution.

The Chairperson intends to exercise all available proxies in favour of Resolution 1.

4.2 About EEA

Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Pte. Ltd. is a Monetary Authority of Singapore registered single-family office based in Singapore, with offices in Dubai.

EEA aims to build a robust investment portfolio across the mining, clean-energy and health technology industries. Importantly, EEA has a long and successful track record in identifying and investing in high-quality projects in Africa.

EEA’s current investments comprise holdings in the following:

• Canyon;

• Toubani Resources Limited, a gold exploration and development company headquartered in Western Australia, with a focus on its flagship Kobada Gold Project located on Mali;

• FG Gold Limited, a gold exploration and development company which is focused on developing its flagship Baomahun Gold Project located in Sierra Leone;

• Fura Gems Inc, a gemstone mining company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, that is focused on its three subsidiaries based in Colombia, Mozambique and Australia to produce emeralds, rubies and sapphires, respectively; and

• Prospect Resources Limited, an Australian-listed exploration and development company focused on its Mumbezhi Copper Project in Zambia, the Step Aside Lithium Project in Zimbabwe, and the Omaruru Lithium Project in Namibia.

EEA has a vision to create a bauxite and aluminium value chain in Africa and the high-quality bauxite ore of the Minim Martap Project is an important step to realise this goal.

4.3 Summary of the material terms of the Subscription Letter

The material terms of the Subscription Letter are as follows:

P a g e | 7

EEA Shares	The Company will issue to EEA or its nominee up to 386,648,236 Shares at an issue price of $0.26 per Share to raise up to $100,528,541.36.
Condition	The issue of the EEA Shares is subject to Shareholder approval for the purposes of item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act.
Warranties	Customary representations and warranties are provided by the Company and EEA.

4.4 Relevant Interest and Voting Power

Prior to the issue of the Tranche 1 Placement Shares, EEA had a Voting Power of 56.5%. As at the date of this Notice and following the issue of the Tranche 1 Placement Shares, EEA has a Voting Power of 55.56% in the Company.

Following the issue of the EEA Shares pursuant to the Tranche 2 Placement, EEA's Voting Power in the Company will remain above 20% and increase to a maximum of 62.58%.

To ensure compliance with Chapter 6 of the Corporations Act, the acquisition by EEA of a Relevant Interest in voting shares in the Company upon the issue of the EEA Shares and the resulting increase in EEA’s Voting Power in the Company, is subject to the Company obtaining shareholder approval for the purposes of item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act. See Section 4.10 for further details regarding the impact of the Tranche 2 Placement subscription by EEA on EEA's Relevant Interest in the Company.

4.5 Impact on capital structure

The effect of the EEA Shares on the capital structure of the Company, subject to the assumptions noted below, is set out below:

Security	Number
Shares:
Shares currentlyon issue	2,062,115,055
Rights convertible into Shares:
Performance Rights currentlyon issue	2,000,000
Options currentlyon issue	15,000,000
Shares:
Afriland Shares	266,559,380
EEA Shares	386,648,236
Total Tranche 2 Placement Shares	653,207,616
Total Equity Securities	2,715,322,671

Note : This above table assumes that Resolution 1 is passed, the Afriland Shares are issued and no existing Options (other than the Options Exercise) or performance rights are exercised or converted.

4.6 Impact on Voting Power

If Resolution 1 is approved by Shareholders, existing Shareholders will have their interest in the Company diluted by the issue of Shares to Afriland and EEA.

The table below details the Voting Power of EEA, assuming:

• (a) Resolution 1 is passed;

P a g e | 8

• (b) no other existing Options or performance rights are exercised or converted; and

• (c) no further Shares are issued by the Company other than the Afriland Shares.

Based on the assumptions noted below, the anticipated maximum Relevant Interest of EEA and EEA Associated Entities and the Voting Power of EEA in the Company (both current and following the Tranche 2 Placement) are set out in the table:

	All Shareholders	Non-associated	EEA
		Shareholders
Shares currently on issue	2,062,115,055	916,300,983	1,145,814,072
Current voting power	100%	44.44%	55.56%
Number of EEA Shares	–	–	386,648,236
Total Shares post-issue of EEA Shares	2,448,763,291	916,300,983	1,532,462,308
Maximum Voting Power post	100%	37.42%	62.58%
issue of EEA Shares only
Number of Afriland Shares	-	266,559,380	-
Total Shares post-issue of EEA Shares and Afriland Shares	2,715,322,671	1,182,860,363	1,532,462,308
Maximum Voting Power post	100%	43.56%	56.44%
issue of EEA Shares and
Afriland Shares

Note: This table assumes that the Company has 2,062,115,055 Shares on issue as at the date of this Notice, that other than pursuant to the Subscription Agreement and Afriland Shares, no further Equity Securities are issued, no Equity Securities convert into Shares, EEA does not transfer or dispose of any Equity Securities that it currently holds or that are issued to it and EEA exercises all of the New Options.

4.7 Advantages of the issue of the EEA Shares

The Directors are of the view the following non-exhaustive list of advantages to the Company and Shareholders who are not Associates of EEA of approving the issue of the EEA Shares may be relevant to a Shareholder’s decision on how to vote on Resolution 1:

• (a) the Company will receive $100,528,541 (before costs) upon the issue of the EEA Shares. This will provide the Company with critical funds to progress the development of the Project (the estimated required development capital is A$206 million) and allow the Company’s management to focus on mine development. The injection of capital under the issue of the EEA Shares may also assist the Company to source additional funding via debt or equity at the relevant time;

• (b) the ongoing Strategic Partnership between the Company and EEA will continue to help drive the commercial success of the Project for the benefit of all Shareholders, with EEA providing ongoing support in discussions to obtain the final approvals for the Project and send a strong indication to the Cameroon government that the Company has a strong major Shareholder that is experienced and committed, and that the Company has a well capitalised balance sheet to build the asset to production;

• (c) EEA brings capital, expertise and relationships that will assist the Company and its Shareholders, noting in particular its long and successful track record in identifying and investing in high-quality projects in Africa;

• (d) a failure to vote in favour of the Resolution could deprive the Company of additional funding which would otherwise be used to further develop the Project and which the Company will

P a g e | 9

have to source alternate funding for or not pursue at this time, which will negatively impact the Project timetable and costs, including ability to maintain progress on the Project;

• (e) the Independent Expert has concluded that the acquisition of the EEA Shares is not fair but reasonable to Shareholders (other than EEA and its Associates)

• (f) in addition, the Independent Expert has noted the following advantages:

• (i) funds raised from the issue of the EEA Shares will be used for the capital expenditure requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project;

• (ii) having a strategic partner like EEA may make it easier for the Company to access further financing for the Minim Martap Project;

• (iii) EEA may be able to assist in further negotiations with the Government of Cameroon and leverage other networks and connections important to the development of the Minim Martap Project;

• (iv) investment in Camrail will derisk the transport and logistics network for the Minim Martap Project; and

• (v) the share price of the Company since the announcement of the Placement has largely traded below the Issue Price; and

• (g) the Independent Expert has considered the potential disadvantages of the acquisition of the EEA Shares (as summarised below) and concluded that the advantages of the acquisition of the EEA Shares are greater than the disadvantages.

Refer to section 13.3 of the Independent Expert’s Report for further information on the advantages of the issue of the EEA Shares.

4.8 Potential Disadvantages of the issue of the EEA Shares

The Directors consider that there are potential disadvantages of approving the issue of the EEA Shares that may be relevant to a Shareholder’s decision on how to vote on Resolution 1 , including:

• (a) Resolution 1 will have a dilutionary effect on holdings of other Shareholders. This will affect the ability of Shareholders to influence decisions of the Company in the future. See the table in Sections 4.5 and 4.6above for details of the maximum potential impact that Resolution 1 may have on the Company’s capital structure and details of the impact on EEA’s Voting Power in the Company;

• (b) if Resolution 1 is approved, EEA's interest could increase to up to 62.58% following the Options Exercise and issue of the EEA Shares. As a result, EEA would continue to have significant influence over all matters that require approval by Shareholders, including the election of directors and approval of significant corporate transactions. It may also discourage a potential bidder from proposing a merger by scheme of arrangement or making a takeover bid for the Company;

• (c) there is no guarantee that the Company's Shares will not fall in value as a result of the approving of Resolution 1; and

• (d) in addition, the Independent Expert has noted the following disadvantages:

• (i) dilution of existing Shareholders’ interests;

• (ii) presence of large cornerstone investor may reduce the possibility of a takeover offer being received in the future; and

• (iii) EEA is subscribing for shares on the same terms as other investors who are only acquiring a minority interest in the Company.

Refer to section 13.4 of the Independent Expert’s Report for further information on the disadvantages of the issue of the EEA Shares.

P a g e | 10

4.9 Independent Expert's Report

The Independent Expert’s Report prepared by the Independent Expert (a copy of which is attached as Schedule 2 to this Explanatory Memorandum) assesses whether Tranche 2 Placement is fair and reasonable to the Company’s Shareholders not associated with EEA.

The Independent Expert has concluded that the Tranche 2 Placement is not fair but reasonable to Shareholders (other than EEA and its Associates).

Shareholders are urged to carefully read the Independent Expert’s Report to understand the scope of the report, the methodology of the valuation and the sources of information and assumptions made.

4.10 Section 606 and section 611 item 7 of the Corporations Act

Under section 606 of the Corporations Act, subject to limited specified exemptions, a person must not acquire a Relevant Interest in issued voting shares in a public company, if as a result of the acquisition any person’s Voting Power in the company would increase:

• from 20% or below to more than 20%; or

• from a starting point that is above 20% and below 90%,

(the Takeover Prohibition ).

In broad terms, a person has a ‘relevant interest’ in shares if that person holds shares or has the power to control the right to vote or dispose of shares. A person’s Voting Power in a company is the number of voting shares in which the person and its Associates have a Relevant Interest in compared with the total number of voting shares in a company

As at the date of this Notice, EEA has a current disclosed Voting Power of 55.56% in the Company. Following the issue of the Subscription Shares and the Exercise Shares, EEA’s Voting Power in the Company will further increase above 20%.

Item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act provides an exception to the Takeover Prohibition and allows a person and its Associates to acquire a Relevant Interest in shares that would otherwise be prohibited under section 606(2) of the Corporations Act if the proposed acquisition is approved in advance by a resolution passed at a general meeting of the company, and:

• (a) no votes are cast in favour of the resolution by the person proposing to make the acquisition and their Associates; and

• (b) the members of the company were given all information known to the person proposing to make the acquisition or their Associates, or known to the company, that was material to the decision on how to vote on the resolution.

Set out in Section 4.5 are details of the number of Shares in which EEA is expected to hold a Relevant Interest in and their maximum Voting Power as a result of the issue of the EEA Shares, which exceeds 20%. Accordingly, Resolution 1 seeks Shareholder approval for the purpose of item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act to enable EEA to increase Voting Power in the Company from a starting point that is below 20% to above 20%.

ASX Listing Rule 7.2, exception 8 states that Listing Rule 7.1 does not apply to an issue of securities approved by shareholders for the purposes of item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act. That approval is sought from Shareholders for the issue of the EEA Shares under Resolution 1.

4.11 Information required by item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act and ASIC Regulatory Guide 74

The following information is provided in accordance with item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act and ASIC Regulatory Guide 74 (in respect of the issue of the EEA Shares to be approved by Shareholders under Resolution 1 in accordance with item 7 of section 611):

• (a) The identity of the person proposing to make the acquisition and their Associates

P a g e | 11

The EEA Shares (as well as the Shares issued pursuant to the Options Exercise) will be issued to Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Pte. Ltd., the Company’s largest shareholder, or its nominee.

A2MP (a wholly owned subsidiary of EEA) is the current holder of the Shares in the Company. Falcon Eye Trustees Pte. Ltd as trustee for the Growmax Trust and Mr Gagan Gupta ( EEA Associated Entities ) each have a Relevant Interest in the Shares in the Company in which EEA has a Relevant Interest by virtue of section 608(3) of the Corporations Act, pursuant to control of holding entities and shareholdings in EEA. Through the operation of Chapter 6 of the Corporations Act, each of the EEA Associated Entities will have a Relevant Interest in any Shares acquired by EEA pursuant to the issue of the EEA Shares.

Other than the EEA Associated Entities and A2MP, EEA does not have any other Associates which have a Relevant Interest in the Shares in the Company.

• (b) The maximum extent of the increase of that person's Voting Power in the Company

If Resolution 1 is passed and assuming:

• (i) no other existing Options or performance rights or exercised or converted; and

• (ii) no further Shares are issued by the Company,

the maximum extent of the increase in EEA's Voting Power is 7.02%.

• (c)

The Voting Power the person would have as a result of the acquisition

If Resolutions 1 is passed and assuming:

• (i) the Tranche 2 Placement Shares, being the Afriland Shares and the EEA Shares are issued;

• (ii) no other existing Options or performance rights or exercised or converted; and

• (iii) no further Shares are issued by the Company,

the maximum extent of EEA's Voting Power is 62.58%.

(d) The maximum extent of the increase in the Voting Power of each of the acquirer's associates that would result from the acquisition

The maximum extent of the increased in the EEA Associated Entities Voting Power will be equivalent to the increase in Voting Power of EEA, being 7.02%.

(e) The Voting Power that each of the acquirer's associates would have as a result of the acquisition

The Voting Power that EEA Associated Entities will have will be equivalent to the Voting Power that EEA will have.

(f) An explanation of the reasons for the acquisition

Section 4.1 of this Explanatory Memorandum provides background to and an explanation of the reasons for EEA participating in the Tranche 2 Placement.

Section 4.7 contains a non-exhaustive list of advantages to the Company and Shareholders (other than EEA and its Associates) of approving Resolution 1 that may be relevant to a Shareholder’s decision on how to vote on Resolution 1. Section 4.8 contains a list of potential disadvantages to the issue of the EEA Shares that Shareholders should be aware of in deciding how to vote on Resolution 1.

• (g) When the proposed acquisition of the EEA Shares to occur

P a g e | 12

If Resolution 1 is passed, the Company intends to issue the EEA Shares on the date five Business Days after receipt of Shareholder approval.

(h) The material terms of the Subscription Letter

A summary of the key terms of the Subscription letter is set out in Section 4.3.

• (i) Details of the terms of any other relevant agreement between the acquirer and the target entity or vendor (or any of their Associates) that is conditional on (or directly or indirectly depends on) members' approval of the acquisition

None.

(j) Intentions of EEA regarding the future of the Company

Other than as disclosed elsewhere in this Explanatory Memorandum, EEA has confirmed to the Company that EEA:

• (i) has no present intention of making any significant changes to the business of the Company;

• (ii) has no present intention to inject further capital into the Company, unless requested by the Company in the future;

• (iii) has no present intention of making changes regarding the future employment of the present employees of the Company;

• (iv) has no present intention to redeploy any fixed assets of the Company;

• (v) has no present intention to transfer any property between the Company and themselves;

• (vi) has no present intention to change the Company’s existing policies in relation to financial matters or dividends; and

• (vii) has no present intention to change the Board.

The Company takes no responsibility for any omission from, or any error or false or misleading statement in Section 4.11(j) of the Explanatory Memorandum.

EEA does not make, or purport to make, any statement in this Explanatory Memorandum other than the statements in this Section 4.11(j) of the Explanatory Memorandum attributed to it. To the maximum extent permitted by law, EEA expressly disclaims liability to Shareholders and takes no responsibility for any omission from, or any error or false or misleading statement in, any other part of this Explanatory Memorandum.

(k) The identity, associations and qualifications of any person who it intended to or will become a director if Shareholders pass Resolution 1

None.

4.12 Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act

Chapter 2E of the Corporations Act requires that for a public company, or an entity that the public company controls, to give a financial benefit to a related party of the public company, the public company or entity must:

• (a) obtain the approval of the public company's members in the manner set out in sections 217 to 227 of the Corporations Act; and

• (b) give the benefit within 15 months following such approval,

unless the giving of the financial benefit falls within an exception set out in section 210 to 216 of the Corporations Act.

P a g e | 13

The proposed issue of the EEA Shares constitutes giving a financial benefit to related parties of the Company.

The Board considers that the issue of the EEA Shares to EEA (or their nominee) under the Placement, in accordance with Resolution 1, falls under the arm's length exception in section 210 of the Corporations Act, on the basis that the EEA Shares are being issued on the same terms as those offered to other investors in the Placement, who are not related parties of the Company. Accordingly, Shareholder approval is not being sought for the purposes of section 208 of the Corporations Act.

4.13 Board recommendation

The Board unanimously recommend that Shareholders vote in favour of Resolution 1. The Directors are not aware of any other information that would reasonably be required by the Shareholders to allow them to make a decision whether it is in the best interests of the Company to pass Resolution 1.

Subject to any required voting exclusion, each of the Directors has agreed to vote, or procure the voting of, any Shares that they control in favour of Resolution 1.

5 RESOLUTION 2 – RENEWAL OF PLAN

5.1 Background

The Directors considered that it was desirable to establish an incentive plan under which persons who are employees or directors of, or individuals who provide services to, a Group Company ( Eligible Employees ) may be offered the opportunity to subscribe for conditional rights to receive Equity Securities in the form of Shares, Options and/or Performance Rights (together, the Incentives ) in the Company in order to increase the range of potential incentives available to them and to strengthen links between the Company and its Eligible Employees and accordingly, adopted the Employee Awards Plan ( Plan ).

The Plan was last approved at the 2022 annual general meeting of the Company, and for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.2 (exception 13) was due to be renewed on at the 2025 annual general meeting.

The Plan is designed to provide incentives to Eligible Employees of the Company and to recognise their contribution to the Company's success. Under the Company's current circumstances, the Directors consider that the incentives to Eligible Employees are a cost effective and efficient incentive for the Company as opposed to alternative forms of incentives such as cash bonuses or increased remuneration. To enable the Company to secure Eligible Employees who can assist the Company in achieving its objectives, it is necessary to provide remuneration and incentives to such personnel. The Plan is designed to achieve this objective, by encouraging continued improvement in performance over time and by encouraging personnel to acquire and retain significant shareholdings in the Company.

Pursuant to the terms of the Plan, the Board may exercise its discretion to allow Eligible Employees who cease to be employed or engaged by the Group to retain and/or automatically vest all or a portion of any unvested Incentives (as applicable) notwithstanding the circumstances in which the relevant Eligible Employees ceased to be employed or engaged by the Company. The Plan also provides the Board with the discretion to amend the terms and conditions of granted Incentives, including amending or reducing the exercise price, amending or waiving vesting or performance conditions or amending or extending the expiry date or period for exercise, or increasing the number of Shares received on exercise of the Incentives.

5.2 Listing Rule 7.1 and Listing Rule 7.2 Exception 13(b)

Shareholder approval is required if any issue of Incentives pursuant to the Plan is to fall within the exception to the calculation of the 15% limit imposed by Listing Rule 7.1 on the number of securities which may be issued without Shareholder approval. Accordingly, Shareholder approval is sought for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.2 Exception 13(b) which provides that Listing Rule 7.1 do not apply to an issue of Equity Securities under an employee incentive scheme that has been approved by the holders of ordinary securities within three years of the date of issue.

P a g e | 14

Prior Shareholder approval will be required before any Director or related party of the Company can participate in the Plan.

Under the Plan, the Board may offer to Eligible Employees the opportunity to subscribe for such number of Incentives in the Company as the Board may decide and on the terms set out in the rules of the Plan, a summary of which is set out in Schedule 3 of this Explanatory Memorandum. Incentives granted under the Plan will be offered to Participants in the Plan on the basis of the Board’s view of the contribution of the Eligible Employee to the Company.

The maximum number of Incentives proposed to be issued under the Plan following Shareholder approval is expected to be 40 million Incentives. Once this number is reached the Company will need to seek fresh approval from Shareholders if the subsequent issue of Incentives is to fall within Listing Rule 7.2 Exception 13.

If Resolution 2 is passed, the Company will be able to issue Incentives under the Plan up the maximum number set out in this Notice. In addition, those issues of Incentives will be excluded from the calculation of the number of Equity Securities that the Company can issue without Shareholder approval under Listing Rule 7.1.

If Resolution 2 is not passed, the Company will be able to proceed to issue Incentives under the Plan, however the issue of those Incentives will not fall within the exception to the calculation of the 15% limit imposed by Listing Rule 7.1 and therefore effectively decreasing the number of Equity Securities which may be issued without Shareholder approval.

5.3 Technical information required by Listing Rule 7.2 (Exception 13)

In accordance with the requirements of Listing Rule 7.2 Exception 13(b), the following information is provided to Shareholders:

• (a) a summary of the terms of the Plan is set out in Schedule 3 of this Explanatory Memorandum;

• (b) a previous incentive plan was approved by Shareholders on 21 November 2022. A total of nil Performance Rights have been issued pursuant to that previous incentive plan;

• (c) the maximum number of Incentives proposed to be issued under the Plan following approval of this Resolution is 40 million Incentives; and

• (d) a voting exclusion statement has been included in the Notice for the purposes of this Resolution.

5.4 Board Recommendation

As the Directors of the Company are excluded from voting pursuant to the Listing Rules, they make no recommendation to the shareholders in respect of the Plan. The Chair in his capacity as proxy holder intends to vote undirected proxies in favour of approving this Resolution 2.

6 RESOLUTION 3 – ISSUE OF TRANCHE 2 PLACEMENT SECURITIES TO AFRILAND

6.1 General

Resolution 3 seeks Shareholder approval pursuant to and in accordance with Listing Rule 7.1 to issue up to 266,559,380 Shares to Afriland Bourse & Investissement under the Tranche 2 Placement. The investment by Afriland is subject to Afriland obtaining any and all necessary approvals from the Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale, the central bank for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, the Commission de Surveillance du marché financier de l’Afrique Centrale, the market regulator for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community and the Government of Cameroon to approve the subscription for the Afriland Shares ( Regulatory Approvals ).

On 25 November 2025 at the Company's annual general meeting, Shareholder approval to issue the Afriland Shares was received ( Existing Afriland Approval ). However, the issue of the Afriland

P a g e | 15

Shares remains subject to Afriland receiving the Regulatory Approvals. Since obtaining Shareholder approval for the issue of the Afriland Shares, Afriland informed the Company that it has been experiencing delays in obtaining the Regulatory Approvals and the Existing Afriland Approval is due to expire on 24 February 2026.

Accordingly, Resolution 3 seeks Shareholder approval on the basis that the Existing Afriland Approval obtained by the Company may expire before the Regulatory Approvals are received by Afriland and the subsequent issue of the Afriland Shares.

Refer to section 3.1 for further details on the Tranche 2 Placement.

Resolution 3 is an ordinary resolution.

The Chairperson intends to exercise all available proxies in favour of Resolution 3.

6.2 Listing Rule 7.1

Broadly speaking, and subject to a number of exceptions, Listing Rule 7.1 limits the number of Equity Securities that a listed company can issue without the approval of its shareholders over a 12-month period to 15% of the fully paid ordinary securities it had on issue at the start of that period.

Resolution 3 seeks the required Shareholder approval to issue the Afriland Shares for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.1.

If Resolution 3 is passed, the Company will be able to proceed with the issue of the Afriland Shares to Afriland following the expiry of the Existing Afriland Approval.

If Resolution 3 is not passed, the Company will not be able to issue the Afriland Shares to Afriland following the expiry of the Existing Afriland Approval and the Company will not be able to raise funds from issuing the Afriland Shares and may seek to raise them from alternate sources.

6.3 Specific information required by Listing Rule 7.3

The following information in relation to Resolution 3 is provided to Shareholders for the purposes of Listing Rule 7.3:

• (a) a maximum of 266,559,380 Shares will be issued to Afriland who participated in the Tranche 2 Placement. Afriland is not related party, a member of the Company's Key Management Personnel, a substantial shareholder or adviser of the Company or any of their associates;

• (b) the Afriland Shares are fully paid ordinary shares and rank equally in all respects with the Company's existing Shares;

• (c) the Afriland Shares have an issue price of $0.26 per Share, raising a total of $69,305,439 from Afriland;

• (d) the Afriland Shares are intended to be issued on the date five Business Days after receipt of Shareholder approval and will be issued no later than three months after the date of the Meeting;

• (e) the funds raised from the issue of the Afriland Shares are intended to be used as detailed in Section 3.2;

• (f) the Afriland Shares were issued pursuant to a subscription letter pursuant to which Afriland subscribed for Tranche 2 Placement Shares (being the Afriland Shares); and

• (g) a voting exclusion statement is included in the Notice for Resolution 3.

6.4 Board recommendation

The Board recommends that Shareholders vote in favour of Resolution 3.

P a g e | 16

Schedule 1 – Definitions

In the Notice and this Explanatory Memorandum, words importing the singular include the plural and vice versa.

$ means Australian Dollars.

Afriland means Afriland Bourse & Investissement.

Afriland Shares has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

ASIC means the Australian Securities and Investments Commission.

Associate has the meaning given to that term in the Listing Rules.

ASX means ASX Limited (ACN 008 624 691) and, where the context permits, the Australian Securities Exchange operated by ASX.

AWST means Australian Western Standard Time, being the time in Perth, Western Australia.

Board means the board of directors of the Company.

Business Day means a day on which the banks are open for business excluding Saturdays, Sundays or public holidays in Perth, Western Australia.

Capital Raising has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Chairperson means the person appointed to chair the Meeting convened by the Notice.

Company means Canyon Resources Limited (ACN 140 087 261).

Corporations Act means the Corporations Act 2001 (Cth).

Director means a director of the Company.

EEA means Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Pte Ltd.

EEA Associated Entities has the meaning given in Section 4.11.

EEA Shares has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Equity Security has the same meaning as in the Listing Rules.

Explanatory Memorandum means the explanatory memorandum which forms part of the Notice.

Independent Expert means BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd (ABN 70 050 038 170 and AFSL No. 247420).

Issue Price has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Key Management Personnel means persons having authority and responsibility for planning, directing and controlling the activities of the Company, directly or indirectly, including any Director (whether executive or otherwise) of the Company.

Listing Rules means the listing rules of ASX.

Meeting has the meaning in the introductory paragraph of the Notice.

Notice means the notice of meeting which comprises of the notice, agenda, Explanatory Memorandum and Proxy Form.

Option means an option which entitles the holder to subscribe for a Share.

Options Exercise has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Placement has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Placement Investors means the institutional, sophisticated and professional investors who participated in the Placement.

Plan has the meaning given in Section 5.1.

Project means the Company's Minimi Martap Bauxite Project located in Cameroon.

Proxy Form means the proxy form attached to the Notice.

P a g e | 17

Regulatory Approvals has the meaning given in Section 6.1.

Relevant Interest has the meaning given in the Corporations Act.

Resolution means a resolution contained in the Notice.

Schedule means a schedule to this Explanatory Memorandum.

Section means a section of this Explanatory Memorandum.

Share means a fully paid ordinary share in the capital of the Company.

Shareholder means a holder of one or more Shares.

Subscription Letter means the placement subscription letter between the Company and EEA dated 24 September 2025.

Tranche 1 Placement has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Tranche 1 Placement Shares has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Tranche 2 Placement has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Tranche 2 Placement Shares has the meaning given in Section 3.1.

Voting Power has the meaning given in the Corporations Act.

P a g e | 18

Schedule 2 – Independent Expert's Report

Please see next page.

P a g e | 19

Canyon Resources Limited Independent Expert's Report

3 February 2026

Tel: +61 8 6382 4600 Level 9 Mia Yellagonga Tower 2 Fax: +61 8 6382 4601 5 Spring Street www.bdo.com.au Perth, WA 6000 PO Box 700 West Perth WA 6872 Australia

==> picture [62 x 25] intentionally omitted <==

FINANCIAL SERVICES GUIDE

Dated: 3 February 2026

This Financial Services Guide ( FSG ) helps you decide whether to use any of the financial services offered by BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd ( BDO Corporate Finance, we, us, our).

The FSG includes information about:

• Who we are and how we can be contacted

• The services we are authorised to provide under our Australian Financial Services Licence, Licence No: 247420

• Remuneration that we and/or our staff and any associates receive in connection with the financial services

• Any relevant associations or relationships we have

• • Our complaints handling procedures and how you may access them.

FINANCIAL SERVICES WE ARE LICENSED TO PROVIDE

We hold an Australian Financial Services Licence which authorises us to provide financial product advice to retail and wholesale clients about securities and certain derivatives (limited to old law securities, options contracts, and warrants). We can also arrange for customers to deal in securities, in some circumstances. Whilst we are authorised to provide personal and general advice to retail and wholesale clients, we only provide general advice to retail clients.

Any general advice we provide is provided on our own behalf, as a financial services licensee.

GENERAL FINANCIAL PRODUCT ADVICE

Our general advice is typically included in written reports. In those reports, we provide general financial product advice that is prepared without taking into account your personal objectives, financial situation or needs. You should consider the appropriateness of the general advice having regard to your own objectives, financial situation and needs before you act on the advice. Where the advice relates to the acquisition or possible acquisition of a financial product, you should also obtain a product disclosure statement relating to the product and consider that statement before making any decision about whether to acquire the product.

FEES, COMMISSIONS AND OTHER BENEFITS THAT WE MAY RECEIVE

We charge fees for providing reports. These fees are negotiated and agreed to with the person who engages us to provide the report. Fees will be agreed on an hourly basis or as a fixed amount depending on the terms of the agreement. In this instance, the Company has agreed to pay us $130,000 for preparing the Report.

Except for the fees referred to above, neither BDO Corporate Finance, nor any of its directors, employees, or related entities, receive any pecuniary benefit or other benefit, directly or indirectly, for or in connection with the provision of general advice.

All our employees receive a salary. Our employees are eligible for bonuses based on overall company performance but not directly in connection with any engagement for the provision of a report.

REFERRALS

ASSOCIATIONS AND RELATIONSHIPS

BDO Corporate Finance is a member firm of the BDO network in Australia, a national association of separate entities (each of which has appointed BDO (Australia) Limited ACN 050 110 275 to represent it in BDO International). The general financial product advice in our report is provided by BDO Corporate Finance and not by BDO or its related entities. BDO and its related entities provide services primarily in the areas of audit, tax, consulting, and financial advisory services.

In the two years prior to the date of this report, BDO Services Pty Ltd provided taxation services to Canyon for total fees of approximately $19,000. Additionally, in the two years prior to the date of this report, BDO Corporate Finance provided valuation services to Canyon for total fees of approximately $26,000.

We do not have any formal associations or relationships with any entities that are issuers of financial products. However, you should note that we and BDO (and its related entities) might from time to time provide professional services to financial product issuers in the ordinary course of business.

COMPLAINTS RESOLUTION

We are committed to meeting your needs and maintaining a high level of client satisfaction. If you are unsatisfied with a service we have provided you, we have avenues available to you for the investigation and resolution of any complaint you may have.

To make a formal complaint, please use the Complaints Form. For more on this, including the Complaints Form and contact details, see the BDO Complaints Policy available on our website.

BDO Corporate Finance is a member of AFCA (Member Number 11843). Where you are unsatisfied with the resolution reached through our Internal Dispute Resolution process, you may escalate this complaint to the Australian Financial Complaints Authority ( AFCA ) using the below contact details:

Australian Financial Complaints Authority GPO Box 3, Melbourne VIC 3001 Email: info@afca.org.au Phone: 1800 931 678 Fax: (03) 9613 6399 Interpreter service: 131 450 Website: http://www.afca.org.au

COMPENSATION ARRANGEMENTS

BDO Corporate Finance and its related entities hold Professional Indemnity insurance for the purpose of compensating retail clients for loss or damage suffered because of breaches of relevant obligations by BDO Corporate Finance or its representatives under Chapter 7 of the Corporations Act 2001. These arrangements and the level of cover held by BDO Corporate Finance satisfy the requirements of section 912B of the Corporations Act 2001.

CONTACT DETAILS

You may provide us with instructions using the details set out at the top of this FSG or by emailing - cf.ecp@bdo.com.au

We do not pay commissions or provide any other benefits to any person for referring customers to us in connection with the reports that we are licensed to provide.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd ABN 70 050 038 170 AFS Licence No. 247420 is a member of a national association of independent entities which are all members of A.C.N. 050 110 275 Ltd ABN 77 050 110 275, an Australian company limited by guarantee. BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd and A.C.N. 050 110 275 Ltd are members of BDO International Ltd, a UK company limited by guarantee, and form part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

==> picture [77 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Table of contents

1.	Introduction	1
2.	Summary and opinion	2
3.	Scope of the Report	4
4.	Outline of the Proposed Transaction	6
5.	Profile of Canyon	9
6.	Profile of EEA	18
7.	Economic analysis	19
8.	Industry analysis	22
9.	Valuation approach adopted	28
10.	Valuation of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction	32
11.	Valuation of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction	59
12.	Is the Proposed Transaction fair?	73
13.	Is the Proposed Transaction reasonable?	74
14.	Conclusion	79
15.	Sources of information	80
16.	Independence	80
17.	Qualifications	81
18.	Disclaimers and consents	81
Appendix 1 – Glossary and copyright notice
Appendix 2 – Valuation Methodologies
Appendix 3 – Discount rate

Appendix 4 – Control premium

Appendix 5 - Independent Technical Specialist Report prepared by ERM

© 2025 BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd

Level 9 Mia Yellagonga Tower 2 5 Spring Street Perth, WA 6000 PO Box 700 West Perth WA 6872 Australia

Tel: +61 8 6382 4600 Fax: +61 8 6382 4601 www.bdo.com.au

==> picture [77 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

3 February 2026

The Independent Directors Canyon Resources Limited 3 Richardson Street West Perth WA 6005

Dear Independent Directors

INDEPENDENT EXPERT’S REPORT

1. Introduction

On 25 September 2025, Canyon Resources Limited (‘ Canyon ’ or ‘ the Company ’) announced that it had received binding commitments for a two-tranche placement, to raise approximately $205 million through the issue of approximately 790 million new fully paid ordinary shares (‘ Shares ’) at an issue price of $0.26 per Share (‘ Offer Price’ ) to strategic, institutional, sophisticated, and professional investors (‘ Placement ’). The Shares will be issued in two tranches under the Placement:

• Tranche 1 will raise approximately $36 million via the issue of approximately 137 million Shares (‘ Tranche 1 Shares’ ). The Tranche 1 Shares were issued to investors on 2 October 2025.

• Tranche 2 will raise approximately $170 million via the issue of approximately 653 million Shares (‘ Tranche 2 Shares’ ) and completion is subject to Canyon shareholder approval.

Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Pte Ltd (‘ EEA’ ), has agreed to subscribe for approximately $100 million under Tranche 2, comprising approximately 386 million Shares (‘ EEA Shares’ ).

Additionally, Canyon reported that EEA expressed its intention to exercise approximately 137 million Canyon options which it held (‘ EEA Options’ ) at an exercise price of $0.07, raising approximately $10 million (‘ Option Exercise’ ) for the Company. Following the Option Exercise, EEA will be issued approximately 137 million Shares (‘ Option Shares’ ).

Afriland Bourse & Investissement (‘ Afriland ’), a wholly owned subsidiary of Afriland First Bank, has committed to subscribe for up to approximately $70 million of the Tranche 2 Shares, comprising approximately 266 million Shares (‘ Afriland Shares ’). The investment by Afriland is subject to Afriland obtaining any and all necessary approvals. It is expected that the government approvals required for the issue of the Afriland Shares won’t be received until after the issue of the EEA shares.

The Company is seeking shareholder approval for the issue of the EEA Shares (‘ Proposed Transaction’ ) pursuant to item 7, section 611 of the Corporations Act 2001 (‘ Corporations Act ’ or ‘ the Act ’).

Further details of the Proposed Transaction are outlined in Section 4 of our Report.

All figures in our Report are quoted in Australian dollars ( ‘AUD’ or ‘$’ ) unless otherwise stated.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd ABN 70 050 038 170 AFS Licence No 247420 is a member of a national association of independent entities which are all members of BDO (Australia) Ltd ABN 77 050 110 275, an Australian company limited by guarantee. BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd and BDO (Australia) Ltd are members of BDO International Ltd, a UK company limited by guarantee, and form part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

2. Summary and opinion

2.1 Requirement for the report

The independent directors of Canyon have requested that BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd (‘ BDO ’) prepare an independent expert’s report (‘ our Report ’) to express an opinion as to whether the Proposed Transaction is fair and reasonable to the shareholders of Canyon (‘ Shareholders ’).

Our Report is prepared pursuant to item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act and is to be included in the Company’s Notice of Meeting to assist Shareholders in their decision whether to approve the Proposed Transaction.

2.2 Approach

Our Report has been prepared having regard to Australian Securities and Investments Commission (‘ ASIC ’) Regulatory Guide 74 ‘Acquisitions approved by members’ ( ‘RG 74’ ), Regulatory Guide 111 ‘Content of expert reports’ (‘ RG 111 ’), Regulatory Guide 112 ‘Independence of experts’ (‘ RG 112 ’), and Regulatory Guide 170 ‘Prospective financial information’ ( ‘RG 170’ ).

In arriving at our opinion, we have assessed the terms of the Proposed Transaction as outlined in the body of this Report. We have considered the following:

• How the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a controlling interest basis (diluted) compares to the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction on a minority interest basis (diluted)

• The likelihood of an alternative offer being made to Canyon

• Other factors which we consider to be relevant to the Shareholders in their assessment of the Proposed Transaction

• The position of Shareholders should the Proposed Transaction not proceed.

2.3 Opinion

We have considered the terms of the Proposed Transaction as outlined in the body of this Report and have concluded that, in the absence of a superior proposal, the Proposed Transaction is not fair but reasonable to Shareholders.

In our opinion, the Proposed Transaction is not fair because our valuation range of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority and diluted basis) is lower than our valuation range of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling and diluted basis).

However, we consider the Proposed Transaction to be reasonable because the advantages of the Proposed Transaction to Shareholders are greater than the disadvantages. In particular, the Proposed Transaction will provide approximately $100 million of funding required for the development of the Minim Martap Project into production, thereby increasing the likelihood of future value uplift for Shareholders. The Offer Price also represents a premium to Canyon’s prevailing market price, which has largely traded below this level since the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. If the Proposed Transaction is not approved the Company would have to seek alternative funding which will likely be on less favourable terms. We also draw attention to Section13.5 where we considered the impact of the Proposed Transaction on a like for like basis.

2

2.4 Fairness

In Section 12, we compared the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling and diluted basis) to the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority and diluted basis), as detailed below:

		Ref.	Ref.	Low	Preferred	Preferred	High
				$		$	$
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a		10.3		0.186		0.263	0.345
control basis (diluted)
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed a minority basis (diluted)	Transaction on	11.3		0.127		0.191	0.264
Source:BDO analysis
The above valuation ranges are graphically presented below:
	Valuation Summary
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed
Transaction on a control basis (diluted)
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed
Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)
	0.000		0.100	0.200		0.300	0.400
				Value ($)

The above pricing indicates that, in absence of a superior proposal, the Proposed Transaction is not fair for Shareholders, as the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis) is lower than prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling and diluted basis) under our assessed low, preferred and high valuations.

2.5 Reasonableness

We have considered the analysis in Section 13 of this Report, in terms of the following:

• Advantages and disadvantages of the Proposed Transaction.

• Other considerations, including the position of Shareholders if the Proposed Transaction does not proceed and the consequences of not approving the Proposed Transaction.

In our opinion, the position of Shareholders if the Proposed Transaction is approved is more advantageous than the position if the Proposed Transaction is not approved. Accordingly, in the absence of any other relevant information and/or an alternate proposal we consider that the Proposed Transaction is reasonable for Shareholders.

The respective advantages and disadvantages considered are summarised below:

3

ADVANTAGES AND DISADVANTAGES
Section Advantages	Section	Disadvantages
13.3 Funds raised from the issue of the EEA Shares will be used for the capital expenditure requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project	13.4	Dilution of existing Shareholders’ interests
13.3 Having a strategic partner like EEA may make it easier for the Company to access further financing for the Minim Martap Project	13.4	Presence of large cornerstone investor may reduce the possibility of a takeover offer being received in the future
13.3 EEA may be able to assist in further negotiations with the Government of Cameroon and leverage other networks and connections important to the development of the Minim Martap Project	13.4	EEA is subscribing for Tranche 2 Shares on the same terms as other investors who are only acquiring a minority interest in Canyon
13.3 Investment in Camrail will derisk the transport and logistics network for the Minim Martap Project
13.3 The share price of Canyon since the announcement of the Proposed Transaction has largely traded below the Offer Price

Other key matters we have considered include:

Section	Description
13.1	Alternative Proposal
13.2	Practical Level of Control
13.5	Consequences of not approving the Proposed Transaction

3. Scope of the Report

3.1 Purpose of the Report

As at the date of our Report, EEA’s holding in Canyon is 55.6%. If the Proposed Transaction is approved by Shareholders, EEA’s holding in Canyon will increase to a maximum of 62.6%.

Section 606 of the Corporations Act (‘ Section 606 ’) expressly prohibits the acquisition of further shares if the party acquiring the interest does so through a transaction and because of the transaction the party (or someone else’s voting power in the company increases from a starting point above 20% and below 90%).

4

Section 611 of the Corporations Act (‘ Section 611 ’) provides exceptions to the Section 606 prohibition and item 7 of Section 611 (‘ item 7 s611 ’) permits such an acquisition if the shareholders of Canyon have agreed to the acquisition. This agreement must be by resolution passed at a general meeting at which no votes are cast in favour of the resolution by the party to the acquisition or any party who is associated with the acquiring party.

Item 7 Section 611 states that shareholders of the company must be given all information that is material to the decision on how to vote at the meeting.

RG 74 states that to satisfy the obligation to provide all material information on how to vote on the item 7 resolution Canyon can commission an Independent Expert's Report.

The independent directors of Canyon have commissioned this Independent Expert's Report to satisfy this obligation.

3.2 Regulatory guidance

Neither the Listing Rules nor the Corporations Act defines the meaning of ‘fair and reasonable’. In determining whether the Proposed Transaction is fair and reasonable, we have had regard to the views expressed by ASIC in RG 111. This regulatory guide provides guidance as to what matters an independent expert should consider to assist security holders to make informed decisions about transactions.

This regulatory guide suggests that where the transaction is a control transaction, the expert should focus on the substance of the control transaction rather than the legal mechanism used to effect it. RG 111 suggests that where a transaction is a control transaction, it should be analysed on a basis consistent with a takeover bid.

In our opinion, the Proposed Transaction is a control transaction as defined by RG 111 and we have therefore assessed the Proposed Transaction as a control transaction to consider whether, in our opinion, it is fair and reasonable to Shareholders.

3.3 Adopted basis of evaluation

RG 111 states that a transaction is fair if the value of the offer price or consideration is equal to or greater than the value of the securities subject of the offer. This comparison should be made assuming a knowledgeable and willing, but not anxious, buyer and a knowledgeable and willing, but not anxious, seller acting at arm’s length. When considering the value of the securities subject of the offer in a control transaction it is inappropriate for the expert to apply a discount on the basis that the shares being acquired represent a minority or portfolio interest as such the expert should consider this value inclusive of a control premium. Further to this, RG 111 states that a transaction is reasonable if it is fair. It might also be reasonable if despite being ‘not fair’ the expert believes that there are sufficient reasons for security holders to accept the offer in the absence of any higher bid.

Having regard to the above, BDO has completed this comparison in two parts:

• A comparison between value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a control basis and the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction on a minority interest basis (fairness – see Section 12 ‘Is the Proposed Transaction fair?’).

• An investigation into other significant factors to which Shareholders might give consideration, prior to approving the resolution, after reference to the value derived above (reasonableness – see Section 13 ‘Is the Proposed Transaction reasonable?’).

This assignment is a Valuation Engagement as defined by Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board professional standard APES 225 ‘Valuation Services’ (‘ APES 225 ’).

5

A Valuation Engagement is defined by APES 225 as follows:

‘an Engagement or Assignment to perform a Valuation and provide a Valuation Report where the Member is free to employ the Valuation Approaches, Valuation Methods, and Valuation Procedures that a reasonable and informed third party would perform taking into consideration all the specific facts and circumstances of the Engagement or Assignment available to the Member at that time.’

This Valuation Engagement has been undertaken in accordance with the requirements set out in APES 225.

4. Outline of the Proposed Transaction

4.1 Placement

On 25 September 2025, Canyon announced that it had received binding commitments for a two-tranche placement to raise approximately $205 million through the issue of 790,130,692 Shares at an Offer Price of $0.26 per share, to strategic, institutional, sophisticated, and professional investors.

Canyon’s major shareholder EEA has committed to subscribe for approximately $100 million under Tranche 2 and expressed its intention to exercise its EEA Options to raise an additional $10 million for the Company (see Section 4.2).

Tranche 1 Shares

The Tranche 1 Shares were issued to investors on 2 October 2025, raising a total of $35.6 million. At the Company’s Annual General Meeting (‘ AGM ’) held on 25 November 2025, Canyon received Shareholder approval for the ratification of the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares in accordance with Australian Securities Exchange (‘ ASX ’) Listing Rule 7.1.

Tranche 2 Shares

Tranche 2 of the Placement will raise approximately $170 million through the issue of 653,207,616 shares, comprising the Afriland Shares and the EEA Shares. At the Company’s AGM, Canyon received shareholder approval for the issue of the Afriland Shares. The Company is separately seeking shareholder approval for the issue of the EEA Shares pursuant to item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act.

Afriland Shares

Afriland has agreed to subscribe for up to approximately $70 million of the Tranche 2 Shares, comprising 266,559,380 shares at the Offer Price of $0.26. As noted above, Canyon has received Shareholder approval pursuant to ASX Listing Rule 7.1 for the issue of the Afriland Shares.

The investment by Afriland is subject to Afriland obtaining any and all necessary approvals from the Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale (‘ BEAC ’), the central bank for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community, the Commission de Surveillance du marché financier de l’Afrique Centrale (‘ COSUMAF ’), the market regulator for the Central African Economic and Monetary Community and the Government of Cameroon to approve the subscription for the Afriland Shares. As at the date of this Report, these approvals remain outstanding, and it is expected that they will not be received until after the issue of the EEA shares.

In forming our valuation of Canyon both prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, we consider there to be reasonable grounds to assume that the Afriland Shares will be issued (and funding received). The Company expects the approvals to be received by February 2026. We note the deadline for the issue of the shares to Afriland (as disclosed to shareholders in the Company’s Notice of Meeting) is 25 February 2026.

6

EEA Shares

EEA has agreed to subscribe for approximately $100 million under Tranche 2, comprising 386,648,236 shares at the Offer Price of $0.26. Canyon is seeking shareholder approval for the issue of the EEA Shares, pursuant to item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act.

As at the date of our Report, EEA’s holding in Canyon is 55.6%. If the Proposed Transaction is approved by Shareholders, following the issue of the EEA Shares, the voting power of EEA will remain above 20% and increase to a maximum of 62.58%, requiring Shareholder approval pursuant to item 7 of section 611 of the Corporations Act.

If the in-country approvals for the Afriland Shares are received and the Afriland Shares are issued prior to the approval and the issue of the EEA Shares, the voting power of EEA will remain above 20% and increase to 56.44%.

4.2 Option Exercise

On 27 December 2023, EEA was issued 500 million options exercisable at $0.07 each and expiring on 26 December 2026, which were approved by Shareholders at the Company’s AGM held on 29 November 2023. The final condition the options were conditional on was satisfied on 28 April 2025. Following this, EEA exercised a proportion of these options.

As part of the broader capital raise involving the Placement, EEA expressed its intention to exercise its remaining 137,415,183 options ( ‘EEA Options’ ). The EEA Options were exercised on 18 November 2025, raising a total of approximately $9.6 million, with 137,415,183 shares issued to EEA (‘ Option Shares’ ).

4.3 Use of funds

Proceeds from the Placement and Options Exercise, in conjunction with Canyon’s existing cash, will be allocated towards:

• Advancing the development of the Minim Martap Project, including capital expenditure beyond initial construction, procurement of rolling stock, upgrades to rail corridor capacity, completion of critical inland rail facility infrastructure, and development of the Douala Port terminal to support full life-ofmine operations

• Increasing the Company’s investment in Camrail SA from a 9.1% interest to approximately 35% interest

• Allocating funds towards corporate costs, general working capital and costs associated with the Placement.

4.4 Capital Structure following the Proposed Transaction

The table below shows the change in holdings in Canyon as a result of the issue of the shares from the Placement and the Option Exercise. Following the Proposed Transaction and excluding the Afriland Shares, EEA may have a voting power in the Company of up to 62.58%

	New or
Description	Existing	EEA	Afriland	Total
	Shareholders
Shares on issue prior to the Placement	776,377,906	1,008,398,889	-	1,784,776,795
% holdings prior to the Placement	43.50%	56.50%	0.00%	100.00%
Tranche 1 Shares issued	136,923,077	-	-	136,923,077

7

	New or
Description	Existing	EEA	Afriland	Total
	Shareholders
Shares on issue following the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares	913,300,983	1,008,398,889	-	1,921,699,872
% holdings following the Tranche 1 Shares	47.53%	52.47%	0.00%	100.00%
Exercise of EEA Options (issue of Option Shares)	-	137,415,183	-	137,415,183
Shares on issue following Option Exercise	913,300,983	1,145,814,072	-	2,059,115,055
% holdings following Option Exercise	44.35%	55.65%	0.00%	100.00%
Unrelated Canyon options exercise1	3,000,000	-	-	3,000,000
Shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction	916,300,983	1,145,814,072	-	2,062,115,055
% holdings prior to the Proposed Transaction	44.44%	55.56%	0.00%	100.00%
Tranche 2 Shares issued to EEA	-	386,648,236	-	386,648,236
Shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction	916,300,983	1,532,462,308	-	2,448,763,291
% holdings following the Proposed Transaction	37.42%	62.58%	0.00%	100.00%

Source: BDO analysis

1On 1 December 2025, Canyon’s Executive Chairman Mr Mark Hohnen exercised 3,000,000 unquoted options.

Capital Structure following the issue of the Afriland Shares

The table below shows the change in holdings in Canyon as a result of the issue of the Afriland Shares following the Proposed Transaction. Following the issue of the Afriland Shares, EEA may have a voting power in the Company of up to 56.44%.

Description	New or Existing Shareholders EEA Afriland Total
Shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction	916,300,983 1,532,462,308 - 2,448,763,291
% holdings following the Proposed Transaction	37.42% 62.58% 0.00% 100.00%
Issue of Afriland Shares under Tranche 2 Shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction and the issue of the Afriland Shares	- - 266,559,380 266,559,380
	916,300,983 1,532,462,308 266,559,380 2,715,322,671
% holdings following the Proposed Transaction and issue of the Afriland Shares	33.75% 56.44% 9.82% 100.00%

Source: BDO analysis

8

5. Profile of Canyon

5.1 Overview

Canyon is an ASX listed bauxite exploration and development company focused on advancing its Minim Martap Project (‘ Minim Martap Project ’ or ‘ the Project ’) located in central Cameroon. The Minim Martap Project is held through Canyon’s wholly owned subsidiary Camalco Cameroon SA (‘ Camalco ’). Canyon was incorporated in 2009 and is headquartered in West Perth, Western Australia.

The current directors of Canyon are:

• Mr Mark Hohnen – Executive Chairman

• Mr Dondo Mogajane – Non-Executive Director

• Mr Scott Phegan – Non-Executive Director

• Ms Adjou Ait Ben Idir – Non-Executive Director

• Mr Dean Horton – Non-Executive Director

• Mr Gaurav Gupta – Non-Executive Director (Manager of EEA).

5.2 Minim Martap Project

The Minim Martap Project is a bauxite direct shipping ore project located in the Adamawa region of central Cameroon and is situated approximately 800 kilometres (‘ km ’) by rail from the Atlantic port of Douala. The Project encompasses three tenements referred to as Minim Martap, Makan, and Ngouandal, with proposed mining areas within three plateaus, known as Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde.

In August 2018, the exploration permits underpinning the Minim Martap Project were granted to Canyon by the Government of Cameroon. Canyon commenced drilling at the Minim Martap Project later that year, with the Company completing a Scoping Study in November 2019 and a Pre-Feasibility Study ( ‘PFS’ ) in July 2020.

In September 2020, Canyon announced the signing of a Memorandum of Understanding ( ‘MoU’ ) with the Port Authority of Douala for the development of the port and trans-shipment infrastructure for the Minim Martap Project. The Project’s 50 km proximity to the Camrail rail network, a five-year infrastructure renewal programme agreed between the Cameroon Government and Camrail SA ( ‘Camrail’ ), offered the potential for ore transportation from the Project to the Douala port through an 800 km rail corridor.

In June 2021, Canyon submitted an application for a mining licence on the Minim Martap Project, which subsequently in August 2021, was accepted by the Minister of Mines, Industry and Technological Development (‘ Mining Licence ’). The grant of the Mining Licence, however, was subject to Canyon entering into a mining convention with the relevant government ministries ( ‘Mining Convention’ ). In December 2021, Canyon completed all negotiations to finalise the terms of the Mining Convention, which in early 2022, was forwarded by the Ministry of Mines to the Prime Minister of Cameroon for approval.

In June 2022, Canyon announced the results of its Bankable Feasibility Study (‘ BFS ’), which outlined the economic parameters of the Project and the next steps towards a final investment decision. The BFS also detailed the planned utilisation of state-owned infrastructure for the transport and shipment of ore.

In January 2023, Canyon announced the signing of an MoU with the Port Authority of Douala outlining the declaration of intent for the development of infrastructure at the Port of Douala-Bonabéri. This development, together with prior initiatives undertaken by the Company, contributed to the progression of transport infrastructure required for future production at the Project.

9

During the first quarter of 2024, Canyon commenced development of local site infrastructure and the laying of foundational groundwork at the Minim Martap Project. The work encompassed establishing the scope of work for topographical and geotechnical work, sourcing of fuel supplies, installation of worker cabins and living quarters and the arrival of the technical team to the camp.

In July 2024, Canyon announced that its Mining Convention with the Government of Cameroon and its subsidiary Camalco had been signed, and further, in September 2024, the Mining Licence for the Minim Martap tenement was approved. Achievement of these milestones meant the Company could move the Project towards production phase. The Mining Licence granted Canyon tenure over Minim Martap for an initial period of 20 years, with the ability to renew for one or more periods not exceeding 10 years each.

Under Section 47 of Cameroon’s 2023 Mining Code (‘ the Code ’), the granting of the Mining License on the Minim Martap Project would entitle the Government of Cameroon to a 10% free carried ownership interest in the special purpose joint venture company (‘ Project Company ’) formed for the purpose of operating the Project. The Government of Cameroon at its own cost and under mutual consent between parties, may increase its holding in the Project Company, in which shares shall not exceed the additional 25% in accordance with Section 47(4) of the Mining Code. Additionally, the terms of the Mining License require 10% of Camalco’s capital be made available to Cameroon nationals, natural or legal persons, against payment, provided that due diligence is carried out and Shareholders of Camalco agree. Future royalties on production from Minim Martap Project will also be payable to the Government of Cameroon, as outlined under Section 48 of the Mining Code. The Project is subject to a 3% state royalty on marketable products. In addition, Camalco will make annual contributions equivalent to 1% of the Project’s annual production to the Mining Sector Development Fund, and 1% to the Development of Local Capacities. Furthermore, 5% of Camalco’s marketable product will be allocated to the Government of Cameroon under a production sharing agreement.

Following the grant of the Mining Licence and through the remainder of 2024, further development and drilling was undertaken at the Minim Martap Project to produce an updated JORC compliant Mineral Resource Estimate (‘ MRE ’) for the Project.

Through early 2025, Canyon made several advancements towards furthering its control over the transport logistics at the Minim Martap Project. In January 2025, the Company announced that EEA had agreed to underwrite Canyon’s debt requirements to purchase 22 locomotives and 550 wagons, being approximately US$124.0 million. As detailed in Section 5.4, the Company has subsequently raised alternative debt financing and has not drawn down on this debt agreement. In February 2025, Canyon announced that the Government of Cameroon had approved the proposed location of its Inland Rail Facility (‘ IRF ’), and in addition, granted 105 hectares of land to Canyon’s subsidiary Camalco for future additions to the IRF and infrastructure building.

In April 2025, Canyon received final approval from the Port Authority of Douala to secure access to land at the Port of Douala. This marked the final infrastructure agreement required for the development of the Minim Martap Project and allowed Canyon to proceed with development of its proposed 65,000 square meter storage area. The proposed storage area would have capacity to initially store up to 6 million tonnes per annum (‘ Mtpa ’) of bauxite ore, with further design work being undertaken by Canyon to expand this production further in phases up to 10 Mtpa.

In June 2025, Canyon announced a series of key long lead contacts. The Company reported it had ordered 22 locomotives for delivery in the first quarter of 2026, appointed a road construction contractor to begin road haulage upgrades from July 2025, and appointed mining and ore haulage contractors scheduled to mobilise to Minim Martap by the end of 2025, for production commencement the following year. Further,

10

in July 2025, Canyon announced that construction had commenced on the IRF and on the road haulage upgrades.

In September 2025, Canyon announced the results of the Definitive Feasibility Study (‘ DFS ’) and an updated MRE for the Minim Martap Project. Canyon’s DFS indicated ore production would commence in the first quarter of 2026 and first delivery of bauxite ores would occur during the first half of 2026. Production estimates for the Project target 1.2 million tonnes of mined ore for the first year of production, followed by staged production targets of 6.0 Mtpa in year 4 and 10.0 Mtpa in year 6, with a life of mine estimate of 20 years.

In November 2025, Canyon provided several progress updates on the Minim Martap Project. Following the re-election of President Paul Biya, Canyon experienced some minor delays to its haulage road works as a consequence of some political unrest but indicated that its development targets for the Project still remained on track.

In December 2025, Canyon announced the completion of several project related milestones, including completion of clearance works for the construction of its ore haulage access road and completion of engineering designs for the IRF and port site. Canyon reports that the minor delays experienced following the presidential election are expected to be made up by the contractor, and commencement of mining at the Project remains on track for a February 2026 deadline, with first shipment of bauxite ore anticipated for June 2026.

The Company plans to update its production estimates for the Minim Martap Project once mine plans for the Makan and Ngaoundal tenements have been completed. The permits for these tenements are currently still pending approval from the Government of Cameroon, the outcome of which Canyon anticipates will be known in late 2025 or early 2026. The Makan and Ngaoundal tenements have MRE’s outside the current life of mine model of the Project. The residual resources of the Project, including the MRE’s of the Makan and Ngaoundal tenements, have been valued separately by independent technical specialist ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd (‘ ERM ’), as set out in Section 10.1.3 of our Report.

