DEEP YELLOW LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021

Oct 4, 2021

==> picture [212 x 54] intentionally omitted <==

NEWS RELEASE

5 October 2021

MAJOR ORE RESERVE MILESTONE ACHIEVED FOR TUMAS DFS

HIGHLIGHTS

• DFS resource upgrade drilling completed at Tumas 3 and 1 East delivered >100% direct conversion of existing Inferred Mineral Resources (where drilled) to Indicated Mineral Resource category

• Tumas Probable Ore Reserves increased by an impressive 121% to 68.4Mlb U3O8 at 345ppm using a 150ppm U3O8 cut off

• Key focus of drill program was to achieve the major milestone upgrading the Tumas LOM operation to 20+ years

• Significant potential exists to further increase LOM through remaining Inferred Resources available for upgrade with approximately 40% of the highly prospective Tumas Palaeochannel system remaining to be adequately tested 

INTRODUCTION

Uranium developer Deep Yellow Limited (ASX: DYL) ( Deep Yellow ) is pleased to announce a significant milestone successfully delivering an impressive 121% increase to the updated Ore Reserve Estimate ( ORE ) (see Table 1) for the Tumas Project on EPL3496 and 3497. Deep Yellow completed a successful Pre-Feasibility Study ( PFS ) on the Tumas Project and commenced the Definitive Feasibility Study ( DFS ) as announced to ASX on 10 February 2021.

The deposits, held 100% by Deep Yellow through its wholly owned subsidiary Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd ( RUN ), are covered by Mining Lease Application ( MLA ) 237. See Figure 1.

Table 1: Tumas Project Expanded Ore Reserves

==> picture [352 x 83] intentionally omitted <==

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

Classification U3O8 Cut-
off Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 Metal
ppm Mt ppm Mlb
Proved 150 0.0 0 0.0
Probable 150 89.8 345 68.4
Total 150 89.8 345 68.4
----- End of picture text -----

The PFS utilised only part of the known resources at Tumas and defined a Probable Ore Reserve base of 31Mlb U3O8 at 344ppm, using a cut-off grade of 150ppm. The size of the Ore Reserve was sufficient for an 11.8-year Life of Mine ( LOM ) operation and identified a project with positive viability parameters and clear potential to meet the Company’s publicly stated investment criteria.

A key focus area of the DFS was to increase and upgrade the Tumas Mineral Resources and update the Tumas ORE, upon which the DFS would be based, to ensure a LOM greater than 20 years. Following the successful resource upgrade drilling program as previously announced, this major ORE milestone has been achieved.

SIGNIFICANT INCREASE IN INDICATED MINERAL RESOURCES

In August 2021, Deep Yellow successfully completed a five-month, resource-upgrade drilling program, focused on the Tumas 3 and 1 East deposits (see Figure 2).

This program completed 1,473 holes, for 24,942m and results (reported to the ASX on 13 July and 19 August 2021) led to an updated Mineral Resource Estimate ( MRE ), with Indicated Mineral Resources of 98.7Mlb U3O8 at 266ppm for the combined Tumas 1, 1-East, 2 and 3 deposits, at a 100ppm U3O8 cut off (announced to ASX 29 July and 2 September 2021).

In addition, a further 15.3Mlb U3O8 at 215ppm of Inferred Mineral Resources remains within these deposits and may be upgraded at a future date. Overall, at a 100 ppm U3O8 cut off, these deposits now contain total Mineral Resources of 114Mlb U3O8 at 258ppm.

UPDATED ORE RESERVES DELIVER A 20+YEAR DFS LOM

The significant increase in Indicated Mineral Resources announced for both Tumas 3 and 1 East have proved sufficient to achieve the first key milestone of the DFS, which is to establish sufficient Ore Reserves to support a 20+ year LOM.

