CORE LITHIUM LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2025

Dec 22, 2025

23 December 2025

==> picture [596 x 69] intentionally omitted <==

Acquisition of Napperby Uranium Resource and High-Grade Exploration Projects

Strategic acquisition grows global Uranium Resource to 169 Mlb U3O8 and consolidates Central Australian portfolio.

KEY HIGHLIGHTS

• Strategic acquisition of complementary Australian uranium projects from Core Lithium Ltd (ASX: CXO) increases the Company’s global Mineral Resources to 169 Mlb U3O8.

• Assets are located in the Northern Territory (NT) and South Australia (SA), two highly supportive, established uranium mining jurisdictions.

• Napperby uranium project (NT) contains a JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource of 8.03 Mlb at 382 ppm U3O8 (200 ppm U3O8 cut-off grade).

• Located only 25 km from Elevate Uranium’s Minerva uranium project.

• The resource is situated within a broad envelope of anomalism defined by wide spaced, historical drilling offering opportunity for possible resource extensions.

• Ore samples from Napperby have previously been tested by Elevate Uranium, confirming application of U-pgrade[TM] to add value.

• Fitton Uranium project (SA) is an early-stage project featuring excellent drill results including:

• 21 m @ 384 ppm U3O8 from 40 m, including 6 m @ 978 ppm U3O8 from 54 m

• 19 m @ 487ppm U3O8 from 79 m, including 6 m @ 1,112 ppm U3O8 from 89 m

• Another four tenements in the NT and SA are included in the acquisition; these tenements are also prospective for uranium mineralisation.

Elevate Uranium Ltd (ASX: EL8) (OTCQX: ELVUF) (“Elevate Uranium” or “the Company”) is pleased to announce that it has finalised the acquisition of 100% of the issued capital of Uranium Generation Pty Ltd, previously a subsidiary of Core Lithium Ltd (“Core”). The acquisition secures a portfolio of uranium assets in the Northern Territory and South Australia that are complementary to the Company’s existing central Australian holdings.

==> picture [61 x 106] intentionally omitted <==

The transaction increases the Company’s global Mineral Resource inventory to 169 Mlb U3O8 through the acquisition of the Napperby Uranium Project. Crucially, the acquisition aligns with Elevate Uranium’s

Elevate Uranium Ltd Level 1, 28 Ord Street T: +61 (0)8 6555 1816 ASX: EL8 West Perth WA 6005 W: elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

strategy of consolidating uranium projects in proven regions where its proprietary U-pgrade™ beneficiation process can unlock significant value.

Beyond the Napperby Resource, the acquisition brings high-grade exploration potential through the Fitton Uranium Project in South Australia and the Entia Uranium Project in the Northern Territory, as well as additional tenements in both regions. The Company is of the opinion these are high value underexplored assets, offering significant upside potential through exploration.

The location of all the acquired assets relative to Elevate Uranium’s other uranium assets is shown in Figure 5.

Elevate Uranium Managing Director, Murray Hill, commented:

“This is a logical and highly value-accretive acquisition. Napperby fits seamlessly into our Central Australian portfolio, sitting just 25 km from our Minerva Project. By applying our U-pgrade™ process we strongly believe that we can produce a low-mass high-grade concentrate from Napperby’s shallow, calcrete-hosted mineralisation and add significant value – just as we are doing with our Nambian assets.

In addition to Napperby’s JORC 2012 compliant Mineral Resource of 8.03 Mlb at 382 ppm U3O8, the acquisition includes the highly prospective Entia (NT) and Fitton (SA) uranium projects, that are in the right address for uranium mineralisation and have not had any systematic exploration.

With active support for uranium development in both the NT and SA, this acquisition cements our position as a leading ASX-listed uranium developer with a diversified global portfolio of 169 Mlb U3O8.”

Napperby Uranium Project

Cornerstone to the acquisition is the Napperby uranium project, located approximately 150 km northwest of Alice Springs, along the sealed Tanami Road. Strategically, the project lies just 25 km from Elevate Uranium’s existing Minerva Project (Figure 1), creating a consolidated hub in a region known for its uranium potential.

The Napperby project hosts a JORC 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource, estimated by SRK Consulting to be 9.54 Mt @ 382 ppm U3O8 containing 8.03 Mlb U3O8 (at 200 ppm cut-off). Uranium mineralisation is present in the form of carnotite, occurring in semi-consolidated sandy clays, and to a lesser degree calcrete, hosted within a Tertiary palaeochannel. The current mineralisation model assumes that uranium has been released from basement source rocks due to the presence of acidic-oxidised surface water and transported in solution until precipitated along with carbonate and silica within the palaeochannel system.

The Mineral Resource has a strike length of ~4 km with mineralisation shallow, typically within 3 to 8 m of the surface. It occurs within a ~20 km long mineralised envelope delineated by historical broad spaced drilling (Figure 2). Much of the drilling throughout this mineralised zone is insufficient to allow the estimation of a mineral resource, offering opportunity for possible resource additions from any future infill drill program.

A key driver of this transaction is the technical synergy with Elevate Uranium’s proprietary beneficiation process. In 2013, the Company completed extensive mineralogical analysis and some bench-scale metallurgical test work on samples obtained from the Napperby resource area. The results strongly indicated that the Napperby samples were amenable to the Company’s proprietary U-pgrade[TM] process and application of U-pgrade[TM] could add significant value to Napperby.