Further information on the Minim Martap Project can be found in the independent technical assessment and valuation report (‘ ITSR ’) prepared by ERM in Appendix 5 of our Report.

5.3 Camrail

Camrail has been the national operator of the Cameroonian national railway network since 1999, operating approximately 1,000 km of rail network throughout Cameroon, for the transportation of people and goods. Camrail is structured as public-private partnership between the Cameroon Government and private holders, with Africa Global Logistics as the majority parent company. Notably, part of Camrail’s network passes through the Adamawa Region, the location of the Minim Martap Project, and connects to the Douala Port, providing a clear transport route for mined ore from the Project.

In February 2025, Canyon, through its subsidiary Camalco, acquired an initial 3.8% equity interest in Camrail for Central African CFA franc (‘ XAF ’) 575.7 million (approximately $1.4 million) from Camrail shareholder, Societe d’Exploitation des Bois Du Cameroun. Subsequently, in March 2025, Camalco increased its interest further to 9.1% for an additional XAF 812.9 million (approximately $2.0 million) paid to Camrail shareholder Total Energies Marketing Cameroun SA. The completion of this investment granted Canyon a seat on Camrail’s board.

Canyon views its investment in Camrail as further progress towards de-risking and controlling the transport logistics for its Minim Martap Project. As part of the Proposed Transaction, and as detailed in Section 4.3,

11

Canyon intends to increase this investment in Camrail from holding a 9.1% interest to approximately 35% interest.

5.4 Recent Corporate Events

On 28 January 2025, Canyon signed an underwriting agreement with EEA for a loan amount of approximately US$124.0, with an underwriting fee of approximately US$3.7 million payable upfront to EEA by Canyon. EEA has agreed to lend this money to Camalco, where called upon, on an unsecured basis. This financing was extended by EEA to Canyon’s subsidiary Camalco to help finance the purchase of 22 locomotives, 550 wagons, and warranties and service agreements on these purchases. As noted in Section 5.2, the Company has not drawn-down on this loan.

On 5 February 2025, Canyon announced that Mr. Peter Secker would succeed Mr. Jean Sebastien Boutet as Chief Executive Officer of the Company, effective from 1 July 2025. This transition was completed, with Mr. Boutet assuming a new role as Chief Commercial and Corporate Development Officer.

On 26 May 2025, Canyon announced that its subsidiary Camalco had signed a binding agreement with AFG Bank Cameroon (‘ AFG ’) for a medium-term syndicated credit facility of XAF 82 billion, approximately US$140 million (‘ AFG Credit Facility ’). The AFG Credit Facility was extended to further assist Canyon in the acquisition of locomotives, wagons and development of rail, and ore transport infrastructure at the Minim Martap Project.

Further to its 26 May 2025 announcement, Canyon also reported that EEA had advised the Company of its intention to exercise 350 million options, exercisable at $0.07 and at a cost of approximately $24.5 million, to assist in providing further funding for the Minim Martap Project. EEA exercised 113.1 million options on 5 June 2025 and 113.1 million options on 18 June 2025, raising a combined $15.8 million.

Canyon announced, on 1 July 2025, that a further 123.7 million options held by EEA, were exercised, raising approximately $8.7 million and concluding the exercise of all of the 350 million options EEA had committed to exercising. On 10 July 2025, EEA exercised a further 12.6 million options in addition to the announced 350 million options, raising a further $0.9 million for Canyon.

On 4 August 2025, Canyon announced that its subsidiary Camalco had completed the first draw-down of approximately US$26 million from its US$140 million AFG Credit Facility. The Company reports that the drawdown was made to fund the purchase of locomotive rolling stock and to progress mine, haul road, rail and port infrastructure works. The locomotives and wagons purchased are expected to be delivered in the first quarter of 2026. Under the terms of the AFG Credit Facility, the loan will be repayable eight years from first drawdown, with interest payable on a fixed 8% per annum plus value added tax.

On 2 October 2025, Canyon announced that Tranche 1 of the Proposed Transaction had been completed, raising approximately $35.6 million following the issue of 136.9 million new ordinary shares to institutional investors. Further, at the Company’s AGM held on 25 November 2025, Shareholders approved the equity placement of approximately $70 million to Afriland, which formed part of the Tranche 2 placement. However, the issue of the Afriland Shares and receipt of funds remains subject to Afriland obtaining all of the necessary approvals from its regulatory and governing bodies, which is ongoing.

12

5.5 Historical Statements of Financial Position

Statement of Financial Position	Audited as at 30-Jun-25 Audited as at 30-Jun-24 Audited as at 30-Jun-23
	$ $ $
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	11,477,532 22,165,818 10,726,199
Trade and other receivables	181,913 403,203 182,648
Other assets	1,595,087 89,298 401,642
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS	13,254,532 22,658,319 11,310,489
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
Investments	3,722,155 - -
Plant and equipment	1,203,700 1,246,349 197,061
Capitalised exploration expenditure	32,579,954 20,349,587 18,073,713
Other assets	799,282 282,288 -
TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS	38,305,091 21,878,224 18,270,774
TOTAL ASSETS	51,559,623 44,536,543 29,581,263
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Trade and other payables	6,443,024 638,349 708,980
Provisions	56,445 29,190 32,915
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES	6,499,469 667,539 741,895
TOTAL LIABILITIES	6,499,469 667,539 741,895
NET ASSETS	45,060,154 43,869,004 28,839,368
EQUITY
Issued capital	132,967,614 113,523,106 89,004,240
Reserves	8,687,730 6,890,525 6,841,087
Accumulated losses	(96,595,190) (76,544,627) (67,005,959)
TOTAL EQUITY	45,060,154 43,869,004 28,839,368

Source: Canyon’s audited financial statements as at 30 June 2025, 30 June 2024, and 30 June 2023

Commentary on Historical Statements of Financial Position

• Cash and cash equivalents decreased from $22.2 million as at 30 June 2024 to $11.5 million as at 30 June 2025. Over the year ended 30 June 2025, Canyon had net operating outflows of approximately $17.7 million, driven primarily by payments to suppliers and employees, finance costs and expenditure on its Minim Martap Project. Investing outflows were approximately $11.1 million, primarily due to the Company’s investment in Camrail and net financing inflows were approximately $18.5 million, largely due to EEA exercising their options, as detailed in Section 5.4.

• Other assets at 30 June 2025 primarily relate to loan facility agent fees of $1.3 million, which represent fees for loan administration services to be provided by the facility agent over the twelve months from the day of the AFG Credit Facility. We note that, subsequent to the release of Canyon’s audited 30 June 2025 financial statements, the Company has drawn down approximately US$26 million under the AFG Credit Facility.

13

• Investments amounting to $3.7 million as at 30 June 2025 relate to Canyon’s 9.1% ownership interest in Camrail, as detailed in Section 5.3.

• Capitalised exploration expenditure of $32.6 million as at 30 June 2025 includes capitalised expenditure of $10.7 million during the year ended 30 June 2025. In accordance with its accounting policy, the Company has elected to capitalise all acquisition costs for its areas of interest and all ongoing exploration and evaluation expenditure, with the exception of the Minim Martap Project, where the expenditure is expensed during the renewal phase.

• Trade and other payables of $6.4 million as at 30 June 2025, primarily comprised other payables of $5.75 million. Management advised that the other payables balance primarily related to payables to the Government of Cameroon of approximately XAF 1.5 billion, in accordance with Article 10.7 of the Mining Convention.

14

5.6 Historical Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income

Historical Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income	Audited for the year ended 30-Jun-25 Audited for the year ended 30-Jun-24 Audited for the year ended 30-Jun-23
	$ $ $
Other income	- - 22,614
Interest received	426,972 611,836 170,263
Foreign exchange loss	(620,520) (19,991) -
Employee benefits expense	(3,231,225) (2,417,340) (2,302,584)
Consultants and contractors	(370,562) (525,078) (317,248)
Depreciation and amortisation expense	(294,250) (97,495) (59,447)
Impairment of exploration	- - (550,000)
Loss on disposal of plant and equipment	- - (1,017)
Travel expenses	(246,152) (298,278) (188,818)
Compliance and regulatory	(151,403) (80,917) (94,757)
Legal and professional fees	(319,270) (110,082) (143,580)
Share-based payments	(577,133) (107,858) (394,398)
Exploration and evaluation expenditure expensed	(6,652,678) (5,919,102) (794,883)
Interest expense	- (34) (3,146)
Marketing & sponsorship	(960,383) (163,185) -
Occupancy	(163,083) (107,433) (70,022)
Administration	(365,709) (303,711) (259,688)
Finance costs	(6,658,474) - -
Loss before income tax expense	(20,183,870) (9,538,668) (4,986,711)
Income tax expense	- - -
Loss after income tax expense for the year	(20,183,870) (9,538,668) (4,986,711)
Other comprehensive income
Foreign currency translation	1,833,379 31,580 847,186
Other comprehensive income for the year, net of tax	1,833,379 31,580 847,186
Total comprehensive loss for the year, net of tax	(18,350,491) (9,507,088) (4,139,525)

Source: Canyon’s audited financial statements for the years ended 30 June 2025, 30 June 2024, and 30 June 2023

Commentary on Historical Statements of Profit or Loss and Other Comprehensive Income

• Impairment costs of $0.6 million for the year ended 30 June 2023 relate to the termination of earn in arrangements of the Company’s Birsok Bauxite Project. The Birsok Bauxite Project was an exploration project consisting of two tenements, Birsok and Mandoum, that was 100% owned by Canyon.

• Exploration and evaluation expenditure amounting to $6.7 million for the year ended 30 June 2025 relates to expenditure towards the Company’s assets that were recognised as per its accounting policy.

15

• Finance costs of $6.7 million for the year ended 30 June 2025 relate to finance costs on exploration projects in the Africa business segment from the AFG Credit Facility. The Company’s accounting policy states that finance costs attributable to qualifying assets are capitalised, while all other finance costs are expensed in the period in which they are incurred.

5.7 Capital structure

The share structure of Canyon is outlined below:

	Number
Total ordinary shares on issue	2,062,115,055
Top 20 shareholders	1,557,012,751
Top 20 shareholders - % of shares on issue	75.51%

Source: Canyon’s share registry as at 8 December 2025

The range of shares held in Canyon is as follows:

Range of shares held	No. of ordinary shareholders	No. of ordinary shares	Percentage of issued shares (%)
1 - 1,000	102	12,464	0.00%
1,001 - 5,000	413	1,413,930	0.07%
5,001 - 10,000	419	3,418,538	0.17%
10,001 - 100,000	1,190	48,004,316	2.33%
100,001 - and over	738	2,009,265,807	97.44%
Total	2,862	2,062,115,055	100.00%

Source: Canyon’s share registry as at 8 December 2025

The ordinary shares held by the most significant shareholders are detailed below:

Name	No. of ordinary shares	No. of ordinary shares	Percentage of issued shares (%)
EEA (and associated entities)		1,145,814,072	55.56%
WMA Holding FZCO		156,714,227	7.60%
Subtotal		1,302,528,299	63.16%
Others		759,586,756	36.84%
Total ordinary shares on issue		2,062,115,055	100.00%

Source: Canyon’s share registry as at 8 December 2025

The options and performance rights on issue in Canyon are outlined below:

Description	No. of Options/Rights	Exercise price ($)	Expiry date
Unlisted options	15,000,000	$0.10	08-Oct-27
Performance rights	2,000,000	Nil	NIl
Total number of options and performance rights	157,415,183
Cash raised if options are exercised	11,499,063

Source: Canyon’s Appendix 2A dated 1 December 2025

16

In July 2022, the Company’s chief executive officer Jean-Sebastien Boutet was issued 10,000,000 performance rights pursuant to the Canyon long term incentive plan. The performance rights were subject to various vesting conditions relating to share price targets, employee tenure and project milestones. As at the date of our Report, two tranches relating to milestones at the Minim Martap Project are still outstanding, which are outlined below:

	No. of
Vesting Condition	Performance
	Rights
Complete rail access agreement	1,000,000
Executed binding offtake agreement for a minimum of 2 Mt for a 12-month period	1,000,000
Total number of Performance Rights

Source: Canyon’s Appendix 2A dated 1 December 2025

17

6. Profile of EEA

6.1 History

EEA (branded as Fortuna Holdings SFO) is a Monetary Authority of Singapore ( ‘MAS’ ) registered singlefamily office, based in Singapore, with a branch in Dubai.

Key personnel of EEA are:

• Pramod Prusty – President and Chief Executive Officer of Mining Investments

• Rajesh Bagga – Group Chief Financial Officer

EEA’s objective is to build a robust investment portfolio across the mining, clean energy and health technology industries. EEA’s current investments comprise holdings in the following:

• Canyon.

• Toubani Resources Limited, a gold exploration and development company headquartered in Western Australia, with a focus on its flagship Kobada Gold Project located on Mali.

• FG Gold Limited, a gold exploration and development company which is focused on developing its flagship Baomahun Gold Project located in Sierra Leone.

• Fura Gems Inc, a gemstone mining company headquartered in the United Arab Emirates, that is focused on its three subsidiaries based in Colombia, Mozambique and Australia to produce emeralds, rubies and sapphires, respectively.

• Prospect Resources Limited, an Australian-listed exploration and development company focused on its Mumbezhi Copper Project in Zambia, the Step Aside Lithium Project in Zimbabwe, and the Omaruru Lithium Project in Namibia.

EEA’s investment in Canyon

EEA’s investment in Canyon commenced in December 2022 as part of the Strategic Placement, which raised $12.17 million through the issue of Canyon shares at $0.06 per share. As detailed in Section 4 of our Report, EEA held a 56.5% interest in Canyon prior to the Placement and the Options Exercise, which as at the date of our Report, EEA holds a 55.6% interest.

Canyon considers EEA to be a long-term strategic partner, with the capability to assist the Company with project funding to help develop the Minim Martap Project. As per this commitment and in addition to its share holdings, EEA has extended debt financing to Canyon to help fund the Minim Martap Project, including the US$124.0 million underwriting agreement signed with Canyon on 28 January 2025, detailed in Section 5.4 of this Report.

Additionally, Canyon has reported EEA’s involvement in discussions with the Camerron Government regarding the granting of the Mining Licence, with EEA contributing their knowledge and experience in developing mineral projects in Africa.

EEA’s manager, Mr Gaurav Gupta is a Non-Executive Director of Canyon.

18

7. Economic analysis

Canyon is primarily exposed to the risks and opportunities of the Australian and Cameroonian markets through the geographical location of the Minim Martap Project and its listing on the ASX. Therefore, we have presented an analysis on the Australian and Cameroonian economies to the extent that they related to our assessment.

7.1 Cameroon

Overview

Cameroon has a population of approximately 30 million people and is classified by the World Bank as a lower-middle-income country. Poverty levels remain high in the country, despite it being endowed with various natural resources, including oil and gas, minerals, and agricultural commodities, such as coffee, cotton, cocoa, and maize.

The Cameroon People’s Democratic Movement, and President Paul Biya, have held power since 1982 and secured an eighth term in power following Cameroon’s October 2025 presidential election. Despite being relatively stable politically, Cameroon suffers from weak political governance that hinders its development and has contributed to conditions of poverty throughout the nation. Notably, Cameroon currently ranks 140 out of the 180 countries in the 2024 Transparency International corruption perceptions index.

Based on data from the International Monetary Fund’s ( ‘IMF’ ) April 2025 World Economic Outlook, real gross domestic product ( ‘GDP’ ) growth in Cameroon was 3.6% annually for 2024, up from the 3.2% annual growth in the previous year. The World Bank Group attributes Cameroon’s growth primarily to high cocoa prices and cotton yields over 2024, as well as more stability in power supply for the country.

Since November 2021, Cameroon has experienced high inflation, driven primarily by supply shortages and higher prices in staple goods and energy imports, stemming largely from the disruptions in supply chains from the COVID-19 pandemic as well as the ongoing conflicts in the Ukraine and middle east. Inflation in Cameroon rose to 7.4% in 2023, up from 6.2% in 2022 and above the Central African Economic and Monetary Community target of 3%. Although there was a general decrease in global inflation levels, the rise in domestic fuel prices primarily drove this increase. For 2024, inflation in Cameroon moderated significantly from these prior highs, with consumer prices in Cameroon rising by 4.5% annually. This is due in large part to the improved industrial production from better energy supply and the tightening of monetary policy implemented by the Bank of Central African States.

The banking and financial system in Cameroon has weakened, with a high risk of over indebtedness, despite gross public debt decreasing slightly to 42.7% of GDP in 2024 from 43.2% in 2023. Primary causes of such debt distress stem from high nonperforming loans ratios, measured as 15.2% for 2025 according to the IMF, as well as Cameroon’s high exposure to the outstanding debts of public enterprises, which were estimated to be 478 billion Central African francs in 2021 by the African Development Bank Group.

Poverty levels continue to remain high, whereby 23% of the population are living below the international poverty line of $2.15 per person per day. High levels of inequality persist as fragility continues to increase across its regions, mainly due to spillovers from conflicts in neighbouring countries. Additionally, climate change poses a growing threat to the country’s poverty-reduction prospects, due to its dependence on natural resources and with approximately 40% of the workforce predominately engaged in agriculture. Cameroon is highly vulnerable to droughts, floods, landslides and coastal erosions. Notably, the IMF approved a Resilience and Sustainability Facility arrangement for Cameroon in an amount equivalent to US$183.4 million in late January 2024.

19

Mining in Cameroon

Cameroon’s mining industry has been undergoing a gradual formalisation from more artisanal mining methods, having been historically under-explored and under-developed. Recent regulatory reforms and project permitting milestones have led to greater investment and further advancement of several major projects across commodities including gold, bauxite, and iron ore. Gold mining in Cameroon has shown signs of moving away from artisanal methods, following the recent construction of Cameroon’s first underground gold mine by Codias SA. Canyon’s Minim Martap bauxite Project is considered a high-profile mining project for Cameroon and will signal to other mining operators on the country’s mining potential.

However, casting some doubt on Cameroon’s regulatory stance towards the mining industry was a 2021 legal dispute brought against Cameroon’s Government by Sundance Resources Limited (‘ Sundance ’) regarding its high profile Mbalam-Nanena iron ore Project (‘ Mbalam ’). Sundance argued that Cameroon’s Government had failed to honour existing exploration permits it had awarded Sundance, and in 2022, Cameroon’s Government revoked Sundance’s mining licence for Mbalam, awarding this instead to Cameroon Mining Company. The outcome of these legal proceedings from the International Court of Arbitration is expected to be known by the end of 2025.

Since December 2023, Cameroon’s Government have implemented legislation that governs the mining industry, through its 2023 Mining Code. Notably, this legislation has introduced a 10% free carried interest, giving the Government of Cameroon a free ownership stake in any approved mining projects. Subject to negotiations, the Government are further entitled to receive royalties on any future production, ranging between 1% and 5% for precious and semi-precious metals and 2% and 15% for other mineral substances.

Outlook

The IMF forecasts real annual GDP growth for Cameroon is expected to be 3.6% and 4.0% for 2025 and 2026 respectively. Anticipated improvements in energy generation and supply and higher public investment are set to be the main drivers behind these real GDP growth projections over the short to medium term. Consumer price inflation is also forecast to moderate from the 4.5% rise in 2024 to 3.4% for 2025 and 3.0% for 2026, in line with global trends and as fossil fuel prices continue to reduce.

Source: World Bank Group, International Monetary Fund, African Development Bank Economic Outlook 2025, and BDO analysis.

7.2 Australia

Overview

At its December 2025 Monetary Policy Decision meeting, the Reserve Bank of Australia (‘ RBA ’) decided to leave the cash rate unchanged at 3.60%. The last change to the cash rate was in August 2025 when it was reduced by 25 basis points, marking a cumulative easing of 75 basis points since the beginning of the year. The August 2025 decision reflected the RBA’s assessment that inflationary pressures have continued to moderate from their 2022 peak, with tighter policy settings over recent years helping to bring demand and supply conditions closer into balance.

Inflation data for the September quarter shows that recent inflation has increased, with the trimmed mean inflation being 1.0% over the quarter and 3.0% over the year, up from 2.7% over the year in the June quarter. This increase was materially higher than expected by the RBA at the time of the August 2025 Statement on Monetary Policy. Over the 12 months to September 2025, the consumer price index (‘ CPI ’) rose 3.2%, marginally above the RBA’s 2-3% target range. The main driver for price rises over the quarter was the expected cessation of electricity rebates in states across Australia.

20

Labour market conditions have softened modestly but remain relatively tight. The growth in employment slowed slightly with the unemployment rate increasing to 4.5% in September from 4.3% in August 2025, after increasing from 4.1% in May 2025 to 4.3% in June 2025. Broader measures of labour underutilisation remain low, with business surveys reporting that labour availability constrains activity in some sectors. Wage growth has eased from its peak, but persistently weak productivity growth has contributed to elevated unit labour cost growth.

Economic activity continues to recover, however, the outlook for domestic economic activity and inflation is uncertain as a result of domestic and international developments. The RBA states that consumption and investment have driven growth in domestic private demand and could increase the demand for labour and add to capacity pressures. This would make it easier for businesses to pass on the relevant cost increases to consumers. Overall, financial conditions have eased since the beginning of the year, with the effects of earlier interest rate cuts yet to completely flow through to demand, prices and wages. Gross Domestic Product expanded by 1.8% in the year to June 2025, up from a 1.3% increase for the year ended December 2024, driven by household and government consumption and mining exports.

Financial markets have been volatile throughout 2025. Australian equities performed strongly at the start of the year, supported by resilient corporate earnings, favourable economic data, and firm commodity prices, mirroring movements in the United States (‘ US ’) market. However, on 2 April 2025, the announcement of significant US tariffs on major trading partners, including Australia, China, and Europe, triggered sharp global equity market declines. While both US and Australian equity markets subsequently rebounded and surpassed February highs following progress in trade negotiations, volatility and investor uncertainty remain elevated.

Outlook

The RBA notes that global economic uncertainty remains high, although recent clarification around the scope of US tariffs and policy responses has reduced the likelihood of the most adverse outcomes. Nonetheless, trade policy developments are expected to weigh on global activity, with the risk that households and firms defer spending and investment decisions until the international outlook stabilises.

Other key uncertainties include the lagged impact of recent monetary policy easing, the responsiveness of firms’ pricing and wage decisions to evolving demand and supply conditions, and the ongoing implications of weak productivity growth for unit labour costs.

The RBA has reiterated that its policy priorities remain price stability and full employment. Recent data suggests some risks to inflation have titled to the upside, but it will take more time to determine the persistence of inflationary pressures. The RBA’s judgement is that underlying inflation will rise above the target in coming quarters before returning to below the target in 2027. The RBA has emphasised that it remains cautious and stands prepared to respond decisively should international developments materially affect the outlook for the Australian economy.

Source: www.rba.gov.au Statement by the Monetary Policy Board: Monetary Policy Decision dated 9 December 2025 and prior periods, the Australian Bureau of Statistics, Australian Financial Review.

21

8. Industry analysis

Canyon is a bauxite exploration and development company which is listed on the ASX. As such, we have presented an overview of the exploration and bauxite mining industries to the to the extent that it relates to considerations for our assessment.

8.1 Exploration Sector

BDO reports on the financial health and cash positions of ASX-listed exploration companies based on quarterly Appendix 5B reports lodged with the ASX. These reports outline cash flows, financing facilities, and management’s expectations of future funding requirements.

The September 2025 quarter marked a sector-wide inflection point, breaking historical seasonal trends with record fundraising and renewed confidence. Financing inflows surged 81% to $3.49 billion, the highest since December 2021 and the first September quarter to exceed the usual fundraising lull. Average inflows per explorer rose to $4.73 million, 65% above the two-year average. Net financing inflows were the largest since our surveys began in 2013, driven by strong equity raisings and strategic participation from institutional and government-backed investors.

ASX explorers' financing cash flows ($M)

==> picture [470 x 160] intentionally omitted <==

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

4,000
3,000
2,000
1,000
-
(1,000)
(2,000)
Inflows Outflows Net cash flows
$M
----- End of picture text -----

Source: BDO Analysis

The number of companies raising more than $10 million nearly doubled to 78, securing $2.88 billion and accounting for 82% of total inflows. Gold remained dominant ($552.5 million), lithium staged a strong comeback ($484.4 million, led by Liontown Resources Limited’s $371.5 million raise), rare earths returned after six months ($322.5 million), and copper-gold explorers attracted $434.9 million.

Administrative costs tracked modestly higher during the September 2025 quarter, rising 8% to $339.24 million compared to the June quarter. Average administration spend per explorer increased to $0.46 million, slightly above the two-year average of $0.43 million. This uplift reflects seasonal compliance obligations, including annual financial statement preparation and listing fees, while overall cost inflation remains contained. Stable per-company spending suggests that explorers continue to exercise cost discipline even as exploration activity accelerates.

22

==> picture [453 x 211] intentionally omitted <==

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

ASX explorers' administration expenditure ($M)
400 0.6
0.5
300
0.4
200 0.3
0.2
100
0.1
0 0.0
Total Administration Expenditure Average Administration Expenditure
Total Administration Expenditure ($M)
Average Administration Expenditure ($M)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: BDO Analysis

Exploration expenditure continued its upward trend, rising 16% to $843.66 million, with average spend per explorer at $1.14 million. Gold and copper explorers led the top spenders, while oil and gas exploration declined sharply.

Total Exploration Expenditure - Last Two Years ($M)

==> picture [433 x 191] intentionally omitted <==

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

1,100 1.40
983 1,010
1,000
1.20
900 826 844
795 792
800 748 729 1.00
700 644
0.80
600
500
0.60
400
300 0.40
200
0.20
100
- -
Sep 23 Dec 23 Mar 24 Jun 24 Sep 24 Dec 24 Mar 25 Jun 25 Sep 25
Total Exploration Expenditure Average Exploration Expenditure
($M)
($M)
Total Exploration Expenditure Average Exploration Expenditure
----- End of picture text -----

Source: BDO Analysis

Average cash balances increased 20% to $11.02 million, reversing a year-long downtrend. The proportion of companies holding more than $2 million rose to 53%, up from 51% in the previous quarter. This improvement reflects higher financing inflows during the period and positions a larger share of explorers with sufficient liquidity for near-term operational requirements.

23

ASX explorers' cash balance

==> picture [442 x 185] intentionally omitted <==

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

60%50% 43%57% 45%55% 46%54% 48%52% 46%54% 49% 51% 49% 51% 47%53% 12.00 11.00 10.00
9.00
40%
8.00
30% 7.00
6.00
20%
5.00
4.00
10%
3.00
0% 2.00
Dec-23 Mar-24 Jun-24 Sep-24 Dec-24 Mar-25 Jun-25 Sep-25
<$2m >$2m Average cash balance
(%)
Percentage of all exploration companies Average Explorer Cash Balance ($M)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: BDO Analysis

Overall, the September 2025 quarter signals a decisive break from cyclical fundraising patterns, underpinned by policy-driven support for critical minerals and strong commodity prices. The outlook for the December quarter remains positive, with expectations of continued momentum in financing, exploration activity, and IPOs.

Source: BDO Explorer Quarterly Cash Update: September 2025 and prior releases.

8.2 Bauxite

Bauxite is a naturally occurring material, comprised largely of aluminium hydroxide minerals including gibbsite, diaspore or boehmite, with various mixtures of silica, iron oxide and other impurities. It is formed by the weathering of aluminous rock and is the primary raw material used in the commercial production of alumina. Bauxite deposits are found primarily near the surface of tropical and sub-tropical areas, including Africa, Australia, Southeast Asia and South America, and can therefore typically be stripmined.

Bauxite ore is refined using the Bayer process, in which bauxite is put through a wet chemical caustic leach process to extract alumina. Alumina is then processed into aluminium metal, which is an integral part of building construction, electricity production and transportation infrastructure, in addition to a variety of product uses including aeroplane parts, doors, windows, foils and kitchen utensils. Approximately 80% of global bauxite production is consumed in the production of aluminium metal, while the remaining 20% is used in products such as abrasives, cement, chemicals and refractories.

Production and Reserves

According to the United States Geological Survey (‘ USGS ’), total global bauxite production in 2024 was approximately 450 million tonnes, with the majority of bauxite produced in Australia, China and Guinea. In 2024, these three countries accounted for a combined total of approximately 72% of global production.

The chart below illustrates the estimated global bauxite production by country for 2024:

24

Bauxite Production by Country 2024

==> picture [171 x 154] intentionally omitted <==

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

India
Indonesia 6%
7%
Guinea
Brazil 29%
7%
Other
8%
China
Australia
21%
22%
----- End of picture text -----

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, January 2025

Total global bauxite reserves were estimated at approximately 29 billion tonnes in 2024. The largest bauxite reserves were estimated to be in Guinea, followed by Australia and Vietnam. In 2024, these three countries accounted for a combined total of 48% of global reserves.

The chart below illustrates estimated global bauxite reserves by country for 2024:

Bauxite Reserves by Country 2024

==> picture [190 x 159] intentionally omitted <==

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

China
Jamaica
2%
7%
Guinea
Brazil
25%
9%
Indonesia
10%
Vietnam
11%
Other
Australia
24%
12%
----- End of picture text -----

Source: U.S. Geological Survey, January 2025

Prices

There is no single internationally traded price for bauxite, as it is often mined and then refined into alumina by the same enterprise. For example, Rio Tinto Limited, Alcoa of Australia Limited and South32 Limited, which are the three major bauxite producers in Australia, use a high proportion of bauxite for their own alumina-refining operations. Therefore, bauxite prices are usually determined by contract. As bauxite is an aluminium-bearing material however, the bauxite mining industry is heavily driven by the world price of aluminium.

The graph below shows trends in the aluminium 3-month (‘ 3M ’) London Metals Exchange (‘ LME ’) price and forecast price over the period from 2015 to 2034:

25

Aluminium 3M Price and Forecast Price

==> picture [457 x 201] intentionally omitted <==

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

4,500
4,000
3,500
3,000
2,500
2,000
1,500
1,000
500
-
Historical Forecast
US$/tonne
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ, Consensus Economics Survey dated 21 November 2025, and BDO analysis

The aluminium price hovered between US$1,700/tonne and US$1,800/tonne over the period immediately prior to the onset of the COVID-19 pandemic in early 2020. The aluminium price declined to around US$1,450/tonne and US$1,500/tonne in April 2020, in line with the start of the COVID-19 pandemic and the associated global economic slowdown. Falling demand from the transportation and construction industries in response to the global lockdowns to help contain the spread of the virus kept aluminium prices suppressed in the months that followed. Whilst primary aluminium production remained stable, downstream industries were slow to restart due to the decline in demand and labour shortages from travel restrictions.

Over 2021, prices climbed to a high of around US$3,000/tonne in October, which was attributed to several supply side disruptions, largely resulting from disruptions to key producers in China and political unrest in Guinea, being one of China’s primary import regions. In addition, an increase in demand as the global economy began to emerge from COVID-19 induced lockdowns causing further tailwinds.

The beginning of 2022 displayed an aluminium price rally to peak at a 3M price of US$3,873/tonne on 4 March 2022, on the back of the European energy crisis, which heavily impacted aluminium production in the region, and was further exacerbated by the impacts of the Russia-Ukraine conflict. Notably, in response to the Russia-Ukraine conflict, Australia announced a ban on the export of aluminium ores (including bauxite), alumina and related products to Russia on 20 March 2022. Furthermore, the closure of the Nikolaev refinery in Ukraine, which had previously produced approximately 1.77 million tonnes of alumina in 2021, resulted in a considerable disruption to global supply.

Following the peak in early March 2022, aluminium prices began to steadily decline over the period from April to September 2022, to a yearly low of around US$2,000/tonne amid a global slowdown in demand in reaction to aggressive monetary tightening policies, particularly heightened by recession fears in the United States and impacts of China’s zero-COVID policy.

Global aluminium inventory levels fell further due to the closure and reduction in European smelter production (including Alcoa’s San Ciprian smelter, Norsk Hydro’s plant in Slovakia, Aluminium Dankerque Industries France’s largest aluminium smelter in Europe, and Speira GmbH’s smelter in Germany), whilst both the LME and the United States Government contemplated a potential entire ban of Russian metal.

26

Aluminium prices embarked on an upward trajectory to reach an average monthly price of around US$2,400/tonne through December 2022, in anticipation of the easing of China’s zero-COVID policy which implied a potential resurge in demand from the country. During the month, the LME had announced its decision against the ban of Russian metal.

In early 2023, aluminium pricing steadily increased and fluctuated between US$2,200/tonne and US$2,600/tonne on the back of China’s bulk removal of its COVID-related restrictions, restoring its demand for the commodity. Announced on 24 February 2023, the United States imposed a 200% tariff on aluminium and derivatives produced in Russia from April 2023, alongside aluminium imports of primary aluminium produced in Russia.

Aluminium prices then steadied around US$2,200/tonne for the second half of 2023. Despite this, in November, prices experienced temporary upward pressure as a result of speculation that the United States had concluded its monetary tightening cycle, which was subsequently corrected downward in the following month. The market also grew concerned about potential supply constraints as China’s Yunnan region anticipated to impose production curbs due to reduced hydro-electric power capacity for its upcoming winter season.

By late January 2024, aluminium prices had declined by 7.8% since the new year following a surge in LME warehouse stocks as the United Kingdom (‘ UK’ ) Government tightened restrictions on the purchases of Russian-origin base metals. On 12 April 2024, the US and UK announced a new sanctions package which would prohibit the LME or Chicago Mercantile Exchange from accepting deliveries of Russian metal produced after that date. In response to this, aluminium prices experienced an immediate sharp lift which was further exacerbated by drought conditions in China’s Yunnan region, constraining supply. By the end of 2024, aluminium prices were trading between US$2,500/tonne and US$2,600/tonne

Moving into early 2025, the Trump Administration’s 25% tariffs on steel and aluminium imports have introduced new challenges for the commodity and applied pressure on prices and its outlook. Pauses and inconsistent messaging around these tariffs have contributed to large fluctuations in prices, moving from around US$2,700/tonne in early 2025, to around US$2,500/tonne by the middle of the year. More recently through the months of July to September, prices have rebounded back to these US$2,700/tonne levels seen earlier in the year, and as of the start of November 2025, have traded up to US$2,900/tonne.

According to Consensus Economics forecasts as of November 2025, the long-term LME aluminium price is expected to return to around US$2,700/tonne by the end of 2025, where prices are expected to trade between US$2,650/tonne and US$2,700/tonne into 2026. Over the medium-term between 2027 and 2029, prices are expected to remain at these levels between US$2,650/tonne and US$2,700/tonne, with the longer-term forecast between 2030 and 2034 also expected to continue trading at around US$2,700/tonne nominally.

Source: United States Geological Survey, Consensus Economics, S&P Capital IQ, and BDO Analysis

27

9. Valuation approach adopted

There are a number of methodologies which can be used to value a business or the shares in a company. The principal methodologies which can be used are as follows:

• Capitalisation of future maintainable earnings (‘ FME ’)

• Discounted cash flow (‘ DCF ’)

• Quoted market price basis (‘ QMP ’)

• Net asset value (‘ NAV ’)

• Market based assessment.

A summary of each of these methodologies is outlined in Appendix 2 of our Report.

Different methodologies are appropriate in valuing particular companies, based on the individual circumstances of that company and available information.

It is possible for a combination of different methodologies to be used together to determine an overall value, where separate assets and liabilities are valued using different methodologies. When such a combination of methodologies is used, it is referred to as a ‘sum-of-parts’ valuation ( ‘Sum-of-Parts’ ).

The approach using Sum-of-Parts involves separately valuing each asset and liability of the company. The value of each asset may be determined using different methodologies as described above.

The component parts are then valued using the NAV methodology, which involves aggregating the estimated fair market value of each component part.

9.1 Valuation of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction

In our assessment of the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling interest basis), we have chosen to employ the following methodologies:

• Sum-of-Parts as our primary methodology, which estimates the fair market value of a company by assessing the realisable value of each of its component parts. The value of each component part may be determined using different methodologies and the component parts are then aggregated using the NAV methodology. The value derived from this methodology reflects a control value.

• QMP as our secondary methodology, which represents the value that a Shareholder may receive for a Canyon share if it were sold on market prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. The value derived from this methodology reflects a minority interest value, we have then applied a control premium to our QMP valuation.

We have chosen the following methodologies to value Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction, with the reasons for utilising those methodologies set out below:

• The core value of Canyon lies in the future cash flows to be generated from its interest in the Minim Martap Project. These cash flows are most appropriately valued using the DCF approach, however, there are other assets and liabilities of Canyon that are not suited to a DCF valuation approach. Where different approaches are used to value different assets or components of a business, a Sum-of-Parts approach is the most appropriate valuation methodology to employ. Based on the Company completing a DFS in September 2025 with The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2012 Edition) (‘ JORC Code ’) compliant Ore Reserves, and following consultation with ERM, we consider there to be sufficient reasonable grounds for a DCF valuation of Minim Martap Project.

28

• The value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation, are valued using alternative valuation methodologies by ERM, an independent technical specialist, as contained in ERM’s ITSR in Appendix 5.

• The FME methodology is most commonly applicable to profitable businesses with steady growth histories and forecasts. The cash flows from the Minim Martap Project have a finite life and these cash flows may vary substantially from year to year. The FME methodology is also not considered appropriate for valuing finite life assets, such as mining assets, rendering the Minim Martap Project not suitable for an FME valuation.

• We have considered the QMP methodology as our secondary approach. The QMP basis is a relevant methodology to consider because the shares of Canyon are listed on the ASX, therefore reflecting the value that a Shareholder will receive for a share sold on the market. This means there is a regulated and observable market where the shares of Canyon can be traded. However, for the QMP methodology to be considered appropriate, the listed shares should be liquid, and the market should be fully informed of the Company’s activities. We have analysed the liquidity of Canyon’s shares in assessing whether reliance on the QMP methodology is appropriate. Further, given the volatility of market pricing, we have assessed pre-announcement pricing based on VWAP across multiple time periods.

We have employed the Sum-of-Parts methodology in estimating the fair market value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction, by aggregating the fair market values of its underlying assets and liabilities. We have considered the following component parts in our valuation of Canyon:

• The value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project, applying the DCF methodology. In performing our DCF valuation, we have considered guidance contained in ASIC’s RG 170 and Information Sheet 214 Mining and resources: Forward-looking statements (‘ IS 214 ’), and advice from the technical specialist, ERM, to inform our assessment of whether there are sufficient reasonable grounds for a DCF valuation of the Minim Martap Project prior to the Proposed Transaction.

• Notional funding required for the development of the Minim Martap Project, in the absence of the Proposed Transaction.

• The value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project, not included in the DCF valuation, having reliance on the valuations carried out by ERM, an independent technical specialist.

• Present value of Canyon’s expected corporate overhead costs which is based on historical corporate costs incurred by Canyon and an analysis of the corporate costs incurred by comparable ASX-listed companies.

• The value of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities, using the cost approach under the NAV methodology.

Notional funding prior to the Proposed Transaction

RG 111.15 states that funding requirements for a company that is not in financial distress should be taken into account by the expert when determining the fair value of the company’s securities, especially when using the DCF methodology.

29

The capital expenditure requirements over the life of mine of the Minim Martap Project are approximately US$611.1 million (on a real basis). This amount has been calculated using the capital expenditure requirements contained within the Company’s cash flow model, being approximately US$446.1 million, with an additional sum of approximately US$165.0 million (on a real basis) added based on ERM’s recommendations for additional port capital expenditure comprising a rotary wagon dumper and associated stockpile management (inclusive of 10% contingency), which can be found in ERM’s Report in Appendix 5. The capital expenditure was expected to be incurred from 1 July 2025. Based on discussions with Canyon management, we understand that Canyon has already incurred approximately US$10.0 million of this, related to the purchase of locomotives.

We note that the Minim Martap Project is expected to commence bauxite production in calendar year (‘ CY ’) 2026, with revenue generated by the project expected to offset some of the capital expenditure requirements. After considering the corporate costs expected to be incurred by Canyon until the Minim Martap Project becomes cash flow positive and converting cash flows into nominal terms based on the inflation assumptions in Section 10.1.1, the total funding requirement for the development of the Minim Martap Project is approximately US$332.8 million (on a nominal basis).

We note that the cashflow model upon which our DCF valuation is based has been prepared on an unfunded basis and therefore does not consider any costs associated with debt funding, or any dilution resulting from an equity raising. As funding is required for the development of the Minim Martap Project (in order to realise the project’s value), we have considered the funding alternatives available to Canyon. The notional funding that we have assumed will be secured by Canyon for the purpose of the development of the Minim Martap Project (in the absence of the Proposed Transaction) is detailed in Section 10.1.2.

9.2 Valuation of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction

As the Proposed Transaction will only change the funding available to Canyon compared to the notional funding assumed prior to the Proposed Transaction, the valuation approach adopted for valuing the Company following the Proposed Transaction is consistent with that set out in Section 9.1 above.

In our assessment of the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest basis), we have chosen to employ the following methodologies:

• Sum-of-Parts as our primary methodology, assuming the completion of the Proposed Transaction. The value derived from this methodology reflects a control value, to which we then apply a minority discount.

• QMP as our secondary methodology, utilising post announcement pricing of Canyon. The value derived from this methodology reflects a minority interest value. The market price of Canyon shares in the period following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction is considered an indicator of the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction because market participants are fully informed of the terms of the Proposed Transaction, with the price reflecting the market’s view of value. We note that there are other market factors which may influence the Canyon share price following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. As such, we have also conducted an analysis of movements in the ASX All Ordinaries Index, as a proxy for the market and the S&P/ASX 300 Metals and Mining index as a proxy for the industry in which Canyon operates in, over the same post-announcement period. Further, given the volatility of market pricing, we have assessed post-announcement pricing based on VWAP across multiple time periods.

Our reasons for selecting these valuation methodologies are consistent with those set out in Section 9.1 above.

30

We note that Tranche 1 of the Placement was placed with third party strategic, institutional, sophisticated and professional investors and did not require Shareholder approval pursuant to item 7 Section 611 of the Act. Additionally, the issue of Tranche 2 Shares to Afriland also does not require Shareholder approval pursuant to item 7 Section 611 of the Act. We have not relied on the Offer Price paid for Shares issued under Tranche 1 or Tranche 2 of the Placement as an indicator of Canyon’s value, given it is inextricably linked to the Proposed Transaction.

Notional funding following the Proposed Transaction

We note that the total funding requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project will not change as a result of the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction, through the issue of the EEA Shares, will provide approximately $100 million which will fund a portion of the capital expenditure requirements of the Minim Martap Project.

After considering Canyon’s existing cash reserves (adjusted to include the funds received from the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares, the Option Exercise and the Tranche 2 Shares to be issued to Afriland and net of proposed investment in Camrail), the drawdown of the existing AFG Credit Facility and the cash raised as a result of the Proposed Transaction, Canyon will be required to fund the remaining amount. We have assumed that Canyon will fund this remaining amount through a notional equity raise.

Further details of the notional funding assumptions for the development of the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction are detailed in Section 11.1.2 of our Report.

Independent Technical Expert

In performing our valuation of a Canyon share both prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, we have relied on the ITSR prepared by ERM, including ERM’s review of the underlying technical project assumptions contained in the forecast cash flow model. In addition, we have relied on ERM’s valuation of the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation, which is included in the ITSR.

ERM’s ITSR has been prepared in accordance with the Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuation of Mineral Assets (2015 Edition) ( ‘VALMIN Code’ ) and the JORC Code. We are satisfied with the valuation methodologies adopted by ERM, which we believe are in accordance with industry practices and are compliant with the requirements of the VALMIN Code.

The specific valuation methodologies used by ERM are referred to in the respective sections of our Report and further detailed in the ITSR contained in Appendix 5.

31

10. Valuation of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction

10.1 Sum-of-Parts valuation

We have employed the Sum-of-Parts methodology in estimating the fair market value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling interest and diluted basis), by aggregating the estimated fair market values of its underlying assets and liabilities, having consideration of the following:

• Value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project

• The notional funding for the development of the Minim Martap Project prior to the Proposed Transaction

• The value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resource and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation

• The value of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities not included in the DCF valuation

• Present value of Canyon’s corporate overhead costs.

Our Sum-of-Parts valuation of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction is set out in the table below:

Valuation of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction Ref.	Low Preferred High
	$'000 $'000 $'000
Value of Canyon's interest in the Minim Martap Project 10.1.1	45,000 80,000 115,000
Value of Canyon's interest in residual resources at the Minim Martap Project 10.1.2	276,923 484,615 692,308
Cash received from notional capital raising 10.1.3	256,116 248,018 239,921
Value of Canyon's other assets and liabilities 10.1.4	139,627 139,627 139,627
Present value of Canyon's corporate overhead costs 10.1.5	(58,577) (53,025) (47,473)
Total value of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction (control)	659,088 899,235 1,139,383
Number of shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction 10.1.6	3,536,766,904 3,407,015,467 3,296,098,917
Value per Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (control, undiluted)	0.186 0.264 0.346
Value per Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (control, diluted) 10.1.7	0.186 0.263 0.345

Source: BDO analysis

We have assumed an AUD/USD exchange rate of 0.650 for all AUD/USD conversions throughout our valuation, based on consensus analyst forecasts sourced from S&P Capital IQ and the one-month historical average around the date of our Report.

Based on the above, we have assessed the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling interest and diluted basis) to be in the range of $0.186 and $0.345, with a preferred value of $0.263.

32

10.1.1. Value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project

We elected to use the DCF approach in valuing Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project. The DCF approach estimates the fair market value by discounting the future cash flows arising from the Minim Martap Project to their net present value. Performing a DCF valuation requires the determination of the following:

• The forecast future cash flows that the Minim Martap Project is expected to generate

• An appropriate discount rate to apply to the cash flows of the Minim Martap Project to convert them to present value equivalent.

The value that we have ascribed to Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project is based on technical factors as advised by ERM, and our view of future economic assumptions, all of which are derived from information available at the time of our Report and ERM’s ITSR. The technical and economic factors may change in the future, which may change the value of the Minim Martap Project.

10.1.1.1.Future cash flows

A detailed cash flow model of the Minim Martap Project was prepared by the management of Canyon (‘ the Model ’). The Model estimates the future cash flows expected from bauxite production at the Minim Martap Project. The Model depicts forecasts of real post-tax cash flows over the 20-year life of mine on a yearly basis.

We have assessed the reasonableness of the Model and the material assumptions that underpin it. We have made certain adjustments to the Model where it was considered appropriate to arrive at an adjusted model (‘ Adjusted Model ’). In particular we have adjusted the Model to:

• calculate the cash flows attributable to Canyon, assuming a 90% beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project (see Section 10.1.1.3 for further information)

• reflect any changes to technical assumptions as a result of ERM’s review

• reflect any changes to the economic and other input assumptions that we consider appropriate as a result of our research

• convert the cash flows to be presented on a nominal basis

• incorporate the funding assumptions detailed in our Report

• adopt a valuation date of 1 November 2025 (‘ Valuation Date ’).

From its review of the technical assumptions, ERM recommended certain adjustments to the Model. Further details of ERM’s proposed adjustments are set out in ERM’s ITSR included in Appendix 5. We have adopted ERM’s recommendations in forming our DCF valuation range of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project.

The Model was prepared based on estimates of a production profile, operating costs and start-up and sustaining capital expenditure. The main assumptions underlying the Adjusted Model include:

• Mining and production volumes

• Commodity prices

• Operating costs

• Start-up and sustaining capital expenditure

• Foreign exchange rates

33

• Royalties

• Corporate tax

• Discount rate.

We undertook the following analysis of the Model:

• Appointed ERM as a technical expert to review, and where required, provide changes to the technical assumptions underlying the Model

• Analysed the Model to confirm its integrity and mathematical accuracy

• Conducted independent research on certain economic and other inputs such as commodity prices, exchange rates, inflation and discount rate applicable to the future cash flows of the Minim Martap Project

• Held discussions with Canyon’s management regarding the preparation of the forecasts in the Model and its views

• Performed a sensitivity analysis on the value of the Minim Martap Project as a result of flexing selected assumptions and inputs.

We have not undertaken a review of the cash flows in accordance with the Standard on Assurance Engagements ASAE 3450 ‘Assurance Engagements involving Corporate Fundraisings and/or Prospective Financial Information’ and do not express an opinion on the reasonableness of the assumptions or their achievability. However, nothing has come to our attention as a result of our procedures to suggest that the assumptions on which the Adjusted Model has been based have not been prepared on a reasonable basis.

Appointment of technical expert

ERM was engaged to prepare the ITSR which includes a technical assessment of the Minim Martap Project assumptions underpinning the Model. ERM’s assessment involved the review and provision of input on the assumptions adopted in the Model, including but not limited to:

• Mining physicals (including volume mined, recovery and grade)

• Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves included in the Model

• Operating expenditure (comprising direct operating expenditure and certain fixed costs)

• Capital expenditure (development and sustaining capital expenditure required)

• Royalties

• Rehabilitation

• Other relevant assumptions.

ERM’s ITSR is included in Appendix 5.

Limitations

Since forecasts relate to the future, they may be affected by unforeseen events and they depend, in part, on the effectiveness of management’s actions in implementing the plans on which the forecasts are based. Accordingly, actual results may vary materially from the forecasts included in the Model, as it is often the case that some events and circumstances frequently do not occur as expected, or are not anticipated, and those differences may be material.

34

Economic assumptions

All cash flows contained in the Model were calculated on a real basis. We have therefore applied the forecast inflation rate to the costs (including operating and capital expenditure) in the Adjusted Model to convert them to nominal cash flows.

The Model forecasts operating costs in US Dollars, therefore we consider the US inflation rate to be the most appropriate inflation rate to apply to the cash flows in the Adjusted Model. We have also considered the price escalation factors built into Canyon’s contracts with various contractors and reflected these in the Adjusted Model where applicable.

In forming our assessment of the forecast inflation rate, we have had regard to consensus views of forecast inflation as sourced from S&P Capital IQ and considered recent inflation trends in the US. The inflation assumptions we have adopted are outlined in the table below, with long-term inflation beyond CY2029 assumed to be flat at 2.0% per annum, consistent with the US Federal Reserve’s long-term inflation target.

US inflation rate	CY2025	CY2026	CY2027	CY2028	CY2029+
Average inflation rate	3.0%	2.9%	2.5%	2.4%	2.0%

Source : S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

As discussed below, our inflation assumptions are also applied to the bauxite pricing, which are quoted in US Dollar terms.

Bauxite prices

The Company will receive revenue from the sale of bauxite produced at the Minim Martap Project. The bauxite is expected to be sold on a cost, insurance and freight (‘ CIF ’) China basis.

Given the limited availability of bauxite pricing specific to the Cameroon market, we have relied on the bauxite price forecasts from the CM Group, being an independent expert which supplied pricing data to Canyon for the purpose of their DFS for the Minim Martap Project (completed in September 2025). These forecasts are expressed in US$/dmt and have been adjusted to reflect quality premiums.

As the bauxite is expected to be sold on CIF basis, an adjustment to the forecast prices has been made for freight costs. We have also applied our inflation assumptions (outlined above) to the forecast prices, and then escalated them using our long-term inflation assumption of 2.0% per annum from CY30 onwards, to derive nominal pricing for subsequent periods.

ERM has confirmed the reasonableness of the forecast bauxite prices adopted in the Model. ERM notes that the CM Group’s prices adopted in the DFS for the Minim Martap are higher than prices identified during their comparable transactions research, but noted that the Minim Martap Project will likely attract a premium due to its high alumina and low silica content. Further detail on ERM’s bauxite pricing analysis can be found in the ITSR included in Appendix 5.

Based on this approach, we have adopted the following forecast bauxite prices (in real US$/dmt) as a starting point in the Adjusted Model.

Bauxite prices		CY2025	CY2026	CY2027	CY2028	CY2029	CY2030+
Bauxite Price	US$/dmt	99.70	88.68	82.85	81.02	78.99	77.89

Source: CM Group, ERM and BDO analysis

35

Foreign exchange

The forecast bauxite pricing we have adopted in the Adjusted Model is denominated in US dollars, resulting in the cash flows being denominated in US dollars. In assessing the cash flows that flow to Canyon equity holders, we have converted the cash flows from US dollars to Australian dollars at the following forecast exchange rates in the Adjusted Model for the below periods. We then discount these Australian dollar denominated cash flows using the discount rate detailed in Appendix 3.

AUD:USD Exchange Rate	CY2025 CY2026 CY2027 CY2028 CY2029 CY2030+
AUD:USD	0.65 0.67 0.69 0.70 0.70 0.70

Source: Consensus Economics, S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

In our assessment of foreign exchange rates, we have considered historical exchange rates as well as forecasts prepared by economic analysts and other publicly available information, including broker consensus, to arrive at our foreign exchange rate assumptions. We have assumed the exchange rate remains constant beyond CY30, give the long-term difference in inflation between the Australian and US economies is minimal.

Capital Expenditure

The capital expenditure (‘ CapEx ’) requirements for the Minim Martap Project relate to mining and infrastructure development, rail development and port development. In preparing the Adjusted Model, we have applied our assessed forecast inflation rate to the forecast capital expenditure.

ERM recommends an increase to the port development costs in our base case of US$150.0 million (in real terms). ERM notes that the port development CapEx does not adequately cover development of a rotary wagon dumper and associated stockpile management that will be required to cope with growing bauxite tonnages shipped by the mine for export. ERM recommends this increase to be split evenly over CY2029, CY2030 and CY2031. We have included this increase in the port development CapEx in the Adjusted Model, based on ERM’s recommendation.

Alternatively, ERM noted that the cost of the rail dumper and related infrastructure could be added as a unit cost per tonne by the contractor. However, at the time of ERM’s report, there was not sufficient data to rely on this approach and the allocation of the port development cost via a contractor fee per tonne would be at least the same cost as the CapEx approach or even higher once contractor profit, interest and other costs are accounted for. Therefore, based on ERM’s recommendation, we have relied on the increase in the port development CapEx in the Adjusted Model rather than the unit cost approach.

ERM also recommends that US$13.7 million (in real terms) of rolling stock (wagons and locomotives) be reallocated to the start of the Project. This amount is allowed for in the overall rolling stock CapEx, but ERM considers the Project to have inadequate rail rolling stock (primarily wagons) in the early phases of the Project as well as for required equipment maintenance needs. ERM concluded that an additional 160 wagons would be required in the first year of operation to ensure the projected export volumes in the Model are realised, and therefore, has recommended the US$13.7 million (in real terms) of rolling stock CapEx be reallocated to the first period of the Model. Based on ERM’s recommendation, we have included this reallocation of the rail development CapEx in the Adjusted Model.

Further detail on ERM’s assessment of the reasonableness of the CapEx at the Minim Martap Project can be found in Appendix 5. We note that all adjustments made to the Adjusted Model as a result of the above recommendations provided by ERM have been converted to nominal terms.

36

As noted in Section 9, the CapEx requirements for the Minim Martap Project were expected to be incurred from 1 July 2025. Based on discussions with Management, we understand that Canyon has incurred approximately US$10.0 million of this expenditure prior to the Valuation Date, relating to the purchase of locomotives. Therefore, the project CapEx for the Minim Martap Project excludes this expenditure that has already been incurred by Canyon.

The graph below outlines the projected CapEx for the Minim Martap Project on a nominal basis over the life of mine.

==> picture [483 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

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

Forecast CapEx
250,000
200,000
150,000
100,000
50,000
-
Mining and Infrastructure Rail development Port CapEx
$'000
----- End of picture text -----

Source: Adjusted Model

Operating Expenditure

Operating expenditure (‘ OpEx ’) included in the Adjusted Model consists of transport, port, open pit mining and mining related general and administration costs. In preparing the Adjusted Model, we have applied our assessed forecast inflation rate to the forecast OpEx.

ERM notes that the OpEx assumptions in the Model are based on executed contracts with Canyon’s contractors for mining, haulage, rail, and port operations. These contracts specify rates for an initial eight-year term and include escalation mechanisms to account for changes in labour, fuel, and other cost drivers. ERM recommends consideration of these escalation mechanisms and the cost assumptions beyond the initial term. Based on ERM’s recommendation, we have reviewed the escalation factors embedded in Canyon’s contracts and reflected these in the Adjusted Model where applicable.

ERM has expressed reservations regarding the reliance on mining contractor pricing as definitive for mining operating costs, noting that the current DFS does not demonstrate a first-principles, bottom-up determination of mining costs, which is typically a key component of feasibility studies. Our discount rate applied in the Adjusted Model includes an additional risk premium (or an alpha) to capture a range of risks that are otherwise difficult to quantify individually, which ERM considers an appropriate mechanism to address uncertainties associated with the OpEx assumptions.

Further detail on ERM’s assessment of the reasonableness of the OpEx at the Minim Martap Project can be found in Appendix 5.

37

The graph below outlines the projected OpEx for the Minim Martap Project on a nominal basis over the life of mine.

==> picture [483 x 234] intentionally omitted <==

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

Forecast OpEx
600,000
500,000
400,000
300,000
200,000
100,000
-
Total transport costs Total port costs Total operating costs General and administrative costs
$'000
----- End of picture text -----

Source: Adjusted Model

Mining Physicals

The proposed production outlook of the Minim Martap Project is approximately 20 years. ERM has confirmed the reasonableness of the mining physicals in the ITSR found in Appendix 5.

We note that the graphs in this section have been prepared on a calendar year basis.

The graph below shows the forecast total ore mined of the Minim Martap Project, separating ore and waste.

Ore forecast to be mined

==> picture [459 x 176] intentionally omitted <==

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

14.00
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00
2.00
-
Waste Removed Bauxite Mined
Ore mined (Mdmt)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: Adjusted Model

38

The graph below shows the bauxite railed and shipped over the life of the Minim Martap Project.

Bauxite production

==> picture [459 x 209] intentionally omitted <==

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

10.00
9.00
8.00
7.00
6.00
5.00
4.00
3.00
2.00
1.00
-
Bauxite railed and shipped
Bauxite (Mdmt)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: Adjusted Model

Royalties

The following royalties and other fees have been applied in the Adjusted Model:

• A contribution of 1.0% of gross revenue to local development funds

• A contribution of 1.0% of gross revenue to the development of local capacities

• A state mining royalty of 3.0% of gross revenue, net of transport and port charges

• A production sharing royalty of 5.0% of gross revenue, net of transport and port charges.

Further details on the royalties can be found in ERM’s ITSR found in Appendix 5 of our Report.

Depreciation

We note that the capital expenditure has been depreciated over the life of mine and has been deducted from the pre-tax cash flows to arrive at the taxable income, thereby providing a tax shield benefit.