Using the economic parameters and other modifying factors reported in the PFS, the Ore Reserves available at Tumas have now been updated and, as a consequence, have been substantially increased. The updated ORE for the Tumas Project totals Probable Ore Reserves of 68.4Mlb U3O8 at 345ppm, using a 150ppm U3O8 cut-off for Tumas 1,2, 3 and 1 East (see Table 2), with a waste to ore ratio of 2.6:1.

This updated ORE represents a 121% increase from the maiden Tumas ORE announced in the PFS.

This substantial increase in Ore Reserves confirms that Tumas will support a +20-year LOM at production rates assumed for the PFS (a maximum of either 3.75Mtpa or 3.0Mlb U3O8 pa).

Table 2: Tumas Project Updated Ore Reserves by Deposit

==> picture [435 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

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

Tumas Probable Ore Reserve Estimates
U3O8 Cut- Maiden Reserve Updated Reserve
Area off Tonnes U3O8 MetalU3O8 Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 Metal
ppm Mt ppm Mlb Mt ppm Mlb
Tumas 1&2 150 13.9 292 9.0 14.5 272 8.94
Tumas 1 East 150 29.5 267 17.35
Tumas 3 150 26.9 371 22.0 46.3 412 42.11
Total 150 40.9 344 31.0 89.9 345 68.40
----- End of picture text -----

The rounding in the above table is an attempt to represent levels of precision implied in the estimation process which may result in apparent errors of summation in some columns.

Cube Consulting (Cube) was engaged by the Company to undertake the Ore Reserve Update.

Cube completed a number of key workstreams which included collation of input parameters, open pit optimisation studies on the Indicated Mineral Resources of the deposit, open pit

Page 2 of 41

designs and pit production scheduling, culminating in the reporting of an Updated Ore Reserve for Tumas.

The pit production and process feed schedule developed for the ORE ramps up mining to the designed production rates in the first year and continues over 20 years at an average head grade of 398ppm U3O8, allowing average production of approximately 2.8Mlbpa U3O8 for 20 years (compared to an average of 2.56Mlbpa U3O8 in the PFS for 11.5 years). Mining will commence at Tumas 3 and transition into Tumas 1 and 1 East after 7 years, continuing to produce from all three orebodies until cessation of mining after 20 years. Recovery from stockpiles will continue for an additional 5.75 years at lower production rates.

In total 64.1Mlb U3O8 will be produced from 89.8Mt of ore, at an average grade of 345 ppm U3O8, containing 68.4Mlb U3O8 over a total LOM of 27.5 years (25.75 production years).

Significant upside remains for optimisation of annual Run-of Mine (ROM) throughputs, which will be a key ongoing focus for DFS work.

Commenting on the major DFS milestone Deep Yellow Managing Director Mr John Borshoff commented: “We continue to deliver on what we set out to achieve for the Tumas DFS. We have achieved a very important milestone with the substantial Ore Reserve upgrade that has been announced confirming a long Life of Mine operation that is now possible for the Tumas Project.

“We are delivering continued value and growth through targeted exploration and development and growth of the Tumas Ore Reserves provide the team with great confidence to proceed with evaluation of a 20+ year LOM operation in the Tumas DFS.

“A major risk milestone for Tumas has been overcome and we are very pleased with the results, which have confirmed Tumas as a long life of mine operation and demonstrated great potential to develop the Project into a tier-one uranium deposit.

“Importantly, significant potential remains to grow Tumas through upgrading remaining Inferred Resources and further exploration of Tumas Palaeochannel, with approximately 40% yet to be fully tested, providing Deep Yellow with exceptional, additional optionality for optimisation of the DFS, which is expected to be completed in the latter part of CY2022”.

Page 3 of 41

==> picture [425 x 478] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: EPLs 3496, 3497 showing Tumas Deposits with MLA 176 and main prospect locations over palaeochannels.

