DEEP YELLOW LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2019

Mar 26, 2019

==> picture [299 x 14] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [299 x 14] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [299 x 15] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [299 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

ASX Announcement

ASX: DYL OTCQB: DYLLF

27 March 2019

URANIUM RESOURCES EXPANDED BY 51% AT TUMAS 1, 2 AND 3 DEPOSITS

HIGHLIGHTS

• Resource extension and infill drilling at Tumas 1 and 2, Tumas 1 East and Tumas 3 West has produced a combined Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource Estimate in this area of 67.4Mlb grading 352ppm eU3O8.

• A notable 51% resource growth achieved on these deposits while maintaining the average grade.

• Resources within the Tumas palaeochannel system now 86.2Mlb at 310 ppm eU3O8 (close to three-fold increase since November 2016).

• Overall palaeochannel-related Mineral Resources have been doubled since November 2016 and are now 104.2Mlb grading 295ppm eU3O8.

• Current drilling indicates the system remains open west of Tumas 3 and drilling of Tributaries 4 and 5 at Tumas 1 East showing encouraging results delineating another zone of continuous uranium mineralisation

• 60km of uranium-fertile palaeochannels remain to be properly tested offering highly prospective targets.

• The excellent progress to date continues to advance the project toward achieving its stated calcrete Mineral Resource target.

• Mineralisation is calcrete-associated and hosted in palaeochannels, similar to the Langer Heinrich uranium mine located 30km to the north-east.

Deep Yellow Limited (ASX: DYL) ( Deep Yellow ) is pleased to announce an updated Mineral Resource Estimate ( MRE ) for the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposits which, at a 200ppm eU3O8 cut-off now contains 67.4Mlb of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 352ppm eU3O8. This represents an increase of 51% from the MRE announced to the ASX on 11 July 2018. These deposits occur on EPLs 3496 and 3497, held by the Deep Yellow wholly-owned subsidiary, Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd. The MRE was undertaken using various cut-off grades using a minimum thickness of 1m and conforms to the 2012 JORC Code of Mineral Resource Reporting.

Unit 17, Spectrum Building, 100-104 Railway Road Subiaco WA 6008 / PO Box 1770 Subiaco WA 6904 Tel : 61 8 9286 6999 / Fax : 61 8 9286 6969 / ABN 97 006 391 948 Email: info@deepyellow.com.au / Website: www.deepyellow.com.au

A four-month resource extension RC drilling program was completed in December 2018, testing areas immediately east of the Tumas 1 deposit and west of Tumas 3 deposit (see Figure 1). This work also included some limited infill drilling within the Tumas 1 and 2 deposits. Drilling extended the mineralised Tumas paleochannel system in this area by 8.4km and delineated extensive uranium mineralisation therein. Of the 346 RC holes drilled for 5,599m during this campaign, 221 holes returned positive results – an overall 64% success rate.

==> picture [499 x 114] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 113] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 113] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 113] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [499 x 113] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: Namibian locality map showing position of the Tumas Project

Page 2 of 28

This addition to the Tumas palaeochannel uranium resource base has increased the Company’s total surficial calcrete-related Mineral Resources over its Namibian projects by a significant 28%. Importantly, since the new exploration approach was applied from November 2016, the overall palaeochannel-hosted resources have been doubled over its Namibian projects totalling 104.2Mlb U308. This is fully vindicating the change of focus that was made which identified the extensive, regionally occurring prospective palaeochannel thus expanding the exploration target significantly.

The uranium mineralisation that has been defined to date in the Tumas palaeochannel system occurs as three distinct mineralised bodies. These are the Tumas 1 and 2 deposits, now including the Tumas 1 East tributary extensions, the Tumas 3 deposit and the Tubas Red Sands/calcrete deposits (see Figure 1). The Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposit expansions and the associated new MRE are the subject of this announcement. The combined overall Tumas palaeochannel resource now totals 86.2Mlb eU3O8 at 310ppm over EPLs 3496/97.

The high prospectivity of the palaeochannels in this region is continuing to be strongly confirmed with each drilling episode that has been undertaken. The channels occurring outside the identified deposits have only in part, been sparsely drilled by previous workers using widely spaced regional lines and large sections remain completely untested leaving much opportunity to continue increasing the uranium resource base with further drilling.

Exploration Target

As previously reported Deep Yellow has identified 125km of highly prospective palaeochannel systems of which only 65km have been adequately tested leaving much opportunity to continue increasing the uranium resource base with further drilling.

Over the last 2 years exploration and resource drilling mainly concentrated in the eastern and central parts of the Tumas palaeochannel system. This work has been highly successful producing a cumulative 86.2Mlb eU3O8 at 310ppm associated with this Reptile Project palaeochannel. With this latest addition to its resource base the Company has notably increased its calcrete-associated uranium resources and with each drilling campaign is approaching closer to its stated total Exploration Target[1] of 100M to 150Mlb at a grade range of 300ppm to 500ppm for this type of uranium mineralisation. Deep Yellow’s total JORC conforming uranium Mineral Resources on its Namibian projects are shown in Appendix 1.