Page 2 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

The Company has also developed advanced exploration techniques from its extensive exploration programs on its projects in Namibia, which have a similar mineralisation style to Napperby, and believes this expertise can assist in adding to the existing resource.

Figure 1 Location of Napperby and Entia Relative to Elevate Uranium’s NT Projects

==> picture [376 x 200] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [376 x 101] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 Napperby Mineral Resource and Anomalous (Mineralised) Zone Outlines

==> picture [324 x 187] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Page 3 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Fitton Uranium Project

The Fitton project is located in the Flinders Ranges of South Australia ~500 km north of Adelaide in a proven uranium province, within 25 km of the Beverley Uranium Mine and the Four Mile Uranium Mine (Figure 3). Drilling at Fitton by Core in 2013 returned thick, high grade uranium intersections (Figure 4):

• 21 m @ 384 ppm U3O8 from 40 m including 6 m @ 978 ppm U3O8 from 54 m (SLRC017)

• 19 m @ 487 ppm U3O8 from 79 m including 6 m @ 1,112 ppm U3O8 from 89 m (SLRC022)

• 60 m @ 482 ppm U3O8 from 53 m including 4 m @ 3,100 ppm U3O8 from 55 m (SLRC028)

Note drill hole SLRC028 does not represent true thickness, it was drilled to investigate consistency of grade and to test the schist at depth.

The project displays favourable geology with fractures in host granites that have been intruded by a mafic dyke, providing a focus for shearing and concentration of uranium mineralisation. The structure has been traced over 1 km in strike, with potential repetitions of the mineralised structure representing further exploration targets. The greater project area lacks systematic exploration, with targets outside of existing drilling yet to be tested.

Figure 3 Location of Fitton in the South Australian Uranium Producing Province

==> picture [339 x 243] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [339 x 162] intentionally omitted <==

Page 4 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 Cross Section of Drilling at Fitton

==> picture [349 x 341] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [349 x 171] intentionally omitted <==

Entia

Entia is approximately 140 km northeast of Alice Springs (Figure 1). The project displays favourable geology and regional structures, offering a variety of possible target types, with potential for both metasomatism related and pegmatite associated mineralisation. Exploration however is at an early stage requiring integration and assessment of historic datasets.

==> picture [596 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Page 5 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Other Tenements included in the Acquisition

The acquisition includes the following tenements:

Northern Territory

• EL 31449 – Napperby

• Entia

• EL 29347 – Yambla

• EL 29389 – Mt George

• EL 30793 – McLeish

South Australia

• EL 6445 – Wyatt Bore

• EL 6574 - Fitton

Figure 5 Location of New Tenements Relative to Elevate Uranium’s Existing Projects

==> picture [400 x 416] intentionally omitted <==

Page 6 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Material terms of the Acquisition Agreement

• Acquisition Structure: under the acquisition agreement ( Acquisition Agreement ), the Company agreed to acquire from CXO all the issued capital of Uranium Generation Pty Ltd which owns the Napperby and Entia uranium projects in Northern Territory, the Fitton uranium project in South Australia plus additional tenements prospective for uranium mineralisation in both Northern Territory and South Australia.

• Completion: The parties agreed that Completion under the Acquisition Agreement ( Completion ) will occur on the date of execution of the Acquisition Agreement. There were no conditions precedent required to be satisfied for Completion to occur. Accordingly, Completion has occurred.

• Consideration: Under the Acquisition Agreement, the Company agreed to pay total consideration for its acquisition of Uranium Generation Pty Ltd of AUD$5,000,000 plus grant a net smelter royalty over the Napperby Project, as follows:

• Cash Payment : AUD$2,500,000 in cash payable (and paid) at Completion;

• Equity Payment : AUD$2,500,000 of value in fully paid ordinary shares in the capital of Elevate Uranium ( EL8 Shares ), calculated by reference to the 15-day VWAP of EL8 Shares traded in the 15 trading days immediately prior to execution of the Acquisition Agreement, being 8,923,738 EL8 Shares ( Consideration Shares ). Fifty percent (50%) of the Consideration Shares will be subject to a voluntary six-month escrow period and CXO has agreed to notify the Company about any proposed disposal of Consideration Shares to allow the Company to introduce potential purchasers and brokers to CXO to facilitate such sale. The Consideration Shares have been issued using the Company’s existing placement capacity under ASX Listing Rule 7.1; and

• Royalty : The parties agreed that effective on Completion, Uranium Generation Pty Ltd will grant CXO a net smelter royalty of 1.0% on production from Napperby ( NSR ). A Royalty Deed for the NSR between Uranium Generation Pty Ltd and CXO was executed at Completion. The obligations of Uranium Generation Pty Ltd under the Royalty Deed are guaranteed by the Company.

• Other: the Acquisition Agreement contains representations and warranties, a disclosure regime by which warranties are qualified and standard covenants for a transaction of the nature of the Acquisition Agreement.

Elevate Uranium Ltd Requests that ASX Lift the Trading Halt

Following release of this announcement the Company requests that ASX lift the trading halt of Elevate Uranium’s securities prior to the start of trading on 23 December 2025.

This announcement has been approved by the Board of Directors.

