CORE LITHIUM LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2021

ASX: CXO Announcement

26 July 2021

Sets Scene for Australia's Next Lithium Producer

Highlights

Stage 1 Finniss Lithium Project updated Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) confirms that Core Lithium is well positioned to be the next lithium producer in Australia
30% increase in Ore Reserves to 7.4Mt @ 1.3% Li2O prepared using the JORC Code 2012, underpinning a 8-year Life of Mine (LOM), with additional Mineral Resource inventory to potentially further increase LOM
Stage 1 mine plan comprises open pit production from Grants and Hang Gong and underground at Grants, BP33 and Carlton prospects
High lithium grade and exceptional spodumene geo-metallurgy enable Core to produce high quality, coarse concentrate using simple DMS processing
Excellent DFS economics reflected in Reserves-backed pre-tax IRR of 53% and pre-tax NPV8 of A$221 million and life-of-mine EBITDA of A$561 million from revenue of A$1.3 billion[1]
Low initial capital expenditure of A$89 million (including pre-production mining costs) enables a 2-year payback and confirms Finniss as one of Australia’s lowest capital intensity lithium projects
Life-of-mine average C1 Operating Cost (FOB) of US$364/t concentrate generate a robust average operating margin of more than US$370/t
Further potential for Stage 2 production expansion and increases in Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves underway, with a substantial drilling budget for 2021 and 2022
Completion of the DFS now paves the way for the Company to progress debt finance opportunities and finalise other customer and equity financing discussions
Targeting FID for the start of Stage 1 construction, which is scheduled to commence before the end of 2021
1Post-tax IRR & NPV8 are 47% & A$170 million respectively & income tax assumptions are included in the body of this report.

Advanced Northern Territory lithium developer, Core Lithium Ltd (ASX: CXO ) ( Core or Company ), is pleased to announce an upgraded Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS), underpinned by a significant increase in Ore Reserves and Life of Mine (LOM), for the Company’s wholly owned Finniss Lithium Project in the NT (Finniss Project).

The DFS demonstrates the Project’s economics to be compelling, with low capital costs and competitive operating costs that result in strong operating margins and rapid payback.

Key outputs are summarised below:

Technical Metrics	1.21 Mt 175 ktpa 5.8% 7.4 Mt 1.31% 1 Mtpa 71.7% 8 years 2 years	Financial Metrics
Total Concentrate Production	1.21 Mt	Concentrate Price (FOB)2	US$743/t
Ave Annual Production1	175 ktpa	C1 Operating Costs3	US$364/t
Concentrate Li2O Grade	5.8%	AISC4	US$441/t
Total Ore Mined	7.4 Mt	Initial Capital5	A$89m
Average Grade Mined (Li2O)	1.31%	Pre-Tax Free Cash Flow	A$344m
Plant Design Throughput	1 Mtpa	Pre-Tax NPV8	A$221m
Average Lithia Recovery	71.7%	Post-Tax NPV8	A$170m
Mine Life	8 years	Pre-Tax IRR	53%
Payback Period6	2 years	Post-Tax IRR	47%

Annual concentrate production represents the life of mine average following the start of commercial concentrate production.
Commodity Pricing assumptions are derived from Roskill April 2021 forecast and represent an average received price over the LOM. Assumptions include sea freight of US$20/t concentrate and a pro-rata grade adjustment for 5.8% Li2O grade.
C1 Operating Costs are defined as direct cash operating costs of production FOB, divided by spodumene concentrate production. Direct cash operating costs include mining, processing, transport, port, and ship-loading costs. C1 Operating Costs exclude royalties and sustaining capital, with the LOM average calculated from commencement of commercial production. AUD:USD assumption is 0.70.
All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) are defined as C1 Operating Costs plus royalties and sustaining capital, with the LOM average calculated from commencement of commercial production.
Initial Capital includes pre-strip mine development for the Grants Open Pit of A$34 million.
The payback period commences on the sale of the first concentrate.

The production target above is underpinned by 98% proved and probable Ore Reserves and 2% inferred Mineral Resources. There is a low level of geological confidence associated with inferred mineral resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of indicated mineral resources or that the production target itself will be realised.

With the completion of this DFS, Core has taken a major step forward towards becoming Australia’s next lithium producer and its goal of producing high quality lithium spodumene concentrate through the mining and processing of high grade spodumene-bearing pegmatites located within one hour’s drive of the Port of Darwin, Australia’s closest port to Asia.

High-grade Ore Reserves with an average grade of 1.31% Li2O, combined with exceptional spodumene metallurgy, will enable Core to produce high quality, coarse concentrate using gravity only Dense Media Separation (DMS) processing. The construction of a simple 1Mtpa DMS processing plant will enable Core to produce up to 197,000 tonnes of high-quality concentrate per annum over an 8-year LOM.

Total Ore Reserves now stand at 7.4 million tonnes (Mt), with open pit mining planned at the Grants and Hang Gong deposits and underground mining at the Grants (below the open pit), BP33 and Carlton deposits.

A modest pre-production capex of A$89 million (including pre-production mining costs) and strong cash flows enable a rapid payback of 2 years from the sale of the first concentrate (which is estimated to occur before then end of 2022) and confirms Finniss as Australia’s lowest capital intensity lithium project.

The excellent Stage 1 DFS economics are further reflected in the pre-tax IRR of 53%, pre-tax NPV8 of A$221 million and LOM pre-tax, pre-financing free cash flows of A$344 million (The Post-Tax IRR and NPV8 is 47% and A$170 million respectively with a post-tax free cash flow of A$267 million), from revenue of A$1.3 billion (assuming a LOM average concentrate price of US$743/t FOB). Assuming current spot prices of spodumene concentrate of US$850/t (6% FOB), the pretax IRR and NPV8 increase to 76% and A$315 million respectively.

LOM C1 operating costs of US$364/t concentrate (FOB) generate a robust LOM operating margin of more than US$370/t, assuming a LOM average sale price of US$743/t (FOB). LOM average All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) are similarly competitive at US$441/t concentrate (FOB).

Core has increased aggregate Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves for the entire Finniss Lithium Project substantially since 2018 and has planned a Stage 2 process to further extend the mine life and increase the Project’s free cash flow tenure. The larger Project area comprises 500km[2] of exploration and mining tenements covering the Bynoe Pegmatite Field.

The Finniss Lithium Project’s proximity to the Port of Darwin and existing high-quality sealed roads provides daily road train movements to transport concentrate to port. The Project also has other substantial infrastructure advantages, including being close to grid power, gas and rail infrastructure, and being less than a 1-hour commute from the skills, trades, workshops and other services found in suburban Darwin.

Core is at the front of the line of new global lithium production, with approval from the NT Government to develop one of the most capital efficient and cost competitive lithium projects in Australia.

Completion of the DFS now paves the way for the Company to progress debt finance opportunities and finalise offtake and other customer financing discussions, enabling the Company to commence development and construction of Stage 1 by the end of this year and start delivering spodumene concentrate to customers in 2022.

Core’s Managing Director, Mr Stephen Biggins stated:

“The Definitive Feasibility Study confirms Finniss Lithium Project as a simple, low risk and low capital intensity project with high cash generating potential, and puts Core on track to become Australia’s next lithium producer.

“The study highlights the Project’s attractive combination of high-grade Ore Reserves, simple DMS processing producing a high quality concentrate, and proximity to nearby existing infrastructure including the Port of Darwin.

“With the updated DFS now completed, we aim to finalise funding over the coming months, to allow Core to make a Final Investment Decision in 2021 and fast-track construction. We are also maintaining our exploration momentum, with the aim to more than double the mine life and Resources of the Project.

“On behalf of the Core Board, I would like to thank our management team and valued partners who have been involved in preparing the DFS. We look forward to an exciting future as we move toward commencing construction of Stage 1 of the Finniss Project.”

==> picture [429 x 331] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 - Aerial view of Darwin, the Port of Darwin and the Finniss Lithium development

UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND RESERVE STATEMENT

Core is developing the Finniss Project, located near Darwin in the Northern Territory in Australia.

Total Ore Reserves are now 7.4Mt and support an 8-year mine life assuming open pit mining methods at Grants & Hang Gong and underground mining methods at Grants, BP33 & Carlton (Table 1). The Reserve-backed mine plan and schedule is illustrated in Figure 2 below.

The Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong Deposits are located within a 3km radius of the Grants processing plant. Ore from the mines would be trucked to the Grants processing plant.

Core previously completed a Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS) in 2019 (ASX announcement 17 April 2019) that identified an Ore Reserve at the Grants deposit to be mined from an open pit. In 2020, the Company completed a Pre-Feasibility Study that introduced additional underground mining methods into the mine plan (ASX announcement 30 June 2020). The subvertical shape of the deposits and excellent ground conditions at Grants, BP33 and Carlton, allowed sublevel open stoping to be selected as the mining method to provide a lower cost and lower risk method than other underground mining methods.

The underground mine design and planning was completed by the independent consulting firm OreWin Pty Ltd (OreWin). OreWin is an Australian mining consultancy specialising in project development, from resource evaluation through to feasibility studies.

In the updated Feasibility Study, the underground portion of the Finniss Ore Reserve has been identified and reported.

Proved and Probable Ore Reserves were estimated for the Grants, BP33 and Carlton deposits. Measured Mineral Resources were converted to Proved Ore Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with the application of modifying factors.

No Probable Ore Reserves have been derived from Measured Mineral Resources. The total Ore Reserve summary shown in Table 1.

Results from the (April 2019) DFS and reaffirmed for the current DFS Update have highlighted the strongly positive outcomes for the potential development of the Project, suggesting a strong case for a standalone 1.0Mtpa Dense Media Separation (DMS) concentrate production and export operation.

The Project has substantial infrastructure advantages; being close to a population centre capable of providing the labour for the Project and within easy trucking distance by sealed road to the East Arm Port - Australia’s nearest port to Asia.

The concentrate plant will be constructed adjacent to the Grants open pit within the area of mining lease ML 31726. Mining operations will expand within adjacent mining leases ML 32346 and MLN16 to incorporate the underground operations at Grants (post-open-pit), BP33 and Carlton then finish with the Hang Gong open-pit which Is located approximately 1km to the east of Grants.

The mining operation has a current life of 8 years with open pit operations active for approximately five (5) years including initial pre-stripping requirements.

The Stage 1 key components of the Project are summarised below:

Mining of the high-grade spodumene pegmatite deposit from multiple open-pit and underground sources
Transfer the spodumene pegmatite ore to a Run of Mine (ROM) pad located adjacent to the Grants open pit
Water-based DMS to produce a high quality spodumene (lithium) concentrate product; and
Transport of the lithium concentrate product to Darwin Port by sealed public road for overseas export.

Table 1 - Ore Reserve Table

	Mt	Li2O (%)	Contained Li2O (kt)
Open Pit
Grants
Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
Probable	0.3	1.4%	4.7
Total	2.1	1.4%	31.0
Hang Gong
Proved	0.0	0.0%	-
Probable	1.1	1.2%	13.3
Total	1.1	1.2%	13.3
Total - Open Pit
Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
Probable	1.4	1.3%	17.9
Total	3.2	1.4%	44.3

Underground
Grants
Proved	0.0	1.0%	0.2
Probable	0.2	1.5%	3.4
Total	0.3	1.4%	3.6
BP33
Proved	1.3	1.4%	18.4
Probable	1.0	1.4%	13.8
Total	2.3	1.4%	32.2
Carlton
Proved	0.6	1.2%	7.1
Probable	1.0	1.0%	10.7
Total	1.6	1.1%	17.8
Total - Underground
Proved	1.9	1.3%	25.7
Probable	2.3	1.2%	27.8
Total	4.2	1.3%	53.6

Total – All Mining Methods
Proved	3.8	1.4%	52.1
Probable	3.7	1.2%	45.8
Total	7.4	1.3%	97.9

Note: Totals within this table may have been adjusted slightly to allow for rounding.

Finniss Lithium Project	Finniss Lithium Project
			Year 1	Year 2	Year 3	Year 4	Year 5	Year 6	Year 7	Year 8

Grants Open Pit
	Pre-strip	Waste
	Production	Ore

Grants Underground
	Development	Waste
	Development	Ore
	Stoping	Ore

BP33 Underground
	Box Cut	Waste
	Development	Waste
	Development	Ore
	Stoping	Ore

Carlton Underground
	Development	Waste
	Development	Ore
	Stoping	Ore

Hang Gong Open Pit
	Pre-strip	Waste
	Production	Ore

Concentrate Production

Figure 2 – Stage 1 proposed DFS Ore Reserve Schedule

Grants Open Pit

Core’s development of the Finniss Lithium Project is initially based on the development of the Ore Reserves within the high-grade Grants deposit as standard open pit mining operations and the construction of a simple 1Mtpa Dense Media Separation (DMS) process plant to produce up to 197,000tpa of high quality lithium concentrate with robust operating margins.

The development of the Grants open pit remains the same as that described in the April 2019 DFS (ASX announcement 17 April 2019). Mining of Grants will be undertaken by a Mining Contractor using conventional open pit mining methods.

The Grants schedule contains 2.14 Mt of which 97% is Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource, 3% of the Grants schedule is inferred material. The pit will be mined in two stages; Stage 1 will target early ore by reducing the volume of pre-strip waste to be mined with Stage 2 a cutback out to the final pit limits.

Mining will predominately occur concurrently within both stages over a 9-month period to ensure continuity of ore supply to the crusher with Stage 1 anticipated to start only 2 months before Stage 2. First ore will be mined in Month 6 of the mine schedule, with mining activities continuing in Grants until Month 31 (Year 3, Month 6).

Grants Stage 1 and 2 pit designs are shown in Figure 3.

==> picture [408 x 254] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 - Grants Stage 1 and Ultimate Pit design with Ore Reserves (red) and Inferred Mineral Resources (yellow)

Hang Gong Open Pit

The Hang Gong pit design was completed using the same design parameters as Grants with a combination of dual lane and single lane ramps utilised. The pit will be mined as a single phase. The current design for Hang Gong is shown in Figure 4.

The Hang Gong schedule of 1.09Mt is made up of 92% Indicated Mineral Resource and 8% of the schedule is inferred material. Combined with Grants, the two open pits only contain 5% Inferred Resources & together they support 3 years and 45% of the contained metal of life of mine processing requirements.

Hang Gong Pre-strip commences in Month 60 (Year 5, Month 12) for 10 months before ore is exposed. Mining continues for an additional 19 months until mineral inventory is exhausted, with mining activities ceasing in Month 88 (Year 8, Month 4).

==> picture [390 x 295] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 - Hang Gong Pit Design with Ore Reserves (Red) and Inferred Mineral Resources (Yellow)

Open Pit Mine Design & Schedule

Mining of the two (2) open pits, Grants and Hang Gong will be undertaken by a Mining Contractor using conventional open pit mining methods. Pre-strip of weathered and transitional material occurs within the top 40 - 70m of vertical depth from the surface before encountering fresh rock exposure of the ore.

All material (ore and waste) will require drill and blast, except the oxidised pegmatite and phyllite waste which varies in depth between 30 and 50m from surface, which is based on previous mining activities in the Burrell Creek Formation is assumed to be predominately free dig. The Mining Contractor will also be responsible for pit dewatering, pit surface water management, heavy and light vehicle maintenance, and day to day responsibility for the mining operation. Core will undertake the overall site management, administration, and processing functions.

==> picture [454 x 300] intentionally omitted <==

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

Grants
1.0km
Hang
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 5 - Grants and Hang Gong Open Pits with Ore Reserves (red) and Inferred Mineral Resources (yellow)

Grants Underground

The Grants underground is planned as a transition from Grants open pit to underground, access to the Grants underground deposit is via a portal in the Grants open pit and a total decline length of 1,365 m (shown in Figure 6). The 6.0 m x 6.0 m decline will also act as the primary ventilation intake into the mine. The Grants underground exhaust is via a dedicated ventilation decline connected to the internal Return Air Raise (RAR) network. An internal drill and blasted RAR network will provide airflow to the production areas.

The mining method selected for the Grants underground deposit is up-hole retreat mining. The ore body is 5–25 m wide, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions allows for up-hole retreat mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low-cost mining method.

==> picture [596 x 235] intentionally omitted <==

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

Ventilation Decline Grants DFS Pit
Decline
(Gradient 1:7)
Refugee
Chamber
Bay
First Ore
Internal RAR
Production Drilling
Network
Horizons
RAR
Access Stockpile/Turning Bays
Sump and
Stope Access
Drain
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 6 - Grants Underground Design (LOM)

The geotechnical assessment study conducted by SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd (SRK) has assessed the ground conditions and recommended stoping dimensions for Grants underground with ground support in the form of cable bolts. The Grants underground is mined without leaving stability rock pillars and is planned to break into the bottom of the open Pit. The Geotechnical assessment of the ground conditions and proposed mine design at Grants underground is to be further assessed.

Mining from Grants underground will be done using underground production loaders. The up-hole retreat mining method selected requires remote loaders as it retreats along the ore drive. Material is to be stockpiled on the production level or loaded directly into underground mining trucks with a 45 t capacity. The haulage path will consist of the stope access development on the production level, the Grants decline, the Grants open pit haul road to the Grants Processing facility.