Mine closure costs

The Model currently does not include mine closure costs. ERM has recommended the inclusion of an allowance for a pre-closure study, closure costs and post-closure monitoring funding, which we have included in our Adjusted Model based on ERM’s recommendations, as detailed below:

• ERM considers an allowance of US$0.23 million (in real terms) for a pre-closure study be included in the penultimate year of the life of mine, being CY2044.

• ERM has recommended the inclusion of approximately US$11.0 million (in real terms) for project closure and rehabilitation and an additional 5% of the closure cost be allocated to cover indirect costs. ERM has also recommended a contingency of 20% to 30% of estimated closure costs to cover unexpected events during closure, for which, we have adopted 25% in our base case.

39

• ERM recommends an allowance of 1% of the CapEx spend on the haul road, IRF and port facilities to be allocated across the last five years of the life of mine to allow for the closure of these facilities.

• ERM recommends post-closure monitoring cash flows be continued for five years, with an estimated cost of US$0.21 million (in real terms) per year. In the Adjusted Model, we have forecast these cash flows for a 5-year period post completion of the life of mine and have discounted these to their present value equivalent in the last period, being CY2045.

We have applied our assessed forecast inflation rate to the forecast mine closure costs. Further details on the mine closure costs can be found in ERM’s ITSR found in Appendix 5 of our Report.

Receivables and payables

We have not reflected an opening balance of receivables and payables in the Adjusted Model as these balances are considered separately in our Sum-of-Parts valuation. The Adjusted Model reflects sales receivables terms of nil and trade creditor terms of 30 days over the life of mine.

Taxation

Management has advised that there are no material carried forward tax losses available to utilise against future taxable income. However, tax losses generated through the development and early production stages of the life of mine in the Adjusted Model have been utilised against forecast taxable income at the project level.

We have modelled the corporate tax at the Cameroon corporate tax rate of 33% throughout the life of mine.

Canyon’s share of the dividends from the Minim Martap Project are exempt income for Australian tax purposes, however a withholding tax of 16.5% (by the Cameroon Government) will apply.

Debt cash flows

We have assumed Canyon would finance the development of the Minim Martap Project with a mix of debt and equity funding. Our assumed capital structure assumptions for Canyon’s funding of the Minim Martap Project, prior to the Proposed Transaction, are detailed further in Section 10.1.2 below.

We have modelled debt cash flows in the Adjusted Model based on the drawdown of the remaining balance of Canyon’s existing AFG Credit Facility. We have assumed that the debt will be drawn down as required, for capital expenditure to fund the development of the Minim Martap Project. We have also assumed that once the Minim Martap Project is cash flow positive, distributions will be made to the Cameroon Government first, ahead of Canyon. Any residual cash flows that are distributed to Canyon will then be used to repay the debt financing first. As such, our assessment of the value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project have been discounted at the cost of equity.

10.1.1.2. Discount Rate

In our assessment of an appropriate discount rate to apply to the cash flows distributed to Canyon shareholders from the Minim Martap Project, we consider the most appropriate discount rate to be Canyon’s cost of equity. This is because the Adjusted Model includes debt cash flows and therefore, the cash flows in the Adjusted Model represent cash flows to equity holders.

We have selected a nominal after tax cost of equity in the range of 15.42% to 16.56% per annum to discount the cash flows of the Minim Martap Project to its present value. We have used a rounded discount rate of 16.0% in our base case.

40

In selecting this range of discount rates, we have considered the following:

• the rate of return for comparable ASX listed bauxite producing companies

• the capital structure of Canyon over the forecast period

• the risk profile of Canyon as compared to the comparable companies identified.

A detailed consideration of how we arrived at our adopted discount rate range is shown in Appendix 3.

10.1.1.3. Canyon’s beneficial interest

As outlined in Section 5 of our Report, Canyon and the Cameroon Government have agreed to develop the Minim Martap Project under the Code. At the time of our Report, the Minim Martap Project is currently held by Canyon’s 100% owned subsidiary Camalco. However, following the grant of the Industrial Mining License for the Minim Martap Project, in accordance with Section 47 of the Code, an entity of the state will be granted 10% ownership of the Project Company (a special purpose JV company formed for that purpose). Therefore, we have assumed Canyon will hold a 90% beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project.

Given that the Cameroon Government’s 10% is free carried, Canyon will hold a 90% beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project but will be required to fund 100% of the capital expenditure requirement for the development of the Project. As detailed in Section 10.1.2 below, Canyon will require approximately US$332.8 million ($511.9 million) to fund the development of the Project, which will be funded by its existing AFG Credit Facility, a notional equity raising and the Company’s existing cash reserves (which is inclusive of the cash received from Tranche 1 of the Placement, the Option Exercise and the shares to be issued to Afriland).

The Model reflects the cash flows of the Minim Martap Project on a 100% interest basis. Therefore, we have adjusted the cash flows to reflect Canyon’s 90% beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project over the life of mine. For the purposes of the valuation, we have assumed that the Cameroon Government receive preference distributions once the Minim Martap Project becomes cash flow positive, with the remaining cash flows then paid to Canyon.

Sensitivity analysis

Our valuation is highly sensitive to changes in the forecast of bauxite price, operating costs, capital costs, USD:AUD foreign exchange rates, inflation and the discount rate. We have therefore included an analysis to consider the value of the Minim Martap Project under various pricing scenarios and in applying:

• A change of +/- 10% to the bauxite price

• A change of +/- 10% to the AUD/USD foreign exchange rates

• A change of +/- 10% to the capital costs

• A change of +/- 10% to the operating costs

• A long-term inflation rate in the range of 1.0% to 3.0%; and

• A discount rate in the range of 14% to 18%.

The following sensitivities have been prepared to assist Shareholders in considering the potential effects to the value of the Minim Martap Project if our based case assumptions change:

41

Sensitivity Analysis of Canyon’s	Sensitivity Analysis of Canyon’s	beneficial interest in the value of the Minim Martap Project	beneficial interest in the value of the Minim Martap Project	beneficial interest in the value of the Minim Martap Project
	$'000s	$'000s	$'000s	$'000s
Percentage change	Bauxite Price (US$/dmt)	Exchange rate (AUD/USD)	Capital costs	Operating costs
+10%	246,159	72,705	29,530	(34,621)
+8%	213,588	74,051	39,819	(10,749)
+6%	180,377	75,448	50,107	12,180
+4%	146,647	76,899	60,156	34,788
+2%	113,786	78,407	70,065	57,382
0%	79,975	79,975	79,975	79,975
-2%	45,117	81,607	89,864	102,083
-4%	10,244	83,307	99,501	123,345
-6%	(25,610)	85,080	108,931	144,687
-8%	(61,760)	86,929	118,362	166,538
-10%	(98,075)	88,861	127,473	188,200

Source: Adjusted Model and BDO analysis

Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate	Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate	Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate	Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate	Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate	Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the inflation rate
Long-term inflation rate	1.00%	1.50%	2.00%	2.50%	3.00%
Value ($'000)	51,100	65,031	79,975	95,998	113,129

Source: Adjusted Model and BDO analysis

Sensitivity analysis of the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project to the discount rate

Discount rate	14.00%	15.00%	16.00%	17.00%	18.00%
Value ($'000)	207,437	134,355	79,975	39,487	9,382

Source: Adjusted Model and BDO analysis

In considering the above sensitivities, Shareholders should note the following:

• the variables described above may have compounding or offsetting effects and are unlikely to move in isolation

• the variables for which we have performed sensitivities are not the only variables which are subject to deviation from the forecast assumptions

• the sensitivities performed do not cover the full range of possible variances from the base case assumptions used (i.e. variances could be greater than the percentage increases or decreases set out in this analysis).

We also note that we have presented the above sensitivities to highlight the sensitivity of the value of the Minim Martap Project to changes in pricing and other assumptions.

42

Considering the valuation outcomes above, we estimate the value of Canyon’s beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project to be in the range of US$45 million and US$115 million, with a preferred value of US$80 million. This range was formed having consideration to sensitivities around a circa +/-4% relative change in the bauxite price, given the sensitivity of the NPV to this assumption.

On 1 September 2025, Canyon announced the DFS for the Minim Martap Project, which reported a quoted post-tax NPV of US$521 million. In forming our valuation of the Minim Martap Project, we have made adjustments to the Model underlying this NPV, as detailed in the sections above. Applying the post tax discount rate of 8.34% adopted by Canyon in the DFS in our Adjusted Model would result in the value of Canyon’s beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project to be approximately $413 million, highlighting the sensitivity of the valuation to the discount rate. The remaining differential reflects other adjustments, including the incorporation of ERM’s recommendations, application of Canyon’s 90% beneficial interest, and BDO’s economic assumptions. These adjustments collectively explain the variance between the DFS quoted NPV and our valuation outcome.

10.1.2. Notional funding of the Minim Martap Project

As detailed in Section 9.1, RG 111.15 states that funding requirements for a company that is not in financial distress (e.g., capital that is required to develop a project) should be taken into account by the expert when determining the fair value of the company’s securities, especially when using the DCF methodology.

The capital expenditure requirements of the Minim Martap Project over the life of mine are approximately US$611.1 million (on a real basis), which was expected to be incurred from 1 July 2025. Based on discussions with Canyon management, we understand that Canyon has already incurred approximately US$10.0 million of this expenditure, primarily relating to the acquisition of locomotives.

We note that the Minim Martap Project is expected to commence bauxite production in CY2026, with revenue generated expected to offset some of the capital expenditure requirements for the development of the Project. After considering corporate costs expected to be incurred by Canyon until the Minim Martap Project becomes cash flow positive and converting the cash flows into nominal terms using the inflation assumptions detailed in Section 10.1.1., the total funding requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project are approximately US$332.8 million on a nominal basis ($511.9 million).

In the absence of the Proposed Transaction, we have considered the alternatives for Canyon to fund the development of the Minim Martap Project. We have assumed the remaining funding requirement would be funded by a mix of the Company’s existing debt facility, existing cash reserves and new equity funding.

As outlined in Section 5 of our Report, Canyon has drawn down approximately US$26.0 million from its US$140.0 million AFG Credit Facility, leaving an available undrawn balance of approximately US$114.0 million ($175.4 million). We have assumed that, prior to the Proposed Transaction, the remaining US$114.0 million ($175.4 million) of the AFG Credit Facility would be used to fund part of the capital expenditure requirements for the Minim Martap Project.

After considering the remaining undrawn balance of the AFG Credit Facility, we have assumed the Company would use its existing cash reserves and a notional capital raise to fund the remaining capital expenditure requirement for the development of the Minim Martap Project. We have assumed that all of the Company’s existing cash reserves in the range of $93.2 million and $108.6 million as at the Valuation Date would be available for use towards the development of the Minim Martap Project, with the reminder funded by equity funding.

43

The Company’s existing cash reserves in the range of $93.2 million and $108.6 million as at the Valuation Date primarily comprises the Company’s cash and cash equivalents of $60.1 million as at 31 October 2025, the funds raised from the Options Exercise of $9.6 million and the funds to be raised from the issue of the Afriland Shares of $69.3 million, net of the impact of Canyon’s proposed increased investment in Camrail (see Section 10.1.4 for further details on the adjusted cash balance prior to the Proposed Transaction).

We note that while the funds from the issue of Afriland Shares have not yet been received, Management does not expect the timing of the receipt of the Afriland funds to have an impact on the start of the Company’s operations at the Project site, and as such, we have included these funds in Canyon’s existing cash reserves to be used in funding the Project.

Additionally, as outlined in Section 4, Canyon has expressed its intention to increase its investment in Camrail, which based on discussions with Management, is estimated to be in the range of US$20 million ($30.8 million) and US$30 million ($46.2 million). Management expects the increased investment in Camrail to be undertaken regardless of the outcome of the Proposed Transaction, and as such, we have included the impact of the proposed investment in Canyon’s existing cash reserves prior to the Proposed Transaction.

Further, we note that there could also be other forms of financing available for the Minim Martap Project such as offtake prepayments and metal streaming arrangements which we have not considered, that could provide additional funding if required. However, in accordance with RG 170, at the time of our Report, we do not have reasonable grounds to assume one of these funding arrangements.

A summary of the notional funding of the Minim Martap Project in the absence of the Proposed Transaction is set out below:

Notional funding of the Minim Martap Project	Low Preferred High
	$'000 $'000 $'000
Total expenditure requirement (a)	511,926 511,926 511,926
Existing undrawn AFG Credit Facility	175,385 175,385 175,385
Total funding obtained through existing debt facilities (b)	175,385 175,385 175,385
Shortfall (to be obtained through notional equity raising) (a) – (b)	336,542 336,542 336,542
Less: Canyon's adjusted cash balance as at 31 October 2025 (see section 10.1.4)	(93,232) (100,924) (108,617)
Cash required to be raised by Canyon through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	243,310 235,618 227,925

Source: BDO analysis

Therefore, we consider that the Company would have a funding shortfall in the range of $227.9 million and $243.3 million, with a midpoint value of $235.6 million, after utilising its existing cash reserves and debt facilities. This funding shortfall is assumed to be met through a notional equity raising, which is detailed in the following section.

10.1.2.1.Notional equity funding

The funding shortfall for the development of the Minim Martap Project (after considering the AFG Credit Facility, existing cash reserves and working capital requirements) is in the range of $227.9 million and $243.3 million. Therefore, we have included a notional equity raising to fulfil Canyon’s funding requirements.

44

To determine the required amount to be raised, we have grossed up the funding shortfall to reflect the costs likely to be incurred in conducting the capital raising. We have assessed the costs of a capital raising to be approximately 5% of the total funds raised. Therefore, Canyon will be required to raise an equivalent of between $239.9 million and $256.1 million (inclusive of costs) to meet the funding shortfall, which is set out in the table below:

Cash received from notional capital raising	Low $’000 Preferred $’000 High $’000
Equity funding required ($'000)	243,310 235,618 227,925
Placement fee ($'000)	12,806 12,401 11,996
Cash required to be raised through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	256,116 248,018 239,921

Source: BDO analysis

To determine the likely price at which Canyon would have to place its shares to a third party or to current shareholders under a notional capital raising to fulfil the funding shortfall, we considered the VWAP of Canyon’s shares and the discount at which shares have been issued by ASX-listed companies when compared to the respective companies’ 30-day VWAP prior to the announcement of the respective placement.

We considered the discount at which shares have been issued by ASX-listed companies to raise capital over the last three years. A summary of our results is set out in the table below:

	Placement size: $150 to $250 million	Placement as % of market cap. (30% to 60%)	Market cap: $400 to $600 million	All companies
All ASX
Number of Placements	26	141	47	2,141
Mean discount	8.54%	25.48%	10.58%	19.68%
Median discount	6.71%	19.23%	9.44%	16.06%
ASX Mining
Number of Placements	13	108	28	1,287
Mean discount	11.49%	23.40%	10.26%	19.79%
Median discount	9.64%	18.72%	9.30%	16.63%

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

Based on our analysis, the mean discount for ASX-listed mining companies was 19.79%. Given that the discounts are positively skewed, we have also considered the median of 16.63% as this represents a better measure of central tendency.

We have analysed discounts for capital raisings in which the amount raised was between $150 million and $250 million. The median placement discount for all ASX-listed companies and ASX-listed mining companies was 6.71% and 9.64%, respectively.

We note that the size of the notional equity raising would be in the range of approximately 48.9% to 52.5% of Canyon’s market capitalisation prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. Therefore, we have analysed discounts for equity raisings in which the amount raised was 30% to 60% of the company’s market capitalisation at the time of the raising and found that the median placement discount for all ASXlisted companies and ASX-listed mining companies was 19.23% and 18.72%, respectively.

We have also assessed the discounts of capital raisings for companies with market capitalisations between $400 and $600 million (a band in which Canyon’s pre-Proposed Transaction market capitalisation falls).

45

The mean and median discount across all ASX-listed companies in this band was 10.58% and 9.44% respectively. For ASX-listed mining companies in this band, the statistics were similar, with a mean and median discount of 10.26% and 9.30% respectively.

Given that the notional equity raise would be in the range of approximately 48.9% to 52.5% of Canyon’s current market capitalisation, we have weighted our analysis of an appropriate placement discount more towards the analysis of this metric. Therefore, we consider a placement discount in the range of 10% to 20% to be appropriate.

In section 10.2 of our Report, we assess the pre announcement quoted market price of Canyon shares. From this analysis, we assessed the value of a Canyon share to be between $0.265 to $0.275, on a minority interest basis. Applying a discount in the range of 10% to 20% to the assessed value of a Canyon share prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction results in an assumed notional equity raising price of between $0.212 and $0.248 per share.

We are required to conduct our analysis based on the quoted market price of Canyon shares prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. This is because the value of a Canyon share after the announcement of the Proposed Transaction may include the effects of any change in value as a result of the Proposed Transaction. However, we note that the price of a Canyon share following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction has significantly declined, and as such the pricing contemplated in the analysis below may not be available to the Company in reality. We discuss this further in our reasonableness assessment in Section 13.

Additionally, we acknowledge that the notional capital raising would likely take place in the future (following the use of the Company’s adjusted cash balance and AFG Facility) once the Company is producing at which point the Canyon share price may have received a re-rating from the market. It is uncertain how a potential re-rating would affect the Canyon share price. As such, we are only able to rely on pricing prior to announcement of the Proposed Transaction, as guide for the price at which Canyon could raise capital prior to the Proposed Transaction.

The table below summarises the number of shares that Canyon would need to issue, in order to cover the funding shortfall, based on the assessed notional equity raising price.

Number of shares issued under notional equity raising	Low Preferred High
Cash required to be raised through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	256,116 248,018 239,921
Quoted market price (minority) ($/share)	$0.265 $0.270 $0.275
Assessed placement discount	20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
Capital raising price ($/share)	$0.212 $0.230 $0.248
Number of shares issued under notional equity raising	1,208,092,469 1,078,341,032 967,424,482

Source: BDO analysis

46

We note that the number of shares issued under the notional equity raising have been included in the total number of Canyon shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction for the purposes of our valuation of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (see Section 10.1.6).

10.1.3. Value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation

In performing our valuation of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation, we have relied on the ITSR prepared by ERM. We instructed ERM to provide an independent valuation of the residual resources and the exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project.

ERM has adopted values informed by comparable transaction analysis and industry yardsticks to determine its valuation range for the residual resources. ERM also considered project-specific pricing adjustments in forming its opinion, including applying a premium based on Canyon’s pricing yardstick, which reflects the characteristics of the Minim Martap deposit relative to comparable transactions and industry benchmarks. Further information on ERM’s approach and conclusions, refer to ERM’s ITSR, which is included as Appendix 5 of our Report.

ERM determined the fair market value of the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project to be within the range of US$200 million to US$500 million, with a preferred value of US$350 million. Applying Canyon’s 90% beneficial interest to this range, the fair market value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project is within the range of US$180 million to US$450 million, with a preferred value of US$315 million.

The residual resources outside the life-of-mine plan represent a significant component of the overall MRE for the Minim Martap Project. We note that our DCF valuation of the Minim Martap Project only reflects the reserves included in the current life-of-mine plan.

We have converted ERM’s values into their Australian Dollar equivalent based on an AUD/USD exchange rate of 0.65 as summarised in the table below.

	Value of Canyon's interest in residual resources at the Minim Martap Project Low Preferred High
	In US$000 terms
	Residual resources (100% interest) US$'000 200,000 350,000 500,000
	Residual resources (90% interest) US$'000 180,000 315,000 450,000
	In $'000 terms (0.65 AUD/USD exchange rate)
	Residual resources (100% interest) $'000 307,692 538,462 769,231
	Residual resources (90% interest) $'000 276,923 484,615 692,308
	Total Canyon interest $'000 276,923 484,615 692,308

Source: ERM’s ITSR and BDO analysis

10.1.4. Value of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities

Other assets and liabilities of Canyon represent the assets and liabilities at have not been specifically addressed elsewhere in our Sum-of-Parts valuation. From our discussions with Canyon and analysis of these other assets and liabilities, outlined in the table below, we do not believe that there is a material difference between their book value and their fair value unless an adjustment has been noted below.

47

The table below represents a summary of the assets and liabilities identified:

Statement of Financial Position	Ref	Audited as at 30-Jun-25	Low Adjusted Value	High Adjusted Value
		$000	$'000	$'000
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	a)	11,478	93,232	108,617
Trade and other receivables		182	182	182
Other assets		1,595	1,595	1,595
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS		13,255	95,009	110,394
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
Investments	b)	3,722	49,876	34,491
Plant and equipment	c)	1,204	442	442
Capitalised exploration expenditure	d)	32,580	-	-
Other assets		799	799	799
TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS		38,305	51,117	35,733
TOTAL ASSETS		51,560	146,126	146,126
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Trade and other payables		6,443	6,443	6,443
Provisions		56	56	56
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES		6,499	6,499	6,499
TOTAL LIABILITIES		6,499	6,499	6,499
NET ASSETS		45,060	139,627	139,627

Source: Audited accounts of Canyon for the year ended 30 June 2025, Canyon management accounts for the period ended 31 October 2025 and BDO analysis

We have not undertaken a review of Canyon’s unaudited management accounts in accordance with Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s Standard 2405 Review of Historical Financial Information Other than a Financial Report, and do not express an opinion on this financial information. However, nothing has come to our attention as a result our procedures that would suggest the financial information within the management accounts has not been prepared on a reasonable basis.

We have been advised that there has not been any other significant change in the net assets of Canyon since 30 June 2025 and that the above assets and liabilities represent their fair market value at 30 June 2025 apart from the adjustments detailed below. Where the above balances differ materially from the position at 30 June 2025 we have obtained supporting documentation to validate the adjusted values used, which provides reasonable grounds for reliance on the unaudited financial information.

We note the following in relation to our valuation of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities.

Note a) Cash and cash equivalents

We have adjusted the audited cash position at 30 June 2025 to reflect the cash balance as at 31 October 2025. We have obtained bank statements supporting the 31 October 2025 bank balances per Canyon’s management accounts. The increase from the audited 30 June 2025 accounts largely reflects the Company’s draw down of approximately US$26.0 million under the AFG Credit Facility and the $35.6 million received from the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares, which was completed on 2 October 2025.

We have made an adjustment to the 31 October 2025 cash balance for the cash received from the Option Exercise. As detailed in Section 4, the EEA Options were exercised on 18 November 2025, with the

48

137,415,183 EEA Options exercised at the exercise price of $0.07. We have adjusted Canyon’s cash balance for the $9.6 million received from the Option Exercise.

We have also made an adjustment for the cash received from options that have been exercised between the 31 October 2025 management accounts and the date of this Report. We have added cash for the exercise of options on 1 December 2025 of $0.38 million (1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.17, 1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.12 and 1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.09

Additionally, we have made an adjustment for the cash to be received from the issue of the Tranche 2 Shares to Afriland. As detailed in Section 4, Afriland have agreed to subscribe for 266,559,380 new fully paid ordinary shares at an issue price of $0.26 per share. The issue of the Afriland Shares has been approved by Shareholders, however, the funding is still subject to Afriland obtaining any and all necessary in country approvals. We consider it reasonable to assume that the funds subscribed by Afriland will be received by Canyon. For the purposes of our valuation of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction, we have adjusted Canyon’s cash balance for the $69.3 million to be received from the issue of the Afriland Shares. We have adjusted the number of shares on issue in Canyon, to reflect the issue of the Afriland Shares in section 10.1.6.

We have also made an adjustment for Canyon’s intended investment in Camrail. As detailed in Section 4, Canyon has expressed its intention to increase its holding in Camrail from 9.1% to approximately 35%. An exact figure for this investment has not been agreed upon but indicative terms are in the range of US$20 million ($30.8 million) and US$30 million ($46.2 million) and we have adjusted Canyons’ cash balance to reflect this. We have presented a range for Canyon’s cash and cash equivalents, with the lower proposed cost for the increased investment in Camrail forming our high valuation and the high end of the cost forming our low valuation.

Our adjustments to cash and cash equivalents have been summarised in the below table:

Cash and cash equivalents	Low $'000	High $'000
Cash and cash equivalents as at 31-Oct-25	60,081	60,081
Add: cash received from the Option Exercise (18-Nov-25)	9,619	9,619
Add: cash received from the exercise of options (1-Dec-25)	380	380
Add: cash to be received from issue of the Afriland Shares	69,305	69,305
Less: proposed investment in Camrail	(46,154)	(30,769)
Canyon's adjusted cash and cash equivalents balance	93,232	108,617

Source: Canyon’s management accounts for the period ended 31 October 2025 and BDO analysis

Note b) Investments

We have adjusted the book value of investments from $3.72 million as at 30 June 2025 to reflect Canyon’s intention to increase its holding in Camrail from 9.1% to approximately 35%. As noted above, an exact figure for this investment has not been agreed upon but indicative terms are in the range of US$20 million ($30.8 million) and US$30 million ($46.2 million). We have adjusted Canyon’s investment balance to reflect the proposed increased investment, with the lower proposed cost forming our high valuation and the high end of the cost forming our low valuation.

49

Our adjustment to Canyon’s book value of investments has been summarised in the below table:

Investments	Low $'000	High $'000
Investments as at 30-Jun-25	3,722	3,722
Add: proposed increased investment in Camrail	46,154	30,769
Canyon's adjusted investments balance ('000)	49,876	34,491

Source: BDO analysis

Note c) Plant and equipment

The book value of plant and equipment of $1.20 million as at 30 June 2025 includes $0.76 million related to field equipment. Therefore, we have adjusted the book value of plant and equipment to $0.44 million as the value of the field equipment is reflected in the valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project and the residual resources, which have been valued separately in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.3, respectively.

Note d) Capitalised exploration expenditure

We have adjusted the book value of capitalised exploration expenditure of $32.58 million as at 30 June 2025 to nil, as it is reflected in the valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project and the residual resources, which have been valued separately in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.3, respectively.

10.1.5. Present value of Canyon’s corporate overhead costs

Corporate costs have not been included in the Adjusted Model. Corporate costs consist of all corporate administration costs that cannot be directly attributable to operations at the Minim Martap Project.

As part of our analysis, we have considered the corporate costs that Canyon has incurred historically. Set out below are the corporate costs incurred by Canyon over the last three financial years:

	Audited for the	Audited for the	Audited for the
	year ended	year ended	year ended
	30-Jun-25	30-Jun-24	30-Jun-23
	$'000	$'000	$'000
Corporate costs of Canyon	(6,385)	(4,114)	(3,771)

Source: BDO analysis

Our DCF valuation is based on the assumption that the Minim Martap Project is developed through to production. Therefore, we have considered the corporate costs of comparable companies because we would expect that the corporate costs of Canton are likely to increase once the Company commences production, therefore the historical level of corporate costs incurred are unlikely to reflect the future corporate costs to be incurred.

The comparable companies selected for our analysis are companies of a similar size, scale and nature of operations to those operations that are included in the forecast. While we note that these companies are exposed to a range of commodities, corporate costs are generally comparable across commodities and therefore considered appropriate for benchmarking purposes. A summary of the companies selected, and the average corporate costs incurred over the most recent three reporting periods are set out below:

50

	Revenue
Company Name	for the year ended	Market cap. as at	Corporate costs	Corporate costs	Corporate costs
	30-Jun-25	30-Jun-25	for FY25	for FY24	for FY23
	$m	$m	$'000	$'000	$'000
Canyon Resources Limited	-	403.9	(6,385)	(4,114)	(3,771)
Pantoro Gold Limited	357.3	1,190.2	(13,537)	(7,006)	(16,277)
Kingsgate Consolidated Limited	336.7	579.8	(12,624)	(9,939)	(11,386)
Alkane Resources Ltd	262.4	433.0	(14,072)	(10,152)	(11,413)
*Metro Mining Limited	370.9	396.4	(16,280)	(11,150)	(8,844)
Aurelia Metals Limited	343.5	321.6	(12,108)	(14,766)	(15,645)
Mount Gibson Iron Limited	330.5	318.5	(18,604)	(19,001)	(16,590)
Tribune Resources Limited	160.3	247.1	(13,531)	(11,438)	(8,827)
AIC Mines Limited	189.6	212.0	(12,077)	(9,587)	(8,896)
Mean (excluding Canyon)	293.9	462.3	(14,104)	(11,630)	(12,235)
Median (excluding Canyon)	333.6	359.0	(13,534)	(10,651)	(11,400)

Source: Annual Reports, S&P Capital IQ, and BDO analysis. Business descriptions for the above comparable companies have been included at the end of Appendix 3 of our Report. * Annualised based on most recent half-year financial statements

Based on the above analysis of corporate costs incurred by comparable ASX-listed companies and having consideration for the corporate costs incurred by Canyon historically, we have assessed the real corporate costs of Canyon to be in the range of $10.0 million to $14.0 million per annum, in real terms. We note that Canyon’s corporate costs over the forecast period should be reflective of a company that is in the production phase of the mining life cycle. As such, our assessed range has been weighted more towards the historical corporate costs of the comparable companies that are in the production phase.

We have however assumed the real corporate costs of Canyon to be approximately $8.0 million whilst the Minim Martap Project is still in development. Our assessed range for the pre-production corporate costs has been weighted towards Canyon’s historical corporate costs and comparable companies in the development phase. Once the Company commences production, we have assumed corporate costs will increase to $14.0 million per annum in the low valuation scenario and will increase to $10.0 million per annum in the high valuation scenario (both stated on a real basis).

We have applied our assessed forecast inflation rates as set out in Section 10.1.1 of our Report to the corporate costs over the forecast period and have discounted these cash flows at our assessed cost of equity of 16%, as detailed in Appendix 3. We have also reduced the corporate cost cash flows to incorporate the tax shield received by Canyon for incurring these corporate costs, calculated at the Company’s tax rate of 30%.

Based on the above, we consider the present value of corporate costs to be in the range of $47.47 million and $58.58 million, with a midpoint value of $53.03 million.

10.1.6. Number of shares on issue

The number of Canyon shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction is 2,062,115,055, which includes the Canyon shares issued under Tranche 1 of the Placement and the Option Exercise. We have adjusted the number of shares on issue for the 266,559,380 Tranche 2 Shares to be issued to Afriland. Additionally,

51

we have adjusted the number of shares on issue to account for the notional equity raise as detailed in Section 10.1.2.

Share structure prior to the Proposed Transaction	Ref	Low	Preferred	High
Canyon shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction	4	2,062,115,055	2,062,115,055	2,062,115,055
Afriland Shares to be issued	4	266,559,380	266,559,380	266,559,380
Canyon shares issued through notional equity raising	10.1.2	1,208,092,469	1,078,341,032	967,424,482
Total ordinary Canyon shares on issue prior to the
Proposed Transaction (including the notional		3,536,766,904	3,407,015,467	3,296,098,917
equity raising)

Source: BDO analysis

We note that the low number of shares on issue forms the basis for the high end of our valuation range and the high number of shares on issue forms the low end of our valuation range.

10.1.7. Value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a diluted basis

Prior to the Proposed Transaction, Canyon had options and performance rights on issue. Details on Canyon’s issued securities can be found in Section 5.7.

In assessing the diluted value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction, we have adjusted for the cash that would be received, and the increase in the number of shares outstanding, for the notional exercise of any in-the-money options and vested performance rights. We have assessed whether the options would be exercised under each of the low, preferred and high valuation scenarios of the undiluted value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction.

This is summarised in the table and accompanying notes below.

Value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (fully diluted basis)	Ref	Low $'000	Preferred $'000	High $'000
Value of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction (control, undiluted)		659,088	899,235	1,139,383
Add: cash from notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights	a	1,500	1,500	1,500
Value of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction (control, undiluted)		660,588	900,735	1,140,883
Divided by: adjusted shares on issue prior to the Proposed
Transaction including notional exercise of in-the-money	b	3,551,766,904	3,422,015,467	3,311,098,917
options and vested performance rights
Value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (control, diluted)		0.186	0.263	0.345

Source: BDO analysis

Note a) Cash received from notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights

The Canyon share price used to determine whether the options are in-the-money was the undiluted value per share prior to the Proposed Transaction, on a controlling interest basis (see Section 10.1) of $0.185, $0.266 and $0.350 under our low, preferred and high scenarios, respectively.

52

A summary of the options that are deemed to be in-the-money under our low, preferred and high scenarios, is presented in the table below:

Description	Number	Low	Preferred	High
Unlisted options exercisable at $0.100 expiring on 08-Oct-27	15,000,000	In-the-money	In-the-money	In-the-money
Total number of "in-the-money" options		15,000,000	15,000,000	15,000,000
Total cash raised from notional exercise of in-the-money options ($)		1,500,000	1,500,000	1,500,000

Source: BDO analysis

We also note that Canyon 2,000,000 performance rights on issue pursuant to various terms outlined in Section 5.7. We have made an adjustment concerning the remaining performance rights in our valuation of Canyon prior to the Proposed Transaction, on the basis that there is sufficient reasonable grounds on which to assess the likelihood of the conditions for vesting being met or to quantify any value accretion should the vesting conditions be met. We note that we have not assumed any vesting for the non-market vesting conditions on the basis we have no reasonable grounds to do so. We have detailed our assessment in the table below:

Vesting Condition	No. of Performance Rights	Vested
Complete rail access agreement	1,000,000	No
Executed binding offtake agreement for a minimum of 2 Mt for a 12-month period	1,000,000	No
Total number of Performance Rights	2,000,000

Source: BDO analysis

If we were to treat the Performance Rights as vested, it would have not have a material impact on our valuation conclusions.

Note b) Adjusted shares on issue including the notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights

The notional exercise of the in-the-money options and vested performance rights would increase the number of shares on issue as summarised below.

Adjusted shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction (diluted)	Low	Preferred	High
Canyon shares outstanding prior to the Proposed Transaction (including notional equity raise)	3,536,766,904	3,407,015,467	3,296,098,917
Add: shares issued from notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights	15,000,000	15,000,000	15,000,000
Total shares outstanding including notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights	3,322,601,829	3,245,990,120	3,180,499,465

Source: BDO analysis

53

10.2 QMP valuation

To provide a comparison to the valuation of Canyon in Section 10.1, we have also assessed the QMP of a Canyon share.

The quoted market value of a company’s shares is reflective of a minority interest. A minority interest is an interest in a company that is not significant enough for the holder to have an individual influence in the operations and value of that company.

RG 111.43 suggests that when considering the value of a company’s shares for the purposes of a control transaction the expert should consider a premium for control. An acquirer could be expected to pay a premium for control due to the advantages they will receive should they obtain 100% control of another company. These advantages include the following:

• Control over decision making and strategic direction.

• Access to underlying cash flows.

• Control over dividend policies.

• Access to potential tax losses.

Whilst EEA will not be obtaining 100% of Canyon, RG 111 states that the expert should calculate the value of a target’s shares as if 100% control were being obtained. The expert can then consider an acquirer’s practical level of control when considering reasonableness. Reasonableness has been considered in Section 13.

Therefore, our calculation of the QMP of a Canyon share including a premium for control has been prepared in two parts. The first part is to calculate the QMP of a Canyon share on a minority interest basis. The second part is to add a premium for control to the minority interest value to arrive at a QMP value that includes a premium for control.

Minority interest value

Our analysis of the QMP of a Canyon share is based on the pricing prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. This is because the value of a Canyon share after the announcement of the Proposed Transaction may include the effects of any change in value as a result of the Proposed Transaction. However, we have considered the value of a Canyon share following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction in Section 11.

Information on the Proposed Transaction was announced to the market on 25 September 2025. Therefore, we have assessed the QMP of a Canyon share over the period from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025, being the last trading day prior to the announcement. The following chart provides a summary of the closing share price movements and trading volume over this period.

54

==> picture [483 x 256] intentionally omitted <==

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

Canyon share price and ASX trading volume history
0.350 8.00
0.300 7.00
6.00
0.250
5.00
0.200
4.00
0.150
3.00
0.100
2.00
0.050 1.00
0.000 0.00
Volume Closing Price
Closing share price ($)
Trading volume (millions)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

The daily price of a Canyon share over the period from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 ranged from a low of $0.090 on 23 September 2024 to a high of $0.305 on 17 September 2025. The largest day of single trading over the assessed period was 20 January 2025, when 6,983,790 shares were traded.

To provide further analysis of the QMP of a Canyon share, we have also considered the volume-weighted average price ( ‘VWAP’ ) for 10-, 30-, 60- and 90-day periods to 22 September 2025.

Share price per unit	22-Sep-25	10 days	30 days	60 days	90 days
Closing price	$0.275
VWAP		$0.273	$0.266	$0.263	$0.261

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

The above VWAPs are prior to the date of the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, to avoid the influence of any movements in the price of Canyon shares that have occurred since the Proposed Transaction was announced. An analysis of the volume of trading in Canyon shares for the 180-day trading period to 22 September 2025 is set out below:

Trading days	Closing share price low	Closing share price high	Cumulative volume traded	As a % of issued capital
1 day	$0.275	$0.275	670,420	0.04%
10 days	$0.260	$0.305	9,731,620	0.55%
30 days	$0.245	$0.305	20,864,780	1.17%
60 days	$0.245	$0.305	35,790,340	2.01%
90 days	$0.230	$0.305	54,705,720	3.23%
180 days	$0.175	$0.305	131,326,770	8.43%

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

This table indicates that Canyon’s shares display a low level of liquidity, with 8.43% of the Company’s issued capital being traded in a 180-day trading period prior to the Proposed Transaction. RG 111.86 states

55

that for the QMP methodology to be an appropriate methodology there needs to be a ‘liquid and active’ market in the shares and allowing for the fact that the quoted price may not reflect their value should 100% of the securities not be available for sale.

Additionally, we have considered the bid-ask spread of Canyon shares for the twelve-month period prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, which is outlined in the graph below.

==> picture [483 x 243] intentionally omitted <==

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

Bid-Ask Spread
0.350 0.030
0.300
0.025
0.250
0.020
0.200
0.015
0.150
0.010
0.100
0.005
0.050
0.000 0.000
Spread Bid Ask
Spread ($)
Share price ($)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

We calculated the average spread over the period from 23 September 2024 to 22 September 2025 to be $0.007, which equates to approximately 3.38% of the prevailing share price over that period.

We consider the following characteristics to be representative of a liquid and active market:

• Regular trading in a company’s securities.

• Approximately 1% of a company’s securities are traded on a weekly basis.

• The spread of a company’s shares must not be so great that a single minority trade can significantly affect the market capitalisation of a company.

• There are no significant but unexplained movements in share price.

A company’s shares should meet all of the above criteria to be considered ‘liquid and active’, however, failure of a company’s securities to exhibit all of the above characteristics does not necessarily mean that the value of its shares cannot be considered relevant.

In the case of Canyon, we consider the shares to display a low level of liquidity, on the basis that less than 1% of securities have been traded weekly on average, with 8.43% of Canyon’s issued capital being traded over the 180-trading day period, prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. We note that of the 26 weeks included in our analysis, there were no weeks where more than 1% of the Company’s securities were traded

Our assessment is that a range of values for a Canyon share based on market pricing, after disregarding post-announcement pricing, is between $0.265 and $0.275, with a preferred midpoint of $0.270.

56

QMP including control premium

Applying a control premium to Canyon’s quoted market share price results in the following QMP value including a premium for control:

QMP valuation of a Canyon share	Low Preferred High
	$ $ $
QMP (minority interest)	0.265 0.270 0.275
Control premium (Appendix 4)	25% 30% 35%
QMP valuation including a premium for control	0.331 0.351 0.371

Source: BDO analysis

Our control premium analysis is set out in Appendix 4.

Therefore, our valuation of a Canyon share based on the QMP methodology and including a premium for control is between $0.331 and $0.371, with our preferred QMP value of a Canyon share being a rounded midpoint value of $0.351.

10.3 Assessment of the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction

The results of the valuations performed are summarised in the table below:

Valuation of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction	Ref.	Low $	Preferred $	High $
Sum-of-Parts (controlling interest basis)	10.1	0.186	0.263	0.345
QMP (controlling interest basis)	10.2	0.331	0.351	0.371

Source: BDO analysis

We consider the Sum-of-Parts approach to be the most appropriate methodology to value a Canyon share, as the core value of the Company lies in the Minim Martap Project which has been valued using the DCF methodology, and the residual resources at the Minim Martap Project which have not been included in the DCF valuation, but have been independently valued by ERM in accordance with the VALMIN Code, JORC Code, and ASIC’s Regulatory Guides.

Further, the QMP approach is only appropriate where there is a liquid and active market for the company’s shares. Given that our liquidity analysis in Section 10.2 indicates that Canyon’s shares display a low level of liquidity, we do not consider it appropriate to adopt QMP as the primary methodology to value Canyon shares prior to the Proposed Transaction. We consider the QMP to be relevant for the purposes of a broad cross-check. Based on the values above, we note that the valuation under the QMP approach supports the high end of our Sum-of-Parts approach. As a result, our valuation range has been solely informed by the values derived under the Sum-of-Parts approach.

The difference in the valuation results under our two valuation approaches is explained by the following:

• It is not uncommon for the market price of companies that have exploration and development assets to differ from a valuation prepared by an independent technical specialist for the purposes of an Independent Expert’s Report. This is because investors are not necessarily guided by the principles of principles of VALMIN and ASIC’s Regulatory Guides in forming their valuations, allowing the market price to reflect the potential upside or downside expectations associated with the exploration assets should market conditions change.

57

• As determined by our liquidity analysis in Section 10.2, Canyon shares display a low level of liquidity, therefore the market price may not reflect the underlying value of a Canyon share.

• We have instructed ERM to prepare its ITSR in compliance with the VALMIN Code and other industry guidelines, whilst also adhering to guidance provided by ASIC’s Regulatory Guides. Market participants are not governed by these industry codes and therefore may be basing their valuations on different technical and economic assumptions.

Based on the results above we consider the value of a Canyon share to be between $0.186 and $0.345, with a preferred value of $0.263.

We note our sum-of-parts value under our low, preferred and high scenarios is influenced by the notional capital raise, which we have assumed will be conducted at pre-announcement pricing levels in accordance with RG111. We note the pre-announcement pricing levels are significantly higher than Canyon’s current share price.

58

11. Valuation of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction

11.1 Sum-of-parts valuation

We have employed the Sum-of-Parts methodology in estimating the fair market value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis), by aggregating the estimated fair market values of its underlying assets and liabilities, having consideration of the following:

• Value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project

• The notional funding for the development of the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction

• The value of Canyon’s interest in the residual resources and exploration potential of the Minim Martap Project not included in the DCF valuation

• The value of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities not included in the DCF valuation

• Present value of Canyon’s corporate overhead costs

• The impact of the Proposed Transaction

• The application of a minority discount.

Our Sum-of-Parts valuation is set out in the table below:

Valuation of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction Ref.	Low Preferred High
	$'000 $'000 $'000
Value of Canyon's interest in the Minim Martap Project 10.1.1	45,000 80,000 115,000
Value of Canyon's interest in residual resources at the Minim Martap Project 10.1.2	276,923 484,615 692,308
Cash received from notional capital raising 11.1.2	150,296 142,199 134,102
Value of Canyon's other assets and liabilities 11.1.3	240,155 240,155 240,155
Present value of Canyon's corporate overhead costs 10.1.5	(58,577) (53,025) (47,473)
Total value of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction (control)	653,797 893,944 1,134,092
Number of shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction 11.1.4	3,820,440,952 3,593,093,783 3,424,855,762
Value per Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (control)	0.171 0.249 0.331
Minority discount 11.1.5	26% 23% 20%
Value per Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (minority, undiluted)	0.127 0.192 0.265
Value per Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (minority, diluted) 11.1.6	0.127 0.191 0.264

Source: BDO analysis

We have assumed an AUD/USD exchange rate of 0.650 for all AUD/USD conversions throughout our valuation, based on consensus analyst forecasts sourced from S&P Capital IQ and the one-month historical average.

59

Based on the above, we have assessed the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis) to be in the range of $0.127 and $0.264, with a preferred value of $0.191.

11.1.1. Value of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction

The DCF valuation of the Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction will be unchanged from the DCF valuation of the Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project prior to the Proposed Transaction. The Proposed Transaction will only change the nature of the funding available to Canyon, which based on our notional funding assumptions prior the Proposed Transaction and following the Proposed Transaction, respectively, will not impact the cash flows that flow to Canyon shareholders from the Minim Martap Project

The notional funding assumptions for the development of the Minim Martap Project, prior to the Proposed Transaction, comprised the undrawn amount of the existing AFG Credit Facility of US$114.0 million ($175.4 million), existing cash reserves in the range of $93.2 million and $108.6 million (after considering funds received from Tranche 1 of the Placement, the Option Exercise and the Tranche 2 Shares to be issued to Afriland net of the proposed investment in Camrail) and a notional equity raising in the range of $239.9 million and $256.1 million. Further details of the notional funding assumptions used in our valuation of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction are set out in Section 10.1.3.

As part of the Proposed Transaction, Canyon will raise approximately $100 million through the issue of the EEA Shares. Following the Proposed Transaction, we have assumed that Canyon would also fund the capital expenditure requirement for the development of the Minim Martap Project with its cash reserves (considering Canyon’s existing cash reserves outlined above and the funds raised from the EEA Shares), the undrawn amount of the existing AFG Credit Facility and a notional equity raising.

Additionally, we note that all technical, economic and other input assumptions (including the discount rate) are identical to those adopted in the valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project in the absence of the Proposed Transaction as assessed in Section 10.1.1.

Considering this and given that the drawdown of the remaining undrawn amount of the existing AFG Credit Facility are equivalent both prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, the cash flows flowing to Canyon shareholders from the Minim Martap Project in the Adjusted Model are the same prior to and following the Proposed Transaction.

Therefore, despite the nature of the funding for the development of the Minim Martap Project changing as a result of the Proposed Transaction, the DCF valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project does not change. We estimate the value of Canyon’s beneficial interest in the Minim Martap Project to be in the range of $45 million and $115 million, with a preferred value of $80 million.

Our notional funding assumptions for the development of the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction are set out below.

11.1.2. Notional funding following the Proposed Transaction

As set out in Section 10.1.2, the capital expenditure requirements over the life of mine of the Minim Martap Project are approximately US$611.1 million (on a real basis), which was expected to be incurred from 1 July 2025. After considering the corporate costs expected to be incurred by Canyon until the Minim Martap Project becomes cash flow positive, the revenue to be generated from the bauxite production at the Minim Martap Project from CY2026, the capital expenditure already incurred by Canyon prior to the

60

Valuation Date, and the conversion of cash flows into nominal terms based on the inflation assumptions in Section 10.1.1, the total funding requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project is approximately US$332.8 million ($511.9 million) (on a nominal basis). We note that this is equivalent to the total funding requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project prior to the Proposed Transaction.

We have considered how Canyon would be able to fund the development of the Minim Martap Project following the Proposed Transaction. As detailed in Section 10.1.1, Canyon will need to solely fund the development of the Minim Martap Project.

Following the Proposed Transaction, we have assumed that Canyon will also utilise the remaining undrawn balance of the AFG Credit Facility of US$114.0 million ($175.4 million) to fund part of the capital expenditure requirements. After considering the remaining undrawn balance of the AFG Credit Facility, we have assumed the Company would use its existing cash reserves (after considering the impact of the Proposed Transaction) and a notional capital raise to fund the remaining capital expenditure requirement for the development of the Minim Martap Project.

We have adjusted Canyon’s existing cash reserves for the impact of the Proposed Transaction, being the cash to be received from the issue of the EEA Shares. The issue of the EEA Shares will make available approximately $100.5 million, through the issue of 386,648,236 shares at the Offer Price of $0.26. Therefore, following the Proposed Transaction, Canyon’s adjusted cash balance is in the range of $193.8 million and $209.1 million (see Section 11.1.3 for further details). After considering Canyon’s adjusted cash reserves, we have assumed Canyon will raise the remaining shortfall through a notional equity raise.

Further, we note that there could also be other forms of financing available for the Minim Martap Project such as offtake prepayments and metal streaming arrangements which we have not considered, that could provide additional funding if required. However, in accordance with RG 170, at the time of our Report, we do not have reasonable grounds to assume one of these funding arrangements

A summary of the notional funding of the Minim Martap Project in the following the Proposed Transaction is set out below:

Notional funding of the Minim Martap Project	Low $'000 Preferred $'000 High $'000
Total expenditure requirement (a)	511,926 511,926 511,926
Existing undrawn AFG Credit Facility	175,385 175,385 175,385
Total funding obtained through existing debt facilities (b)	175,385 175,385 175,385
Shortfall (to be obtained through notional equity raising) (a) – (b)	336,542 336,542 336,542
Less: Canyon's adjusted cash balance following the Proposed Transaction	(193,761) (201,453) (209,145)
Cash required to be raised by Canyon through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	142,781 135,089 127,397

Source: BDO analysis

Therefore, the Company has a shortfall in the range of $127.4 million and $142.8 million, with a midpoint value of $135.1 million, for the development of the Minim Martap Project. This shortfall is present after accounting for the Company’s utilisation of adjusted cash reserves, including proceeds from Tranche 1 and Tranche 2 (EEA Shares and Afriland Shares) of the Placement and the Options Exercise. This funding shortfall is assumed to be met through a notional equity raising, which is detailed in the following section.

61

11.1.2.1.Notional equity funding

The funding shortfall in the Adjusted Model (after considering the AFG Credit Facility, existing cash reserves and working capital requirements) is in the range of $127.4 million and $142.8 million. Therefore, we have included a notional equity raising to fulfil Canyon’s funding requirements.

To determine the required amount to be raised, we have grossed up the funding shortfall to reflect the costs likely to be incurred in conducting the capital raising. We have assessed the costs of a capital raising to be approximately 5% of the total funds raised. Therefore, Canyon will be required to raise an equivalent of between $188.8 million and $205.0 million (inclusive of costs) to meet the funding shortfall, which is set out in the table below:

Cash received from notional capital raising	Low Preferred High
	$'000 $'000 $'000
Equity funding required ($'000)	142,781 135,089 127,397
Placement fee ($'000)	7,515 7,110 6,705
Cash required to be raised through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	150,296 142,199 134,102

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

To determine the likely price at which Canyon would have to place its shares to a third party or to current shareholders under a notional capital raising to fulfil the funding shortfall, we considered the VWAP of Canyon’s shares and the discount at which shares have been issued by ASX-listed companies when compared to the respective companies’ 30-day VWAP prior to the announcement of the respective placement.

We considered the discount at which shares have been issued by ASX-listed companies to raise capital over the last three years. A summary of our results is set out in the table below:

	Placement size: $100 to $200 million	Placement as % of market cap. (30% to 60%)	Market cap: $300 to $500 million	All companies
All ASX
Number of Placements	56	141	86	2,141
Mean discount	10.03%	25.48%	13.58%	19.68%
Median discount	7.71%	19.23%	12.52%	16.06%
ASX Mining
Number of Placements	24	108	45	1,287
Mean discount	12.58%	23.40%	12.44%	19.79%
Median discount	8.77%	18.72%	11.95%	16.63%

Source: BDO analysis

Within our analysis, we have analysed discounts for capital raisings in which the amount raised was between $100 million and $200 million. The median placement discount for all ASX-listed companies and ASX-listed mining companies was 7.71% and 8.77%, respectively.

We note that the size of the notional equity raising would be in the range of approximately 36.1% to 40.5% of Canyon’s market capitalisation after the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. Therefore, we have analysed discounts for equity raisings in which the amount raised was 30% to 60% of the company’s market capitalisation at the time of the raising and found that the median placement discount for all ASXlisted companies and ASX-listed mining companies was 19.23% and 18.72%, respectively.

62

We have also assessed the discounts of capital raisings for companies with market capitalisations between $300 and $500 million (a band in which Canyon’s post-Proposed Transaction market capitalisation falls). The median discount across all ASX-listed companies and ASX-listed mining companies in this band was 12.52% and 11.95%, respectively.

Given that the notional equity raise would be in the range of approximately 36.1% to 40.5% of Canyon’s current market capitalisation, we have weighted our analysis of an appropriate placement discount more towards the analysis of this metric. Therefore, we consider a placement discount in the range of 10% to 20% to be appropriate.

In section 11.2 of our Report, we assess the post announcement quoted market price of Canyon shares. From this analysis, we assessed the value of a Canyon share to be between $0.170 to $0.210, on a minority interest basis. Applying a discount in the range of 10% to 20% to the assessed value of a Canyon share following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction results in an assumed notional equity raising price of between $0.136 and $0.189 per share.

We acknowledge that the notional capital raising would likely take place in the future (following the use of the Company’s adjusted cash balance and AFG Credit Facility) once the Company is producing, at which point the Canyon share price may have received a re-rating from the market. It is uncertain how a potential re-rating would affect the Canyon share price. As such, we are only able to rely on current share prices as guide for the price at which Canyon could raise capital.

The table below summarises the number of shares that Canyon would need to issue, in order to cover the funding shortfall, based on the assessed notional equity raising price.

Number of shares issued under notional equity raising	Low Preferred High
Cash required to be raised through notional equity raising, net of costs ($'000)	150,296 142,199 134,102
Quoted market price (minority) ($/share)	$0.170 $0.190 $0.210
Assessed placement discount	20.0% 15.0% 10.0%
Capital raising price ($/share)	$0.136 $0.162 $0.189
Number of shares issued under notional equity raising	1,105,118,281 877,771,112 709,533,091

Source: BDO analysis

We note that the number of shares issued under the notional equity raising have been included in the total number of Canyon shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction for the purposes of our valuation of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (see Section 11.1.4)

11.1.3. Value of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities

Other assets and liabilities of Canyon represent the assets and liabilities at have not been specifically addressed elsewhere in our Sum-of-Parts valuation. From our discussions with Canyon and analysis of these other assets and liabilities, outlined in the table below, we do not believe that there is a material difference between their book value and their fair value unless an adjustment has been noted below.

The table below represents a summary of the assets and liabilities identified:

Statement of Financial Position	Ref	Audited as at 30-Jun-25	Adjusted Value Low	Adjusted Value High
		$000	$'000	$'000
CURRENT ASSETS
Cash and cash equivalents	a)	11,478	193,761	209,145

63

Statement of Financial Position	Ref	Audited as at 30-Jun-25	Adjusted Value Low	Adjusted Value High
		$000	$'000	$'000
Trade and other receivables		182	182	182
Other assets		1,595	1,595	1,595
TOTAL CURRENT ASSETS		13,255	195,538	210,922
NON-CURRENT ASSETS
Investments	b)	3,722	49,876	34,491
Plant and equipment	c)	1,204	442	442
Capitalised exploration expenditure	d)	32,580	-	-
Other assets		799	799	799
TOTAL NON-CURRENT ASSETS		38,305	51,117	35,733
TOTAL ASSETS		51,560	246,655	246,655
CURRENT LIABILITIES
Trade and other payables		6,443	6,443	6,443
Provisions		56	56	56
TOTAL CURRENT LIABILITIES		6,499	6,499	6,499
TOTAL LIABILITIES		6,499	6,499	6,499
NET ASSETS		45,060	240,155	240,155

Source: Audited accounts of Canyon for the year ended 30 June 2025, Canyon management accounts for the period ended 31 October 2025 and BDO analysis

We have not undertaken a review of Canyon’s unaudited management accounts in accordance with Australian Auditing and Assurance Standards Board’s Standard 2405 Review of Historical Financial Information Other than a Financial Report, and do not express an opinion on this financial information. However, nothing has come to our attention as a result our procedures that would suggest the financial information within the management accounts has not been prepared on a reasonable basis.

We have been advised that there has not been any other significant change in the net assets of Canyon since 30 June 2025 and that the above assets and liabilities represent their fair market value at 30 June 2025 apart from the adjustments detailed below. Where the above balances differ materially from the position at 30 June 2025 we have obtained supporting documentation to validate the adjusted values used, which provides reasonable grounds for reliance on the unaudited financial information.

We note the following in relation to our valuation of Canyon’s other assets and liabilities.

Note a) Cash and cash equivalents

We have adjusted the audited cash position at 30 June 2025 to reflect the cash balance as at 31 October 2025. We have obtained bank statements supporting the 31 October 2025 bank balances per Canyon’s management accounts. The increase from the audited 30 June 2025 accounts largely reflects the Company’s draw down of approximately US$26.0 million under the AFG Credit Facility and the $35.6 million received from the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares, which was completed on 2 October 2025.

We have made an adjustment to the 31 October 2025 cash balance for the cash received from the Option Exercise. As detailed in Section 4, the EEA Options were exercised on 18 November 2025, with the 137,415,183 EEA Options exercised at the exercise price of $0.07. We have adjusted Canyon’s cash balance for the $9.6 million received from the Option Exercise.

We have also made an adjustment for the cash received from options that have been exercised between the 31 October 2025 management accounts and the date of this Report. We have added cash for the

64

exercise of options on 1 December 2025 of $0.38 million (1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.17, 1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.12 and 1,000,000 options at an exercise price of $0.09).

We have also made an adjustment for the cash to be received from the issue of the Tranche 2 Shares to Afriland. As detailed in Section 4, Afriland have agreed to subscribe for 266,559,380 new fully paid ordinary shares at an issue price of $0.26 per share. The issue of the Afriland Shares has been approved by Shareholders, however, the funding is still subject to Afriland obtaining any and all necessary in country approvals. We consider it reasonable to assume that the funds subscribed by Afriland will be received by Canyon. For the purposes of our valuation of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction, we have adjusted Canyon’s cash balance for the $69.3 million to be received from the issue of the Afriland Shares. We have adjusted the number of shares on issue in Canyon, to reflect the issue of the Afriland Shares in section 11.1.4.

Additionally, we have made an adjustment for the cash to be received from the issue of the EEA Shares as part of the Proposed Transaction. As detailed in Section 4, Canyon will issue 386,648,236 new fully paid ordinary shares at an issue price of $0.26 per share. We have adjusted Canyon’s cash balance for the $100.5 million to be received from the issue of the EEA Shares.

We have also made an adjustment for Canyon’s intended increased investment in Camrail using the proceeds from the Proposed Transaction. As detailed in Section 4, Canyon has expressed its intention to increase its holding in Camrail from 9.1% to approximately 35%. An exact figure for this investment has not been agreed upon but indicative terms are in the range of US$20 million ($30.8 million) and US$30 million ($46.2 million) and we have adjusted Canyons’ cash balance to reflect this. We have presented a range for Canyon’s cash and cash equivalents, with the lower proposed cost for the increased investment in Camrail forming our high valuation and the high end of the cost forming our low valuation.

