CORE LITHIUM LTD - Capital/Financing Update 2025

Level 4, 186 St Georges Terrace Perth WA 6000

T 61 8 8317 1700 ABN 80 146 287 809 E [email protected] ASX CXO

==> picture [95 x 32] intentionally omitted <==

10 November 2025

ASX: CXO Announcement

Updated Grants Mine Plan and Ore Reserve

Highlights

Optimised mine plan for the Finniss Lithium Operation, delivering first ore within 1 month of mobilisation, and reducing Grants pre-production capital by $35 - $45 million
Grants will now be initially mined as an open pit and will transition later to an underground mine
Grants Ore Reserve Estimate increases by 33% to 1.53Mt @ 1.42% Li2O, delivering a 44% lift in contained Li2O metal
Lower Grants pre-production capital and mine plan support the progress of the Finniss strategic funding process

Core Lithium Ltd ( ASX : CXO ) ( Core or the Company ) is pleased to provide an updated Reserve for the Grants deposit at its 100%-owned Finniss Lithium Project ( Finniss or the Project ). Finniss is located within the Bynoe Pegmatite Field in the Northern Territory and is situated 88km by road from the Darwin Port.

Since releasing the Finniss Restart Study in May 2025[1] , the Company has continued to refine its operating plan for Finniss. Based on the outcomes of an updated geotechnical assessment for the Grants deposit, an opportunity to bring forward revenue and reduce Grants pre-production capital costs for the Grant deposit has been identified.

Grants will now be initially mined as an open pit and will transition later to an underground mine. This will reduce the re-establishment costs for Grants and bring first ore and revenue forward. The estimated reduction in Grants pre-production capital is $35 to $45 million for the Restart Study capital estimate for Grants.

The updated Ore Reserve for Grants has been completed based on this revised plan, delivering a 33% increase in overall tonnage and an increase in contained metal of 44%. The declaration of an upgraded Ore Reserve at Grants leverages the substantial body of study work that has been conducted. The Ore Reserve Estimate and related assumptions were developed and supported by independent consultants in conjunction with Core’s Competent Persons (CP).

1 Refer to ASX announcement “ Restart Study Repositions Finniss Operations ” dated 14 May 2025

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Commenting on the Updated Grants mine plan and Ore Reserve, Core CEO Paul Brown said:

“The updated Ore Reserve for Grants delivers clear benefits, continuing as an open pit (transitioning to underground later) brings first ore within one month of mobilisation, brings revenue forward, and reduces Grants pre-production capital by $35–$45 million through deferral of underground infrastructure. The Grants Ore Reserve has increased by 33% to 1.53Mt at 1.42% Li2O, lifting contained Li2O by 44%. Collectively, these changes lower capital intensity, support the ongoing strategic funding process, and strengthen Finniss as a compelling restart with a robust, independently supported operating plan.”

==> picture [399 x 511] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 Location of Grants relative to Core’s existing processing infrastructure at Finniss

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Updated Grants Mine Plan

The Grants Pit did not reach its planned depth when operations were paused in early 2024 and ore remains readily available at the bottom of the existing open pit.

A review of the existing pit wall performance for weathering zones and updated Geotechnical parameters defined an optimised pit reaching the base of transition into fresh material. The optimised design has taken in consideration future Underground access, while allowing the pit to readily achieve a depth of -145mBGL to access a further 740kt of ore.

The proposed open pit design includes adopting more informed pit geometries, with internal batter angles of up to 75 degrees and overall pit slopes of 53 degrees within the fresh rock materials. This design is expected to support a stable pit suitable for long-term infrastructure development below the -80mRL, including future portal access and vent rises within fresh rock for underground access.

The schematics of the Grants Open Pit design is shown in Figure 2.

==> picture [415 x 294] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 New Grants Pit design inside the existing footprint

Tenements and Ownership

The Finniss Lithium Project covers an area of over 500km[2] . It is made up of a number of Exploration Licences (ELs) and Mining Leases (MLs) including: EL29698, EL29699, EL30012, EL30015, EL31126, EL31127, EL31271, EL31279, EL32205, ML29912, ML29914, ML29985, ML31654, ML31726, ML32074, ML32278, ML32346, MLN16, MLN813 and MLN1148. All ELs and MLs are 100% owned by Core Lithium. The Grants deposit is contained within ML31726.

Mineral Resources

No additional drilling or mining activities have been undertaken since the statement of in situ Mineral Resources, which was estimated and reported in the ASX announcement titled “Updated Finniss Lithium Project Reserve and corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Resource” dated 14 May 2025. Accordingly, there have been no changes to the Mineral Resource, which is restated here without modification.

The Finniss Project Mineral Resource estimates are presented in Table 1.

Table 1 Finniss Project Mineral Resources at 30 April 2025 reported at a cut-off grade of 0.5% Li2O

	Mineral Resource Estimate for	Mineral Resource Estimate for	Mineral Resource Estimate for	Mineral Resource Estimate for	the Finniss Lithium Project	the Finniss Lithium Project	the Finniss Lithium Project
Mineral Resource	Measured		Indicated		Inferred			Total
	Tonnes	Li2O	Tonnes	Li2O	Tonnes	Li2O	Tonnes	Li2O	Li2O
									Contained
	(Mt)	%	(Mt)	%	(Mt)	%	(Mt)	%
									Metal (kt)

Grants	1.34	1.48	0.61	1.49	0.37	1.27	2.32	1.45	33.6
BP33	2.85	1.44	6.51	1.55	1.14	1.59	10.5	1.53	161
Carlton	2.14	1.33	3.43	1.32	0.78	1.14	6.34	1.3	82.6
Lees	-	-	4.16	1.18	7.08	1.12	11.2	1.14	128
Ah Hoy	-	-	1.71	1.2	2.93	1.38	4.64	1.31	60.8
Booths	-	-	1.84	0.99	1.4	1.06	3.24	1.02	33
Penfolds	-	-	0.65	1.25	0.71	1.24	1.36	1.24	16.9
Hang Gong	-	-	1.51	1.18	1.95	1.14	3.46	1.16	40.1
Sandras	-	-	1.17	0.92	0.57	0.82	1.73	0.89	15.4
Bilatos	-	-	-	-	1.92	1.03	1.92	1.03	19.8
Seadog	-	-	-	-	1.41	1.18	1.41	1.18	16.6
Total	6.33	1.41	21.6	1.30	20.3	1.18	48.2	1.26	608
TSF/Rejects	-	-	0.31	0.66	-	-	0.31	0.66	2.0
Total	6.33	1.41	21.9	1.29	20.3	1.18	48.5	1.26	610

Totals within this table are subject to rounding.
There was no cut-off applied to the TSF/Rejects material.

Ore Reserves

The Grants Ore Reserve Estimate has increased by 33.0% to 1.53Mt @ 1.42% with a 44% increase in contained metal to 22kt Li2O.

Proved and Probable Ore Reserves were estimated for Grants. 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 criteria used for the classification of the Mineral Resource Estimate ( MRE ) on which the Ore Reserve Estimate ( ORE ) is based is as follows:

Drilling data spacing, grade and geological continuity, and data integrity.
The relative contributions of geological and data quality and confidence, as well as grade confidence and continuity.
Confidence in the Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource is sufficient to allow application of modifying factors within a technical and economic study.