1 With the additional resources as announced herein, the Company has now determined an MRE of 104Mlb of calcrete mineralisation - reaching the lower of its stated Exploration Target range of 100M to 150Mlb eU3O8. The Company however acknowledges that the potential quantity and grade of the Exploration Target is conceptual in nature. There is however significant and sufficient additional exploration information generated to give more confidence that the Exploration Target has improved the chance to achieve the stated expanded Mineral Resource objective. Additional exploration is planned; however, it is uncertain if this will result in the estimation of all the expanded Mineral Resource that has been predicted from the review and evaluation of calcrete associated mineralisation identified on the Company’s tenements which commenced in the December 2017 Quarter. With the subsequent exploration and resource drilling carried out over the past two years, the Company has a greater understanding of the stratigraphy and topography of the palaeochannels which host the uranium mineralisation. This work and the resource increase that is being achieved has provided renewed confidence that further mineralisation is likely to be identified in targeted palaeochannel areas on the Company’s tenements.

Targeted tonnage/grades are based on results and understanding from work carried out over past 12 years in this region and the Exploration Targets that have been defined will continue to be the focus the ongoing drilling investigations.

Page 3 of 28

Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Mineral Resource Estimate Summary

Exploration and infill resource drilling carried out in conjunction with geological studies in 2017 and 2018 have substantially improved the Company’s understanding of the palaeochannel-associated calcrete-type targets and its uranium mineralisation. The new MRE over the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposits, incorporating their western and eastern extensions and including the newly discovered tributaries, is the result of the positive July to December 2018 drilling program and re-interpretation of the relevant historic drill data.

The MRE was estimated by Ordinary Kriging. Cut-off grades used for the expanded MRE included 100, 150, 200, and 250 ppm eU3O8 and the Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources derived from these cut-off grades indicate the mineralisation remains robust and consistent. Table 1 shows the MRE results at various cut-offs and Table 2 shows the MRE results at a 200 ppm eU3O8 cut-off in comparison to the previous resource estimation.

The combined MRE for the extended Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposits at a 200ppm cut-off gives a combined Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource of 67.4Mlb at 352ppm eU3O8 as shown in in Table 1. The 200ppm eU3O8 cut-off has been selected as being the most appropriate for headline reporting of the resource estimations. When the Tubas Red Sands/Calcrete and the Aussinanis deposits are included, this amounts to 104.2Mlb for all the palaeochannel-associated targets.

Table 1. Combined Tumas 1, 2 and 3 - JORC 2012 MRE - Indicated, Measured and Inferred Resources at various cut-off grades

Cut-off	Tonnes	**U3O8 **	**U3O8 **
(ppmU3O8)	(M)	(ppm)	(Mlb)
100	185.5	243	99.6
150	132.3	290	84.7
200	86.6	352	67.4
250	57.3	423	53.4

Note: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors. eU3O8 - equivalent uranium grade as determined by downhole gamma logging. Gamma probes were calibrated at the Langer Heinrich uranium mine test pit. During drilling, probes were checked daily against a standard source.

Page 4 of 28

Table 2. Tumas 1, 2 and 3 - current and previous JORC 2012 MRE - Indicated, Measured and Inferred Resources at 200 ppm eU3O8 cut off

Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Resources July 2018 Status	March 2019 Status	March 2019 Status	March 2019 Status
Tumas 3 Deposit (2017/18 Resource) -JORC 2012									Tumas 3 Deposit
Deposit	Category			Tonnes (M)	Grade (ppm)			U3O8 Mlb	Tonnes (M)	Grade (ppm)	U3O8 Mlb
Tumas 3 Expanded	Inferred			37.5	377			31.2	39.7	378	33.1
Sub Total				37.5	377			31.2	39.7	378	33.1
Tumas Project - JORC 2012									Tumas Project
Tumas 1&2 Deposit	Measured			9.7	386			8.2	10.8	383	9.1
Tumas 1&2 Deposit	Indicated			6.5	336			4.8	5.5	333	4.0
Tumas 1&2 Deposit	Inferred			0.4	351			0.3	5.7	211	2.7
Tumas 1 - East	Inferred			-	-			-	25	335	18.5
Sub Total				16.6	366			13.3	47	331	34.3
Tumas 1, 2 and 3 Total				54.1	372			44.5	86.7		67.4
										352

Note: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors. eU3O8 - equivalent uranium grade as determined by downhole gamma logging. Gamma probes were calibrated at the Langer Heinrich uranium mine test pit. During drilling, probes were checked daily against a standard source.

ASX Additional Information

The following is a summary of the material information used to estimate the Mineral Resources as required by Listing Rule 5.8.1 and JORC 2012 Reporting Guidelines

Deposit Parameters: The Tumas 1, 2 and 3 uranium deposits are of the calcrete-hosted type, located within an extensive regionally-occurring mainly east-west and north/west-south/east trending palaeochannel system. The uranium mineralisation occurs in conjunction with calcium carbonate precipitations (calcrete) in sediment filled palaeovalleys. Uranium is the only economically extractable metal in this type of mineralisation although vanadium production can be considered if the price for vanadium becomes sufficiently attractive. Uranium minerals mainly include uranium vanadates. The geology of this type of mineralisation is well understood having been explored over many years. The Langer Heinrich uranium mine located 30km to the north-east exploits this type of deposit and has been mined since 2007.

The mineralisation domains used for the current extended MRE study were interpreted to capture continuous zones of mineralisation above 100ppm eU3O8. The mineralisation included in this study has a strike length of approximately 38km and ranges in width from 100m to 900m, extending to a depth of 40 to 50m averaging around 15m below surface along the main Tumas channel. This includes the 8km of mineralisation encountered along four tributary channels. The mineralisation occurs in a reasonably continuous, seam-like horizon and is interpreted to extend west beyond the currently drilled area. The main channel is closed off at the eastern end however some tributary channels found in this area remain to be tested.