Our adjustments to cash and cash equivalents have been summarised in the below table:

Cash and cash equivalents	Low $'000	High $'000
Cash and cash equivalents as at 31-Oct-25	60,081	60,081
Add: cash received from the Option Exercise (18-Nov-25)	9,619	9,619
Add: cash received from the exercise of options (1-Dec-25)	380	380
Add: cash to be received from issue of the Afriland Shares	69,305	69,305
Add: cash to be received from issue of the EEA Shares	100,529	100,529
Less: proposed investment in Camrail	(46,154)	(30,769)
Canyon's adjusted cash and cash equivalents balance	193,761	209,145

Source: Canyon’s management accounts for the period ended 31 October 2025 and BDO analysis

Note b) Investments

We have adjusted the book value of investments from $3.72 million as at 30 June 2025 to reflect Canyon’s intention to increase its holding in Camrail from 9.1% to approximately 35%. As noted above, an exact figure for this investment has not been agreed upon but indicative terms are in the range of US$20 million ($30.8 million) and US$30 million ($46.2 million). We have adjusted Canyon’s investment balance to reflect the proposed increased investment, with the lower proposed cost forming our high valuation and the high end of the cost forming our low valuation.

Our adjustment to Canyon’s book value of investments has been summarised in the below table:

65

Investments	Low $'000	High $'000
Investments as at 30-Jun-25	3,722	3,722
Add: proposed increased investment in Camrail	46,154	30,769
Canyon's adjusted investments balance ('000)	49,876	34,491

Source: BDO analysis

Note c) Plant and equipment

The book value of plant and equipment of $1.20 million as at 30 June 2025 includes $0.76 million related to field equipment. Therefore, we have adjusted the book value of plant and equipment to $0.44 million as the value of the field equipment is reflected in the valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project and the residual resources, which have been valued separately in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.3, respectively.

Note d) Capitalised exploration expenditure

We have adjusted the book value of capitalised exploration expenditure of $32.58 million as at 30 June 2025 to nil, as it is reflected in the valuation of Canyon’s interest in the Minim Martap Project and the residual resources, which have been valued separately in Sections 10.1.1 and 10.1.3, respectively.

11.1.4. Number of shares on issue following the Proposed Transaction

As set out in Section 4, the number of shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction is 2,062,115,055, which is inclusive of the Canyon shares issued under Tranche 1 of the Placement and the Option Exercise. We have adjusted the number of shares on issues for the 266,559,380 Tranche 2 Shares to be issued to Afriland. We have also adjusted the shares on issue on issue for the Tranche 2 Shares to be issued to EEA as part of the Proposed Transaction. Additionally, we adjusted the number of shares on issue to account for the notional equity raise as detailed in section 11.1.2.

Share structure following the Proposed Transaction	Ref	Low	Preferred	High
Canyon shares on issue prior to the Proposed Transaction	4	2,062,115,055	2,062,115,055	2,062,115,055
Afriland Shares to be issued	4	266,559,380	266,559,380	266,559,380
EEA shares to be issued as part of the Proposed Transaction	4	386,648,236	386,648,236	386,648,236
Canyon shares issued through notional equity raising	11.1.3	1,105,118,281	877,771,112	709,533,091
Total ordinary Canyon shares on issue following the
Proposed Transaction (including the notional equity		3,820,440,952	3,593,093,783	3,424,855,762
raising)

Source: BDO analysis

We note that the low number of shares on issue forms the basis for the high end of our valuation range and the high number of shares on issue forms the low end of our valuation range.

11.1.5. Minority interest discount

As outlined in Section 3.3 of our Report, in assessing fairness we have compared the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a control basis to the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction on a minority interest basis as we are required to do by RG 111. A minority discount is based on the inverse of the control premium and is calculated using the formula 1-(1/(1+control

66

premium)). Based on our analysis in Appendix 4, we consider an appropriate control premium to be in the range of 25% to 35% with our preferred being a midpoint of 30%. This assessed control premium range gives rise to a rounded minority discount in the range of 20% to 26%, with our preferred being a rounded midpoint of 23%.

11.1.6. Value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction on a diluted basis

In assessing the value of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction, on a diluted basis, we have adjusted for the cash that would be received upon the notional exercise of the in-the-money options and considered the increase in the number of shares outstanding from this exercise and vested performance rights. We have assessed whether the options would be exercised under each of the low, preferred and high valuation scenarios of the undiluted value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction.

The value of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction on a diluted basis in set out in the table below.

Value of aCanyonshare following the Proposed Transaction (fully diluted basis)	Ref	Low $'000	Preferred $'000	High $'000
Value of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction (control, undiluted)		653,797	893,944	1,134,092
Add: cash from notional exercise of in-the-money options and vestedperformance rights	a	1,500	1,500	1,500
Value of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction (control, undiluted)		655,297	895,444	1,135,592
Divided by: adjusted shares on issue following the Proposed
Transaction including notional exercise of in-the-money	b	3,835,440,952	3,608,093,783	3,439,855,762
options and vested performance rights
Value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (control, diluted)		0.171	0.248	0.330
Minority discount	11.1.5	26%	23%	20%
Value per Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (minority)		0.127	0.191	0.264

Source: BDO analysis

Note a) Cash received from notional exercise of in-the-money options

The Canyon share price used to determine whether the options are in-the-money was the undiluted value per share following the Proposed Transaction, on a minority interest basis (see Section 11.1) of $0.127, $0.192 and $0.265 under our low, preferred and high scenarios, respectively.

A summary of the options that are deemed to be in-the-money under our low, preferred and high scenarios, is presented in the table below:

Description	Number	Low	Preferred	High
Unlisted options exercisable at $0.100 expiring on 08-Oct-27	15,000,000	In-the-money	In-the-money	In-the-money
Total number of "in-the-money" options		15,000,000	15,000,000	15,000,000
Total cash raised from notional exercise of in-the-money options ($)		1,500,000	1,500,000	1,500,000

Source: BDO analysis

67

We also note that Canyon 2,000,000 performance rights on issue pursuant to various terms outlined in Section 5.7. We have made an adjustment concerning the remaining performance rights in our valuation of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction, on the basis that there is sufficient reasonable grounds on which to assess the likelihood of the conditions for vesting being met or to quantify any value accretion should the vesting conditions be met. We note that we have not assumed any vesting for the non-market vesting conditions on the basis we have no reasonable grounds to do so. We have detailed our assessment in the table below:

Vesting Condition	No. of Performance Rights	Vested
Complete rail access agreement	1,000,000	No
Executed binding offtake agreement for a minimum of 2 Mt for a 12-month period	1,000,000	No
Total number of Performance Rights	2,000,000

Source: BDO analysis

If we were to treat the Performance Rights as vested, it would have not have a material impact on our valuation conclusions.

Note b) Adjusted shares on issue including the notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights

The notional exercise of the in-the-money options and vested performance rights would increase the number of shares on issue as summarised below.

Adjusted shares on issue following the Proposed	Low	Preferred	High
Transaction (diluted)
Canyon shares outstanding following the Proposed Transaction (including notional equity raise)	3,820,440,952	3,593,093,783	3,424,855,762
Add: shares issued from notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights	15,000,000	15,000,000	15,000,000
Total shares outstanding including notional exercise of in-the-money options and vested performance rights	3,835,440,952	3,608,093,783	3,439,855,762

Source: BDO analysis

11.2 Post announcement pricing of Canyon

We have analysed movements in Canyon’s share price since the Proposed Transaction was announced. A graph of Canyon’s share price and training volume following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction is set out below.

68

==> picture [483 x 244] intentionally omitted <==

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

Canyon share price and ASX trading volume history
0.350 8.00
0.300 7.00
6.00
0.250
5.00
0.200 Announcement of the
4.00
Proposed Transaction
0.150
3.00
0.100
2.00
0.050 1.00
0.000 0.00
Volume Closing Price
Closing share price ($)
Trading volume (millions)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

The Proposed Transaction was announced on 25 September 2025. On the day of the announcement, the share price closed at $0.260, down from the closing price of $0.275 on the last trading day prior to the announcement (being 23 September 2025). On the day of the announcement, 1,323,731 shares were traded, representing approximately 0.07% of Canyon’s issued capital. Following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the closing share price of Canyon has fluctuated from a low of $0.165 on 26 November 2025, to a high of $0.265 on 29 September 2025.

To provide further analysis of the market prices of a Canyon share following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, we have also considered the weighted average market price for the below periods following the announcement up to 10 December 2025:

Share price per unit	10-Dec-25	5 days	10 days	15 days	20 days	55 days (to announcement)
Closing price	$0.180
VWAP		$0.181	$0.179	$0.173	$0.176	$0.224

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

In accordance with the guidance in RG 111, we also consider it appropriate to assess the liquidity of Canyon’s shares before utilising the QMP methodology to value a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction. An analysis of the volume of trading in Canyon’s shares over the period following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, up to 10 December 2025, is set out below.

Trading days	Closing share price low	Closing share price high	Cumulative volume traded	As a % of issued capital
1 day	$0.180	$0.180	281,666	0.01%
5 days	$0.180	$0.185	2,221,429	0.11%
10 days	$0.170	$0.185	4,619,696	0.22%
15 days	$0.165	$0.185	8,852,353	0.43%
20 days	$0.165	$0.190	12,420,731	0.60%
55 days (to announcement)	$0.165	$0.265	78,007,056	3.91%

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

69

This table indicates that Canyon’s shares have continued to display a low level of liquidity since the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, with 3.91% of its shares being traded over the 55 trading days since the announcement. We consider the share price over the period following the announcement to display high levels of volatility, with the closing share price ranging from $0.165 to $0.265 in the period from 25 September 2025 up to 10 December 2025, reflecting a maximum 37.7% movement in the closing share price. This may indicate uncertainty in the market about the potential transaction.

Additionally, we have considered the bid-ask spread of Canyon’s shares for the 55-day trading period from 25 September 2025 to 10 December 2025, which is outlined in the graph below.

Bid-Ask Spread

==> picture [473 x 217] intentionally omitted <==

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

0.300 0.016
0.014
0.250
0.012
0.200
0.010
0.150 0.008
0.006
0.100
0.004
0.050
0.002
0.000 0.000
Spread Bid Ask
Spread ($)
Share price ($)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

As the graph above shows, Canyon’s bid-ask spread following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction is narrow. We calculated the average spread over the period to be $0.008, which equates to approximately 3.75% of the average prevailing share price over that period. We note that this is higher than the bid-ask spread of 3.38% calculated over the 12-month period to 22 September 2025 prior to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, as set out in Section 10.2.

We have considered where there are other market factors which could influence the Canyon share price following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, by analysing movements in the S&P/ASX All Ordinaries Index, as a proxy for the broader market, the S&P/ASX 300 Metals and Mining Index, as a proxy for Canyon’s industry, and the 3M aluminium futures price, as a broad indicator of demand for bauxite in its primary end use market, over the same post-announcement period.

Our analysis is depicted in the graph below, with each factor rebased to Canyon’s share price following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction in order to illustrate the relative performance of the indices and Canyon’s share price.

70

Post-Announcement Pricing of Canyon against Indicies

==> picture [458 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

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

0.29
0.27
0.25
0.23
0.21
0.19
0.17
0.15
Canyon Share Price ($) Aluminium Price (US$/t)
S&P/ASX All Ordinaries Index ($) S&P/ASX 300 Metals & Mining Index ($)
Price (rebased to Canyon's Share Price)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

We note that the performance of the S&P/ASX All Ordinaries Index, the S&P/ASX 300 Metals and Mining Index, and aluminium price has remained relatively flat over the period post-announcement. Over this period, Canyon’s share price has experienced higher levels of volatility. Given this, it is unlikely that external factors have been driving the post announcement movements of the Company’s share price.

Based on the above analysis, we consider there to be insufficient liquidity in Canyon’s share price in order to utilise post-announcement pricing as our primary approach to valuing the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction. However, we have used the valuation under this approach as a broad cross check to our primary valuation utilising the sum-of-parts methodology.

Our assessment of the value of a Canyon share based on post announcement pricing, utilising the QMP of Canyon’s shares following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, is in the range of $0.170 and $0.210, with a preferred value being a midpoint value of $0.190.

71

11.3 Assessment of the value of Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction

The results of the valuations performed are summarised in the table below:

Valuation of a Canyon share following to the Proposed Transaction	Ref.	Low $	Preferred $	High $
Sum-of-Parts (minority interest and diluted basis)	11.1	0.127	0.191	0.264
QMP (minority interest basis)	11.2	0.170	0.190	0.210

Source: BDO analysis

As previously discussed in Section 10.3, we consider the Sum-of-Parts approach to be the most appropriate valuation methodology to value a Canyon share, with the QMP approach being a relevant cross-check to our valuation under the Sum-of-Parts approach. Based on the values above, we consider the valuation under the QMP approach to be broadly supportive of the valuation under the Sum-of-Parts approach.

Based on the results above we consider the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis) to be between $0.127 and $0.264, with a preferred value of $0.191.

72

12. Is the Proposed Transaction fair?

A comparison of the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a control and diluted basis), and the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis), is set out below:

		Ref	Low	Preferred	Preferred	High
			$		$	$
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a control basis (diluted)		10.3	0.186		0.263	0.345
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed minority basis (diluted)	Transaction on a	11.3	0.127		0.191	0.264
Source:BDO analysis
The above valuation ranges are graphically presented below:
	Valuation Summary
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed
Transaction on a control basis (diluted)
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed
Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)
	0.000	0.100	0.200		0.300	0.400
			Value	($)

The above pricing indicates that, in absence of a superior proposal, the Proposed Transaction is not fair for Shareholders, as the values of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority interest and diluted basis) is lower than prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling and diluted basis) under our assessed low, preferred and high valuations.

73

13. Is the Proposed Transaction reasonable?

We have considered the analysis below, in terms of the following:

• Advantages and disadvantages of the Proposed Transaction.

• Other considerations, including the position of Shareholders if the Proposed Transaction does not proceed and the consequences of not approving the Proposed Transaction.

In our opinion, the position of Shareholders if the Proposed Transaction is approved is more advantageous than the position if the Proposed Transaction is not approved. Accordingly, in the absence of any other relevant information and/or a superior proposal we consider that the Proposed Transaction is reasonable for Shareholders.

13.1 Alternative Proposal

We are unaware of any alternative proposal that might offer the Shareholders of Canyon a premium over the value resulting from the Proposed Transaction.

13.2 Practical level of control

If the Proposed Transaction is approved, EEA’s interest in Canyon will increase to a maximum of 62.4%. We note that prior to Proposed Transaction, but following the issue of the Tranche 1 Shares and the Option Exercise, EEA’s holding in Canyon was 55.6%.

When shareholders are required to approve an issue that relates to a company there are two types of approval levels. These are general resolutions and special resolutions. A general resolution requires 50% of shares to be voted in favour to approve a matter and a special resolution required 75% of shares on issue to be voted in favour to approve a matter. If the Proposed Transaction is approved then EEA will continue to be able to block special and general resolutions, and pass general resolutions.

EEA’s control of Canyon following the Proposed Transaction will continue to be significant when compared to all other shareholders, with the next largest shareholder being WMA Holding FZCO, who will hold relevant interest of 7.6%.

13.3 Advantages of approving the Proposed Transaction

We have considered the following advantages in our assessment of whether the Proposed Transaction is reasonable.

Advantage	Description
Funds raised from issue of the EEA Shares will be used for the capital expenditure requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project	The issue of the EEA Shares will make available approximately $100 million, which in addition to the other funds raised from the Placement, the Option Exercise and the Company’s existing cash reserves, will be used in funding the capital expenditure requirements for the development of the Minim Martap Project and increasing the Company’s investment in Camrail. As mentioned in Section 13.5 below, without the funds raised from the EEA Shares, Canyon would need to raise considerable further equity and/or source additional debt financing to fund the development of the Minim Martap Project.

74

Advantage	Description
	Additionally, the funding secured through the issue of the EEA Shares will provide capital during the initial development phase of the Minim Martap Project, where the Project carries the greatest risk, particularly given the current 20-year life of mine and significant residual resources outside the current mine plan. Securing funding during this phase strengthens Canyon’s financial position and will enhance its ability to source additional funding through debt or equity funding at a future date, which such funding, would likely be on more favourable terms than the Company could achieve currently during the development phase.
Having a strategic partner like EEA may make it easier for the Company to access further financing for the Minim Martap Project	EEA is already a substantial shareholder in Canyon, and if the Proposed Transaction is approved, EEA’s interest will increase to a maximum of 62.58%. The continued involvement of EEA as a strategic investor is expected to provide greater certainty around funding for the Minim Martap Project, which requires significant upfront development expenditure and carries elevated risk during early development stages. Approval of the Proposed Transaction reduces this risk by securing long-term financial support and commitment from EEA, which may improve market confidence and enhance Canyon’s ability to negotiate future financing on more favourable terms.
EEA may be able to assist in further negotiations with the Government of Cameroon and leverage other networks and connections important to the development of the Minim Martap Project	As discussed in Section 6, EEA has served as a key part of negotiations with the Government of Cameroon regarding the Mining License for the Minim Martap Project. Future negotiations between Canyon and the Government of Cameroon may be assisted by EEA, such as the outstanding mining plans for the Makan and Ngoundal tenements currently pending approval. Additionally, EEA’s experience in African mining projects and established relationships with regional stakeholders reduces regulatory risk and will likely support the timely progression of the Minim Martap Project.
Investment in Camrail will derisk the transport and logistics network for the Minim Martap Project	As part of the funding secured from the Proposed Transaction, Canyon intends to increase its interest in Camrail from 9.1% to approximately 35%. The increase in investment in Camrail will likely improve the Company’s ability to secure reliable rail transport for the bauxite produced from the Minim Martap Project. The greater influence over Camrail’s operations is anticipated to support timely ore delivery to the Douala Port and better align transport infrastructure with the Minim Martap Project’s production schedule. This investment is also consistent with

75

Advantage	Description
	Canyon’s strategy to reduce supply chain risk and improve long- term cost efficiency for ore haulage.
The share price of Canyon since the announcement of the Proposed Transaction has largely traded below the Offer Price	Under the Proposed Transaction, the funding to be received from EEA is calculated based on an Offer Price of $0.26 per share. The Offer Price represented a 9.6% discount to the 5-day VWAP up to and including 22 September 2025. However, since the Proposed Transaction was announced, Canyon shares have largely traded at a discount to the Offer Price, as detailed in Section 13.5 below. Canyon shares closed at $0.260 on the day the Proposed Transaction was announced and closed at $0.265 on the following trading day. However, since that time, Canyon’s shares have not closed above the Offer Price. As of 10 December 2025, Canyon’s closing share price was $0.180 per share. Based on recent share price history, EEA is now paying a premium to the prevailing market price, offering greater value to Shareholders.

13.4 Disadvantages of approving the Proposed Transaction

We have considered the following disadvantages in our assessment of whether the Proposed Transaction is reasonable.

Disadvantage	Description
Dilution of existing Shareholders’ interests	The issue of Canyon shares as part of the Proposed Transaction is dilutive to current Shareholders, whose collective interests will reduce from 44.4% ownership interest prior to the Proposed Transaction to a 37.4% ownership interest following the Proposed Transaction.
Presence of large cornerstone investor may reduce the possibility of a takeover offer being received in the future	Following the Proposed Transaction, EEA could have a shareholding of up to 62.4%. This could deter potential acquirers from making a takeover offer for Canyon in the future, thereby reducing the opportunity for Shareholders to receive a future premium for control. However, prior to the Proposed Transaction, EEA already holds a 55.6% interest in Canyon, which may already be a deterrent to potential acquirers making a takeover offer for Canyon.
EEA is subscribing for Tranche 2 Shares on the same terms as other investors, of whom, are only	Prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, EEA has a ‘controlling’ shareholding in Canyon. However, the issue of the EEA Shares is on the same terms as the shares issued to other strategic, institutional, sophisticated, and professional investors under Tranche 1 and to Afriland under Tranche 2 of the Placement, that

76

Disadvantage	Description
acquiring a minority interest in Canyon	are only acquiring a minority interest in Canyon. As such, EEA is not paying a premium for its controlling interest in Canyon.

13.5 Consequences of not approving the Proposed Transaction

Funding risk of the Minim Martap Project

There is considerable future risk to the development of the Minim Martap Project if the Proposed Transaction is not approved by Shareholders given the required development expenditure for the Project. The Proposed Transaction provides certainty of $100 million in funding which would be raised pursuant to the issue of the EEA Shares. If the Proposed Transaction is not approved, the Company would be required to pursue alternative funding options, such as seeking further equity or raising debt.

From an equity perspective, the quantum of equity funding required for the development of the Minim Martap Project, set out in our notional funding assumptions prior to the Proposed Transaction in section 10.1.2 of our Report, is likely unattainable for Canyon without the support of a strategic partner such as EEA. Additionally, the Placement is being executed at a small discount (9.6% discount to Canyon’s 5-day VWAP prior to the Proposed Transaction), which is largely attributable to the to the participation of EEA as a strategic investor effectively underwriting a significant share of the funding needs of the Minim Martap Project.

In the absence of EEA’s involvement, any future equity raising would likely need to be conducted at a deeper discount to attract investors, resulting in greater dilution to existing shareholders. As part of our notional capital raising prior to the Proposed Transaction, our assessed capital raising price based on Canyon’s quoted market prices and observed placement discounts, is below the Offer Price under our low, preferred and high scenarios. Further, since the Proposed Transaction was announced, Canyon’s shares have not closed above the Offer Price, meaning any future equity raising at a discount to Canyon’s current share price would be at a further discount to the Offer Price. Therefore, there is also no guarantee that any future capital raising would be on the same, or more favourable terms, than what is currently offered to EEA through the Proposed Transaction.

Alternatively, Canyon could undertake a debt funding process for the Minim Martap Project. Given the current development phase and the specific project risks of the Project, a debt facility could attract strict covenants, such as restrictions on the use of funds (as with the AFG Credit Facility). This could limit Canyon’s flexibility to allocate capital, including its proposed investment in Camrail. Additionally, the debt funding process could potentially delay the Project’s development schedule, which would negatively impact the timing of the potential value uplift for Shareholders.

Fairness on a like-for-like basis

In our assessment of whether the Proposed Transaction is fair, we have assessed the value of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a controlling and diluted basis compared to the value of a Canyon Shares following the Proposed Transaction on a minority interest and diluted basis. We have presented the value of a Canyon share prior to and following the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted), as outlined below:

77

	Low	Preferred	High
	$	$	$
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)	0.138	0.203	0.276
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)	0.127	0.191	0.264

Source: BDO analysis

We note that on a like-for-like basis, the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction is lower than our valuation range of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction under our assessed low, preferred and high valuations.

The difference in the valuation is primary driven by our notional funding assumptions. Prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, the Minim Martap funding shortfall is assumed to be met through notional equity raisings based on different capital raising prices. Prior to the Proposed Transaction, the capital raising price is based Canyon’s QMP leading up to the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, which is close to the Offer Price. However, since the announcement, Canyon’s shares have not closed above the Offer Price and as a result, our capital raising price based on Canyon’s post announcement pricing is significantly less than prior to the Proposed Transaction. This lower capital raising price following the Proposed Transaction is highly dilutive to our valuation range.

To present a comparable valuation of a Canyon Share prior to and following the Proposed Transaction, we have adopted Canyon’s post announcement pricing as our capital raising price under both scenarios. We have presented the value of a Canyon share prior to and following the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted), with an equivalent capital raising price, as outlined below:

	Low	Preferred	High
	$	$	$
Value of a Canyon Share prior to the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)	0.115	0.179	0.253
Value of a Canyon Share following the Proposed Transaction on a minority basis (diluted)	0.127	0.191	0.264

Source: BDO analysis

On a like-for-like basis and considering an equivalent capital raising price, the value of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction is higher than our valuation range of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction under our assessed low, preferred and high valuations.

Potential impact on share price

We have analysed movements in Canyon’s share price since the Proposed Transaction was announced. A graph of Canyon’s share price and trading volume leading up to, and following, the announcement of the Proposed Transaction is set out below:

78

==> picture [483 x 214] intentionally omitted <==

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

Canyon share price and ASX trading volume history
0.350 8.00
0.300 7.00
6.00
0.250
Announcement of the 5.00
0.200
Proposed Transaction 4.00
0.150
3.00
0.100
2.00
0.050 1.00
0.000 0.00
Volume Closing Price
Closing share price ($) Trading volume (millions)
----- End of picture text -----

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

The closing price of a Canyon share from 1 July 2025 to 10 December 2025 has ranged from a low of $0.165 on 7 November 2025 to a high of $0.305 on 17 September 2025.

The Proposed Transaction was announced on 25 September 2025 after Canyon shares had been placed in a trading halt since 23 September 2025. On the date that the Proposed Transaction was announced, the share price closed at $0.260, down from the closing price of $0.275 on the last trading day prior to the trading halt and announcement. Following the announcement of the Proposed Transaction, the share price of Canyon has fluctuated from a low of $0.165 to a high of $0.265.

Given the above analysis, the exact impact of the Proposed Transaction on Canyon’s share price is difficult to ascertain. We note that Canyon’s share price has declined from its high on 17 September 2025 in the lead up to, and since, the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. It is conceivable that Canyon’s share price may decline further should Shareholders not approve the Proposed Transaction.

14. Conclusion

We have considered the terms of the Proposed Transaction as outlined in the body of this Report and have concluded that, in the absence of a superior proposal, the Proposed Transaction is not fair but reasonable to Shareholders.

In our opinion, the Proposed Transaction is not fair because our valuation range of a Canyon share following the Proposed Transaction (on a minority and diluted basis) is lower than our valuation range of a Canyon share prior to the Proposed Transaction (on a controlling and diluted basis).

However, we consider the Proposed Transaction to be reasonable because the advantages of the Proposed Transaction to Shareholders are greater than the disadvantages. In particular, the Proposed Transaction will provide approximately $100 million of funding required for the development of the Minim Martap Project into production, thereby increasing the likelihood of future value uplift for Shareholders. The Offer Price also represents a premium to Canyon’s prevailing market price, which has largely traded below this level since the announcement of the Proposed Transaction. If the Proposed Transaction is not approved the Company would have to seek alternative funding which will likely be on less favourable terms. We also draw attention to Section13.5 where we considered the impact of the Proposed Transaction on a like for like basis.

79

15. Sources of information

This report has been based on the following information:

• Draft Notice of Meeting on or about the date of this report

• Audited financial statements of Canyon for the years ended 30 June 2025, 30 June 2024 and 30 June 2023

• Unaudited management accounts of Canyon for the period ended 31 October 2025

• ITSR performed by ERM

• The Minim Martap Model provided by Canyon

• Reserve Bank of Australia

• S&P Capital IQ

• IBISWorld

• International Monetary Fund

• African Development Bank Group

• Australian Bureau of Statistics

• United States Geological Survey

• The CM Group

• Bloomberg as at August 2025

• Consensus Economics

• Share registry information of Canyon

• Announcements made by Canyon available through the ASX

• Discussions with Directors and Management of Canyon

• Information in the public domain.

16. Independence

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd is entitled to receive a fee of $130,000 excluding GST and reimbursement of out of pocket expenses). The fee is not contingent on the conclusion, content or future use of this Report. Except for this fee, BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd has not received and will not receive any pecuniary or other benefit whether direct or indirect in connection with the preparation of this report.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd has been indemnified by Canyon in respect of any claim arising from BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd’s reliance on information provided by Canyon, including the non-provision of material information, in relation to the preparation of this report.

Prior to accepting this engagement BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd has considered its independence with respect to Canyon, EEA and any of their respective associates with reference to ASIC Regulatory Guide 112 ‘Independence of Experts’. In BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd’s opinion it is independent of Canyon, EEA, and their respective associates.

Neither the two signatories to this report nor BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd, have had within the past two years any professional relationship with Canyon, or their associates, other than in connection with the preparation of this report.

A draft of this report was provided to Canyon and its advisors for confirmation of the factual accuracy of its contents. No significant changes were made to this report as a result of this review.

80

BDO is the brand name for the BDO International network and for each of the BDO Member firms.

BDO (Australia) Ltd, an Australian company limited by guarantee, is a member of BDO International Limited, a UK company limited by guarantee, and forms part of the international BDO network of Independent Member Firms. BDO in Australia, is a national association of separate entities (each of which has appointed BDO (Australia) Limited ACN 050 110 275 to represent it in BDO International).

17. Qualifications

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd has extensive experience in the provision of corporate finance advice, particularly in respect of takeovers, mergers and acquisitions.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd holds an Australian Financial Services Licence issued by the Australian Securities and Investments Commission for giving expert reports pursuant to the Listing rules of the ASX and the Corporations Act.

The persons specifically involved in preparing and reviewing this report were Sherif Andrawes and Adam Myers of BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd. They have significant experience in the preparation of independent expert reports, valuations and mergers and acquisitions advice across a wide range of industries in Australia and were supported by other BDO staff.

Sherif Andrawes is a Fellow of the Institute of Chartered Accountants in England & Wales and a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand. He has over 35 years’ experience working in the audit and corporate finance fields with BDO and its predecessor firms in London and Perth. He has been responsible for over 750 public company independent expert’s reports under the Corporations Act or ASX Listing Rules and is a CA BV Specialist. Sherif Andrawes is the Corporate Finance Practice Group Leader of BDO in Western Australia, the Global Natural Resources & Energy Leader for BDO and a former Chairman of BDO in Western Australia.

Adam Myers is a Fellow of Chartered Accountants Australia & New Zealand and a member of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee. Adam’s career spans over 25 years in the audit and corporate finance areas. Adam is a CA BV Specialist and has considerable experience in the preparation of independent expert reports and valuations in general for companies in a wide number of industry sectors.

18. Disclaimers and consents

This report has been prepared at the request of Canyon for inclusion in the Notice of Meeting which will be sent to all Canyon shareholders. Canyon engaged BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd to prepare an independent expert's report to consider whether the Proposed Transaction is fair and reasonable to Shareholders of Canyon pursuant to item 7 s611 of the Corporations Act.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd hereby consents to this report accompanying the above Notice of Meeting. Apart from such use, neither the whole nor any part of this report, nor any reference thereto may be included in or with, or attached to any document, circular resolution, statement, or letter without the prior written consent of BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd takes no responsibility for the contents of the Notice of Meeting other than this report.

We have no reason to believe that any of the information or explanations supplied to us are false or that material information has been withheld. It is not the role of BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd acting as an independent expert to perform any due diligence procedures on behalf of the Company. The Directors of the Company are responsible for conducting appropriate due diligence in relation to Canyon.

81

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd provides no warranty as to the adequacy, effectiveness, or completeness of the due diligence process.

The opinion of BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd is based on the market, economic and other conditions prevailing at the date of this report. Such conditions can change significantly over short periods of time.

The forecasts provided to BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd by Canyon and its advisers are based upon assumptions about events and circumstances that have not yet occurred. Accordingly, BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd cannot provide any assurance that the forecasts will be representative of results that will actually be achieved.

With respect to taxation implications it is recommended that individual Shareholders obtain their own taxation advice, in respect of the Proposed Transaction, tailored to their own particular circumstances. Furthermore, the advice provided in this report does not constitute legal or taxation advice to the shareholders of Canyon, or any other party.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd has also considered and relied upon independent valuations for mineral assets held by Canyon. The valuer engaged for the mineral asset valuation, ERM, possess the appropriate qualifications and experience in the industry to make such assessments. The approaches adopted and assumptions made in arriving at their valuation are appropriate for this report. We have received consent from the valuer for the use of their valuation report in the preparation of this report and to append a copy of their report to this report.

The statements and opinions included in this report are given in good faith and in the belief that they are not false, misleading or incomplete.

The terms of this engagement are such that BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd is required to provide a supplementary report if we become aware of a significant change affecting the information in this report arising between the date of this report and the date of the meeting.

Yours faithfully

BDO CORPORATE FINANCE AUSTRALIA PTY LTD

==> picture [119 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Sherif Andrawes Director

==> picture [89 x 42] intentionally omitted <==

Adam Myers Director

82

A endix 1 – Glossar of Terms pp y

Reference	Definition
3M	3-month aluminium price
the Act	The Corporations Act 2001 Cth
Adjusted Model	Cash flow model for the Minim Martap Project prepared by the management of Canyon with adjustments made by BDO
AFCA	Australian Financial Complaints Authority
AFG	AFG Bank Cameroon
AFG Credit Facility	The medium-term syndicated credit facility of XAF 82 billion loaned from AFG to Camalco
AGM	Annual General Meeting
Afriland	Afriland Bourse & Investissement
Afriland Shares	The issue of approximately 266 million Canyon Shares to Afriland under Tranche 2
APES 225	Accounting Professional & Ethical Standards Board professional standard APES 225 ‘Valuation Services’
ASIC	Australian Securities and Investments Commission
ASX	Australian Securities Exchange
AUD or $	Australian Dollars
BDO	BDO Corporate Finance (WA) Pty Ltd
BEAC	Banque des États de l'Afrique Centrale
BFS	Bankable Feasibility Study
Camalco	Canyon's wholly owned subsidiary Camalco Cameroon SA
Camrail	Camrail SA
Canyon	Canyon Resources Limited
CapEx	Capital expenditure
CAPM	Capital Asset Pricing Model

83

Reference	Definition
CIF	Cost, insurance and freight
the Code	Cameroon's 2023 Mining Code
the Company	Canyon Resources Limited
Corporations Act	The Corporations Act 2001 Cth
CONSUMAF	Commission de Surveillance du marché financier de l’Afrique Centrale
CY	Calendar Year
DCF	Discounted Future Cash Flows
DFS	Definitive Feasibility Study
EEA	Eagle Eye Asset Holdings Pte Ltd
EEA Options	Approximately 137 million Canyon options held by EEA at an exercise price of $0.07
EEA Shares	The issue of approximately 386 million Canyon Shares to EEA under Tranche 2 of the Placement
ERM	ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd
FME	Future Maintainable Earnings
FSG	Financial Services Guide
GDP	Gross Domestic Product
IMF	International Monetary Fund
IRF	Inland Rail Facility
IS 214	Information Sheet 214 Mining and resources: Forward-looking statements
item 7 s611	Item 7 of Section 611 of the Corporations Act
ITSR	Independent technical assessment and valuation report
JORC Code	The Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2012 Edition)
km	Kilometres

84

Reference	Definition
LME	London Metals Exchange
MAS	Monetary Authority of Singapore
Mbalam	The Mbalam-Nanena iron ore Project located in Cameroon and the Congo
Minim Martap Project	Canyon's Minim Martap Project located in central Cameroon
Mining Convention	Canyon entering into a mining convention with the relevant Cameroonian Government ministries
Mining Licence	Canyon's mining licence for the Minim Martap Project
the Model	Cash flow model for the Minim Martap Project prepared by the management of Canyon
MoU	Memorandum of Understanding
MRE	Mineral Resource Estimate
Mtpa	Million tonnes per annum
NAV	Net Asset Value
Offer Price	The issue price of $0.26 per Canyon share as part of the Placement
OpEx	Operating expenditure
Option Exercise	The exercise of EEA Options raising approximately $10 million
Option Shares	Approximately 137 million Canyon Shares issued to EEA following the exercise of the EEA Options
PFS	Pre-Feasibility Study
Placement	The issue of Canyon Shares at the Offer Price to strategic, institutional, sophisticated, and professional investors
the Project	Canyon's Minim Martap Project located in central Cameroon
Project Company	The special purpose joint venture company formed for the purpose of operating the Minim Martap Project
	The issue of approximately 386 million EEA Shares under Tranche 2 of the
Proposed Transaction	Placement, which is subject to Shareholder approval pursuant to item 7 of section
	611 of the Corporations Act 2001
QMP	Quoted Market Price
RBA	Reserve Bank of Australia

85

Reference	Definition
our Report	This Independent Expert’s Report prepared by BDO
RG 74	Acquisitions Approved by Members
RG 111	Content of expert reports (March 2011)
RG 112	Independence of experts (March 2011)
RG 170	Prospective financial information
Section 606	Section 606 of the Corporations Act
Section 611	Section 611 of the Corporations Act
Shareholders	Shareholders of Canyon not associated with the Proposed Transaction
Shares	Approximately 790 million new fully paid ordinary shares in Canyon issued pursuant to the Placement
Sum-of-Parts	Sum-of-parts valuation
Sundance	Sundance Resources Limited
Tranche 1 Shares	The issue of approximately 137 million Canyon Shares to investors as part of the Placement
Tranche 2 Shares	The issue of approximately 653 million Canyon Shares to EEA and Afriland as part of the Placement
UK	United Kingdom
US	United States
US$	United States Dollars
USGS	United States Geological Survey
VALMIN Code	The Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuation of Mineral Assets (2015 Edition)
Valuation Date	Valuation date adopted by BDO in the Adjusted Model, being 1 November 2025
VWAP	Volume-Weighted Average Price
WACC	Weighted Average Cost of Capital
XAF	Central African CFA franc

86

Copyright © 2025 BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd

All rights reserved. No part of this publication may be reproduced, published, distributed, displayed, copied or stored for public or private use in any information retrieval system, or transmitted in any form by any mechanical, photographic or electronic process, including electronically or digitally on the Internet or World Wide Web, or over any network, or local area network, without written permission of the author. No part of this publication may be modified, changed or exploited in any way used for derivative work or offered for sale without the express written permission of the author.

For permission requests, write to BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd, at the address below:

The Directors BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd Level 9, Mia Yellagonga Tower 2 5 Spring Street Perth, WA 6000 Australia

87

A endix 2 – Valuation Methodolo ies pp g

Methodologies commonly used for valuing assets and businesses are as follows:

1 Net asset value

Asset based methods estimate the market value of an entity’s securities based on the realisable value of its identifiable net assets. Asset based methods include:

• Orderly realisation of assets method

• Liquidation of assets method

• Net assets on a going concern method

The orderly realisation of assets method estimates fair market value by determining the amount that would be distributed to entity holders, after payment of all liabilities including realisation costs and taxation charges that arise, assuming the entity is wound up in an orderly manner.

The liquidation method is similar to the orderly realisation of assets method except the liquidation method assumes the assets are sold in a shorter time frame. Since wind up or liquidation of the entity may not be contemplated, these methods in their strictest form may not be appropriate. The net assets on a going concern method estimates the market values of the net assets of an entity but does not take into account any realisation costs.

Net assets on a going concern basis are usually appropriate where the majority of assets consist of cash, passive investments or projects with a limited life. All assets and liabilities of the entity are valued at market value under this alternative and this combined market value forms the basis for the entity’s valuation.

Often the FME and DCF methodologies are used in valuing assets forming part of the overall Net assets on a going concern basis. This is particularly so for exploration and mining companies where investments are in finite life producing assets or prospective exploration areas.

These asset based methods ignore the possibility that the entity’s value could exceed the realisable value of its assets as they do not recognise the value of intangible assets such as management, intellectual property and goodwill. Asset based methods are appropriate when an entity is not making an adequate return on its assets, a significant proportion of the entity’s assets are liquid or for asset holding companies.

2 Quoted market price basis

A valuation approach that can be used in conjunction with (or as a replacement for) other valuation methods is the quoted market price of listed securities. Where there is a ready market for securities such as the ASX, through which shares are traded, recent prices at which shares are bought and sold can be taken as the market value per share. Such market value includes all factors and influences that impact upon the ASX. The use of ASX pricing is more relevant where a security displays regular high volume trading, creating a liquid and active market in that security.

3 Capitalisation of future maintainable earnings

This method places a value on the business by estimating the likely FME, capitalised at an appropriate rate which reflects business outlook, business risk, investor expectations, future growth prospects and other entity specific factors. This approach relies on the availability and analysis of comparable market data.

88

The FME approach is the most commonly applied valuation technique and is particularly applicable to profitable businesses with relatively steady growth histories and forecasts, regular capital expenditure requirements and non-finite lives.

The FME used in the valuation can be based on net profit after tax or alternatives to this such as earnings before interest and tax or earnings before interest, tax, depreciation and amortisation. The capitalisation rate or ‘earnings multiple’ is adjusted to reflect which base is being used for FME.

4 Discounted future cash flows

The DCF methodology is based on the generally accepted theory that the value of an asset or business depends on its future net cash flows, discounted to their present value at an appropriate discount rate (often called the weighted average cost of capital). This discount rate represents an opportunity cost of capital reflecting the expected rate of return which investors can obtain from investments having equivalent risks.

Considerable judgement is required to estimate the future cash flows which must be able to be reliably estimated for a sufficiently long period to make this valuation methodology appropriate.

A terminal value for the asset or business is calculated at the end of the future cash flow period and this is also discounted to its present value using the appropriate discount rate.

DCF valuations are particularly applicable to businesses with limited lives, experiencing growth, that are in a start-up phase, or experience irregular cash flows.

5 Market-based assessment

The market based approach seeks to arrive at a value for a business by reference to comparable transactions involving the sale of similar businesses. This is based on the premise that companies with similar characteristics, such as operating in similar industries, command similar values. In performing this analysis it is important to acknowledge the differences between the comparable companies being analysed and the company that is being valued and then to reflect these differences in the valuation.

89

A endix 3 – Discount Rate pp

Determining an appropriate discount rate, or cost of capital, for a project requires the identification and consideration of a number of factors that affect the returns and risks of a project, as well as the application of widely accepted methodologies for determining the returns of a project.

The discount rate applied to the forecast cash flows from a project represents the financial return that will be required before an investor would be prepared to acquire (or invest in) the project.

The capital asset pricing model (‘ CAPM ’) is commonly used in determining the market rates of return for equity type investments and project evaluations. In determining a business’ weighted average cost of capital (‘ WACC ’), the CAPM results are combined with the cost of debt funding. WACC represents the return required on the business, whilst CAPM provides the required return on an equity investment.

In our assessment of the appropriate discount rate to be adopted in the Adjusted Model, we have considered the cost of equity as the Adjusted Model includes include debt financing cash flows, and therefore, consider residual cash flows to equity holders.

Cost of equity and CAPM

CAPM is based on the theory that a rational investor would price an investment so that the expected return is equal to the risk-free rate of return plus an appropriate premium for risk. CAPM assumes that there is a positive relationship between risk and return, that is, investors are risk averse and demand a higher return for accepting a higher level of risk.

CAPM calculates the cost of equity and is calculated as follows:

CAPM
Ke	= Rf+ β x (Rm– Rf)
Where:
Ke	= expected equity investment return or cost of equity in nominal terms
Rf	= risk free rate of return
Rm	= expected market return
Rm– Rf	= market risk premium
β	= equity beta

The individual components of CAPM are discussed below.

Risk-free rate (Rf)

The risk-free rate is typically approximated by reference to a forecast long term government bond rate with a maturity approximately equivalent to the timeframe over which the returns from the assets are expected to be received.

In determining an appropriate long-term government bond rate to use as a proxy for the risk-free rate, we have considered the 10-year Australian Government bond rate around the date of our Report as well as analyst projections for this rate going forward. We have considered the Australian Government bond rate as a proxy for the risk-free rate as the Adjusted Model forecasts cash flows generated in Australian Dollar terms.

90

Based on our analysis, we have used a risk-free rate ranging from 4.0% to 4.5% in our discount rate assessment, based on the 10-year Australian Government bond rate, as sourced from the RBA.

Market risk premium (Rm – Rf)

The market risk premium represents the additional return that investors expect from an investment in a well-diversified portfolio of assets. It is common to use a historical risk premium, as expectations are not observable in practice.

We have considered the market returns of the selected benchmarks that we have used in our beta regression, against the Australian risk-free rate. Based on our analysis of historical risk premiums of developed markets such as Australia, Canada and the United States, and applying our professional judgment, we adopt an equity market risk premium of 6% in our assessment. This is further supported by market evidence across valuers and regulators.

Equity beta

Beta is a measure of volatility or systematic risk of an investment relative to the market. A beta greater than one implies that an investment’s return will outperform the market’s average return in a bullish market and underperform the market’s average return in a bearish market. On the other hand, a beta less than one implies that the business will underperform the market’s average return in a bullish market and outperform the market’s average return in a bearish market.

Equity betas are normally estimated using either an historical beta or an adjusted beta. The historical beta is obtained from the linear regression of a stock’s historical data and is based on the observed relationship between the security’s return and the returns on an index. An adjusted beta is calculated based on the assumption that the relative risk of the past will continue into the future, and is hence derived from historical data. It is then modified by the assumption that a stock will move towards the market over time, taking into consideration the industry risk factors, which make the operating risk of the company greater or less risky than comparable listed companies.

It is important to note that it is not possible to compare the equity betas of different companies without having regard to their gearing levels. It is generally accepted that a more valid analysis of betas can be achieved by ‘ungearing’ the equity beta to derive an asset beta (βa) by applying the following formula:

Asset beta (βa)
βa	= β / (1+(D/E x (1-t))
Where:
βa	= ungeared or asset beta
β	= equity beta
D	= value of debt
E	= value of equity
t	= corporate tax rate

Selected equity beta (β)

In order to assess the appropriate equity beta for the Minim Martap Project, we have had regard to the equity beta of comparable ASX-listed entities. Given the Minim Martap Project’s commodity type and location, as a bauxite development project in Cameroon, there are few directly comparable listed companies. Accordingly, in selecting comparable companies, we have considered companies with exposure to bauxite, aluminium, manganese, iron ore, or similar commodity types, and placed emphasis on companies with international operations, especially those with projects in Africa.

91

The betas below have been assessed over a 3-year period using weekly, returns, against the S&P/ASX All Ordinaries Index.

The list of comparable companies we selected are set out below:

Company	Market cap. 31-Oct-25 ($m)	Geared	Beta (β)	Gross Debt/Equity (%)	Ungeared Beta (βa)	R2
Canyon Resources Limited	380.94		1.16	-	-	0.04
African based projects
Lindian Resources Limited	533.67		1.33	-	1.33	0.03
Jupiter Mines Limited	510.85		0.91	-	0.91	0.04
Genmin Limited	22.18		1.06	71%	0.71	0.02
Arrow Minerals Limited	17.56		2.49	1%	2.47	0.05
Mean	271.06		1.45	18%	1.35	0.04
Median	266.52		1.20	1%	1.12	0.04
Australian and/or other overseas based projects
South32 Limited	14,217.82		1.19	18%	1.05	0.19
Mineral Resources Limited	9,523.39		1.94	157%	0.92	0.19
Metro Mining Limited	446.09		1.07	66%	0.73	0.04
ABx Group Limited	34.27		0.55	16%	0.50	0.00
Mean	6,055.39		1.19	64%	0.80	0.11
Median	4,984.74		1.13	42%	0.83	0.11
Combined Mean	3,163.23		1.32	41%	1.08	0.07
Combined Median	478.47		1.13	17%	0.91	0.04

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

Descriptions of the identified comparable companies are provided at the end of this appendix.

In selecting an appropriate equity beta for the Minim Martap Project, we have selected a range which predominantly captures the systematic risks of companies operating in the bauxite (or similar commodity types) industry, as opposed to a range which reflects both the systematic and specific risks of the Minim Martap Project. We have accounted for project specific risks separately as an inherent risk adjustment factor (discussed below).

We note the following similarities and differences of Canyon compared to the set of comparable companies as set out above:

• The comparable companies are all listed on the ASX and are headquartered in Australia

• A majority of the comparable companies, including Canyon, have projects located outside of Australia, with a subset presented that are focused on African based projects. ABx Group Limited is the only comparable company with projects solely located within Australia.

• All the comparable companies have exposure to at least one of bauxite, aluminium, manganese, or iron ore. However, several of the comparable companies are more diversified that Canyon, having exposure to other minerals in addition to these commodities.

92

• There are significant differences in size, as measured by market capitalisation. Canyon, which has a market capitalisation of approximately $380.9 million, is broadly aligned with the smaller African-focused peers but substantially smaller than large, diversified comparable companies such as South32 Limited and Mineral Resources Limited.

• The risk profiles of the comparable companies vary depending on factors such as project maturity, geographic location, and geopolitical considerations. Canyon’s concentration on a single African project contributes to a higher jurisdictional and development risk compared to larger, diversified peers operating across multiple and in lower-risk jurisdictions.

• Although not all companies in the list have similar metrics across each of the assessed factors, we still consider them to be comparable to Canyon as they have sufficient similarities on a holistic basis.

In selecting an appropriate ungeared beta for the Minim Martap Project, we have considered the ungeared betas of the comparable companies along with the above factors. As set out in the table above, the ungeared betas of the comparable companies, based on the weekly returns over a 3-year period, ranges from 0.50 to 2.47, with a mean and median of 1.08 and 0.91, respectively.

We note a key distinction between the beta profiles of companies with Australian and/or internationally diversified based projects, versus those with projects based in Africa. The companies operating predominantly in Australia have a mean and median ungeared beta of 0.80 and 0.83, respectively. While the companies with African based projects have a mean and median ungeared beta of 1.35 and 1.12, respectively.

Based on our analysis, we consider an appropriate ungeared equity beta to be in the range of 1.00 to 1.10 for the Minim Martap Project. We note that this beta is selected to predominantly capture the systematic risks of operating in the bauxite (and similar commodities) industry, with project specific risks accounted for separately as an inherent risk adjustment factor (discussed below).

Gearing

The discount rate assessment requires an assessment of the proportion of funding provided by debt and equity (i.e. gearing ratio) over the forecast period.

The gearing ratio should represent the level of debt that the asset can reasonably sustain (i.e. the higher the expected volatility of cash flows, the lower the debt levels that can be supported). The optimum level of gearing will differentiate between assets and will include:

• The variability in earnings streams.

• Working capital requirements.

• The level of investment in tangible assets.

• The nature and risk profile of tangible assets.

We have assumed a gross debt to equity ratio of 10% having consideration to the capital structure of Canyon over the life of the mine, based on the notional funding assumptions discussed in Sections 10.1.2 and 11.1.2. We have regeared our adopted ungeared beta range based on the adopted gearing ratio, which derived a regeared beta range of between 1.07 and 1.18.

Inherent risk adjustment alpha (α)

In our assessment of the cost of equity for Canyon’s Minim Martap Project, we have elected to apply an additional inherent risk adjustment, or "alpha", to reflect risk factors not fully captured by the beta derived from our peer group analysis.

93

While the beta component captures systematic market risk relative to the broader market, it does not fully reflect certain project-specific or company-specific risks that are particularly relevant to Canyon. Accordingly, we consider it appropriate to incorporate an alpha to ensure the cost of equity adequately reflects the risk profile of the Minim Martap Project. This adjustment accounts for the following inherent risks:

Sovereign Risk

• Cameroon is widely considered to have a higher sovereign risk profile than more developed and politically stable jurisdictions, including Australia, which can impact project timelines, regulatory certainty and security of operations. As highlighted in Section 7.1, Cameroon’s economic and geopolitical environment introduces risks for mining companies operating in a sector that remains under-explored and under-developed. By contrast, the selected peer group largely comprises companies with operations in more developed and politically stable jurisdictions, such as Australia, which typically do not attract a country risk premium.

• We note that in his assessment of country risk premiums, Professor Aswath Damodaran of the NYU Stern School of Business has estimated the risk premium of Cameroon to be 10.01%, compared to Australia which doesn’t have a country risk premium.

Stage of Development

• Several of the comparable companies have operations already in production and generating revenue. The Minim Martap Project is still in a development stage and faces heightened uncertainty across areas such as financing, regulatory approvals (such as the granting of mining permits for the Makan and Ngaoundal tenements) and joint venture arrangements.

Size Risk

• Canyon’s market capitalisation of approximately $380.9 million varies significantly from some of the comparable companies, which range from $17.56 million to $14,217.82 million with mean and median market capitalisations of $3,163.23 million and $478.47 million, respectively, as at 31 October 2025. Smaller companies are generally considered to be riskier, due to limited access to funding and higher sensitivity to adverse market conditions, in comparison to larger companies.

Asset Concentration

• We consider the Minim Martap Project to be less well-diversified and subject to greater market risks than the projects of other comparable companies. The success of the Minim Martap Project will largely depend on the market for bauxite, while other projects held by comparable companies generally have exposure to several commodities, and commodities with more established markets and pricing than bauxite.

Project specific risks

• ERM noted the absence of a first-principles, bottom-up mining cost estimate, with the Model relying entirely on contractor pricing, introduces uncertainty around cost escalation and contractor performance, particularly in an immature mining market like Cameroon. Additional risks include potential blasting requirements in hard-to-rip zones, unforeseen rehandling costs to maintain product specifications, and the operational complexity of selective mining to control silica dilution. These factors could materially impact operating costs and production consistency and are difficult to quantify precisely at this stage.

• ERM also noted technical risks such as the need to confirm surface miner bearing capacity and the adequacy of grade control systems to manage ore loss and dilution. The proposed strategy of

94

accepting ore loss to minimise silica dilution requires careful execution and blending, which adds operational complexity.

• Further details of ERM’s findings can be found in the ITSR in Appendix 5.

In consideration of the above factors, we consider an inherent risk adjustment of 5% to be appropriate, reflecting the additional risk in excess of the risk reflected in the beta alone. We consider this inherent risk adjustment necessary to reflect the additional return investors may require to compensate for these specific risk exposures, which are present in Canyon’s current stage of development and operating context and not consistently present in the identified peer group.

Cost of equity

We have assessed the cost of equity of a hypothetical acquirer of the Minim Martap Project to be in the range of 15.42% to 16.56%.

Input	Low	Value	adopted	High
Risk-free rate of return	4.00%			4.50%
Equity market risk premium	6.00%			6.00%
Beta (regeared)	1.07			1.18
Risk adjustment (alpha)	5.00%			5.00%
Cost of equity	15.42%			16.56%

Source: S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

Based on a rounded midpoint of this range, we consider a rounded discount rate of 16% to be appropriate for the purpose of valuing Canyon’s Minim Martap Project.

Set out below are the company descriptions of the companies we considered in our comparable company analysis.

Company name	Business description
	South32 Limited operates as a diversified metals and mining company. It has a portfolio of
	assets producing bauxite, alumina, aluminium, copper, silver, lead, zinc, and manganese
South32 Limited	products. The company has operations in Australia, Bahrain, China, Japan, Italy, Mozambique, South Africa, the Netherlands, Brazil, South Korea, the United States, rest of
	Middle East, rest of Asia, rest of Europe, rest of North America, and rest of Oceania. South32
	Limited was incorporated in 2000 and is headquartered in Perth, Australia.
	Mineral Resources Limited, together with subsidiaries, provides mining services in Australia,
	Asia, and internationally. The company offers pit-to-ship solutions, design and construction
	of mineral processing facilities, transport and logistics services, manufacturing of equipment
	and parts for the mining industry, site and rehabilitation services, and engineering and
Mineral Resources Limited	construction services. It also develops, mines, and exports iron ore from its flagship Onslow iron project located in Western Australia. In addition, the company develops and mines lithium from its mines located in Western Australia and sells spodumene concentrate and
	lithium battery chemicals. Further, it engages in exploration and drilling services for the
	energy sector, manganese and garnet, gas production, and generation of power through
	natural gas and LNG, solar, wind, and geothermal. Mineral Resources Limited was founded in
	1992 and is headquartered in Osborne Park, Australia.
	Lindian Resources Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the exploration of
Lindian Resources	mineral properties in Tanzania, Guinea, Malawi, and Australia. The company explores for
Limited	gold, bauxite, and rare earth element deposits. Its flagship property is the Kangankunde Rare
	Earths project located in Malawi. The company is based in Perth, Australia.

95

Company name	Business description
	Jupiter Mines Limited operates as an independent mining company in Australia. It explores
Jupiter Mines	for manganese deposits. The company’s flagship project is the Tshipi Manganese mine
Limited	located in the Northern Cape of South Africa. Jupiter Mines Limited was incorporated in 2003
	and is based in Perth, Australia.
	Metro Mining Limited, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an exploration and mining
	company. The company explores for bauxite. Its flagship project is the Bauxite Hills Mine
Metro Mining Limited	property that covers an area of approximately 1,900 square kilometres located on Western Cape York. The company sells bauxite to its customers in China and United Arab Emirates. The company was formerly known as MetroCoal Limited and changed its name to Metro
	Mining Limited in December 2014. Metro Mining Limited was incorporated in 2006 and is
	headquartered in Brisbane, Australia.
	ABx Group Limited engages in the exploration and development of bauxite resources in
	Australia. The company develops the Sunrise project located in Queensland, the DL130
	bauxite project located in Tasmania, and Deep Leads rare earth project located in Tasmania.
ABx Group Limited	It is also involved in producing industrial chemicals from aluminium smelter waste. The
	company was formerly known as Australian Bauxite Limited and changed its name to ABx
	Group Limited in December 2021. ABx Group Limited was incorporated in 2009 and is based
	in Melbourne, Australia.
	Genmin Limited, an exploration and development company, produces iron ores in Africa. Its
Genmin Limited	flagship property comprises 100% owned project, the Baniaka iron ore located in south-east Gabon, west Central Africa. Genmin Limited was incorporated in 2010 and is based in Perth,
	Australia.
	Arrow Minerals Limited engages in the development and exploration of mineral deposits in
	Australia and West Africa. It primarily explores for gold and iron deposits. It holds 33.3%
Arrow Minerals Limited	beneficial interest in the Simandou North Iron project comprising exploration permit 22,967 located in northern end of the Simandou Range. The Company has an option to acquire the Niagara Bauxite Project. The company was formerly known as Segue Resources Limited and
	changed its name to Arrow Minerals Limited in December 2017. The company was
	incorporated in 2005 and is headquartered in West Perth, Australia.

Source : S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

Set out below are the company descriptions of the companies we considered in our comparable company analysis for corporate costs.

Company name	Business description
	Pantoro Gold Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the gold mining, processing,
Pantoro Gold Limited	and exploration activities in Western Australia. It holds 100% interest in the Norseman Gold project located in the Eastern Goldfields of Western Australia. The company was formerly known as Pantoro Limited and changed its name to Pantoro Gold Limited in April 2025.
	Pantoro Gold Limited was incorporated in 1986 and is based in West Perth, Australia.