The confidence level of the assumptions used is at a Pre-Feasibility Study level. The effective date of the Grants Ore Reserve Estimate is 30 October 2025.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Table 2 Ore Reserve Estimate including contained metal

Deposit	Category Ore Tonnes (Mt) Li2O (%) Contained Li2O (kt)
BP33 Underground	Proved 2.6 1.27 32 Probable 6.7 1.32 89 Total 9.3 1.31 121
Grants Open Pit and Underground	Proved 1.18 1.43 17 Probable 0.35 1.41 5 Total 1.53 1.42 22
Carlton Underground	Proved 1.7 1.19 20 Probable 2.8 1.19 34 Total 4.5 1.19 53
	Proved - - -
TSF/Stockpiles	Probable 0.3 0.68 2 Total 0.3 0.68 2
Total	Proved 5.4 1.28 69 Probable 10.2 1.27 129 Total 15.6 1.27 198

Effective date of the Grants Ore Reserves is 30 October 2025.
Effective date of the Carlton Ore Reserves is 5 September 2025 (“Updated Ore Reserve at Carlton” released on 10 September 2025). 3. Effective date of the BP33 and TSF/Stockpiles Ore Reserves is 30 April 2025. (“Updated Finniss Lithium Project Reserve and Resource” released on 14 May 2025)
Ore Reserve Estimates are the total for the Grants, BP33, TSF/Stockpiles and Carlton Mines.
The long-term SC6 Spodumene price used for calculating the financial analysis is US$1,330/t. The financial analysis has been estimated with assumptions for crushing, processing and treatment charges, deductions and payment terms, concentrate transport, metallurgical recoveries, and royalties.
The breakeven cut-off Net Smelter Return (NSR) for underground mining at BP33 and Grants Underground is $110/t NSR and $125/t NSR for Carlton Underground. The cutoff grade used for estimating Ore Reserve Estimate at Grants Open pit was 0.8%.
Measured Mineral Resources were used to estimate Proved Ore Reserves; Indicated Mineral Resources were used to estimate Probable Ore Reserves.
Tonnage and grade estimates include dilution and recovery allowances.
The tonnage and grade for TSF/Stockpile is estimated from the operations reconciled historic monthly production records.
The Reserves are defined at the point where the ore is delivered to the processing plant.
The Ore Reserves reported above are not additive to the Mineral Resources.
Totals within this table are subject to rounding.

Further commentary on the updated Ore Reserve Estimate is provided in the Supporting Information Section below, followed by the required JORC Table 1.

Regional Exploration Potential – Exploration Targets

While this Ore Reserve estimate relates solely to Grants Mine Plan, the Company continues to evaluate additional mineralised pegmatites within the Finniss Project, including at Blackbeard, BP33 and Carlton Projects, which have been the subject of previously reported Exploration Targets[2,3] .

2 Refer to ASX announcement “ Updated Finniss Lithium Project Reserve and Resource ” dated 14 May 2025

3 Refer to ASX announcement “ Updated Ore Reserve at Carlton ” dated 10 September 2025 corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Table 3 Exploration Targets – Regional

Exploration Target	Tonnage (Mt)	Tonnage (Mt)	Li2O (%)	Li2O (%)
	Low	High	Low	High
Blackbeard	7.0	10.0	1.5	1.7
BP33	3.9	6.5	1.5	1.6
Carlton	1.2	1.8	1.2	1.4

Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets 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.

The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the announcement “Updated Finniss Lithium Project Reserve and Resource” dated 14 May 2025 and “Updated Ore Reserve at Carlton” dated 10 September 2025. All material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning those Exploration Targets continue to apply and have not materially changed.

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

For further information, please contact:

Investor Enquiries Media enquiries Paul Brown Michael Vaughan CEO Executive Director Core Lithium Ltd Fivemark Partners +61 8 8317 1700 +61 422 602 720 [email protected] [email protected]

About Core

Core Lithium Ltd ( ASX : CXO ) ( Core or Company ) is an Australian hard-rock lithium company that owns the Finniss Lithium Operation on the Cox Peninsula, south-west and 88km by sealed road from the Darwin Port, Northern Territory. Core's vision is to generate sustained shareholder value from critical minerals exploration and mining projects underpinned by strong environmental, safety and social standards.

For further information about Core and its projects, visit www.corelithium.com.au

Important Information

This announcement may reference forecasts, estimates, assumptions and other forward-looking statements. Although the Company believes that its expectations, estimates and forecast outcomes are based on reasonable assumptions, it cannot assure that they will be achieved. They may be affected by various variables and changes in underlying assumptions subject to risk factors associated with the nature of the business, which could cause results to differ materially from those expressed in this announcement. The Company cautions against reliance on any forward-looking statements in this announcement.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

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 announcement that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources at the Finniss Project and the Grants Deposit and the reporting of Exploration Targets for BP33 and Blackbeard as reported in the announcement of 14 May 2025. It is available to view on the ASX and the Company’s website. The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcement, and that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed. The Company confirms that the form and the context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original market announcement. The Competent Person responsible for the original announcement was Dr Graeme McDonald, a member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, who was an employee of the Company at the time of reporting. Dr McDonald’s information is restated without material change and remains consistent with his original findings.

The information in this release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of the Carlton Exploration Target has been compiled by Jeremy Clark. Mr Clark is an independent consultant and is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. He 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 Clark consents to the inclusion in this report of the contained technical information relating to the Exploration Target estimate in the form and context in which it appears. The information in this release that relates to the Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves is based on, and fairly represents, information and supporting documents compiled by Mr Tom Joseph employed as Principal Mining Engineer by Core Lithium and who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Tom Joseph 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. Mr Tom Joseph 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 announcement references the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserves update as of 30 October 2025.

Core confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the exploration results, exploration target and estimates included in this announcement as cross referenced in the body of this announcement and that all technical parameters and material assumptions underpinning the Mineral Resources, Ore Reserves and production target and forecast financial information derived from the production target continue to apply and have not materially changed except as reported within this release. The Company confirms that the form and context in which the Competent Person’s findings are presented have not been materially modified from the original announcements related to previously reported exploration results, exploration target, Ore Reserve Estimate and Mineral Resource Estimate.

The previously reported Grants ORE of 1.2Mt @ 1.31% Li2O was comprised of Proved ORE of 0.9Mt @ 1.29% Li2O and Probable ORE of 0.3Mt @ 1.36% Li2O.

All references to Ore Reserves are Ore Reserve Estimates and references to Mineral Resources are Mineral Resource Estimates.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

MINERAL RESOURCE

No additional drilling or mining activities have been undertaken since the Statement of In Situ Mineral Resources, which was reported in the ASX announcement titled “Updated Finniss Lithium Project Reserve and Resource” dated 14 May 2025[4] . Accordingly, there have been no material changes to the Mineral Resource, which is restated here without modification.

ORE RESERVES

Proved and Probable Ore Reserves were estimated for the Grants deposit. 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. The effective date of the Updated Grants Ore Reserves is 30 October 2025. There has been no other change to the Ore Reserve Estimate from 5 September 2025.

The Grants Ore Reserve has increased to 1.53Mt as at 30 October 2025 due to the mining optimisation and a revised strategy of reducing the Grant pre-production capital requirements by restarting Grants by open pit mining and then transition to underground. The underground mining recovery is also maximised by a change to the underground mining method to include waste backfilling that can be sourced from underground development in Grants and Carlton link.

Ore Reserves were estimated for Grants with inputs including mine design, all modifying factors, processing flowsheet and recoveries, and physical constraints. The accuracy and confidence of the inputs are, as a minimum, to a Pre-Feasibility level. To estimate Ore Reserves, the CP has:

Completed mine planning studies, including the operating and capital cost forecasts for Life of Mine (LOM) based on Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources only.
Reviewed information on historical and previous mine performance, including operating costs and processing recoveries.
Updated the mining method and LOM designs and associated study documents, including geotechnical, hydrological, ventilation, and processing assumptions.
Verified LOM operating and capital costs.
Completed LOM plans based on the mine sequencing.
Compiled an economic model based on the LOM schedule, which included Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources only.
Identified no physical constraints to mining, for example, tenement boundaries, infrastructure, protected zones (flora, rivers, roads, and road easements).

In addition, the CP has determined that:

The mining method selected for the Grants Ore Reserve is traditional open cut mining for the open pit component and Long Hole Open Stoping (LHOS) with rock filling for the underground, both are based on a detailed mining method analysis.
The processing method selected is DMS and gravity.
The recovery factors varied based on the feed grade and staged improvements in the plant. The allowances for mica and phyllite are in line with the staged improvements in the plant.
The breakeven cut off grade for open pit mining and Net Smelter Return (NSR) for underground mining was based on the mining cost, processing cost, transport cost, royalty and G&A cost.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Open Pit Mining costs are derived based on current benchmarked industry rates and validated by external consultants.
Underground Mining costs are derived from the first principles based on Contractor and owner operator cost profiles.
The regulatory approvals are expected to be in place when required for the commencement of Grants.

GEOTECHNICAL

The geotechnical information used to support the underground and open pit mine designs that constrain the Ore Reserve estimate has come from additional geotechnical work completed during 2025 by Geotechnical Consultants. The geotechnical model was developed utilising the extensive resource database, pre-feasibility level geotechnical data and the geotechnical data derived from field and laboratory investigations.