Drilling for the project was based on RC methods only. Drill holes used in the Mineral Resource Estimation included 1,330 holes totalling 31,861m drilled in 2017 and 2018 and 7,402 historical drill holes totalling 131,531m drilled by Deep Yellow between 2006 and 2012. Drilling achieved sample

Page 5 of 28

recoveries of around 90%. All drill chips were geologically logged, and their radioactivity was measured downhole. All data were added to the verified database.

The 2017 and 2018 drilling programs were carried out on a spacing of 100m by 100m. At Tumas 1 East where the continuity of the uranium mineralisation along the channel was very good, a drill density of 200m by 100m was deemed sufficient to define an Inferred Resource. Around some tributary palaeochannels drill spacing was reduced to 50m x 50m if required. Pre-2017, exploration drilling carried out by the Company was along regional 2km spaced drill lines with holes spaced 50m apart along these lines. Previous resource drilling done in the pre-2017 period had hole spacings varying from 50m by 50m to 25m by 25m enabling the definition also of Measured and Indicated Resource categories.

Methodology: Data used in the MRE is largely based on down-hole radiometric gamma logging taken by a fully calibrated Aus Log gamma logging system which was used in the recent and previous drilling programs. Down-hole gamma readings were taken at 5cm intervals and converted into equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) before being combined to 1m intervals. Geochemical assays were collected from 1m RC-drilling intervals, which were split to 1 to 1.5kg samples by riffle splitters. 120gm were further pulverised for use in regular XRF determinations and ICP-MS check analysis work. In the 2017 and 2018 programs,1 in 10 uranium intersections were tested by XRF analysis. Selected samples from the historical holes were also check-assayed for U3O8 by ICP-MS method to confirm the previous XRF results. For further description of sampling techniques and associated data see Appendix 2 Table 1

The geochemical assays were used to confirm the validity of the eU3O8 values determined by downhole gamma probing. After validation, the eU3O8 values derived from the down-hole gamma logging were given preference over geochemical assays for the Mineral Resource Estimation.

The relevant drill hole details and results were previously reported by Deep Yellow in announcements made to the ASX on 5 July 2018, 17 April 2018, 14 December 2017, 27 September 2017, 11 July 2017, 22 June 2017, 22 May 2017, 19 April 2017 and 25 October 2016.

Figure 2 shows the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposit drill hole locations with drill hole collars coloured according to their grade thickness (GT- eU3O8ppm x metre thickness). Figures 3, 4 and 5 show contour maps of grade thickness (GT- eU3O8ppm x metre thickness) of the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 mineralisation outlining the extent and nature of the mineralisation over the 38km length of channel tested and include the 8km of mineralised tributary channels that have been identified. Crosssections through the three deposits are shown in Figures 6 ,7 ,8 ,9 and 10.

Prospectivity, High Potential and Future Drilling

The ongoing drilling of the Tumas palaeochannel continues to prove highly successful, fully endorsing the new approach that has been taken to test this very prospective regional target area identified. This work continues to add substantial new uranium resources at Tumas 1, 2 and 3 with each resource drilling campaign that has been undertaken. Additionally, the investigations and exploration drilling during this current program have identified extensive untested palaeochannels that are considered very prospective.

The 67.4Mlb now attributable to Tumas 1, 2 and 3 translates to 1.8Mlb/km for the 38km over which these deposits occur. The 86.2Mlb of Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources now attained from the Reptile Project palaeochannels represent a remarkable 167% increase in the

Page 6 of 28

calcrete resource base on this project since the new-focus investigations commenced. Deep Yellow is now very close to the first major milestone of 100Mlb eU3O8. from the Tumas palaeochannel alone.

As has been previously stated, work is clearly confirming that increasing the palaeochannel calcrete resource base toward the range of 100M-150Mlb uranium resources in the 300 to 500ppm U3O8 grade range is considered as a realistic objective with Tumas 3 remaining open to the immediate west and a further 60km of palaeochannel identified still to be tested.

This strongly justifies the need to continue exploration and systemically drill-test the underexplored palaeochannel systems that remain contained in the Company’s 100% owned tenements, EPLs 3496 and 3497.

The current drilling program commenced as announced on 4 March. Work is ongoing testing both the western extension of the Tumas 3 resource and additional tributaries north-east of Tumas 1. This drilling program is planned to be completed by late April with results reported in early May.

Exploration Efficiency

Since the new management started overseeing the Deep Yellow exploration effort, 54.1Mlb of Inferred U3O8 Resources have been added to the uranium inventory of the Reptile Project. This was achieved by concentrating the exploration effort on calcrete-associated uranium mineralisation within the eastern occurring Tumas palaeochannel. Exploration expenditure from Nov 2016 to Dec 2018 on the Reptile Project has been close to A$4M. This calculates into a discovery cost for delineation of the Inferred Resources that have been identified of only 7.5cents/lb U3O8, highlighting the high discovery efficiency and the overall low cost for delineation of additional uranium resources when targeting these near surface targets and working within a highly prospective palaeochannel.

CEO Comment

Deep Yellow Limited CEO, John Borshoff said: "In the 27 months since we adopted the new exploration approach in Namibia, we have not only identified a highly prospective palaeochannel of some 125km in length but our resource drilling programmes are continually contributing to the increase of the calcrete-related uranium resource base. In fact, we have doubled the resource base with a comparatively small expenditure not possible with deeper targets. We are confident the ongoing resource drilling will continue to add to the already substantial resource base we have delineated to date".