It is assumed that an underground contract mining company will be used, and their equipment hire fleet would be utilised, this has been included int the unit production and development mining costs.

Multiple experienced mining contractors were engaged by Core to provide a quotation on the mining of Grants underground deposit. It is expected that Core will award the contract to one of these experienced contractors. The majority of development and production costs were derived from the quotations. The Grants underground requires initial capital (Pre-production) of A$11.08M (including 7.5% Contingency). The total capital requirement over the Life-of-Mine (LOM) including pre-production is A$13.74M (including 7.5% Contingency).

The Capital Costs for the Grants underground has been split into surface infrastructure, miscellaneous underground mining equipment, underground infrastructure and underground fixed equipment. The capital costs included in the study are derived from a quotation from a mining contractor, other suppliers and current project costs. Mining costs were benchmarked against similar projects. Mining costs are to a Feasibility Study level. Costs have been calculated for a 0.5 Mtpa mining rate for Grants underground.

BP33 Underground

The BP33 deposit is located approximately 6 km south of the proposed Grants open pit. Access to the BP33 underground deposit is via a 340 m decline from the surface box-cut to a decline

connecting the lower levels (shown Figure 7). BP33 is ventilated via dedicated raise bored RAR to the surface. An internal drill and blasted RAR network will provide airflow to the production areas.

The mining method selected for the BP33 deposit is sublevel open stope mining. Internal pillars are utilised for overall stability. The narrow (5–25 m) ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions and internal rock pillars allows for sublevel open stoping mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low-cost mining method.

==> picture [596 x 297] intentionally omitted <==

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

BP33 Box Cut
RAR to
Surface
Sump and
Stability
Drain Hole
Pillars Decline
(Gradient 1:7)
First Ore
Turning Bays
Refugee
Chamber
Bay
Internal RAR
Network
Pump Cuddy
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 7 - BP33 Underground Design (LOM)

The SRK report has assessed the ground conditions and stoping dimensions for BP33 with ground support in the form of in-stope pillars and cable bolts. The recommended pillar dimensions are 15 m x 15 m. The square shape provides a greater load-bearing capacity than rectangular pillars.

Mining from BP33 will be done using underground production loaders. The majority of the sublevel retreat mining will be done using remote loaders. It has been assumed that the same mining contractor would carry out mining at all the deposits. The costs for BP33 were prepared in the same way as for Grants underground.

Material is to be stockpiled on the production level or loaded directly into underground mining

trucks with a 45 t capacity.

The haulage path will consist of the stope access development on the production level, the BP33 decline, and haul road (6 km) to the Grants Processing facility.

It is assumed that a contract mining company will be used, and their equipment hire fleet would be utilised, this has been included int the unit production and development mining costs.

Multiple experienced mining contractors were engaged by Core to provide a quotation on the mining of the BP33 deposit. It is expected that Core will award the contract to one of these experienced contractors. The majority of development and production costs were derived from

the quotation. The BP33 underground requires initial capital (Pre-production) of A$18.40M (including 7.5% Contingency). The total capital requirement over the LOM including pre-production is A$38.33M (including 7.5% Contingency).

The Capital Costs for the BP33 underground has been split into surface infrastructure, miscellaneous underground mining equipment, underground infrastructure and underground fixed equipment. The capital costs included in the study are derived from a quotation from a mining contractor, other suppliers and current project costs. Mining costs were benchmarked against similar projects. Mining costs are to a Feasibility Study (FS) level. Costs have been calculated for a 1.0 Mtpa mining rate for BP33.

Carlton Underground

The Carlton deposit is south of the planned Grants open pit. Access to the Carlton underground deposit is via a portal in the Grants open pit and a 1,200 m decline (shown in 8). The 6.0 m x 6.0 m decline will also act as the primary ventilation intake into the mine with the exhaust to surface via a return a raise bored Return Air Raise (RAR).

The mining method selected for the Carlton deposit is sublevel open stope mining. Internal pillars are utilised for overall stability. The narrow (5–15 m) ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions and internal rock pillars allows for sublevel open stoping mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low-cost mining method.

==> picture [596 x 181] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8 - Carlton Underground Design (LOM)

The Underground Geotechnical Study for Carlton Deposit (SRK Report) conducted by SRK has assessed the ground conditions and recommended stoping dimensions for Carlton (with ground support in the form of in-stope pillars and cable bolts). SRK calculated a pillar factor of safety from modelled pillar stresses and pillar strengths. The recommended pillar dimensions are 15 m x 15 m. The square shape provides a greater load-bearing capacity than rectangular pillars.

The top of the fresh rock is typically ~60 m below ground level. In the stability analysis the crown pillars are considered stable. Additional development will be required to undercut crown pillars to install cable bolts and shape the top of the stoping areas. This will assist in forming a stope void that will minimise the potential to induce crown failure or subsidence as stoping progresses.

Mining from Carlton will be done using underground production loaders. The sublevel open stoping method selected requires remote loaders as it retreats along the ore drive. Material is to be stockpiled on the production level or loaded directly into underground mining trucks with a 45 t capacity. The haulage path will consist of the stope access development on the production level, the Carlton decline, the Grants open pit haul road to the Grants Processing

facility. It is assumed that a contract mining company will be used, and their equipment hire fleet would be utilised, this has been included in the unit production and development mining costs.

Multiple experienced mining contractors were engaged by Core to provide a quotation on the mining of Grants underground and BP33 deposit. It is expected that Core will award the contract to one of these experienced contractors. The majority of development and production costs were derived from the quotation. BP33 has similar ground conditions the same mining method. The development and production unit costs for Carlton are assumed to be the same as BP33. The Carlton underground requires initial capital (Pre-production) of A$24.11M (including 7.5% Contingency). The total capital requirement over the LOM including preproduction is A$34.88M (including 7.5% Contingency).

The Capital Costs for the Carlton underground has been split into surface infrastructure, miscellaneous underground mining equipment, underground infrastructure and underground fixed equipment. The capital costs included in the study are derived from a quotation from a mining contractor, other suppliers and current project costs. Mining costs were benchmarked against similar projects. Mining costs are to a FS level. Costs have been calculated for a 1.0 Mtpa mining rate for Carlton.

1.	MINERAL RESOURCE .............................................................................................................................................. 16
2.	MINING AND SCHEDULING ................................................................................................................................ 21
3.	PROCESSING ................................................................................................................................................................ 25
4.	INFRASTRUCTURE, TRANSPORT AND SERVICES ............................................................................... 27
5.	CAPITAL COST ESTIMATION .............................................................................................................................. 32
6.	OPERATING COST ESTIMATION ...................................................................................................................... 34
7.	OPERATING MARGINS AND CASH FLOW ................................................................................................ 37
8.	PROJECT VALUATION ............................................................................................................................................ 38
9.	ENVIRONMENT AND APPROVALS TIMELINE ....................................................................................... 43
10.	OFFTAKE & PREPAYMENT ................................................................................................................................. 44
11.	FINANCIAL EVALUATION .....................................................................................................................................45
12.	RESOURCE AND PRODUCTION EXPANSION POTENTIAL .......................................................... 47
13.	DEFINITIVE FEASIBILITY STUDY UPDATE CONTRIBUTORS ........................................................ 53
IMPORTANT INFORMATION .............................................................................................................................................. 56
CONCLUSIONS ............................................................................................................................................................................. 61

1. Mineral Resource

Core Lithium’s high-grade lithium Mineral Resource of 15Mt @ 1.3% Li2O (this report and ASX announcement of 15/06/2020) is located within Core’s 100% owned Finnis Lithium Project which consists of a large ground holding over one of Australia’s significant spodumene pegmatite fields near Darwin in the Northern Territory.

Focussed drilling by Core in late 2020 and early 2021 was successful in increasing the Measured Resource at Grants by 80% with the aim to convert a high proportion (89%) of the Grants Deposit to Ore Reserves ahead of the DFS (Table 2).

Table 2 - Mineral Resource Estimate for the Grants Deposit

Mineral Resource Estimate for the Grants Deposit – 0.75% Li2O cut-off

	Oxidation	Tonnes	Li2O %	Li2O Contained Metal (t)
Measured	Fresh	1,960,000	1.50	29,500
Indicated	Fresh	600,000	1.50	9,000
Inferred	Fresh	330,000	1.35	4,400
Total		2,890,000	1.49	42,900

A significant portion of the mineral resource is now within the measured category. This represents a very good conversion of the indicated material reported as a part of the previous estimate in October 2018. This change is due to an increase in the confidence and understanding of the geology and mineralisation.

The overall average grade has remained the same as the resource has grown with increased drilling. This demonstrates the robustness of the geological model and mineralisation and adds to the confidence in the Mineral Resource Estimate. The resulting block model for the mineralised pegmatite domain at Grants is shown in Figure 9.

==> picture [439 x 230] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9 - Oblique view of the mineralised domain Block Model for Grants, with drilling.

Geology and geological interpretation

The Grants Lithium Deposit is hosted within a rare element pegmatite that is a member of the Bynoe pegmatite field. The Bynoe Pegmatite Field is situated 15km south of Darwin and extends for up to 70km in length and 15 km in width. Individual pegmatites vary in size from a few metres wide and tens of metres long up to larger bodies tens of metres wide and hundreds of metres long.

The pegmatites are classified as LCT (Lithium-Caesium-Tantalum) type and are believed to have been derived from the ~ 1845 Ma S-Type Two Sisters Granite which outcrops to the west.

Fresh pegmatite at Grants is composed of coarse grained spodumene, quartz, albite, microcline and muscovite. Spodumene, a lithium bearing pyroxene (LiAl(SiO3)2), is the predominant lithium bearing phase and displays a diagnostic red-pink UV fluorescence. The pegmatite is not strongly zoned, apart from a thin (1-2m) quartz-mica-albite wall facies. Overall, the lithium content throughout the pegmatite is very consistent.

Drilling techniques and hole spacing

The Grants drillhole database used for the updated MRE contains 111 holes for 19,061.95m of drilling, comprising 78 RC holes and 33 DD holes.

The majority of holes have been drilled at angles of between 55 - 70° either due east or west, with a small proportion drilled vertically. Holes were drilled on approximately 20m spaced E-W oriented sections. Geological and assay data for RC and diamond drill holes was used in the geological interpretation and MRE.

Sampling and sub-sampling

Samples were collected from RC drilling and when submitted for assay typically weighed 2-5kg over an average 1m interval. RC sampling of pegmatite for assays is done on a 1 metre basis. 1msampling continued into the barren wall-zone of the pegmatite and then a 3m composite was collected from the immediately surrounding barren phyllite host rock. RC samples were homogenised and subsampled by cone splitting at the drill rig.

Drill core was collected directly into trays, marked by metre marks and secured as the drilling progressed. Core was cut firstly into half longitudinally along a consistent line, ensuring no bias in the cutting plane. Again, without bias, if required, the half core was then cut into two further segments. A half or quarter core was then collected on a metre basis where possible but not less than 0.3m in length, determined by geological and lithological contacts. The majority of the drill core samples were half core.

All samples were sent to North Australian Laboratories Pty Ltd (NAL) in Pine Creek for analysis.

Sample analysis method

For sample preparation, the samples have been sorted and dried. Primary preparation has been by crushing the whole sample. The samples have been split with a riffle splitter to obtain a subfraction which has then been pulverised to 95% passing 100µm.

A 0.3 g sub-sample of the pulp is digested in a standard 4 acid mixture and analysed via ICP-MS and ICP-OES methods for the following elements: Li, Cs, Rb, Sr, Nb, Sn, Ta, U, As, K, P and Fe.

In 2016-2017, all samples were also analysed via the fusion method. A 0.3 g sub-sample is fused with a Sodium Peroxide Fusion flux and then digested in 10% hydrochloric acid. ICP-OES is used to analyse for the following elements: Li, P and Fe. Checks of this data suggested an excellent correlation exists, therefore since 2018 a 3000 ppm Li trigger was set to process that sample via a fusion method.

Selected drill core samples were also run for the following additional elements to provide a broader suite: Al, Ca, Mg, Mn, Si, LOI, SG (immersion), SG (pycnometer) and various trace elements.

Standards, blanks and duplicates have all been applied in the QAQC methodology. Sufficient accuracy and precision have been established for the type of mineralisation encountered and is appropriate for QAQC in the Resource Estimation.

Cut-off grades

The current Mineral Resource Inventory for the Grants Deposit has been reported at a cut-off grade of 0.75% Li2O. No top cuts were applied.

Estimation methodology

Geology and mineralisation wireframes were generated in Micromine software using drillhole data supplied by Core. Resource data was flagged with unique lithology and mineralisation domain codes as defined by the wireframes and composited to 1m lengths. The composites were analysed and no top-cuts were applied.

Grade continuity analysis was undertaken in Micromine software for Li2O for the mineralised domain and models were generated in all three directions. Parameters were used in the block model estimation. A block model with a parent block size of 5m x 10m x 10m with sub-blocks of 1m x 2.5m x 2.5m has been used to adequately represent the mineralised volume, with sub blocks estimated at the parent block scale.

Density data was supplied by Core and is consistent with expected values for the lithologies present and the degree of weathering.

For the fresh mineralised domain, specific gravity is estimated into the block model via a Li2O based regression equation, using the block grade estimations. The regression equation is based upon the correlation between Li2O% and specific gravity.

The resulting regression equation for the estimation of SG in each block is as follows:

SG = 0.0666 x Li2O% + 2.613

Classification criteria

The resource classification has been applied to the Mineral Resource Estimate based on the drilling data spacing, grade and geological continuity, and data integrity. Portions of the model that have drill spacing of better than 25m by 30m, and where the confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation is considered high and would allow the application of modifying factors in a technical and economic study have been classified as Measured Mineral Resources . Areas that have drill spacing of greater than 25m by 30m, and/or with lower levels of confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation or potential impact of modifying factors have been classified as Indicated Mineral Resources. Areas that have drill spacing of greater than 25m by 30m, and with low levels of confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation or potential impact of modifying factors have been classified as Inferred Mineral Resources.

The classification reflects the view of the Competent Person.

Mining, Metallurgy and Environment

The current DFS concluded that the Grants deposit could be developed via standard open cut mining operations followed by underground mining accessed via a portal in the open pit. It is planned that processing will be undertaken at a processing facility to be constructed on site. The mining method selected for the underground deposit is up-hole retreat mining with back fill, because of the vertical nature of the ore body and competent host rock ground conditions.

As part of the DFS, preliminary mine planning and scheduling was undertaken considering possible waste and process residue disposal options and environmental impacts.

Based on 4 phases of metallurgical test work, the DFS concluded that the operation could produce a concentrate with a target grade of 5.5% Li2O with recoveries of >70%. This occurs via a simple process of crushing, screening and dense media separation. During testwork it was observed that product impurities were consistently below reject specifications.

Full details of the mining and metallurgical factors and assumptions are documented within the DFS.

The Finniss Lithium Project approvals have been secured for 7 years through the Notice of Alteration. The Notice of Alteration allows for contributions from Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong with crushing/screening/concentration/tailings all approved for 7 years at the Grants processing facility.

As part of the DFS, geotechnical studies have been undertaken as well as waste characterisation and groundwater modelling.

Eventual Economic Extraction

It is the view of the Competent Person that at the time of estimation there are no known issues that could materially impact on the eventual extraction of the Mineral Resource.

Table 3 - Finniss Project Mineral Resource Estimate summary

Resource Category	Tonnes	Li2O %
Measured	4,090,000	1.48
Indicated	4,180,000	1.36
Inferred	6,450,000	1.19
Total	14,720,000	1.32

Table 4 - Mineral Resource Estimate for the Finniss Lithium Project.