MINING

The ore tonnes from open pit were estimated using the new pit design and interrogated against the block model and utilising the open pit cut off grade to report ore tonnes. The ore tonnes were separated into two ore streams based on the grade for preserving the ore hygiene especially in the proximity to the mineralised and non mineralised boundary of the orebody. To complete the Mine Stope Optimiser (MSO) for the underground, the NSR value was calculated for each block in the block model. The MSO was then run to generate stope shapes at NSR cut-off ranges. The quantities at each NSR do not materially change until the higher NSR values are used to generate the stope shapes. This indicates that the minable quantities are not highly sensitive to price changes, which reflects the geometry and grade tenure of the deposit.

Mining Dilution and Recovery Factors

Mining dilution and recovery factors for each different stoping areas were estimated and used in the mine plan. The Expected Linear Overbreak/Slough (ELOS) empirical assessment results were applied based on the geotechnical assessment by external consultants. Mining overbreak is applied to the stope sidewalls mined adjacent to the pillars. The global recovery factor for deposit is now applied using a combination of open cut mining 100% recovery and 95% Underground recovery and an effective dilution of up to 10% overall. The confidence of the factors applied to the mine plan are at a Pre-Feasibility Study level.

Cut-Off

The cut-off grade used in the Mineral Resource Estimate for Grants was 0.5%. The Grants Ore Reserve is derived directly from the Grants Mineral Resource. The cut-off grade used in the Ore Reserve Estimate for Grants Open Pit was 0.8%. The cut-off applied for underground mining was based on NSR, which is the net revenue paid for the concentrate. NSR is calculated as the In Situ value after allowances have been made for concentrate price, plant recovery, mining cost, processing cost, transport cost and royalty. The NSR Cut off $110/t was used to report Grants Underground Reserve. The parameters for the cut-off grade and NSR analysis may vary from those used in the financial model. Based on the analysis, if the financial parameters were applied to the cut-off grade and NSR, no material changes to the ore tonnes would result due to the nature of the orebody.

Mining Method Selection

The Grants orebody is appropriate for both open pit and underground currently. After considering the economic comparison of the historical performance of open pit in terms of the reasons of dilution, stripping ratio, recovery of orebody, and production profile, open pit mining is considered appropriate for the Grants deposit initially until - 124mRL or 146mBGL.

Once Grants Open Pit finishes, Grants underground will be mined by long hole open stoping with waste filling. The ore body width, vertical orientation, and competent host rock ground conditions allow long hole open stoping to be considered as a suitable mining method.

The mining Infrastructure required to support the mine plan has been considered, including waste rock dumps, ROM pad, haul roads, crusher and processing plant, Tailings Storage Facility (TSF), explosives storage facility, water storage, workshops, and other buildings required for mining operations. The existing infrastructure at Grants will provide majority of the necessary infrastructure.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Mining Method : The mining method determined to be most appropriate for Grants is the completion of the existing pit shell to -124mRL (as initially planned), which allows safe underground access for the remaining depth of the deposit to be mined, using long-hole, open-stoping (LHOS)-with backfill and crown pillar extraction.

Selected Open Pit Mining Method to (-125mRL) : fresh rock, with 10m benches, 8m berms and single lane access with a width of 15m. The mining method schematic is shown in Figure 3.

==> picture [468 x 397] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 Grants Open Pit design

Selected Underground Mining Method : 45m, 30m and 25m sublevels with rib pillars, rock backfill bottom up mining to maximise ore recovery. Single access to the ore body via an in-pit decline located in safe fresh hoist rock. Including return air rise (RAR) and escape way, incorporated within the current pit design. Stopes are mined from the extremities and bottom up with mine rock fill. Retreating pillar access to central level access.

Underground mining method schematics in plan and section views, is shown in Figure 4.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [394 x 229] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4 Underground schematics along with Open Pit Design

Based on the outcomes of the study and updated pit design, this option was considered to be the most suitable for maximum extraction. The bottom-up LHOS/benching with waste fill mining method can be summarised as:

Longitudinal stope sequence is used for the LHOS.
Bottom-up sequence mined in panels; each level enables concurrent production. Blind stopes filled once available, using development waste or surface stored material.
Bottom-up stoping, removes the need for sill pillars between levels, 20m wide stopes and 10m rib-pillars align with Geotechnical recommendations.
Longitudinal stopes backfilled with mine waste allow tight fill of mining voids and add a level of confinement to the mined levels. Decline development remains accessible and future drilling platforms for ore extension.

Below is a summary of the mine design parameters and stope sequencing applied for the LOM plan as presented in this Report.

Mine Design

The design criteria are summarised below:

Decline capital development – 5.5m wide by 6.0m high
Ore Development – 5.0m wide by 5.0m high
25m,30m and 45m sublevels.
Extraction of crown pillar at the end of mine life.
20m stopes along strike.
Rockfill will be used as backfill.

Mining Schedule and Sequence

Based on the mine design, the stoping sequence was scheduled using Deswik software. The key activity rates applied in the mining schedule include:

The decline development rate was assumed to be similar to the rates used for BP33.
Production drilling rate of 200m per day.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Stope bogging rate of 2,000 tonnes per day
The mine is divided into four panels

The mine level panels for Grants are shown in Figure 5.

==> picture [471 x 212] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5 Grants Level Panels

The typical Grants level layout plan is show in Figure 6.

==> picture [235 x 257] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6 Grants Level layout

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

The ore production schedule for the Grants Open pit is shown graphically in Figure 7 .

==> picture [479 x 263] intentionally omitted <==

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

200 1.60%
180
1.50%
160
140
1.40%
120
100 1.30%
80
1.20%
60
40
1.10%
20
- 1.00%
M1 M2 M3 M4 M5 M6 M7 M8 M9
Ore Grade
O
2
Li
Ore tonnes (kt)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 7 Grants Open Pit Production Schedule

The key outcomes of the Grants underground mining are shown graphically in Figure 8 .

==> picture [384 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

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

500 1.50%
400 1.40%
300 1.30%
200 1.20%
100 1.10%
0 1.00%
Y1 Y2 Y3
Development Ore Stope Ore Grade
O
2
Li
Ote onnes (kt)
----- End of picture text -----

Figure 8 Grants Underground Production Schedule

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

PROCESSING

The process plant flowsheet design and concentrate logistics assumed are consistent with the 2025 Restart Study which has been conducted to optimise the dense media processing plant recovery plus the addition of a gravity recovery circuit to recover spodumene from tailings prior to discharge to the TSF.

Coupled with process plant improvements, ore quality will be improved by leveraging learnings from previous open blasting experience to minimise host rock dilution. These operational changes are expected to produce significant existing DMS circuit recovery and product quality improvements, complimenting the flowsheet upgrade.

The metallurgical process of dense media separation proposed for Grants is well tested for spodumene ore, is commonly utilised in industry and based on the previous operational data, laboratory tests and pilot scale tests conducted is suitable for Grants ore including coarse rejects stockpile previously generated whilst processing Grants ore with the unoptimised flowsheet.

Refer to ASX announcement “Restart Study Repositions Finniss Operations” on 14 May 2025 for details.

The open pit overall recovery including the allowance for deleterious elements was determined for the Grants deposit to be 65% producing Li2O concentrate Using DMS only flowsheet, building on previous record month recovery of 65% and June 2024 quarter of 63%[4] .

The Underground mine model overall recovery includes allowance for deleterious elements determined for the Grants deposit. Pilot testing achieved 81.6% recovery producing Li2O concentrate Using DMS + Gravity flowsheet as developed in the 2025 Restart Study.

INFRASTRUCTURE

Principal infrastructure items to be put in place to support the Grants have been considered in the capital estimate and development schedule:

Re-establishing Open pit
Ventilation system for Underground
Dewatering system for both Open pit and Underground
Mine surface and underground development and infrastructure

CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT

Concentrate road transport is in place via the Cox Peninsula Road from the Grants Processing Plant to the port of Darwin as previously utilised in operations.

COSTS

Costs have been calculated based on the mining schedule for Grants open pit and underground deposit. The capital and operating costs were estimated by using independent consultants and derived from quotations from experienced contractors, current contracts, other suppliers, and current project costs.