Yours Faithfully

==> picture [133 x 71] intentionally omitted <==

JOHN BORSHOFF Managing Director/CEO Deep Yellow Limited

For further information, contact:

John Borshoff Managing Director/CEO

Phone: +61 8 9286 6999 Email: john.borshoff@deepyellow.com.au

For further information on the Company and its projects, please visit the website at: www.deepyellow.com.au

Page 7 of 28

ABOUT DEEP YELLOW LIMITED

Deep Yellow Limited is a specialist differentiated uranium company implementing a new contrarian strategy to grow shareholder wealth. This strategy is founded upon growing the existing uranium resources across the Company’s uranium projects in Namibia and the pursuit of accretive, countercyclical acquisitions to build a global, geographically diverse asset portfolio. The Company’s cornerstone suite of projects in Namibia is situated within a top-ranked African mining destination in a jurisdiction that has a long, well regarded history of safely and effectively developing and regulating its considerable uranium mining industry.

Competent Person’s Statement

Exploration Results and Mineral Resource Estimate:

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results for the Tumas Mineral Resource Estimate, Mineral Resource Database and Bulk Densities are based on information compiled by Mr. Martin Hirsch, M.Sc.Geology, who is a member of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (UK) and the South African Council for Natural Science Professionals. Mr. Hirsch is the Exploration Manager for Reptile Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012 Edition). Mr. Hirsch consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in this announcement that relates to the Tumas Mineral Resource Estimate is based on work completed by Mr. Martin Hirsch, M.Sc. Geology, who is a member of the Institute of Materials, Minerals and Mining (UK) and the South African Council for Natural Science Professionals. Mr. Hirsch is the Exploration Manager for Reptile Mineral Resources (Pty) Ltd, has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012 Edition). Mr. Hirsch consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Where the Company refers to the other JORC 2012 resources and JORC 2004 resources in this report, it confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original announcements and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the resource estimates in those original announcements continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Geophysics Component:

The deconvolution of the current down-hole gamma data to convert the data to equivalent uranium values (eU3O8), has been reported in the ASX releases announcing results of the resource drilling that was carried out between July 2018 and December 2018. The deconvolution was performed by experienced in-house personnel of Deep Yellow with the data subsequently checked and validated by Matt Owers, a geophysicist who is knowledgeable in this process and works as a consultant for Resource Potentials with over 5 years of relevant experience in the industry. Mr Owers is a member of Australian Institute of Geoscientists and has sufficient experience with this type of processes to qualify as a Competent Person in terms of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’ (JORC Code 2012 Edition). Mr. Owers consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Page 8 of 28

==> picture [700 x 379] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Drill hole locations of the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 uranium mineralisation

Page 9 of 28

==> picture [700 x 380] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: GT contour map of the Tumas 3 uranium mineralisation

Page 10 of 28

==> picture [497 x 566] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: GT contour map of the Tumas 1 and 2 uranium mineralisation

Page 11 of 28

==> picture [682 x 370] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: GT contour map of the Tumas 1 (including eastern extension) uranium mineralisation

Page 12 of 28

==> picture [498 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: 502300mE cross-section through the Tumas 3 palaeochannel system

==> picture [498 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: 507100mE cross-section through the Tumas 3 palaeochannel system

Page 13 of 28

==> picture [485 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: 7464600mN cross-section through the Tumas 2 palaeochannel system

==> picture [485 x 307] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9: 513878mE cross-section through the Tumas 1 palaeochannel system

Page 14 of 28

==> picture [481 x 304] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10: 52710mE cross-section through the Tumas 1 East palaeochannel system

Page 15 of 28

APPENDIX 1

JORC RESOURCE TABLE

	Deposit Category	Cut- off Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 U3O8	Resource Categories (Mlb U3O8)
		(ppm U3O8) (M) (ppm) (t) (Mlb)	Measured Indicated Inferred
	BASEMENT MINERALISATION Omahola Project - JORC 2004 INCA Deposit♦ Indicated 250 7.0 470 3,300 7.2 INCA Deposit♦ Inferred 250 5.4 520 2,800 6.2 Ongolo Deposit # Measured 250 7.7 395 3,000 6.7 Ongolo Deposit # Indicated 250 9.5 372 3,500 7.8 Ongolo Deposit # Inferred 250 12.4 387 4,800 10.6 MS7 Deposit # Measured 250 4.4 441 2,000 4.3 MS7 Deposit # Indicated 250 1.0 433 400 1 MS7 Deposit # Inferred 250 1.3 449 600 1.3		- 7.2 - - - 6.2 6.7 - - - 7.8 - - - 10.6 4.3 - - - 1 - - - 1.3
	Omahola Project Sub-Total 48.7 420 20,400 45.1		11.0 16.0 18.1
	CALCRETE MINERALISATION Tumas 3 Deposit - JORC 2012 Tumas 3 Deposits Inferred 200 39.7 378.3 15,000 33.1		- - 33.1 - 4.1 - - - 8.6 9.1 - - - 4 - - - 21.2 - - 6.1 - 2.7 - - - 15.3
	Tumas 3 Deposits Total 39.7 378 15,000 33.1
	Tubas Sand Project - JORC 2012 Tubas Sand Deposit # Indicated 100 10.0 187 1,900 4.1 Tubas Sand Deposit # Inferred 100 24.0 163 3,900 8.6
	Tubas Sand Project Total 34.0 170 5,800 12.7
	Tumas Project(Tumas 1 & 2, and Tumas 1 East Tributaries)- JORC 2012 Tumas Deposit♦ Measured 200 11 383 4,100 9.1 Tumas Deposit♦ Indicated 200 5 333 1,700 4 Tumas Deposit♦ Inferred 200 30.8 312 9,700 21.2
	Tumas Project Total 46.6 332 15,500 34.3
	Tubas Calcrete Resource - JORC 2004 Tubas Calcrete Deposit Inferred 100 7.4 374 2,800 6.1
	Tubas Calcrete Total 7.4 374 2,800 6.1
	Aussinanis Project - JORC 2004 Aussinanis Deposit♦ Indicated 150 5.6 222 1,200 2.7 Aussinanis Deposit♦ Inferred 150 29.0 240 7,000 15.3
	Aussinanis Project Total 34.6 237 8,200 18.0
	Calcrete Projects Sub-Total 104.2		9.1 10.8 84.3
	GRAND TOTAL RESOURCES 211 323 68,100 149.3