96

Company name	Business description
Kingsgate Consolidated Limited	Kingsgate Consolidated Limited engages in the exploration, development, and mining of mineral properties. It primarily explores for gold and silver deposits. The company’s flagship asset is the Chatree Gold Mine located in central Thailand. Kingsgate Consolidated Limited was incorporated in 1970 and is based in Sydney, Australia.
	Alkane Resources Ltd operates as a gold exploration and production company in Australia. It
Alkane Resources	explores for gold, copper, nickel, zinc, and silver deposits. The company also invests in
Ltd	junior gold mining companies and projects. Alkane Resources Ltd was incorporated in 1969
	and is headquartered in West Perth, Australia.
	Metro Mining Limited, together with its subsidiaries, operates as an exploration and mining
	company. The company explores for bauxite. Its flagship project is the Bauxite Hills Mine
Metro Mining Limited	property that covers an area of approximately 1,900 square kilometres located on Western Cape York. The company sells bauxite to its customers in China and United Arab Emirates. The company was formerly known as MetroCoal Limited and changed its name to Metro
	Mining Limited in December 2014. Metro Mining Limited was incorporated in 2006 and is
	headquartered in Brisbane, Australia.
	Aurelia Metals Limited engages in the exploration and production of mineral properties in
	Australia. The company primarily explores for gold, silver, copper, lead, and zinc deposits. It
Aurelia Metals	owns and operates three underground mines, including Peak Mine, Hera, and Dargues Mine in
Limited	New South Wales, Australia. The company was formerly known as YTC Resources Limited and
	changed its name to Aurelia Metals Limited in June 2014. Aurelia Metals Limited was
	incorporated in 2004 and is headquartered in Brisbane, Australia.
	MGX Resources Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the mining, processing,
	shipment, export, and sale of hematite iron ore in Australia and China. Its flagship project is
Mount Gibson Iron Limited	the Koolan Island mine site located in the Kimberley region of Western Australia. The company is also involved in the treasury management, mineral resources acquisition, and investment activities. The company was formerly known as Mount Gibson Iron Limited and
	changed its name to MGX Resources Limited in November 2025. The company was
	incorporated in 1996 and is based in West Perth, Australia.
	Tribune Resources Limited, together with its subsidiaries, engages in the development,
	exploration, and production of mineral properties in Australia. It primarily explores for gold
Tribune Resources Limited	and silver deposits. The company holds interests in the East Kundana joint venture and the West Kundana joint venture located in Western Australia; and the Japa project located in Ghana, West Africa. It also holds an interest in Diwalwal Gold Project situated in Davao City
	Mindanao Island, Philippines. Tribune Resources Limited was incorporated in 1988 and is
	based in South Perth, Australia.
	AIC Mines Limited engages in the exploration, development, and production of mines in
AIC Mines Limited	Australia. The company operates through Mining, and Exploration and Corporate segments. It explores for gold, copper, silver, and zinc deposits. AIC Mines Limited was incorporated in
	1993 and is based in Subiaco, Australia.

Source : S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

97

A endix 4 – Control Premium pp

We have reviewed the control premiums on completed transactions, paid by acquirers of ASX-listed general mining companies and all ASX-listed companies over the period from January 2015 to November 2025. In assessing the appropriate sample of transactions from which to determine an appropriate control premium, we have excluded transactions where an acquirer obtained a controlling interest (20% and above) at a discount (i.e., less than a 0% premium) and at a premium in excess of 100%. We have summarised our findings below:

ASX-listed general mining companies

Year	Number of Transactions	Average Deal Value ($m)	Average Control Premium (%)
2025	11	1,101	32.84
2024	12	481	38.35
2023	13	174	31.68
2022	8	2,099	24.85
2021	6	1,235	29.89
2020	7	447	34.04
2019	10	165	37.84
2018	7	96	30.41
2017	4	44	56.93
2016	10	72	44.15
2015	7	332	34.53

Source: Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

ASX-listed companies

Year	Number of Transactions	Average Deal Value ($m)	Average Control Premium (%)
2025	27	848	30.96
2024	43	625	28.74
2023	35	281	27.41
2022	37	2,349	23.60
2021	28	802	35.17
2020	16	246	40.43
2019	29	3,170	32.83
2018	25	1,185	31.15
2017	23	887	37.07
2016	28	365	38.53
2015	17	1,082	30.24

Source: Bloomberg, S&P Capital IQ and BDO analysis

The mean and median of the entire data sets comprising control transactions from 2015 onwards for ASXlisted general mining companies and all ASX-listed companies are set below:

Entire Data Set Metrics	ASX-Listed general mining companies	ASX-Listed general mining companies	All ASX-listed companies	All ASX-listed companies
	Deal Value ($m)	Control Premium (%)	Deal Value ($m)	Control Premium (%)
Mean	558.19	35.28	1115.20	31.53
Median	63.42	30.42	114.56	27.56

Source: Bloomberg and BDO analysis

98

In arriving at an appropriate control premium to apply, we note that observed control premiums can vary due to the following:

• Nature and magnitude of non-operating assets.

• Nature and magnitude of discretionary expenses.

• Perceived quality of existing management.

• Nature and magnitude of business opportunities not currently being exploited.

• Ability to integrate the acquiree into the acquirer’s business.

• Level of pre-announcement speculation of the transaction.

• Level of liquidity in the trade of the acquiree’s securities.

When performing our control premium analysis, we consider completed transactions where the acquirer held a controlling interest, defined at 20% or above, pre-transaction or proceed to hold a controlling interest post-transaction in the target company.

We have removed transactions for which the announced premium was in excess of 100%. We have removed these transactions because we consider it likely that the acquirer in these transactions would be paying for special value and/or synergies in excess of the standard premium for control. Whereas the purpose of this analysis is to assess the premium that is likely to be paid for control, not specific value to the acquirer.

The table above indicates that the long-term average control premium by acquirers of ASX-listed general mining companies and all ASX-listed companies is approximately 35.28% and 31.53%, respectively. However, in assessing the transactions included in the table above, we noted that control premiums appeared to be positively skewed for the general mining and broader ASX-listed group of companies.

In population where the data is skewed, the median often represents a superior measure of central tendency compared to the mean. We note that the median announced control premium over the assessed period was approximately 30.42% for ASX-listed general mining companies and 27.56% for All-ASX listed companies.

Based on the above, we consider an appropriate premium for control to be between 25% and 35%, with our preferred value being a midpoint of 30%.

The minority interest discount is based on the inverse of the control premium and is calculated using the formula 1 – (1/[1+control premium]). The assessed control premium range gives rise to a rounded minority discount in the range of 20% to 26% with a rounded midpoint of 23% being our preferred minority interest discount.

99

Appendix 5 – Independent Technical S ecialist Re ort re ared b ERM p p p p y

100

==> picture [177 x 68] intentionally omitted <==

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Independent Technical Specialists’ Report

Prepared for

==> picture [100 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

on behalf of

==> picture [100 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

Date 17 Dec 2025 Report No. R245.2025 Reference 0801381 CAYITR01

CLIENT: Phu Bia Mining

PROJECT NO: Error! Use the Home tab to apply Reference to the text that you want to appear here. DATE: 31 May 2024 VERSION: 0.1

Page 1

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

DOCUMENT INFORMATION

Report Prepared for

Report Prepared for
Commissioning Entity	BDO
Contact	Mr Sherif Andrawes
Address	Level 9, Mia Yellagonga Tower 2, 5 Spring Street, Perth WA 6000
Client Name	Canyon Resources Limited
Client Contact and Title	Mr Kudzai Mtsambiwa, Company Secretary and Chief Financial Officer
Client Ofce Address	3 Richardson St, West Perth WA 6005

Report Issued by

Ofce	Address
ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd ACN 003 687 581	Level 3, 1-5 Havelock Street West Perth WA 6005 AUSTRALIA T +61 8 9355 1677

Document History

Version	Date	Name	Purpose/Changes
0.1	21 Oct 2025	Andrew Waltho	First Draft
0.2	16 Nov 2025	Andrew Waltho	Draft for peer review
0.3	21 Nov 2025	Andrew Waltho	Draft for factual review
0.5	28 Nov 2025	Graham Jeffress	Final draft post review of draft feedback
1.0.2	15 Dec 2025	Graham Jeffress	Final

Document Details

Document Details
Document Title	Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon
Document Subtitle	Independent Technical Specialists’ Report
Project Number	0801381 CAYITR01
Date	17 Dec 2025
Coordinating Author	Andrew Waltho
Report Number	R245.2025
Filename	R245.2025 0801381 CAYITR01 Canyon Minim Martap ITR and Valuation v1.0.3.docx
File Location	OPC 0801381 339CSAU1160 CAYITR01 BDO IER
Last Edited	17-Dec-25 14:16
Report Status	Final

Suggested Citation:

ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd. 2025. “Canyon Resources Ltd – Independent Technical Specialists’ Report on the Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon”. Final. Report Number R245.2025. Prepared for BDO independent Expert’s Report. West Perth, WA. Issued 15 December 2025.

Cover Image: The Super pit at Kalgoorlie.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page i

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

AUTHOR DETAILS AND SIGNATURE PAGE

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Independent Technical Specialists’ Report

0801381 CAYITR01

Andrew Waltho

B.App.Sc. (Hons), FAIG RPGeo FAusIMM FGS Main Author PMSME GAICD Consulting Director, Mining Transactions and Corporate Advisory

==> picture [199 x 35] intentionally omitted <==

Natalie Shade Contributing Author Technical Consulting Director

==> picture [96 x 28] intentionally omitted <==

Howard Simpson

Contributing Author

Contributing Author

Peer Reviewer and ERM Authorisation

BSc Eng (Mining) (Hons), BCom Accounting and Quantitative Management FAusIMM (CP), RPEQ Mining Manager, Consulting Director

David Sourbutts BE(Hons)Civil Engineering UWA Project Director, Iridium Project Delivery Pty Ltd

Graham Jeffress BSc (AppGeol) (Hons) UNSW FAIG RPGeo (MinExpl), FAusIMM, FSEG, MGSA Partner, Operations Director (APAC)

==> picture [199 x 38] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [125 x 51] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [199 x 39] intentionally omitted <==

© Copyright 2025 by The ERM International Group Limited and/or its affiliates (‘ERM’). All Rights Reserved.

No part of this work may be reproduced or transmitted in any form or by any means without prior written permission of ERM.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page ii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Executive Summary

Project Overview

The Minim Martap Project is a high-grade bauxite project in Cameroon that contains a very large Mineral Resource that is only partly converted to an Ore Reserve. The intention is to produce direct shipping ore by selective mining of direct shipping ore.

Canyon Resources Limited (“Canyon”) is an ASX-listed (ASX: CAY) mining and mineral exploration company with Minim Martap as its only current project. Canyon is developing the Minim Martap Bauxite project through its 100% owned subsidiary Camalco S.A. (“Camalco”). Following granting of the Mining Permit for the Minim Martap mining areas, in accordance with Section 59 of the Mining Code, an entity of the State will be granted 10% ownership of the special purpose Joint Venture Company formed for that purpose, free of charge.

The Company’s objective is to commence operations in early 2026 and ship its first bauxite during the first half of that year. Minim Martap is considered by Canyon to be a tier-one bauxite asset, ranking among the world’s richest bauxite deposits. The project is situated near the main rail line linking the project site to the Atlantic port of Douala.

Since receiving the Mining Licence for Minim Martap in late 2024, Canyon has progressed development of the project and achieved milestones including the completion of an infrastructure agreement with the Cameroon Government including securing rail access connecting the mine to the Port of Douala following the 9.1% equity investment in Camrail as well as obtaining land access at the Port of Douala.

Canyon is proposing to complete a two-tranche share placement which will require shareholder approval. The second tranche of funds is expected to come from Canyon’s major shareholder, Eagle Eye Asset Holdings (EEA), and Afriland Bourse & Investissement (ABI).

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd (BDO) has been engaged by Canyon to prepare an Independent Expert’s Report (“IER”) for inclusion within a Notice of Meeting to be provided to Canyon shareholders. The Notice of Meeting is to provide shareholders with the information they require to make an informed decision on a proposed transaction. BDO commissioned ERM to provide an independent technical specialists’ report (ITSR or the “Report”) to inform parts of their IER.

The Report has been based on information available up to and including 30 October 2025.

The information was provided to ERM by Canyon, or has been sourced from the public domain, and includes both published and unpublished technical reports prepared by consultants, and any other data relevant to the Minim Martap project. Consent was obtained where necessary.

Neither ERM, nor the authors of this Report, have or have had previously, any material interest in the Client or the mineral properties in which the Company has an interest. Furthermore, neither ERM nor any of the authors of this Report have any material nor contingent interest in the outcome of this Report, nor is there any pecuniary or other interest that could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting our independence.

ERM’s relationship with the Client is solely one of professional association between client and independent consultant.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page iii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Location, Climate and Access

The project is located approximately 800 km by rail, northeast of the Port of Douala, in the central northern portion of Cameroon, and close to Ngaoundéré, a major regional city and the capital of Cameroon’s Adamawa Region. Ngaoundéré is approximately 833 km from Cameroon’s capital city, Yaoundé, by road. The two cities are also connected by regular rail and air services.

Ngaoundéré sits at an elevation of approximately 1,100 m and experiences a subtropical highland climate. The region experiences a dry season from November to March and a prolonged rainy season from April to October when annual precipitation of between 1,500–2,250 mm falls. The wettest month is typically August when there is up to 410 mm of precipitation. The driest months are December and January when virtually no rain falls. Wet season conditions have been considered in developing the open-cut mining strategy and production schedule for the project.

Bauxite Markets

The nature of global bauxite markets is documented in this report to provide context for readers. Bauxite is primarily used as the raw material for refining to alumina, which is then smelted into aluminium metal. Total world bauxite production is around 300 Mtpa. The global bauxite and alumina market was valued at US$15.6 billion in 2024 and is projected to reach US$22.4 billion by 2033, exhibiting a CAGR of 4% during this period (BRI, 2025). Asia Pacific markets account for approximately 33% of global demand, reflecting industrial demand for aluminium in China, but the fastest growing market is North America driven by automotive and construction sector demand.

Bauxite deposits fall into two principal categories:

1. Karstic bauxite; or

2. Lateritic bauxite.

Both are widely distributed globally and mined for aluminium production. Minim Martap is ranked seventh in terms of global bauxite deposit resources and reserves by the United States Geological Survey (USGS) and industry analysts. Bauxite production is geographically concentrated in the ten largest producing countries. Growth in bauxite supply is being met by the development of new mines and the expansion of existing operations in higher-risk jurisdictions.

Global aluminium production is concentrated in countries with only limited bauxite Ore Reserves, except for Australia, which both exports bauxite to refineries and smelters overseas, and produces primary aluminium domestically.

Vertical integration in the bauxite, alumina, and aluminium industry has historically been a defining feature of major players, and its extent has evolved significantly over the past decade due to market dynamics, sustainability pressures, and geopolitical shifts, which are contributing to geographic diversification of the industry and creating opportunities for new entrants in the bauxite mining sector.

Bauxite pricing lacks transparency. There is no transparent, accepted market price for bauxite ores of different types and grades, although there is a clear link between bauxite prices and quality (alumina grades versus deleterious metal contents). Prices are largely established by contracts between bauxite producers and alumina refineries. Some pricing information is available from industry analysts. Transparent pricing is, however, available for both alumina and aluminium.

Aluminium recycling plays a critical role in shaping global aluminium markets and significantly influences the demand for primary aluminium. Globally, aluminium has a recycling efficiency rate of

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page iv

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

76%, making it one of the most recycled materials on Earth. Over 30 Mt of aluminium scrap are recycled each year.

Minim Martap Bauxite Project

The Minim Martap Bauxite Project comprises three tenements, referred to as Minim Martap, Makan, and Ngaoundal, all located within the Vina and Djerem Departments of the Adamawa Region in Central Cameroon. The three licences contain numerous plateaus with weathering crusts containing bauxite with generally attractive high alumina and low silica quality characteristics.

Geology

The project area is situated within the Central Cameroon Shear Zone (CCSZ), a major northeast– southwest trending structural feature that separates the Northwest Cameroon Domain to the north from the Adamawa Domain to the south.

The bauxite plateaus were formed from the weathering of Cambrian granites and weathered metasediments under hot, humid conditions, with distinct wet and dry seasons contributing to seasonal water table movement within the laterite profile. Subsequent erosion has resulted in the current landform of flat-topped plateaus separated by deeply incised valleys, with the bauxites occurring within remnant laterites on the plateau tops. The plateaus are very irregular in shape and are significantly elongated subparallel to the structural trend of the CCSZ.

Previous Exploration

Bauxites were first described in the Minim Martap region in the 1980s. The first documented, systematic bauxite exploration was completed between 2006 and 2008, with drilling first conducted in 2009 by Cameroon Alumina Limited.

Canyon commenced exploration in 2018 with drilling of the Danielle, Beatrice and Raymonde plateaus leading to the rapid delineation of a significant bauxite Mineral Resource. Drilling of plateaus in the other licence areas established the Tier-One resource potential of the project.

All Canyon drilling data is managed using an integrated exploration database prepared for Canyon by consultants. The database is reported to contain 2,600 drill holes comprising 35,000 m of drilling. Approximately 60% of this drilling was completed by Camalco in 2024. Only limited information is available for the early Cameroon Alumina Limited (CAL) drilling. Many of the drill holes from these programs have been paired with later Camalco drill holes.

Mineral Resource Estimation

Canyon commissioned an updated Mineral Resource estimate for their Minim Martap Project definitive Feasibility Study, which is described in detail in the report (Dastur, 2025).

The quality of the data supporting geological interpretation and Mineral Resource estimation for the Minim Martap deposits is considered by ERM to be of a demonstrably high standard due to rigorous field procedures and use of systematic quality assurance measures. Details of the measures employed are described in this report.

The Mineral Resource estimate prepared for the project is considered to provide a suitable basis for estimation of Ore Reserves through the application of modifying factors, which will, in turn, be used in economic evaluation of the project.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page v

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Multiple drilling methods were used during resource evaluation drilling. Analysis of data performed by Canyon demonstrates that data from different drilling techniques can be combined for Mineral Resource estimation.

A detailed, accurate topographic survey was completed for the project area.

Al2O3, SiO2 and Fe2O3 estimates have been developed by spatially constraining grade estimation within geologically defined domains forming the bauxite profile. The widespread use of reverse circulation percussion drilling limits the resolution of the geological model to the average sample length of 1.0 m. The mining equipment to be used by the project is capable of greater selectivity, which will result in a need for production grade control during mining to optimise direct shipping ore (DSO) recovery.

Considerable geometallurgical data was collected for samples during the 2024 drilling campaigns which is intended to be subsequently used in ore characterisation studies.

The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate concluded that sample spacing was the most significant factor affecting the confidence in the Mineral Resource estimate and so was used as the principal input for Mineral Resource classification.

The project has an estimated Mineral Resource (Measured+Indicated+Inferred) of:

• 1,102.4 Mt at 45.31% Al2O3, 2.70% SiO2 and 22.98% Fe2O3.

The Measured + Indicated Mineral Resource comprises 81% of this estimate at:

• 896.0 Mt at 45.60% Al2O3, 2.54% SiO2 and 22.74% Fe2O3.[1]

ERM recognises that Inferred Mineral Resources are able to be upgraded by infill drilling. Plateaus for which bauxite resources have been estimated do not comprise all of the plateaus mapped in each of the three licence areas, resulting in the presence of additional, untested exploration potential.

Mining Studies

The Minim Martap project is supported by a Mining Feasibility study completed by SRK Consulting and reported in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study. The project targets the production of DSO bauxite product with a grade of ±51% total alumina and less than 2.0% total silica.

Surface miners, combined with truck haulage, were selected as the mining method for exploiting and transporting Ore to the ROM stations. The surface miners must also cut waste material for truck haulage to the concurrent rehabilitation zones. The application of surface mining reflects a wellproven mining method in use elsewhere in West Africa for bauxite extraction.

Geotechnical analysis of waste and ores confirms the surface miner's performance criteria for cutting in situ waste and ores. The surface miners are also able to ensure consistent sizing of ROM bauxite ore, thereby providing favourable handling characteristics and satisfying customer specifications. The presence of hard to rip zones that may require blasting has not been ruled out in work so far. Any such material could cause localised/short term issues with production and blending.

The production of DSO using surface miners relies on minimising both ore loss and dilution to ensure the maintenance of revenue and that bauxite meets metallurgical bauxite specifications by preventing the introduction of high silica material. Dilution of bauxite with relatively high silica

1 Mineral Resources have been reported at a cut-off grade of ≤15% SiO2 for the Danielle, Beatrice, Raymonde, Agnes, and Alice plateaus. All other plateaus are reported using a combination of ≥35% Al2O3 and ≤15% SiO2.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page vi

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

material overlying and beneath the bauxite to be selectively mined as ore is a particular risk to be managed by the proposed mining operations.

Blending of Beatrice ore with bauxite from other sources will be required to keep the silica content of DSO product under 2.0% SiO2.

The pit design approach was to generate an inventory capable of supporting a 20-year life of mine targeting 160 million wmt with an average grade of 51% Al2O3 and <2.0% SiO2. The ultimate pit shell was defined using a series of strategic schedules designed to maintain the product grade and sequenced between the plateaus.

Geotechnical Inputs to Open Pit Design

Geotechnical studies were conducted to provide the necessary information to ensure the stability of pit walls and crests.

Ore Reserves

The project’s Ore Reserve is confined to the Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde plateaus in the Minim Martap licence. The Proved + Probable Ore Reserve comprises 144.0 Mt of bauxite at 51.24% Al2O3 and 1.71% SiO2.

The Ore Reserve is based on a competently prepared Mineral Resource Estimate to which appropriate modifying factors have been applied. The Ore Reserve estimate is considered suitable by ERM for use in feasibility studies and financial analysis for the project.

The high alumina, low silica character of bauxite forming the project’s Ore Reserve may contribute to Minim Martap bauxite having a high value in use (VIU) due to the relatively low proportion of waste products produced per tonne of refined alumina and the ability of ore to be blended with other bauxite’s to produce a blend that has lower refining and waste management costs.

ERM concludes that this is reflected in the benchmark bauxite price used in the definitive Feasibility Study of US$78/dmt, which is based on extensive marketing studies and bauxite sales negotiations by Canyon.

Canyon’s overall operating strategy for the Minim Martap Project is shaped by the current shortage of experienced mining professionals in Cameroon. Hence, Canyon intends to outsource as many aspects of the operation as possible to leverage the expertise of external experts. Canyon sourced submissions from Sarvodaya, Bankitruck, BCM, SYNOHHydro, TCCE, Mota-Engil, and AMC for the mining contractor assessment.

ERM is concerned that adopting the mining contractor approach may be problematic, as the mining Feasibility Study has not demonstrated a first principles, bottom-up determination of mining costs. This first principles cost approach is conventionally a key component of Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies, providing the basis for contractor assessment.

An owner-operator cost estimate has not been prepared as an independent reference point for the mining contractor.

Relying upon contractor operations for all mining aspects, combined with the immature mining industry in Cameroon, potentially presents risk to the project during its operational readiness, production build-up, and operational phases.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page vii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Infrastructure

A detailed review of proposed road and rail haulage, and port infrastructure was completed for the project.

The capital cost pricing utilised within the definitive Feasibility Study appears to have been primarily sourced through competitive bidding during the study's completion. The preferred contractor values have then been applied directly into the financial model.

Haulage from Mine to Inland Rail Facility (IRF)

The capital cost for the 45km haulage road has been determined from an awarded contract for the works to ETS Alibaba.

Rail from IRF to Port

The Project will be utilising the existing railway from the IRF at Makor Station, approximately 884km to the Port of Doula. The existing railway is currently utilised by passenger traffic as well other commodity export delivery services. The rail operator/owner, CAMRAIL, is proposing to complete a rail infrastructure renewal project, called PQ2, that will modernise and expand the existing railway. Works could commence during the first half of 2027.

The project's ability to expand and export bauxite tonnes beyond an initial 1.5 Mtpa rate will be highly dependent on the timing and completion of the proposed rail upgrade. Securing required capacity on the upgraded rail line is not considered to be a risk faced by the project.

Rolling Stock

The Mimim Martap project will purchase and maintain its own rolling stock.

The definitive Feasibility Study included a simple analysis within the financial model to estimate the required quantity of rolling stock to complete the logistic task over the development tonnage of the project. The definitive Feasibility Study has allowed for 17 train consists when the operation has expanded to a 10 Mtpa operational level.

An analysis of rolling stock requirements completed in preparing this report suggests that the Life of Mine Plan has adequate locomotives for the first two phases of the proposed mining operation but insufficient wagons for the first three years.

ERM concludes that another 160 wagons are required in the first year of operation; meaning that about US$13.7 million from the total rolling stock capital expenditure should be reallocated to the start of the project (first period) to ensure the projected export volumes in the DCF model are realised. The US$13.7 million amount includes the Camalco locomotive supply price of US$2.7 million and Texmaco wagon supply price of US$58,500 per wagon, as well as an allowance for spares.

Port Facility

The definitive Feasibility Study proposed to complete the unloading of the trains consist in two methods:

• Using rubber mounted excavator/grabber for total output level up to 2 Mtpa

• A rotary car/wagon dumper arrangement for operational levels above 6 Mtpa.

It is unclear in the definitive Feasibility Study what the proposed unloading method is for output levels between 2 Mtpa and 6 Mtpa. The capital cost allowance for the first style of unloading the train appears to be appropriate. This style of unloading will reach a natural output constraint just

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page viii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

because of the logistical task of emptying the train wagons manually and transporting the bauxite via truck to the port barge loading area. It is not clear whether any capital has been allowed for a rotary wagon dumper and the associated conveyor stacker and reclaimer proposed for later stages of the project, when production is planned to exceed 2 Mtpa.

The definitive Feasibility Study proposes using the existing woodchip berth at the Port Douala. This facility requires some modifications/improvements to the jetty structure, as well as minor dredging, to allow for the utilisation of barges to tranship bauxite from the berth to ocean-going vessels (nominally Capesize).

ERM notes that an enhanced unloading facility is critical for the Company’s operations and that there is currently a lack of clarity in the Feasibility Study concerning where this cost is captured in the Life of Mine DCF model.

The Rotary Car Dumper Cell, and Balance Machines for the stockyard have about 12–15 months lead time to acquire and install. The LOMP in the DFS has them in operation by 2032 to deliver the 10 Mtpa production. In order to achieve this ERM suggests base case capital spend profile could look like the following:

2029 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (initial deposit).

2030 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (final payment).

2031 - $50M for construction installation costs of the works.

The 10% contingency applied elsewhere in the model for the port capital should also apply to this expenditure for the rail dumpers and balance machines.

Project Closure and Rehabilitation

The mine site is proposed to have a life of mine of around 20 years, based on the Ore Reserve delineated to date for the Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde plateaus, which ERM envisages will be extended with additional Ore Reserves identified by further exploration. The selected mining method provides opportunities for progressive rehabilitation of mined areas throughout the operational phase of the mine, and use of in-pit dumping to minimise waste haulage costs.

The Project’s rehabilitation and closure requirements are included in the signed (July 2024) Mining Convention agreement between the Project and State.

ERM notes the F.CFA 7 billion (US$11 million) has been disclosed in the Project’s financial statements as a capital commitment. A Mine Closure and Rehabilitation Plan (MCRP) has also been developed for the project.

Within the mine closure plan there is an aspiration to meet international closure requirements with specific reference to the World Bank HSE guidelines. Stakeholder engagement has been undertaken during the Mine Environmental and Social impact assessments (ESIA) process where the closure phase was addressed.

The proposed post mine land use will include a landscape function and vegetation that is resilient, self-sustaining, and comparable to surrounding area.

The MCRP plan includes a closure cost estimate of US$8.48 million. Closure planning is iterative and expected to develop over the life of the mine. An indicative agreement of the closure concepts with all relevant stakeholders including community, would usually form the basis of future consultation processes covering closure planning activities.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page ix

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

ESIAs have been completed for the project. engagement with stakeholders was undertaken and recorded within the ESIAs. Stakeholder engagement has been conducted in alignment with government requirements for all aspects of the project.

A Mining Licence was granted on 2 September 2024 and requires development to commence two years following the grant of the licence and mining activities within five years. It is reasonable to assume the Project is on track in meeting these requirements.

The proposed resourcing for the accountability and management of environment and social matters appears to be reasonable.

Valuation Opinion

ERM developed a valuation opinion for Mineral Resources not included in the project’s Ore Reserve based on analysis of Comparable Transactions and compared with yardstick valuation scenarios and enterprise values per tonne of Ore Reserves estimated for Canyon and Metro Mining Limited, an ASX-listed junior company with a single, producing, reasonable quality bauxite asset in the Weipa region of northern Queensland, Australia.

ERM searched for information for comparable transactions involving bauxite Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves globally since 2015. Some 38 transactions were identified, but only a few of these were considered appropriately comparable to the Minim Martap project situation. The search provided information on bauxite prices for comparison with the reference price used in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study. Transaction values were normalised to provide real (2025) values using historical alumina price data which is readily available for the period examined and demonstrated to correlate closely with available bauxite prices.

Bauxite prices identified during analysis of comparable transactions were generally lower than the bauxite reference price of US$78/dmt used in the project definitive Feasibility Study. This equates with a price of US$69/wmt which is also higher than the highest price identified in ERM’s research but is not considered to be unrealistic. Canyon is expected to have based the definitive Feasibility Study price on detailed discussions with potential customers and Minim Martap bauxite should be a premium product with relatively high alumina and very low silica grades that should be expected to have a higher VIU than competing bauxites.

The comparable transactions data compiled by ERM is presented in this report using both nominal and real (2025) dollars (dollar values at the time of the transaction and equivalent dollar values for the same transaction conducted at the specified date respectively).

In developing a valuation opinion for the project based on comparable transactions, ERM recognised:

• All Ore Reserves are within the Minim Martap project area

• Mineral Resources surrounding, but not included in the Ore Reserve should be expected to be of somewhat greater value than Mineral Resources in other licences where prospects for economic extraction have not been examined by feasibility studies

• Due to the natural grade and geological continuity of bauxite mineralisation, infill drilling of Mineral Resources should be expected to upgrade confidence in the Mineral Resource estimate, without significantly changing estimated grades, although tonnages may change reflecting improved understanding of mineralisation continuity.

Mineral Resources not included in the Minim Martap licence Ore Reserve were estimated by subtracting the Ore Reserve estimate from the total Mineral Resource, including allowance for 8.5% ore loss incurred during mining to avoid dilution of bauxite ore with high silica material from

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page x

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

surrounding horizons in the bauxite profile. The ore loss factor was based on Ore Reserve modifying factors reported in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xi

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The Mineral Resource for the Minim Martap project not included in the Ore Reserve is estimated to be 904.6 Mt at 45.48% Al2O3 and 2.86% SiO2.

ERM’s opinion as to the likely Market Value (on a 100% basis) of Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves is between US$200 million and US$500 million with a preferred value of US$350 million (Figure 1-1).

This is principally based on a Yardstick valuation using Canyon’s benchmark bauxite price of US$78/dmt used in the definitive Feasibility Study, which falls within the range of values obtained from an analysis of the selected comparable transactions.

ERM acknowledges that the range of prices revealed by comparable transactions analysis is very broad as the basis for a valuation opinion of the Mineral Resource not included in the project’s Ore Reserve and consequently has elected to constrain the range using a Rule of Thumb range informed by the premium prices available to the Minim Martap Project.

==> picture [501 x 355] intentionally omitted <==

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

Value of Estimated Mineral Resources outside Ore Reserve
800 High value High value
US$2,442 US$2,922 High Low Preferred
700
600
529
500 500
466
400
387
376
350
319
300
275
245
233
217
200 200
174
148
118 117
100
0
MRE outside ORE MRE outside ORE Yardstick - Yardstick - Yard stick - using ERM Opinion
from all from Comparable Comparable Analyst Bauxite CAY pricing
Comparable Tx recognising Transactions Pricing
Transactions CAY dev risk Bauxite Pricing
Valuatiopn opinion (US$M)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1-1: Valuation opinion for the Mineral Resource estimate outside the Ore Reserve estimate at Minim Martap. The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision; values may not add up due to rounding.

This valuation further includes technical information, which requires subsequent calculations to derive sub totals, totals, and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce a margin of error. Where such errors occur, they are not considered material.

The valuations discussed in the Report have been prepared at a valuation date of 30 October 2025.

In choosing a Preferred Value and Valuation Range for these projects, ERM considered the valuation ranges and the preferred values from a range of methodologies. The weighting of each method in considering the overall valuation ranges and Preferred Values varied based on the stage of development of the project and ERM’s view of the applicability of each method to each project.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

It is stressed that the values are opinions as to likely values, not absolute values, which can only be tested by going to the market.

ERM notes that our valuation opinions, as expressed in this Report, must be considered in total, and that choosing parts of the analysis or the factors considered by it, without bearing in mind all the factors and analyses together could result in a misleading view of the process underpinning the valuation opinion presented in this Report. The preparation of a valuation of a mineral asset is a complex process incorporating varying degrees of qualitative opinion and does not readily lend itself to partial analysis or summary.

ERM has no obligation or undertaking to advise any person or entity of any development in relation to the mineral assets which comes to its attention after the date of this memorandum.

ERM will not review, revise or update the valuation, or provide an opinion in respect of any such development occurring after the date of this memorandum.

Prices effectively paid for bauxite Ore Reserves and Mineral Resources were found to be comparable with enterprise values per tonne estimated by ERM for both Canyon and Metro Mining Limited, an Australian bauxite producer with a broadly comparable bauxite mining operation (Figure 1-2).

==> picture [501 x 271] intentionally omitted <==

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

16.00 Comparable Transactions - Prices Paid per tonne of Bauxite
14.80
14.00
High Low Preferred
12.00
10.00
8.00
6.00
4.00 4.10
3.80 3.60
2.00
1.70 1.70
0.81
0.00 0.13
Comparable Transactions Comparable Transactions EV/Tonne Metro Mining Ltd EV/Tonne Canyon
Reserves (Real) Resources (Real) Resources Ltd
US$/tonne
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 1-2: Prices paid for bauxite from Comparable Transactions and from Peer EV

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xiii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Conclusions and Recommendations

A series of recommendations for review of parameters used in the project’s financial model have been identified by this study.

1. ERM considers the bauxite price of US$78/dmt used in the definitive Feasibility Study and financial model to be appropriate. ERM notes that the price is higher than prices identified during comparable transactions research but accepts that Minim Martap bauxite may attract a relatively high price due to its high alumina and low silica content, which may impart a high VIU.

2. Canyon can improve understanding of the character of the Minim Martap Mineral Resource by reporting bauxite chemistry within each laterite domain, in addition to within deposits. This has the potential to identify opportunities to selectively mine additional bauxite both above and below the bauxite zone. This does not alter the current study inputs but forms an opportunity for enhancement of the project’s Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve.

3. Further work is required to confirm the ore and waste mining horizons' static and kinematic surface miner bearing capacity. This does not impact the current review of the project’s financial model but provides an opportunity for technical risk reduction.

4. ERM is concerned about adopting the mining contractor costing as definitive for mining operating costs (Overburden, Ore, Haulage to IRF, IRF stockpile, and train loading), as the mining Feasibility Study has not demonstrated a first principles, bottom-up determination of mining costs. This first principles cost approach is generally a key component of PreFeasibility and Feasibility Studies, providing the basis for contractor assessment.

Furthermore, there are range of other areas, such as unknown areas within the deposits that may require blasting, or additional (re)handling costs to maintain product specifications that may also increase OpEx. ERM notes that BDO has elected to select a discount rate for the DCF modelling that captures a range of risks that are otherwise difficult to address. ERM concludes that the discount rate is a suitable mechanism to address these types of risks for the mining operating costs.

1. The project appears to have inadequate rail rolling stock (primarily wagons) in the early phases of the project. Additional locomotives and wagons are also expected to be required to cover equipment maintenance needs. The shortfall (inclusive of spares) is approximately 10% of the currently ordered quantity, representing an approximate increase of US$13.7 million to the capital expenditure on rolling stock. This amount is allowed for in the overall Capital Cost for rolling stock, but ERM concludes that another 160 wagons are required in the first year of operation; meaning that US$13.7 million from the total rolling stock capital expenditure should be reallocated to the start of the project (period 1) to ensure the projected export volumes in the DCF model are realised.

2. Port capital costs do not appear to adequately cover the development of a rotary wagon dumper and associated stockpile management that will be required to cope with growing bauxite tonnages shipped by the mine for export.

ERM notes that an enhanced unloading facility is critical for the Company’s operations and that there is currently a lack of clarity in the Feasibility Study concerning where this cost is captured in the Life of Mine DCF model.

The Rotary Car Dumper Cell, and Balance Machines for the stockyard have about 12–15 months lead time to acquire and install. The LOMP in the DFS has them in operation by

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xiv

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

2032 to deliver the 10 Mtpa production. To achieve this ERM suggests base case capital spend profile could look like the following:

2029 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (initial deposit)

2030 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (final payment)

2031 - $50M for construction installation costs of the works.

The 10% contingency applied elsewhere in the model for the port capital should also apply to this expenditure for the rail dumpers and balance machines.

ERM notes that an alternative approach to this capital expenditure addition would be for the cost of the rail dumper and related infrastructure to be added as a unit cost per tonne by the contractor. No data on this alternative were provided to ERM. ERM observes that the allocating this capital cost via a contractor fee per tonne would be at least the same cost as the approach above or even higher once contractor profit, interest and other costs are included. ERM recommends using the upfront capital cost above for the valuation exercise.

1. The basis for cost escalation of haulage and IRF costs is not clear in the definitive Feasibility Study nor financial model. Whether rates are fixed or subject to yearly adjustments needs to be clarified and incorporated in the financial model if required.

2. Rail and port operations costs may require allowance for annual escalation to cover rising wages, and fuel costs if they are not contractually fixed. This needs to be verified and a contingency applied if necessary.

3. Post-closure monitoring funding should be continued for five years, with an estimated cost of US$210,000 per year. An additional 5% of direct closure costs should be allowed to cover indirect costs. A contingency of 20% to 30% of estimated closure costs should be allowed to cover unexpected events during closure.

4. Allowance should be included for a pre-closure study (US$225,000) in the final years of the mine’s expected life. ERM recommends allowing 1% of CAPEX spend on the haul road, IRF and port facilities to allow for closure costs of these facilities.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xv

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

CONTENTS

DOCUMENT INFORMATION .............................................................................................. I	DOCUMENT INFORMATION .............................................................................................. I
AUTHOR DETAILS AND SIGNATURE PAGE ......................................................................... II
EXECUTIVE SUMMARY .................................................................................................. III
Project Overview ............................................................................................................ iii
Location, Climate and Access ............................................................................................ iv
Bauxite	Markets ............................................................................................................. iv
Minim Martap Bauxite Project ............................................................................................ v
	Geology ........................................................................................................................v
	Previous Exploration ............................................................................................................v
	Mineral Resource Estimation..................................................................................................v
	Mining Studies ................................................................................................................... vi
	Geotechnical Inputs to Open Pit Design ................................................................................. vii
	Ore Reserves.................................................................................................................... vii
	Infrastructure .................................................................................................................. viii
	Haulage from Mine to Inland Rail Facility (IRF) ...................................................................... viii
	Rail from IRF to Port ......................................................................................................... viii
	Rolling Stock ................................................................................................................... viii
	Port Facility ..................................................................................................................... viii
	Project Closure and Rehabilitation ......................................................................................... ix
Valuation Opinion ............................................................................................................ x
Conclusions and Recommendations ................................................................................... xiv
CONTENTS ................................................................................................................. XVI
Acronyms and Abbreviations ........................................................................................... xx
Units of	Measurement .................................................................................................... xxi
1.	INTRODUCTION ................................................................................................. 1
1.1	Context, Scope, and Terms of Reference .................................................................. 1
	1.1.1 Scope of Work ...................................................................................................... 1
1.2	Compliance with the VALMIN and JORC Codes ........................................................... 2
1.3	Principal Sources of Information ............................................................................. 2
1.4	Currencies and Exchange Rates .............................................................................. 3
1.5	Authors of the Report – Qualifications, Experience, and Competence ............................. 3
1.6	Prior Association and Independence ........................................................................ 3
1.7	Fees .................................................................................................................. 3
1.8	Declarations ....................................................................................................... 4
1.9	Consents ........................................................................................................... 4
2.	BAUXITE MARKETS AND PRICES .......................................................................... 5
2.1	Global Market Overview ........................................................................................ 5
2.2	Bauxite Grades and Market Terminology .................................................................. 5
2.3	Global Bauxite Resources and Reserves ................................................................... 5
2.4	Bauxite Applications ............................................................................................. 6
	2.4.1 Aluminium Industry............................................................................................... 6

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xvi

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

	2.4.2	Refractory Industry ............................................................................................... 7
	2.4.3	Abrasives ............................................................................................................ 7
	2.4.4	Cement Industry .................................................................................................. 7
	2.4.5	Chemical Industry ................................................................................................. 7
	2.4.6	Oil and Gas Production........................................................................................... 7
	2.4.7	High Purity Alumina (HPA) ..................................................................................... 10
	2.4.8	Rare Earths and Critical Minerals ............................................................................ 10
2.5	Market Concentration and Aluminium Industry Vertical Integration .............................. 10
2.6	Bauxite	Markets ................................................................................................ 10
2.7	Bauxite	Pricing .................................................................................................. 11
2.8	Recycling ......................................................................................................... 13
3.	MINIM MARTAP BAUXITE PROJECT,CAMEROON .................................................... 14
3.1	Project	Overview ............................................................................................... 14
3.2	Location and Access ........................................................................................... 14
3.3	Climate	........................................................................................................... 15
3.4	Tenure ............................................................................................................. 17
3.5	Geology ........................................................................................................... 19
3.6	Exploration ....................................................................................................... 22
	3.6.1	Initial Exploration ................................................................................................ 22
	3.6.2	Exploration by Camalco......................................................................................... 22
3.7	Geological Modelling........................................................................................ 23
3.8	Sampling and Assay Data Quality Assurance ........................................................... 28
	3.8.1	Analytical Data Accuracy ....................................................................................... 29
	3.8.2	Analytical Data Precision ....................................................................................... 30
	3.8.3	Independent Laboratory Checks ............................................................................. 30
	3.8.4	Drilling Techniques ............................................................................................... 30
	3.8.5	Data Quality Conclusions ....................................................................................... 33
3.9	Mineral	Resources .............................................................................................. 33
	3.9.1	Overview............................................................................................................ 33
	3.9.2	Topography......................................................................................................... 33
	3.9.3	Mineral Resource Model Development ...................................................................... 33
	3.9.4	Grade Estimation ................................................................................................. 34
	3.9.5	Density Estimation ............................................................................................... 34
	3.9.6	Model Validation .................................................................................................. 35
	3.9.7	Geometallurgical Data .......................................................................................... 35
	3.9.8	Mineral Resource Classification ............................................................................... 35
	3.9.9	Discussion and Conclusions ................................................................................... 38
	3.9.10	Mineral Resource Reporting ................................................................................... 39
3.10	Mining ............................................................................................................. 41
	3.10.1	Overview............................................................................................................ 41
	3.10.2	Open Pit Mining Philosophy .................................................................................... 41
	3.10.3	Geotechnical Assessment ...................................................................................... 41
	3.10.4	Ore Loss and Dilution ........................................................................................... 42
	3.10.5	Mining Model Preparation ...................................................................................... 43
	3.10.6	Open Margin Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis ........................................................... 43
	3.10.7	Mine Design ........................................................................................................ 43
	3.10.8	Mining Inventory ................................................................................................. 47
	3.10.9	Ore Reserve ........................................................................................................ 49
	3.10.10	Mine Production Schedule ...................................................................................... 49

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xvii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

	3.10.11 Operating Strategy............................................................................................... 53
	3.10.12 Economic Evaluation............................................................................................. 54
3.11	Infrastructure ................................................................................................... 54
	3.11.1 Overview............................................................................................................ 54
	3.11.2 Data Review ....................................................................................................... 55
	3.11.3 Capital Cost Items ............................................................................................... 55
	3.11.4 Operating Cost Items ........................................................................................... 59
3.12	Environment, Permitting, ESG .............................................................................. 61
	3.12.1 Project Closure and Rehabilitation ........................................................................... 61
	3.12.2 Environment and Communities ............................................................................... 68
4.	VALUATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORE RESERVE .......... 71
4.1	Comparable Transactions .................................................................................... 71
	4.1.1 Value in Use........................................................................................................ 71
4.2	Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves ....................................................... 78
4.3	Comparable Transactions Mineral Resource Valuation ................................................ 79
	4.3.1 Similar Development Risk Scenario ......................................................................... 79
	4.3.2 Differing Development Risk Scenario ....................................................................... 80
4.4	Enterprise Value per Tonne .................................................................................. 81
4.5	Yardstick Mineral Resource Valuations .................................................................... 82
4.6	Valuation Opinion .............................................................................................. 83
4.7	Discussion – Factors Affecting Valuation Opinion ...................................................... 84
5.	CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS ........................................................... 85
6.	REFERENCES ................................................................................................... 87
ANNEXURE 1: REPORT AUTHORS ................................................................................ 89
6.1	ERM’s Project Team ............................................................................................ 89
6.2	Project Team Members’ Qualifications and Experience ............................................... 89

TABLES
Table 2-1:	Ten largest bauxite deposits by Resources and Reserves ............................................................7
Table 2-2:	Bauxite production by country since 2015 and current Reserves..................................................8
Table 2-3:	Guinea and Australian Bauxite, LME Alumina and LME Aluminium Prices, 2015-2025 .................... 12
Table 3-1:	Bauxite Grades and Characteristics ...................................................................................... 14
Table 3-2:	Metallurgical Bauxite Classes .............................................................................................. 14
Table 3-3:	Camalco Tenements, Northern Cameroon .............................................................................. 19
Table 3-4:	Minim Martap deposit regolith horizons ................................................................................. 21
Table 3-5:	Regolith Mineralogy ........................................................................................................... 24
Table 3-6:	Minim Martap Project Drilling .............................................................................................. 25
Table 3-7:	Key attributes of QA-QC standards used for Camalco sampling and analysis ................................ 29
Table 3-8:	Measured+Indicated Mineral Resources – Minim Martap Project ................................................ 39
Table 3-9:	Mineral Resource Estimates — Minim Martap Project ............................................................... 40
Table 3-10:	Margin Ranking Parameters ................................................................................................ 44
Table 3-11:	Key Geotechnical Design Parameters .................................................................................... 44
Table 3-12:	Minim Martap Project Mineable Inventory .............................................................................. 47
Table 3-13:	Minim Martap Ore Reserve (August 2025) ............................................................................. 49
Table 3-14:	Canyon contractor selection by work process ......................................................................... 53
Table 3-15:	Rail Rolling Stock Analysis Results ....................................................................................... 57
Table 3-16:	Rolling Stock Calculation .................................................................................................... 57

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xviii

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table	3-18:	Rolling Stock analysis (ARISE proposal) ................................................................................ 58
Table	3-19:	Closure Description Cost Estimate ....................................................................................... 66
Table	4-1:	Comparable Transactions Summary ..................................................................................... 73
Table	4-2:	Comparable Transactions Resources and Reserves (nominal dollars) .......................................... 75
Table	4-3:	Comparable Transactions Resources and Reserves (Real (2025) dollars) ..................................... 76
Table	4-4:	Comparable Transactions Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Bauxite Prices ................................. 77
Table	4-5:	Minim Martap Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves .................................................. 79
Table	4-6:	Valuation Opinion: Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserve ............................................. 79
Table	4-7:	Valuation Opinion: Mineral Resources Not Included in Ore Reserve and Considering Lower
		Minim Martap Licence Development Risk ............................................................................... 80
Table	4-8:	Junior Bauxite Mining Companies Enterprise Value/Tonne of Reserves ........................................ 81
Table	4-9:	Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Reported
		Bauxite Prices for Comparable Transactions (Real 2025 Dollars) ................................................ 82
Table	4-10:	Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Analyst
		2025 Guinea Bauxite Prices ................................................................................................ 82
Table	4-11:	Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Canyon
		FS Bauxite Pricing ............................................................................................................. 82

FIGURES
Figure 1-1:	Valuation opinion for the Mineral Resource estimate outside the Ore Reserve estimate at
	Minim Martap. .................................................................................................................. xii
Figure 1-2:	Prices paid for bauxite from Comparable Transactions and from Peer EV .................................... xiii
Figure 2-1:	Distribution of world bauxite deposits .....................................................................................6
Figure 2-2:	Proportion of global bauxite reserves by country ......................................................................9
Figure 2-3:	Global aluminium production (2024) ......................................................................................9
Figure 2-4:	LME Alumina and Aluminium Prices 2015-2025 (US$/t) ........................................................... 12
Figure 3-1:	Minin Martap project location and route to port. ..................................................................... 15
Figure 3-2:	Ngaoundéré average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures ........................................ 16
Figure 3-3:	Ngaoundéré average monthly precipitation and rain days (>0.2 mm precipitation) ....................... 16
Figure 3-4:	Minim Martap project tenements and bauxite capped plateaus within Canyon’s mining and
	exploration licences. .......................................................................................................... 18
Figure 3-5:	Simplified regional geological map of Cameroon ..................................................................... 20
Figure 3-6:	Deposit area geology ......................................................................................................... 21
Figure 3-7:	Drill hole locations: Minim Martap ........................................................................................ 26
Figure 3-8:	Drill hole locations: Makan ................................................................................................. 27
Figure 3-9:	Drill hole locations: Ngaoundal ............................................................................................ 28
Figure 3-10:	Analytical and sample preparation data precision.................................................................... 31
Figure 3-11:	Comparison of alumina and silica results for aircore, RC percussion and core samples ................... 32
Figure 3-12:	Mineral Resource classification – Minim Martap Licence ............................................................ 36
Figure 3-13:	Mineral Resource Classification – Makan Exploration Licence ..................................................... 37
Figure 3-14:	Mineral Resource Classification – Ngaoundal Exploration Licence ............................................... 38
Figure 3-15:	Ore loss and dilution scenarios – Minim Martap project ............................................................ 42
Figure 3-16:	Unmined selvedge recommended around pit perimeter ............................................................ 45
Figure 3-17:	Beatrice and Raymonde plateau pit designs ........................................................................... 46
Figure 3-18:	Danielle plateau pit design ................................................................................................. 46
Figure 3-19:	Estimation of pit limited mining model from Mineral Resource model .......................................... 48
Figure 3-20:	Beatrice and Raymonde mining areas. .................................................................................. 50
Figure 3-21:	Danielle mining areas ........................................................................................................ 51
Figure 3-22:	Ore and Waste material movement by plateau ....................................................................... 52
Figure 3-23:	LOM grade contributions to mined grade by plateau. ............................................................... 52
Figure 3-24:	Selected strip-mining approach ........................................................................................... 63
Figure 4-1:	Realised bauxite values in Comparable Transactions (US/t) ...................................................... 78
Figure 4-2:	Comparable Transactions Prices for Reserves and Resources (US$ Real) and EV/tonne for
	Reserves, Metro Mining Ltd and Canyon Resources Ltd ............................................................ 81
Figure 4-3:	Valuation Opinion Summary - Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserve .............................. 83

ANNEXURES

Annexure 1: Report Authors ................................................................................................................. 89

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xix

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Acronyms and Abbreviations

Term	Description
AC	Aircore drilling
AICD	Australian Institute of Company Directors
AIG	Australian Institute of Geoscientists
Al2O3	alumina
AUG	Auger drilling
AusIMM	Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy
ASIC	Australian Securities and Investments Commission
ASX	Australian Securities Exchange (ASX Limited)
BDO	BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd
BFA	Brown fused alumina (abrasive)
CAGR	Compound annual growth rate
CAL	Cameroon Alumina Limited
CAPEX	Capital expenditure
CRM	Certified reference material
DD	Diamond (cored) drilling
DFS	Definitive feasibility study
DSO	Direct shipping ore
EIB	European Investment Bank
ERM	ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd
ESIA	Environmental and Social Impact Assessment
ESMP	Environment and Social Management Plan
EV	Enterprise value
Fe2O3	Ferric iron oxide
GIS	Geographic information system
HPA	High purity alumina
HSE	Health, safety, and environment
IRF	Inland rail facility
LiDAR	Light detection and ranging
LME	London Metals Exchange
LOI	Mass loss on ignition (removal of all water present in samples, including breakdown of hydroxyl molecules)
LOM	Life of mine
JORC	Joint Ore Reserves Committee, Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves ('the JORC Code')
M&A	Merger and Acquisition
MCRP	Mine closure and rehabilitation plan
MP	Mining plan

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xx

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

NGO	non-governmental organisation
NPV	Net present value
OPEX	Operating expenditure
QA-QC	Quality assurance, quality control
RAB	Rotary air blast drilling
RBA	Reserve Bank of Australia
RCP	Reverse circulation percussion (non-cored) drilling
REE	Rare Earth elements
ROM	Run of mine
SiO2	silica
SG	Specific gravity
SGA	Smelter grade alumina
SGS	Société Générale de Surveillance
SRK	SRK Consulting
TMS	Technical Mining Services
TiO2	titania
USGS	United States Geological Survey
UWA	University of Western Australia
VALMIN	The Australasian Code for the Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets (VALMIN Code)
VIU	Value in Use
XAF	Central African Francs
WFA	White fused alumina (abrasive)
WGS	World Geodetic System

Units of Measurement

Unit	Description
dmt	Dry metric tonne
km	kilometres
ktpa	Kilotonnes (thousand tonnes) per annum
M	million
m	metre
Mtpa	Million tonnes per annum
t	tonne
wmt	Wet metric tonne

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page xxi

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

1. INTRODUCTION

1.1 Context, Scope, and Terms of Reference

Canyon Resources Limited is an ASX-listed (ASX: CAY) mining and mineral exploration company (the “Client” or the “Company”) with the Minim Martap Bauxite Project as its main focus. The company’s objective is to commence mining operations in early 2026 and ship its first direct shipping bauxite product during the first half of that year. Minim Martap is considered by Canyon to be a tierone bauxite asset ranking among the world’s largest and richest deposits.

The project is situated near the main rail line, which links the project site to the Atlantic port of Douala. Since receiving the Mining Licence for Minim Martap in late 2024, Canyon has progressed development of the project and achieved milestones including securing rail access connecting the mine to the Port of Douala following the 9.1% equity investment in Camrail as well as obtaining land access at the Port of Douala.

Canyon is proposing to complete a two-tranche share placement which will require shareholder approval.

The second tranche of funds is expected to come from Canyon’s major shareholder, Eagle Eye Asset Holdings (EEA) and ABI. EEA exercised approximately 137 million options on the 18[th of] November 2025 (Canyon Resources Ltd, 2025). ERM understand that the issue of shares to EEA pursuant to the placement and the options exercise by EEA falls within the scope of item 7 of Section 611 of the Corporations Act.

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd (BDO) has been engaged by Canyon to prepare an Independent Expert’s Report (“IER”) for inclusion within a Notice of Meeting to be provided to Canyon shareholders. The Notice of Meeting is to provide shareholders with the information they require to make an informed decision on a proposed transaction.

BDO is required to provide an opinion on whether the Proposed Transaction is fair and reasonable to non-associated shareholders and, given the nature of the assets of Canyon, requires specialist support to assist in forming their opinion.

The Technical Mining Services team of ERM Australia Consultants Pty Ltd (“ERM”) was commissioned by BDO to prepare an independent Technical Specialists Report on aspects of the Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon (the “Report” or ITSR).

The Report is an independent technical assessment of high-grade bauxite project, intended to produce DSO for refining to alumina by selective mining of DSO. The project contains a significant resource that is only partly converted to an Ore Reserve,

1.1.1 Scope of Work

ERM was requested to review the Minim Martap Project and provide BDO with an assessment on the reasonableness of each of the following assumptions used in the project’s cash flow model:

1. Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves incorporated into the Model.

2. Mining physicals (including tonnes of ore mined, quality, waste material, and mine life).

3. Processing physicals (including ore processed and produced).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 1

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

1. Production and operating costs (including but not limited to drilling, blasting, mining, haulage, processing, transport, general administration, distribution and marketing, contingencies and royalties or levies).

2. Capital expenditure (including but not limited to pre-production costs, project capital costs, sustaining capital expenditure, salvage value, rehabilitation, and contingency).

3. Any other relevant technical assumptions not specified above.

Any financial model assumptions considered to not be reasonable are required to be identified and explained in ERM’s report. ERM is also required to provide an independent opinion of the market value of the Mineral Resources estimated for the project that are not included in the cash flow model.

1.2 Compliance with the VALMIN and JORC Codes

ERM’s Report has been prepared in accordance with the VALMIN Code (2015)[2] and JORC Code (2012) which is binding upon Members of the AIG and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), the JORC Code[3] and the rules and guidelines issued by such bodies as the ASIC and Australian Securities Exchange (ASX) that pertain to Independent Experts’ Reports.

The Report has been prepared to the standard of, and is considered by ERM to be, a Technical Assessment and Valuation Report as defined in the VALMIN Code (2015).

The authors have taken due note of the rules and guidelines issued by such bodies as ASIC and ASX, including ASIC Regulatory Guide 111 – Content of Expert Reports, and ASIC Regulatory Guide 112 – Independence of Experts.

A first draft of the Report was supplied to the Client to check for material errors, factual accuracy, and omissions before the final report was issued.

The report authors meet the requirements of Mineral Asset Valuation Specialist Practitioners and Competent Persons set out in the VALMIN (2015) and JORC (2012) Codes, respectively.

1.3 Principal Sources of Information

The Report has been based on information available up to and including 30 October 2025.

The information was provided to ERM by Canyon, or has been sourced from the public domain, and includes both published and unpublished technical reports prepared by consultants, and any other data relevant to the Minim Martap project. Consent was obtained where necessary.

The authors have endeavoured to confirm the authenticity and completeness of the technical data upon which the Report is based by making all reasonable enquiries within the time available.

ERM did not undertake a site visit to the Projects for this Report. ERM has sufficient experience in lithium and gold and did not consider a site visit mandatory to its understanding of the prospectivity of the tenements, based on the quality of the information available.

2 Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets. The VALMIN Code, 2015 Edition. Prepared by the VALMIN Committee, a joint committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

3 Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. The JORC Code, 2012 Edition. Prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 2

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

1.4 Currencies and Exchange Rates

Prices and costs in this report are reported in either Australian dollars, US dollars, or Central African Francs (XAF). The use of these currencies throughout the report is noted explicitly.

The Australian:US dollar (AUD:USD) exchange rate on 30 October 2025 was 0.6595 (RBA, 2025). One US dollar was equivalent to 567.01355 F.CFA on 30 October 2025 (Exchange Rates, 2025). These rates have been used when converting financial information and valuation opinions throughout this report.

1.5 Authors of the Report – Qualifications, Experience, and Competence

The ERM Technical Mining Services team prepared this report in its Brisbane, Perth and Melbourne, Australia offices.

ERM provides multidisciplinary services to a broad spectrum of clients across the global mining industry. Services are provided across all stages of the mining cycle, from project generation to exploration, resource estimation, project evaluation, development studies, operations assistance, and corporate advice, such as valuations, and independent technical documentation. More information is provided at the end of this report.