Grants open pit has a pre-production capital cost of $3-5 million. Grants underground capital cost of $55-$65 million which does not form part of pre-production capital. Owners Costs and G&A costs were prepared by Core and benchmarked against similar operations and is consistent with Restart Study.

4 Refer to ASX announcement “ Quarterly Activities and Cashflow Report ” dated 17 July 2025 corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Grants operating unit costs:

Operating Cost: $50/t Ore for Grants open pit and $80/t for Grants underground
Finniss Processing and Tailings: $46/t Ore
Finniss G&A: $11/t Ore

REVENUE

Consensus pricing forecasts and project benchmarking was sourced and reviewed by independent consultants in real terms for a 6.0% spodumene concentrate. A price adjustment is assumed for saleable product above 5.0% spodumene concentrate.

A market and customer analysis has been completed. Modelled prices and volumes for spodumene concentrate were based on market offtake contract which accounts for various concentrates produced. Spodumene concentrate has been previously supplied under this contract.

Revenue was calculated as the In Situ value after allowances have been made for:

Recovery to concentrate
Concentrate transport
Taxes and Royalties
Gross revenue assumes 100% of Spodumene sales

ECONOMICS

The economic analysis used the study assumptions for the Grants Open pit and Grants Underground mine, which is up to a Pre-feasibility level of accuracy. Sensitivities of +/-20% were prepared for discount rate, exchange rates, spodumene price, capital expenditure and site operating costs. The sensitivity analysis was prepared in line with the Pre-feasibility study level of accuracy for each of the key value drivers. For each adjustment, the Reserves returned positive NPV results. The economics were not as sensitive to the capital and operating costs as the commodity price.

APPROVALS

Core expects any additional the regulatory and environmental approvals will be in place when required for the development of the Grants mine.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition-Table 1 Report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Sampling* **techniques **	• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as downhole 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 presentively 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 In Situ resource estimation results reported herein relate to reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drilling (DDH) undertaken by Core and Liontown Resource (LTR) over the period late 2016 to late 2023 (refer to “Drill hole information” section below). •RC drill spoils over all programs were collected into two sub-samples: •1 metre split sample homogenised, and cone split at the cyclone into 12x18 inch calico bags. Weighing 2-5 kg, or 15% of the original sample. •20-40 kg primary sample, which for CXO’s drilling was collected in 600x900mm green plastic bags and retained until assays had been returned and deemed reliable for reporting purposes. In the case of LTR’s drilling, this primary sample was laid out directly on the ground in rows, without using a green bag. •RC sampling of pegmatite for CXO assaying was done on a 1 metre basis. Sampling continued for up to 4m into the surrounding barren host rock. •LTR’s RC samples were homogenised by riffle splitting prior to sampling and then assayed as 2m composites (collected via a scoop from the sample piles) with 2-3kg submitted for assay. If a composite sample returned a significant result (typically >0.5% Li2O) then the original individual metre intervals were also submitted for assay. •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 where geological logging and sample interval selection took place. Core was cut into half longitudinally along a consistentline

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		between 0.3m and 1m in length, ensuring no bias in the cutting plane. •DDH sampling of pegmatite for assays is done over the sub-1m intervals described above. 1m-sampling continued into the barren phyllite host rock. •Sampling was routinely and regularly undertaken at various points during the mineral processing phase of the operation.
*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.).	•RC Drilling was carried out with 5-to- 5.5-inch face-sampling bit. •DDH drilling used a triple tube HQ technique. Core was oriented using a Reflex HQ core orientation tool. •Diamond Core Drilling (DDH) was undertaken using standard HQ core assembly (triple tube), drilling muds or water as required, and a wireline setup. Holes were either cored from surface or pre-collared by mud rotary down to rigid bedrock (~65m) or by RC down to a depthjust above the target pegmatite.
*Drill sample* **recovery **	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. • Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure the 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.	•RC drill recoveries were visually estimated from volume of sample recovered. Most sample recoveries reported were dry and above 90% of the expected. •RC samples were visually checked for recovery, moisture and contamination and notes made in the logs. •The rigs splitter was emptied between 1m samples. A gate mechanism on the cyclone 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 the build-up of material was 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 recovery and contamination caused by water ingress. Wet intervals are noted in case of unusual results. •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. •DDH core recovery is 100% in the pegmatitezones andin fresh host-rock.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		•Analysis of the data has shown that there is no apparent sample bias due to preferential loss/gain of the fine or coarsematerial.
**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.	•Detailed geological logging was carried out on all RC and DDH drill holes. The geological data is suitable for inclusion in a Mineral Resource Estimate (MRE). •Logging recorded lithology, mineralogy, mineralisation, weathering, colour, and other sample features. •RC chips are stored in plastic RC chip trays. •DDH core is stored in plastic core trays. •All holes were logged in full, including RC pre-collars. Mud rotary pre-collars were only logged if weathered pegmatite was expected. •Pegmatite sections are also checked under a UV light for spodumene identification on an ad hoc basis. This provides indicative qualitative information. •RC chip trays and DDH core trays are photographed and stored on the CXO server. •Geotechnical logging was carried out on the oriented DDH core. Selected holes were also logged using downhole tools, collecting a variety of information for geotechnicalpurposes.
*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 presentively 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.	•The majority of the mineralised samples were collected dry, as noted in the drill logs and database. •The field sample preparation for CXO drilling involved collection of RC samples from the cone splitter on the drill rig into a calico bag for dispatch to the laboratory. •LTR samples were collected as 1m riffle split samples from the rig into calico bags. Composite samples were obtained via a scoop from the primary piles on the ground. •The sample sizes are considered more than adequate to ensure that there are no particle size effects relating to the grain size of mineralisation. •Quarter or Half Drill Core sample intervals were constrained by geology, alteration or structural boundaries, intervals varied between a minimum of 0.3 metres to a maximum of 1 m. The core is cut along a regular Ori line to ensureno sampling bias.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		•A field duplicate sample regime is used to monitor sampling methodology and homogeneity of RC drilling at Finniss. The typical procedure was to collect Duplicates via a spear of the green RC bag, having collected the Original in a calico bag. Since 2022, duplicates were collected as original splits directly from the cyclone. •The duplicates cover a wide range of Lithium values. •Results of duplicate analysis show an acceptable degree of correlation given the heterogeneous nature of the pegmatite. Sample preparation CXO drilling •Prior to 2022, sample prep occurred at North Australian Laboratories (“NAL”), Pine Creek (NT). •Some DDH sample prep also occurred at Nagrom Laboratory in Perth (WA). •Since 2022. Sample prep occurred at Intertek (NTEL) in Darwin. •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 RC Samples are then prepared by pulverising to 95% passing -100 um. •In 2017, CXO’s samples were pulverised in a Kegormill. In mid-2017, Steel Ring Mills were installed at NAL to reduce the iron contamination that was recognised in the 2017 Drilling program. LTR drilling •Sample prep occurred at ALS in Perth (WA). •RC Samples were rifle split to a max of 3kg and then prepared by pulverising to 85% passing -75 um. This took place in an LM5 ring mill. Processing •Detailed and regular sampling and sub sampling was undertaken during the operation phase of the mineral processing at the Grants facility. This was to ensure efficient operation of the facility andmaintainproduct quality.
*Quality of* *assay data* *and*	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and	CXO drilling •Prior to 2022. sample analysis for RC and routine DDH samples occurred at

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*laboratory* **tests **	whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the parameters used in determining the analysis include instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack of bias) and precision have been established.	North Australian Laboratories, Pine Creek, NT. •Since 2022, sample analysis occurred at Intertek (NTEL) in Darwin. •At NAL, 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, S and Fe. The lower and upper detection range for Li by this method are 1 ppm and 5000 ppm respectively. •A 3000 ppm Li trigger was set to process that sample via a fusion method. The fusion method was - a 0.3 g sub-sample is fused with 1g of Sodium Peroxide Fusion flux and then digested in 10% hydrochloric acid. ICP- OES is used for 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. •Since 2022, all samples have been processed at Intertek (NTEL) in Darwin via a Sodium Peroxide Fusion method in a Ni crucible with an ICPMS/OES finish for the following elements: Li, Al, B, Ba, Be, Ca, Cs, Fe, K, Mg, Mn, Nb, P, Rb, S, Sn, Sr, Ta, W and As. •Selected drillholes were also assayed for a full suite of elements, including REEs and gold. •A barren flush is inserted between samples at the laboratory. •Laboratories utilise standard internal quality control measures including Certified Lithium Standards and duplicates/repeats. •Approximate CXO-implemented quality control procedures include: `o`One in 20 certified Lithium ore standards were used for this drilling. `o`One in 20 duplicates were used for the RC drilling program. `o`One in 20 blanks were inserted for this drilling. •CXO runs regular Umpire analysis and has found excellent agreement. Generally, a small under-reporting at NAL with respect to Nagrom implies that assay data used for the MRE may be slightly conservative. •There were no significant issues identified with any of the QAQC data. LTR drilling