Notes: Figures have been rounded and totals may reflect small rounding errors.

XRF chemical analysis unless annotated otherwise.

♦ eU3O8 - equivalent uranium grade as determined by downhole gamma logging.

• # Combined XRF Fusion Chemical Assays and eU3O8 values.

Where eU3O8 values are reported it relates to values attained from radiometrically logging boreholes.

Gamma probes were calibrated at Pelindaba, South Africa in 2007 and sensitivity checks are conducted by periodic re-logging of attest hole to confirm operation between 2008 and 2013.

During drilling, probes are checked daily against standard source.

Page 16 of 28

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 report template

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	•	Commentary
Sampling	• Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random	•	The recent (2017-2018) drilling relies on down hole gamma data from calibrated
techniques	chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement		probes which were converted into equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) by
	tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample		experienced DYL personnel and have been confirmed by a competent person (geophysicist). Geochemical assays were used to confirm the conversion results. Previous (2006-2012) drill data used in this report includes both geochemical assay data (U3O8) and down hole gamma equivalent uranium
	representivity and the appropriate calibration of any		derived values (eU3O8).
	measurement tools or systems used.	•	Appropriate factors were applied to all downhole gamma counting results to
	• Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are		make allowance for drill rod thickness, gamma probe dead times and
	Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling	incorporating all other applicable calibration factors. Total gamma eU3O8
	was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was	•	33 mm Aus-Log total gamma probes were used and operated by company
	pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other		personnel.
	cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	•	Gamma probes were initially calibrated at Pelindaba, South Africa, in May 2007 and in December 2007; re-calibrated at the calibration pit located at Langer Heinrich Uranium Mine site in December 2014, May 2015, August 2017 and July 2018.
		•	Sensitivity checks were conducted by periodic re-logging of a test hole (Hole-
			ALAD1480).
		•	During the drilling, the probes were checked daily against a standard source.
		•	Gamma measurements were taken at 5 cm intervals at a logging speed of
			approximately 2 m per minute.
		•	Probing was done immediately after drilling mainly through the drill rods and in
			some cases in open holes. Rod factors have been established to compensate
			for the reduced gamma counts when logging was done through the drill rods.
			No correction for water was done. The drill holes were dry.
		•	All gamma measurements were corrected for dead time which is unique to each
			probe.

17

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	•	Commentary
		•	All corrected (dead time and rod factor) gamma values were converted to
			equivalent eU3O8values over the same intervals using the probe-specific K-
			factor.
		•	Disequilibrium studies commenced on 22 samples by ANSTO Minerals in 2008.
			Results confirmed that the U238decay chains of the wider Tumas deposit are in
			secular equilibrium within an analytical error of ± 10%.
		Chemical assay data
		•	Geochemical samples were derived from Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling at
			intervals of 1 m. Samples were spilt at the drill site using either a riffle or cone
			splitter to obtain a 1 to 4 kg sample from which approx. 90 to 150 g were used
			to produce a subset sample for XRF-analysis.
		•	A representative proportion of the mineralised intersection from the Tumas 1, 2
			and 3 drilling programs were assayed for U3O8using pressed powder XRF and
			ICP-MS.
		•	In the 2017 and 2018 resource drilling programs a total of 1,305 samples,
			including duplicates, blanks and standards were submitted to ALS in Perth for
			U3O8analysis following the procedure above for confirmatory assay.
		•	In the 2006 to 2013 drilling programs 16,048 samples from Tumas 1, 2 and 3
			were assayed for U3O8by loose powder XRF. 15,364 of these were assayed at
			the company’s own laboratory in Swakopmund Namibia, 646 at Set Point
			Laboratories, RSA and 38 samples were analysed at Scientific Services, RSA.
		•	In 2014 a confirmatory test program included 240 samples which were analysed
			by the Bureau Veritas laboratory in Swakopmund for U3O8using ICP-MS. The
			external laboratory including repeat assays indicated a bias for samples above
			300ppm from drilling programs prior to April 2009. Consequently, a factor of
			minus 22.6% was applied to this subset of relevant assays.
		•	Taken all factors into account the recent and previous assay results confirm
			equivalent uranium grades correctly correlated to the assay results and remain
			within a statisticallyacceptable margin of error.
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer,	•	RC drilling is being used throughout the drilling program.
	rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and	•	All holes are being drilled vertically and intersections measured present true thicknesses.
	_if so, by what method, etc). _