The authors responsible for the report include ERM staff and Associates listed with their relevant qualifications and experience in Appendix 1.

1.6 Prior Association and Independence

Neither ERM, nor the authors of this Report, have or have had previously, any material interest in the Client or the mineral properties in which the Company has an interest. Furthermore, neither ERM nor any of the authors of this Report have any material nor contingent interest in the outcome of this Report, nor is there any pecuniary or other interest that could reasonably be regarded as being capable of affecting our independence.

ERM’s relationship with the Client is solely one of professional association between client and independent consultant.

No member or employee of ERM is, or is intended to be, a director, officer, or other direct employee of the Company.

No member or employee of ERM has, or has had, any material shareholding in the Company.

There is no formal agreement between ERM and the Client in relation to ERM conducting further work for the Company.

1.7 Fees

ERM is an independent consultancy. This Report is prepared in return for professional fees based upon agreed commercial rates and the payment of these fees is in no way contingent on the results of this Report.

The agreed fee was based on the complexity of the assignment, ERM’s knowledge of the assets, and the availability of data. The fee for the preparation of this Report is approximately A$76,400.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

1.8 Declarations

The observations, statements, conclusions, opinions, and recommendations contained in this Report are given in good faith and in the belief that they are not false or misleading.

The Report has been compiled based on information available up to and including the date of the Report.

The statements and opinions are based on the reference date of 30 October 2025, and could alter over time depending on exploration results, mineral prices, and other relevant market factors. In ERM’s opinion, nothing material has occurred up to the date of this Report since the valuation date to affect ERM’s technical review and valuation opinion.

The opinions expressed in the Report have been based on the information supplied to ERM by the Client. The opinions in the Report are provided in response to a specific request from the Company to do so. ERM has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information. While ERM has compared key supplied data with expected values, the accuracy of the results and conclusions from the review is entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data.

ERM does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied information and does not accept any consequential liability arising from commercial decisions or actions resulting from them.

Opinions presented in the Report apply to the project conditions and features, as they existed at the time of ERM’s investigations, and those reasonably foreseeable. These opinions do not necessarily apply to conditions and features that may arise after the date of the Report, about which ERM had no prior knowledge nor had the opportunity to evaluate.

ERM’s valuations are based on information provided by the Client and public domain information. This information has been supplemented by making all reasonable enquiries within the time available, to confirm the authenticity, and completeness of the technical data.

ERM has no obligation or undertaking to advise any person of any development in relation to the mineral assets which come to its attention after the date of this Report. ERM will not review, revise, or update the Report, or provide an opinion in respect of any such development occurring after the date of this Report.

1.9 Consents

Andrew Waltho is both the Competent Person and Specialist Valuation Practitioner responsible for this report. Andrew meets the educational, professional and membership and experience requirements specified in the JORC and VALMIN codes, is eligible to fulfil these responsibilities, has reviewed this report and agrees with both the content of the information that he is responsible for and the form in which it appears.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 4

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

2. BAUXITE MARKETS AND PRICES

2.1 Global Market Overview

Bauxite is primarily used as the raw material for alumina, which is then refined into aluminium metal. Bauxite applications, however, span several industries. Total world bauxite production is around 300 Mtpa and while there are no authoritative sources for how much of this is consumed as non-metallurgical material, the fraction of raw bauxite produced for non-metallurgical applications is estimated to be 10 Mtpa to 15 Mtpa (Fastmarkets, 2025).The vast majority of non-metallurgical bauxite used to produce non-metallurgical alumina in China (the world’s biggest consumer of nonmetallurgical bauxite) is either produced domestically, or imported from Guyana.

The global bauxite and alumina market was valued at US$15.6 billion in 2024 and is projected to touch US$22.4 billion by 2033, exhibiting a CAGR of 4% during this period (BRI, 2025). Asia Pacific markets account for approximately 33% of global demand, reflecting industrial demand for aluminium in China, but the fastest growing market is North America driven by automotive and construction sector demand.

2.2 Bauxite Grades and Market Terminology

Bauxite is classified according to its intended use, chemical composition, and physical properties (Table 3-1). Bauxite ores may be referred to as monohydrate or trihydrate ores, depending on the form of aluminium hydroxide present (boehmite and disapore versus gibbsite, respectively), which influences processing temperature.

Some mines directly ship ore, while others undertake beneficiation such as washing to achieve production of products meeting industry specifications.

2.3 Global Bauxite Resources and Reserves

Bauxite deposits fall into two principal types:

1. Karstic bauxite; and,

2. Lateritic bauxite.

Both types are widely distributed globally (Figure 2-1) (Schulte & Foley, 2013); and both deposit types are currently mined for alumina production.

Karstic bauxite develops in karst terrains, typically on carbonate rocks (limestone or dolomite) by chemical weathering and leaching of alumina-rich material, often during periods of subaerial exposure. Deposits occur as lens-shaped bodies or pockets within karst depressions, sinkholes, or cavities. Karstic mineralisation is dominated by boehmite and diaspore and frequently contains iron oxides and kaolinite.

Lateritic bauxite develops in tropical to subtropical climates under intense lateritic weathering conditions that produce prolonged leaching of alumina from silicate rocks. Deposits occur as blankets on plateaus or hilltops. Mineralogically, lateritic bauxites are dominated by gibbsite that occurs in association with iron oxides including hematite and goethite.

Minim Martap is ranked seventh in terms of global bauxite deposits resources and reserves (Table 2-1). Bauxite production by country and national reserves are summarised in Table 2-2, which highlights the concentration of bauxite production and global reserves (Figure 2-2) in the current

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 5

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

top ten producing countries, and how the market position of these countries has changed over the past decade.

==> picture [499 x 338] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2-1: Distribution of world bauxite deposits

Source: USGS.

Selected deposits are indicated with numbers: 1–Weipa, Australia; 2–Doğankuzu, Turkey; 3–Darling Range, Australia; 4–Pitinga, Brazil; 5– Tucuruí, Brazil; 6–Paragominos, Brazil; 7–Porto Trombetas, Brazil; 8–Cataguases, Brazil; 9–Poço de Caldas, Brazil; 10–Saint Ann, Jamaica; 11– Saint Catherine, Jamaica; 12–Saint Elizabeth, Jamaica; 13–Manchester, Jamaica; 14–Dajia, China; 15–Xinxu; China; 16–Nanting, China; 17– Kunmin, China; 18–Queyang, China; 19–Arqalyk, Kazakhstan; 20–Ekisbatoz-Pavlodar, Kazakhstan; 21–Naurzum, Kazakhstan; 22–Astana, Kazakhstan; 23–Aqtas, Kazakhstan; 24–Shimkent, Kazakhstan; 25–Ili, Kazakhstan; 26–Pripyat, Ukraine; 27–Vysokopl’ye, Ukraine; 28–Eufaula, United States; 29–Pulaski-Saline, United States; 30–Hall-Veneer, United States; 31–Maşatdaği, Turkey; 32–Iszkaszentgyörgy, Hungary

Aluminium production, however, occurs largely in countries with limited or no bauxite resources, with aluminium production being driven by a combination of industrial uses and the availability of low-cost energy (Figure 2-3) (USGS, 2025).

2.4 Bauxite Applications

2.4.1 Aluminium Industry

Approximately 85% of global bauxite production is used to produce alumina trihydrate (ATH), then smelter grade alumina (SGA) via the Bayer process, which is then converted to aluminium through the Hall-Héroult process. Aluminium end uses include:

• Automotive: Lightweight vehicle components

• Aerospace: Aircraft structures

• Construction: Windows, cladding, structural elements

• Packaging: Cans, foils

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 6

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

• Electronics: Casings, heat sinks

Table 2-1: Ten largest bauxite deposits by Resources and Reserves

Deposit	Country	Owner(s)	Commodities	Mineral Resources + Ore Reserves (Mt)
Sangaredi	Guinea	Government of Guinea (49%) Alcoa Corp (22.95%) Rio Tinto (22.95%) Dadco Investments Ltd (5.1%)	Bx	7,408
Weipa	Australia	Rio Tinto	Bx, kaolin	3,270
Santou Houda	Guinea	Government of Guinea	Bx	3,200
Labe	Guinea	Alufer Mining Ltd	Bx	2,500
Boffa	Guinea	Aluminium Corp of China (85%) Government of Guinea (15%)	Bx	2,247
Koumbia	Guinea	Alliance Mining Commodities Lt (51%) Zeta Resources Ltd (39%) Government of Guinea (10%)	Bx	2,175
Minim Martap	Cameroon	Canyon Resources Ltd	Bx	1,102
Boddington	Australia	South32 Ltd (86%) Japan Alumina Assoc (AU) Pty (10%) Sojitz Corp (4%)	Bx	1,050
Toubal	Guinea	Tougué Bauxite and Alumina Corporation (Toubal)	Bx	1,000
Rondon	Brazil	Votorantim S.A. (88%) Private Investors (10%) Cia. Brasileira de Alumínio	Bx	984

Source: S&P Capital IQ[pro]

2.4.2 Refractory Industry

High alumina, low iron bauxite is used to manufacture refractory bricks and linings for furnaces, kilns, and reactors. Approximately 70% of bauxite-based refractories are used is in the iron and steel industries.

2.4.3 Abrasives

Bauxite is calcined to produce brown fused alumina (BFA) and white fused alumina (WFA) for grinding wheels, sandpaper, polishing compounds and skid resistant surfaces for roads and other industrial applications.

2.4.4 Cement Industry

Bauxite is used as a source of alumina in high alumina cement formulations.

2.4.5 Chemical Industry

Aluminium sulfate, aluminium chloride, sodium aluminate, and other compounds used in water treatment, catalysts, and flocculants.

2.4.6 Oil and Gas Production

Ceramic proppants made from bauxite are used in hydraulic fracturing, though demand has fluctuated with oil prices. As of 2020, the proppants market had all but collapsed to production of less than 200 ktpa, from an estimated peak of around 1.0 Mtpa in 2014-2015.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 7

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 2-2: Bauxite production by country since 2015 and current Reserves

Country											Reserves (Mt)
					Bauxite Production (Mt)
Year	2015	2016	2017	2018	2019	2020	2021	2022	2023	2024
Australia	80.9	83.5	89.4	95.9	105.5	103.6	103.1	102.0	104.0	100.0	3,500
Brazil	37.1	39.2	38.1	32.4	31.9	32.9	33.0	30.0	32.0	33.0	2,700
China	60.8	68.6	68.4	77.2	73.3	62.8	86.0	90.0	91.0	93.0	680
Guinea	16.3	31.5	46.2	57.0	67.0	86.0	82.0	100.0	123.0	130.0	7,400
India	27.8	23.9	22.8	23.2	22.3	20.0	22.1	24.0	23.4	25.0	650
Indonesia	0.5	1.5	2.9	13.2	16.6	20.8	21.0	21.0	30.0	32.0	2,800
Jamaica	9.6	8.5	8.2	10.1	9.0	7.5	6.0	4.4	6.0	6.1	2,000
Kazakhstan	4.7	4.8	4.8	5.7	4.1	4.1	4.4	4.4	4.6	4.9	280
Russia	5.9	5.4	5.5	5.7	5.6	5.6	5.7	5.8	5.8	6.3	480
Saudi Arabia	1.1	3.8	3.7	4.7	5.0	4.9	4.8	4.8	5.4	5.8	180
Turkey	1.1	1.0	0.9	1.0	2.3	2.4	2.8	2.8	2.9	3.2	69
Vietnam	1.2	1.4	2.8	3.5	3.4	3.6	3.7	3.9	3.9	4.2	3,100
Other	47.2	12.7	13.2	11.4	11.9	9.8	8.6	7.0	6.0	6.5	5,161
World Total	294.0	286.0	307.0	341.0	358.0	364.0	383.0	400.0	438.0	450.0	29,000
Top 10 Producers Proportion of World	84.0	95.6	95.7	96.7	96.7	97.3	97.8	98.3	98.6	98.6	82.2

Sources: Merrill A.M. (2025): Bauxite in Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2025. US Geological Survey, Reston VA (Merrill, 2025).

Bray E.L. (2024): Bauxite and Alumina, 2019 Minerals Yearbook. US Geological Survey, Reston VA (Bray, 2019).

Page 8

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [372 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2-2: Proportion of global bauxite reserves by country Source: USGS

==> picture [372 x 318] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2-3: Global aluminium production (2024) Source: USGS

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 9

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

2.4.7 High Purity Alumina (HPA)

HPA is essential in the production of LEDs, electronic components, and lithium-ion batteries. Kaolin is the principal raw material for HPA, but several aluminium producers are examining potential to selectively mine clays present in bauxite profiles or wastes produced by bauxite washing.

2.4.8 Rare Earths and Critical Minerals

Bauxite ores and waste materials produced by bauxite processing and refining are currently being evaluated as potential sources of gallium, vanadium, and rare earth elements (REE). Recognition of opportunities for this requires knowledge of the trace element compositions of bauxites and processing residues.

2.5 Market Concentration and Aluminium Industry Vertical Integration

Vertical integration in the bauxite, alumina, and aluminium industry has historically been a defining feature of major players, and its extent has evolved significantly over the past decade due to market dynamics, sustainability pressures, and geopolitical shifts evident in Table 2-2.

In 2024, the twelve largest bauxite producers accounted for 98.6% of bauxite production and 82.2% of currently identified bauxite reserves. Australia and Guinea, combined, accounted for half of global bauxite production in 2024 (Table 2-2).

Vertical integration in the industry typically takes the form of:

• Bauxite mining

• Refining bauxite to produce alumina

• Aluminium smelting

• Fabrication and downstream manufacturing of aluminium sheet, extrusions and finished products.

Major industry participants view vertical integration as strategically important. Large corporations including Rio Tinto, Alcoa, Norsk Hydro and Rusal maintain operations across the complete industry value chain. In recent years, major industry participants have focused on:

• Establishing long-term supply agreements (e.g. METLEN and Rio Tinto’s 11-year bauxite and eight-year alumina deals) that secure bauxite supply and reduce exposure to market volatility (Discovery Alert, 2025).

• Technological advances in refining and smelting that have improved energy efficiency and sustainability, further incentivising integrated operations (Farmonaut, 2025)

• Helping to insulate producers from supply and market disruptions associated with geopolitical factors, such as the Russia-Ukraine war and sanctions affecting sale of bauxite and alumina to Russian smelters, or the international activities of Russian aluminium sector companies. Supply chain threats typically prompt companies to consolidate operations and secure upstream assets.

2.6 Bauxite Markets

Bauxite markets are undergoing significant structural change. The traditionally integrated bauxitealumina-aluminium industry structure is being challenged by the development of new alumina refineries and aluminium smelters in China, other Asian countries and in the Middle East. This, coupled with bauxite export restrictions in Indonesia, has created opportunities for projects like Minim Martap, with new entrants pursuing opportunities for direct bauxite exports to new markets.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 10

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

In May 2012, the Indonesian Government implemented export quotas and a 20% export tax on raw commodities, including bauxite. In January 2014, the tax rate on commodity exports rose to 50% along with a further reduction in export quotas. Prior to these export restrictions, Indonesia was the largest exporter of bauxite in the world, but this position is now shared by Guinea and Australia. Recently, the Indonesian Government relaxed the ban, providing five-year export permits to companies that have either constructed, or are in the process of developing, new refineries in Indonesia.

Indonesian bauxite was predominantly supplied to Chinese low-temperature refineries and, with the potential reduction in supply, many expected that Australian and African bauxite producers (and emerging producers) would fill any shortfall, along with supplying new capacity. In 2015, Malaysia unexpectedly emerged as a significant bauxite exporter, but doubts exist about the country's capability for long-term sustainable bauxite supply. Responding to environmental and corruption concerns, the Malaysian Government imposed a ban on bauxite mining in January 2016. The ban was still in place by the end of 2017, but the government did permit exports of stockpiled bauxite. Malaysia does have the advantage of proximity to Chinese refineries, and bauxite exploration is also active in other Southeast Asian countries such as Vietnam, Laos, and the Philippines.

Most of the bauxite exported by Australian producers is shipped to Chinese refineries. Alcoa has built a third-party bauxite business shipping bauxite from mines in Western Australia to meet growing demand from alumina refineries in China and the Middle East.

Development of mines capable of producing acceptable quality DSO bauxite is being pursued by junior companies to take advantage of relatively low capital intensity and reduced environmental footprints due to mines not requiring tailings storage facilities (Britt, 2018).

2.7 Bauxite Pricing

Bauxite pricing lacks transparency. There is no transparent, accepted market price for bauxite ores of different types and grades, although there is a clear link between bauxite prices and quality (alumina grades versus deleterious metal contents). Prices are largely established by contracts between bauxite producers and alumina refineries. Some pricing information is available from industry analysts. Transparent pricing is, however, available for alumina and aluminium from sources including Consensus Economics (Consensus Economics, 2025) and the London Metals Exchange (LME, 2025a) (LME, 2025b). A comparison of annual average prices for Guinea and Australian bauxite, LME Alumina and LME Aluminium since 2015 (Table 2-3), varied between US$33.0 and US$56.6 per tonne, with an average price of US$46.5 per tonne.

Close correlation was evident between bauxite and alumina prices in most years in data examined by ERM.

Alumina prices have been used in the valuation section of this report for normalising comparable transaction values.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 11

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 2-3: Guinea and Australian Bauxite, LME Alumina and LME Aluminium Prices, 2015-2025

Year	Bauxite – Guinea (US$/t)	Bauxite- Australia (US$/t)	Guinea Bauxite CIF China (US$/t)	Australia Bauxite CIF China (US$/t)	LME Alumina (US$/t)	LME Aluminium (US$/t)
2015	35–55	40–60	55–70	55–70	330	1700
2016	35–55		50–60	41–65	335	1750
2017	35–55		50–60	41–65	340	1800
2018	35–55		50–60	41–65	345	1850
2019	35–55		50–60	41–65	350	1900
2020	35–55		50–60	41–65	360	2000
2021	35–55		50–60	41–52	370	2500
2022	35–55		56–70		427	4100
2023	35–55		70–80		504	2800
2024	35–55		92		695	2700
2025	33.0–56.6	45–66	73–85	69	416	2793

Sources: Mysteel.net, Shanghai Metals Market (metal.com), Scrap Monster (scrapmonster.com), The Bauxite Index (thebauxiteindex.com), Trade Metal (trademetal.com)

==> picture [497 x 290] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2-4: LME Alumina and Aluminium Prices 2015-2025 (US$/t) Source: London Metal Exchange

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 12

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Major market drivers influencing bauxite, alumina and aluminium pricing include:

• EV & Aerospace Demand : Rapid growth in electric vehicles and aircraft manufacturing increased demand for lightweight aluminium.

• China’s Strategic Influence : China’s dominance in alumina refining and strategic stockpiling influenced global pricing and supply chains.

• Guinea Export Disruptions : Political instability and regulatory changes in Guinea caused supply interruptions and price volatility.

• Energy Price Volatility : Alumina refining and aluminium smelting are energy-intensive; rising fuel and electricity costs impacted production economics.

• Environmental Regulations : Global tightening of mining and emissions standards increased compliance costs and delayed new capacity.

• Technological Advances : Innovations in recycling have improved sustainability and reduced reliance on new bauxite production.

• Inventory & Speculative Trading : Fluctuations in global inventories and speculative activity influenced short-term price movements and market sentiment.

2.8 Recycling

Aluminium recycling plays a critical role in shaping global aluminium markets and significantly influences the demand for primary aluminium.

Globally, aluminium has a recycling efficiency rate of 76%, making it one of the most recycled materials on Earth. Over 30 Mt of aluminium scrap is recycled each year. Recycling aluminium saves up to 95% of the energy required to produce primary aluminium from bauxite ore.

Recycled aluminium (secondary aluminium) is expected to meet 50–60% of global aluminium demand by 2050 (IAI, 2025).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 13

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3. MINIM MARTAP BAUXITE PROJECT, CAMEROON

3.1 Project Overview

Canyon Resources Limited (Canyon) is developing the Minim Martap bauxite project located in Central Cameroon through its 100% owned subsidiary Camalco S.A. (Camalco).

Following the grant of the Mining Permit for the Minim Martap mining areas, in accordance with Section 59 of the Mining Code, an entity of the State will be granted 10% ownership of the special purpose Joint Venture Company formed for that purpose, free of charge.

The project is located approximately 800 km by rail, north-east of the Douala Port. A high-grade, low-contaminant bauxite resource, suited to the production of high-quality metallurgical bauxite Table 3-1, has been identified and evaluated as a source of DSO to be exported to alumina refiners.

Camalco aims to produce and export approximately 10 million tons per annum (Mtpa) of bauxite utilising Cameroon’s established infrastructure facilities including railway corridor and ports.

Mining of bauxite capping three plateaus, Beatrica, Danielle, and Raymonde will be by surface miners which the favoured development strategy for the project. The resource has a grade of approximately 51% alumina (Al2O3) and less than 2% total silica (SiO2) which permits classification of the ore to be mined as Grade A metallurgical bauxite according to generally accepted industry quality criteria that are based on alumina, reactive silica and the concentrations of other impurities, particularly titania (TiO2) (Table 3-2).

Table 3-1: Bauxite Grades and Characteristics

Bauxite Grade	Al2O3 (%)	SiO2 (%)	Fe2O3 (%)	TiO2 (%)	Moisture (%)
Metallurgical Grade Bauxite	42.0-46.0	<8.0	<25.0	<3.5	<10.0
Refractory Grade Bauxite	>59.0	<5.5	<2.0	<2.5
Chemical Grade Bauxite	55.0-58.0	<12.0	<2.0
Abrasive Grade Bauxite	>55.0	<5.0	<6.0	<2.5

Source: Rawmin, Fastmarkets

Table 3-2: Metallurgical Bauxite Classes

Metallurgical Bauxite Class	Al2O3 (%)	SiO2 (%)	Fe2O3 (%)	TiO2 (%)	CaO (%)	Moisture (%)	Monohydrate s(%)
A	>44.0	<8.0	<18.0	<3.5	<3.0	<10.0	<3.0
B	>42.0	<8.0	<20.0	<3.5	<3.0	<10.0	<3.0
C	>42.0	<7.0	<25.0	<3.5	<3.0	<10.0	<3.0

Source: Rawmin

3.2 Location and Access

Cameroon borders Nigeria to the west and north, Chad to the northeast, the Central African Republic to the east, and Equatorial Guinea, Gabon, and the Republic of the Congo to the south.

Its coastline lies on the Bight of Biafra, part of the Gulf of Guinea, and the Atlantic Ocean. Cameroon's population of more than 52 million people speak 250 native languages, in addition to the national tongues of English and French. The capital city of the country is Yaoundé, the country’s largest city.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 14

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The Minim Martap project is in the central northern portion of Cameroon, close to Ngaoundéré, a major regional city and the capital of Cameroon’s Adamawa Region (Figure 3-1). The city has a population of more than 231,000 people (World Population Review, 2025). Ngaoundéré is approximately 833 km from Yaoundé by road. The two cities are also connected by regular rail and air services. The city provides a range of medical, educational, and other community services to the region.

==> picture [500 x 500] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-1: Minin Martap project location and route to port. Source: (Canyon Resources, 2025)

3.3 Climate

Ngaoundéré, at an elevation of about 1,100 m, experiences a subtropical highland climate that is influenced by its altitude. The region’s climate is classified as Aw (Tropical savanna climate with dry winters) using the Köppen and Geiger system ( (Wikipedia Contributors, n.d.)).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 15

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The region experiences a dry season from November to March and a prolonged rainy season from April to October. Maximum temperatures vary from 33°C -34°C in March to 23°C - 25°C in August (Figure 3-2). The region experiences annual precipitation of 1,500 mm to 2,250 mm. The wettest month is, on average, August with up to 410 mm of rain. The driest months are December and January when virtually no rain falls in a typical year (Figure 3-3).

==> picture [489 x 176] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-2: Ngaoundéré average monthly maximum and minimum temperatures

==> picture [489 x 382] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-3: Ngaoundéré average monthly precipitation and rain days (>0.2 mm precipitation) Source: Weather and Climate (Weather and Climate, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 16

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.4 Tenure

In Cameroon, the mining sector is governed by the Mining Code of 2023 ((Law No. 2023/014 of 19 December 2023, which complements an earlier 2016 Code), with oversight by:

• Ministry of Mines, Industry and Technological Development (MINMIDT) – licensing and oversight.

• Ministry of Environment – environmental compliance and mine rehabilitation.

• SONAMINES – state-owned company with exclusive rights to purchase and market gold and diamonds.

There are a range of mining rights in Cameroon:

• Reconnaissance Permit: For surface surveys; max area 1,000 km².

• Exploration Permit: 3 years (renewable), up to 500 km²; requires a mining agreement.

• Small Mine License: 5 years (renewable), based on feasibility study.

• Industrial Mining License: 20 years (renewable for 10 years); requires a mining convention with the State.

• Artisanal Licenses: Reserved for Cameroonian nationals.

The government of Cameroon is entitled to a 10% free-carry, non-dilutable, right in all mining companies operating in Cameroon. The GoC also has a First Right of refusal on any share transfers, and a production sharing right to 1–5% of profits for precious metals and 2-15% for other minerals. Key tax considerations include:

• Corporate tax of 25%.

• Ad valorum royalties of 5% on precious metals, 3% on base metals, 10% on radioactive substances.

• As well as additional surface tax and capital gains tax.

On environmental matters there are requirements to:

• Mandatory funds for mining sector development, mine rehabilitation, and local development (via a Local Capacity Building Fund financed by 0.5–1% of turnover).

• Priority for local employment, contractors, and suppliers.

• Compliance with EITI and Kimberley Process, as well as regional CEMAC regulations.

The Minim Martap Bauxite Project comprises three tenements referred to as Minim Martap, Makan, and Ngaoundal, all located within the Vina and Djerem Departments of the Adamawa region in Central Cameroon. The project’s licences and bauxite capped plateaus to be initially mined are shown in Figure 3-4.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 17

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [489 x 490] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-4: Minim Martap project tenements and bauxite capped plateaus within Canyon’s mining and exploration licences.

Source: (Canyon Resources, 2025)

The three plateaus proposed for initial development, Beatrice, Danielle, and Raymonde, are all within the Minim Martap licence.

Details of the three tenements are provided in Table 3-3.

Page 18

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-3: Camalco Tenements, Northern Cameroon

Permit Name	Type	Area (km2)	Decree Number	Permit Number	Granted	Validity
Minim Martap	Mining Licence	499	2024/382	513	2 Sep 2024	20 years
Makan	Exploration Permit	302	000068/A/MINMIDT/ SG/DM/SDCM	566	25 Feb 2022	2 years4
Ngaoundal	Exploration Permit	180	000069/A/MINMIDT/ SG/DM/SDCM	514	25 Feb 2022	2 years5

Source: Canyon Mining

The Company provided copies of the relevant Cameroonian certificate granting a Bauxite Mining Licence which was verified by ERM by reference to the gazetted information published by the GoC (Government of Cameroon, 2024).

ERM has reviewed the information available on the official government website and confirmed that the Minim Martap Mining Licence is listed and appears to be validly granted (noting that ERM makes no other assessment or assertion as to the legal title of the tenements and is not qualified to do so).

All coordinates used in this report are based on the WGS 84 Zone 33N grid system.

3.5 Geology

The project area is located within the CCSZ, which is a major northeast–southwest trending structural feature that separates the Northwest Cameroon Domain to the north from the Adamawa Domain to the south.

The bauxites were formed from the lateralisation of granites (Figure 3-5). Subsequent erosion has resulted in the current landform of flat-topped plateaus separated by deeply incised valleys, with the bauxites occurring within remnant laterites on the plateau tops. The plateaus are very irregular in shape and, are significantly elongated subparallel to the structural trend of the CCSZ. The plateau tops are generally quite flat, but the flanks are usually relatively steep.

Bauxites can develop under specific oxidation-reduction conditions in conjunction with landform gradients that are sufficient to promote rapid drainage and leaching without extensive erosion. This process can result in the residual enrichment of the less soluble bauxite minerals (gibbsite, boehmite and diaspore) by the removal of the more soluble silica and the remobilisation/removal of iron.

The Minim Martap deposits are interpreted to have developed on Cambrian granites and the weathered Proterozoic feldspathic sediments, observed to be relatively richer in primary Al2O3 than other rocks present in the region (Dastur, 2025).

A map of the deposit area geology is presented in Figure 3-6.

The regolith horizons recognised in the project area and used as the basis for geological modelling and resource estimation are summarised in Table 3-4. The main minerals presented in the lateritic profile (in order of abundance) include gibbsite, goethite, hematite, kaolinite, and anatase. The relative concentrations vary between domain; however, in all domains the gibbsite concentration is generally several times that of the next most abundant mineral (usually goethite). The average

4 Application submitted for 302 km2 Exploitation Permit

5 Application submitted for 152 km2 Exploitation Permit

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 19

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

quartz, rutile, and boehmite concentrations are described as being very low (< 1%). Silica typically occurs as kaolinite with little quartz present (Dastur, 2025).

==> picture [497 x 570] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-5: Simplified regional geological map of Cameroon Source: SRK, (Tchameni, Pouclet, Penaye, Ganwa, & Toteu, 2006)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 20

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [499 x 432] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-6: Deposit area geology Source: SRK, Dastur (2025)

Table 3-4: Minim Martap deposit regolith horizons

Horizon	Description
Overburden	Typically, erratically distributed, and thin, encountered in less than 40% drill holes, with an average thickness of less than 2 m. Variable grade characteristics but typically characterised by high silica and iron concentrations and relatively low levels of alumina.
Ferruginous Zone	Frequently indurated, high iron material with variable but frequently moderate to high alumina grades. Variable silica content. Typically, 4m thick. Potential to me mined as ore.
Main Bauxite Zone	Well-defined, continuous horizon with very high alumina and low silica grades. Typically, between 5-6 m thick.
Lower Clay Zone	Kaolinitic clay horizon, with a usually well-defined top associated with a sharp decrease in alumina content and an increase in silica content.

Organic carbon concentrations are described as being very low (0.07% to 0.26%) (Dastur, 2025).

The information presented in Table 3-5 confirms the high gibbsite, low iron and low silica character of Minim Martap mineralisation. The Ferruginous Zone, and possibly a portion of the Lower Clay

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 21

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Zone have some potential to be a source of marketable metallurgical bauxite, to supplement the Bauxite Zone material, although realising this potential is likely to require grade control to reject high iron mineralisation.

The Minim Martap Definitive Feasibility Study (Dastur, 2025) provides information on the mineralogy of each mineralised zone, but not the chemistry, which ERM considers worth pursuing with existing data. ERM notes that although this observation does not affect suitability of the MRE to inform the valuation, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project.

3.6 Exploration

3.6.1 Initial Exploration

Bauxites were first described in the Minim Martap region in the 1980s. The first documented, systematic bauxite exploration took place between 2006 and 2008, being reconnaissance test pitting.

In 2009, CAL conducted drilling of eleven plateaus in Minim Martap and three in Ngaoundal using auger (AUG), rotary air blast (RAB) and diamond core drilling (DD) techniques on a nominal 250 m by 500 m spacing with the objective of delineating Inferred Mineral Resources. The drilling completed by CAL included drilling of closely spaced holes in selected areas to assess mineralisation continuity (Dastur, 2025).

3.6.2 Exploration by Camalco

Canyon conducted infill drilling programs in 2018 and 2019 on five of the previously drilled plateaus in addition to several new plateaus in Makan using aircore.

Infill drilling of the Danielle, Beatrice and Raymonde plateaus was completed during 2020, followed in 2023 by drilling of three plateaus in Makan.

Further drilling to delineate bauxite resources for 25 of the 28 plateaus was completed in 2023 and 2024 using aircore and RC percussion drilling with the key objectives of:

• increasing the confidence in the Mineral Resource estimates for Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde, which were used as the basis for the Minim Martap Project definitive Feasibility Study.

• extending the depth of some of the holes from earlier programs (mainly aircore) that had not fully penetrated the bauxite profile.

• twinning some of holes from earlier programs for validation purposes.

SRK have prepared an integrated drilling database using the Microsoft Excel data files maintained by Canyon (Dastur, 2025). The database is reported to contain 2,600 drill holes comprising 35,000 m of drilling. Approximately 60% of this drilling was completed by Camalco in 2024 (Dastur, 2025). Only limited information was available for the early CAL drilling. Many of the drill holes from these programs have been paired by Camalco drill holes (Dastur, 2025).

A summary of the drilling completed for the Minim Martap project is presented in Table 3-6.

Drill hole location plans for Minim Martap, Makan and Ngaoundal are presented in Figure 3-7 to Figure 3-9. Drill hole spacings typically vary between 100 m and 300 m where Mineral Resource estimation has been undertaken. Differences in drill hole spacings evident between project areas and individual plateaus are due to differing levels of project development and prioritisation of exploration activities and are reflected in the Mineral resource classification for each area.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 22

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

One of each pair of twinned drill holes is described as being removed from the database used for bauxite resource estimation (Dastur, 2025). The drilling summary information included in Table 3-6, however, indicates that the twinned drill hole information remains in the database, which ERM considers to represent appropriate practice. Retaining the twinned drill holes provides important information in bauxite mineralisation continuity and, when pairs have been drilled using different techniques, valuable information on the comparability of geological and assay data provided by different drilling methods.

3.7 Geological Modelling

SRK was commissioned by Canyon to prepare an updated Mineral Resource estimate for the Minim Martap Project definitive Feasibility Study. The work completed by SRK is described in detail in the definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) which is available publicly.

The Mineral Resource estimate is based on a subset of the drilling data (approximately 2,600 drill holes and 35,000 m of drilling) available for the project, partly due to the removal of one hole from each twinned hole pair drilled during exploration.

The definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) provides detailed descriptions of:

• Survey methods used to accurately locate most drill hole collars.

• Collection of LiDAR data used to prepare a detailed and accurate digital terrain model for the project area.

• Sampling, sample preparation, and analytical work completed on pre-2024 samples which were prepared by Afrigeolabs Group in Yaoundé and analysed by Stewart Assaying (Ireland), BRDC (India) and ALS (South Africa).

• Drilling and sampling procedures for each of the four drilling techniques used during exploration and resource evaluation drilling post 2024.

• The structured geological logging procedures employed for the project.

• Sample preparation and analysis, which has been consistently performed by Société Générale de Surveillance (SGS) and a SGS supervised sample preparation facility at Camalco’s Bobodji exploration camp.

• Analytical procedures and the suite of elements reported.

• Geometallurgical, mineralogical and trace element analyses performed on selected samples.

• Extensive bulk density testing using water immersion tests on 9,115 core samples from 642 holes drilled during 2024. 70% of samples were collected from the Beatrice, Danielle and Raymonde plateaus, and the remainder were collected from 22 other plateaus in the three tenements. Some 92 water immersion tests were completed on grab sample pits on the Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde plateaus in the Minim Martap licence but were excluded from use in preparing the project’s Mineral resource estimate based on a recommendation by the Competent Person for a Mineral resource estimate completed in 2021.

In ERM’s opinion, the collection and management of drilling, geological and analytical data has resulted in the compilation of a thorough, reliable database that provides a suitable basis for Mineral Resource estimation.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 23

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-5: Regolith Mineralogy

Mineral		Ferruginous Zone	Ferruginous Zone		Bauxite Zone			Lower Clay Zone
	Average (%)	Minimum (%)	Maximum (%)	Average (%)	Minimum (%)	Maximum (%)	Average (%)	Minimum (%)	Maximum (%)
Gibbsite	71.82	22.86	90.37	80.11	53.59	95.13	66.46	30.42	92.73
Goethite	13.15	0.00	29.50	9.62	1.60	32.75	10.25	3.21	31.83
Hematite	8.50	0.63	27.64	5.35	0.00	30.79	11.21	0.61	44.62
Kaolinite	2.54	0.00	62.32	0.94	0.00	11.14	7.78	0.00	54.84
Anastase	2.35	0.82	4.83	2.37	1.04	5.38	2.99	1.47	5.72
Quartz	0.79	0.00	4.74	0.38	0.00	1.50	0.44	0.00	2.17
Rutile	0.63	0.00	2.69	0.62	0.00	2.86	0.81	0.00	1.94
Boehmite	0.24	0.00	5.65	0.74	0.00	32.80	0.11	0.00	0.87
Magnesite	0.06	0.00	2.53	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Spinel	0.05	0.00	1.77	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.00
Mica	0.00	0.00	0.00	0.01	0.00	0.47	0.00	0.00	0.00

Source:

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 24

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-6: Minim Martap Project Drilling

Project	Plateau	Auger Drilling (AUG)	Auger Drilling (AUG)	Aircore Drilling (AC)	Aircore Drilling (AC)	Core Drilling (DD)	Core Drilling (DD)	RCP Drilling	RCP Drilling	Total	Total
		Count	Metres Drilled (m)	Count	Metres Drilled (m)	Count	Metres Drilled (m)	Count	Metres Drilled (m)	Count	Metres Drilled (m)
Minim Martap (MM)	AG	40	387	11	129	60	588	19	259	130	1,363
	AL	47	477							47	477
	AU	35	399			4	41	7	87	46	467
	BE	50	516	73	840	114	1,862	59	805	296	4,023
	DA	85	927	166	1,390	245	4,058	150	2,209	646	8,584
	EU	41	428			4	50	8	102	53	580
	GI	48	539			5	63	9	128	62	730
	GR	69	821	135	1,171	22	395	39	614	265	3,001
	MA	41	389							41	389
	RA	74	843	118	1,154	132	2,183	112	1,615	436	5,795
	YO	59	659	37	256	11	145	26	333	133	1,393
Makan (MK)	AI			15	168	3	36	2	36	20	240
	AN					2	25	11	148	13	173
	BO					5	74	35	430	40	504
	EM			84	949	12	200	10	222	106	1,371
	FA			15	171	3	37	2	42	20	250
	GE					2	39	10	146	12	185
	GL					7	99	133	2,270	140	2,369
	HI			147	1,383	31	415	79	1,074	257	2,872
	JA							32	394	32	394
	NT			21	212	4	58	2	36	27	306
	PU					2	29	15	215	17	244
	SE					2	34	17	239	19	273
	SO			27	271	5	64	3	60	35	395
	SU					3	39	31	385	34	424
Ngaoundal (NG)	BR			45	592	5	102	9	110	59	804
	JU			91	1,651	11	255	16	186	118	2,092
	SI			159	2,884	18	363	29	339	206	3,586
TOTAL		589	6,385	1,144	13,221	712	11,254	865	12,484	3,310	43,384

Source: Canyon Resources

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 25

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [665 x 457] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-7: Drill hole locations: Minim Martap (Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 26

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [746 x 450] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-8: Drill hole locations: Makan

(Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 27

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [499 x 472] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-9: Drill hole locations: Ngaoundal

(Dastur, 2025)

3.8 Sampling and Assay Data Quality Assurance

The definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) includes a comprehensive description of quality assurance measures employed to ensure the quality of data used in Mineral Resource estimation. Measures employed included:

• Insertion of duplicate samples at a rate of 1:20

• Insertion of blanks and standards at a rate of approximately 1:50 samples

• Drilling of several twinned holes in 2024, including twinning of RC percussion and core holes

• QA-QC data were collected for samples from 1,528 drill holes comprising 23,274 m of drilling.

Page 28

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The description of QA-QC measures in the definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) is confined to the 2024 drilling programme. Some additional information is contained in a 2021 Mining Plan (MP) for the project and results from earlier programs were not available for review.

The lack of a description of QA-QC data from previous programs, or the unavailability of QA-QC data pre-2024 is sub-optimal; however, in ERM’s opinion this risk is mitigated by the contribution of QAQC data from the 2024 programme.

ERM notes that although this observation does not affect suitability of the MRE to inform the valuation, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project.

3.8.1 Analytical Data Accuracy

Data accuracy was monitored using three well-known, commercially produced bauxite Certified Reference Materials (CRM) or standards, Geostats GBAP-14, GBAP-15 and GBAP-18. These were supplemented by two blanks – a commercially prepared blank OREAS C27d and 99% quartz sand, presumed by ERM to have been sourced locally. Key attributes of these standards are summarised in Table 3-7.

Table 3-7: Key attributes of QA-QC standards used for Camalco sampling and analysis

Standard	Units	GBAP-14	GBAP-15	GBAP-18	African Bauxite BXT-11	African Bauxite BXT-13	OREAS C27d	99% Quartz Sand
Al2O3	%	35.07	50.93	39.77	54.2	53.4	7.54
SiO2	%	6.74	6.82	19.00	1.49	4.82
Fe2O3	%	40.67	18.18	18.44	12.8	11.44
TiO2	%	2.50	4.416	0.01	3.39	1.54
Insertion Rate	%	0.1	0.1	2.0	0.8	<0.1	5.7	1.5
Provider		Geostats Pty Ltd, Australia	Geostats Pty Ltd, Australia	Geostats Pty Ltd, Australia	LGC Group, France	LGC Group, France	ORE Research & Exploration Pty Ltd, Australia

ERM considers the insertion rate of blanks and CRMs to be appropriate; however, Camalco’s selection of CRMs and blanks is considered by ERM to be suboptimal.

The three CRMs selected cover the range of key elements used in assessing bauxite quality but only one of the three, GBAP-18, has been used routinely. GBAP-18 is much higher in both silica and iron than Minim Martap mineralisation. This potentially results in the accuracy of analytical data for major contaminants used in metallurgical process design being inadequately monitored.

ERM considers the two laboratory selected CRMs to be appropriate for the project. Only one of the two has been used routinely and the insertion rate for both is considered low for effective monitoring of analytical accuracy when used in isolation. The standards used are all provided to clients in pulverised form and, consequently do not need to be prepared prior to weighing and digestion.

The blanks used, OREAS C27d and 99% quartz sand are considered by ERM to be appropriate for the project. OREAS C27d is a rhyodacite crushed to the size of typical RC percussion chips. While physically suitable in respect of its sizing, hardness and abrasive qualities, the material is only

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 29

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

certified for alumina (Al2O3). The lack of certified values for silica (SiO2) and iron (Fe2O3) reduce its usefulness in monitoring potential contamination affecting other analytes. This shortcoming does not affect the 99% quartz sand blank which would have very low alumina and iron contents. The use of a low alumina blank would make any instances of contamination requiring potential attention easier to detect. C27d results would require closer scrutiny due to the moderate Al2O3 content of the material.

Camalco has exercised its option to instruct the laboratory to report its own QA-QC results. This increases the rate and coverage of QA-QC data.

ERM concludes that the selection and use of CRMs and blanks is appropriate for a Feasibility Studylevel study, but able to be further improved. The QC data shows the results are fit for purpose.

3.8.2 Analytical Data Precision

Analytical precision has been monitored using repeat samples where re-assay of samples selected at random is requested by the client and also completed by the laboratory for internal QA-QC purposes. Camalco submitted field duplicate samples at a rate of 5.7%. Laboratory duplicates, which utilise prepared sample pulps and provide a measure of analytical precision only were inserted by the laboratory at a rate of 4.8% and reported to Camalco.

No evidence of analytical bias was observed.

Around 30% of duplicate samples point to some issues with sample homogeneity. In 10% of samples, this results in relative differences between duplicate assays exceeding 5% for Al2O3 results (Figure 3-10).

ERM considers the use of repeat samples to monitor analytical data precision consistent with definitive Feasibility Study requirements but recommends further examination of the homogeneity issue, which is significant for around 10% of samples and attributed to splitting of field samples post-crushing and pre-pulverisation.

ERM recommends that the source of this imprecision warrants investigation prior to further resource evaluation work being completed. This issue is not considered to be material for the global resource estimates but could introduce local and/or short-term variability challenges that might affect product consistency and require additional material handling to manage.

ERM notes that although this observation does not affect suitability of the MRE to inform the valuation, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project.

3.8.3 Independent Laboratory Checks

Some 600 pulps were submitted to an independent laboratory for analysis. Excellent correlation with original assays was observed, with no evidence of bias (Figure 3-10).

3.8.4 Drilling Techniques

The definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) describes work completed by SRK to examine whether the different drilling techniques used for the project provide consistent results. This is made possible by using different techniques for twinned drill holes.

No issue was identified in Al2O3 results obtained by analysing samples from aircore, RC percussion and core drill holes. Aircore drilling, however, tends to result in overestimation of silica (Figure 3-11).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 30

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [499 x 684] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-10: Analytical and sample preparation data precision

(Dastur, 2025, Figure 3-13)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 31

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [499 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 239] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-11: Comparison of alumina and silica results for aircore, RC percussion and core samples (Dastur, 2025, Figure 3.24 and 3.25)

In ERM’s professional opinion the observed over-reporting of silica in bauxite samples from aircore drilling is likely due to loss of fines during drilling, resulting in selective removal of fine alumina (and iron) as dust, which is not collected for analysis.

ERM concludes that this is not of major concern due to the issue being mostly evident at higher silica grades, and because aircore samples contribute a smaller proportion of samples used for resource estimation.

ERM recommends that aircore drilling is avoided for resource definition drilling.

ERM notes that although this observation does not affect the valuation opinion, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 32

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.8.5 Data Quality Conclusions

The analytical data available for the project are considered to have been thoroughly reviewed and confirmed by ERM to be appropriately accurate and precise, meeting Feasibility Study requirements and thereby providing an appropriate basis to inform a valuation opinion.

3.9 Mineral Resources

3.9.1 Overview

The Mineral Resource estimates presented in the definitive Feasibility Study report (Dastur, 2025) are derived from Mineral Resource models that SRK prepared between March and June 2025.

The Mineral Resource models were prepared using a conventional block modelling approach. Separate models were prepared for the Danielle, Raymonde, Beatrice, Gregorine and Agnes deposits in the Minim Martap area. A combined model was also prepared for six smaller deposits.

At Makan, separate models were prepared for the Hind and Gladys deposits and a combined model for 12 smaller deposits.

Separate models were prepared for the three deposits identified in the Ngaoundal area.

3.9.2 Topography

Topographic data was provided by a LiDAR survey completed in July 2019. Point data was provided to SRK who produced a 5 m by 5 m gridded topographic model (Dastur, 2025).

3.9.3 Mineral Resource Model Development

Geological Model

The geological models for each deposit used the four regolith zones discussed previously in this report (Table 3-4):

• Overburden (OVB – Domain 10).

• Ferruginous Zone (FEZ – Domain 20).

• Main Bauxite Zone (BXZ – Domain 30).

• Lower Clay Zone (LCZ – Domain 40).

This domaining of the deposits is suited to the larger Minim Martap deposits but the zones may not be consistently developed in some of the smaller deposits. Domain 20 in the Ngaoundal area, for example, may be the main source of potentially economic bauxite. The four-fold subdivision, however, enables suitable constraints to be applied during grade estimation across the region.

The geological models were prepared using a combination of geological logging and step changes in Al2O3, SiO2, Fe2O3 and loss on ignition (LOI) results rather than specific grade ranges, while preserving strict stratigraphic integrity of the four regolith zones (Dastur, 2025). The base of the Lower Clay Zone is not defined by drilling as most drill holes were terminated on entering this zone.

Steep topography results in the surfaces defining the base of each regolith domain intersecting topography. Drill hole collars were adjusted to fit the modelled topographic surface.

ERM considers the model development approach to be generally appropriate, with the exception of adjusting drill hole collars to topography rather than ensuring the topographic surface fits the accurately surveyed drill hole collars. This would have little impact, however, on global mineral

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 33

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

resource estimates based on the models produced using this process but may introduce short and local issues if inadequate grade control is available.

The widespread use of RC percussion drilling also imposes a precision limit on the placement of the base of each regolith zone due to the boundary being within a sample interval rather than a visual change in regolith character, which could only be provided by core drilling.

Compositing and Declustering

Lithological domain codes were composited to 1.0 m downhole intervals which were then assigned to each assay sample interval. Less than 2% of samples were collected over intervals of other than 1.0 m.

This will produce instances of dilution and ore loss in each model which may need to be corrected by pre-mining grade control. Al2O3 and Fe2O3 distributions were observed by SRK to be close to normal while SiO2 distributions tended to be positively skewed with log, positive tails, attributed by SRK to the presence of thin quartz veins (Dastur, 2025).

Spatial declustering of data for drill holes completed at less than the average spacing for a deposit was not undertaken.

One of any pair of drill holes was removed from the dataset on which Mineral Resource estimates are based, with preference given to retaining the longer, more recent holes, or holes completed in the same programme as most surrounding drill holes.

Statistical Analysis

Summary statistics were calculated for each domain in each deposit to help establish resource estimation parameters and identify data issues requiring further investigation, particularly for Domains 20 and 30.

Mineralisation Continuity Analysis

Variography using normal score transformed composite data was used to assess mineralisation and grade continuity for Domains 20, 30 and 40. Long ranges (several hundred metres) for Al2O3 and Fe2O3 within domains were observed. Silica was observed to exhibit greater variability. For many of the smaller plateaus and domains, there were insufficient sample pairs to generate robust variogram models. In these circumstances, data from individual domains were combined or the variogram models from the larger nearby plateaus were used.

3.9.4 Grade Estimation

Ordinary Kriging was used to estimate grades for Domains 20, 30 and 40. Inverse distance squared estimation was used for Domain 10 (Dastur, 2025). Composites were only used from the domain being estimated.

3.9.5 Density Estimation

SRK is reported to have used average density measurements for each domain within each deposit. Bulk density measurements were collected on drill core samples using water immersion weighing techniques. Values from nearby larger plateaus were used for smaller plateaus where no (or few) measurements were available. Some correlation between bulk density and Al2O3 and Fe2O3 grades was evident but was not considered to be sufficiently close for grade to be used to estimate bulk density by regression (Dastur, 2025).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 34

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.9.6 Model Validation

Populated grade models were reviewed visually to ensure consistency between estimates and drill hole data. Estimation performance data were also reviewed to ensure that models cells were sufficiently informed by drill hole composites. Statistical comparisons of sample composite and estimated grades were considered by SRK to be acceptable (Dastur, 2025). Swath plots were also reviewed for selected analytes and domains within a subset of models and, again, considered by SRK to be acceptable.

3.9.7 Geometallurgical Data

Mineral Resources were reported as total oxide values for principal analytes rather than as available alumina and reactive silica. Considerable geometallurgical data was collected for samples during the 2024 drilling campaigns which is intended to be subsequently used in ore characterisation studies (Dastur, 2025).

3.9.8 Mineral Resource Classification

Classification of the Mineral Resource by SRK considered:

• Lithological and grade continuity for both alumina in bauxite and potentially deleterious components

• Understanding of controls on mineralisation occurrence and distribution

• Data quality and availability

• The extent to which grade estimates honoured the composite data on which it is based

SRK concluded that sample spacing was the principal factor affecting Mineral Resource estimate confidence. The morphology of the bauxite capped plateaus influenced access for drilling in places, which influenced classification of the identified bauxite resources. In some areas, plateaus extended beyond tenement boundaries. No bauxite resources were reported in these areas. The Minim Martap bauxite Mineral Resources have been classified as Measured, Indicated, and Inferred. Figure 3-12 to Figure 3-14 illustrate how classification criteria have been applied in the three tenements.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 35

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [627 x 441] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-12: Mineral Resource classification – Minim Martap Licence

Source:

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 36

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [627 x 418] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-13: Mineral Resource Classification – Makan Exploration Licence Source:

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 37

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [377 x 302] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-14: Mineral Resource Classification – Ngaoundal Exploration Licence

3.9.9 Discussion and Conclusions

ERM considers the Mineral Resource estimates for bauxites in the three Canyon tenements to have been developed using techniques appropriate for the type of bauxite deposits present in each tenement.

The drilling database has been described as being thoroughly validated by the Competent Person. Data quality has been assured through accurately surveying drill hole collar locations and use of a consistent, recognised coordinate system for all spatial information.

An accurate and detailed topographic model is available for the three project areas.

The lithostratigraphic interpretation and zoning of the bauxite profiles provides recognises controls affecting mineralisation distribution that have been honoured during grade estimation based on the checks completed by ERM.

The Mineral Resource estimates are considered by ERM to have been appropriately classified. ERM recognises that there are modelling methods that could, potentially, represent vertical grade variability within the each lithostratigraphic domain but concludes that the approach adopted by SRK is suited to the sampling resolution provided by the mixture of cored and non-core drilling data, which is, in turn, suited to the manner in which the bauxites are proposed to be mined.

ERM would prefer that Domain 10 be estimated using an ordinary kriging approach similar to that used for the other domains rather than inverse distance squared estimation which has potential to provide unduly smoothed grade estimates that could mask opportunities for improved overburdenore selectivity. The proposed use of surface miners to recover DSO relies on minimising dilution to help to ensure product consistency.

These observations are not considered to be material for feasibility study purposes but should be considered for future work, particularly for short term operational and grade control activities.

Page 38

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

In ERM’s professional opinion the MRE for the Project provide a reasonable basis to inform a valuation of the Project.

3.9.10 Mineral Resource Reporting

Mineral Resources estimated for the Project are reported in Table 3-9.

Resources have been reported at a cutoff grade of ≤15% SiO2 for the Danielle, Beatrice, Raymonde, Agnes, and Alice plateaus. All other plateaus are reported using a combination of ≥35% Al2O3 and ≤15% SiO2. The cutoff criteria selected are reported to reflect the outcomes of marketing studies by Camalco (Dastur, 2025).

Using these criteria, the Project has an estimated Mineral Resource (Measured+Indicated+Inferred) of

• 1,102 Mt at 45.3% Al2O3, 2.7% SiO2 and 23.0% Fe2O3.

The Measured + Indicated Mineral Resource for the Project is estimated to be

• 896.0 Mt at 45.6% Al2O3, 2.5% SiO2 and 22.7% Fe2O3 (Table 3-8), being approximately 81% of the total estimated resource.

ERM recognises that Inferred Mineral Resources are able to be upgraded by infill drilling.

Moreover, it is worth noting that the plateaus for which bauxite resources have been estimated do not comprise all of the known plateaus in each of the three licence areas, highlighting the potential to define additional bauxite resources in the Project area.

Table 3-8: Measured+Indicated Mineral Resources – Minim Martap Project

Project		Measured+ Indicated	Measured+ Indicated
	Mt	Al2O3 %	SiO2 %	Fe2O3 %
Minim Martap	482.12	47.01	2.62	20.39
Makan	321.43	44.45	2.80	24.59
Ngaoundal	92.45	42.30	1.18	28.61
TOTAL	896.00	45.60	2.54	22.74

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 39

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-9: Mineral Resource Estimates — Minim Martap Project

Plateau		Measured	Measured			Indicated	Indicated	Indicated		Inferred	Inferred			TOTAL	TOTAL
	Mt	Al2O3 %	SiO2 %	Fe2O3 %	Mt	Al2O3 %	SiO2 %	Fe2O3 %	Mt	Al2O3 %	SiO2 %	Fe2O3 %	Mt	Al2O3 %	SiO2 %	Fe2O3 %
							Minim Martap Project
Agnes					45.4	45.6	3.6	22.0					45.4	45.6	3.6	22.0
Alice									40.2	45.3	3.2	21.7	40.2	45.3	3.2	21.7
Auriele									10.6	47.2	3.7	19.3	10.6	47.2	3.7	19.3
Beatrice	56.1	50.9	2.8	14.1	5.7	48.0	4.0	17.6	0.1	54.1	4.1	7.8	61.9	50.6	2.9	14.4
Danielle	140.5	46.2	2.1	21.7	18.1	47.6	2.8	19.2	5.0	39.5	4.1	30.1	163.5	46.1	2.2	21.7
Eulalie									18.6	41.6	3.4	27.5	18.6	41.6	3.4	27.5
Gilberte									35.4	43.7	3.1	24.2	35.4	43.7	3.1	24.2
Gregorine	24.7	44.8	2.3	25.1	51.0	44.6	2.9	24.8	11.6	42.7	3.1	27.3	87.3	44.4	2.8	25.3
Mathilde									29.6	43.9	4.7	22.9	29.6	43.9	4.7	22.9
Raymonde	85.5	49.4	2.3	16.9	25.6	46.1	3.2	21.2	0.3	41.7	12.6	16.9	111.4	48.6	2.5	17.9
Yolande					29.5	44.9	3.4	22.3					29.5	44.9	3.4	22.3
Subtotal	306.8	47.9	2.3	19.3	175.3	45.5	3.3	22.3	151.4	43.9	3.6	23.8	633.5	46.3	2.8	21.2
							Makan Project
Aicha									6.2	45.4	3.5	22.7	6.2	45.4	3.5	22.7
Anna					5.8	47.4	2.8	20.3	0.6	52.1	2.5	13.6	6.3	47.8	2.8	19.7
Bonnie					21.3	48.3	2.5	19.1					21.3	48.3	2.5	19.1
Emilie	16.2	45.1	2.2	23.6									16.2	45.1	2.2	23.6
Fabiola					12.2	45.7	2.9	22.8					12.2	45.7	2.9	22.8
Georgina					5.0	48.6	1.5	19.8	3.5	52.8	2.2	12.8	8.5	50.3	1.8	16.9
Gladys					79.4	43.2	3.0	26.1	8.8	42.2	3.4	27.1	88.3	43.1	3.1	26.2
Hind					120.7	43.8	2.9	25.8	14.5	44.0	3.1	25.7	135.2	43.8	2.9	25.8
Jane					16.9	44.6	2.9	24.0	3.1	42.6	3.3	26.4	20.0	44.2	2.9	24.4
Nathalie					13.9	45.1	3.3	23.3					13.9	45.1	3.3	23.3
Pauline					12.3	47.8	2.4	20.1	0.7	46.0	1.4	23.3	13.0	47.7	2.3	20.3
Sienna					8.3	43.1	2.7	26.3	2.7	43.8	3.4	24.8	11.0	43.3	2.9	25.9
Sophia	3.8	48.0	1.8	20.0									3.8	48.0	1.8	20.0
Susan					5.6	41.6	2.9	28.6	11.5	43.8	2.8	26.3	17.1	43.1	2.9	27.0
Subtotal	20.0	45.7	2.1	22.9	301.4	44.4	2.9	24.7	51.6	44.4	3.1	24.7	373.0	44.5	2.8	24.6
							Ngaoundal Project
Bridget	1.7	41.8	1.0	28.8	5.4	42.6	1.0	28.1	3.5	43.2	1.5	27.7	10.6	42.7	1.2	28.1
Judith	22.2	42.4	1.1	28.5	5.3	42.2	1.3	28.6					27.5	42.3	1.2	28.5
Simone	43.0	42.4	1.3	28.4	14.8	41.9	1.0	29.7					57.8	42.3	1.2	28.7
Subtotal	66.9	42.4	1.2	28.4	25.5	42.1	1.1	29.1	3.5	43.2	1.5	27.7	95.9	42.3	1.2	28.6
TOTAL	393.8	46.8	2.1	21.0	502.2	44.7	2.9	24.1	206.4	44.0	3.4	24.1	1,102.4	45.3	2.7	23.0

Note: Tonnes and grades have been rounded to reflect the relative accuracy and confidence level of the estimate, thus the sum of columns/subtotals may not reflect the individual parts.