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		•A sub-sample of the pulp was assayed by sodium peroxide fusion ICPMS using method codes ME-ICP89 (K, Li, P) and ME-MS91 (Cs, Nb, Rb, Sn, Ta) at ALS in Perth. Processing •All assaying of samples from the Grants processing facility occurred at Intertek (NTEL) in Darwin via a Sodium Peroxide Fusion method in a Ni crucible with an ICPMS/OES finish •A separate part of the lab was used solelyforCXO samples.
*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. •Twinned holes at BP33 and Carlton intersect within 10m of each other and can be used to assess heterogeneity at this scale. Results are consistent. •All field data was initially entered into excel spreadsheets (supported by lookup tables) and more recently directly into the OCRIS logging system (supported by look-up/validation tables) at site and imported into the centralised CXO Access database. •LTR data had a similar origin and has been subsequently validated by CXO before importation into CXO’s database. Some lithology codes were rationalised in this process. •Hard copies of survey and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the CXO server. •Metallic Lithium percent was multiplied by a conversion factor of 2.1527/10000 to report Li ppm as Li2O%. •The current assay database is known to contain Fe data that is affected by variable levels of Fe contamination from various sources that is difficult to correct. For this reason, Fe was not estimated as part of the current MRE as itwould bemisleading.
*Location of* **data points **	• The 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.	•Differential GPS has been used to determine the majority of collar locations, including RL. Some of the 2023 drilling remains to be surveyed and hand-held GPS coordinates were used. Collar position audits are regularly undertaken, and no issues have arisen. •The grid system is MGA_GDA94, zone 52 for easting,northingand RL.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		•Most of the CXO drilled RC hole traces were surveyed by north seeking gyro tool operated by the drillers and the collar is oriented by a line-of-sight compass and a clinometer. LTR holes and a small number of the earlier CXO holes were surveyed with a digital camera. •Drill hole deviation has been minor and predictable in the most part. However, for the deeper holes, deviation was significant in the lower parts of the holes as a result of hard bedrock. Despite this, the holes still tested targets roughly oblique to the strike of the pegmatite, and acceptable for resource drilling. In any case, the gyro down hole survey has accurately recorded the drill traces and any deviation from the planned program can be accommodated in a 3D GIS environment. •The local topographic surface used in the MRE was generated from digital terrain models collected by CXO. This DTM is used to generate the RL of collars for which there was DGPS data. Cross-checking by CXO against DGPS control points indicates that this DTM- derivedRL iswithin 1mofthe trueRL.
*Data spacing* *and* **distribution **	• Data spacing for reporting 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.	•Drillhole spacing varies within and for each deposit, reflecting the maturity and variability. More advanced deposits have drill spacings of 30m by 20m (or better) indicative of measured or indicated resources. Areas of inferred mineral resources within deposits will often have drill hole spacing in the range of 80m by 80m or greater in some cases when supported by geological continuity. •At existing In Situ resources, mineralisation and geology show very good continuity from hole to hole and is sufficient to support the definition of a Mineral Resource and the classifications described in the JORC Code (2012 Edition). •All RC intervals are 1m. All DDH mineralised intervals reported are based on a maximum of one metre sample interval, with local intervals down to 0.3m.
*Orientation* *of data in* *relation to*	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.	•Drilling is oriented approximately perpendicular to the interpreted strike of mineralisation (pegmatite body) as mapped. Because of the dip of the hole, drill intersections are apparent

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*geological* **structure **	• 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.	thicknesses, and overall geological context is needed to estimate true thicknesses. •Estimates of true thickness are generally between 50-90% of the drilled thickness and depends on the prospect drilled. •No sampling bias is believed to have been introduced.
*Sample* **security **	• The measures are taken to ensure sample security.	•Sample security was managed by the CXO. After preparation in the field or CXO’s warehouse, samples were packed into polyweave bags and transported by the Company directly to the assay laboratory. The assay laboratory audits the samples on arrival and reports any discrepancies back to the Company. •During the processing at Grants there was a documented chain of custody involved in regular sample delivery to thelaboratory.
*Audits or* **reviews **	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	•Ongoing QAQC and validation of the data has been excellent, and no specific audits or reviews have been undertaken. •During the processing phase at Grants, detailed reconciliation of all material in terms of tonnes and grade were routinely undertaken.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
*Mineral*	• Type, reference name/number,	•The Finniss Lithium Project covers an
*Tenement and*	location and ownership including	area of over 500 km2. Made up of a
*Land Tenure*	agreements or material issues	number of EL’s and ML’s including:
**Status **	with third parties such as joint	EL29698, EL29699, EL30012, EL30015,
	ventures, partnerships, overriding	EL31126, EL31127, EL31271, EL31279,

	royalties, native title interests,	EL32205, ML29912, ML29914,
	historical sites, wilderness or	ML29985, ML31654, ML31726,
	national park and environmental	ML32074, ML32278, ML32346, MLN16,
	settings.	MLN813 and MLN1148
	• The security of the tenure held at	•EL’s and ML’s are 100% owned by
	the time of reporting along with	CXO.
	any known impediments to	•The project area comprises
	obtaining a license to operate in	predominantly Vacant Crown land and to
	the area.	a lesser extent Crown Leases (perpetual
		and term) as well as minor Freehold
		private land.
		•Across the tenure there are known
		Aboriginal sacred sites as well as
		archaeological and heritage sites. All are
		avoided in accordance with legislation.
		•The tenements are in good standing with
		the NT DPIR Titles Division.

*Exploration*	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of	•The history of mining in the Bynoe
*Done by Other*	exploration by other parties.	Harbour – Middle Arm area dates to
**Parties **		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 the Hang Gong Wheel of
		Fortune was identified.
		•By 1909, activity was limited to Leviathan
		and Bells Mona mines in the area with
		little activity from 1907 to 1909.
		•In the early 1980s, the Bynoe Pegmatite
		field was reactivated during 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 a JV with Barbara Mining
		Corporation.
		•Greenex (the exploration arm of
		Greenbushes Tin 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.
		•In 1996, Julia Corp drilled RC holes into
		representative pegmatitesinthefield, but

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		like all their predecessors, did not assay
		for Li.
		•Since 1996, the field remained dormant
		until recently when exploration began on
		ascertaining the lithium prospectivity of
		the Bynoe pegmatites.
		•The NT geological Survey undertook a
		regional appraisal of the field, published
		in 2004 (NTGS Report 16, Frater 2004).
		•LTR drilled the first RC holes testing for
		lithium potential at BP33, Hang Gong
		and Booths in 2016.
		•CXO subsequently drilled BP33, Grants,
		Far West, Central, Ah Hoy and several
		other prospects in 2016.
		•After purchase of the LTR tenements in
		2017, CXO drilled Lees, Booths, Carlton
		and Hang Gong.
		•Early in 2021, Core purchased a group of
		small MLs from Outback Metals Pty Ltd
		within the Finniss Project area. Since
		that time some exploration activities have
		been undertaken on them.
		•Late in 2021, Core commenced
		development of the Grants Mineral
		Resource with first ore mined and
		crushed late in 2022.
		•Due to changes in economic conditions,
		mining was ceased in Jan 2024 with
		processing of mined stockpiles
		continuing untilJune2024.
**Geology **	• Deposit type, geological setting	•The project area covers a swarm of
	and style of mineralisation.	complex zoned rare element pegmatites,
		which comprise the 70km long by 15km
		wide Bynoe Pegmatite Field (NTGS
		Report 16).
		•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. 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.
		•Fresh pegmatite at most deposits is
		dominated by 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 diagnosticred-pinkUV