For further information please visit www.elevateuranium.com.au or contact:

Murray Hill - Managing Director T: +61 8 6555 1816

E: mhill@elevateuranium.com.au

Page 7 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Persons Statement – General Exploration Sign-Off

The information in this announcement that relates to exploration results, interpretations and conclusions, is based on and fairly represents information and supporting documentation reviewed by Mr Mark Menzies, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). Mr Menzies, who is an employee of the Company, has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person, as defined in the JORC 2012 edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Menzies consents to the inclusion of this information in the form and context in which it appears.

Competent Person’s Statement – Napperby Mineral Resource Estimates

The information in this announcement that relates to the Napperby Mineral Resource Estimate is based on work completed by Mr Daniel Guibal, who is a Fellow of the AusIMM and an Associate Corporate Consultant of SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd. The estimation was peer reviewed by Mr David Slater, who is a member of the AusIMM and a full-time employee of SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd. Daniel Guibal has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012 Edition). Daniel Guibal consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

==> picture [596 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Page 8 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Resource Summary

==> picture [500 x 578] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cut-off Total Resource Elevate Share
Deposit Category (ppm Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 Elevate Tonnes U3O8 U3O8
U3O8) (M) (ppm) (Mlb) Holding (M) (ppm) (Mlb)
Namibia
Koppies Project
Koppies JORC 2012 Indicated 100 98.0 200 43.6 100% 98.0 200 43.6
JORC 2012 Inferred 100 35.4 160 12.3 100% 35.4 160 12.3
Hirabeb JORC 2012 Inferred 100 23.3 200 10.2 100% 23.3 200 10.2
Koppies Project Total JORC 2012 100 156.7 192 66.1 100% 156.7 192 66.1
Marenica JORC 2004 Indicated 50 26.5 110 6.4 75% 19.9 110 4.8
Inferred 50 249.6 92 50.9 75% 187.2 93 38.2
MA7 JORC 2004 Inferred 50 22.8 81 4.0 75% 17.1 80 3.0
Marenica Uranium Project Total 298.9 93 61.3 75% 224.2 93 46.0
Namibia Total Indicated 124.5 110 50.0 117.9 110 48.4
Inferred 331.1 106 77.4 263.0 110 63.7
Namibia Total 455.6 127 127.4 380.9 134 112.1
Australia - 100% Holding
Angela JORC 2012 Inferred 300 10.7 1,310 30.8 100% 10.7 1,310 30.8
Napperby JORC 2012 Inferred 200 9.5 382 8.0 100% 9.5 382 8.0
Thatcher Soak JORC 2012 Inferred 150 11.6 425 10.9 100% 11.6 425 10.9
100% Held Resource Total 31.8 710 49.7 100% 31.8 710 49.7
Australia - Joint Venture Holding
Bigrlyi Deposit Measured 500 1.7 1,300 4.9 20.87% 0.4 1,300 1.0
Indicated 500 3.8 1,410 11.7 20.87% 0.8 1,410 2.4
Inferred 500 2.5 1,340 7.4 20.87% 0.5 1,340 1.5
Bigrlyi Total JORC 2012 Total 500 7.9 1,370 23.9 20.87% 1.66 1,370 4.99
Walbiri Joint Venture
Joint Venture Inferred 200 5.1 636 7.1 22.88% 1.16 636 1.63
100% EME Inferred 200 5.9 646 8.4
Walbiri Total JORC 2012 Total 200 11.0 641 15.5
Bigrlyi Joint Venture
Sundberg JORC 2012 Inferred 200 1.01 259 0.57 20.87% 0.21 259 0.12
Hill One Joint Venture JORC 2012 Inferred 200 0.08 208 0.00 20.87% 0.02 208 0.00
Hill One EME JORC 2012 Inferred 200 0.49 321 0.35
Karins JORC 2012 Inferred 200 1.24 556 1.52 20.87% 0.26 556 0.32
Malawiri Joint Venture JORC 2012 Inferred 100 0.42 1,288 1.20 23.97% 0.10 1,288 0.29
Joint Venture Resource Total 22.2 884 43.1 3.41 980 7.34
Measured 0.4 1,300 1.0
Indicated 0.8 1,410 2.4
Inferred 34.1 714 53.6
Australia Total 54.0 781 92.8 35.2 736 57.0
TOTAL 169.1
----- End of picture text -----

Koppies Uranium Project: The Company confirms that the Mineral Resource Estimates for the Koppies and Hirabeb deposits have not changed since the annual review disclosed in the 2025 Annual Report. The Company is not aware of any new information, or data, that effects the information as disclosed in the report referred to above and confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Marenica Uranium Project:

The Company confirms that the Mineral Resource Estimates for the Marenica and MA7 deposits have not changed since the annual review disclosed in the 2025 Annual Report. The Company is not aware of any new information, or data, that effects the information in the report referred to above and confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Mineral Resource Estimates for the Marenica and MA7 deposits were prepared in accordance with the

Page 9 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

requirements of the JORC Code 2004. They have not been updated since to comply with the 2012 Edition of the Australian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Minerals Resources and Ore Reserves (“JORC Code 2012”) on the basis that the information has not materially changed since they were last reported. A Competent Person has not undertaken sufficient work to classify the estimate of the Mineral Resource in accordance with the JORC Code 2012; it is possible that following evaluation and/or further exploration work the currently reported estimate may materially change and hence will need to be reported afresh under and in accordance with the JORC Code 2012.