18

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	•	Commentary
Drill sample	• Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample	•	Drill chip recoveries are good at around 90+%.
recovery	recoveries and results assessed.	•	Drill chip recoveries are measured by weighing the entire 1m drill chip sample
	• Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples. • Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to	•	at the drill site. Weights were recorded in sample tag books. Sample loss was minimised by placing the sample bags directly underneath the cyclone/splitter
	preferential loss/gainof fine/coarse material.
Logging	• Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	•	All drill holes are being geologically logged.
	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	• •	The logging is qualitative in nature. A lithology type is being determined for all samples. Other parameters routinely logged include colour, colour intensity, weathering, oxidation, grain size, carbonate (CaCO3) content, sample condition (wet, dry) and total gamma count using a hand held Rad-Eye scintillometer.
	logged.	•	Lithology codes were used to generate wireframes for the palaeotopography of
			the palaeochannel.
		•	This information was used inplanningdrill hole locations.
Sub-sampling	• If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all	•	A portable 2-tier (75%/25%) splitter was used to treat a full 1m sample from the
techniques and sample preparation	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	• •	cyclone into an appropriate size assay sample. All sampling was dry. The above sub-sampling techniques are common industry practice and appropriate. Sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.
	stages to maximise representivity of samples.	•	Duplicates were inserted into the assay batches at an approximate rate of one
	• Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative		for every 10 samples which is compatible with industry norm.
	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.	• •	Standards and blank samples were inserted at an approximate rate of one each for every 20 samples. Standards used throughout the campaigns were AMIS0076, AMIS0078, AMIS0087, AMIS0090, AMIS0114, AMIS0186, AMIS0208 and OREAS-122.
			The standards performed well within acceptable limits of one standard
			deviation.
Quality of assay	• The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	•	The analytical method employed was XRF and MCP-MS. The techniques are
data and laboratory	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is		industry standard and considered appropriate.
tests	considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, theparameters used in determining the	•	Downhole gamma tools were used to calculate equivalent U3O8values as explained under ‘sampling techniques’. This is the principal evaluating

19

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	•	Commentary
	analysis including instrument make and model, reading		technique.
	times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.
	• Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards,
	blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether
	acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision
	_have been established. _
Verification of	• The verification of significant intersections by either	•	Geology was directly recorded digitally into a tablet in the field and sample tag
sampling and	independent or alternative company personnel.		books were filed in at the drill site.
assaying	• 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.	• •	The drill data of those logs and tag books (lithology, sample specifications etc.) were transferred by designated personnel into a geological database. Equivalent eU3O8values have previously been and were for the current program calculated from raw gamma files by applying calibration factors and
			casing factors where applicable.
		•	All adjustment factors were stored in the database.
		•	Equivalent eU3O8data were composited to 1m intervals.
		•	The ratio of eU3O8vs assayed U3O8for matching composites were used to
			quantifythe statistical error.
Location of data	• Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes	•	The initial collars were frequently surveyed by the project geologist using
points	(collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and		handheld GPS, this following resurveying by in-house surveyor personnel using
	other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.		a differential GPS after the hole was drilled.
	• Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	•	All drill holes are vertical and shallow; therefore, no down-hole surveying was required.
		•	Thegrid system is World Geodetic System(WGS)1984, Zone 33.
Data spacing and	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	•	The data spacing and distribution is optimized along channel direction. Drill hole
distribution	• Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to		spacing varied at 25, 50 or 100m along 25, 50,100 or 200m spaced lines.
	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.	•	The resource drill grid at Tumas 3 is close to 100m by 100m in EW and NS rectangular directions following the main target channel. At Tumas 1 East the resource grid varies between 100m by 100m or 200m by 100m and sometimes 50m by 50m if required. The resource drill grid at Tumas 1 and 2 is closed to
			25m by 25m .
		•	The 100m by 100m drill hole spacing is considered sufficient to define an
			inferred resource for parts of the Tumas 1, 2 and 3 deposits. The uranium
			mineralisation at Tumas 1 East was found to be very consistent along the
			channel strike. Hence drill spacings of 100m by200m were found to be

20

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	•	Commentary
			sufficient for an inferred resource estimate. Drill spacings at Tumas 1 and 2
			were 50m by 50m or 25m by 25m in some areas resulting in categories
			measured and indicated resource estimates for this deposit.
		•	The total gamma count data, which is recorded at 5 cm intervals, was used to
			calculate equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) which were composited to 1 m
			composites.
Orientation of data	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased	•	Uranium mineralisation is strata bound and distributed in fairly continuous
in relation to geological structure	sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	•	horizontal zones. Holes are being drilled vertically and mineralised intercepts represent true widths. All holes were sampled down-hole from surface. Geochemical samples are being collected at 1 m intervals. Total gamma count data is being collected at 5 cm intervals.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	•	1m RC drill chip samples were prepared at the drill site. The assay samples
			were stored in plastic bags. Sample tags were placed inside the bags. The
			samples were placed into plastic crates and transported from the drill site to
			RMR’s site premises in Swakopmund by company personnel, prior to analyses
			and from there to the external laboratories when used.
		•	Upon completion of the assay work the remainder of the drill chip sample bags
			for each hole was packed back into crates and then stored in designated
			containers in chronological order, locked up and kept safe at RMR’s dedicated
			sample storageyard at RockyPoint located outside Swakopmund.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques	•	D. M. Barrett (PhD MAIG) conducted an audit of gross count gamma logging
	and data.		procedures and log reduction methods used by Deep Yellow Limited.
		•	He concludes his audit commenting: “In summary, it is my belief that the
			equivalent uranium grades reported by Reptile from their gamma logging
			program are reliable and areprobablywithin a fewpercent to the truegrade”.