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
		fluorescence. The Bilatos deposit
		appears to be unique in that geological
		logging identified multiple lithium bearing
		mineral phases, including spodumene,
		amblygonite and lepidolite. The
		pegmatite bodies can be weakly zoned,
		usually with a thin (1-2m) quartz-mica-
		albite wall facies and rare barren internal
		quartz veins.
		•Mineralisation is typically hosted within
		large, massive, sub vertical pegmatite
		bodies (e.g. Grants). It can also be
		present within shallow to moderately
		dipping stacked pegmatite bodies or
		sheets (e.g. Hang Gong).
*Drill Hole*	• A summary of all information	•A summary of material information for all
**Information **	material to the understanding of	previous drill holes used as part of the In
	the exploration results including a	Situ Mineral Resource Estimates have
	tabulation of the following	been released and documented
	information for all Material drill	previously between 2016 and March
	holes:	2024. This includes all collar locations,
	• Easting and northing of the drill	hole depths, dip and azimuth as well as
	hole collar	assay or intercept information.
	• elevation or RL (Reduced Level –	•No drilling or assay information has been
	elevation above sea level in	excluded unless warranted by unreliable
	metes) of the drill hole collar	survey results.
	• dip and azimuth of the hole	•No new drilling is being reported.
	• 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
	clearly explain why this is the
	case.
*Data*	• In reporting Exploration Results,	•Any sample compositing reported is
*Aggregation*	weighting averaging techniques,	calculated via length weighted averages
**Methods **	maximum and/or minimum grade	of the 1 m assays. Length weighted
	truncations (e.g. cutting of high	averages are an acceptable method
	grades) and cut-off grades are	because the density of the rock
	usually Material and should be	(pegmatite) is constant.
	stated.	•No metal equivalent values have been
	• Where aggregate intercepts	used or reported.
	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.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	• The assumptions used for any
	reporting of metal equivalent
	values should be clearly stated.
*Relationship*	• These relationships are	•All holes have been drilled at angles
*Between*	particularly important in the	between 55 - 85° and approximately
*Mineralisation*	reporting of Exploration Results.	perpendicular to the strike of the
*Widths* *and*	• If the geometry of mineralisation	pegmatite.
*Intercept*	with respect to the drill hole angle	•Some holes deviated in azimuth and
	is known, its nature should be	therefore are marginally oblique in a
**Lengths **
	reported.	strike sense.

	• If it is not known and only the	•Based on an assessment of drill
	down hole lengths are reported,	sections, true width typically represents
	there should be a clear statement	about 50-90% of the intercept width.
	of this effect (e.g. down hole
	length, true width not known’).
**Diagrams **	• Appropriate maps and sections	•See figures in release.
	(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.
*Balanced*	• Where comprehensive reporting	•All exploration results have been
**Reporting **	of all Exploration Results is not	reported previously.
	practicable, representative
	reporting of both low and high
	grades and/or widths should be
	practiced avoiding misleading
	reporting of Exploration Results.
*Other*	• Other exploration data, if	•All meaningful and material data has
*Substantive*	meaningful and material, should	been reported.
*Exploration*	be reported including (but not
**Data **	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.
**Further Work **	• The nature and scale of planned	•Further Reverse Circulation and
	further work (e.g. tests for lateral	Diamond drilling at the Finniss
	extensions or depth extensions or	project is planned for the 2026 dry
	large-scale step-out drilling).	season.
	• Diagrams clearly highlighting the	•This work will test for extensions to
	areas of possible extensions,	current mineral resources as well as
	including the main geological	testing both mature and immature
	interpretations and future drilling	exploration prospects for evidence of
	areas, provided this information is	economic spodumene bearing pegmatite
	not commercially sensitive.	mineralisation.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation Commentary	JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Database	• Measures taken to ensure that data	•A data check of source assay data and
integrity	has not been corrupted by, for	survey data has been undertaken and
	example, transcription or keying	compared to the database. No
	errors, between its initial collection	translation issues have been identified.
	and its use for Mineral Resource	The data was validated during the
	estimation purposes.	interpretation of the mineralisation, with
	• Data validation procedures used.	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 topography to DGPS collar
		check has beencompleted.
Site Visits	• Comment on any site visits	•Graeme McDonald (CP) undertook
	undertaken by the Competent	multiple site visits while drilling activities
	Person and the outcome of those	were underway between November
	visits.	2017 and May 2025. A review of the
	• If no site visits have been	drilling, logging, sampling and QAQC
	undertaken indicate why this is the	procedures has been undertaken with
	case.	no significant or material issues
		identified. Processes were found to be
		ofahighstandard.
Geological	• Confidence in (or conversely, the	•The geological interpretations are
Interpretation	uncertainty of) the geological	considered robust due to the nature of
	interpretation of the mineral	the relationships between the geology
	deposit.	and mineralisation. The mineralisation
	• Nature of the data used and of any	is hosted within the pegmatites. The
	assumptions made.	locations of the hanging wall and
	• The effect, if any, of alternative	footwall of the pegmatites are well
	interpretations on Mineral	understood with drilling that penetrates
	Resource estimation.	both contacts.
	• The use of geology in guiding and	•Diamond drill core and reverse
	controlling Mineral Resource	circulation drill holes have been used in
	estimation.	the MRE where available for each
	• The factors affecting continuity both	deposit. Lithology, structure, alteration
	of grade and geology.	and mineralisation data has been used
		to generate the mineralisation models.
		The primary assumption is that the
		mineralisation is hosted within
		structurally controlled pegmatite, which
		is considered robust. Additional surface
		exposure within historic pits at some
		deposits helps to constrain the
		pegmatite contacts. Older BEC series
		drill holes were not considered as they
		were shallow, poorly located and not
		assayed for Li.
		•Due to the relatively close spaced
		nature of the drilling data and the
		observed geological continuity, only a
		small numberofalternative