Australian Uranium Projects:

The Company confirms that the Mineral Resource Estimates for Angela, Thatcher Soak, Sundberg, Hill One, Karins, Walbiri and Malawiri have not changed since the annual review disclosed in the 2025 Annual Report. The Company is not aware of any new information, or data, that effects the information in the 2025 Annual Report and confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed.

The Company confirms that the Mineral Resource Estimate for Bigrlyi has not changed since the annual review disclosed in the 2025 Annual Report. The Company is not aware of any new information, or data, that effects the information as disclosed in the announcement referred to above and confirms that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Napperby Uranium Project

The Mineral Resource estimation results in this report are based on, and fairly represent, information and supporting documentation compiled by Mr Daniel Guibal. The Mineral Resource estimation was completed by Mr Daniel Guibal, who is a Fellow of the AusIMM and an Associate Corporate Consultant of SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd. The estimation was peer reviewed by Mr David Slater, who is a member of the AusIMM and a full-time employee of SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd.

Mr Daniel Guibal has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of the mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration, and to the activity being undertaken, to qualify as Competent Persons (Geology and Resource evaluation respectively) as defined in the 2012 Edition of the JORC Code.

==> picture [596 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Page 10 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

About Elevate Uranium

Elevate Uranium Ltd (ASX:EL8, OTCQX:ELVUF, NSX:EL8) is a uranium exploration and development company focused on unlocking the value of its globally significant resource base through its proprietary, 100%-owned U-pgrade[TM] beneficiation process.

The Company holds a substantial Mineral Resource portfolio totalling 169 Mlb U3O8 across its projects in Namibia and Australia. Its flagship Namibian portfolio is located in the established, world-class Erongo uranium province and includes the Koppies Uranium Project (JORC 2012: 66.1 Mlb U3O8) and the Marenica Uranium Project (JORC 2012: 46 Mlb U3O8 – Elevate Uranium’s share).

In Australia, Elevate Uranium has tenements and joint venture interests containing substantial uranium resources. The Angela, Napperby, Thatcher Soak and Minerva project areas; and joint venture holdings in the Bigrlyi, Malawiri, Walbiri and Areva joint ventures, in total contain 57 Mlb of high-grade uranium mineral resources.

==> picture [500 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [500 x 58] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [500 x 115] intentionally omitted <==

The U-pgrade™ Strategic Advantage

U-pgrade[TM] is the Company’s patented beneficiation process, which provides a clear pathway to unlock its large-scale, surficial, secondary uranium deposits.

The process is designed to be economically transformational with bench-scale testwork on Marenica Project samples demonstrating the potential of U-pgrade[TM] to :

• Concentrate the uranium by a factor of ~50, increasing the grade of ore from ~93 ppm U3O8 to ~ 5,000 ppm U3O8.

• Rejects ~98% of gangue (waster material from the mass prior to leaching).

• Removes acid-consuming minerals.

• Reduces potential CAPEX and OPEX by ~50% compared to conventional processing.

Beyond application at the Marenica Uranium Project, Elevate Uranium has determined, through bench scale testing, that secondary uranium deposits in Namibia and Australia are amongst those that are amenable to the U-pgrade[TM] process.

Note: Please refer to ASX announcement dated 18 April 2017 titled “Scoping Study Completed – Marenica Project Highly Competitive with Industry Peers” and ASX announcement dated 4 April 2025 titled “Clarification of U-pgrade™ Ore Samples JORC Compliance” for further details on the factors referred to above.