Mineral Resource Estimate for the Finniss Lithium Project 0.75% Li2O cut-off (*Sandras = 0.6%, Hang Gong and Booths/Lees = 0.7%)

Deposit	Resource Category	Oxidation	Tonnes	Li2O %	Contained Li2O (t)
Grants	Measured	Fresh	1,960,000	1.50	29,500
	Indicated	Fresh	600,000	1.50	9,000
	Inferred	Fresh	330,000	1.35	4,400
	Total		2,890,000	1.49	42,900
BP33	Measured	Fresh	1,500,000	1.52	23,000
	Indicated	Fresh	1,190,000	1.5	17,000
	Inferred	Fresh	550,000	1.54	8,000
	Total		3,240,000	1.51	48,000
Sandras*	Inferred	Fresh	1,300,000	1	13,000
	Total		1,300,000	1	13,000
Carlton	Measured	Fresh	630,000	1.31	8,000
	Indicated	Fresh	1,200,000	1.21	15,000
	Inferred	Fresh	1,190,000	1.33	16,000
	Total		3,020,000	1.28	39,000
Hang Gong*	Indicated	Fresh	1,190,000	1.3	15,300
	Inferred	Fresh	830,000	1.19	9,900
	Total		2,020,000	1.2	25,200
Booths & Lees	Inferred (Lees)	Fresh	430,000	1.3	5,400
	Inferred (Lees South)	Fresh	350,000	1.2	4,300
	Inferred (Booths/Lees)*	Fresh	1,470,000	1.06	15,700
	Total		2,250,000	1.13	25,400
Finniss Project	Measured		4,090,000	1.48	60,500
	Indicated		4,180,000	1.36	56,300
	Inferred		6,450,000	1.19	76,700
	Total		14,720,000	1.32	193,500

2. Mining and Scheduling 2.1. Ore Reserve Estimate

The Ore Reserve Estimate (ORE) for open pit and underground is summarised below:

Table 5 - Ore Reserve Estimate for Grants, BP33, Carlton & Hang Gong

	Mt	Li2O (%)	Contained Li2O (kt)
Open Pit
Grants
Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
Probable	0.3	1.4%	4.7
Total	2.1	1.4%	31.0
Hang Gong
Proved	0.0	0.0%	-
Probable	1.1	1.2%	13.3
Total	1.1	1.2%	13.3
Total - Open Pit
Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
Probable	1.4	1.3%	17.9
Total	3.2	1.4%	44.3

Underground
Grants
Proved	0.0	1.0%	0.2
Probable	0.2	1.5%	3.4
Total	0.3	1.4%	3.6
BP33
Proved	1.3	1.4%	18.4
Probable	1.0	1.4%	13.8
Total	2.3	1.4%	32.2
Carlton
Proved	0.6	1.2%	7.1
Probable	1.0	1.0%	10.7
Total	1.6	1.1%	17.8
Total - Underground
Proved	1.9	1.3%	25.7
Probable	2.3	1.2%	27.8
Total	4.2	1.3%	53.6

Total – All Mining Methods
Proved	3.8	1.4%	52.1
Probable	3.7	1.2%	45.8
Total	7.4	1.3%	97.9

The ORE was made following the detailed mine planning work completed during the DFS and is based on the Measured and Indicated Resources contained within the Grants and Hang Gong pit designs and Grants, BP33 and Carlton underground designs. Section 4 of table 1 of the JORC code 2012 and a competent person’s statement appear in the schedule to this announcement.

The open pit Ore Reserve was estimated using 0.75% cut-off, underground reserve was estimated using 0.61% Li2O cut-off which was based on the Mineral Resource being a geologically domained resource; and the geological model being modified for ore loss and dilution and evaluated to determine which blocks produced cash surplus when treated as ore.

2.2. Scheduling

The proposed Reserve LOM Schedule is contained in the tables below.

The eight (8) year Life of Mine (LOM) is reflected in the Mining and Concentrate Physicals tables below.

Table 6 - Finniss Lithium Project DFS Mining Physicals

			FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY26	FY27	FY28	FY29	FY30	FY31
		Total	0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
			2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29	2029/30	2030/31
Open Pit
Total Mined	bcm	27,002,177		6,686,103	6,157,652	1,049,988	–	–	7,588,350	4,762,691	757,393	–	–
Waste Mined	bcm	25,809,569		6,499,191	5,844,268	759,850	–	–	7,588,293	4,564,955	553,012	–	–
Ore Mined	bcm	1,192,608		186,912	313,384	290,138	–	–	57	197,736	204,381	–	–
Strip ratio	w : o	21.6
Ore Mined	t's	3,231,945		507,070	849,274	786,905	–	–	153	535,279	553,264	–	–
Ore Grade	Li2O%	1.36%		1.48%	1.40%	1.45%	0.00%	0.00%	0.98%	1.19%	1.25%	0.00%	0.00%
Underground
Boxcut	kt	2,000			2,000
Development
Total Development	m	15,917			787	4,066	4,128	3,500	3,084	353	–	–	–
Total Development Waste	t's	859,167			71,605	259,316	214,718	133,101	173,279	7,148	–	–	–
Total Development Ore	t's	290,242			–	42,246	121,813	58,558	49,212	18,413	–	–	–
Development Ore Grade	Li2O%	1.32%			0.00%	1.37%	1.45%	1.33%	1.06%	1.07%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Stope Production
TOTAL Ore Production	t's	3,919,964			–	271,801	965,769	1,118,069	792,268	772,058	–	–	–
Production Ore Grade	Li2O%	1.27%			0.00%	1.38%	1.31%	1.47%	1.11%	1.05%	0.00%	0.00%	0.00%
Summary
Total Ore Mined	t's	7,442,151		507,070	849,274	1,100,952	1,087,581	1,176,627	841,633	1,325,750	553,264	–	–
Ore Grade	Li2O%	1.31%		1.48%	1.40%	1.43%	1.32%	1.47%	1.11%	1.11%	1.25%	0.00%	0.00%

Page 23

Table 7 - Finniss Lithium Project DFS Concentrate Physicals

			FY21	FY22	FY23	FY24	FY25	FY26	FY27	FY28	FY29	FY30	FY31
Total			0	1	2	3	4	5	6	7	8	9	10
			2020/21	2021/22	2022/23	2023/24	2024/25	2025/26	2026/27	2027/28	2028/29	2029/30	2030/31
Gravity Concentrate Production
Crushing & Screening
Mine Ore Crush & Screen	t's	7,442,151		85,000	1,080,000	1,090,000	1,100,000	1,100,000	1,097,500	1,140,000	749,651	–	–
Grade	Li2O%	1.31%		1.47%	1.43%	1.43%	1.33%	1.45%	1.19%	1.09%	1.23%	0.00%	0.00%
Concentrate Production
Recovery	%	71.70%		71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	71.70%	0.00%	0.00%
DMS Output	t's	1,206,605		15,514	190,486	192,734	180,226	197,037	162,446	154,017	114,146	–	–
Grade	Li2O%	5.80%		5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	0.00%	0.00%
Concentrate Transport
Concentrate Mine to Port
Product Hauled	t's	1,206,605		12,500	182,500	192,500	187,500	192,500	170,000	152,000	117,105	–	–
Hauled Grade	Li2O%	5.80%		5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	0.00%	0.00%
Concentrate Port to Market
Concentrate Shipped	t's	1,206,605		12,500	182,500	192,500	187,500	192,500	170,000	152,000	117,105	–	–
Shipped Grade	Li2O%	5.80%		5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	5.80%	0.00%	0.00%

Page 24

3. Processing

3.1. Summary

The metallurgical test work program was conducted by Nagrom, in their Perth laboratory, under the supervision of Mr Noel O’Brien. The proposed Finniss Lithium Project Gravity Plant has been designed to treat a nominal 1.0 million tonnes of spodumene bearing pegmatite at a head grade of between 1.4% & 1.5% Li2O and targeting production of a spodumene concentrate containing an average 5.8% Li2O. Once operational, at Grants, the Finniss processing plant will operate 24 hours per day. Operation and maintenance of the plant will be completed by Primero Group. Manning will be scheduled for one day and one-night shift per day, shifts working continuously 7 days per week, 365 days per year. At full processing capacity there will be a Management, Supervisory and Operations workforce of approximately 48 people dedicated to the Ore Processing Facility (OPF).

3.2. Metallurgical Results

To determine the amenability of the Finniss pegmatites to concentration through density separation techniques, test work was conducted on composited core samples with Heavy Liquid Separation (HLS) and Dense Media Separation (DMS) test work being performed on feed streams at various size distributions.

The HLS and DMS test work indicated the grade and corresponding recoveries achievable for the assumed feed size distribution. This test work confirmed that density concentration is a viable process treatment route and highlighted that a number of size fractions and separation stages could enhance targeted grade and recovery.

The test work identified two (2) stage DMS on two separate size fractions, 6.3 - 2mm and 2 - 0.5mm (including DMS on the re-crushed 6.3 - 2mm stage 2 float material) produces a highgrade concentrate, at a high recovery. This configuration presents the greatest capacity for handling variability in process plant performance and feed composition, and the greatest capacity to accommodate adverse effects of scale-up from laboratory-scale test work.

The culmination of all the test work efforts is summarised in the Table below.

Table 8 - DMS test work results

Nagrom Test work Campaign	T2603	T2603
Method	DMS with Reflux Classification
Details	-6.3mm +2mm; -2mm +0.5mm with re-crush
	Grade Li2O	Overall Recovery
Test work Result	6.07%	69.8%

Interpolated Results
Target Grade	6.0%	70.0%
Target Grade	5.5%	71.7%
Target Grade	5.0%	73.7%

3.3. Flow Sheet Development

Following the four generations of metallurgical test work the processing flowsheet will have the following characteristics:

The crushing circuit is designed to crush to P100 of 6.3mm. This is a four stage crushing circuit.
The DMS circuit is configured with a coarse and fines circuit with a secondary DMS on the coarse
A re-crush facility on DMS middlings consistently aids the production of grades of 5.5% Li2O or better at acceptable recoveries of over 70%.
A primary and secondary DMS circuit is used to manage the coarser +2mm – 6.3mm fraction, so that the secondary coarse DMS floats could be re-crushed and recycled.
Separating the -2mm +0.5mm fines and incorporating a separate fines DMS circuit is necessary to ensure the plant design is sufficiently robust to cater for the expected variability in the ore body.
A reflux classifier and mica removal circuit is included in the flowsheet

The nominated concentrate grade of 5.8% Li2O at greater than 70% recovery has been met consistently since a re-crush section was incorporated into the flowsheet. During the test work it was observed that product impurities were consistently below reject specifications. The Process Block Flow Diagram (BFD) appears over the page.

==> picture [492 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10 - Process Block Flow Diagram

4. Infrastructure, Transport and Services

4.1. Darwin Infrastructure

==> picture [464 x 357] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11 - Aerial view of Darwin, the Port of Darwin and the Finniss Lithium development

The Project is in proximity to Darwin allowing access to critical operational infrastructure. The Project is located within:

0.5km of sealed road connecting to Darwin Port
4km of an existing 400,000kl Process Water Dam
10km of NT Electricity Grid connection
15km of 310MW Gas Fired Power Station
20km of Zoned Industrial Park
25km of Port Darwin (88km by road)
1hrs drive from Darwin Airport and City

4.2. Project Water Balance

The water system requirements for the Finniss project are illustrated in Figure 12 below.

==> picture [479 x 338] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 12 - Water System Requirements

The major source of water inflows into the Project area modelled from aquifer interception, unregulated surface water harvesting via runoff and rainfall and regulated extraction from offsite surface water stores.

The major outflows include evaporation, environmental discharge and entrainment.

The groundwater modelling shows that over 50% of the water inputs will be from aquifer inception with the Observation Hill Dam (OHD), a man-made dam that has supported historical tin mining activities in the region with an estimated capacity of over 400,000kl, available as a key water infrastructure element supporting the project. The OHD dam is situated on Core’s tenure to the east of Grants (see Figure 13).

An additional dam to the west of the mine has also been designed. It is modelled that the combined capacity of OHD and the western dam will provide over 100% of the projects water needs. Security of water supply for the project is a key risk mitigant.

==> picture [326 x 365] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 13 - Observation Hill Dam & Pipeline

4.3. Concentrate Product Haulage

==> picture [466 x 262] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 14 - Google image showing proposed transport route from project to the Port of Darwin

The DMS concentrate saleable product will be loaded into road trains for transport to Darwin Port (East Arm or EAW). The proposed trucking route will be along the sealed Cox Peninsula Road, through to the Stuart Highway, along the Stuart Highway to Tiger Brennan Drive and then Berrimah Road, to the East Arm Port.

The total travel distance to the East Arm Wharf for Route 1 is calculated to be 88.31km.

Each road train has a 95-tonne capacity. It is estimated that ten (10) road train movements per day will be required at nameplate production rates. Qube Bulk are the preferred contractors for the product haulage from the Project.

4.4. Darwin Port

Darwin Port Operations (DPO) is a multi-user facility with 4 berths spaced along 865 metres of quay line. Berths 1 and 3 are primarily used for general cargo, containers, motor vehicles and livestock.

Berth 2 is used for bulk ore exports and has a rail mounted dry bulk ship loader. Dry bulk imports can be handled at any EAW berth. Berth 4 is primarily used for bulk liquids and has a dedicated bulk liquids transfer facility.

In early 2017, the Company entered into a non-binding Heads of Agreement with DPO. DPO has now entered into a Port Operating Agreement (POA) with the Company’s wholly-owned subsidiary Lithium Developments (Grants NT) Pty Ltd (Lithium Developments). (ASX announcement 26/05/21)

The POA will allow Lithium Developments to access and use the DPO facilities to export Core's lithium products. The agreement contemplates Direct Ship Ore (DSO) and spodumene concentrate (Product).

Access to the DPO facilities includes a truck unloading dump facility, the ship loader feed conveyor to convey Product to the ship loader and access to the ship loader with berths capable of accommodating vessels up to Panamax size. As such the DPO facilities are a strong fit for Core’s requirements.

Lithium Developments is responsible for providing all labour to operate the DPO facilities when handling the Product and will obtain routine regulatory approvals relating to the use of the DPO facilities.

The Port Operating Agreement has a 5-year term.

==> picture [176 x 169] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [131 x 170] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 15 - Boundary of the Port of Darwin

Figure 16 - Proximity of Darwin to major trading port

==> picture [227 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [234 x 150] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 17 - East Arm Port

Figure 18 - Berth 2 bulk berth (ship docked)

5. Capital Cost EstimationContingency Framework

Contingency has been applied across the cost activity and areas using the following framework:

Table 9 - Contingency Framework

	Capital Activity / Costs	Operating Activity / Costs
Infrastructure	Between 10% & 12.5% applied to Direct costs	Nil
Open Pit	2.5% of Load & Haul costs allocated to dayworks	2.5% of Load & Haul costs allocated to dayworks
Underground	7.5% applied to Capital Costs 5% Unplanned Work Factor applied to Development Unit Costs	5% Unplanned Work Factor applied to Production Unit Costs

5.2. Initial Capital Cost

The initial capital costs estimated to establish the mine site, commence construction and prestrip Grants open pit to first ore is summarised in the table below.

Table 10 - Initial capital cost summary

Initial Capital Expenditure		Initial Capital
Start-Up and Construction
DMS Plant		$37.9m
Power & Water Supply		$7.5m
Site Establishment & Setup		$1.1m
TSF and Water Management		$6.4m
Mobilisation, utilities and services		$1.7m
Roads		$0.6m
Total Start-Up and Construction Capital Costs		$55.0m

Pre-strip Grants Open Pit		$33.9m

Total Initial Capital Cost		$88.9m

The initial capital costs are derived from multiple contractor sources. The DMS Plant cost is an EPC Estimate from third party contractor Primero. The pre-strip capital costs represent the prestrip mining activity costs up until the month prior to first revenue and cost estimates have been provided by mining contractors Lucas Total Contract Solutions.

5.3. Total Mine Development and Net Closure Capital Cost

Production capital represents total capital costs excluding initial capital and reflects mine development, sustaining capital and decommission and demobilisation costs and establishment of site infrastructure. Estimated production capital (excluding initial capital cost) is summarised in the table below:

Table 11 - Production capital cost summary

Production Capital Expenditure Sustaining Capital	Production Capital Expenditure Sustaining Capital	Non-Sustaining Capital	Total Production Capital
Mine Development Costs
Grants Underground	$11.9m	$2.0m	$13.9m
BP33 Underground	$26.5m	$11.7m	$38.2m
Carlton Underground	$29.8m	$5.1m	$34.9m
Hang Gong Open Pit	-	$47.0m	$47.0m
Total Mine Development Costs	$68.2m	$65.8m	$134.0m
Other Capital
Other Capital	$1.6m	-	$1.6m

Closure, Decommissioning & Plant Disposal
Closure, Clean-up & Decommissioning	-	$8.0m	$8.0m
Capital Recovery / Equipment Disposal	-	($15.8m)	($15.8m)
Total Closure, Decommissioning & Plant Disposal	-	($7.8m)	($7.8m)

Total Production Capital Cost	$69.8m	$58.0m	$127.8m

Total production capital costs are derived from multiple open pit mine contractor Lucas Total Contract Solutions, independent underground mine contractors, EPC estimates from third party contractor Primero.

Production capital is the sum of Sustaining and Non-Sustaining Capital Costs and excludes Initial Capital.

Non-sustaining capital is defined as mine development capital expenditure incurred prior to the commencement of production at a mine.

Sustaining capital is defined as mine development capital expenditure incurred on the commencement of and during production of a mine.

6. Operating Cost Estimation

The DFS operating costs for a DMS operation from the commencement of commercial production and using a 0.70 USD:AUD exchange rate are detailed below.

Table 12 - LOM Average Unit Operating Costs

LOM Average Unit Operating Costs	US$/t
OP Mining Costs	106
UG Mining Costs	133
Processing	103
Haulage & Logistics	12
Site General & Administration	11
C1 Operating Costs2	364
Royalties	36
Sustaining & UG Development Capex	41
All-in Sustaining Costs (FOB)3	441

This translates into strong estimated operating margins throughout the Project’s life as follows (figures expressed in US$/t using a AUD:USD exchange rate of $0.70).

==> picture [464 x 222] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 19 - Finniss Lithium Project margin

Received Concentrate Price (FOB) is derived from Roskill April 2021 CIF China price forecast, adjusted for sea freight of US$20/t concentrate and a pro-rata grade adjustment for 5.8% Li2O grade.

C1 Operating Costs and All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) are summarised below on an annual basis on the assumption that construction and ramp up commence in financial year 2022.