IMPLICATIONS FOR THE DFS

The significant increase in Ore Reserves for the Tumas Project has very clear and positive implications for the ongoing DFS, which include:

• Development criteria for a 20+ year LOM has been established at throughput and production rates assumed for the PFS (a maximum of either 3.75Mt pa throughput or 3.0Mlb pa of U3O8);

• Extended LOM is likely to materially increase the NPV for the Project and may also increase the IRR;

Page 4 of 41

• Mine schedules developed in this update indicate that for the first 20 years of production, 68.7Mt of ore may be processed at a grade of 398 ppm U3O8, resulting in production of 56.5Mlb U3O8 (2.82Mlb U3O8 pa average);

• In the subsequent 5.75 years of operation (in the unlikely event that no further higher grade reserves are identified) 21.1Mt of ore may be processed at a grade of 175ppm U3O8, resulting in production of a further 7.6Mlb U3O8 (1.33Mlb U3O8 pa average);

• In addition to this, at the end of the 25.75 years of production, a further 17.0Mt of low grade ore at an average grade of 131ppm U3O8 will remain stockpiled and may be treated profitably, should economic conditions allow; and

• Exploration of the remaining 40% of prospective Tumas palaeochannel is expected to reveal additional resources and an eventual LOM operation of over 30 years cannot be discounted.

In other DFS work undertaken to date, there have been no material adverse outcomes or issues identified compared to the PFS parameters for Tumas and consequently, it is reasonable to conclude that neither C1 nor All-In-Sustaining (AIS) Costs will increase compared to PFS determinations.

While this very important step of upgrading Ore Reserves has been completed, and consistent with the other “next steps” identified when the DFS commenced, the following activities have been undertaken or commenced:

• Detailed trade-off and optimisation studies recommended in the PFS.

• Metallurgical optimisation test work and analysis.

• Engagement of a suitable engineering service provider, Ausenco Services Pty Limited, to assist in the development aspects of the Tumas Project.

• Expansion of the Deep Yellow technical team to facilitate and support the DFS.

• EIA completion and submission of a Mining Licence application covering the Tumas Project area (announced to ASX 27 July 2021).

TUMAS PROJECT UPDATED ORE RESERVE ESTIMATE

Overall Mineral Resource Status

The MRE for the Tumas Deposits (Tumas 1, 1 East, 2 and 3) is reported in Table1 and 2 in Appendix 1 at 100, 150 and 200ppm U3O8 cut-off grades. The most recent JORC Mineral Resources for Tumas were announced on 29 July 2021 and 2 September 2021. The location of the mineralisation area and Mining Lease application are shown in Figure 2. Drill hole and palaeochannel locations are shown in Figure 3. A cross-section through Tumas 3 is shown in Figure 4.

A cut-off grade of 100ppm U3O8 has been selected as the MRE quoted cut-off grade, based on economic grade parameters, in order to reasonably reflect the expected total mining inventory. The cut-off used for the PFS and current Mining Study Ore Reserves estimate was 150ppm U3O8 with material in the 100 – 150ppm U3O8 grade range expected to be stockpiled as mineralised waste for possible future processing. This 100 – 150ppm U3O8 material is classed as waste for the purposes of stripping ratio determination and cost allocation.

Page 5 of 41

==> picture [415 x 293] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 : Tumas Project, showing MLA 176 (in red outline), Deposits and Palaeochannel Locations.

==> picture [425 x 247] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3 : Tumas Project, Drill Hole and Palaeochannel Locations.

Page 6 of 41

==> picture [415 x 246] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4: Tumas 3 Deposit, North-South drill hole cross-section, 507650E

Updated Ore Reserve Estimation

Summary information in relation to the updated Ore Reserve is set out immediately below and detailed in Appendix 2 in accordance with Section 4 of Table 1 of the JORC Code.

Cube was engaged by Deep Yellow to complete mining engineering work for the Tumas PFS.

Cube completed its work, which forms part of the PFS, based on a processing plant designed to produce 3.0Mlb U3O8 product per annum and a processing capacity of 3.75Mtpa of uranium bearing ore. The Cube report serves as a record of the technical mine engineering work completed towards the Tumas Project as part of the PFS.