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation Commentary	JORC Code Explanation Commentary
		interpretations have been considered.
		Different interpretations considered
		have little material difference on the
		MRE.
		•The mineralisation interpretations are
		based on a nominal lithium cut-off
		grade of 0.3% Li2O, hosted within the
		pegmatites.
		•At Carlton, several smaller pegmatite
		sills like bodies were identified and
		modelled. In some instance these are
		mineralised and contribute to the MRE.
		•The Carlton and Penfolds pegmatites
		have small zones of internal low-grade
		material comprising predominantly
		Burrell Creek Formation sediments
		mixed with narrow pegmatite bodies.
		High-grade and low-grade (waste)
		mineralised domains were identified
		and estimated independently using a
		hard boundary.
		•At Lees and Booths, the mineralisation
		is hosted within a series of shallow to
		gently dipping stacked pegmatite
		bodies. These bodies strike in a NW
		direction, are variably mineralised with
		thicknesses from 4 to +15m.
		•Generally, the pegmatites display a
		non-mineralised wall rock phase of 1-
		2m thickness and some internal quartz
		rich zones.
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the	•There is no change to the In Situ
	Mineral Resource expressed as	Mineral Resources.
	length (along strike or otherwise),	•All information for current In Situ
	plan width, and depth below	Mineral Resources have been reported
	surface to the upper and lower	previously.
	limits of the Mineral Resource.
Estimation and	• The nature and appropriateness of	•There is no change to the In Situ
modelling	the estimation technique(s) applied	Mineral Resources.
techniques	and key assumptions, including	•All information for current In Situ
	treatment of extreme grade values,	Mineral Resources have been reported
	domaining, interpolation	previously.
	parameters and maximum distance	•No assumptions have been made
	of extrapolation from data points. If	regarding the recovery of any by-
	a computer assisted estimation	products.
	method was chosen include a	•No selective mining units are assumed
	description of computer software	in the estimates.
	and parameters used.	•Lithium only has been estimated.
	• The availability of check estimates,	•Estimation of tonnes and grade for the
	previous estimates and/or mine	TSF and coarse reject material were
	production records and whether the	determined from detailed
	Mineral Resource estimate takes	documentation maintained during the
	appropriate account of such data.	processing at the Grants facility.
	• The assumptions made regarding	•Due to detailed plant reconciliation
	recovery of by-products.	processes, thisiswellunderstood.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation Commentary	JORC Code Explanation Commentary
	• Estimation of deleterious elements	•A quantity of TSF material has been
	or other non-grade variables of	mined and sold as a fines product. This
	economic significance (e.g. sulphur	has been considered and used in
	for acid mine drainage	determining the final estimate of
	characterisation).	material available for further
	• In the case of block model	processing.
	interpolation, the block size in	•Since the beginning of 2024, all coarse
	relation to the average sample	rejects material has been stockpiled
	spacing and the search employed.	and is also available for further
	• Any assumptions behind modelling	processing.
	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 drill
	hole data, and use of reconciliation
	data ifavailable.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are	•The tonnes have been estimated on a
	estimated on a dry basis or with	dry basis.
	natural moisture, and the method of
	determination of the moisture
	content.
Cut-off	• The basis of the adopted cut-off	•The current In Situ Mineral Resource
Parameters	grade(s) or quality parameters	Inventories for all deposits have been
	applied.	reported at a cut-off grade of 0.5%
		Li2O.
		•No top cuts were warranted or applied
		at any of the resources.
		•There were no cut-offs applied to the
		TSF/Coarserejectsmaterial.
Mining Factors	• Assumptions made regarding	•Underground and open pit mining
or	possible mining methods, minimum	methods are currently being considered
Assumptions	mining dimensions and internal (or,	for Grants. Underground mining
	if applicable, external) mining	methods are being considered for
	dilution. It is always necessary as	BP33. This is continually being
	part of the process of determining	reviewed in light of changing economic
	reasonable prospects for eventual	conditions.
	economic extraction to consider	•It is assumed that any material mined
	potential mining methods, but the	from all deposits would be processed at
	assumptions made regarding	the Grants processing facility nearby.
	mining methods and parameters	•No other material assumptions have
	when estimating Mineral	been made.
	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	•No metallurgical recoveries have been
factors or	predictions regarding metallurgical	applied to the Mineral Resource
assumptions	amenability. It is always necessary	Estimates.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary
	as part of the process of	•A lithium dense media separation
	determining reasonable prospects	(DMS) processing facility is in place at
	for eventual economic extraction to	the Grants site.
	consider potential metallurgical	•Further metallurgical test work will be
	methods, but the assumptions	required for different deposits as they
	regarding metallurgical treatment	mature to confirm compatibility with the
	processes and parameters made	existing plant and potential future
	when reporting Mineral Resources	alterations.
	may not always be rigorous. Where	•The current Study has recommended
	this is the case, this should be	some modifications to the current
	reported with an explanation of the	processing plant and flowsheet to
	basis of the metallurgical	improve performance and recoveries.
	assumptions made.	•Testwork has indicated that the TSF
		and coarse rejects material is amenable
		to processing via the proposed
		flowsheet.
Environmental	• Assumptions made regarding	•During the time of operations, a Mine
factors or	possible waste and process	Management Plan (MMP) has been
assumptions	residue disposal options. It is	previously approved by the Northern
	always necessary as part of the	Territory Government.
	process of determining reasonable	•This includes approvals for Waste Rock
	prospects for eventual economic	Dump (WRD) and tailings storage
	extraction to consider the potential	facilities.
	environmental impacts of the	•Environmental approvals have also
	mining and processing operation.	been received for the BP33
	While at this stage the	underground development.
	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	•Specific gravity (SG) determinations
	assumed, the basis for the	have been undertaken at NAL and
	assumptions. If determined, the	Nagrom laboratories on RC and
	method used, whether wet or dry,	diamond drill core from Grants, BP33
	the frequency of the	and Carlton as well as by Core
	measurements, the nature, size	exploration personnel at its facilities in
	and representativeness of the	Berry Springs on diamond drill core.
	samples.	•Methods used by the laboratories
	• The bulk density for bulk material	include water immersion and wet
	must have been measured by	pychnometry at NAL and gas
	methods that adequately account	pychnometry at Nagrom. The method
	for void spaces (vugs, porosity,	used by Core was classic water
	etc), moisture and differences	immersion of randomly selected
	between rock and alteration zones	samples from each metre of drilled
	within the deposit	pegmatite.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk	•In excess of 1,000 SG determinations
	density estimates used in the	have been done across multiple
	evaluation process of the different	deposits at the Finniss Lithium Project.
	materials.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation Commentary	JORC Code Explanation Commentary
		•Density data is consistent with
		expected values for fresh pegmatitic
		material. At BP33 and Carlton, where a
		significant amount of diamond drill core
		and data exists, a positive correlation
		between mineralised lithium grade and
		sample density was established.
		Specific Gravity (SG) is estimated into
		the block model via a Li2O based
		regression equation, using the block
		grade estimates.
		•At Carlton, Lees, Booths, Ah Hoy,
		Penfolds and Seadog the regression
		equation used isSG = 0.06 x Li2O% +
		2.62
		•When no other data is available, a
		default value of 2.71 g/cm3was used for
		all fresh pegmatite.
		•Tonnages associated with the tailings
		and coarse reject material are well
		understood via direct measurements
		taken during the material processing
		completed.
Classification	• The basis for the classification of	•The resource classification has been
	the Mineral Resources into varying	applied to the MRE’s based on the
	confidence categories.	drilling data spacing, grade and
	• Whether appropriate account has	geological continuity, and data
	been taken of all relevant factors	integrity.
	(i.e. relative confidence in	•The classifications consider the relative
	tonnage/grade estimations,	contributions of geological and data
	reliability of input data, confidence	quality and confidence, as well as
	in continuity of geology and metal	grade confidence and continuity.
	values, quality, quantity and	•Confidence in the Measured and
	distribution of the data).	Indicated mineral resource is sufficient
	• Whether the result appropriately	to allow application of modifying factors
	reflects the Competent Person’s	within a technical and economic study.
	view of the deposit.	•The classification at each of the
		deposits reflects the view of the
		CompetentPerson.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews	•Mineral Resource estimates for BP33,
reviews	of Mineral Resource estimates.	Grants and Carlton have been
		subjected to multiple Independent
		Mineral Resource and Model Review
		and Assessment by external parties at
		different times.
		•No material issues were found at the
		time that would impact the global
		tonnes and grade estimated at the
		deposits.
		•The methodology and processes used
		throughout the In Situ Mineral Resource
		updates are considered to be robust.
		•If any further audits or reviews were
		undertaken no significant issues would
		be expected.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation Commentary	JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Discussion of	• Where appropriate a statement of	•The relative accuracy of the Mineral
relative	the relative accuracy and	Resource estimate is reflected in the
accuracy/	confidence level in the Mineral	reporting of the Mineral Resource as
confidence	Resource estimate using an	per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC
	approach or procedure deemed	Code.
	appropriate by the Competent	•The statement relates to global
	Person. For example, the	estimates of tonnes and grade.
	application of statistical or	•There is a high confidence in the
	geostatistical procedures to	estimate of tonnes and grade for the
	quantify the relative accuracy of the	TSF and coarse reject material due to
	resource within stated confidence	continual monitoring and reconciliation
	limits, or, if such an approach is not	throughout the initial mining and
	deemed appropriate, a qualitative	processing of the material.
	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.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Section 4 Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

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 Grants Mineral Resource Estimated and reported to the ASX on 14 May 2025. The Mineral Resources are reported inclusive of the Ore Reserves. The Mineral Resource models were used as an input to the mining model. Measured Mineral Resources were used to estimate Proved Ore Reserves; Indicated Mineral Resources were used to estimate Probable Ore Reserves. Tonnage and grade estimates are adjusted by suitable modifying factors including dilution and recovery. The mining recovery used for open pit is 100% and 95% for underground and the mining dilution up to 10%. The Ore Reserves reported above are not additive to the Mineral Resources.
*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 Ore Reserves (Mr Tom Joseph MAusIMM) completed a site visit of Grants Site including crushing and processing facilities on 24 March 2025.
*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.	• The study is to a Pre-Feasibility Study level of accuracy, Ore Reserves used only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources for the Grants Mineral Resources. • Mineral Resources were converted to Ore Reserves recognising the level of confidence in the Mineral Resource estimate and reflecting modifying factors, and after consideration of all mining, metallurgical, social, environmental, and statutory and economics aspects of the Project.
*Cut-off* *parameters*	•The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• The underground cut-off was based on a Net Smelter Return (NSR), which is the revenue paid for the concentrate. NSR is calculated as the In Situ value after allowances have been made for those inputs as