Page 11 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

==> picture [596 x 624] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Sampling  Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut  For resource estimation purposes:
techniques channels, random chips, or specific
o 262 auger holes (60 cm diameter)
specialised industry standard measurement
drilled by Deep Yellow (1 m
tools appropriate to the minerals under samples)
investigation, such as down hole gamma o 123 auger holes (30 cm diameter)
sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). drilled by Toro Energy (0.5 m
These examples should not be taken as samples)
limiting the broad meaning of sampling. o 515 sonic core holes (145 mm
 Include reference to measures taken to outside diameter, 100 mm core
diameter) drilled by Toro Energy (0.5
ensure sample representivity and the
m samples).
appropriate calibration of any measurement
 Toro Energy Ltd (“Toro”) drilled auger bulk
tools or systems used.
 Aspects of the determination of samples weighing ~60 kg for every 0.5 m
mineralisation that are Material to the were split en mass at site once dry and the
resulting sub-sample (average 16 kg) was
Public Report.
 In cases where ‘industry standard’ work submitted to the laboratory.
 Toro sonic cores of average 0.5 m length
has been done this would be relatively
were cut in half and submitted to the
simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was
laboratory without further splitting (average
used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3
7 kg).
kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g
 Deep Yellow Ltd (“Deep Yellow”) drilled
charge for fire assay’). In other cases more
auger samples of ~250 kg per metre were
explanation may be required, such as
channel sampled from the bulk 1 m interval
where there is coarse gold that has
sample to obtain a 20 kg sub-sample that
inherent sampling problems. Unusual
was riffle split at site to create a 1–2 kg
commodities or mineralisation types (eg
assay sample, which was submitted to the
submarine nodules) may warrant
disclosure of detailed information. laboratory.
 At ALS Laboratory, all samples underwent
drying (110 °C), Boyd crushing, splitting (if
sample was large) and milling in LM5s to
90% passing 75 microns. Weighing was
done before and after drying.
 Toro assayed for a multi-element suite that
included U and V at ALS Laboratory by 4-
acid-digest ICP-AEA, ICP-MS and XRF
pressed pellet, the latter being the routine
method. Detailed trials were undertaken to
establish the preferred (reliable) method.
Matrix-matched standards were created
from this process, using a variety of other
laboratories and methods, including NAA at
Becquerel.
 Deep Yellow assaying was done at ALS
Laboratory by XRF pressed pellet for U and
V.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 12 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
 All Toro holes were gamma probed for
disequilibrium studies via quantitative
comparison to the chemical assay data.
Gamma-derived grade values were not
used in the estimation of the resource.
Drilling  Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation,  Wide diameter (300 mm or 600 mm
techniques open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, diameter auger flight) auger holes were
Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core drilled using a Kelly-drive piling rig
diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of operated by Australasian Piling Co,
diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other Adelaide.
type, whether core is oriented and if so, by  Sonic holes were drilled using a sonic core
what method, etc). rig operated by Boart Longyear, Perth.
Most had 145 mm hole diameter, but also
some larger diameter 210 mm holes were
drilled for groundwater studies. Sonic
drilling was trialled by Toro and then, on
account of its superiority, rolled out for all
future resource drilling that required
chemical assays. Sonic drilling to that point
had largely been reserved for
environmental applications, such as
investigating chemical dispersion in
unconsolidated sediments.
 Aircore holes were trialled to provide
chemical assay data, but there were
recovery issues. There are a large number
of aircore holes with only gamma-derived
grade data, but these have not been used
in the estimation.
 All holes are vertical.
 In 2005–2006, Deep Yellow excavated
trenches 6–7 m deep in three sites. The
trenches were channel sampled down 1 m
spaced vertical channels; the 1 m samples
taken were not used in this resource
estimate.
Drill sample  Method of recording and assessing core  Recovery percentage for each sample
recovery and chip sample recoveries and results interval was visually estimated at site, but
assessed. data was superseded in due course by a
 Measures taken to maximise sample more precise system, whereby wet and dry
recovery and ensure representative nature sample weights were recorded to track
of the samples. recovery, using sample drill length and hole
 Whether a relationship exists between diameter.
sample recovery and grade and whether  Auger holes were considered as showing
sample bias may have occurred due to good recoveries in general, but site
preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse geologists noted that in wet unconsolidated
material. materials, the recovery from the auger flight
deteriorated and required multiple passes
with the auger to compile a complete and
representative bulk sample of the interval.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 13 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Where clayey material adhered to the
auger flight, it had to be manually removed
before moving on to the next interval.
Repeated auger passes led to partial
collapse and widening of the hole, which
translates to contamination or dilution of
subsequent samples. This is tempered by
the sample size being so large that these
effects are negligible.
 Recovery for sonic drilling was excellent
and was maximised by managing drilling
rate of penetration and hydrostatic load to
prevent loss of sample from drill bit
annulus. Samples were immediately placed
in plastic sleeves to prevent loss of fines
and moisture.
 Contamination in sonic drilling only
occurred in the top few metres, above the
mineralisation, and was easily removed
from the sample tubes. Casing was
introduced to minimise this.
 Auger samples were piled onto geotextile
mats, where the sample volume could be
assessed and bottom of the hole
measured. The mat contents were then
dried, weighed and split using a large riffle
splitter with vibrating solenoids.
 Aircore holes give poor recoveries, and as
such were not used in this resource
estimation. Historic Uranerz aircore drilling
used the Wallis system and recoveries
were substantially better, so Core
considers that, if using correct technique,
aircore can be a valid exploration and
resource infill drilling tool.
Logging  Whether core and chip samples have been  Lithological logging was done for all
geologically and geotechnically logged to a samples. Volumetric (%) estimates were
level of detail to support appropriate made of the various lithologic components,
Mineral Resource estimation, mining colour, oxidation state, gamma reading,
studies and metallurgical studies. wetness.
 Whether logging is qualitative or  Sonic cores were logged at the centimetre
quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, scale and were therefore of sufficient
channel, etc) photography. quality to provide a detailed insight into
 The total length and percentage of the regolith, infer depositional regimes and
relevant intersections logged. enhance understanding of processes
governing mineralisation. Visible details
include fining-upwards sequences, redox
boundaries, fine laminae and coarse sand
scouring.
 Auger samples were logged at 0.5–1 m
----- End of picture text -----