21

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement and	• Type, reference name/number, location and	•	The work to which the Exploration Results relate was undertaken on exclusive
land tenure status	ownership including agreements or material issues		prospecting grant EPL3496 and 3497.
	with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of	•	The EPLs were originally granted to Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd (RUN) in 2006. The EPLs are in good standing and are valid until 05 June 2019. A renewal application for a two-year extension has been submitted to the Ministry of Mines and Energy and is expected to be granted.
	reporting along with any known impediments to	•	The EPLs are located within the Namib Naukluft-National Park in Namibia.
	obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	•	The EPLs are subject to an agreement with a Namibian partner whereby the
			partner has the right to acquire 5% of the project for historical costs.
		•	There are no known impediments to the project beyond Namibia’s standard
			permitting procedures.
Exploration done by other	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by	•	Prior to RUN’s ownership of this EPL, work was conducted by Anglo American
parties	other parties.		Prospecting Services (AAPS), General Mining and Falconbridge in the 1970s.
		•	Assay results from the historical drilling are available to RUN on paper logs.
			Theywere not captured digitallyand are not be used for resource estimation.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting and style of	•	The Tumas 1, 2 and 3 uranium mineralisation occurs as secondary carnotite
	mineralisation.		enrichment of variably calcretised palaeochannel and sheet wash sediments
			and adjacent weathered bedrock.
		•	Uranium mineralisation at Tumas is surficial, strata bound and hosted by
			Cenozoic / Tertiary sediments, which include from top to bottom scree, sand,
			gypcrete, calcrete, intercalated calcareous sands and/or conglomerates or
			more massive calcrete in places.
		•	The majority of the mineralisation is hosted in calcrete. Locally, the underlying
			weathered Proterozoic bedrock is occasionally mineralised along joints and
			fractures.
Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the	•	1,330 holes for a total of 31,861m have been drilled in the recent 2017, 2018
	understanding of the exploration results including a		program on Tumas 1, 2 and 3. Between 2006 and 2013 7,402 holes for
	tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes:	•	131,531m have been drilled across Tumas 1, 2 and 3. All holes were drilled vertically, and intersections measuredpresent true

22

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	o easting and northing of the drill hole collar		thicknesses.
	o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole	•	Drill hole details including uranium intersections have been reported regularly while drilling programs were carried out.
	o down hole length and interception depth
	o hole length.
	• If the exclusion of this information is justified on the
	basis that the information is not Material and this
	exclusion does not detract from the understanding of
	the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	_explain why this is the case. _
Data aggregation	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging	•	5 cm intervals of down hole gamma counts per second (cps) logged inside the
methods	techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade		drill rods were converted to equivalent uranium values, composited into 1m
	truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths	•	down hole intervals showing greater than 100ppm eU3O8values over 1m. No grade truncations were applied.
	of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade
	results, the procedure used for such aggregation
	should be stated and some typical examples of such
	aggregations should be shown in detail.
	• The assumptions used for any reporting of metal
	_equivalent values should be clearly stated. _
Relationship between	• These relationships are particularly important in the	•	The mineralisation is sub-horizontal and all drilling vertical, therefore,
mineralisation widths and intercept lengths	reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to		mineralised intercepts are considered to represent true widths.
	the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be
	reported.
	• If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are
	reported, there should be a clear statement to this
	_effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’). _
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and	•	Drill hole locations and anomalous intervals have been reported regularly while
	tabulations of intercepts should be included for any		the relevant drilling programs were in progress or on their completion.
	significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole	•	Maps and sections are included in the text.
	_collar locations and appropriate sectional views. _
Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration	•	Comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results was practised at various
	Results is not practicable, representative reporting of		times throughout the relevant drilling programs.
	both low and high grades and/or widths should be
	_practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration _

23

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	_Results. _
Other substantive	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material,	•The wider area and Tumas deposit were subject to drilling in the 1970’s and
exploration data	should be reported including (but not limited to):	1980’s by Anglo American Prospecting Services, Falconbridge and General
	geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock	Mining. •An airborne EM survey conducted in 2009 better defined the broad palaeochannel system.
	characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating	•Downhole gamma-gamma density logging for bulk density was conducted by
	substances.	Terratec on the Tumas 1 and 2 resources.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (eg	•Further drilling work is planned in the Tumas 1 East area and west of the
	tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or	currently defined Tumas 3 Zone and its extensions.
	large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological	•Further extension drilling is expected as various tributaries in the Tumas 1 East area remain untested.
	interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this
	_information is not commercially sensitive. _

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	• Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for	A set of SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) was defined that safeguard
integrity	example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	data integrity which cover the following aspects:
	• Data validation procedures used.	•Capturing of all exploration data; geology and probing;
		•QA/QC of all drilling, geophysical and laboratory data;
		•Data storage (database management), security and back-up;
		•Reporting and statistical analyses used Micromine (MM) software and
		Minestis.
Site visits	• Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person	•During the 2017 and 2018 drilling programs regular site visits were
	and the outcome of those visits.	conducted by the Company’s in-house Competent Person who
	• If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	confirms correctness off all exploration data.