C1 Operating Cost (US$/t) vs. Roskill Price (US$/t)

==> picture [596 x 207] intentionally omitted <==

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

1,000
800
600
453
422 405
374
400 351
300
203
200
-
FY22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32
OP Mining Cost U/G Mining Cost Processing Haulage & Logistics Admin Roskill Price
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 20 - C1 operating cost relative to April 2021 Roskill Price Forecast

The Roskill Price (FOB) is derived from Roskill April 2021 CIF China price forecast, adjusted for sea freight of US$20/t concentrate and a pro-rata grade adjustment for 5.8% Li2O grade.

C1 Operating Costs are defined as direct cash operating costs of production FOB. Direct cash operating costs include mining, processing, transport, and general and administration costs.

C1 Operating Costs exclude royalties and sustaining capital costs and are calculated and reported from commencement of commercial production.

All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/t) vs. Roskill Price (US$/t)

==> picture [596 x 203] intentionally omitted <==

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

1,000
800
600
467 476 502 494
424
397
400
271
200
-
FY22 '23 '24 '25 '26 '27 '28 '29 '30 '31 '32
C1 Costs Royalties Sustaining Capex Roskill Price
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 21 - AISC relative to April 2021 Roskill Price Forecast

All-In Sustaining Costs (AISC) are defined as C1 Operating Costs plus production royalties, government royalties and sustaining capital. AISC are calculated and reported from commencement of commercial production. AISC exclude Non-Sustaining Capital expenditure.

Operating cost estimates are derived from multiple contractor sources including Lucas Total Contract Solutions for open pit mining contractor costs, tenders obtained from underground mining contractors for underground mining costs, EPC and O&M engineering firm Primero for

EPC construction and O&M process operating costs, Qube Bulk for haulage costs and from Darwin Port for handling cost estimates.

Royalties

Royalties include production royalties payable to Lithium Royalty Corporation and the Northern Territory government via the Territory Revenue Office.

Under the terms of the Lithium Royalty Corporation (LRC) production royalty agreements, LRC have a right to receive 2.5% of gross revenue from the sale of products from the Finniss Lithium Project. In return for this royalty, LRC must pay A$8.125 million with A$6.875 million received by Core in 2019 following FIRB approval (Stage 1). The balance of A$1.25 million will be paid subject to the achievement of a 15 million tonne JORC Mineral Resource for the Finniss Lithium Project and the Company achieving continuous operation of the processing plant for a period of more than 14 consecutive days (Stage 2). The LRC Royalty rate on receipt of initial proceeds under Stage 1 is 2.115% and increases by 0.385% upon achievement of the Stage 2 milestone and payment of the balance of the purchase price.

The Northern Territory Government royalty regime is a ‘hybrid regime’ that considers both a range of ad-valorem rates and project based profits. More specifically, the royalty payable under the Mineral Royalty Act NT (MRA), is the greater of:

20 per cent of the net value, less $10 000
the percentage of the gross production revenue applying to the royalty year as follows:
1% for the royalty payer’s first royalty year that begins on or after 1 July 2019
2% for the royalty year that follows the royalty year mentioned in subparagraph (i)
2.5% for each royalty year that follows the royalty year mentioned in subparagraph (ii).

(Net value is calculated as the gross realisation from the production unit, minus the operating costs, capital recognition deduction, eligible exploration expenditure and any additional deduction under s 4CA of the MRA).

To accommodate small-scale miners, for royalty years commencing on or after 1 July 2019, the royalty is only payable where the annual gross production revenue of a production unit exceeds $500 000.

The MRA further provides that the Minister responsible for the MRA has the discretion to determine the stage beyond which a mineral commodity ceases to be a saleable mineral commodity. Core will be producing Spodumene Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) to feed into its Dense Media Separation (DMS) processing circuit to produce spodumene concentrate. Core has received an independent report from Fastmarkets which illustrates that a market for Spodumene DSO exists. On that basis, Core has assumed DSO as the first saleable product and calculated the NT royalty accordingly. Product sale price assumptions used to calculate DSO revenue were sourced from the offtake agreement originally signed with Ya Hua International Investment and Development Co. Ltd (Sichuan Yahua) in November 2017.

Income Tax

Income tax is calculated at the current corporate tax rate of 30%. Core has estimated gross tax losses of $75.3 million (net $22.6 million at 30%) which includes an estimate of the Company tax loss position as of 30 June 2021 as well as tax losses likely to be generated from the expenditure of funds on hand as at 30 June 2021.

7. Operating Margins and Cash Flow

The DFS illustrates that the Finniss Lithium Project has strong operating margins from the commencement of commercial production using a 0.70 USD:AUD exchange rate and healthy margin as detailed in the table below.

Table 13 - Finniss Lithium Project margin

Metric	Unit Costs
	C1 Costs U$/t conc.	AISC U$/t conc.
Total Unit Operating Costs	$364	$441
Average Roskill Apr-21 Life of Mine Spodumene Concentrate Price, FOB	$743	$743
Total Operating Margin (%)	104%	68%

This is also reflected in the annual cash flow as detailed in the figure below

==> picture [596 x 159] intentionally omitted <==

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

400
269
300
204
164
200
138
85
100
11
- (71)
(115)
(100)
(200)
(300)
FY22 FY23 FY24 FY25 FY26 FY27 FY28 FY29
Revenue Operating Costs Royalties Capital Costs
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 22 - DFS Post-Tax Cashflows

8. Project Valuation

Core used the abovementioned April 2021 Roskill price deck from Calendar Years’ 2021 to 2029 to estimate revenues in the DFS. Roskill prices were quoted on a Cost Insurance and Freight (CIF) basis. These CIF prices were adjusted to Free on Board (FOB) prices in the DFS using a longterm average freight rate of US$20/t representing estimates shipping cost from Darwin Port to customers in Asia. The April 2021 Roskill price deck, (CIF) China is shown in the figure below and are compared to high, low and average June-2021 broker CIF forecasts which were sourced from broker research reports.

6% Spodumene Price Outlook (US$/t, CIF China)

==> picture [475 x 214] intentionally omitted <==

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

1,000
900 872
806 811
787
800 761 771
723 726
700 708
700
600
500
Apr-21 Roskill Pricing Jun-21 Broker Average Jun-21 Broker High Jun-21 Broker Low
2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 2026 2027 2028 2029 2030
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 23 - Roskill 6% Spodumene Price Outlook price analysis (US$/t, CIF China)

A summary of the Stage 1 economics of the Finniss Lithium Project as presented in the DFS is best summarised below.

Table 14 - Key assumptions table

	Units	DFS June 2021
End of Mine Processing Life	Date	Feb-29
Mine Life	Years	8
Throughput	Mtpa	1.0 - 1.1
Ore Grade	%	1.31
Recovery	%	71.7
SC 5.8% Production	Kt	1,207
Upfront Capital Cost	A$m	89
LOM Sustaining Capital	A$m	69
LOM Non-Sustaining Capital (excl. Closure Decommissioning and Plant Disposal)	A$m	66
SC 6.0% Price (LOM)1	US$/t FOB	743
LOM Revenue	A$m	1,281
LOM Avg. Annual EBITDA (post commercial production)	A$m	73
LOM Avg. Annual FCF (post commercial production)	A$m	48
Pre-Tax NPV	A$m	221
Pre-Tax IRR	%	52.7
Post-Tax NPV	A$m	170
Post-Tax IRR	%	47.1
Payback from first sale	Years	2.0

Commodity Pricing assumptions are derived from Roskill April 2021 forecast and represent an average received price over the LOM. Assumptions include sea freight of US$20/t concentrate and a pro-rata grade adjustment for 5.8% Li2O grade.

8.1. Cost & Revenue Sensitivity

Sensitivities are applied to key project estimates and assumptions. Favourable and unfavourable movements relative to post-tax NPV are illustrated in the chart below.

Table 15 - Sensitivity of post-tax NPV to changes in operating costs, revenues and key physicals assumptions

==> picture [492 x 264] intentionally omitted <==

8.2. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Credentials

Core Lithium is in the process of operationalising its approach to sustainability. Core is committed to developing lithium and diversified metals projects through responsible and sustainable mining operations.

In line with this commitment, we have been working with Environmental Resources Management, a global sustainability consulting firm, to develop our approach to sustainability.

Core is operationalising this commitment by developing a roadmap for the organisation and a key focus is on what this means for our Finniss Lithium Project.

Core has commenced the development of its approach to sustainability in the figure below.

==> picture [293 x 292] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 24 - Approach to Sustainability

Core recognises that lithium mining has a fundamental role in shaping the global energy future, as we transition to a low carbon economy. We embrace the opportunity that this presents, and are committed to operating in a responsible, sustainable manner as we contribute to the energy future.

Core prioritises the health and safety of our people, and value the environment and communities in which we operate, with the aim of making a long-term positive contribution to our stakeholders and delivering sustainable value for shareholders.

Core is taking steps to build our approach to sustainability, which will involve preparing of a road map to help us align with good industry practice as we move towards construction.

Core recently engaged global sustainability consultants Environmental Resources Management (ERM) to complete the following:

Greenhouse Gas Assessment which identified that the Finniss Project is close to Port facilities, meaning we have the lowest projected Scope 3 emissions compared to other Australian peer lithium projects

Sustainability Assessment to build a proactive approach to sustainability including the preparation of a road map aligned with good industry practice

Life Cycle Analysis assesses the environmental impacts across the global value chain and helps us identify areas to reduce environmental impact and costs

In undertaking these activities, we have identified a range of sustainability advantages associated with our Finniss Lithium Project including:

==> picture [485 x 185] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 25 - Core Lithium’s sustainability advantages

Core is working with its sustainability advisors to develop an effective and transparent approach to ESG. Core has long been committed to responsible and sustainable mining and is now developing an approach to operationalising this commitment.

9. Environment and Approvals Timeline

9.1. Environment

The Finniss Lithium Project approvals have been secured for seven (7) years through the Notice of Alteration which outlined the proposed future contributions of the BP33, Carlton & Hang Gong prospects. The Notice of Alteration allows for contributions from these four (4) mines with Crushing/Screening/Concentration/Tailings all approved for seven (7) years at the Grants processing facility.

https://ntepa.nt.gov.au/environmental-assessments/register/grants-lithium-project The EIS Assessment Report is a key outcome leading into the assessment of the projects Mining Management Plan (MMP) by the Department of Primary Industry and Resources.

9.2. Operational Approvals

Key approvals necessary for the Finniss Lithium Project are Environmental Approval administered by the NT EPA and a Mining Approval administered by the Department of Industry, Tourism and Trade (Formerly Department of Primary Industry & Resources).

The Grants project approvals have been secured for seven (7) years through the Notice of Alteration which outlined the proposed future contributions of the BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong prospects. The Notice of Alteration allows for contributions from these four (4) mines with Crushing, Screening, Concentration and Tailings all approved for seven (7) years at the Grants processing facility.

The tenure required to carry out the company’s activities is all at granted status as follows:

ML31726 - Grants Mineral Lease
ML32346 - BP33 Mineral Lease
ML32074 - Ancillary Mineral Lease allowing the operating activities between Grants, BP33 & OHD
ML32278 - Ancillary Mineral Lease allowing the C5 mine water dam to be constructed and operated

The Mining Authorisation for Grants was issued in April 2020. Once the security deposit required by the Mining Authorisation is established all other approvals/licences are sufficiently advanced to allow an orderly start to the project.

10. Offtake & Prepayment

Yahua Offtake Agreement

The Offtake Agreement is for the supply of Li2O concentrate from the Mineral Lease and exploration license that contains the Grants and BP33 lithium deposits (Lithium Deposits) until 30 November 2023 and the delivery of 300,000 dry metric tonnes of Li2O concentrate.

The Offtake Agreement provides attractive pricing linked to the market for 6.0% FOB spodumene concentrate. It contains an agreed price floor and ceiling for the first 2 years, ensuring Core’s operating margin is protected during the commissioning and capital payback period.

The Offtake Agreement accounts for approximately 40% of the Grants and BP33 lithium deposit production over the life of those mines, underpinning its production profile and providing great confidence to Core to fast-track development of the mine. The Offtake Agreement represents significant value for the Company in early stage project revenues over the term of the Offtake Agreement.

The Offtake Agreement ends on the latter of Core having supplied 300,000 dry metric tonnes of Li2O concentrate to Yahua, or 30 November 2023, and may be extended by mutual agreement between Core and Yahua.

For further information see Core's ASX release dated 1 April 2019.

Further offtake discussions

The Company has initiated and received substantial interest from global corporations who are key players throughout the lithium supply chain and are interested in securing lithium spodumene concentrate offtake. This includes companies based in China, the US, Europe, South Korea and Japan. The Company has built strong relationships with OEMs, cathode manufacturers, lithium chemical converters and multiple trading houses and is developing a strategy to significantly fund a large component of the capital cost through the application of debt financing solutions such as prepayments mezzanine debt or equity-linked debt funding with potential offtake partners.

11.Financial Evaluation

11.1. Financial Analysis

The estimated cash flow of the Project using the latest Roskill price forecasts adjusted for 5.8% spodumene concentrate grade and using an 8% discount rate shows that the Finniss Lithium Project has a Post-Tax NPV and IRR of A$170 million and 47% respectively for the Reserve Case.

11.2. Price Sensitivity, Net Cashflows and NPV

The sensitivity analysis of the NPV to key variables, including spodumene concentrate price, US$ exchange rate and recoveries, indicates that the Finniss Lithium Project is robust. The Finniss Lithium Project is most sensitive to the spodumene concentrate price with the AUD:USD exchange rate and costs with recoveries being the next most significant variables.

Mine plans can be optimised in response to a change in commodity prices, based on the direction of the change in commodity prices. The sensitivity analysis looked at changes of between +10/-10 percent for revenue and +10/-10 percent for operating and capital costs, +5/-5 cents for FX, +2/-2 percent for discount rate and +5/-5 percent for lithium recoveries. The Finniss Lithium Project did not present one scenario which had neutral or negative NPV at these combinations.

The net cashflows from the Finniss Lithium Project have continued to improve with each feasibility study which is produced by the Company and the latest DFS update is no exception. This is mainly driven by the increase in volume mined due to a much greater mine life and higher concentrate grades offset in part by production capital requirements required to access the certain orebodies.

Total estimated initial capital expenditure reflects both the EPC price estimate from Primero, pre-strip mining activity based on rates provided by Lucas Total Contract Solutions and amendments and improvements to the plant layout which ultimately improves recovery efficiency. The estimated total operating expenditure is higher earlier in the mine life due to a larger starter open pit (Grants) resulting in additional pre-strip and due to greater life of mine operating costs. From the commencement of commercial production, C1 Operating Costs remain relatively consistent throughout the life of mine and AISC increase in periods where new mines are being developed. Production Capital Expenditure from mine developments following the Grants Open Pit including Grants Underground, BP33 Underground, Carlton Underground and Hang Gong Open Pit are expected to be funded out of project cash flows.

The Finniss Lithium Project Initial Capital Expenditure estimate ($88.9 million) includes the prestrip of both the Grants Open Pit ($33.9 million) and Production Capital Expenditure estimate including to develop remaining prospects ($127.8 million). The Finniss Lithium Project’s estimated operating margins for C1 Operating Costs and AISC are 104% and 68% respectively using Roskill April 2021, FOB price forecast average over the life of mine.

Assuming Roskill April 2021, FOB price forecasts, the payback period from shipment of the first concentrate is 25 months.

The Life of Mine C1 Operating Cost FOB (excluding pre-strip capital expenditure) is estimated to be US$364/t of spodumene concentrate. The total royalties, and Sustaining Capital Expenditure over the LOM from commencement of commercial production add US$36/t and US$41/t respectively which results in a LOM AISC estimate of US$441/t.

The commodity price assumptions used in the financial valuations carried out during the DFS are detailed in this report’s Capital and Operating Cost section. The USD:AUD exchange rate assumptions and sensitivity analysis have taken into account both fixed and spot exchange rates.

11.3. Funding Options

The objective of the funding plan is to provide certainty of the Finniss Lithium Project and provide Core Lithium with the flexibility to pursue growth opportunities. To achieve the production-targets and forecast financial information contained in the DFS, Core Lithium will require a suitable funding solution.

The extent and form of project finance will, in part, depend on risk, cost and allocation of capital. A range or combination of finance options are open to Core Lithium to fund the development of the Finniss Lithium Project, including:

Commercial Debt Finance from Commercial Banks
Low-cost Debt Finance from Federal Government Funding Agencies
Strategic customer finance arrangements linked to product offtake
Prepayment arrangements
Sales, marketing and finance arrangement with global trading houses linked to product offtake
Project finance including convertible note structures
Equity at both project and corporate level
Royalty based capital and similar arrangements

The financing solution and capital management strategy includes:

Securing a fully funded solution for the Finnis Lithium Project
Minimising potential dilution for existing Core shareholders
Maximising returns to all stakeholders whilst minimising dilution to existing shareholders
Capitalising on prevailing positive trends in the lithium market

The Company is evaluating its financing strategy with the objective of minimising dilution for existing shareholders and for managing priorities of all invested stakeholders. Core expects that, due to prevailing economic conditions, it should be able to secure funding on terms consistent with peer project developers. Core has had multiple financing discussions with financiers, in Australia, Asia, Europe and North America who have expressed an interest in project funding.