Page 14 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	scale. Palaeochannel system, evidence of several mineralised horizons at different levels, but continuity was not easy to assess at 100 m drill spacing. Overall, geology logging of drillholes was sufficient for resource estimation.
	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. Auger and sonic core sub-sampling methods described above. Toro sample preparation techniques (screening and splitting) appear adequate, as demonstrated by duplicate regime and twins of auger-sonic and sonic-sonic. Toro instituted a regime of field duplicates, preparation of duplicates and analytical duplicates, beyond the laboratory’s QA/QC regime. All data was assessed regularly for uniformity. Umpire assays were also regularly obtained from independent laboratories. No significant sampling issues were identified. Sample sizes, particularly the auger ones, are much larger than in typical exploration programs and therefore adequate for the nuggetty mineralisation that characterises Napperby and other calcrete-style uranium deposits.
	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, calibration factors applied and their derivation, etc.  Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. QA/QC program included field/ laboratory duplicates and matrix-matched standards. QA/QC performance has been documented and indicates good agreeance. Assay method routinely used is XRF pressed pellet, which is routine for this style of mineralisation and best matches the NAA method, which is considered definitive (but too costly and slow to roll out). Toro undertook considerable test-work and umpire analyses using different methods at different laboratories, all indicating this was the most appropriate assay method. High levels of Strontium in some samples were found to affect XRF spectra for Uranium, but not sufficient in quantum or spatial extent to warrant an alternate assay technique. PFN tool was used in 18 holes to compare to gamma and assay measurements. Reputable laboratory (ALS) used for routine assaying.

Page 15 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	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. Toro twinned five high-grade Deep Yellow holes, and the results suggested that the Deep Yellow NP (auger) holes were biased high, but this might partially be a result of the ‘return to the mean’ statistical phenomenon. Follow-up twinning of 11 holes with more representative grades around the mean grade showed very little differences. Toro twinned a sufficient number of its own sonic and auger holes to provide a reliable understanding of small-scale variability. Umpire samples showed excellent agreeance with the original data. Data was largely digitally entered into Tablets; data was verified and uploaded into DataShed. No adjustments to the assay data have been carried out.
	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. All drill hole collars collected by DGPS. During 2016 and 2007, data was collected by BB Surveys from Alice Springs, who established a base station. In 2008, Toro purchased a post-processed DGPS unit (Magellan) and collected collars from that point forward. During the Toro DGPS survey, checks of 2006 Deep Yellow and 2007 Toro collars showed there were errors in elevation (RL) at a decimetre scale and these were rectified by BB Surveys. GDA94 Zone 53.
	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. Drilling is mostly 100 × 100 m, which is insufficient to define continuity of the mineralisation at a local level. Approximately 100 Toro holes were drilled at 50 × 50 m spacing (including a line at 25 m spacing). Central zone of the orebody was drilled at 50 × 50 m (Deep Yellow) with one drilling line drilled at 25 m spacing. Samples were composited to 1 m. Deep Yellow auger samples are 1 m long, while Toro sonic and auger samples are 0.5 m long.

Page 16 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [512 x 379] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Orientation  Whether the orientation of sampling  The orientation of the sampling is correct
of data in achieves unbiased sampling of possible (vertical holes for a sub- horizontal
relation to
structures and the extent to which this is mineralisation).
geological
structure known, considering the deposit type.  No bias due to geometry.
 If the relationship between the drilling  Holes are too short to justify downhole
orientation and the orientation of key surveys.
mineralised structures is considered to
have introduced a sampling bias, this
should be assessed and reported if
material.
Sample  The measures taken to ensure sample  Toro samples were weighed, catalogued,
security security. batched then road-freighted to ALS in
Adelaide on dedicated loads for
processing. The sample volumes were
large, for auger in particular (~16 kg each),
and it is therefore unlikely the samples
were changed significantly during transport.
Sample receipts and dispatches were
audited regularly.
 Sampling process was supervised by
Exploration Manager.
Audits or  The results of any audits or reviews of  Internal Toro reviews of sampling
reviews sampling techniques and data. representivity were undertaken during the
resource drilling.
 SRK undertook an audit of the dataset prior
to resource calculation.
----- End of picture text -----

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

==> picture [596 x 29] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

	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. EL31449 was granted on 7 September 2017 for a period of 6 years to Uranium Generation Pty Ltd. There have been two renewals, each of 2 years, with EL31449 granted until 6 September 2027. There are no related royalty arrangements, contracts or caveats. The tenement is in good standing with the NT Department of Primary Industry and Resources. The resource area lies within the Napperby Pastoral Lease and has been subject to previous heritage clearances by Deep Yellow and Toro. There are no significant heritage or land ownership related impediments to the future exploration or mining of the resources.

Page 17 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 29] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary

Exploration done by other parties  Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. All modern exploration to date was carried out by Deep Yellow and Toro (2005– 2009). Prior to 2005, exploration was carried out by Paladin Energy Ltd (“Paladin”) and Uranerz. All exploration was focused on uranium mineralisation. The Napperby (New Well) deposit was first discovered and explored by CRA Exploration and Uranerz in the late 1970s and early 1980s. They drilled wide- spaced auger and aircore holes and defined a ‘mineralised area’ but did not publish a mineral resource. The deposit remained dormant for over a decade until Paladin applied for the ground in the early 2000s. Deep Yellow subsequently acquired the Project from Paladin in 2005, then after undertaking drilling, secured an option to purchase with Toro Energy Ltd. In 2007, Toro Energy drilled 515 sonic core holes, 123 auger holes and 814 aircore holes, followed in 2008 by a further 333 sonic core holes and 784 aircore holes. Following that work, in 2009, Toro Energy expanded the historic Napperby resource by 400% to a JORC Code Inferred Mineral Resource of 9.34 Mt at 359 ppm (0.036%) U3O8 for 3351 t (7.39 Mlb) of contained uranium oxide using a 200 ppm U3O8 cut-off (Toro Energy, ASX release on 03/03/2009). Only 50% of the known mineralised area was included in the 2009 Mineral Resource. This option to purchase was not eventually executed following Scoping Studies that concluded the Project was uneconomic at the current scale/ grade. In 2010, the Project fell 100% back into the hands of Deep Yellow. No further exploration took place. The Napperby deposit and a small part of the original EL24246 was relinquished in October 2016. Elevate Uranium inherited a database that includes 2,308 auger, sonic core and aircore drillholes from Toro/Deep Yellow, downhole gamma and assay data, PFN and disequilibrium data, metallurgical test-