24

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
		•	The Company’s current Competent Person undertakes regular visits
			to the project areas.
Geological	• Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological	•	Confidence in the geological interpretation and modelling of the
interpretation	interpretation of the mineral deposit.		channel is high. This type of geology is well known, understood and
	• Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		readily recognised in the RC drill chips.
	• The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral	•	The factors affecting grade distribution are mainly rock type (calcrete)
	Resource estimation.		and position to source strata. The channel bedrock profile is a
	• The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource		furthermore critical component.
	estimation.
	• _The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology. _
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as	•	The drilled orebodies have a combined strike length of 38 km, are 100
	length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below		to 900m wide and 3 to 50m deep.
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	•	The main mineralised calcrete reaches from a shallow depth below
			surface of -2 to -3m deep down to -20m/25m
Estimation	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)	•	The present estimate is based on grade/lithology domains restricting
and modelling techniques	applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer	•	geostatistical interpolations into blocks estimates bound to domain solids. Block sizes used are 50m east x 50m west x 3m elevation Resources were estimated by Ordinary Kriging (OK) using a 100ppm
	software and parameters used.		lower limit without any grade capping. Search ranges remained
	• The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine		restricted to max 1½ drill hole spaces and remained restricted to
	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. • The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. • Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of	• •	geology in defined calcrete solids and grade shells. Omnidirectional variograms were used in the current estimates. Block validation was done using qualitative drill hole displays over
	economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage		block estimates. The current block estimates correlate with
	characterisation).		composited eU3O8GT (Grade Thickness) data.
	• In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to
	the average sample spacing and the search employed.
	• Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.
	• Any assumptions about correlation between variables.
	• Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control
	the resource estimates.
	• _Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. _

25

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
	• The process of validation, the checking process used, the
	comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of
	reconciliation data if available.
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural	•	An optical assessment of sample material was done during the
	moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.		sampling process and samples were classified as either “dry” or “wet”.
			The current drilling program did intersect limited water at times.
		•Tonnages are estimated dry.
Cut-off	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters	•1m composites below eU3O8of 100ppm were excluded from the
parameters	applied.		estimation process.
		•The range of cut-off grades were chosen based on “potentially
			economic” criteria and the fact that mineralisation is continuous.
Mining factors	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum	•Potential scenarios are open cast mining with one, two or three-metre
or	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining		mining bench heights.,
assumptions	dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of
	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction
	to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made
	regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating
	Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the
	case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of
	_the mining assumptions made. _
Metallurgical	• The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical	•	Detailed mineralogical characterisation tests were conducted from the
factors or	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of		upper Tumas areas which allowed the Company to derive a sound
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction		understanding of how a calcrete ore from Tumas would respond to
	to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions		beneficiation and further downstream processing.
	regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made	•	Also, the nearby Langer Heinrich uranium mine has successfully mined
	when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.		and processed calcrete ore for almost a decade. Although its grade is
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation		higher the mineralogical characteristics are very similar.
	_of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made. _
Environmen-	• Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue	•	Independent consultant SoftChem completed a scoping level
tal factors or assumptions	disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields	• •	Environmental Impact Assessment for the Tumas Project in 2013. As the mining progresses to different sections of the mine, waste material will be backfilled into some of the mined-out areas. Rehabilitation of the mined-out areas and stockpile facility will be
	project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early		progressive throughout the life of the mine. Any remaining waste rock
	consideration of thesepotential environmental impacts should be

26

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
	reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this		stockpiles will be shaped and contoured to blend into the surrounding
	should be reported with an explanation of the environmental		environment.
	_assumptions made. _
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the	•	Bulk density was derived from borehole density logging (gamma-
	assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry,		gamma) from drilling at Tumas 1 and 2 in 2014.
	the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples. • The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,	• •	284 1m composites where measured resulting in an average density of 2.35. 2.35 was used for the current estimate
	etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones	•	At the Langer Heinrich mine bulk density is defined as 2.35 after
	within the deposit.		mining geologically equivalent material for 10 years.
	• Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
	_evaluation process of the different materials. _
Classification	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into	•	This Mineral Resource Estimate reflects Measured, Indicated and
	varying confidence categories.		Inferred Resources.
	• Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values,	• •	Semi-variography presented structures with ranges of up to 155m. Search ranges were used accordingly to drilling data-density at max of
	quality, quantity and distribution of the data).		1 1/2 drill positions.
	• Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s	•	A search of up to 145m over minimum 4 sectors was applied to assign
	view of the deposit.		eU3O8grades to blocks; sub-searches were restricted to 8x1m
			composites per sector.
		•	The average mineralised seam thickness is in the order of 2 to 10m.
		•	The Competent Person is satisfied that the applied methodology is
			appropriate, and the resulting block estimate is a true reflection of the
			drillingdata.
Audits or	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource	•	No additional reviews were conducted beyond those carried out by the
reviews	estimates.		various Competent Persons over time.
Discussion of	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and	•	The applied geostatistical approach to arrive at the Mineral Resource is
relative accuracy/ confidence	confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed	• •	considered sound and reflects industry standard approaches across the globe and industry. The resulting block model present a true representation of drilling data. It is this Competent Person’s opinion that the classification of the
	appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect		Inferred part of the Mineral Resource can improve by adding limited infill
	the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.		drilling to improve continuity definition.

27

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	• 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. _

28