Cube was again engaged by the Company to undertake the Ore Reserve Update based on the parameters developed as part of the PFS and the updated Mineral Resources consequently identified and reported.

The scope of work for Cube included collation of input parameters, open pit optimisation studies on the Indicated Mineral Resources of the deposit, open pit designs and pit production scheduling, culminating in the reporting of an Updated Ore Reserve for Tumas.

Following the pit optimisations and shell selection, a final pit design was completed together with internal staged pit designs. The shape and geometry of the final pit designs are shown in Figures 5, 6 and 7.

A pit production and process feed schedule was completed in quarterly increments resulting in an 25.75 year mine life, exclusive of pre-production development and three quarters of preproduction mining in which:

• Waste stripping is conducted;

• A Run of Mine (ROM) ore stockpile is built to have process feed material available from the start of production; and

• A completed pit void is established to serve as the initial Tailings Storage Facility for the Project.

Page 7 of 41

The schedule demonstrates that the mine can provide sufficient material to maintain a consistent process feed rate and grade to achieve the targeted U3O8 production throughout the first 20 years of planned mine life, tapering after that time due to reduced grade.

Graphical results of the planned tonnes mined, area mined, ore tonnes and grade mined and ore processed in the production schedule are shown in Figures 8, 9, 10 and 11 respectively.

The work completed at PFS level in support of the modifying factors, facilitates the reporting of an Updated Ore Reserve for this Project in accordance with the guidelines in the JORC Code (2012). Probable Ore Reserves have been derived from the Indicated Mineral Resources contained within the final pit design and scheduled to be processed through the planned processing facility.

The Updated Ore Reserve is contained within an open pit containing 216.0Mt of waste material, plus 17.0Mt of low grade (<150ppm U3O8) and inferred material (considered as mineralised waste and separately stockpiled), resulting in a waste to ore (tonnes) strip ratio of 2.59:1 and a total aggregate open pit size of 322.8Mt.

==> picture [425 x 280] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Tumas 3 Pit Shells.

Page 8 of 41

==> picture [425 x 280] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 6: Tumas 1East Pit Shells.

==> picture [425 x 279] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7: Tumas 1 Pit Shells.

Page 9 of 41

==> picture [400 x 294] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8: Tumas Project Production Schedules.

==> picture [390 x 286] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9: Tumas Project Production Schedules.

Page 10 of 41

==> picture [388 x 267] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 10: Tumas Project Production Schedules.

==> picture [390 x 269] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 11: Tumas Project Production Schedules.

Final input parameters containing processing, operating, fixed and mining costs and recovery were provided to Cube by Deep Yellow.

This information consisted of base economic, geotechnical, mining and processing parameters required for the Cube study. These inputs are listed in Table 4.

Page 11 of 41

Economic parameters provided by Deep Yellow were used in completing open pit optimisations using WHITTLE® software, which uses the Lerchs-Grossman algorithm to determine a range of optimal shells at varying metal prices. The program generates economic shells based on input parameters consisting operating costs (mining & processing costs, royalties, selling costs), metallurgical recoveries, geologic and geotechnical (slope) considerations. The optimal pit shells derived from the open pit optimisation are then used to develop open pit mine plans for the deposit. The sections below discuss the parameters used in the pit optimisation process.

All dollars ($) quoted are in 2020 United States (US) dollars unless otherwise specified.

Table 3: Tumas Project, Ore Reserve, Physical and Base Inputs.