12. Resource and Production Expansion Potential

This Stage 1 DFS considers the development of neighbouring ore bodies at Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong over an initial 8 year period.

However, the larger Finniss Lithium Project comprises over 500 square kilometres of tenements covering the Bynoe Pegmatite Field comprising hundreds of pegmatites and has significant upside to extend life of mine and expand Stage 2 production through adding more resources and reserves.

The greater Finniss Project includes additional Resources, Historic Pegmatite Mines, Exploration Targets and Lithium Prospects that are not yet subject of the Feasibility Study assessment for project development to date. Based on recent drilling results and geological assessment, there are numerous potential growth opportunities.

The Bynoe Field has over 100 years of mining history dating back to the late 1800’s. Notably, Greenex (Greenbushes) mined and processed pegmatite material from a large number (20-40) of pegmatites mines within the Bynoe Pegmatite Field during the 1980s and 1990s to produce tin and tantalum concentrates without assaying from lithium.

Even in a capital restrained lithium market over the past few years, Core has increased Finniss Project Resources by over 500% since the start of 2018. Now with greater access to capital, Core is dedicating significant budget to actively drilling to expand Mineral Resource and Reserves of the Finniss Lithium Project.

==> picture [265 x 332] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 26 - Core Lithium’s Finniss Project tenure, Lithium Resources and Prospects.

Recent Acquisition Agreement of Adjacent Pegmatite Mines

Earlier in 2021, Core signed an option agreement to acquire six granted Mineral Leases containing over 30 lithium historic pegmatite mines adjacent to the Finniss Project (Figure 26) where previous work has identified high lithium grades and potential for near surface spodumene mineralisation.

The acquisition presents a near-term growth opportunity to add and bring forward substantial resource growth for Core and supports Stage 2 expanded production.

Core has recently commenced assessment drilling of these exciting new lithium pegmatite targets.

==> picture [492 x 281] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 27 - Core Lithium’s Finniss Project tenure showing historic pegmatite occurrences

Ore Reserve Expansion - Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong

Core is currently undertaking infill drilling at Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong to enable expansion of currently defined Ore Reserves (Figure 28).

Mineral Resource Expansion - Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong

Core is also currently undertaking expansion drilling at Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong to extend the Mineral Resources defined to date (Figure 28).

==> picture [260 x 372] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 28 - Core’s Lithium Resources and Mining Licences within 3km radius.

Exploration Target conversion to expand Mineral Resources

In addition to the Finniss Mineral Resource of 15Mt @ 1.3% Li2O, Core has defined an additional Exploration Target (ET) of 9.8 to 16.2 million tonnes at a grade of between 0.8 to 1.4% Li2O across seven different prospects within its Finniss Project (see ASX release dated 20/05/2021).

The ET is supported by historical drilling, trenching and exploration results. The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Target is conceptual in nature.

There has been insufficient exploration to estimate a Mineral Resource and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the estimation of a Mineral Resource.

Core is aiming to convert a high proportion of the ET at Finniss to Mineral Resources in 2021.

Table 16 - Finniss Lithium Project Exploration Target

Prosect	Tenement	Tonnage (Mt)	Tonnage (Mt)	Li2O (%)	Li2O (%)
p		Low	High	Low	High
Ah Hoys	EL29698	0.8	1.4	1.0	1.4
Far West Central	EL29698	1.3	2.1	1.0	1.4
Annie	ML31654	1.4	2.2	0.6	1.4
Centurion	MLN1148	2.2	3.6	1.0	1.4
Northern Reward	MLN1148	1.8	3.0	0.8	1.4
Leviathan	MLN1148	1.4	2.4	0.8	1.4
Trojan/Pandanus	MLN1148	0.9	1.5	0.8	1.4
Total		9.8	16.2	0.8	1.4

Centurion

The Centurion prospect has been the subject of extensive previous exploration, including trenching and shallow RC drilling by Julia Corp in 2001. This drilling was undertaken on 50m spaced sections. A total of 10 RC holes, with a maximum vertical depth of 60m, together with mapping from trenches, define a very continuous zone of weathered pegmatite over a strike length of 220m, dipping steeply to the east.

Northern Reward

The Northern Reward prospect includes the Welcome Surprise prospect to the north and the Mackas Reward prospect to the south. The prospects are situated approximately 300m to the south east of Centurion. A total of 24 shallow RC holes have been drilled on 50m spaced lines over a combined strike length of over 600m.

Annie

The Annie prospect was mined for tin and tantalum between 1996 and 1998. Prior to this, in 1995, extensive shallow RC drilling was undertaken by Corporate Developments Pty Ltd. This drilling was undertaken on 20m spaced sections. A total of 32 RC holes, with a maximum vertical depth of 42m, define a very continuous zone of weathered pegmatite over a strike length of 320m.

Leviathan

The Leviathan prospect is located approximately 850m north west of Centurion. It has been tested by 17 shallow RC holes along 50m spaced lines over a strike length of approximately 200m.

Far West Central

At Far West Central multiple pegmatite bodies that dip to the west and pinch and swell along a strike of 300m have been intersected by up to 17 RC holes drilled by Core. Drill intersections include [email protected]% Li2O and [email protected]% Li2O (FRC143) and [email protected]% Li2O (FRC139) (see ASX announcement dated 16/08/18).

Ah Hoys

The target at the Ah Hoys prospect is defined by 4 RC holes drilled by Core. The holes were drilled over a strike length of approximately 150m and indicate good continuity of a pegmatite

body that dips to the west. Known intersections include [email protected]% Li2O (FRC208) (see ASX announcement dated 10/09/19).

Brownfields and Greenfields Exploration

In addition to the resource drilling outlined in previous slides, Core’s exploration strategy has the following elements:

Exploration for new Steep pegmatites - “Grants style”
Exploration for new Shallow-dipping stacked pegmatites - “Hang Gong style”
Exploration for new Large tonnage pegmatites - “Sandras style”

==> picture [204 x 275] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 29 - Finniss Lithium Project exploration strategy elements

At Finniss, Core’s exploration team has identified 170 Surface Targets ranging from soil/RAB Geochem anomalies, reported pegmatite in surface samples, visible costeans, historical accounts and geophysics. For example Bilatos Prospect (Figure 30).

Bilatos Prospect

The pegmatite body at Bilatos has large surface dimensions of approximately 300m x 100m, but no drilling information to date (Figure 30).

==> picture [459 x 501] intentionally omitted <==

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

300m
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 30 - Bilatos Historic Pegmatite Mine, MLN 183

13. Definitive Feasibility Study Update Contributors

Table 17 - DFS Contributors

Consultant / Contributor	Component	Scope of Work
Core / Primero	DFS Engineering	Overall DFS lead Process plant design Project infrastructure design Project layout Overall capital and operating cost estimates
Dr Graeme McDonald	Geology and Resource	Resource estimation Ore grade variability modelling
SRK	Mine Geotechnical Design	Geotechnical diamond core logging and testing Geotechnical pit wall stability modelling Pit wall design parameters Trafficability Haul ramp design
Core / TME / Proactive Mining Solutions	Ore Reserve	Resource optimisation Final pit shell designs Ore Reserve estimation
TME	Open Pit Mine Planning & Scheduling	Detail mine planning and scheduling Preliminary mining equipment selection Equipment productivity benchmarking
TME	Open Pit Mining	Verification of mine planning and ore scheduling Detailed staged pit designs Detailed haul route designs Final equipment sizing and selection Mining equipment capital estimates Mining operating cost estimates Final overburden waste dump designs
EcOz / Simon Fulton	Hydrogeology	Raw water borefield hydrogeological modelling Ground water resource estimation Pit dewatering hydrogeological model Pit dewatering re-injection hydrogeological model Re-injection borefield design
Core	Pit Dewatering Design	Pit dewatering borefield design Pit dewatering capital and operating cost estimate
GHD	Civil Geotechnical Design	Civil test pit logging and sample testing Burrow pit sampling and testing Civil pavement design for main access road Civil pavement design for airstrip


		Civil foundation design for process plant
		Telecommunications design and engineering
Cable Blu	Communication Infrastructure	Telecommunications capital cost estimate
		Telecommunications operating cost estimate
		Pre-qualification tender evaluation of power
Core Lithium Ltd	Power & Fuel Supply	supply Commercial evaluation of natural gas and diesel
		fuel options
Roskill	Marketing	Lithium market study and forward pricing
Core / Azure	Economic Modelling	Development of project financial model Project economic evaluation
Trinol / Nagrom	Metallurgical Test work	HLS & DMS
		In-pit tailings stability testing
GHD / Trilabs / Outotec	In-Pit Tailings Disposal	In-pit tailings capacity
		In-pit tailings operating philosophy
		Mine Planning and Scheduling
OreWin Pty Ltd	Underground Mining	Underground Mining Capital Estimates
		Underground Mining Operating Cost Estimates
			Page 54

This announcement has been approved for release by the Core Lithium Board.

For further information please contact: For Media and Broker queries: Stephen Biggins Fraser Beattie Managing Director Account Manager Core Lithium Ltd Cannings Purple +61 8 8317 1700 +61 421 505 557 [email protected] [email protected]

Important Information

Competent Person Statements

The Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves underpinning the production target and forecast financial information in this announcement have been prepared by competent persons in accordance with the requirements of the JORC code.

The information in this release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources has been compiled by Dr Graeme McDonald. Dr McDonald acts as an independent consultant to Core Lithium Limited. Dr McDonald is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient experience with the style of mineralisation, deposit type under consideration and to the activities undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (The JORC Code). Dr McDonald consents to the inclusion in this report of the contained technical information relating to the Mineral Resource Estimation in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Open Pit Ore Reserves is based on, and fairly represents, information and supporting documents compiled by Mr Blair Duncan. Mr Duncan is currently the Chief Operating Officer for Core Lithium Limited. Mr Duncan is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient experience with the style of mineralisation, deposit type under consideration and to the activities undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves” (The JORC Code). Mr Duncan consents to the inclusion in this report of the contained technical information relating to this Scoping Study in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Underground Ore Reserves is based on, and fairly represents, information and supporting documents compiled by Mr Curtis Smith employed as Principal Mining Engineer by OreWin Pty Ltd. and is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Curtis Smith is a Competent Person as defined by the 2012 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”, having more than five years’ experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit and activity described in the DFS, Curtis Smith consents to the inclusion in the Public Report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this release that relates to the Finniss Lithium Project Mineral Resource Estimate (other than the Grants deposit) was first released by the Company on 15 June 2020. Other than in respect of the revised Grants deposit Mineral Resource estimate, Core confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the announcement “Finniss Lithium Resource Increased by over 50%” dated 15 June 2020 and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the Mineral Resource Estimates in that announcement (other than for the Grants deposit), continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Forward‐looking Statements

This release contains “forward-looking information” that is based on the Company’s expectations, estimates and projections as of the date on which the statements were made. This forward-looking information includes, among other things, statements with respect to the pre-feasibility and feasibility studies, the Company’s business strategy, plan, development, objectives, performance, outlook, growth, cash flow, projections, targets and expectations, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves, results of exploration and related expenses. Generally, this forward-looking information can be identified by the use of forward-looking terminology such as ‘outlook’, ‘anticipate’, ‘project’, ‘target’, ‘likely’, ’believe’, ’estimate’, ‘expect’, ’intend’, ’may’,

’would’, ’could’, ’should’, ’scheduled’, ’will’, ’plan’, ’forecast’, ’evolve’ and similar expressions. Persons reading this news release are cautioned that such statements are only predictions, and that the Company’s actual future results or performance may be materially different. Forwardlooking information is subject to known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors that may cause the Company’s actual results, level of activity, performance or achievements to be materially different from those expressed or implied by such forward-looking information.

Forward-looking information is developed based on assumptions about such risks, uncertainties and other factors set out herein, including but not limited to general business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties; the actual results of current exploration activities; conclusions of economic evaluations; changes in project parameters as plans continue to be refined; future prices of lithium; possible variations of ore grade or recovery rates; failure of plant, equipment or processes to operate as anticipated; accident, labour disputes and other risks of the mining industry; and delays in obtaining governmental approvals or financing or in the completion of development or construction activities. This list is not exhaustive of the factors that may affect our forward-looking information. These and other factors should be considered carefully, and readers should not place undue reliance on such forward-looking information.

The Company disclaims any intent or obligations to or revise any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information, estimates, or options, future events or results or otherwise, unless required to do so by law. Statements regarding plans with respect to the Company’s mineral properties may contain forward-looking statements in relation to future matters that can be only made where the Company has a reasonable basis for making those statements.

Currency

Unless otherwise stated, all cashflows are in Australian dollars, are undiscounted and are in real terms (not subject to inflation/escalation factors), and all years are calendar years.

Accuracy

The DFS has been prepared to an overall level of accuracy of approximately ‐15% to +15%. This judgement is made following consideration of the basis studies and the features outlined in the Cost Estimation Handbook Second Edition Monograph 27 AusIMM, The Minerals Institute.

List Rule 5.9.1	List Rule 5.9.1
Material Assumptions	The 2021 DFS and the Open Pit Ore Reserve Estimate contained within it is based upon the Hang Gong Mineral Resource Estimates released to the ASX on 15 June 2020 by Core Lithium and the updated Grants Mineral Resource Estimate released as part of this announcement, both prepared by competent persons: Dr. Graeme McDonald (Consulting Geologist to Core Lithium Limited) & Mr Blair Duncan (Chief Operating Officer, Core Lithium Limited). The Minerals Resources are reported inclusive of the Ore Reserves. Mr. Duncan has relied on the integrity and accuracy of the Mineral Resource for this Ore Reserve estimate. This DFS and the Underground Ore Reserve Estimate contained within it is based upon the Grants resources released as part of this announcement, the BP33 Mineral Resource Estimates released to the ASX on 15 June 2020, by Core Lithium and the Carlton Mineral Resource Estimate released to the ASX on 15 June, 2020, competent persons: Dr. Graeme McDonald (Consulting Geologist to Core Lithium Ltd) & Mr Curtis Smith (Principal Mining Engineer - OreWin Pty Ltd). The Minerals Resources are reported inclusive of the Ore Reserves. Mr. Smith has relied on the integrity and accuracyof the Mineral Resource for this Ore Reserve estimate.
Criteria for Classification	The resource classification has been applied to the Mineral Resource Estimate based on the drilling data spacing, grade and geological continuity and data integrity. The resource has been classified on the following basis. • Portions of the model that have drill spacing of better than 25m by 30m, and where the confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation is considered high and would allow the application of modifying factors in a technical and economic study have been classified as Measured Mineral Resources. • Areas that have drill spacing of greater than 25m by 30m, and/or with lower levels of confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation or potential impact of modifying factors have been classified as Indicated Mineral Resources. • Areas that have drill spacing of greater than 25m by 30m, and with low levels of confidence in the geology, mineralisation and resource estimation or potential impact of modifying factors have been classified as Inferred Mineral Resources. For Ore Reserve Estimation purposes Measured Mineral Resources only convert to Proved Reserves or Probable Reserves & Indicated Mineral Resources convert to Probable Reserves.
Mining Method Selection	A conventional open pit mine method was chosen as the basis of the Grants deposit in the DFS (ASX: Finniss Definitive Feasibility Study & Maiden Ore Reserve 17th April 2019). Ore occurs approximately 50m below surface meaning pre-stripping is required. Pre-stripping has been allowed for. Selective mining methods of the ore zone have been assumed with a Smallest Mining Unit (SMU) size of 5m x 5m x 2.5m (XYZ) applied to the resource block model regularisation process to produce a diluted mining model. This SMU size was selected as the most appropriate block size considering the mining fleet and mining methods proposed by the preferred Mining Contractor Tender submission. Selective ore mining will also be supported by machine guidance systems, production blasthole grade control processes, and the highly visual nature of ore in comparison to the waste material. The mining method selected for the BP33 and Carlton deposits is sublevel open stope mining. Internal pillars are utilised for overall stability. The narrow (5 to 15 m) ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions and internal rock pillars allows for sublevel open stoping mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low-cost mining method. The consolidated mine schedule is based on a processing plant nameplate capacity of 1.0Mtpa (dry). Mining method productivities are assumed as follows: Open Pit The mining excavator fleet proposed by the preferred Mining Contractor that has an average annual miningcapacityof 16 Mtpa(dry)over the mine life. Grants will be


	mined in two stages with an initial pit followed by a final cutback. Underground It is assumed that a contract mining company will be used, and their equipment hire fleet would be utilised, this has been included into the unit production and development mining costs. The development profiles of 5.0 m W x 5.5 m H have been used for Carlton and BP33, this will allow the same or similar fleet of underground equipment to move between the two underground mines. A diluted mining model has been used to develop the equipment based mine schedules for Open Pit and Underground and assumes effective operation of the mining fleet and is based on realistic utilisation estimates. Mining Infrastructure required to support the mine plan includes waste rock dumps, ROM pad, haul roads, crusher and processing plant, tailings storage facility, explosives storage facility, water storage, workshops and other buildings required for a contract mining operation.
Processing Method	For Lithium ore the DFS economics considered processing comprising dense media gravity separation (DMS) of the 0.5mm to 6.3mm fraction after P100 crushing to 6.3mm. This process is considered lowest risk methodology for the ore type comprising zoned, very coarse grained, spodumene-αpegmatite. The rejects will be stockpiled for possible future use, but nil revenue was attributed to them. The minus 0.5mm fines are to be placed in a purpose built tailings storage facility (TSF) but essentially thrown away. Four generations of metallurgical test work was used to arrive at the final process flowsheet & the competent person visited comparable operations in WA to satisfy himself that the flowsheet of a full scale plant is applicable. The introduction of a re-crush facility on DMS middlings was key to consistently producing grades of 5.5% or better at acceptable recoveries of over 70%. This necessitated a primary and secondary DMS circuit on the coarser +2mm fraction, so that the secondary coarse DMS floats could be re-crushed and recycled. Separating the -2mm +0.5mm fines and incorporating a separate fines DMS circuit was considered to be necessary to ensure the plant design was sufficiently robust to cater for any unexpected variability in the ore body.
Cut-off Grades	The Mineral Resource provided was a geologically domained resource; this geological model was modified for ore loss and dilution and evaluated to determine which blocks produced cash surplus when treated as ore. The open pit Ore Reserve was estimated using a 0.75% Li2O cutoff. The cut-off grade contemplates all pre-tax costs associated with the processing and selling of a Li2O concentrate product. The following costs: • Incremental ore haulage to the process plant RoM • Stockpile re-handle • Processing • Road transport • Ship loading • Royalties • General overhead cost and administration are all easily paid for by the 0.75% Li2O cutoff. The revenue was determined using an average price for Li2O concentrate of US$744 per tonne and an exchange rate of US$0.65 per AU$1.00. Process recoveries were applied as outlined below under “Metallurgical Factors or Assumptions”.
Estimation Methodology	Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong grade estimation of lithium has been completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) into mineralised and unmineralized pegmatite domains using Micromine software. Variography has been undertaken on the grade domain composite data. Variogram orientations are largely controlled by the strike and dip of the mineralisation. No selective mining units are assumed in the Mineral Resource estimate. SMU analysis was carried out as part of the Ore Loss & Dilution analysis when Mining Block Models where created prior to Reserve Estimation occurring.

Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	Material modifying factors used in the DFS are as follows: • Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted developed from the regularisation process. • Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:	re	re
Grants Resource			Ore(drytonnes)				Li2O%			% Ore Tonnage
Undiluted			2,891,274				1.49			-
Ore Loss(OL)			246,314				1.33			8.5%
Dilution(D)			186,728				0.14			6.5%
Diluted(Undil - OL + D)			2,831,687				1.41			-2.1%

HangGongResource		Ore(drytonnes)				Li2O%				% Ore Tonnage
Undiluted		2,009,844				1.51				-
Ore Loss(OL)		380,145				1.09				18.9%
Dilution(D)		248,835				0.09				12.4%
Diluted(Undil - OL + D)		1,878,534				1.13				-9.6%
7. Sales prices as follows: 8.
6.0% Concentrate
US$/t (FOB)	2022				2023	2024			2025		2026
Real	737				$734	$757			$839		$841

6.0% Concentrate
US$/t (FOB)	2027				2028	2029			2030		2031
Real	$799				$779	$747			$724		$748
• Metallurgical recoveries
Nagrom Test work Campaign						T2603
Method				DMS with Reflux Classification
Details				9. -6.3mm +2mm; -2mm +0.5mm with re-crush
10.				11. Grade Li2O				12. Overall Recovery
Test work Result				6.07%				69.8%

Interpolated Results
Target Grade				6.0%				70.0%
Target Grade				5.5%				71.7%
Target Grade				5.0%				73.7%

Conclusions

The Board approves the release of the Definitive Feasibility Study.

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report

Section 1,2 & 3 for BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong refer to ASX release dated 15 June 2020. This section 1, 2 & 3 applies to the updated Grants Mineral Resource Estimate only.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Grants)

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g. submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	Drilling geology, assays and resource estimation results reported herein relate to Reverse Circulation (RC) and Diamond Drill Hole (DDH) drilling at the Grants Deposit on ML31726. Core’s RC drill spoils were collected into two sub-samples: 1 metre split sample, homogenized and split at the cyclone into 12x18 inch calico bags. Weighing 2-5 kg, or 15% of the original sample. A 20-40 kg primary sample is also collected in 600x900mm green bags and retained until assays have been returned and deemed reliable for reporting purposes. RC sampling of pegmatite for assaying is done on a 1 metre basis. 1m- sampling continued into the barren wall-zone of the pegmatite and then a 3m composite was collected from the immediately surrounding barren phyllite host rock. Drill core was collected directly into trays, marked up by metre marks and secured as the drilling progressed. Geological logging and sample interval selection took place soon after. DDH Core was transported to a local core preparation facility and typically cut into half longitudinally along a consistent line between 0.3m and 1m in length, ensuring no bias in the cutting plane. A half was then collected on a metre basis (where possible), bagged and sent to the North Australian Laboratory in Pine Creek, NT, for analysis. In some instances, half core was then cut into two further segments. With quarter core being sent for analysis and half core provided to Nagrom laboratory in Perth for metallurgical testwork. The remaining half or quarter core is retained at Core’s storage shed in Berry Springs. DDH sampling of pegmatite for assays is done over the sub-1m intervals described above. 1m-sampling continued into the barren phyllite host rock.

Page 62

Drilling techniques	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face- sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	Drilling technique used by Core and reported herein comprises: Reverse circulation (RC) and diamond (DDH) drilling undertaken by various operators. RC drilling typically used 4 and ¾ inch or 5 and ¼ inch hammers with 5 to 5.5 inch face sampling bits. With significant compressor/booster/auxiliary air combinations capable of drilling to the depths required. Diamond drilling was either drilled from surface or utilised Mud Rotary or RC pre collars. A large majority of the core drilled was HQ (triple tube), with very minor PQ, using a wireline setup. Drilling muds or water were used as required. Oriented core was obtained for DDHs.
Drill sample recovery	Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	During RC drilling, the rig geologist routinely notes and documented the sample recovery (0-100%) and quality (Wet, Moist, Dry) for each metre. Sample recovery is generally >95% and samples were dry apart from certain drill holes, and then usually only the first sample after a rod change. Evidence for contamination is monitored regularly. If evidence of contamination was noted in the calico sub-sample, the procedure was to visually compare to the green RC bag and take actions to correct and collect a representative sample. The rigs splitter is emptied between 1m samples. The set-up of the cyclone varied between rigs, but a gate mechanism was used to prevent inter- mingling between metre intervals. The cyclone and splitter were also regularly cleaned by opening the doors, visually checking, and if build-up of material is noted, the equipment cleaned with either compressed air or high-pressure water. Drill collars are sealed to prevent sample loss and holes are normally drilled dry to prevent poor recoveries and contamination caused by water ingress. Wet intervals are noted in case of unusual results. No material bias has been recognised. Wet and moist samples readily reflect the grade of the drilled interval, as much as the dry sample. DDH core recoveries were measured using conventional procedures utilising the driller’s markers and estimates of core loss, followed by mark up and measuring of recovered core by the geologist or geotechnician.

Page 63

		DDH recovery was close to 100% and was reconciled by the weights dispatched to Nagrom for metallurgical testwork for the metres drilled.
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	Standard sample logging procedures are utilised by Core, including logging codes for lithology, minerals, weathering etc. Entire drilled interval of RC and DDH is logged. A chip tray for the entire RC hole is completed. A sub-sample is sieved from the large RC bags into chip trays over the pegmatite interval to assist in geological logging. Geology of the RC drill chips were logged on a metre basis with attention to main rock forming minerals within the pegmatite intersections. Geology of the drill core is logged on a geological basis with attention to main rock forming minerals and textures within the pegmatite intersections. Pegmatite sections are also checked under a single-beam UV light for spodumene identification on an ad hoc basis. Estimation of mineral modal composition, including spodumene, is done visually. This is then correlated to assay data when available. Core trays and RC chip trays are photographed and stored on the Core server. Geotechnical logging has been carried out on oriented DDH drill holes.
Sub-sampling techniques and sample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken. If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample preparation technique. Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in-situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling. Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	RC samples have been collected on a 1m-basis utilising the cone splitter mounted under the drill rig’s cyclone or on a trailer (rotary type). Where the sample was too wet for the cone splitter to operate effectively, 1m samples were collected from the 1m bulk bags using a spear. This was rare. The type of sub-sampling technique and the quality of the sub-sample was recorded for each metre. The quality of the samples was assessed prior to their inclusion in calculated interval averages. Half or quarter drill core sample intervals were constrained by geology, alteration or structural boundaries, intervals generally varied between a minimum of 0.3 m up to a maximum of 1 m. The core is cut along a regular Ori line to ensure no sampling bias. A field duplicate sample regime is used to monitor sampling methodology and homogeneity of RC drilling. The typical procedure is to collect Duplicates via a spear of the green RC bag. Trying to split the 2-3kg calico bag into an Original and a Duplicate has inherent dangers, least of all reducing the sample mass. However,comparinga rigsplit sample with a spear sample also has

Page 64

		some element of incompatibility. The expectation would be a high degree of variability in the spear sample, because of the heterogenous and stratified RC bag, but overall it should statistically match the split original sample. Despite the duplicate sample methodology and heterogeneous nature of the pegmatite, results of duplicate analyses show an acceptable degree of correlation. A series of duplicates were also selected to test on a “like for like” basis. A Spear sample was used for the Original and the Duplicate, to test for heterogeneity in the RC bag. Data shows a remarkably good correlation. Given the pegmatite minerals, including the spodumene, are very coarse grained, there is expected to be an issue of heterogeneity. This is why CXO have drilled using HQ diameter. Assaying of coarse rejects as part of the Umpire process in 2017 showed that there is good correlation between the original and duplicate samples at that scale. However, there is assay variability from one metre to the next that reflects the heterogeneity. This is evident when comparing assays profiles twinned DDH and RC holes. RC tend to exhibit a flatter more consistent trend. This is because RC samples a larger volume of material for each metre and flattens out the fluctuations. Generally half and sometimes quarter core is cut as described above, bagged and sent to the laboratory for analysis. The heterogeneity of pegmatite core material means it is not suitable for “second-half” or “second-quarter” duplicate analysis. Sample prep occurs at North Australian Laboratories (“NAL”), Pine Creek, NT. DDH samples are crushed to a nominal size to fit into mills, approximately - 2mm. RC samples do not require any crushing, as they are largely pulp already. A 1-2 kg riffle-split of DDH crushed material and RC Samples are then prepared by pulverising to 95% passing -100 um.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.	Routine sample analysis occurs at North Australian Laboratories (NAL), Pine Creek, Northern Territory. A 0.3 g sub-sample of the pulp is digested in a standard 4 acid mixture and analysed via ICP-MS and ICP-OES methods for the following elements: Li, Cs, Rb, Sr, Nb, Sn, Ta, U, As, K, P and Fe. The lower and upper detection range for Li by this method are 1 ppm and 5000 ppm respectively.

Page 65

	Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	In the 2016-2017 program, all samples were also analysed via a fusion method - a 0.3 g sub-sample is fused with a Sodium Peroxide Fusion flux and then digested in 10% hydrochloric acid. ICP-OES is used for analysis of the following elements: Li, P and Fe. The lower and upper detection range for Li by this method are 10 ppm and 20,000 ppm respectively. Checks of this data suggested an excellent correlation exists, so in 2018 a 3000 ppm Li trigger was set to process that sample via a fusion method. Selected drill core samples were also run for the following additional elements to provide a broader suite: Al, Ca, Mg, Mn, Si, LOI, SG (immersion), SG (pycnometer) and various trace elements. Na was also analysed using a 4 acid digest and ICP-OES method. NAL utilise high standard internal quality control measures including a regime of 1 in 8 control subsamples, the use of Certified Lithium Standards and duplicate/repeat sample analysis. QAQC of Drilling data CXO-implemented quality control procedures include: One in twenty certified Lithium ore standards are used for the drilling. One in twenty duplicates are used for this drilling (RC only). Blanks inserted at a rate of roughly one in twenty. Core routinely uses up to nine different standards ranging between 1,700 ppm and 10,300 ppm Li ppm. This covers the range of expected Li values in the mineralized pegmatite. Typically, standards report back with an excellent correlation. Overall, the standards average well within 2 Std Dev of the expected value for Li. There is some evidence that standards with high Li values are being under- reported by up to 3%. A quartz sand blank used by Core displays a very low Li content with assays typically <40 ppm (<0.01% Li2O). This value is well below the effective cut-off grade used for the significant intercepts or Mineral Resource Estimate reporting. Duplicates were not collected for the DDH core drilling, as discussed above. Duplicates for RC samples displayed an excellent correlation.

Page 66

		External laboratory checks have been undertaken and results indicate a high degree of correlation (NAL vs Nagrom), refer to next section.
Verification of sampling and assaying	The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Senior technical personnel have visually inspected and verified the significant drill intersections. All field data is entered into an Ocris or Excel logging system (supported by look-up/validation tables) at site and imported into the centralized CXO Access database. Hard copies of logs and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the CXO server. Metallic Lithium was multiplied by a conversion factor of 2.15283/10000 to report Li ppm as Li2O%. External laboratory check samples (“umpire checks”) have routinely been submitted to an independent laboratory (Nagrom in Perth) for final verification of results. This serves to check laboratory Li assay repeatability and to investigate the Fe contamination caused by milling equipment at NAL. The material used is the residue of coarse primary crushed archive material from original RC samples or ¼ core provided in-tact or as coarse rejects from NAL. From this “umpire” exercise, the Lithium check values correlate well with the original NAL values, but are by average 3-6% higher at Nagrom. It could be argued that they are under-reported at NAL. Five diamond core holes were drilled as twins to RC holes and used to check the difference between RC and DDH assays across a similar part of the mineralized pegmatite. The data indicate variability on a metre-by-metre basis, related to the heterogeneity of the pegmatite, but overall, the intercepts are proportionate.
Location of data points	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. Specification of the grid system used. Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	Coordinate information for the Grants drillholes was collected by Differential GPS (DGPS), by Land Surveys Australia Pty Ltd. This data is accurate to 10 cm in all three dimensions. These collar RLs were verified against CXO’s DTM. The grid system used by Core is MGA_GDA94, zone 52 for easting, northing and RL. RC and DDH hole traces were surveyed by multishot north seeking gyro tool operated by the drillers. Drill hole deviation has been minor and predictable in the most part. In any case,thegyro down hole surveyhas accuratelyrecorded the drill traces and

Page 67

		any deviation from the planned program can be accommodated in a 3D GIS environment. A QA-QC procedure is applied to the data.
Data spacing and distribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. Whether sample compositing has been applied.	Drill collars are spaced approximately 25m apart along the north trending pegmatite body at Grants. This data will be used to support a Mineral Resource estimate. Refer to figures in report. Sample compositing reported here are calculated length weighted averages of the assays. Length weighted averages are acceptable method because the density of the rock (pegmatite) is constant.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	Drilling is oriented approximately perpendicular to the interpreted strike of mineralization (pegmatite body) as mapped or predicted by the geological model. Because of the dip of the holes, drill intersections are apparent thickness and overall geological context is needed to estimate true thickness. True thickness is estimated to be in the range of 60-70% of drilled width. No sampling bias is believed to have been introduced by the drilling orientation.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Core has a modern Chain of Custody in place during sample submission. Company geologists supervise all sampling and subsequent storage in the field and during transport to the point of dispatch to the assay laboratory. The assay laboratory audits the samples on arrival and reports any discrepancies back to the Company.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	No external audits or reviews have been carried out for the data associated with these drillholes or samples.

Page 68

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	Drilling by CXO took place on EL29698, which is 100% owned by CXO via its 100%-owned subsidiary Lithium Developments Pty Ltd. The tenement is in good standing with the NT DITT Titles Division. There are no registered heritage sites covering the work area. The prospect area comprises Vacant Crown Land.
Exploration done by other parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	The history of mining in the Bynoe area dates back to 1886 when tin was discovered by Mr. C Clark. By 1890 the Leviathan Mine and the Annie Mine were discovered and worked discontinuously until 1902. In 1903, Hang Gong Wheel of Fortune was found, and 109 tons of tin concentrates were produced in 1905. In 1906, the mine produced 80 tons of concentrates. By 1909 activity was limited to Leviathan and Bells Mona mines in the area with little activity in the period 1907 to 1909. The records of production for many mines are not complete, and in numerous cases changes have been made to the names of the mines and prospects which tend to confuse the records still further. In many cases the published names of mines cannot be linked to field occurrences. In the early 1980s the Bynoe Pegmatite field was reactivated during a period of high tantalum prices by Greenbushes Tin which owned and operated the Greenbushes Tin and Tantalite (and later spodumene) Mine in WA. Greenbushes Tin Ltd entered into a JV named the Bynoe Joint Venture with Barbara Mining Corporation, a subsidiary of Bayer AG of Germany. Greenex (the exploration arm of Greenbushes Ltd) explored the Bynoe pegmatite field between 1980 and 1990 and produced tin and tantalite from its Observation Hill Treatment Plant between 1986 and 1988. They then tributed the project out to a company named Fieldcorp Pty Ltd who operated it between 1991 and 1995.