Source: Canyon Resources

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 40

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.10 Mining

3.10.1 Overview

The Minim Martap Project is a greenfield bauxite project supported by a Mining Feasibility study completed by SRK Consulting and reported in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study (Dastur, 2025). The project targets the production of DSO bauxite product with a grade of ±51% total alumina and less than 2.0% total silica.

3.10.2 Open Pit Mining Philosophy

The Minim Martap Project has selected surface miners and truck haulage as the mining method for exploiting and transporting ore to the ROM stations. The surface miners must also cut waste material for truck haulage to the concurrent rehabilitation zones. The application of surface mining for the Minim Martap bauxite project reflects a well-proven mining method developed for West Africa for bauxite exploitation.

Geotechnical analysis of waste and ores confirms the surface miner's performance criteria for cutting in situ waste and ores. The surface miners are also able to ensure consistent sizing of ROM bauxite ore to ensure favourable handling characteristics and satisfy customer specifications.

ERM recommends that further work is required to confirm the ore and waste mining horizons' static and kinematic surface miner bearing capacity, as this has not been detailed in the mining Feasibility Study.

ERM notes that although this observation does not affect the valuation opinion, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project.

Overall ERM concludes that the mining approach proposed in the Feasibility Study is a reasonable approach and a suitable basis for informing a valuation opinion.

3.10.3 Geotechnical Assessment

The Company has completed a geotechnical evaluation, encompassing twelve holes for laboratory testing, of the Beatrice, Raymonde, and Danielle Deposits. The study concluded that the use of surface mining was appropriate for these deposits based on the work completed.

Due to the limited spatial extent of these data, further work is required to identify and delineate any hard to rip material/zones that may require blasting. Any such material could cause localised/short term issues with production and blending.

The laboratory evaluation has confirmed that the basal clay and saprolite are classified as high plasticity and medium to high activity. If excavation penetrates these zones below the bauxite ore, the pit floor risks experiencing poor trafficability. Hence, the Company proposes to leave a 0.5 m thick layer of bauxite on the mining floor to ensure a relatively firm surface.

Further work is considered to be required to confirm the 0.5 m floor layer load-bearing capacity. ERM recommends further determination of this 0.5 m pit floor horizon through non-intrusive (ground-penetrating radar, etc.) techniques and additional data capture about the base of the bauxite as part of the grade control system.

An option to mitigate this risk is to increase the floor layer to ±0.75 m, subject to geotechnical confirmation.

The net impact would be realised towards the end of the life of mine, and as detailed, ERM is of the opinion that the floor material is operationally recoverable.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 41

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.10.4 Ore Loss and Dilution

Production of DSO using surface miners relies on minimising both ore loss and dilution to ensure both maintenance of revenue and that bauxite meets metallurgical bauxite specifications by preventing introduction of high silica material. Dilution of bauxite with relatively high silica material overlying and beneath bauxite to be selectively mined as ore is a particular risk to be managed by proposed mining operations.

SRK, in the Minim Martap definitive Feasibility Study (Dastur, 2025) applied both ore loss to the top and base of the bauxite horizon to be mined to prevent dilution as a modifying factor when estimating Ore Reserves. The approach followed by SRK resulted in definition of six ore loss and dilution scenarios that needed to be addressed (Figure 3-15):

==> picture [491 x 101] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-15: Ore loss and dilution scenarios – Minim Martap project

Mimim Martap definitive Feasibility Study Figure 6-4 (Dastur, 2025)

1. Floor loss when transitioning from an ore to a waste horizon. Due to assumed mining accuracy, some ore is mined as waste, resulting in the loss of material that would otherwise be included as ore.

2. Floor dilution when transitioning from an ore horizon to a waste horizon. Due to assumed mining accuracy, some waste is mined as ore, leading to the inclusion of uneconomic, potentially relatively high silica material in the ore.

3. Roof loss – occurs when transitioning from a waste horizon to an ore horizon when some ore is mined as waste, leading to the loss of economically mineable material.

4. Roof dilution when transitioning from a waste to an ore horizon when some waste is mined as ore, resulting in the inclusion of previously uneconomic waste material in the ROM ore.

5. Surface loss at the surface (topography) of the bauxite horizon, where outcropping ore is mined as waste or topsoil or organic material removal during site preparation.

6. Bottom loss at the base of the bauxite horizon identified for mining, where economic material is left in situ to address trafficability concerns and uncertainties in grade (Dastur, 2025).

ERM notes that the use of 1.0 m composites and a high proportion of non-core drilling during resource evaluation complicates the definition of ore-waste boundaries in the bauxite profile with the resolution of ore-waste boundaries able to be predicted in the project’s Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve/mining model being around half of the precision achievable by the mining equipment selected for the project (±0.5 m versus ±0.25 m respectively). This creates a situation where production grade control, ore spotting or even experienced operators being able to “feel” ore-waste boundaries may help to achieve better than predicted ore loss and dilution performance with ensuing cost and revenue benefits. This will need to be studied as the mine enters production.

SRK examined the impacts of:

1. Accepting equal amounts of ore loss and dilution

2. Accepting selective loss of ore only

3. Accepting dilution to maximise ore recovery

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 42

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

on mining a bauxite horizon with a thickness of between 7.9 m and 9.2 m and an ability to mine within 0.25 m of designed surfaces using surface mining equipment. This work favoured an approach of accepting ore loss to minimise dilution to keep silica within limits accepted by target markets for Minim Martap ore (Dastur, 2025).

This approach will still require blending of Beatrice ore with bauxite from other sources to keep the silica content of DSO under 2.0% SiO2.

ERM has assumed ore loss of 8.5% in estimating the quantity of Mineral Resources not included in the project’s Ore Reserve, which is currently restricted to the Beatrice, Danielle and Raymonde plateaus.

The analysis performed for the three plateaus examined by SRK in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study will need to consider the geological characteristics of plateaus to be progressively included in the Ore Reserve as the project continues to develop. Blending strategies for maintaining silica content within acceptable limits will also require continued attention.

Estimation of Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves is discussed in Section 4 of this report.

ERM recommends options for recovering the 0.5 m floor horizon as part of the overall ore extraction process. Excavators could rip and recover this ore to the existing mining horizon, process it by the surface miner, and transport it to a separate ROM stockpile. The material could then be screened to recover bauxite ore.

ERM notes that although this observation does not affect the valuation opinion, it does present an opportunity to derisk and improve the project. The additional tonnes that might be obtained by this approach are at the end of the deposit life and as such will not materially affect the DCF modelling.

3.10.5 Mining Model Preparation

The mining model has been developed to define ore and waste types as follows

1. Topsoil

2. Ore

3. Overburden – waste above the ore zones

4. Interburden – waste within the ore zones

5. Underburden – waste below the lower ore zone.

6. Clay – clay within the ore zones.

These material types have been analysed and integrated into the mining block model.

3.10.6 Open Margin Ranking and Sensitivity Analysis

A margin ranking evaluation for each deposit to identify material columns that are not economic. The parameters for this ranking are detailed in the table below (Table 3-10).

The outputs of the margin ranking analysis limits were subsequently limited to the final pit shells and reported as tonnage by profit per dry tonne of ore (dmt). A sensitivity analysis based on the margin ranking was undertaken to assess the impact of the varying costs for each deposit.

3.10.7 Mine Design

The pit design approach was to generate an inventory capable of supporting a 20-year life of mine targeting 160 Mwmt with an average grade of 51% Al2O3 and <2.0% SiO2. The ultimate pit shell

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 43

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

was defined using a series of strategic schedules designed to maintain the product grade and sequenced between the plateaus.

Table 3-10: Margin Ranking Parameters

Assumption	Unit	Value(US$)
Freight	wmt/ore	22.3
Reference bauxite price	dmt	78
Port loading	wmt/ore	9.39
Railage	wmt/ore	10.42
Development fund	%	1.0
Development of Local Capacity	%	1.0
Mining Royalty	%	3.0
Mining waste cost	wmt/waste	2.33
Mining ore cost	wmt/ore	2.33
Restoration fund	wmt	0.06
Grade control – waste	wmt/ore	0.24
Grade control – ore	wmt/ore	0.24
Raymonde overhaul	wmt/ore	1.19
Beatrice overhaul	wmt/ore	1.04
G&A	wmt	1.50

The mine design parameters are defined as follows:

1. Geotechnical Parameters : the key geotechnical design parameters are detailed in the table below (Table 3-11).

Table 3-11: Key Geotechnical Design Parameters

Design Parameter	Units	Value
Bench Height	m	5.0
Face Angle	degrees	74.0
Berm Width	m	7.5

The geotechnical study recommended maintaining an unmined selvedge around the pit's perimeter to reduce the risk of sidewall failures, which is detailed in the figure below (Figure 3-16).

1. Ultimate Pit Crest : The pit edge is to be graded at 6 degrees, and the extraction horizons grade to align with surface miner recommendations of a maximum longitudinal and transverse gradients of 11 and 7 degrees. An additional 5 m offset was applied to account for potential inaccuracies in the surface and subsequent picked crest with the software.

2. Boundary Constraints : the mining lease boundary was offset by 100 m as a buffer and used to define the limit of the minable area for the three plateaus assessed.

3. Base of Pit : Given the capabilities of the surface miners to operate at variable bench heights and accuracy to follow cutting horizons, the base was not flattened or smoothed.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 44

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

1. Ultimate Pit Designs : Ultimate pit designs for the Beatrice, Danielle and Raymonde deposits are presented in

==> picture [497 x 344] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-16: Unmined selvedge recommended around pit perimeter (Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 45

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [469 x 295] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-17: Beatrice and Raymonde plateau pit designs (Dastur, 2025)

==> picture [497 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-18: Danielle plateau pit design

(Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 46

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.10.8 Mining Inventory

The mining inventory for the LOM schedule was developed from the final pit designs. The steps undertaken to apply the mining modifying factor to define the mining inventory were as follows:

• Inferred Resources have been excluded from the mineable inventory estimates.

• Low Al2O3: The cutoff grade for the various plateaus is detailed in the table below (Table 3-12).

Table 3-12: Minim Martap Project Mineable Inventory

Plateau	Al2O3 Cutof (%)	SiO2 Cutof (%)	Tonnes (Mt)	Total Al2O3 (%)	Total SiO2 (%)
Beatrice	0.0	15.0	59.2	51.1	2.50
Danielle	46.7	15.0	84.7	51.0	1.25
Raymonde	46.9	15.0	74.2	51.0	1.82

(Dastur, 2025)

• Trafficability loss, loss, and dilution: The 0.5 m of bauxite loss overlying the clay has been accounted for as ore loss

• Surface loss excluded: A 0.5 m loss has been applied where bauxite is outcropping.

• Pit design interrogation: The resulting inventory of the mining models interrogated against the ultimate pit shell.

• Schedule inventory: Total tonnages reported by the schedule post volumes losses associated with the cutting into mineable shapes.

• Proved/Probable: Inventory physically used in the schedule to create a DSO product is considered Ore.

• The process of using Mineral Resources to estimate Mining Inventory for use in the production schedule are detailed in the figure below (Figure 3-19).

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 47

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [500 x 503] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-19: Estimation of pit limited mining model from Mineral Resource model (Dastur, 2025)

Page 48

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.10.9 Ore Reserve

The Minim Martap Ore Reserve, prepared by SRK and publicly reported in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study, is presented in Table 3-13 (Dastur, 2025).

Table 3-13: Minim Martap Ore Reserve (August 2025)

Plateau	Classifcation	Tonnage (Mt)	Al2O3 (%)	SiO2 (%)
Beatrice	Proved	38.1	51.56	2.28
	Probable	0.1	56.59	0.88
Danielle	Proved	45.7	51.16	1.23
	Probable	6.6	52.10	1.45
Raymonde	Proved	49.4	50.97	1.73
	Probable	4.0	51.08	2.04
Minim Martap	Proved	133.3	51.20	1.72
	Probable	10.7	51.76	1.67
	Proved+Probable	144.0	51.24	1.71

Source: Dastur (2025) Table 7-24

3.10.10 Mine Production Schedule

The life of mine plan has been developed as a series of strategic schedules, which aim to achieve a set of strategic goals with the primary objectives as follows:

• Achieve the specified DSO ore specifications and production ramp-up schedule as the rail capacity dictates.

• Achieve an elevated specification in the initial three years to improve cash flow.

• Minimise capital and operational costs for the first four years during the rail upgrade and ramp-up of the mining operations.

The key schedule parameters of the production schedule are as follows

• DSO specification as 51% Al2O3 (±1%) and at a maximum SiO2 grade of <2%.

• Achieve a DSO ramp-up from 1.2 Mtpa to 7.0 Mtpa over the initial six years and 10 Mtpa from year 7 onwards.

• Commence mining at the Danielle Plateau.

• Maintain stockpile < 200 kt for the initial 3 years.

• The IRF stockpile is to be on specification as blended from the pit.

Several scenarios were evaluated to determine the best alignment with Canyon by business strategy:

• 6.3 Mtpa rail capacity, commencing mining at Danielle for a prolonged period before transitioning to Raymonde.

• 6.3 Mtpa rail capacity with the commencing mining at Danielle, before transitioning to Raymonde when strip ratio and value dictate.

• 10.0 Mtpa rail capacity with the commencement of mining at Danielle before transitioning to Raymonde when strip ratio and value dictate, with Beatrice commencing as Danielle is depleted.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 49

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

• 10.0 Mtpa rail capacity with the commencement of mining at Danielle before transitioning to Beatrice when strip ratio and value dictate, with Raymonde commencing as Danielle is depleted.

The three plateaus for which Ore Reserves have been estimated have been subdivided into smaller mining areas to ensure practical access and to provide appropriate grade and strip ratio sequences. These subdivisions are detailed in Figure 3-20 and Figure 3-21 below.

==> picture [497 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-20: Beatrice and Raymonde mining areas. Source: (Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 50

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [497 x 340] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-21: Danielle mining areas (Dastur, 2025)

The LOM material movement profile is detailed below, with the following observations:

• Material movements are small until 2029, when the ramp-up commences in line with rail capacity requirements.

• Mining commences at the Danielle Plateau to minimise start-up period and capital requirements.

• The high value and lower strip ratio areas of the Danielle Plateau are targeted. Once this material is exhausted and the mine begins transitioning into higher strip ratio material in the north of the Danielle Plateau, the Beatrice Plateau is brought online.

• The total material peaks from 2032 to 2037 while completing the Danielle Plateau, before reducing towards the end of LOM when the Raymonde Plateau replaces Danielle (Figure 3-22, Figure 3-23).

In ERM’s professional opinion, the mine production schedule detailed in the Feasibility Study is a reasonable basis to inform a valuation of the Project.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 51

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [497 x 287] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-22: Ore and Waste material movement by plateau

(Dastur, 2025)

ERM recommends that further implementation and short-term operational planning be developed in detail. This will allow Canyon to identify the critical paths and improve contractor engagement.

Canyon should develop and retain in-house skills to maintain the geological Mineral Resource, Ore Reserve, and short-term contractor mine planning.

==> picture [500 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-23: LOM grade contributions to mined grade by plateau. Source: (Dastur, 2025)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 52

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.10.11 Operating Strategy

Canyon’s overall operating strategy for the Minim Martap Project is shaped by the current shortage of experienced mining professionals in Cameroon. Hence, Canyon intends to contract out as many aspects of the operation as possible to leverage external experts. Canyon sourced submissions from Sarvodaya, Bankitruck, BCM, SYNOHHydro, TCCE, Mota-Engil, and AMC for the mining contractor assessment. The Canyon approach to adopting this contractor turnkey approach to outsource most operations is detailed in Table 3-14.

Table 3-14: Canyon contractor selection by work process

Process/Activity	Contractor	Units
Overburden removal	Sarvodaya Global	US$/wmt
Ore Mining	Sarvodaya Global	US$/wmt
Grade Control	Sarvodaya Global	US$/wmt
Haulage to IRF	ETS Ali Baba	US$/wmt
IRF Stockpile and Train Loading	ETS Ali Baba	US$/wmt
Rail to Port	Arise	US$/wmt
Port Operations	Arise	US$/wmt
Transhipment	Arise	US$/wmt

ERM has verified the existence of the mining and port facilities, as well as the submission of transhipment contracts from Sarvodaya Global and Arise.

ERM is concerned about adopting the mining contractor costing as definitive for mining operating costs (Overburden, Ore, Haulage to IRF, IRF stockpile, and train loading), as the mining Feasibility Study has not demonstrated a first principles, bottom-up determination of mining costs. This first principles cost approach is generally a key component of Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies, providing the basis for contractor assessment.

Furthermore there are range of other areas, such as unknown areas within the deposits that may require blasting, or additional (re)handling costs to maintain product specifications that may also increase OpEx.

ERM notes that BDO has elected to select a discount rate for the DCF modelling that captures a range of risks that are otherwise difficult to address. ERM concludes that the discount rate is a suitable mechanism to address these types of risks for the mining operating costs.

An owner-operator cost estimate has not been prepared as an independent reference point for the mining contractor.

ERM recommends completing a shadow estimate study for the overall mining costs (overburden, ore, haulage to IRF, IRF stockpile, and train loading). The outcome of this study will verify the current cost estimate and identify the risk of contractor variation arising.

This is a best practice recommendation and not a cost consideration for the Income based valuation DCF model.

Further work is required to identify project risks and opportunities inherent in the definitive Feasibility Study to optimise the forward work plan.

Relying upon contractor operations for all mining aspects, combined with the immature mining industry in Cameroon, potentially presents risk to the project during its operational readiness, production build-up, and operational phases.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 53

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

ERM recommends that Canyon undertake an Operational Readiness Study to synthesise the various contracts and develop the local management capabilities. This in-depth analysis will identify inherent contract, management, and operational risks, and improve confidence in the Feasibility Study conclusions.

Completion of this study may reveal further risks that will have an impact on the project’s financial model in addition to those already identified using the project’s definitive Feasibility Study and associated studies reviewed during preparation of this report.

No action is required to reflect this recommendation in the LOMP.

3.10.12 Economic Evaluation

ERM completed a review of the “CYN003 - Minim Martap Bauxite Project Evaluation_RevI” economic evaluation model inputs and correlated the following inputs with other project data and studies provided by Canyon for use in preparing this report:

• Production schedule

• Bauxite price

• Inflation and exchange rates

• Operating costs

• Capital costs

• Taxes and royalties

• Discount rate

• Predicted cash flow

• Sensitivity analysis.

ERM has recommended adjusting the economic model mining inputs above due to a lack of a firstprinciple bottom-up mining cost determination and a supporting contractor shadow estimate.

There is no sustaining capital cost explicitly included the LOMP DCF model. ERM interpreted this as reflecting the contractor model proposed by the Company. ERM recommends that no additional sustaining costs need to added because the discount rate and sensitivities selected by BDO are considered adequate to cover any risk around cost variation relating to this.

3.11 Infrastructure

3.11.1 Overview

ERM associate, Iridium Project Delivery (Iridium), was engaged by ERM to review:

• Road haulage

• Rail haulage

• Port infrastructure

Iridium has extensive experience with mining infrastructure projects in Africa, including in Cameroon. Iridium was requested to highlight any areas of potential risk and/or concerns and provide recommendations for possible adjustments required to the Project Financial Model.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 54

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.11.2 Data Review

The following documents were provided within the data room for use within the review works:

• Detailed Feasibility Study Report – Minim Martap Bauxite Project – Aug 2025 (30735_DFS Camalco.pdf).

• definitive Feasibility Study Results and Reserves Upgrade Announcement – 1 September 2025 (250901-Minim Martap Updated DFS Final Release.pdf).

• Minim Martap DFS - Mining Component – SRK Consulting – 15 August 2025 (CYN003_Minim Martap Feasibility Study_Rev2.pdf); and

• Minim Matap Bauxite Project Financial Model – SRK Consulting July 2025 (CYN003 - Minim Martap Bauxite Project Evaluation_RevI).

3.11.3 Capital Cost Items

The following sections provide commentary on the various areas/scope elements within the requested scope of work.

The capital cost pricing that has been utilised within the definitive Feasibility Study appears to have been primarily sourced via competitive bidding during the completion of the study. The preferred contractor values have then been applied directly into the financial model. A contingency of 10% has then been applied to the capital cost values.

This needs to be reviewed, as depending on the actual tendered/award status of those quotes, the prices may vary by 10%–15% once they are further discussed to be implemented post definitive Feasibility Study.

ERM recommends adjusting the CapEx costs upwards by 10% to allow for higher costs by the time these contracts are awarded.

Haulage Road from Mine to Inland Rail Facility (IRF)

The capital cost for this 45 km haulage road has been determined from an award contract on 27 June 2025 for the works to ETS Alibaba. The details associated with this award contract have not been provided for review.

ERM makes the following observations:

• As it is a bulk earthworks contract, it is likely that there could be adjustments/variations to the award contract during the execution of the contract due to geotechnical ground conditions, variation in material types (i.e., rock, common, clay etc.), volume adjustment of the earthworks and impact of weather and other construction circumstances.

• It is good industry practice to allow for 10%–20% upwards adjustment in the earthworks contract price for this potential impacts. The advised award contract price of US$7.8 million could then vary upwards to by US$1 million.

ERM notes that the LOMP includes a 10% contingency for this input and concludes that this is a suitable factor for the DCF model.

Rail from IRF to Port

The Project will be utilising the existing railway from the IRF at Makor Station approximately 884km to the Port of Doula. The existing railway is currently utilised by passenger traffic as well other commodity export delivery services.

The rail operator/owner, CAMRAIL, is proposing to complete a rail infrastructure renewal project, called PQ2, that will modernise and expand the existing railway. This project is being funded by the

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 55

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Agence Francaise de Developpement (AFD) and European Investment Bank (EIB). It is currently anticipated that a tender process would occur during late 2025 and 2026, with a target to commence works on the PQ2 project within the first half of 2027.

A rail capacity study was completed by Systra at part of the Project and recommended the following:

• Rail Capacity – 1 to 1.5 Mtpa on the existing railway network.

• Rail Capacity during PQ2 works – 3 Mtpa; and

• Rail Capacity post PQ2 project – 6.5 Mtpa to 10 Mtpa to 14.5 Mtpa (depending upon sidings completed).

Therefore, the ability of the Project to be able to expand and export bauxite tonnes past an initial 1.5 Mtpa rate will be highly dependent upon the timing and completion of the PQ2 project.

The Project has allowed for the following capital cost items associated with the rail infrastructure:

• IFR at Makor – US$20.4 million

• IFR Inspection Shed – US$0.7 million

• Port Rail Siding – US$4.49 million

• Major Maintenance base equipment – US$2.63 million

• Major Maintenance base infrastructure – US$27.39 million

• Other Construction Costs – US$36.01 million

The capital cost estimates proposed for the project cost all appear reasonable.

The only exception is the Other Construction Costs, as it is unclear what scope these amounts are supposed to cover. ERM notes that this aspect is likely to be minor in the overall DCF model and that the increased discount factor proposed by BDO will capture this uncertainty.

Rail Rolling Stock

The definitive Feasibility Study included a simple analysis within the financial model to estimate the required quantity of rolling stock to complete the logistic task over the development tonnage of the project.

The calculation within the financial model, is completed to 3+ decimal places accuracy, which whilst mathematically correct, it is an optimistic setting when calculating the required amount of rolling stock, as you cannot deliver, as an example 0.234 of a full train consist.

The definitive Feasibility Study has allowed for 17 train consists when the operation has expanded to a 10 Mtpa operational level.

The ARISE proposal made slightly different operating day and wagon capacity assumptions to the DFS and completed a recalculation of the required number of train consists to complete the haulage operation.

However, the ARISE calculation is also based upon an “exact” calculation of consist capacity, rather than considering the practical operation of the rollingstock. This is particularly import in the ARISE calculation, as they have increased in the assumed operating days for the railway from 300 days per annum to 340 days, which reduces the possibility for sprint capacity within the system.

Iridium completed a reassessment of this rollingstock requirement, utilising the parameters assumed by ARISE, but rounding down the calculations to consider the practical operation of the rollingstock.

Table 3-15 provides the results of that analysis.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 56

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-15: Rail Rolling Stock Analysis Results

	Units	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032
Cycle Time	hours	96.0	112.8	144.0	144.0	79.2	79.2	79.2
Load Per Train	tonnes	2290	4630	4630	4630	5835	5835	5835
Days in Month	days	30	30	30	30	30	30	30
Operating Day per month	25	25	25	25	25	27.5	27.5	27.5
Operating Days per year	days	340	340	340	340	350	350	350
Trips per month	hr	680	680	680	680	700	700	700
Operating hours per year	hours	8160	8160	8160	8160	8400	8400	8400
Train Trips per year	per train	85	72	56	56	106	106	106
Total to be Shipped	Mtpa	1.2	2.1	1.7	1.7	6.3	7.0	10.0
	kt/month	100	175	141.7	141.7	525.0	583.3	833.3
# Trains to do tonnes	Yearly	524	453	367	367	1080	1200	1714
# Consist Needed	Exact	6.18	6.31	6.57	6.57	10.19	11.32	16.17
# Consist needed	actual	7	7	7	7	11	12	17
Assumed in DFS		6.98	7.10	7.34	7.34	10.71	11.90	17.00

Source: ERM (Iridium)

An analysis of the required rolling stock was also completed and presented in Table 3-16.

Table 3-16: Rolling Stock Calculation

	2026	2027	2028	2029	2030	2031	2032
#Locos - ARISE	12	25	26	26	41	45	65
#Locos - Iridium	14	28	28	28	44	48	68
#Locos - Ordered (Cum)	22	44	44	68	68	68	68
#Locos - Short	Ok	Ok	Ok	Ok	Ok	Ok	Ok
#Wagons - ARISE	290	596	616	616	967	1075	1535
#Wagons - Iridium	329	658	658	658	1034	1128	1598
#Wagons - Ordered (Cum)	160	560	560	1615	1615	1615	1615
#Wagons - Short	-169	-98	-98	Ok	Ok	Ok	Ok

Source: ERM (Iridium)

Note that the calculation of the shortfall of rolling stock does not allow for the purchase of spare locomotives or wagons to allow maintenance activities to occur during operations.

Given the re-analysis in Table 3-16, it appears that the project will be short the wagons required to undertake the haulage task in the first few years of the project.

The shortfall (inclusive of spares) would represent an approximate increase of US$13.7 million to the capital of rollingstock (using the Camalco locomotive supply price of US$2.7 million and Texmaco wagon supply price of US$58,500 per wagon).

This amount is allowed for in the overall Capital Cost for rolling stock, but ERM concludes that another 160 wagons are required in the first year of operation; meaning the US$13.7 million from the total rolling stock capital expenditure should be allocated to the first period to ensure the projected export volumes in the DCF model are realised.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 57

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Another way to consider the impact of the rollingstock differences, is on the possible total capacity that could be shipped down the railway utilising the proposed rollingstock fleet from ARISE.

Table 3-17 below provides the rail capacity based upon the assumed rollingstock quantities being provide by ARISE.

Table 3-17: Rolling Stock analysis (ARISE proposal)

Consist # - ARISE	6	6	6	6	10	11	16
Total Trips in Year	510	432	336	336	1060	1166	1696
Capacity Throughput	1,167,900	2,000,160	1,555,680	1,555,680	6,185,100	6,803,610	9,896,160
DFS Requirement	1,200,000	2,100,000	1,700,000	1,700,000	6,300,000	7,000,000	10,000,000
Diference	-32,100	-99,840	-144,320	-144,320	-114,900	-196,390	-103,840

Source: ERM (Iridium)

Port Facility

The definitive Feasibility Study proposed to complete the unloading of the trains consist in two methods:

• Using rubber mounted excavator/grabber for total output level up to 2 Mtpa;

• ARISE proposal assuming using an excavator/grabber up to 6 Mtpa; and

• A rotary car/wagon dumper arrangement for operational levels above 6 Mtpa.

The capital cost allowance for the first style of unloading the train appear to be appropriate. This style of unloading will reach a natural output constraint just because of the logistic task of emptying the train wagons manually and transporting the bauxite via truck to the port barge loading area.

However, it does not appear to be an appropriate level of capital, or that any capital has been allowed for the development of a rotary wagon dumper and the associated conveyor stacker and reclaimer infrastructure for the operation as described in the Port Chapter 11 of the DFS.

The ARISE proposal was provided to review by Canyon. In reviewing that proposal it is noted that there is discussion that the train unloading operation for output levels greater than 8 Mtpa would be undertaken by a rotary wagon unloader. However, there is no commentary in the proposal on how the material would be conveyed or stockpiled at operating levels about 8 Mtpa (as per the DFS information).

Also, the financial proposal provided on page 40 of the ARISE proposal is a series of unit costs, but no statement is made by ARISE that these costs are fully inclusive of all capital required to undertake the task. So, it is not clear on whether the capital cost of the car dumper and subsequent conveyor and stockyard have been allowed for in the Capital Cost of the project.

An arrangement as described with the Port Chapter could easily cost in the order of US$100– 200 million.

The Company (pers. comm K. Mtsambiwa 26/11/2025) has confirmed that “the estimated capital cost for the upgrade to the port is between $100M to 200M, which is to be incurred by the port/transhipping contractor and expensed as part of the unit contract cost over the duration of the contract”.

Page 58

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

ERM notes that an enhanced unloading facility is critical for the Company’s operations and that there is currently a lack of clarity in the Feasibility Study concerning where this cost is captured in the Life of Mine DCF model.

The Rotary Car Dumper Cell, and Balance Machines for the stockyard have about 12–15 months lead time to acquire and install. The LOMP in the DFS has them in operation by 2032 to deliver the 10 Mtpa production.

In order to achieve this ERM recommends the additional to the base case DCF model of a capital spend profile comprising:

2029 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (initial deposit)

2030 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (final payment)

2031 - $50M for construction installation costs of the works.

The 10% contingency applied elsewhere in the model for the port capital should also apply to this expenditure for the rail dumpers and balance machines.

ERM notes that an alternative approach to this capital expenditure addition would be for the cost of the rail dumper and related infrastructure to be added as a unit cost per tonne by the contractor. No data on this alternative were provided to ERM. ERM observes that the allocating this capital cost via a contractor fee per tonne would be at least the same cost as the approach above or even higher once contractor profit, interest and other costs are included. ERM recommends using the upfront capital cost above for the valuation exercise.

Berth/Transhipping

The definitive Feasibility Study proposes to utilise the existing woodchip berth at the Port Douala. This facility requires some modifications/improvements to the jetty structure, as well as minor dredging, to allow for the utilisation of barges to tranship bauxite from the berth to ocean-going vessels.

The pricing that has been received for the capital cost of the barges and the wharf improvements seems reasonable and appropriate.

3.11.4 Operating Cost Items

Haulage and IRF

The definitive Feasibility Study states that the ETS Ali Baba proposal for providing haulage from ROM at mine to the IRF, and the loading of rail wagons is the chosen option for the operating costs.

The ETS Ali Baba proposal breakdowns as follows:

• Mine ROM/Reclaim/Haul to IRF US$3.65/wmt

• Reclaim/Load Train US$0.50/wmt

It is stated that this is the costs offered for an initial 8-year engagement.

It is unclear if the following has been considered whether this is a tendered, contractually firm price. If it is not, then there is the possibility of some variability to these rates during final negotiations for the awarded contract. The financial model has utilised these figures in Scenario 1 over the life of the Project.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 59

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Rail and Port Operations

The definitive Feasibility Study states that the Arise Port & Logistic proposal for operating the rolling stock, maintaining the rolling stock, train unloading, mobile equipment maintenance, bauxite stockpiling, stockpile reclaiming, and barge loading is the chosen option for the operating costs.

The Arise proposal breakdowns as follows:

• Rail to Port items (8 years) US$10.23/wmt

• Port Operations (8 years) US$ 3.64/wmt

• • Transhipment (8 years) US$ 6.56/wmt

It is stated that this is the costs offered for an initial 8-year engagement.

The following observations are made:

• It is unclear as to whether these rates are fixed, require any yearly escalation (due to labour costs, fuel costs, etc)

• It is also unclear as to whether this is a tendered, contractually firm price. If it is not, then there is the possibility of some variability to these rates during final negotiations for the awarded contract.

• The Financial model has utilised different figures in Scenario 1 than these figures, even though they are stated in the model as being from Arise.

Some form of escalation/risk should be applied to these numbers, especially after the indicated initial 8-year engagement period.

The Arise proposal for the post 8-year period is broken down as follows:

• Rail to Port items (8 years) US$10.42/wmt

• Port Operations (8 years) US$ 3.00/wmt

• • Transhipment (8 years) US$ 6.00/wmt

Again, there is a similar risk/concern that these rates will no longer be applicable after the 8-year engagement date.

Port and Rail Fees

The Port Authority and Rail Authority have advised that the following fees

• Rail Usage fee US$8.00/wmt

• • Rail Usage fee (2032+) US$6.00/wmt • Port Authority fee US$1.12/wmt

In reviewing the financial model, these items can be seen as part of the main input page into the modelling scenarios. Therefore, they appear to have transferred appropriately.

ERM concludes that the costs above are reasonable and suitable for use in the DCF modelling by BDO. The costs will require at least an inflation escalation in the DCF model. Furthermore, ERM notes that the increased discount rate proposed by BDO is an appropriate approach to capture uncertainty around these aspects of the project OpEx.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 60

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

3.12 Environment, Permitting, ESG

3.12.1 Project Closure and Rehabilitation

The mine site is proposed to have a life of mine of around 20 years, based on the Ore Reserve delineated to date for the Danielle, Beatrice, and Raymonde plateaus, which ERM envisages will be extended with additional Ore Reserves identified by further exploration.

The mine design utilises a strip-mining method, allowing for the progressive backfilling with mining waste and rehabilitation of the mined areas as mining advances during the operational phase. Topsoil will be stockpiled and reused during the rehabilitation process. The open pit method is considered to have a very low structural geotechnical risk. As the bauxite will be mined from the tops of plateaus there will be no significant pit wall development. Figure 3-24 provides an overview of the proposed strip-mining approach and progressive rehabilitation.

The Cameroon Mining Code 2023 (Law No. 2023/014 of 19 December 2023 relating to the Mining Code) provides the legal requirements for mine closure and rehabilitation. An operator is required to restore, rehabilitate and close mine sites and remove all facilities. The mined areas need to be restored to stable conditions similar to the pre-mining state or conducive to any new sustainable development deemed suitable and acceptable by the relevant authorities. The Code requires implementation of an Environmental and Social Management Plan including a detailed rehabilitation component, prior commencing operations. At closure following the end of mine operations, all infrastructure must be secured or dismantled, failure to comply can result in penalties or asset forfeiture. The rehabilitation process is supported financially through a State-managed fund enforced by environmental authorities.

Section 101(6) of the Cameroon Mining Code 2023 outlines the post-closure and relinquishment requirements. Post-inspection of the rehabilitated site by the relevant authorities will result in the grant of a discharge title or permit. The former operators remain responsible for any damage discovered subsequently in connection with the previous activities on the site.

The Project’s rehabilitation and closure requirements are also included in the signed (July 2024) Mining Convention agreement between the Project and State. Sections 14 and 15 (Canyon Resources, 2024).

The following is of note from the convention:

• 14.5 provides for obligations regarding abandonment of installation and restoration of sites

• 15.1 b describes the Fund for Restoration, Rehabilitation and Closure of Mining and Quarry Sites, which includes an annual contribution based on the estimated costs of implementing the Rehabilitation. The cost is estimated at F.CFA 7,062,180,288 (F.CFA 7 billion). This amount may be updated as the programme is evaluated at the discretion of the State or any structure mandated for this purpose.

• 15.3 pending the establishment of the Fund formally, the amounts allocated for closure is transferred into an escrow accounting and will be transferred to the State Fund once it is established.

ERM notes the F.CFA 7 billion (US$11 million) has been disclosed in the Project’s financial statements as a capital commitment, audited by the Project’s group auditors, 30 June 2025.

A MCRP (ESS-1001CAMA-ESIA-001-EN-REV0 MCRP, 2021) was prepared by ESS and forms part of the third volume of ESIA (Vol 3, Additional Plans). The 2021 MCRP plan covers the environment and social baseline. The MCRP is based on the feasibility and environmental baseline studies.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 61

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

ERM notes within the mine closure plan there is an aspiration to meet international closure requirements with specific reference to the World Bank HSE guidelines.

Progressive rehabilitation will be reported on an annual basis as part of the required government reporting process.

The proposed post mine land use will include a landscape function and vegetation that is resilient, self-sustaining, and comparable to surrounding area.

Stakeholder engagement has been undertaken during the Mine ESIA process where the closure phase was addressed. There are commitments to plan and conduct consultation with stakeholders across the different phases of the mine e.g. during operations, prior to closure and during to closure. It is understood currently there are no formalised agreements with community stakeholders in place regarding the described post mine closure land uses and the related completion criteria. Acceptance of the Mine ESIA by government is an initial step of acceptance of the proposed post mine land uses and completion criteria, with ongoing updates to the closure plan committed to.

Completion criteria have been identified and described in the 2021 MCRP for environment, social, and cultural aspects where the achievement of these once confirmed through inspections or similar concludes further involvement as per Mining Code 2023 Section 101.

The MCRP broadly describes the approach to closure activities and mitigation measures required during the closure and post-closure maintenance periods. Most of the progressive rehabilitation activities will be undertaken during operations with a focus on rehabilitating and closing areas in the final phase of operations and dismantling of selected site infrastructure.

The MCRP includes a closure risk assessment identifying residual risks based on the proposed closure outcomes with an expectation the residual risks will be managed to ‘as low as reasonably practicable’.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 62

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [752 x 464] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3-24: Selected strip-mining approach

(Vol 3 ESIA, MCRP Plan)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 63

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

There were five identified ‘high’ rated residual risks covering:

• Public health and safety are not ensured

• Backfilled open pits landscape function and vegetation is not resilient, self-sustaining, and comparable

• Open pit landscape function and vegetation is not resilient, self-sustaining, and comparable

• Injuries or deaths resulting from pit stability or ease of access to pits

• Waste rock storages not physically or chemically stable.

The MCRP includes a closure cost estimate of F.CFA 5,055 million (US$8.48 M) with the following assumptions made:

• Internal mine roads will be removed, external roads will be left in place

• Road drainage and bridges will be left in place

• No water diversions on the plateau

• Rehabilitation of waste material stockpile covering 34 ha

• Rehabilitation of final voids and ramps covering 570 ha

• Rehabilitation of site access road covering 200,000 m[2]

• Demolition of housing and facilities (4,622 m[2] )

• Rehabilitation of general surface areas covering 30 ha

• Placement of fencing covering 30 ha

• Water management activities covering 1 ha

• Clean and dirty water will be separately managed, some treatment may be required

• Post-closure maintenance of 2-3 years

• Progressive rehabilitation will occur during the life of mine, and operating costs will cover these costs

• 10% of the estimated closure amount will be transferred to the government based on around 10% of the total mine area being active/open at any time during the life of mine. Annual inflation will need to be applied and transferred to the government.

ERM understands the difference between the 2021 closure cost estimate of F.CFA 5,055 million (US$8.48 million) and the provisioned F.CFA 7 billion (2024) is based on inflation adjustment since 2021. These costs do not appear in the LOMP and BDO should adopt the latter cost.

The basis of the closure cost preparation for rehabilitation and dismantling costs was informed by the South African Closure Cost Guideline at the time of preparing the closure estimate in 2021. The 2021 closure cost estimate includes an inflation adjustment from 2020. The breakdown of the 2021 closure costs is shown in Table 3-18.

ERM has not sighted closure/decommissioning plans and associated cost estimates and assumptions for the haul road, IRF and port facilities.

Therefore, ERM recommends that a 1% cost be taken from the CAPEX spend on each of project activities may need to be considered as the indicative closure cost with further consideration given to these project activities early in the Project.

Observations

Closure planning is iterative and expected to develop over the life of the mine. An indicative agreement of the closure concepts with all relevant stakeholders including community, would usually form the basis of future consultation processes covering closure planning activities.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 64

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The basis of the closure plan is considered by ERM to be of an ‘order of magnitude’ in detail and highly conceptual. Whilst the post mine land use is broadly defined across the closure domains there are no conceptual designs, engineering or otherwise described. The design of the operation has not taken into full consideration closure design.

The closure costs make no account or assumptions for a post-closure monitoring period and associated costs for environment, cultural and social aspects; human resources aspects (e.g. redundancy); socio-economic aspects (e.g. community development programme), and cultural heritage. Monitoring is assumed to be carried out across the life of the operation but is not considered beyond the final year of operation (year 20). These costs will need to be considered as they will be required to demonstrate meeting the proposed completion criteria. Further the Project has indicated their aspiration to meet international closure requirements with specific reference to the World Bank HSE guidelines.

The World Bank Group Environmental, Health and Safety Guidelines for Mining, December 2007 notes the duration of post-closure monitoring should be defined by risk and typically site conditions require a minimum period of five years after closure or longer.

The following are not specifically addressed or have been excluded from the closure cost estimate:

• Management of the identified and described residual risks including a financial cost risk analysis.

• Costs related to socio-economic and cultural closure related activities and regulatory requirements (e.g. community development programme, protection, and management of cultural heritage).

• Costs related to the human resources aspects i.e. employee redundancy at closure and postclosure.

• Indirect costs to cover the planning, execution and completion of the closure process, stakeholder engagement to cover regulatory compliance, safety, project management, and administration.

• Noting closure planning will evolve over time, the early phase of the Project and the conceptual state of closure plan concepts, the 2021 closure cost estimate has made no provision for contingency to address the unknowns and uncertainties.

• Pre-closure studies to support the development of closure concepts and required closure activities such as:

• Groundwater closure modelling

• Final void/mined area assessment

• Contamination assessment

• Surface drainage design

• Landform closure design

• Decommissioning and demolition plan

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 65

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 3-18: Closure Description Cost Estimate

Item	Description	Unit	Quantity	Infation Adjusted Master Rate (US$2020)	Multiplication Factor	Weighting Factor	Cost (US$)	Remarks
1	Dismantling of processing plant and related structures (including overland conveyors and power lines)	m3		1.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
2A	Demolition of steel buildings and structures	m2		12.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
2B	Demolition of reinforced concrete buildings and structures	m2		18.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
3	Rehabilitation of access road	m2	200,000	2.0	1.0	11	440.000	Applicable
4A	Demolition and rehabilitation of electrified railway lines	m		21.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
4B	Demolition and rehabilitation of non-electrified railway lines	m		11.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
5	Demolition of housing and facilities	m2	4,622	24	1.0	1.1	122,021	Applicable
6	Opencast rehabilitation, including final voids and ramps	ha	570	11,704.4	1.0	1.1	7,338,687	Applicable
7	Sealing of shafts, adits, and inclines	m3		6.0	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
8A	Rehabilitation of overburden and spoils	ha	34	8,333	1.0	1.1	311,654	Applicable
8B	Rehabilitation of processing waste deposits and evaporation ponds (basic, salt producing waste)	ha		10,379	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
8C	Rehabilitation of processing waste deposits and evaporation ponds (acidic, metal rich waste)	ha		10,379	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
9	Rehabilitation of subsided areas	ha		30,144	0.81	1.1		Not applicable
10	General surface rehabilitation, including grassing of all denuded areas	ha	30.0	6,601	1.0	1.1	217,833	Applicable
11	River diversions	ha		6,601	1.0	1.1		Not applicable
12	Fencing	ha	52	8.0	1.0	1.1	458	Applicable
13	Water management	ha	1	2,510	0.33	1.1	911	Applicable
14	2-3 years maintenance	ha	52	878	1.0	1.1	50,222	Applicable
			Assumptions
	Risk Class (Bauxite)	C
	Area Sensitivity	Medium Risk
	TOTAL						8,482 M (5,054 M)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 66

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

The required annual payment to government based on the agreed closure cost (F.CFA 7 billion) has not been made by the Project yet due to government related processes that have stalled due to the recent elections.

Based on the available information, ERM understands the 2021 closure cost estimate does not include any third-party quotes to support the cost estimate.

Recommendations

To provide for a more robust closure cost estimate aligned with international closure planning requirements, the following recommendations are made. The estimated closure costs included below are based on ERM’s project and sector experience where we have undertaken closure cost estimates and/or closure cost technical reviews and exposure to international closure planning requirements across a broad range of jurisdictions. ERM considers it reasonable that these costs be considered in the Project closure cost estimate.

Upon the next review of the closure plan, update the closure cost estimates to address the following:

Allow for at least a five-year post-closure monitoring period (in addition to the maintenance already allowed for in the 2021 estimate). ERM has provided indicative costs based on similar projects for the following aspects to be considered within the monitoring requirement:

• Water (surface and groundwater) US$70k/year

• Sediments US$15k/year

• Rehabilitation and biodiversity US$35k/year

• Geotechnical monitoring US$45k/year

• Air quality US$35k/year

• Cultural values US$10k/year

Apply 5% to the subtotal of the direct costs (as per 2021 estimate) for indirect costs to address the planning, execution and completion of the closure process, stakeholder engagement to cover regulatory compliance, safety, project management and administration.

Apply 20–30% to the subtotal of the direct costs (as per 2021 estimate) for contingency to address unknowns and uncertainties/unforeseen events.

Include costs that address socio-economic and cultural values management during closure and postclosure phases. An indicative cost of between 4-6% of the direct costs (as per 2021 estimate) based on closure planning engagement; regulatory requirements for socio-economic and cultural heritage; local capacity/dependency on asset; and potential social and cultural impacts.

Include US$225k pre-closure study costs to address risk, uncertainty and knowledge gaps for the comprising:

• Groundwater closure modelling (US$30k)

• Final void/mined area assessment (US$30k)

• Contamination assessment (US$40k)

• Surface drainage design (US$25k)

• Landform closure design (US$60k)

• Decommissioning and demolition plan (US$40k)

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 67

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Conduct a financial risk analysis of the identified residual risks rated as high (as a minimum) to determine the potential closure cost impact. Track the risks year on year as more information becomes available over the life of the asset.

As the Project advances through the operational phase a first principles cost build-up that considers third party quotes or estimates (e.g. decommissioning and dismantling) should be prepared and informed by increasingly developed closure concepts and designs and considering learnings/outcomes from the planned progressive rehabilitation during the operational phase.

ERM recommends applying 1% of the CAPEX cost on each of the project activities, for the haul road, IRF and port facilities to allow for a closure cost provision.

ERM recommends that the Company prepare conceptual closure cost estimates for each based on the completed ESIA’s, stakeholder engagement and any agreements made in relation to the facilities. ERM notes that although this observation does not affect the valuation opinion, it does present an opportunity derisk and improve the project.

3.12.2 Environment and Communities

ESIAs have been completed for the project covering the following:

• Mine site (July 2022) prepared by Golder Associates-Africa, Rainbow Environment Consultant (Cameroon), ESS-Senegal

• Haul Road (April 2025) prepared by Andal & Synergy Engineering, Cameroon

• IRF (July 2025) prepared by Andal & Synergy Engineering, Cameroon

• Port (October 2025) Autonomous Port of Douala (PDA) prepared by Glonar, Cameroon

Each of these have received their certificates of environmental compliance.

During each of the ESIAs engagement with stakeholders was undertaken and recorded within the ESIAs. Stakeholder engagement has been conducted in alignment with government requirements for all aspects of the project with outcomes from these processes considered within the individual ESIA’s.

A Mining licence was granted on 2 September 2024 and requires development to commence two years following the grant of the licence and mining activities within five years. It is reasonable to assume the Project is on track in meeting these requirements with the mine site construction underway in 2025 and the projected mining stripping starting in early 2026.

The signed (July 2024) Mining Convention between the Project and the State (Canyon Resources, 2024) provides the environment and community-related agreed commitments. It includes reference to the Environment and Social Management Plan (ESMP) as described in the ESIA documentation.

Key management plans for the Project to support the mitigation and management of environment and social impacts include the following:

• Environmental and Social Management Plan – broadly describes their approach to managing environment and social risks, considering an environment and social management system that provides the overarching framework.

• Stakeholder Engagement Plan- addresses stakeholder identification and mapping, engagement strategies, and processes.

• Community development programme – contributes to the development of local populations including financial allocation to two municipalities directly impacted by the Project to collaborate and support agreed social development programs.

Page 68

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

• Local Development Plan – established the support framework for local development and the identified communities and related programs.

• Chance finds – addressing cultural heritage values and archaeological finds and appropriate reporting and management.

• Biodiversity Conservation Management Plan - outlines strategies to conserve biodiversity across all project-affected areas, including mine site, transport corridor, rail, and port. It aims to align with the Project’s environmental policy, meet legal and stakeholder expectations and minimise biodiversity risks. There is a strong collaboration focus including government ministries, NGOs, local communities, and research institutions. The plan includes a financial commitment of F.CFA 600 million (US$1 million) every five years. The plan aims to support protected areas, anti-poaching programme, water and fish biodiversity monitoring, reforestation and site rehabilitation and environmental education.

• MCRP (discussed further in our report under the Rehabilitation and Closure Section).

Other management plans committed to include:

• Traffic management

• Waste management

• Occupational Health and Safety management

• Surveillance plan

The ESMP include a breakdown of the projected costs for the implementation of the identified management plans, F.CFA 1,150,000,000 (as at 2021).

Section 20 of the signed Mining Convention addresses obligations to preserve and manage cultural heritage and archaeology of the Project areas with a requirement for a chance find process and reporting of any discoveries.

Section 10 of the signed Mining Convention covers the Project’s obligations in relation to employment and training, development of local suppliers and a community development programme.

The most recent environmental assessment has been completed on the mine site hydrogeology by Geostratum, (Geostratum, 2025).

Observations

Environment and social impacts have been identified and will be addressed under the overarching Environment and Social Management System which has various management plans that assist in managing and mitigating impacts.

Stakeholder engagement has been ongoing throughout the ESIA process and is committed to as part of the different phases of the project including construction, operation, and closure. Regular review of stakeholders to confirm stakeholder mapping is current and appropriate will be needed and robust processes established to maintain engagement throughout the life of the Project. Regular verification of the established processes will enable identification of improvements and updates to the engagement process.

The signed Mining Convention and the ESIA certificates for the Project components include various obligations that will need to be met to demonstrate compliance with the ESIA and other relevant regulatory requirements.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 69

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Risk review and management will be required with consideration of risks appropriate to the different Project phases. Changes to risks and risk profiles should result in changes to management measures and plans.

Management of surface water and groundwater (dewatering of the mining areas and backfilling the mined areas) will require effective controls by the Project given the local community connections to both surface water and groundwater as significant users of the water and the projected changes due to construction, operation, and closure. Design of surface water drainage and storage will need to take into consideration the wet season rainfall and the flooding events that occur from time to time. Further work is required to understand the potential groundwater impacts post-closure. A water balance should assist managing the supply and distribution of water across construction, operation, and closure. The water balance should be regularly reviewed and updated based on actual site data and relevance to the activities being undertaken and the phase of the Project.

The ESIA has recorded the status of cultural heritage and archaeology of the Project sites. There are obligations to identify these values prior to disturbance and government reporting dependent on what is found. The Chance Find Management Process and identification of no-go areas will be a key measure for meeting the obligations and managing impacts.

There is a strong regulatory requirement to understand impacts to air quality from the Project to protect human health and implement effective controls to present harm to people. Trigger Action Response Plans may be required to take a preventative approach to managing issues.

Regular review of environment and social monitoring data and recorded and reported incidents and events will support the required government reporting processes but also identify where changes and improvements may be required. A similar approach will be required for the implementation of management plans and the verification of control effectiveness and applying improvements and changes.

In ERM’s opinion, the proposed resourcing for the accountability and management of environment and social matters appears to be reasonable.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 70

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

4. VALUATION OF MINERAL RESOURCES NOT INCLUDED IN THE ORE RESERVE

4.1 Comparable Transactions

A search for bauxite transactions globally, involving projects with estimated Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves identified twelve potentially suitable transactions that could be used to develop transaction multiples for the Minim Martap Project. A further 26 transactions were identified and excluded from further review due to several criteria, including bauxite forming a minor component of a multiple project, corporate transaction, a very small proportion of equity in a project changing hands, or the price paid suggesting that factors other than market conditions influenced the value of the assets being acquired. Of the twelve projects identified, all had Mineral Resources and six had both Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Details of the transactions are presented in Table 4-1. The financial details of each selected comparable transaction are presented in Table 4-2 and Table 4-3. Real values presented in Table 4-3 were normalised[6] using LME alumina prices to provide a ratio between the transaction year and current prices. LME alumina and aluminium prices, and S&P Platts aluminium prices have been strongly correlated with bauxite prices since 2015.

Bauxite prices identified during analysis of comparable transactions were generally lower than the bauxite reference price of US$78/dmt used in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study (reflecting the life of mine average). This equates with a price of US$69.0/wmt which is also higher than the highest price identified in ERM’s research but is not considered to be unrealistic. Canyon is expected to have based this price on detailed discussions with potential customers and Minim Martap bauxite should be a premium product with relatively high alumina and very low silica grades that should be expected to have a higher VIU than competing bauxites.

In ERM’s professional opinion, given the nature of the proposed Minim Martap product specifications, the Company’s bauxite pricing used in the Feasibility Study and supported by public announcements of contracted pricing, is a reasonable value to use for the current bauxite market.

Comparable transaction results reveal a range of prices paid for Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, which are summarised in Table 4-4 and Figure 4-1. The comparable transactions data is summarised in both nominal and real (2025) dollars, normalised using the LME alumina price.

4.1.1 Value in Use

VIU measures how much a specific ore or concentrate contributes to the buyer’s profitability in its intended application (e.g., alumina refining for bauxite). It accounts for quality attributes, impurities, and processing performance, not just tonnage or grade. Key components considered for bauxite include:

• Al₂O₃ Content (Available Alumina) : Higher alumina means more yield per tonne, increasing VIU. Available alumina excludes bound alumina in minerals like boehmite or diaspore that require high-temperature digestion.

• Reactive Silica (SiO₂) : High reactive silica consumes caustic soda during Bayer process, raising costs. Each 1% increase in reactive silica can significantly reduce VIU. Reactive silica is a component of total silica present in bauxite that will vary between deposits. The low total

6 A Market Approach also often makes use of normalisation. Price is the primary driver of value, and it is assumed that prices paid are dependent on the prevailing price of the commodity. A simple example would be that it is assumed that if a price of US$1 per Mineral Resource tonne was paid on a transaction when the price was US$1000 per tonne then, if the current price is US$1500 per tonne, US$1.50 would be paid for the same Mineral Resource ounce in a current transaction.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 71

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

silica content of Minim Martap bauxite should, however, be expected to correlate with similarly low reactive silica content.

• Other Impurities : Fe₂O₃, TiO₂, CaO: Affect residue handling and disposal costs.