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		described in the main body of report. The NSR cut off of $110/t was used to report Grants Underground Ore Reserve. The cutoff grade of 0.8% is used for the Grants Open pit Ore Reserve. The NSR and grade cut off was calculated based on recovery, revenue of concentrate, transport cost, royalty, mining and processing cost.
*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 (e.g. 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. •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.	• The mining method selected for the Grants deposit is open pit mining initially and then underground mining with bottom-up Long Hole Open Stoping (LHOS) with waste rock backfilling. • Access to the Grants underground deposit is via decline from Grants Pit. • The exhaust air are via dedicated raise bore to surface. • The orebody dip, width and ground conditions suits underground mining. • Geotechnical recommendations were based on study work conducted by Geotechnical Consultants to a PFS level of confidence. Grants, underground stope assumptions are: `o` Level Spacing – 25m to 45m. `o` Minimum Width – 5 m. `o` Maximum Width – 25 m. `o` Strike length – 20m • Mining Recoveries varies based on the domains, stoping method, development and depth and is applied to the mine plan which underpin the ore reserve. • Mining Dilution varies based on level spacing, domains, stoping method and depth and is factored in the mine plan. • Minimum stoping width used is 3m. • The inferred material was not included for Grants Reserves. • The additional infrastructure required for Grants are Stockpiles and Primary Fans. The existing infrastructure at Finniss such as waste dump, processing plant, water dams, mine offices can be used for Grants deposit.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
*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. •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. •For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?	• The proposed 2025 Restart Study flowsheet is appropriate to the style of Grants mineralisation as the mineralisation is coarse grained spodumene which has previously been successfully recovered by dense media. • The metallurgical process of dense media separation proposed for Grants is well tested for spodumene ore and is commonly utilised in industry. • The metallurgical test work undertaken is appropriate for Grants and the metallurgical result is added to the block model considering the metallurgical domains. The global recovery for open pit is calculated to be 65% and for underground to be 81.6%. • The 2025 Restart Study included testing Grants sample inclusive of expected deleterious host rock dilution. • A Bulk sample / Pilot scale test was completed in the 2025 Restart Study. • Ore reserves have been completed based on appropriate mineralogy of spodumene to meet the concentrate grade specifications utilising the proposed flowsheet.
*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.	• The surface footprint required is same due to keeping the crest of the Grants pit as it is and accessing the Grants underground from the switch back from the Grants Pit and the existing Grants infrastructure will be utilised including TSF, waste dump and processing plant. The major studies required for all key approvals and licences are complete. Core expects the regulatory approvals will be in place when required for the restart.
*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.	• Infrastructure and services to support the processing is in place. Concentrate transport is in place by the Cox Peninsula Road from the Grants Processing Plant to the port of Darwin as previously utilised in operations.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		• Core lithium has acquired the plant and crusher with an objective to operate under a new operating model • Principal new infrastructure items to be put in place for the Grants underground include: `o` Modifications to the existing process plant. `o` Power for Grants underground. `o` Primary Fans to support Grants underground mining. `o` Underground mine infrastructure for Grants.
*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 derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals and co- products. •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.	• The capital and operating costs were estimated from first principles, quotations from experienced contractors, current contracts, other suppliers, and current project costs. • Mining costs are derived from the first principles based on an owner operator cost profiles. • Allowances are made for the content of deleterious elements and are factored into the recovery factors. • The long-term SC6 price sourced from consensus price is US$ 1,330/t. • Haulage cost used are either contractual rates or a generic cost per km unit. • Processing costs are based on actuals from previous performances and expected upgrades. • G&A costs include portioned corporate overheads and site cost and are based on actuals prorated back. • Allowances are made for the Royalty applicable to Grants Deposit.
*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.	• Consensus pricing forecasts were used in real terms for a 6.0% spodumene concentrate price. • Modelled prices were based on previous offtake contract and the metallurgical test results which accounts for various concentrates produced.
*Market* *assessment*	•The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends	• The long-term Spodumene price has been selected from the consensus and benchmarkingwork for

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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.	Spodumene 6.0% and is used in the economic evaluation. • Likely market is identified based on the customer analysis. • Modelled prices and volumes were based on previous offtake contract which accounts for various concentrates produced. • The acceptance required for supply contract is tested and has been previously supplying under contract.
*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.	• The economic analysis used the study assumptions for Grants Open Pit and Underground Mine which is up to a Pre-feasibility level of accuracy. • Sensitivities (+/-20%) were prepared for discount rate, exchange rates, spodumene price, capital expenditure and site operating costs. The sensitivity analysis was prepared in line with Pre-feasibility study level of accuracy for each of the key value drivers. For each adjustment, the Reserves returned positive NPV results. • The economics were not as sensitive to the capital and operating cost as the commodity price.
*Social*	•The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social license 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. Core 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	• The project area is located on Vacant Crown Land, the underlying tenure EL30015, EL29698 is owned 100% by Core. Granted mineral titles: ML31726 incorporates Grants. • The Darwin area is prone to cyclone activity throughout December to April

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	arrangements. •The status of governmental agreements and approvals is 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.	each year. Production estimates have considered the impact of such events. No other naturally occurring risks are identified. • Legal Agreements and marketing arrangements are acceptable for the level of study. • All necessary Government approvals are expected to be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre- Feasibility Study.
*Classification*	•The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories. •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).	• The Competent Person believes the Ore Reserve classification is appropriate given the nature of the deposit, the moderate grade variability, drilling density, structural complexity and mining history. • 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. • Proved and Probable Ore Reserves were estimated and is provided. The effective date of the Ore Reserves is 30 October 2025.
*Audits or* *reviews*	•The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	• Internal reviews have been completed.
*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	• The accuracy and confidence of the inputs are to a Pre-Feasibility level. • The statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade. • Accuracy and Confidence level for the Ore Reserve estimate was evaluated by undertaking sensitivity analyses on the applied modifying factors using the cashflow model generated as part of the Ore reserve estimation process. • The key factors that found to be likely to affect the accuracy and confidence in the Ore Reserves are: `o` Changes in metalprices.

corelithium.com.au

==> picture [66 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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. •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.	`o` Changes in metallurgical recovery. • The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate is reflected in the reporting of the Ore Reserve as per the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code.

corelithium.com.au

AI assistant

CORE LITHIUM LTD Capital/Financing Update 2025

64737_rns_2025-11-09_b1914d31-655b-43e2-a996-e31e40ca2a3c.pdf

ASX: CXO Announcement

Updated Grants Mine Plan and Ore Reserve

Highlights

Commenting on the Updated Grants mine plan and Ore Reserve, Core CEO Paul Brown said:

Updated Grants Mine Plan

Tenements and Ownership

Mineral Resources

Ore Reserves

Regional Exploration Potential – Exploration Targets

Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets 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.

About Core

Important Information

Competent Person Statements

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

MINERAL RESOURCE

ORE RESERVES

GEOTECHNICAL

MINING

Mining Dilution and Recovery Factors

Cut-Off

Mining Method Selection

Mine Design

Mining Schedule and Sequence

PROCESSING

INFRASTRUCTURE

CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT

COSTS

REVENUE

ECONOMICS

APPROVALS

Appendix 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition-Table 1 Report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Section 4 Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

AI assistant

CORE LITHIUM LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2025

64737_rns_2025-11-09_b1914d31-655b-43e2-a996-e31e40ca2a3c.pdf

ASX: CXO Announcement

Updated Grants Mine Plan and Ore Reserve

Highlights

Commenting on the Updated Grants mine plan and Ore Reserve, Core CEO Paul Brown said:

Updated Grants Mine Plan

Tenements and Ownership

Mineral Resources

Ore Reserves

Regional Exploration Potential – Exploration Targets

Cautionary Statement: The potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Targets 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.

About Core

Important Information

Competent Person Statements

SUPPORTING INFORMATION

MINERAL RESOURCE

ORE RESERVES

GEOTECHNICAL

MINING

Mining Dilution and Recovery Factors

Cut-Off

Mining Method Selection

Mine Design

Mining Schedule and Sequence

PROCESSING

INFRASTRUCTURE

CONCENTRATE TRANSPORT

COSTS

REVENUE

ECONOMICS

APPROVALS

Appendix 1 JORC Code, 2012 Edition-Table 1 Report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Section 4 Reporting of Ore Reserves

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections)

More from CORE LITHIUM LTD

CORE LITHIUM LTD Capital/Financing Update 2025