Page 69

		In 1996, Julia Corp and Greenex drilled RC holes into representative pegmatites in the field, but like all of their predecessors, did not assay for Li or Au (except Au at Golden Boulder). Since 1996 the field has been defunct until recently (2016) when exploration has begun on ascertaining the lithium prospectivity of the Bynoe pegmatites. The NT geological Survey undertook a regional appraisal of the field, which was published in 2005 (NTGS Report 16, Frater 2005). Liontown drilled the first deep RC holes at BP33, Hang Gong and Booths in 2016, targeting surface workings dating back to the 1980s. The operators at that time were seeking Tin and Tantalum. Core subsequently drilled BP33, Grants, Far West, Central, Ah Hoy and a number of other prospects in 2016. After purchase of the Liontown tenements in 2017, Core drilled Lees, Booths, Carlton and Hang Gong. In subsequent years approximately 50 prospects have been drilled to one degree or another by Core. Core has now drilled several deposits to a detailed level, allowing them to be estimated as a Mineral Resource, and in some cases a Reserve.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	The prospect lies in the northern portion of a swarm of complex zoned rare element pegmatite field, which comprises the 55km long by 10km wide West Arm – Mt Finniss pegmatite belt (Bynoe Pegmatite Field; NTGS Report 16). The main pegmatites in this belt include Mt Finniss, Grants, BP33, Hang Gong and Sandras. These pegmatites have been the focus of Core’s lithium exploration at Finniss to date. The Finniss pegmatites have intruded early Proterozoic shales, siltstones and schists of the Burrell Creek Formation which lies on the northwest margin of the Pine Creek Geosyncline. To the south and west are the granitoid plutons and pegmatitic granite stocks of the Litchfield Complex and Cullen Batholith. The source of the fluids that have formed the intruding pegmatites is generally accepted as being the Two Sisters Granite to the west of the belt, and which probably underlies the entire area at depths of 5-10 km. In more recent times, Core has re-mapped part of the southern area as South Alligator Group, based on geophysics and drilling data that suggests reduced rock types. A concealedpluton has also been interpreted at Ringwood

Page 70

		on the basis of geophysics, large pegmatites and a localised metamorphic aureole. Lithium mineralisation has been identified historically as occurring at Bilatos (Picketts) and Saffums 1 (both amblygonite) but more recently Liontown and Core have identified spodumene at numerous other prospects, including Grants, BP33, Booths, Lees, Hang Gong, Ah Hoy, Far West Central and Sandras.
Drill hole Information	A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: easting and northing of the drill hole collar elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar dip and azimuth of the hole down hole length and interception depth hole length. If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearlyexplain whythis is the case.	Drill hole information for all drill holes has previously been reported.
Data aggregation methods	In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high- grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearlystated.	Sample compositing reported here are calculated length weighted averages of the assays. Length weighted averages are acceptable method because the density of the rock (pegmatite) is constant. 0.4% Li2O was used as lower cut off grades for compositing and reporting intersections with allowance for including up to 3m of consecutive drill material of below cut-off grade (internal dilution).
Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length,true width not known’).	The oblique nature of drillholes with respect to geology is discussed above. Because of the dip of the hole, drill intersections are apparent thicknesses and overall geological context is needed to estimate true thicknesses. Refer to figures in report.
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for anysignificant discoverybeing	Refer to Figures and Tables in the release.

Page 71

	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced reporting	Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	All exploration results for drilling undertaken have been previously reported.
Other substantive exploration data	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	All meaningful and material data has been reported either within this JORC Table or the body of the report.
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commerciallysensitive.	Future work may include further infill RC or diamond drilling to better constrain the geological and grade continuity with a view to upgrading parts of the resource.

Page 72

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. • Data validation procedures used.	• A data check of source assay data and survey data has been undertaken and compared to the database. No translation issues have been identified. The data was validated during the interpretation of the mineralisation, with no significant errors identified. Only RC and DDH holes have been included in the MRE. • Data validation processes are in place and run upon import into Micromine to be used for the MRE. Checks included: missing intervals, overlapping intervals and any depth errors. • A DEM topographyto DGPS collar check has been completed.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. • If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	• Graeme McDonald (CP) has undertaken several site visits while drilling has been underway. Most recently in February 2021. A review of the drilling, logging, sampling and QAQC procedures has been undertaken. All processes and procedures were in line with industrybestpractice.
Geological interpretation	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit. • Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. • The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation. • The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation. • The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	• The geological interpretation is considered robust due to the nature of the mineralisation. The mineralisation is hosted within the pegmatite. The locations of the hangingwall and footwall of the pegmatite intrusion are well understood with drilling which penetrates both contacts. • Diamond drill core and reverse circulation drill holes have been used in the MRE. Lithology, structure, alteration and mineralisation data has been used to generate the mineralisation model. The primary assumption is that the mineralisation is hosted within a structurally controlled pegmatite, which is considered robust. • Due to the close spaced nature of the drilling data and the geological continuity conveyed by this dataset, no alternative interpretations have been considered. • The mineralisation interpretation is based on a cut-off grade of 0.4% Li2O, hosted within the pegmatite. • The pegmatite is considered to be continuous over the length of the deposit. It thins and pinches out to the north and south. The mineralisation is contained within the thicker parts of the modelled pegmatite and appears to plunge to the south. A non- mineralised wall rockphase of 1-2m thickness is oftenpresent. A

Page 73

		single grade domain has been identified and estimated using a hard boundary.
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource	• The lithium is hosted within a 410m long section of mineralised pegmatite which strikes NNE and averages 25-30m in true width. • The pegmatite is sub-vertical to steeply east dipping and has been intersected up to a depth of approximately 300m below surface. • Whilst continuous, the pegmatite body does appear to narrow to the north and south. The pegmatite is deeply weathered to depths of approximately50m below surface.
Estimation and Modelling techniques	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	• Grade estimation of lithium has been completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK) into mineralised and unmineralized pegmatite domains using Micromine software. Variography has been undertaken on the grade domain composite data. Variogram orientations are largely controlled by the strike and dip of the mineralisation. • Previous estimates are available for comparative analysis and have been used to inform the current Mineral Resource Estimate. A check estimate using an alternative estimation technique (ID2) has also been undertaken. • No assumptions have been made regarding recovery of any by- products. • Fe is considered to be a deleterious element. However, it is known that Fe contamination exists due to the use of steel drill rods, bits and steel milling equipment. By comparing RC and DD assays as well as data from blanks and check assays undertaken at an independent umpire laboratory using non-steel-based tungsten carbide mills, the level of contamination was shown to be both substantial and highly variable and difficult to correct. For this reason, Fe has not been estimated as it is known that the raw data is contaminated and will therefore result in an estimate that is misleading. No other deleterious elements have been considered and therefore estimated for this deposit. • The data spacing varies considerably within the deposit ranging from surface drill holes at an approximate spacing of 25 m by 30 m, to deep exploration drill holes at spacings greater than 50 m by 30 m. A parent block size of 5 m (X) by 10 m (Y) by 10 m (Z) with a sub- block size of 1 m (X) by 2.5 m (Y) by 2.5 m (Z) has been used to define the mineralisation, with the lithium estimated at the parent block scale. • Pass 1 estimation has been undertaken usinga minimum

Page 74

		of 4 and a maximum of 20 samples into a search ellipse with a radius of 50m, with samples from a minimum of two drill holes. 66% of the blocks were estimated. • Pass 2 estimation has been undertaken using a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 20 samples into a search ellipse with a radius of 100m, with samples from a minimum of two drill holes. 26% of the blocks were estimated. • Pass 3 estimation has been undertaken using a minimum of 4 and a maximum of 20 samples into a search ellipse with a radius of 200m, with samples from a minimum of two drill holes. 6% of the blocks were estimated. • No selective mining units are assumed in this estimate. • Lithium only has been estimated within the lithium mineralised domain. No correlation between variables has been assumed. • The mineralisation and geological wireframes have been used to flag the drill hole intercepts in the drill hole assay file. The flagged intercepts have then been used to create composites in Micromine. The composite length is 1m in all data. • The influence of extreme sample distribution outliers in the composited data has been determined using a combination of histograms and log probability plots. It was decided that no top- cuts need to be applied. • Model validation has been carried out, including visual comparison between composites and estimated blocks; check for negative or absent grades; statistical comparison against the input drill hole data andgraphicalplots.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	• The tonnes have been estimated on a dry basis.
Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• For the reporting of the Mineral Resource Estimate, a 0.75 Li2O% cut-off has been used.
Mining factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case,this should be	• The current DFS concluded that the Grants deposit can be developed via standard open cut mining operations followed by underground mining accessed via a portal in the open pit. • Processing will be undertaken at a processing facility to be constructed on site. • Mining method selected for the underground deposit is up-hole retreat mining with back fill, as a result of the vertical nature of the ore bodyand competent host rockground conditions.

Page 75

	reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	• As part of the DFS, preliminary mine planning and scheduling was undertaken considering possible waste and process residue disposal options and environmental impacts. • Full details of mining factors and assumptions are documented within the DFS.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	• Based on 4 phases of metallurgical test work, the DFS concluded that the operation could produce a concentrate with a target grade of 5.5% Li2O with recoveries of >70%. • This occurs via a simple process of crushing, screening and dense media separation. • During testwork it was observed that product impurities were consistently below reject specifications. • Full details of metallurgical factors and assumptions are documented within the DFS.
Environmental factors or assumptions	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	• The Finniss Lithium Project approvals have been secured for 7 years through the Notice of Alteration. The Notice of Alteration allows for contributions from Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong with crushing/screening/concentration/tailings all approved for 7 years at the Grants processing facility. • As part of the Definitive Feasibility Study, geotechnical studies have been undertaken as well as waste characterisation and groundwater modelling.
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. • The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.	• Water immersion and pycnometer density determinations have been undertaken by NAL on samples from 10 diamond core drill holes spread across the Grants deposit. Analysis of this data was used in the determination of the fresh pegmatite density for assignment in the Mineral Resource estimate. • For fresh pegmatite, specific gravity is estimated into the block model via a Li2O based regression equation, using the block grade estimations. The regression equation is based upon the correlation between Li2O% and SG. • The resulting regression equation is: SG = 0.0666 x Li2O% + 2.613 • Bulk density of oxide and Burrell Creek lithologies were assigned from averages obtained from completed testworkprograms.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varyingconfidence categories.	• The resource classification has been applied to the Mineral Resource estimate based on the drillingdata spacing, grade and

Page 76

	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data). • Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	geological continuity, and data integrity. • The classification takes into account the relative contributions of geological and data quality and confidence, as well as grade confidence and continuity. • Confidence in the Measured and Indicated mineral resources is sufficient to allow application of modifying factors within a technical and economic study. • The classification reflects the view of the Competent Person.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	• This Mineral Resource estimate has not been audited by an externalparty.
Discussion of relative accuracy/confidence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. • The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. • These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	• The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate is reflected in the reporting of the Mineral Resource as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code. • The statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade. • No production records have been supplied, so no comparison or reconciliation has been made. Historically, only a small amount of tin/tantalum has been produced from weathered pegmatite from shallow pits by Greenbushes in the 1980’s. This is well above the top of fresh rock reported in the current resource estimate.

Page 77

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves BP33, Carlton and Grants Underground, Grants Open and Hang Gong Open Pit

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves	Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore Reserve. Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	The Ore Reserve Estimate is based on the BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong Mineral Resource Estimates released to the ASX on the 15th of June 2020, by Core Lithium, competent persons: Dr. Graeme McDonald (Consulting Geologist to Core Lithium Ltd) & Mr Blair Duncan (Chief Operating Officer Core Lithium Ltd). The Minerals Resources are reported inclusive of the Ore Reserves. Mr. Duncan has relied on the integrity and accuracy of the Mineral Resource for this Ore Reserve estimate. The Mineral Resource models as described in the 15 June 2020 ASX release and Table 1 - Section 3 of this release were used as an input to the mining models. Carlton (15 June 2020), BP33 (15 June 2020), Hang Gong (15 June 2020) and Grants in this release. The Mineral Resource models as described in Table 1 - Section 3 were used as an input to the mining model. Carlton (24 February 2020), BP33 (4 February 2020) and Grants (26 February 2021).
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits. If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	The Competent Person for Open Pit Ore Reserves is currently the Chief Operating Officer and has visited the site on numerous occasions. Whilst preparing this estimate the Competent Person has satisfied himself that the data and analysis used in this estimate is appropriate for the proposed operating conditions for the project. The Competent Persons for Underground Ore Reserves (Mr Curtis Smith MAusIMM (CP), 311458) completed a site visit of the BP33, Carlton and Grants sites on 7 November 2019.
Study status	The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore Reserves. The Code requires that a study to at least Pre- Feasibility Study level has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material Modifying Factors have been considered.	This maiden Ore Reserve estimate has been produced during the April 2019 Definitive Feasibility Study (DFS).The Ore Reserve considered only the Measured and Indicated Resources published as part of the Mineral Resource estimated announced for Grants and BP33 deposits on the 22nd October and 6th November 2018 respectively. It should be noted that there is an additional 14% contained metal as Inferred resources within the Ore Reserve pit designs which has been assigned zero revenue for the purposes of this Ore Reserve estimate. The project is considered technically achievable and economically viable. The resulting mine plan considered material Modifying Factors such as dilution and ore loss, various project boundary constraints, processing recoveries and all costs associated with mining, processing, transporting and selling the product to be produced by the operation. The study is a Feasibility Study, Ore Reserves used only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources for the BP33, Carlton, and Grants Mineral Resources.

Page 78

Cut-off parameters	The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	The Mineral Resource provided was a geologically domained resource; this geological model was modified for ore loss and dilution and evaluated to determine which blocks produced cash surplus when treated as ore. The Ore Reserve was estimated using a 0.75% Li2O cutoff. The cut-off grade contemplates all pre-tax costs associated with the processing and selling of a Li2O concentrate product. The following costs: • Incremental ore haulage to the process plant RoM • Stockpile re-handle • Processing • Road transport • Ship loading • Royalties General overhead cost and administration are all easily paid for by the 0.75% Li2O cutoff. The revenue was determined using an average price for Li2O concentrate of US$687 per tonne and an exchange rate of US$0.70 per AU$1.00. Process recoveries were applied as outlined below under “Metallurgical Factors or Assumptions”. The breakeven cut-off for underground mining at Carlton, BP33, and Grants Underground is A$72.97/t NSR. A marginal cut-off grade of A$75/t NSR or 0.61% Li2O has been selected to form the basis of the more detailed underground design.
Mining factors or assumptions	The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design). The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design issues such as pre-strip, access, etc. The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (eg pit slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate). The mining dilution factors used. The mining recovery factors used. Any minimum mining widths used.	Pit optimisations & sensitivity analysis were completed using Whittle software to produce a range of pit shells using recommended slope design criteria, mining dilution, ore loss and processing recoveries together with mining, processing, transport and sales cost estimates, and revenue projections to form the basis for detailed pit designs and subsequent mining and processing schedules. A conventional open pit mine was chosen as the mining method for both Grants & Hang Gong. Ore occurs approximately 50m below surface & 70m below surface for Grants & Hang Gong respectively, meaning pre-stripping is required. Pre-stripping has been allowed for. Selective mining methods of the ore zone have been assumed with a Smallest Mining Unit (SMU) size of 5m x 5m x 2.5m (XYZ) applied to the resource block model regularisation process to produce a diluted mining model. This SMU size was selected as the most appropriate block size considering the mining fleet and mining methods proposed by the preferred Mining Contractor Tender submission. Selective ore mining will also be supported by machine guidance systems, production blasthole grade control processes, and the highly visual nature of ore in comparison to the waste material. Pit slope design criteria is based on a DFS geotechnical study completed by SRK consultants in September 2018. Design sectors are based on the weathered, transitional

Page 79

The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.

The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.

and fresh rock zones as they occur vertically through the mining sequence. The slope design criteria selected for pit designs is based on a non-depressurised slope.

The mine schedule is based on a processing plant nameplate capacity of 1.0Mtpa (dry) and the mining excavator fleet proposed by the preferred Mining Contractor that has an average annual mining capacity of 16 Mtpa (dry) over the mine life. Grants will be mined in two stages with an initial pit followed by a final cutback, with Hang Gong mined in one stage. The diluted mining model has been used to develop the equipment based mine schedule for both mines deposits and assumes effective operation of the mining fleet and is based on realistic and benchmarked utilisation productivity estimates. Ore loss and Dilution factors are based on the diluted resource block models developed from the regularisation process. Global ore loss and dilution results for both pits are:

Grants Resource	Ore (dry tonnes)	Li2O%	% Ore Tonnage
Undiluted	2,891,274	1.49	-
Ore Loss (OL)	246,314	1.33	8.5%
Dilution (D)	186,728	0.14	6.5%
Diluted (Undil - OL + D)	2,831,687	1.41	-2.1%

Hang Gong Resource	Ore (dry tonnes)	Li2O%	% Ore Tonnage
Undiluted	2,009,844	1.25	-
Ore Loss (OL)	380,145	1.25	18.9%
Dilution (D)	248,835	0.09	12.4%
Diluted (Undil - OL + D)	1,878,534	1.13	-6.5%

Ramp widths for pit designs vary from 19m for single to 26m for double lane at a maximum operating gradient of 10%. Minimum mining widths for the pit design are 40m with tight digging areas and “goodbye” cuts at the base of the pit a minimum of 20m.