• Organic carbon : Can increase energy consumption and cause operational issues.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 72

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 4-1: Comparable Transactions Summary

Target	Announced	Trans. Type	Trans. Value	Country	Buyer(s)	Seller(s)	Commod.	R&R Acquired	Transaction Synopsis
			(US$M)					(Mt)
Gulf Alumina Limited	28-Oct-16	M&A - Whole	30.6	Australia	Metro Mining Limited (ASX:MMI)	Gulf Alumina Pty Ltd	Au, bx	42.6	Metro announced an off-market scrip takeover offer for all the shares in Gulf Alumina
IronRidge Resources Limited	19-Jul-17	M&A - Minority	0.5	Australia, Chad, Gabon	Assore Limited	Private Investor	Au, Ag, Ta, Fe Ore, bx	0.2	Assore acquired a 29.6% interest in IronRidge Resources which was assessing various bauxite, lithium and gold prospects in Australia, Ghana, Ivory Coast and Chad.
Bauxite Resources Limited	21-Nov-17	M&A - Minority	0.2	Australia	Mercantile Ofm Pty. Ltd.	Australian Silica Quartz Group Ltd. (ASX:ASQ)	Au, Ag, Cu, Fe Ore, bx	47.4	Mercantile Ofm purchased 50% of the shares in Bauxite Resources Limited. Darling Range and Lort River bauxite projects
Worsley Alumina project	17-Oct-18	M&A - Asset	183.3	Australia	Press Metal Bintulu Sdn Bhd	ITOCHU Corporation (TSE:8001)	bx	58.5	Press Metal Bintulu agreed to buy a 5% stake in the Worsley Alumina bauxite mine and refinery from ITOCHU
First Bauxite Corporation	19-Oct-18	M&A - Minority	1.5	Guyana	Resource Capital Management, LLC	First Bauxite LLC	bx	7.2	Resource Capital Fund acquired 9.29% of First Bauxite Corporation. Tarakulli and Bonasika bauxite projects, Guyana
Sarmin Bauxite Limited	23-Sep-20	M&A - Whole	0.6	Guinea	Lindian Resources Limited (ASX:LIN)	Sarmin Group Inc.; Kanberra Resources Limited	bx	635.3	Acquisition of the Lelouma Bauxite Project completed
Woula project	23-Sep-20	M&A - Asset	0.3	Guinea	Lindian Resources Limited (ASX:LIN)	Entreprise Générale D’Entretien & Construction; Asena Holdings Pte. Ltd.	bx	48.0	Lindian Resources acquired a 75% stake in the Woula Bauxite Project in Guinea

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 73

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Target	Announced	Trans. Type	Trans. Value	Country	Buyer(s)	Seller(s)	Commod.	R&R Acquired	Transaction Synopsis
			(US$M)					(Mt)
Amargosa Tenements	19-Dec-23	M&A - Asset	49.4	Brazil	Borborema Mineração Ltda	Rio Tinto Group (LSE:RIO)	bx	41.2	Sale of the Amargosa project, Brazil
Metallica Minerals Limited	16-Feb-24	M&A - Whole	16.9	Australia	Diatreme Resources Limited (ASX:DRX)	Metallica Minerals Limited (:MLM)	Co, Cu, Ni, bx, hms, il, ru, zr	9.0	Diatreme Resources completed the acquisition of Metallica Minerals, including the Urquhart bauxite project
Alumina Limited	25-Feb-24	M&A - Whole	2,468.4		Alcoa Corporation (NYSE:AA)	Alumina Limited (:AWC)	bx	1628.7	Alcoa Corporation announced a binding all-stock agreement to acquire Alumina Limited. Multiple mineral assets.
Al Ba'itha Project and Refinery	15-Sep-24	M&A - Asset	1,378.7	Saudi Arabia	Saudi Arabian Mining Company (Ma'aden) (SASE:1211)	Alcoa Corporation (NYSE:AA)	bx	52.2	Sale of 21.5% interest in Ma'aden bauxite and alumina JV to Ma'aden. Al'Ba'itha mine, Saudi Arabia
Zeta Resources Limited	10-Oct-24	M&A - Minority	5.3		UIL Limited (LSE: UTL)	Zeta Resources Limited (: ZER)	Au, Cu, bx	42.2	UIL completed compulsory acquisition of shares in Zeta Resources Ltd

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 74

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 4-2: Comparable Transactions Resources and Reserves (nominal dollars)

Target	Announced	Trans. Value				Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves
			Equity	Reserves	Reserves	Reserves	Resources	Resources	Resources	R&R	R&R	R&R
	dd-MMM-YY	(US$M)	(%)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)
Gulf Alumina Limited	28-Oct-16	30.6	60.7				42.6	2287.2	0.64	42.6	2287.2	0.64
IronRidge Resources Limited	19-Jul-17	0.5					0.2	10.9	2.18	0.2	10.9	2.2
Bauxite Resources Limited	21-Nov-17	0.2	50.0				47.4	2.3	0.19	47.4	2.3	0.2
Worsley Alumina project	17-Oct-18	183.3	5.0	14.9	647.1	12.3	43.6			58.5	2540.4	3.1
First Bauxite Corporation	19-Oct-18	1.5	9.3	1.1	53.9	1.4	6.1			7.2	343.4	0.2
Sarmin Bauxite Limited	23-Sep-20	0.6	75.0				635.3	34938.8	0.00	635.3	34938.8	0.00
Woula project	23-Sep-20	0.3	75.0	635.3	34938.8	0.0
Amargosa Tenements	19-Dec-23	49.4	100.0				41.2			41.2	289.0	0.2
Metallica Minerals Limited	16-Feb-24	16.9	100.0	3.6	222.9	5.6	5.4			9.0	614.3	2.0
Alumina Limited	25-Feb-24	2,468.4	100.0	269.5	12763.4	8.2	1359.2			1628.7	77140.3	1.4
Al Ba'itha Project and Refinery	15-Sep-24	1,378.7	21.5	47.3	3381.1	22.1	5.0			52.2	3735.6	20.0
Zeta Resources Limited	10-Oct-24	5.3	1.9				42.2	2.0	0.13	42.2	2.0	0.1

Source: S&P Capital IQ

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 75

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 4-3: Comparable Transactions Resources and Reserves (Real (2025) dollars)

Target	Announced	Trans. Value				Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves	Bauxite Resources and Reserves
			Equity	Reserves	Reserves	Reserves	Resources	Resources	Resources	R&R	R&R	R&R
	dd-MMM-YY	(US$M)	(%)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)	(Mt)	(US$M)	($/t)
Gulf Alumina Limited	28-Oct-16	38.6	60.7				42.6	2,881.0	0.81	42.6	2,881.0	0.81
IronRidge Resources Limited	19-Jul-17	0.6					0.2	13.3	2.7	0.2	13.3	2.7
Bauxite Resources Limited	21-Nov-17	0.2	50.0				47.4	2.8	0.24	47.4	2.81	0.24
Worsley Alumina project	17-Oct-18	220.8	5.0	14.9	647.1	14.8	43.6			58.5	3,060.8	3.8
First Bauxite Corporation	19-Oct-18	1.8	9.3	1.1	53.9	1.7	6.1			7.2	413.7	0.26
Sarmin Bauxite Limited	23-Sep-20	0.6	75.0				635.3	40,341.6	0.00	635.3	40,341.6	0.00
Woula project	23-Sep-20	0.4	75.0	635.3	34938.8	0.0
Amargosa Tenements	19-Dec-23	40.8	100.0				41.2			41.2	238.4	0.14
Metallica Minerals Limited	16-Feb-24	10.1	100.0	3.6	222.9	3.4	5.4			9.0	367.4	1.2
Alumina Limited	25-Feb-24	1,476.3	100.0	269.5	12763.4	4.9	1359.2			1628.7	46,136.6	0.81
Al Ba'itha Project and Refinery	15-Sep-24	824.6	21.5	47.3	3381.1		5.0			52.2	2,234.2	12.0
Zeta Resources Limited	10-Oct-24	5.3	1.9				42.2	2.0	0.13	42.2	2.03	0.13

Source: S&P Capital IQ[pro] , normalised using Guinea bauxite price 2015-2025 compiled by ERM

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 76

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 4-4: Comparable Transactions Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve Bauxite Prices

Transaction	Date	Price Paid (Nominal Dollars)	Price Paid (Nominal Dollars)	Price Paid (Nominal Dollars)	Price Paid (Real, 2025 Dollars)	Price Paid (Real, 2025 Dollars)	Price Paid (Real, 2025 Dollars)	Reported FOB Bauxite Price	Reported FOB Bauxite Price
		Reserves (US/t)	Resources (US$/t)	Reserves+ Resources (US$/t)	Reserves (US/t)	Resources (US$/t)	Reserves+ Resources (US$/t)	Nominal (US$/t)	Real 2025 (US$/t)
Gulf Alumina Ltd	28 Oct 2016		0.64			0.81		47.5	59.8
Iron Ridge Resources Ltd	19 Jul 2017		2.2			2.7		52.0	63.6
Bauxite Resources Ltd	21 Nov 2017		0.19			0.24
Worsley Alumina Project	17 Oct 2018	12.3		3.1	14.8		3.8	43.4	52.3
First Bauxite Corp.	19 Oct 2018	1.4		0.19	1.7	0.26		47.5	57.2
Sarmin Bauxite Ltd	23 Sep 2020							55.0	63.5
Amargosa Project	19 Dec 2023		0.22	2.0	0.25	0.14
Metallica Minerals Ltd	16 Feb 2024	5.4		2.0	3.6		1.2
Alumina Ltd	25 Feb 2024	8.2		1.4	4.9		0.81	47.4	28.3
Al Ba'itha Project and Refinery	15 Sep 2024						12.0	71.5	42.8
Zeta Resources Ltd	10 Oct 2024		0.13			0.13		48.1	48.1
Minimum		1.4	0.13	0.19	1.7	0.13	1.2	43.4	28.3
Preferred (Median)		6.9	0.21	0.43	4.1	0.24	0.81	47.8	54.8
Maximum		12.3	2.2	3.1	14.8	2.7	0.54	48.1	63.5

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 77

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

==> picture [497 x 332] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4-1: Realised bauxite values in Comparable Transactions (US/t)

• Physical Properties : Particle size, moisture, and handling characteristics influence shipping and refining efficiency. The use of surface miners by Canyon at Minim Martap is expected to contribute to relatively even sizing of ROM bauxite, creating a product with good handling characteristics throughout the mining and transport chain, and during refining.

The relatively high price per tonne established for Minim Martap bauxite through negotiations by Canyon with prospective clients and used in the project’s DFS, in ERM’s opinion, is evidence of a desirable bauxite product with high VIU.

High VIU bauxites may be blended with lower quality bauxites to produce a blend that is more valuable overall than the individual constituents to refiners and smelters.

4.2 Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves

Mineral Resources not included in the project’s Ore Reserve, as reported in August 2025 in the project’s definitive Feasibility Study (Dastur, 2025) are summarised in Table 4-5.

The project’s Ore Reserve is valued by the Expert Valuer, BDO, using an income-based approach using the project’s financial model.

All Ore Reserves are within the Minim Martap project area. The Makan and Ngaoundal projects have Mineral Resource estimates. There are plateaus with potential to host bauxites that remain untested in all three project areas. The Ore Reserve comprises both Proved and Probable Mineral Resources. A combination of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources have not been included in the Mineral Resource Estimate. Inferred Resources have also not been included in the project’s Ore Reserve.

Page 78

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

Table 4-5: Minim Martap Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves

Project	Tonnes (Mt)	Al2O3 (%)	SiO2 (%)
Minim Martap	435.7	47.06	3.25
Makan	373.0	44.45	2.84
Ngaoundal	95.9	42.34	1.20
Total	904.6	45.48	2.86

The ore loss allowance of 8.5% discussed in Section 3.10.5 of this report was used in estimating Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves for the project. This allowance is based on work relating to the Beatrice, Danielle, and Raymonde plateaus only, and may need to be updated as additional; plateaus are added to the project’s Ore Reserve.

Ore Reserve quantities have been subtracted from the project’s Measured Mineral Resource estimate with allowance for 8.5% ore loss based on the project’s definitive Feasibility Study (Dastur, 2025).

The Mineral Resource, not including the project’s Ore Reserve, is lower in alumina and higher in silica than both the total Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve. This is, in ERM’s view, an expected consequence of open pit optimisation targeting blocks with the highest net revenue that are accessible early in the mine’s development, to maximise project Net Present Value (NPV). The implication for the project is, however, that ROM ore quality will decline progressively over time.

The Ore Reserve is estimated to be suitable for the production of Class A metallurgical bauxite for up to 14 years at the currently planned 10 Mtpa production rate for the project. Rising silica contents are not expected to result in downgrading of Canyon’s ability to market Minim Martap bauxite but arguably will need to be continuously discussed with clients to ensure that it remains a desirable product.

4.3 Comparable Transactions Mineral Resource Valuation

4.3.1 Similar Development Risk Scenario

The value of Mineral Resources not included in the Ore Reserve for the complete project is summarised in Table 4-6.

Table 4-6: Valuation Opinion: Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserve

Tonnage	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Valuation Opinion (US$M, Real (2025) Dollars)	Valuation Opinion (US$M, Real (2025) Dollars)	Valuation Opinion (US$M, Real (2025) Dollars)
(Mt)	Low	Preferred	**High **	Low	Preferred	**High **
904.6	0.13	0.24	2.70	118	217	2,442

This valuation opinion is for Mineral Resources not included in the project’s Ore Reserve, reported in Table 4-5. Figures are reported in Real (2025) dollars estimated by normalising transaction values with trends evident in LME Alumina prices.

Some Comparable Transactions reports in those selected for analysis included the FOB bauxite price being achieved by the asset at the time that the transaction was announced. These ranged between US$43.4 and US$71.5, with a median value of US$47.8 in nominal dollar terms. In real (2025) dollar terms, bauxite prices ranged from US$28.3 to US$63.6, with a median value of US$54.8.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 79

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

This approach implies that all the Mineral Resources not included in the project’s Ore Reserve is subject to similar levels of technical risk inherent in their development, which may not be the case. The bauxite resources delineated by Canyon to date, exhibit quality variability between individual plateaus, but most variability is evident between the three licences, rather than within the licences (Table 3-5, Table 3-9).

4.3.2 Differing Development Risk Scenario

ERM considered a case for valuing the three project areas differently, using higher bauxite prices for Mineral Resources in the Minim Martap area. This approach is based on:

• The Minim Martap licence is the only licence of the three for which an Ore Reserve has been estimated.

• Bauxite within the Minim Martap licence is, on average, the highest grade.

• Modifying factors considered in the Ore Reserve include the provision of rail infrastructure for bauxite transport to a suitable port. The provision of rail infrastructure for the Makan and Ngaoundal has not yet been studied by Canyon.

• There should be a reasonable expectation that the Ore Reserve will progressively include additional plateaus for which Mineral Resources have already been established. Infill drilling may change the size of the individual bauxite plateau resource tonnages but should not be expected to result in significant changes in bauxite quality.

• ERM expects that the Minim Martap Mineral Resource has greater prospects for economic development than the Makan and Ngaoundal licences.

ERM concludes that it is appropriate to exclude the Project’s Ore Reserve from the Minim Martap Mineral Resource only and valuing the Mineral Resource using higher comparable transactions prices, while continuing to value the Makan and Ngaoundal bauxite resources in the same manner as previously.

Prices per tonne of acquired bauxite reported by S&P for projects with both Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves were used for the Minim Martap licence (Table 4-7).

Table 4-7: Valuation Opinion: Mineral Resources Not Included in Ore Reserve and Considering Lower Minim Martap Licence Development Risk

Licence	Tonnage	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Estimated Value (US$/t)	Valuation Opinion (US$)	Valuation Opinion (US$)	Valuation Opinion (US$)
	(Mt)	Low	Preferred	**High **	Low	Preferred	**High **
Minim Martap	435.7	0.13	0.81	3.8	57	353	1,656
Makan	373.0	0.13	0.24	2.7	48	90	1,007
Ngaoundal	95.9	0.13	0.24	2.7	12	23	259
Total	904.6				117	466	2,922

This valuation further includes technical information, which requires subsequent calculations to derive sub totals, totals, and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce a margin of error. Where such errors occur, they are not considered material.

Under this scenario, the valuation opinion for Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves varies between US$110 million and US$2,922 million, with a preferred value of US$465 million.

ERM prefers this valuation range and preferred value for the project due to consideration of both comparable transactions and perceived differences in bauxite resource development potential between the three licences.

Page 80

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

4.4 Enterprise Value per Tonne

ERM identified only two publicly listed companies with bauxite projects with single assets in production, completed, or undergoing feasibility studies.

• 1) Metro Mining Limited (ASX:MMI): Bauxite Hills Project, Queensland, Australia. Ore Reserve 96 Mt at 49% Al2O3

• 2) Canyon Resources Limited (ASX:CAY): Minim Martap Project, Cameroon. Ore Reserve 144 Mt at 51.2% Al2O3

The enterprise value of these companies is summarised in Table 4-8.

Table 4-8: Junior Bauxite Mining Companies Enterprise Value/Tonne of Reserves

Company	Date	Market Cap (US$M)	Enterprise Value (US$M)	EV/tonne (Reserves) (US$)
Metro Mining Limited (ASX:MMI)	14 Nov 2025	288.4	340.5	3.6
Canyon Resources Ltd (ASX:CAY)	14 Nov 2025	249.7	242.2	1.7

Source: S&P Capital IQ[pro]

The Enterprise values per tonne of Ore Reserves for both Metro Mining Limited and Canyon are within the range of prices paid for bauxite Ore Reserves in comparable transactions identified for this project (Figure 4-1, Figure 4-2).

==> picture [494 x 267] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4-2: Comparable Transactions Prices for Reserves and Resources (US$ Real) and EV/tonne for Reserves, Metro Mining Ltd and Canyon Resources Ltd

The differences in Enterprise Values per tonne of Ore Reserves is interpreted by ERM to reflect:

• Metro Mining is producing bauxite from its mine in northern Queensland, which is shipped, primarily, to alumina refineries in China, while Minim Martap is at pre-development stage

• The risk profiles of the countries in which the two projects are located (Australia versus Cameroon).

Page 81

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

4.5 Yardstick Mineral Resource Valuations

A yardstick approach was used to develop a valuation opinion for mineral resources not included in Ore Reserves based on traditionally applied multipliers. The median bauxite price reported for the selected comparable transactions and the average 2025 Guinea bauxite price from several sources (Table 2-3) were used to provide two estimates (Table 4-9). A comparable analysis using analyst bauxite prices is presented in Table 4-10.

Table 4-9: Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Reported Bauxite Prices for Comparable Transactions (Real 2025 Dollars)

Classifcation	Tonnage (Mt)	BX Price	Multiplier	Multiplier	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion
			Low	High	Low	High	Average
Measured	394	54.8	0.5%	1.0%	108	216	162
Indicated	502	54.8	0.2%	0.5%	55	138	96
Inferred	206	54.8	0.1%	0.2%	11	23	17
					174	376	275

Note: The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision, values may not add up due to rounding

Table 4-10: Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Analyst 2025 Guinea Bauxite Prices

Classifcation	Tonnage (Mt)	BX Price	Multiplier	Multiplier	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion
			Low	High	Low	High	Average
Measured	394	46.5	0.5%	1.0%	92	183	137
Indicated	502	46.5	0.2%	0.5%	47	117	82
Inferred	206	46.5	0.1%	0.2%	10	19	14
					148	319	233

Note: The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision, values may not add up due to rounding

Table 4-11: Yardstick Valuation Opinion – Mineral Resource not included in Ore Reserve using Canyon FS Bauxite Pricing

Classifcation	Tonnage (Mt)	BX Price	Multiplier	Multiplier	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion	Valuation Opinion
			Low	**High **	Low	**High **			**Average **
Measured	394	US$78/dmt†	0.500%	1.000%	152		304		228
Indicated	502		0.200%	0.500%	77		194		136
Inferred	206		0.100%	0.200%	16		32		24
					245		529		387

Note: The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision, values may not add up due to rounding

† life of mine average realised price

Page 82

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

4.6 Valuation Opinion

ERM considered the valuation opinions obtained from each approach. The high value obtained from the comparable transactions analysis (US$2,992 million) is due to a single transaction where a high value for bauxite acquired through the transaction was realised. The project involved purchase of both a mine and alumina refinery, and the value of bauxite ascribed to the transaction is interpreted by ERM to include value that should be attributed, separately, to the refinery.

ERM’s opinion, based on our analysis of data available for the project, as to the likely Market Value (on a 100% basis) of Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserves is between US$200 million and US$500 million with a preferred value of US$350 million.

The valuation opinions obtained for the Mineral Resource not included in the project’s Ore Reserve are summarised in Figure 4-3.

==> picture [500 x 355] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4-3: Valuation Opinion Summary - Mineral Resources not included in Ore Reserve

The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision; values may not add up due to rounding.

This valuation further includes technical information, which requires subsequent calculations to derive sub totals, totals, and weighted averages. Such calculations inherently involve a degree of rounding and consequently introduce a margin of error. Where such errors occur, they are not considered material.

The valuations discussed in the Report have been prepared at a valuation date of 30 October 2025. In choosing a Preferred Value and Valuation Range for these projects, ERM considered the valuation ranges and the preferred values from a range of methodologies. The weighting of each method in considering the overall valuation ranges and Preferred Values varied based on the stage of development of the project and ERM’s view of the applicability of each method to each project.

Page 83

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

It is stressed that the values are opinions as to likely values, not absolute values, which can only be tested by going to the market.

ERM notes that our valuation opinions, as expressed in this Report, must be considered in total, and that choosing parts of the analysis or the factors considered by it, without bearing in mind all the factors and analyses together could result in a misleading view of the process underpinning the valuation opinion presented in this Report. The preparation of a valuation of a mineral asset is a complex process incorporating varying degrees of qualitative opinion and does not readily lend itself to partial analysis or summary.

4.7 Discussion – Factors Affecting Valuation Opinion

The value range obtained using comparable transactions spans the estimates provided by yardstick approaches used. The spread of values obtained for Minim Martap mineral resources is interpreted by ERM to reflect a complex combination of factors:

• Alumina and aluminium markets are, essentially, in balance. Gradual growth in demand (around 4% CAGR) is being met, largely, by existing producers with large mineral resources and ore reserves.

• The aluminium industry remains dominated by major, vertically integrated companies. “Independent” bauxite producers place product with alumina refineries through individually negotiated contracts, without reference to widely published market prices

• The development of new alumina refining and smelting capacity in China and the Middle East has created opportunities for new bauxite producers.

• Bauxite exploration is focused on Africa and the Asia Pacific region, which account for 40% - 50% and 30%-35% of global exploration investment, respectively.

• A high proportion of new bauxite production is being sourced from high to very high investment risk countries.

• The development of new bauxite resources is heavily influenced by access to reliable, efficient rail and port infrastructure required to transport bauxite from mines to ports and on to alumina refineries.

• Both bauxite and aluminium producers are focused on minimising production costs

• These factors have contributed to a complex set of economic factors that appear to be driving bauxite users and developers to minimise prices paid for new assets but exhibit a willingness to secure assets assessed to be strategically important, even if this involves paying relatively high prices. This is apparent in the comparable transactions examined for this project.

ERM acknowledges that the range of prices revealed by comparable transactions analysis is very broad as the basis for a valuation opinion of the Mineral Resource not included in the project’s Ore Reserve and consequently has elected to constrain the range using a Rule of Thumb range informed by the premium prices available to the Minim Martap Project.

Page 84

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

5. CONCLUSIONS AND RECOMMENDATIONS

A series of recommendations for review of parameters used in the project’s financial model have been identified by this study.

1. ERM considers the average life of mine bauxite price of US$78/dmt used in the definitive Feasibility Study and financial model to be appropriate. ERM notes that the price is higher than prices identified during comparable transactions research but accepts that Minim Martap bauxite may attract a relatively high price due to its high alumina and low silica content, which may impart a high VIU.

2. Canyon can improve understanding of the character of the Minim Martap Mineral Resource by reporting bauxite chemistry within each laterite domain, in addition to within deposits. This has the potential to identify opportunities to selectively mine additional bauxite both above and below the bauxite zone. This does not alter the current study inputs but forms an opportunity for enhancement of the project’s Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve.

3. Further work is required to confirm the ore and waste mining horizons' static and kinematic surface miner bearing capacity. This does not impact the current review of the project’s financial model but provides an opportunity for technical risk reduction.

4. ERM is concerned about adopting the mining contractor costing as definitive for mining operating costs (Overburden, Ore, Haulage to IRF, IRF stockpile, and train loading), as the mining Feasibility Study has not demonstrated a first principles, bottom-up determination of mining costs. This first principles cost approach is generally a key component of Pre-Feasibility and Feasibility Studies, providing the basis for contractor assessment.

Furthermore, there are range of other areas, such as unknown areas within the deposits that may require blasting, or additional (re)handling costs to maintain product specifications that may also increase OpEx. ERM notes that BDO has elected to select a discount rate for the DCF modelling that captures a range of risks that are otherwise difficult to address. ERM concludes that the discount rate is a suitable mechanism to address these types of risks for the mining operating costs.

1. The project appears to have inadequate rail rolling stock (primarily wagons) in the early phases of the project. Additional locomotives and wagons are also expected to be required to cover equipment maintenance needs. The shortfall (inclusive of spares) is approximately 10% of the currently ordered quantity, representing an approximate US$13.7 million from the capital expenditure on rolling stock. This amount is allowed for in the overall Capital Cost for rolling stock, but ERM concludes that another 160 wagons are required in the first year of operation; meaning the US$13.7 million from the total rolling stock capital expenditure should be reallocated to the start of the project (in period 1) to ensure the projected export volumes in the DCF model are realised.

2. Port capital costs do not appear to adequately cover the development of a rotary wagon dumper and associated stockpile management that will be required to cope with growing bauxite tonnages shipped by the mine for export.

ERM notes that an enhanced unloading facility is critical for the Company’s operations and that there is currently a lack of clarity in the Feasibility Study concerning where this cost is captured in the Life of Mine DCF model.

The Rotary Car Dumper Cell, and Balance Machines for the stockyard have about 12–15 months lead time to acquire and install. The LOMP in the DFS has them in operation by

Page 85

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

2032 to deliver the 10 Mtpa production. In order to achieve this ERM suggests base case capital spend profile could look like the following:

2029 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (initial deposit)

2030 - $50M for procurement of major equipment (final payment)

2031 - $50M for construction installation costs of the works.

The 10% contingency applied elsewhere in the model for the port capital should also apply to this expenditure for the rail dumpers and balance machines.

ERM notes that an alternative approach to this capital expenditure addition would be for the cost of the rail dumper and related infrastructure to be added as a unit cost per tonne by the contractor. No data on this alternative were provided to ERM. ERM observes that the allocating this capital cost via a contractor fee per tonne would be at least the same cost as the approach above or even higher once contractor profit, interest and other costs are included. ERM recommends using the upfront capital cost above for the valuation exercise.

1. The basis for cost escalation of haulage and IRF costs is not clear in the definitive Feasibility Study nor financial model. Whether rates are fixed or subject to yearly adjustments needs to be clarified and incorporated in the financial model if required.

2. Rail and port operations costs may require allowance for annual escalation to cover rising wages, fuel costs, etc., if they are not contractually fixed. This needs to be verified and a contingency applied if necessary.

3. Post-closure monitoring funding should be continued for five years, with an estimated cost of US$210,000 per year. An additional 5% of direct closure costs should be allowed to cover indirect costs. A contingency of 20% to 30% of estimated closure costs should be allowed to cover unexpected events during closure.

4. Allowance should be included for a pre-closure study (US$225,000) in the final years of the mine’s expected life.

5. ERM recommends allowing 1% of CAPEX spend on the haul road, IRF and port facilities to allow for closure costs of these facilities.

Page 86

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

6. REFERENCES

• Bray, E. L. (2019). Bauxite and Alumina, USGS Minerals Yearbook. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.

• BRI. (2025, Oct 13). Bauxite and Alumina Market Size, Share, Growth, and Industry Analysis, By Type (Metallurgical, Non-metallurgical), By Application (Aluminum ingot, Refractory, Special Ceramics), and Regional Forecast to 2033 . Retrieved from Business Research Insights:

• https://www.businessresearchinsights.com/market-reports/bauxite-and-alumina-market-120526

• Britt, A. F. (2018). Australian Resource Reviews: Bauxite 2017. Canberra: Geoscience Australia. doi:http://dx.doi.org/10.11636/9781925297720

• Canyon Resources. (2024, Jul 31). Mining Convention for Minim-Martap Bauxite . Retrieved from Canyon Resources : https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/cay/4704ee39-df3.pdf

• Canyon Resources. (2025, Sep 1). Definitive Feasibility Study Results and Reserves Upgrade Confirms Minim Martap as a Tier-One Bauxite Operation. Retrieved from ASX Announcements: https://announcements.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20250901/pdf/06nnt25tnynwxt.pdf

• Canyon Resources Ltd. (2025, November 18). Exercise of Options and Cleansing Notice. Retrieved from Canyon Resources: https://api.investi.com.au/api/announcements/cay/bf857c49-2e6.pdf

• Consensus Economics. (2025). Energy, Metals and Africulture Forecasts, Survey Date October 20, 2025. London: Consensus Economics Inc.

• Dastur. (2025). Detailed Feasibility Study Report on Minim Martap Bauxite Project in Cameroon for Camalco Cameroon S.A. Kolkata: Dastur Engineering International GmbH and M.N. Dastur & Company (P) Ltd.

• Discovery Alert. (2025, Feb 20). METLEN's expert long-term bauxite and aluminima deals in 2025 . Retrieved from Discovey Alert: https://discoveryalert.com.au/metlen-long-term-bauxite-alumina-dealsreshaping-european-supply-chains/

• Exchange Rates. (2025, Oct 30). US Dollar (USD) To CFA BEAC Franc (XAF) Exchange Rate History for October 30, 2025 . Retrieved from Exchange Rates.org: https://www.exchange-rates.org/exchangerate-history/usd-xaf-2025-10-30

• Farmonaut. (2025, Oct 9). Bauxite to Aluminum: 7 Powerful Advances Reshaping 2025 . Retrieved from Farmonaut: https://farmonaut.com/mining/bauxite-to-aluminum-7-powerful-advances-reshaping2025

• Fastmarkets. (2025, Oct 15). Bauxite and alumina. A comprehensive market guide for bauxite and alumina . Retrieved from Fastmarkets: https://www.fastmarkets.com/industrial-minerals/bauxite-alumina/

• Geostratum. (2025). Camalco Hydrogeological Report, June 2025. Maputo: Geostratum Consulting unpublishged report B250501.

• Government of Cameroon. (2024, October). Le Temps des Opportunitiés No.79. Retrieved from Presidency of the Republic: https://www.prc.cm/files/61/e7/c2/abde2d775aed18f1c241a46d1fc5babd.pdf?utm_source=chatgpt.c om

• IAI. (2025, Oct 8). International Aluminium Institute Publishes Global Recycling Data . Retrieved from International Aluminimum Institute: https://international-aluminium.org/international-aluminiuminstitute-publishes-global-recycling-data/

• JORC. (2012, December 20). Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code) 2012 edition. Retrieved from JORC: https://www.jorc.org/docs/JORC_code_2012.pdf

• LME. (2025a, Oct 20). LME Alumina (Platts) . Retrieved from LME: https://www.lme.com/en/metals/nonferrous/lme-alumina_#Trading+day+summary

Page 87

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Minim Martap Bauxite Project, Cameroon

• LME. (2025b, October 20). LME Aluminium . Retrieved from www.lme.com:

https://www.lme.com/Metals/Non-ferrous/LME-Aluminium#Overview

• Merrill, A. M. (2025). Bauxite in Mineral Commodity Summaries, January 2025. Reston, Virginia: United States Geological Survey.

• Rawmin. (2025, Oct 12). Standard Specifications for Metallurgical Grade Bauxite . Retrieved from Rawmin Mining And Industries Pvt. Ltd: https://www.rawmin.com/about_us.html

• RBA. (2025, Oct 2). Exchange Rates. Retrieved from Reserve Bank of Australia: https://www.rba.gov.au/statistics/frequency/exchange-rates.html

• Schulte, R. F., & Foley, N. K. (2013). Compilation of Gallium Resource Data for Bauxite Deposits. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey.

• Tchameni, R., Pouclet, A., Penaye, J., Ganwa, A. A., & Toteu, S. F. (2006). Petrography and geochemistry of the Ngaoundéré Pan-African granitoids in Central North Cameroon: Implications for their sources and geological setting. Journal of African Earth Sciences, V44, Issues 4-5 , 511-529. doi:https://doi.org/10.1016/j.jafrearsci.2005.11.017

• USGS. (2025). U.S. Geological Survey, 2025, Mineral commodity summaries 2025 (ver. 1.2, March 2025). Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey. doi:https://doi.org/10.3133/mcs2025

• VALMIN. (2015). Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets. Melbourne: VALMIN Committee.

• Weather and Climate. (2025, Oct 15). Ngaoundéré Temperatures, Ngaoundéré Rainfall . Retrieved from Weather and Climate: https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthly-min-maxTemperature,Ngaoundere,Cameroon, https://weather-and-climate.com/average-monthlyprecipitation-Rainfall,Ngaoundere,Cameroon

• Wikipedia Contributors. (n.d.). Köppen climate classification . Retrieved from Wikipedia: https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/K%C3%B6ppen_climate_classification#References

• World Population Review. (2025, Oct 15). Cameroon Cities by Population 2025 . Retrieved from World Population Review: https://worldpopulationreview.com/cities/cameroon

Page 88

R245.2025 v1.0.3

ANNEXURE 1: REPORT AUTHORS

6.1 ERM’s Project Team

ERM’s lead author of this Report has been undertaken by ERM Consulting Director, Mining Transaction & Corporate Advisory – Sustainable Mining Services, Mr Andrew Waltho, B.App. Sc. (Hons), Applied Geology, FAIG, RPGeo, FAusIMM, FGS (London), PMSME, GAICD, Member VALMIN Committee. Andrew has more than 40 years as an exploration and mining geoscientist spanning multiple commodities, deposit styles, and settings with major, mid-tier, and junior companies, and as a consultant. Andrew also has more than 23 years’ experience as a director of resources sector companies and not for profit professional organisations. He is a past-President of the AIG and was recently appointed to the VALMIN Committee which is responsible for the development of the Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets.

Andrew has more than 15 years of experience in exploration, resource evaluation and due diligence for projects covering a broad spectrum of commodities, including bauxite. Career highlights have included deep involvement in developing the Century zinc-lead-silver mine in northwest Queensland, extending from early exploration through all stages of feasibility to commissioning and the initial years of production. Other highlights have included participation in feasibility studies for the Dugald River zinc project in Queensland, Jadar lithium-borate project in Serbia, and due diligence reviews for multiple projects spanning a broad suite of commodities, including gold, base metals, uranium, lithium, potash, diamonds and industrial minerals, and mineral sands, both in Australia, and overseas.

Global authorisation of this Report has been undertaken by ERM Partner, Service Lead – Sustainable Mining Services, Mr Graham Jeffress, BSc (Hons) Applied Geology, FAIG, RPGeo (Mineral Exploration), FAusIMM, FSEG. Graham is a geologist with over 27 years’ experience in exploration geology and management in Australia, Papua New Guinea, and Indonesia. Graham has worked in exploration (ranging from grassroots reconnaissance through to brownfields, near-mine, and resource definition), project evaluation, and mining in a variety of geological terrains, commodities, and mineralisation styles within Australia and internationally. He is competent in multidisciplinary exploration, and proficient at undertaking prospect evaluation and all phases of exploration – sampling, mapping, prospecting, and drilling through to resource definition, as well as project management including planning, budgeting, logistics, safety, people management, landowner liaison, and project presentation. Additionally, Graham has completed numerous Independent Geologist Reports, Competent Person Reports, and Independent Valuation Reports. He was a Federal Councillor of the AIG for 11 years and joined the Joint Ore Reserves Committee in 2014.

6.2 Project Team Members’ Qualifications and Experience

==> picture [89 x 88] intentionally omitted <==

Andrew Waltho

BAppSc (Hons1st), FAIG RPGeo (MinExpl, Mining), FAusIMM, FGS, Prof Member SME, GAICD

Consulting Director

Andrew has more than 40 years as an exploration and mining geoscientist spanning multiple commodities, deposit styles, and settings with major, mid-tier and junior companies and as a consultant. Andrew also has more than 23 years’ experience as a director of resources sector companies and not for profit

Page 89

R245.2025 v1.0.3

professional organisations. He is a past-President of the AIG and Chair of the Institute’s Ethics and Standards Committee. Andrew was recently appointed to the VALMIN Committee which is responsible for the development of the Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets.

Andrew has more than 15 years of experience in exploration, resource evaluation, and due diligence for bauxite projects (including Rio Tinto global assets). Other career highlights have included deep involvement in the development of the Century zinc-lead-silver mine in northwest Queensland, extending from early exploration through all stages of feasibility to commissioning and the initial years of production. Other highlights have included participation in feasibility studies for the Dugald River zinc project in Queensland, the Jadar lithium-borate project in Serbia and due diligence reviews for multiple projects spanning a broad suite of commodities, including gold, base metals, uranium, potash and industrial minerals and mineral sands, both in Australia and overseas.

==> picture [86 x 87] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [86 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

Howard Simpson

BSc Eng (Mining) (Hons), BCom Accounting and Quantitative Management, FAusIMM (CP), RPEQ

Mining Manager, Consulting Director

Howard is an experienced mining professional who has undertaken the delivery of mining engineering, mine planning and economic evaluation for projects, technical studies, and operations. He has delivered projects and studies across multiple geographies and commodities, with responsibilities for design, planning, scheduling of mine operations, and economic evaluation. Howard has had a particular focus on innovation throughout his career, focusing on technology solutions, integrated mining systems such as in-pit crushing and conveying, and new and alternative mining methodologies. Howard has substantial Africa experience.

David Sourbutts

BE(Hons)Civil Engineering UWA

Project Director, Iridium Project Delivery

Iridium specialises in project delivery and engineering services for mine, port, and rail infrastructure clients in the resources and bulk commodities sectors. We offer these services across capital and sustaining projects as a turn-key delivery partner or a discrete contribution agent. We stand-up teams of exceptional talent to deliver or enable infrastructure projects from project planning to asset commissioning and asset sustaining.

David has substantial experience in African rail and logistics engineering.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 90

==> picture [84 x 87] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [86 x 87] intentionally omitted <==

Natalie Shade

Consulting Director – Mine Closure

Natalie is a Technical Consulting Director with over 25 years of mining industry and state government experience. Having previously worked for Rio Tinto, MMG and as an Environmental Regulator, she has extensive experience in exploration, project development, due diligence, operations, closure planning, approvals, corporate assurance, and audit activities. Natalie’s experience across various jurisdictions includes working with operations, projects, and exploration teams to understand their environmental and closure risks; identifying risk mitigation measures; implementing risk-based business environmental requirements; developing conceptual closure plans and delivering on closure planning aspects; and leading mining approvals processes. Natalie has completed numerous mining related due diligence activities across Australia and internationally.

Graham Jeffress

BSc (AppGeol) (Hons) UNSW, FAIG RPGeo (MinExpl), FAusIMM, FSEG, MGSA

Partner, Operations Director (APAC)

Graham is a geologist with over 30 years’ experience in exploration geology and management in Australia, PNG, and Indonesia. He is Principal Geologist with ERM in Perth and manages the corporate services work undertaken by ERM’s Technical Mining Services teams. He has worked in exploration (ranging from grassroots reconnaissance through to brownfields, near-mine, and resource definition), project evaluation and mining in a variety of geological terrains, commodities, and mineralisation styles within Australia and internationally. He is competent in multidisciplinary exploration, and proficient at undertaking prospect evaluation and all phases of exploration. Graham has completed numerous independent technical reports (IGR, CPR, QPR) and valuations of mineral assets. Graham capitalised on his knowledge of exploration to undertake expert technical reviews, valuations, and independent reporting services to groups desiring improved understanding of the value, risks, and opportunities associated with mineral investment opportunities. Graham was a Federal Councillor of the AIG for 11 years and joined the Joint Ore Reserves Committee in 2014. He is now responsible for managing ERM’s Technical Mining Services (TMS) operations in the Australasian region.

R245.2025 v1.0.3

Page 91

==> picture [177 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

ERM and Sustainable Mining Services

ERM is one of the world’s leading environmental, health, safety, and social consulting services providers.

ERM’s Sustainable Mining Services Team is a leading group of geological and mining professionals that includes geologists, mining engineers, hydrologists, hydrogeologists, data, and resource estimation specialists with experience in all types and stages of mineral projects worldwide.

We have a high level of technical expertise across mineral commodities gained from 35 years of experience within the global exploration and mining industry. Our team possess experience in all stages of the mining cycle, from project generation to production and the challenge of finding, developing, and mining orebodies.

ERM has multiple points of entry throughout the mining lifecycle, and our global network of expertise, together with ERM, enables us to provide innovative solutions to improve operational performance and support efficient mine operations.

Our team has specific experience working in the mining sector with junior, mid-tier, and major exploration and mining companies, as well as advising pension funds, private equity firms, and international development finance institutions on investment risks and opportunities.

Our highly experienced teams provide insight and innovative solutions to produce optimal outcomes for our clients. Our team can take your project from a concept through discovery and resource definition to a profitable and sustainable operating mine, with a robust closure plan and positive stakeholder engagement.

ERM’s capabilities align seamlessly with this mission and vision , from the new country entry risk assessment, global operational strategy, geoscience, and advanced technological solutions, data capture, and management, hydrogeology, nature, and beyond, through all stages of exploration, acquisition, mine planning, and development, operations, and closure. ERM plays a pivotal role in addressing the strategic, operational, and tactical challenges encountered by major, mid-tier, and junior mining companies worldwide.

Our specialists are supported by a huge team of scientists, engineers, social, environmental, health, safety, and sustainability consultants from our parent company ERM. ERM’s Sustainable Mining Services Team offers substantial depth of expertise and breadth of service to the mining community.

We offer an integrated and comprehensive

set of services covering the entire mineral asset lifecycle. Our services include corporate advisory, operational support, mining, and feasibility studies, resource estimation, geometallurgical modelling, exploration, data and water management, and technology expertise.

==> picture [177 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

Snapshot of Our Services

Exploration & Geoscience

• Mineral systems targeting & project generation

• Remote sensing, geophysics, & geochemistry

• - Mapping & drill programme planning & supervision

• Exploration strategy & project management

• Project review & due diligence

• - Geometallurgical optimisation & orebody characterisation

Resource Estimation & Mine Geology

• Mineral Resource estimation, validation, classification, & reporting

• Resource audits & risk analysis

• Geological & geometallurgical modelling

• Geostatistical analysis & variography

• Grade control & reconciliation

• Drill hole spacing analysis

• In situ recovery/ in situ leaching

  • Resources & reserves

  • o Suitability & optimisation o operations

Data & Mapping

• Data management (capture, data validation, & quality assurance/quality control)

• Geological Database administration

• Data visualisation, analytics, & cartography

• - Geographic Information systems (GIS), plans, sections, & 3D plots

• - Machine learning

Mining Engineering

• Mining & engineering studies (concept to feasibility)

• - Mine optimisation, scheduling, design, & Ore Reserve estimation

• Productivity improvement & project management

• Hydrogeology & Hydrology

• Expert knowledge of ‘licence to operate’ issues, their prevention, & solutions.

Planning & Approvals

  - Environmental risk identification, management, & compliance

• Climate change, biodiversity, natural resources

• - Indigenous & historical heritage management

• Social strategy & policy development

• Community consultation programs

• Environmental & social impact assessments (ESIAs)

• Operational management & compliance.

• Health & Safety

• Enhancing health & safety strategies & practical incident prevention through managing operational risks & controls, certifications, & compliance with safety regulations, policies, standards, & procedures

• Risk assessment & management systems

• Risk management & incident investigation

• - Hazard identification, inspections, risk assessments & prevention control

• Occupational health & safety systems & compliance auditing

Rehabilitation & Mine Closure

• Planning for repurposing or transitioning sites

• - Rehabilitation appraisals, planning, & progress monitoring, closure plans

• Community development & economic transition

• - Earthworks, cover, landform designs, & modelling, erosion & sediment management

• Waste characterisation & final void assessment

• - Water management & reduction strategies

• - Land use capability assessment

• Estimated rehabilitation costs

  • Site closure costs/financial provisioning

• Water management & groundwater supply

• - Project approvals

• Dewatering & depressurisation

• Ground/Surface water modelling

• Formulating water stewardship strategies & advanced technical solutions.

Mining Transactions & Corporate Advice

• Project reviews & independent reports

• Due diligence & mineral asset valuations

• - Geo-corporate advice

• Conducting independent evaluations to guide decisions on mergers, acquisitions, due diligence, & compliance assessments

• - Advice on reporting to public codes such as the JORC, VALMIN, SAMREC, NI 43-101, CIM codes, S-K 1300

• Expert witness

Environmental, Social, & Governance

• Efficiently bringing new mines to fruition in adherence to ESG best practices

• - Advancing strategic & practical decarbonisation throughout the value chain, from mining equipment to processing & transportation

==> picture [177 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

ERM has over 160 offices across the following countries and territories worldwide

Argentina	The Netherlands	ERM’s Perth Office
Australia	New Zealand	Level 3
Belgium	Peru	1-5 Havelock Street
Brazil	Poland	West Perth WA 6005
Canada	Portugal	Australia
China	Puerto Rico
Colombia	Romania
France	Senegal	ERM’s Brisbane Office
Germany	Singapore	Level 9
Ghana	South Africa	260 Queen Street
Guyana	South Korea	Brisbane Qld 4000
Hong Kong	Spain	Australia
India	Switzerland
Indonesia	Taiwan
Ireland	Tanzania	www.erm.com
Italy	Thailand
Japan	United Arab Emirates
Kazakhstan	United Kingdom
Kenya	United States
Malaysia	Vietnam
Mexico
Mozambique

1300 138 991

AUDIT • TAX • ADVISORY

www.bdo.com.au

NEW SOUTH WALES NORTHERN TERRITORY QUEENSLAND SOUTH AUSTRALIA

BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd ABN 70 050 038 170 AFS Licence No 247420 is a member of a national association of independent entities which are all members of BDO Australia Ltd ABN 77 050 110 275, an Australian company limited by guarantee. BDO Corporate Finance Australia Pty Ltd and BDO Australia Ltd are members of BDO International Ltd, a UK company limited by guarantee, and form part of the international BDO network of independent member firms. Liability limited by a scheme approved under Professional Standards Legislation.

TASMANIA

VICTORIA

WESTERN AUSTRALIA

Schedule 3 – Summary of terms of the Plan

• (a) Eligibility : The Board may (in its absolute discretion) provide an offer to an Eligible Employee of a Group Company to participate in the Plan ( Offer ). Where such person (or a permitted nominee of such person) accepts the Offer, he or she will become a participant under the Plan ( Participant ).

• (b) Issue cap : Offers made under the Plan which require the payment of monetary consideration by the Participant in respect of the issue, transfer or exercise of an Incentive are subject to an issue cap of 5% of the number of Shares on issue (as adjusted or increased as permitted by law and under the Constitution from time to time).

• (c) Offer : The Board may make an Offer at any time. Where an Offer is made under the Plan which requires the payment of monetary consideration by the Participant in respect of the issue, transfer or exercise of an Incentive then, subject to limited exceptions, the Offer must include the following information:

• (i) the name and address of the person to whom the Offer is being made to;

• (ii) the date of the Offer;

• (iii) the first acceptance date (which must be at least 14 days after receiving the Offer) and the final acceptance date that the person can accept the Offer;

• (iv) the number of Options, Performance Rights or Shares being offered and the maximum number which can be applied for;

• (v) the amount payable per Incentive by the person on application for the Incentives offered (if any), or the manner of determining such amount payable;

• (vi) the conditions (if any) determined by the Board which are required to be satisfied, reached and met before an Incentive will be issued, and whether not it is issued subject to further vesting conditions;

• (vii) the vesting conditions attaching to the Incentive (if applicable);

• (viii) the first exercise date and last exercise date of the Incentives;

• (ix) the exercise price (if any) or the manner of determining the exercise price of the Incentives;

• (x) the vesting period (if any) of the Incentives;

• (xi) general information about the risks of acquiring and holding the Incentives (and underlying Shares) the subject of the Offer;

• (xii) a copy of the Plan;

• (xiii) any other specific terms and conditions applicable to the Offer;

• (xiv) to the extent required by applicable law:

  • (A) an explanation of how an Eligible Employee could, from time to time, ascertain the market price of the Shares underlying the Options or Performance Rights;

  • (B) the terms of any loan or contribution plan under which an Eligible Employee may obtain Incentives, or a summary of the terms of the

  • (C) loan together with a statement that the Participant can request a copy of the terms;

  • (D) the trust deed of any trust that will hold Incentives on trust for an Eligible Employee, or a summary of the terms of the trust deed together with a statement that the Participant can request a copy of the trust deed;

P a g e | 241

  - (E) a copy of any disclosure document prepared by the Company under Part 6D.2 of the Corporations Act in the 12 months before the date of the Offer; and

  - (F) any other information required by applicable laws; and

• (xv) a prominent statement to the effect that:

  • (A) any advice given by the Company in relation to Incentives issued under the Plan, and Shares issued upon exercise of the Options or Performance Rights, does not take into account an Eligible Employee’s objectives, financial situation and needs; and

  • (B) the Eligible Employee should obtain their own financial product advice in relation to the Offer from a person who is licensed by ASIC to give such advice.

• (d) Terms of Offer : The terms and conditions applicable to an Offer, and any accompanying document, must not include any misleading or deceptive statements, or omit any information that would result in those materials becoming misleading or deceptive. The Company must provide the Participant with an updated Offer as soon as practicable after becoming aware that the document that was provided has become out of date, or is otherwise not correct, in a material respect.

• (e) Issue Price : The issue price (if any) in respect of the Incentives granted under the Plan is as determined by the Board at its discretion.

• (f) Nominees : An Eligible Employee may, by notice in writing to the Board and subject to applicable laws, nominate a nominee in whose favour the Eligible Employee wishes the Incentives to be issued. The nominee may be an immediate family member of the Eligible Employee, a corporate trustee of a self-managed superannuation fund where the Eligible Employee is a director of the trustee or a company whose members comprise no persons other than the Eligible Employee or immediate family members of the Eligible Employee. The Board may, in its sole and absolute discretion, decide not to permit the Incentives to be issued to a nominee.

• (g) Dealing : Incentives may not be sold, assigned, transferred or otherwise dealt with except on the death of the Participant in limited circumstances or with the prior consent of the Board.

• (h) Vesting : An Incentive will vest when the Participant receives a vesting notice from the Company confirming that the vesting conditions attaching to the Incentives are met or waived. The Board may, in its sole and absolute discretion, and subject to the Listing Rules, reduce or waive any vesting conditions, and/or determine that an unvested Incentive will immediately vest and become immediately exercisable upon:

• (i) a takeover bid (as defined in the Corporations Act) becoming or being declared unconditional;

• (ii) the Court sanctioning a compromise or arrangement relating to the Company under Part 5.1 of the Corporations Act;

• (iii) any other merger, consolidation or amalgamation involving the Company occurring which results in the holders of Shares immediately prior to the merger, consolidation or amalgamation being entitled to 50% or less of the voting shares in the body corporate resulting from the merger, consolidation or amalgamation;

• (iv) any Group Company entering into agreements to sell in aggregate a majority in value of the businesses or assets of the Group to a person, or a number of persons, none of which are Group Companies; or

• (v) the Board determining in its reasonable opinion that control of the Company has or is likely to change or pass to one or more persons.

• (i) Exercise of Incentive : Upon receiving a vesting notice with respect to their Incentives, a Participant may exercise those Incentives by delivery to the Company Secretary of the

P a g e | 242

certificate for the Incentives (if any), a signed notice of exercise and payment equal to the exercise price (if any) for the number of Incentives sought to be exercised.

• (j) Lapse of Incentive : Unless otherwise determined by the Board, an Incentive will not vest and will lapse on the earlier of:

• (i) the Board determining that the vesting conditions attaching to the Incentive have not been satisfied, reached or met in accordance with its terms or is not capable of being satisfied, reached or met;

• (ii) the day immediately following the last exercise date; or

• (iii) with respect of unvested Incentives, the date the Participant ceases employment, engagement or office with the Company, subject to certain exceptions.

• (k) Issue of Shares on vesting of Options or Performance Rights : Following exercise of the Options or Performance Rights, the Company will, subject to the terms of the Company’s relevant policies, issue or transfer Shares to that Participant and apply for official quotation or listing of those Shares on the ASX if applicable. Unless and until the Options or Performance Rights have been exercised and the relevant Shares issued to that Participant as a result of that exercise, a Participant has no right or interest in those Shares.

• (l) Ranking of Shares : Shares issued upon exercise of the Options or Performance Right will rank equally in all respects with existing Shares, except for entitlements which had a record date before the date of the issue of that Share.

• (m) Adjustment of Options or Performance Rights : If, prior to the vesting of an Option or Performance Right, there is a reorganisation of the issued share capital of the Company (including a consolidation, sub-division or reduction of capital or return of capital to Shareholders), the number of Options or Performance Rights to which a Participant is entitled will be adjusted in a manner required by the Listing Rules.

• (n) Clawback : If the Board determines that:

• (i) a Participant (or Eligible Employee who has nominated a nominee to receive the Incentives) at any time:

  • (A) has been dismissed or removed from office for a reason which entitles a Group Company to dismiss the Participant (or Eligible Employee) without notice;

  • (B) has been convicted on indictment of an offence against the Corporations Act in connection with the affairs of a Group Company;

  • (C) has had a judgement entered against him or her in civil proceedings in respect of the contravention by the Participant (or Eligible Employee) of his or her duties at law, in equity or under statute in his or her capacity as an executive or Director of a Group Company;

  • (D) has committed an act of fraud, defalcation or gross misconduct in relation to the affairs of that body corporate (whether or not charged with an offence);

  • (E) is in material breach of any of his or her duties or obligations to a Group Company; or

  • (F) has done an act which brings a Group Company into disrepute,

then the Board may determine that all unvested Shares held by the Participant will be forfeited and any Options or Performance Rights held by the Participant will lapse; and

• (ii) there has been a material misstatement in the Company’s financial statements or some other event has occurred which, as a result, means that the relevant vesting conditions (if any) to an Incentive which has vested were not, or should not have been determined to have been satisfied, then the Participant shall cease to be entitled to those vested Incentives and the Board may:

P a g e | 243

• (A) by written notice to the Participant cancel the relevant Options or Performance Rights for no consideration or determine that the relevant Shares are forfeited;

• (B) by written notice to the Participant require that the Participant pay to the Company the after tax value of the relevant Incentives, with such payment to be made within 30 Business Days of receipt of such notice; or

• (C) adjust fixed remuneration, incentives or participation in the Plan of a relevant Participant in the current year or any future year to take account of the after tax value of the relevant Incentives.

• (o) Board Discretion : If an Eligible Employee who is a Participant or has nominated a nominee to receive Unvested Shares, Options or Performance Rights under the Plan ceases to be an Employee during the Vesting Period, , the Board may, subject to compliance with the Listing Rules and the Corporations Act (which may require Shareholder Approval), determine to treat any Unvested Shares, Options or Performance Rights held by the relevant Participant in any way other than in the manner set out in the Plan, if the Board determines that the relevant circumstances warrant such treatment.

• (p) Amendments to the Plan : Subject to and in accordance with the Listing Rules, the Board may amend, revoke, add to or vary the Plan (without the necessity of obtaining the prior or subsequent consent or approval of Shareholders of the Company), provided that rights or entitlements in respect of any Option, Performance Right or Share granted before the date of the amendment shall not be reduced or adversely affected without the prior written consent of the Participant affected by the amendment.

P a g e | 244

Need assistance?

Phone:

Canyon Resources Limited ABN 13 140 087 261

1300 850 505 (within Australia) +61 3 9415 4000 (outside Australia)

Online:

www.investorcentre.com/contact

CAY

MR SAM SAMPLE FLAT 123 123 SAMPLE STREET THE SAMPLE HILL SAMPLE ESTATE SAMPLEVILLE VIC 3030

YOUR VOTE IS IMPORTANT

For your proxy appointment to be effective it must be received by 2:00pm (AWST) on Saturday, 7 March 2026.

Proxy Form

How to Vote on Items of Business

Lodge your Proxy Form:

XX

All your securities will be voted in accordance with your directions.

Online:

APPOINTMENT OF PROXY

Voting 100% of your holding: Direct your proxy how to vote by marking one of the boxes opposite each item of business. If you do not mark a box your proxy may vote or abstain as they choose (to the extent permitted by law). If you mark more than one box on an item your vote will be invalid on that item.

Voting a portion of your holding: Indicate a portion of your voting rights by inserting the percentage or number of securities you wish to vote in the For, Against or Abstain box or boxes. The sum of the votes cast must not exceed your voting entitlement or 100%.

Appointing a second proxy: You are entitled to appoint up to two proxies to attend the meeting and vote on a poll. If you appoint two proxies you must specify the percentage of votes or number of securities for each proxy, otherwise each proxy may exercise half of the votes. When appointing a second proxy write both names and the percentage of votes or number of securities for each in Step 1 overleaf.

Lodge your vote online at www.investorvote.com.au using your secure access information or use your mobile device to scan the personalised QR code.

Your secure access information is

==> picture [47 x 49] intentionally omitted <==

Control Number: 999999

SRN/HIN: I9999999999 PIN: 99999

For Intermediary Online subscribers (custodians) go to www.intermediaryonline.com

A proxy need not be a securityholder of the Company.

SIGNING INSTRUCTIONS FOR POSTAL FORMS

Individual: Where the holding is in one name, the securityholder must sign.

Joint Holding: Where the holding is in more than one name, all of the securityholders should sign.

Power of Attorney: If you have not already lodged the Power of Attorney with the registry, please attach a certified photocopy of the Power of Attorney to this form when you return it.

Companies: Where the company has a Sole Director who is also the Sole Company Secretary, this form must be signed by that person. If the company (pursuant to section 204A of the Corporations Act 2001) does not have a Company Secretary, a Sole Director can also sign alone. Otherwise this form must be signed by a Director jointly with either another Director or a Company Secretary. Please sign in the appropriate place to indicate the office held. Delete titles as applicable.

By Mail:

Computershare Investor Services Pty Limited GPO Box 242 Melbourne VIC 3001 Australia

By Fax:

1800 783 447 within Australia or +61 3 9473 2555 outside Australia

PARTICIPATING IN THE MEETING

Corporate Representative

If a representative of a corporate securityholder or proxy is to participate in the meeting you will need to provide the appropriate “Appointment of Corporate Representative”. A form may be obtained from Computershare or online at www.investorcentre.com/au and select "Printable Forms".

PLEASE NOTE: For security reasons it is important that you keep your SRN/HIN confidential.

You may elect to receive meeting-related documents, or request a particular one, in electronic or physical form and may elect not to receive annual reports. To do so, contact Computershare.

Samples/000001/000001

MR SAM SAMPLE FLAT 123 123 SAMPLE STREET THE SAMPLE HILL SAMPLE ESTATE SAMPLEVILLE VIC 3030

Change of address. If incorrect, mark this box and make the correction in the space to the left. Securityholders sponsored by a broker (reference number commences with ‘ X ’) should advise your broker of any changes.



I 9999999999 I ND

Proxy Form

Please mark

to indicate your directions

Step 1

Appoint a Proxy to Vote on Your Behalf

I/We being a member/s of Canyon Resources Limited hereby appoint the Chairperson OR of the Meeting

XX

PLEASE NOTE: Leave this box blank if you have selected the Chairperson of the Meeting. Do not insert your own name(s).

or failing the individual or body corporate named, or if no individual or body corporate is named, the Chairperson of the Meeting, as my/our proxy to act generally at the meeting on my/our behalf and to vote in accordance with the following directions (or if no directions have been given, and to the extent permitted by law, as the proxy sees fit) at the General Meeting of Canyon Resources Limited to be held at Park Business Centre, 45 Ventnor Avenue, West Perth WA 6005 on Monday, 9 March 2026 at 2:00pm (AWST) and at any adjournment or postponement of that meeting. Chairperson authorised to exercise undirected proxies on remuneration related resolutions : Where I/we have appointed the Chairperson of the Meeting as my/our proxy (or the Chairperson becomes my/our proxy by default), I/we expressly authorise the Chairperson to exercise my/ our proxy on Resolution 2 (except where I/we have indicated a different voting intention in step 2) even though Resolution 2 is connected directly or indirectly with the remuneration of a member of key management personnel, which includes the Chairperson.

Important Note : If the Chairperson of the Meeting is (or becomes) your proxy you can direct the Chairperson to vote for or against or abstain from voting on Resolution 2 by marking the appropriate box in step 2.

Step 2 Items of Business

PLEASE NOTE: If you mark the Abstain box for an item, you are directing your proxy not to vote on your behalf on a show of hands or a poll and your votes will not be counted in computing the required majority.

For Against Abstain

Resolution	1	Issue of Tranche 2 Placement Shares to EEA and increase of Voting Power
Resolution	2	Renewal of Plan
Resolution	3	Issue of Tranche 2 Placement Securities to Afriland

The Chairperson of the Meeting intends to vote undirected proxies in favour of each item of business. In exceptional circumstances, the Chairperson of the Meeting may change his/her voting intention on any resolution, in which case an ASX announcement will be made.

Step 3 Signature of Securityholder(s) This section must be completed.

Individual or Securityholder 1 Securityholder 2 Securityholder 3 Sole Director & Sole Company Secretary Director Director/Company Secretary Update your communication details By providing your email address, you consent to receive future Notice of Meeting & Proxy communications electronically Mobile Number Email Address (Optional) Date / /	/ /

C A Y

3 2 3 6 2 4 A