Page 18 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	work, scoping study, airborne electromagnetics and high-resolution magnetics/ radiometrics, gravity, and baseline groundwater environmental monitoring data. Core digitised the 820 Uranerz drillholes, including assay and gamma data. Toro undertook metallurgical test-work from bulk representative samples derived from Napperby in 2008 and 2009, aimed at characterising the ore and gangue, determining how suitable the mineralisation is for beneficiation and the optimal conditions for leaching. Tests included comminution, scrubbing and column leach trials (Toro Energy, ASX release on 09/06/2009). Toro proceeded to a Scoping and Conceptual Study conducted by URS Australia, which examined various conventional mining and processing options available at the time, such as heap leach, agitated leach, direct precipitation and resin-in-pulp. Alternative mining cut-off grades and the potential for nearby deposits were also considered, as was initial up-front beneficiation. A high-level review of infrastructure requirements, environmental management and CAPEX and OPEX scenarios was also undertaken.
	Geology  Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. The Napperby Project (historically known as the New Well deposit) comprises an extensive, consistently mineralised zone within 2–10 m of the surface in semi- consolidated and unconsolidated sediments within a Tertiary paleochannel over a 20 km length (striking NNE) in the Arunta Region in the Northern Territory. Carnotite mineralisation resides mostly in sands and sandy clays as finely disseminated particles and blobs up to 5 cm long, but can also be found in overlying calcrete as joint coatings. The current geological model has it that uranium is released from basement rocks into the aquifer system due to the presence of acidic-oxidised surface waters. Uranium is carried in solutions

Page 19 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 699] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
with vanadium until it reaches a critical
point of supersaturation, caused by
evaporation. Uranium precipitates as a
vanadate, along with carbonate and silica
within the paleochannel system. It is thus
effectively controlled by the modern
groundwater regime.
Drill hole  A summary of all information material to  N/A (reporting of resources)
Information the understanding of the exploration  None-the-less, a spatial distribution of
results including a tabulation of the drillholes can be found in the figures in the
following information for all Material drill release above. This is sufficient given the
holes: large number of drillholes, their shallow
o easting and northing of the drill hole nature and vertical orientation.
collar
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level –
elevation above sea level in metres) of
the drill hole collar
o dip and azimuth of the hole
o down hole length and interception
depth
o hole length.
 If the exclusion of this information is
justified on the basis that the information
is not Material and this exclusion does not
detract from the understanding of the
report, the Competent Person should
clearly explain why this is the case.
Data  In reporting Exploration Results, weighting  Sample compositing reported here are
aggregation averaging techniques, maximum and/or calculated length weighted averages of
methods
minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of the assays. Length weighted averages
high grades) and cut-off grades are are acceptable method because the
usually Material and should be stated. density of the rock is effectively constant.
 Where aggregate intercepts incorporate
short lengths of high grade results and
longer lengths of low grade results, the
procedure used for such aggregation
should be stated and some typical
examples of such aggregations should be
shown in detail.
 The assumptions used for any reporting of
metal equivalent values should be clearly
stated.
Relationship  These relationships are particularly  The mineralisation lenses are horizontal in
between important in the reporting of Exploration nature, and given all the drill holes are
mineralisation
Results. vertical from the surface, they are
widths and
 If the geometry of the mineralisation with perpendicular to mineralisation. The
intercept
respect to the drill hole angle is known, its mineralisation widths quoted here are
lengths
nature should be reported. therefore true widths.
 If it is not known and only the down hole
lengths are reported, there should be a
----- End of picture text -----

Page 20 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down _hole length, true width not known’). _
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	Maps and sections are included in the text.
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.	No exploration results are reported or discussed.
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 reported.
Further work	 The nature and scale of planned further	Much of the drilling adjacent to the deposit
	work (eg tests for lateral extensions or	is at a spacing insufficient for resource
	depth extensions or large-scale step-out	estimation. Elevate Uranium will assess
	drilling).	these areas to identify areas which may
	 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of	display higher grades or continuity of
	possible extensions, including the main	mineralisation, and determine what
	geological interpretations and future	additional drilling is warranted.
	drilling areas, provided this information is
	not commercially sensitive.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

==> picture [596 x 29] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
----- End of picture text -----

	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. Logging data was entered into a template with fixed formatting and authority tables. The template was directly imported into DataShed by the database manager, who identified any validation errors to be corrected by the author. Assay data files were imported into the same DataShed database and undergo the same validation of data fields. QA/QC of the data takesplace to identifyoutliers and