Inferred Mineral Resource for the purpose of the Ore Reserve estimate is treated as waste which has been economically carried by the Ore. In addition, Inferred Resources were included in several pit optimisation runs to ensure infrastructure and waste dumps were not located on potential future economic resource. Mining Infrastructure required to support the mine plan includes waste rock dumps, ROM pad, haul roads, crusher and processing plant, tailings storage facility, explosives storage facility, water storage, workshops and other buildings required for a contract mining operation. Underground:

Page 80

		The mining method selected for the Carlton deposit is sublevel retreat mining. Access to the Carlton underground deposit is via a portal in the planned Grants open pit and a 1,200 m decline. The 6.0 m x 6.0 m decline will also act as the primary ventilation intake into the mine with the exhaust to surface via a return a raise bored return air raise (RAR). Internal pillars are utilised for overall stability. The narrow (5 to 15 m) ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions and internal rock pillars allows for sublevel open stoping mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low- cost mining method. The mining method selected for the BP33 deposit is sublevel retreat mining. Access to the BP33 underground deposit is via a ~400 m decline from the surface box-cut to a ramp system connecting the levels to an estimated depth of ~320 m below surface. The BP33 exhaust is via a dedicated raise bored RAR to surface. Internal pillars are utilised for overall stability. The narrow (5 to 25 m) ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions and internal rock pillars allows for sublevel open stoping mining without back fill to be utilised as a viable low-cost mining method. The mining method selected for the Grants underground deposit is up-hole retreat mining. The Grants underground deposit is planned as a transition from Grants open pit to underground, access to the Grants underground deposit is via a portal in the Grants open pit and a 1,365 m decline. The 6.0 m x 6.0 m decline will also act as the primary ventilation intake into the mine with the exhaust to surface via a dedicated ventilation drive in to the Grants open pit. BP33, Carlton and Grants underground assumptions: • Stoping Recoveries – 95 % • Dilution – 10 % • Shape Height (Sub level) – 30 m. • Minimum Width (Across Strike) – 5 m. • Maximum Width(Across Strike)– 30 m.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style of mineralisation. Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in nature. The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work undertaken, the nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied.	For Lithium ore the Feasibility Study economics considered processing comprising dense media gravity separation (DMS) of the 0.5 mm to 6.3 mm fraction after P100 crushing to 6.3 mm. This process is considered the lowest risk methodology for the ore type comprising zoned, very coarse grained, spodumene-αpegmatite. The rejects will be stockpiled for possible future use, but nil revenue was attributed to them. The minus 0.5 mm fines are to be placed in a purpose built tailings storage facility (TSF) but essentially thrown away. Four generations of metallurgical test work were used to arrive at the final process flowsheet and the competent person visited comparable operations in WA to satisfy himself that the flowsheet of a full-scale plant is applicable. The introduction of a re-crush facilityon DMS middlings was keyto consistently producing grades of 5.5% or better at

Page 81

	Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements. The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples are considered representative of the orebody as a whole. For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?	acceptable recoveries of over 70%. This necessitated a primary and secondary DMS circuit on the coarse +2 mm fraction, so that the secondary coarse DMS floats could be re-crushed and recycled. Separating the -2 mm +0.5 mm fines are necessary to ensure the plant design was sufficiently robust to cater for any unexpected variability in the ore body. Processing for the underground is based on the Feasibility study prepared by the Primero Group for the DMS plant.
Environmental	The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the consideration of potential sites, status of design options considered and, where applicable, the status of approvals for process residue storage and waste dumps should be reported.	There are no high risk environmental elements identified within the environmental studies that have been completed over the project area. No issues have been identified that would materially impact the proposed location of the pits, supporting infrastructure or waste rock dumps (WRDs). The project EIS and Supplement EIS were approved by the NTEPA in June 2019 providing the primary approvals required for the Project to be developed The Mine Process Plant Environmental Impact Assessment for seven years of operations was approved by the NTEPA as announced to the ASX on 1 July 2020 The Mine Management Plan (MMP) for the Project was approved by the NT Government in April 2020 providing the Project with its required Mining Authorisation. Authorisation number 1021-01. The Hang Gong open-pit requires primary environmental approval before mining commences. It is expected that approvals will be sort by assessment of a Supplementary Environmental Report (SER) to the NTEPA as per the process flow under the NT Environmental Protection legislation. Approvals are also required to realign the Cox Peninsula Road for the Hang Gong Open pit and will be sort as part of the SER. Based on approvals already received for the Project including progress of the BP33 underground SER process, there are very reasonable grounds to expect that the approvals for Hang Gong will be received within the timeframes required for development. There are reasonable grounds to expect that all remaining approvals for the underground and open pit deposits will be received within the timeframes required for project development and operational requirements
Infrastructure	The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.	Sufficient land exists to locate all proposed infrastructure, tailings storage facilities (TSF) and waste rock dumps required for the project. Product export will be via Darwin Port facilities, 88 km by an entirely sealed road. A formal application for the access has been made. Darwin Port is now conducting a Feasibility on the projects access requirements. A water balance assessment has determined the water resources from the existing Observation Hill dam will need to be augmented bya second dam to the east of the

Page 82

		project and both of these dams will be sufficient to meet the needs of the operation. An ancillary Mineral Lease over the Observation Hill dam area is under application. The workforce required for the operation will be engaged on a residential basis.
Costs	The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs in the study. The methodology used to estimate operating costs. Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements. The source of exchange rates used in the study. Derivation of transportation charges. The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to meet specification, etc. The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.	Capital costs: Capital estimates are based on the current forecast project capital costs of A$128 million (inclusive of contingency and pre-production operating costs but excluding the underground capital costs). The pre-production capital component is $89 million. Operating Costs: Open Pit mining costs are based on Mining Contractor tender submissions with a preferred contractor announced to the ASX on the 24th January 2019. Preferred contractor costs have been revalidated for the DFS Update and benchmarked against competitive mining contract submissions. Mining Costs also consider activities for mining team operating costs, management and maintenance, mobile plant maintenance infrastructure, ore rehandle and crusher feed, clear and grub, top soil management, and rehabilitation and mine closure criteria. The life of mine average open pit mining cost was estimated to be $10.79 per bcm of material mined. The processing costs was estimated to be $24.38 per tonne of ore treated and based upon tender submissions for Crushing & Screening and Operating & Maintenance proposal from Primero Group for the DMS plant. General and Administration costs were prepared by Core Lithium and estimated to be $16.15 per tonne of concentrate produced. Transport costs were derived from Qube Bulk who have been awarded preferred contractor status. The accepted tender rate is $8.62/t of product. NT and third party royalties have been calculated and included within the project financial model. Total operating costs per tonne of concentrate produced are estimated to be A$520 excluding pre-strip costs which are included in the capital cost noted above. All capital and operating costs have been estimated to a DFS level of confidence +/-15% Underground: Underground Mining costs were prepared by OreWin Pty Ltd. and derived from quotations from multiple experienced mining contractors, other suppliers, and current project costs. The majority of development and production costs were derived from the quotations. Mining costs were benchmarked against similar projects. Mining costs are to a Feasibility Study level. Costs have been calculated for a 1.0 Mtpa mining rate for BP33 and Carlton deposits and a 0.5 Mtpa mining rate for Grants underground. Underground Capital Costs: • BP33 Underground Mining Capital costs: A$38.33 M • Carlton Underground Mining Capital costs: A$34.88 M • Grants Underground MiningCapital costs: A$13.74 M

Page 83

		Processing costs were prepared by Primero, Owners Costs and G&A costs were prepared by Core. Finniss Underground all in operating unit costs: • Underground Mining – A$53.16 /t Mined • Concentrate Production– A$24.38/t Mined
Revenue factors	The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates, transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns, etc. The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals, minerals and co-products.	Core Lithium commissioned Roskill to provide Li2O price forecasts. The commissioned forecasts provided forecast data well beyond the duration of the project in Real and Nominal terms for a 6.0% spodumene concentrate. A factor of 96.67% was used to derive the price for a 5.8% spodumene concentrate. Revenue was calculated as the in-situ value after allowances have been made for: • Recovery to concentrate. • Concentrate transport. • Taxes and Royalties. • Lithium concentrate recovery is a constant 71.70% and occurs at all feed grades. • Gross revenue assumes 100% of Spodumene 5.8% Payable.
Market assessment	The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the future. A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely market windows for the product. Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts. For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.	Core has entered into off take agreements for the sale of up to 30% of battery grade Li2O concentrate production. This cornerstone offtake agreement is with Sichuan Yahua Industrial Group Co Ltd (Yahua). The executed agreement was announced on the ASX on 1 April 2019. The Yahua agreement is for approximately 40% of annual concentrate production. Strong interest from China, Japan & Korea continues to suggest that there will be no sales risk for the Spodumene concentrate. A Long term Spodumene price study has been carried out by Benchmark Mineral Intelligence. The long-term price (real) for Spodumene 6.0% used in the study: • 2021 US$700 • 2022 US$761 • 2023 US$708 • 2024 US$805 • 2025 US$872 • 2026 US$811 • 2027 US$787 • 2028 US$771 • 2029 US$723 • 2030 US$726

Page 84

Economic The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc. NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and inputs.

Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to	Lerchs-Grossman analysis of the deposit, via Whittle software, has been conducted to
focus development around the economic portion of the deposit. Discounting interest
rate of 10% was			applied. Sensitivities conducted indicate the project is most sensitive to
direct revenue factors such as price, metallurgical recovery, mining cost, wall angles and
processing cost. These were completed using either					+/- 20% from assumed values or in
the case of wall			angle ± 5⁰. Net Present Value (NPV) for all sensitivities examined for the
project is positive.
Underground:
The economic		analysis used the Feasibility Study assumptions for BP33, Carlton, and
Grants Underground mines. After tax sensitivities were prepared for spodumene price,
exchange rates, processing costs, mining costs, and capital expenditure.
				NPV (8% Discount Rate)
	AUD: USD		Units	0.60 0.65 0.70		0.75	0.80
	Carlton		A$M	30.04 21.66 14.12		7.71	1.90
	BP33		A$M	126.44 109.12 92.87		85.18	78.73
	Grants U/G		A$M	10.96 9.06 8.92		4.10	1.96

				NPV
	Discount Rate Units			4% 6% 8%		10%	12%
	Carlton		A$M	20.58 17.09 14.12		11.60	9.46
	BP33		A$M	111.48 101.68 92.87		84.92	77.74
	Grants U/G		A$M	10.90 9.87 8.92		8.06	7.27

				NPV (8% Discount Rate)
	Costs		Units	-20% -10% 0%		10%	20%
	Carlton		A$M	29.78 22.43 14.12		5.23	-0.81
	BP33		A$M	114.46 104.99 92.87		89.48	84.61
	Grants U/G		A$M	10.63 8.70 8.92		3.53	0.51

				NPV (8% Discount Rate)
	Revenue		Units	-20% -10% 0%		10%	20%
	Carlton		A$M	-5.17 3.30 14.12		24.19	33.27

Page 85

		BP33 Grants U/G
Social	The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	Potential cumulative impacts to environmental and social values in the Cox Peninsula region and catchments of West Arm and Charlotte River were considered in the context of the existing and reasonably foreseeable future developments. These are being formally assessed in the BP33 NOI. Core is engaging with stakeholders as part of the NOI process. The Carlton prospect is located on the granted Grants Mineral Lease ML31726. Core Lithium has not identified or encountered any obstruction to gaining a social licence to operate. The Mineral Lease was granted in January 2019 with no native title claims. The project was issued an Aboriginal Areas Protection Authority certificate on 29 March 2019.
Other	To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves: Any identified material naturally occurring risks. The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements. The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.	The project area is located on Vacant Crown Land, the underlying tenure EL29698 is owned 100% by Core. The mineral lease ML31726 is granted. The Darwin area is prone to cyclone activity throughout December, January, February, March and April each year. Production estimates have considered the impact of such events. Risk analysis workshop was undertaken in 2020 and 2021. No naturally occurring material risks have been identified.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories.	Proved and Probable Ore Reserves were estimated for the Finniss Grants, BP33, Carlton and Hang Gong deposits. Measured Mineral Resources were converted to Proved Ore

Page 86

Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.

The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral Resources (if any).

Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with	Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with	Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with	Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with	Reserves and Indicated Mineral Resources were converted to Probable Ore Reserves with
the application of modifying factors. The effective				date of the Ore Reserves is 26 July 2021.
		Mt	Li2O (%)	Contained Li2O (kt)
	Open Pit
	Grants
	Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
	Probable	0.3	1.4%	4.7
	Total	2.1	1.4%	31.0
	Hang Gong
	Proved	0.0	0.0%	-
	Probable	1.1	1.2%	13.3
	Total	1.1	1.2%	13.3
	Total - Open Pit
	Proved	1.8	1.5%	26.4
	Probable	1.4	1.3%	17.9
	Total	3.2	1.4%	44.3

	Underground
	Grants
	Proved	0.0	1.0%	0.2
	Probable	0.2	1.5%	3.4
	Total	0.3	1.4%	3.6
	BP33
	Proved	1.3	1.4%	18.4
	Probable	1.0	1.4%	13.8
	Total	2.3	1.4%	32.2
	Carlton

Page 87

		Proved	0.6	1.2%	7.1
		Probable	1.0	1.0%	10.7
		Total	1.6	1.1%	17.8
		Total - Underground
		Proved	1.9	1.3%	25.7
		Probable	2.3	1.2%	27.8
		Total	4.2	1.3%	53.6

		Total – All Mining Methods
		Proved	3.8	1.4%	52.1
		Probable	3.7	1.2%	45.8
		Total	7.4	1.3%	97.9
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	This Ore Reserve estimate has not been audited. This Ore Reserve estimate was completed to a level of accuracy considered to be: +/-15%. There are no modifying factors identified at the time of this statement that are not accounted for and that would have a material impact on the Ore Reserve estimate. At this time no audits have been undertaken.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.	The study meets the Feasibility Study requirements as defined under the JORC Code and is considered to have an accuracy of +/-15% and is in line with the guidelines published in the AUSIMM Cost Estimation Handbook Monograph 27. As part of the DFS, Core Lithium have engaged preferred contractors for the Mining Operation, and EPC and Front End Engineering & Design of the Processing Plant. There are no unforeseen modifying factors at the time of this statement that will have any material impact on the Ore Reserve estimate %.

Page 88

Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage. It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.

Page 89

AI assistant

CORE LITHIUM LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2021

64737_rns_2021-07-25_7acc6b42-58cf-4c8e-9681-abdce02e782c.pdf

ASX: CXO Announcement

26 July 2021

Highlights

UPDATED FEASIBILITY STUDY AND RESERVE STATEMENT

Grants Open Pit

Hang Gong Open Pit

Open Pit Mine Design & Schedule

Grants Underground

BP33 Underground

Carlton Underground

Table of Contents

1. Mineral Resource

Geology and geological interpretation

Drilling techniques and hole spacing

Sampling and sub-sampling

Sample analysis method

Cut-off grades

Estimation methodology

SG = 0.0666 x Li2O% + 2.613

Classification criteria

Mining, Metallurgy and Environment

Eventual Economic Extraction

2. Mining and Scheduling 2.1. Ore Reserve Estimate

2.2. Scheduling

3. Processing

3.1. Summary

3.2. Metallurgical Results

3.3. Flow Sheet Development

4. Infrastructure, Transport and Services

4.1. Darwin Infrastructure

4.2. Project Water Balance

4.3. Concentrate Product Haulage

4.4. Darwin Port

5. Capital Cost EstimationContingency Framework

5.2. Initial Capital Cost

5.3. Total Mine Development and Net Closure Capital Cost

6. Operating Cost Estimation

C1 Operating Cost (US$/t) vs. Roskill Price (US$/t)

All-In Sustaining Cost (US$/t) vs. Roskill Price (US$/t)

Royalties

Income Tax

7. Operating Margins and Cash Flow

8. Project Valuation

6% Spodumene Price Outlook (US$/t, CIF China)

8.1. Cost & Revenue Sensitivity

8.2. Environmental, Social and Governance (ESG) Credentials

9. Environment and Approvals Timeline

9.1. Environment

9.2. Operational Approvals

10. Offtake & Prepayment

Yahua Offtake Agreement

Further offtake discussions

11.Financial Evaluation

11.1. Financial Analysis

11.2. Price Sensitivity, Net Cashflows and NPV

11.3. Funding Options

12. Resource and Production Expansion Potential

Recent Acquisition Agreement of Adjacent Pegmatite Mines

Ore Reserve Expansion - Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong

Mineral Resource Expansion - Carlton, BP33 and Hang Gong

Exploration Target conversion to expand Mineral Resources

Centurion

Northern Reward

Annie

Leviathan

Far West Central

Ah Hoys

Brownfields and Greenfields Exploration

Bilatos Prospect

13. Definitive Feasibility Study Update Contributors

Important Information

Competent Person Statements

Forward‐looking Statements

Currency

Accuracy

Conclusions

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report

CORE LITHIUM LTD Capital/Financing Update 2021