Page 21 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

	Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
	check validity with the laboratory. Data provided to SRK for resource estimation was exported from DataShed to an Access database. Data validation originally by Toro, confirmed by Core. QA/QC data was reviewed by SRK in 2009. The same dataset (from 2009) was used for this resource estimate.
	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. No site visit was undertaken.
	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 andgeology. The geological model is a paleochannel with mineralisation clay-calcrete hosted. Model was based on Leapfrog contouring at 50 ppm threshold (see report). The predominant drill spacing (100 × 100 m) is too wide to obtain an accurate local representation of the mineralised horizon.
	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 Napperby deposit is surficial with a vertical thickness of ~2–10 m. The explored along-channel strike length that is subject of MRE is 5km and the width across channel is 1–1.5 km See figures in report.
	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 Statistical analysis of 1 m composites in the mineralisation model was undertaken. Top-cut used was 2,500 ppm. Variography based on Gaussian transformed values of the grade, and back- transformation. Ordinary Kriging of 50 × 50 × 1 m panels using the following Kriging neighbourhood parameters: o ellipsoid radii 200 × 200 × 4 m o minimum 5 composites o maximum 56 composites o 8 sectors. A larger (400 × 400 × 8 m) ellipsoid was used to estimate panels not estimated within the first run.

Page 22 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
other non-grade variables of economic  Validation of the Kriging results by
significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine comparison with the composites and
drainage characterisation). swath plots.
 In the case of block model interpolation,  Uniform conditioning with 10 × 10 x1 m
the block size in relation to the average SMU reflects a more realistic selectivity
sample spacing and the search employed. level.
 Any assumptions behind modelling of  V2O5 was estimated on the same 50 × 50
selective mining units. × 1 m panels using ordinary Kriging.
 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.
Moisture  Whether the tonnages are estimated on a  The tonnes have been estimated on a dry
dry basis or with natural moisture, and the basis.
method of determination of the moisture
content.
Cut-off  The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s)  Grade-tonnage curve shows the
Parameters or quality parameters applied. sensitivity of the resources to the cut-off
grade.
 A 200 ppm U3O8 cut-off may represent
the most likely cut-off compared to similar
deposits, but the choice will depend on
economic assumptions to be
 determined by a Scoping or Feasibility
Study.
Mining factors  Assumptions made regarding possible  The only assumption made is the size of
or mining methods, minimum mining the SMU (10 × 10 × 1 m), which is based
assumptions
dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, on a likely open-cut, selective mining
external) mining dilution. It is always method.
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 reported with an explanation of
the basis of the mining assumptions
made.
Metallurgical  The basis for assumptions or predictions  Not considered at this stage.
factors or regarding metallurgical amenability. It is
assumptions
----- End of picture text -----

Page 23 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [596 x 697] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
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.
Environmental  Assumptions made regarding possible  No environmental assumptions have been
factors or waste and process residue disposal made during the MRE.
assumptions
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.
Bulk density  Whether assumed or determined. If  Constant, historical density of 1.73 t/m3
assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If was used.
determined, the method used, whether  Samples taken in 2008 and submitted to
wet or dry, the frequency of the ALS and AMDEL for determination of bulk
measurements, the nature, size and density. Results were not fully compiled
representativeness of the samples. and assessed by Toro, but are a
 The bulk density for bulk material must potentially good source of data to derive a
have been measured by methods that more appropriate bulk density. Preliminary
adequately account for void spaces (vugs, assessments suggest the 1.73 t/m3 value
porosity, etc), moisture and differences used for this resource estimate is
between rock and alteration zones within conservative.
the deposit.  Sonic probe data provides a wet density
 Discuss assumptions for bulk density only. Assumptions need to be made to
estimates used in the evaluation process convert to a moist or dry density. Toro had
of the different materials. begun assessments of these correction
factors for several different lithology types.
Classification  The basis for the classification of the  Resources are classified as Inferred; drill
Mineral Resources into varying spacing insufficient to evaluate the
confidence categories. continuity of the mineralisation.
 Whether appropriate account has been  There is uncertainty with respect to the
taken of all relevant factors (i.e. relative Deep Yellow high grades, which may be
----- End of picture text -----

Page 24 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au

==> picture [115 x 74] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	biased high. The CPs are satisfied with this classification, which reflects the degree of knowledge of the orebody.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	This Mineral Resource estimate has not been audited byan externalparty.
Discussion of	 Where appropriate a statement of the	The relative accuracy of the Mineral
relative accuracy/confi dence	relative accuracy and confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed	Resource estimate is reflected in the reporting of the MRE as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code.
	appropriate by the Competent Person. For	The statement relates to global estimates
	example, the application of statistical or	of tonnes and grade.
	geostatistical procedures to quantify the	The current estimate is consistent with
	relative accuracy of the resource within	SRK’s 2009 estimate; the increase in
	stated confidence limits, or, if such an	grade is linked to a tightening of the
	approach is not deemed appropriate, a	mineralisation model and the use of a
	qualitative discussion of the factors that	higher top-cut.
	could affect the relative accuracy and	The quality of the estimation, as
	confidence of the estimate.	measured by the slope of regression
	 The statement should specify whether it	obtained in panel Kriging is not very good.
	relates to global or local estimates, and, if	This is consistent with the resource being
	local, state the relevant tonnages, which	classified ion the Inferred Mineral
	should be relevant to technical and	Resource category.
	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.

==> picture [596 x 67] intentionally omitted <==

Page 25 of 25

www.elevateuranium.com.au