==> picture [295 x 314] intentionally omitted <==

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

Physicals and Base Inputs
Item Unit Value
Ore treated ktpa 3,748
Met Recovery U3O8 % 93.3
Fuel Price $/l 0.56
Exchange rate (N$:US$) 19.1372
U3O8 produced Mlb pa 2.98
Base Price U3O8 US$/lb 65
Selling Costs $/lb U3O8 1.59
Ore Based Costs
Mining $/t Ore 2.56
Processing $/t Ore 9.33
Maintenance $/t Ore 1.55
G&A $/t Ore 1.75
SHR $/t Ore 0.33
Environment $/t Ore 0.10
HR $/t Ore 0.08
Marketing $/t Ore 0.08
Total Ore Based Costs $/t Ore 15.79
----- End of picture text -----

Mining Dilution and Ore Loss

The models supplied were estimated using MIK with information effect adjustments and have been treated as recoverable resource models thereby not requiring additional mining dilution and ore loss factors.

Metallurgical Recoveries

A metallurgical recovery assumption of 93.3% was used in the pit optimisation process. This was supplied by Deep Yellow.

Discount Rate

A discount factor of 10% per annum was applied at a maximum throughput rate of 3.748Mtpa. The discounted cash flows which are exclusive of capital expenditure, are indicative only and used for comparison purposes in the optimisation evaluation and shell selections.

Page 12 of 41

Cut-off Grade Calculation

Treatment plant breakeven cut-off grade was calculated to demonstrate a theoretical breakeven point within the resources. A theoretical, calculated cut-off was determined by:

𝑇𝑟𝑒𝑎𝑡𝑚𝑒𝑛𝑡 𝑃𝑙𝑎𝑛𝑡 𝐶𝑜𝑠𝑡𝑠

𝐶𝑢𝑡−𝑂𝑓𝑓 𝐺𝑟𝑎𝑑𝑒(%)	=	𝑀𝑒𝑡𝑎𝑙 𝑃𝑟𝑖𝑐𝑒 ∗(1 −𝑅𝑜𝑦𝑎𝑙𝑡𝑦)∗ 𝑅𝑒𝑐𝑜𝑣𝑒𝑟𝑦
Where:
Treatment Plant Costs	=	processing and all ore related costs ($/t)
Metal Price	=	U3O8price
Royalty	=	All royalties payable
Recovery	=	Metallurgical Recovery (%)

The calculated breakeven cut-off grade using the above input parameters is 121ppm U3O8. Analyses of numerous scenario iterations of pit optimisation and production scheduling resulted in a strategic decision to base this study and hence the reported Ore Reserves on an elevated cut-off grade of 150pmm U3O8.

Geotechnical Parameters

Overall slope angles used in the optimisation are 35[o] . No allowance was made for ramps as it was decided ramps could be positioned where required for little extra cost or effect on the overall shell due to the very flat and shallow nature of the resultant open pits.

Project Funding

Deep Yellow has formed the view that there are reasonable grounds to believe that the Tumas Project is capable of being financed in the future, as and when required. The grounds for this view are:

• There is significant market interest in the sector given the need to drive down greenhouse gas emissions and meet the various targets set by the Paris Accord, in an environment which sees forecast growth in electricity production;

• Over the past decade there has been a significant reduction in the number of companies which have either a viable resource to be developed and/or the expertise to develop it. Deep Yellow is debt free and holds 100% of the Tumas Project;

• The technical and financial assumptions detailed in the PFS demonstrate the potential of the Tumas Project to be economically robust and highly attractive. A combination of debt and equity will likely be utilised to fund the development of the Project; and

• The executive team have significant relevant and recent experience in the development of uranium mines in Namibia. In this regard the key executives have a demonstrated track record in project developments of this nature.

ASX ADDITIONAL INFORMATION

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

Page 13 of 41

Deposit Parameters: The Tumas Project uranium mineralisation is of the calcrete-type located within an extensive, mainly east-west trending, palaeochannel system. The uranium mineralisation occurs in association 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 high enough. 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, mines this type of deposit and has been in operation since 2007.

The mineralisation included in this study has a strike length of approximately 40km and ranges in width between 300m to 1200m extending to a maximum depth of 30m along the main Tumas channel. Thicknesses vary from 1m to 15m. The mineralisation occurs in a reasonably continuous, seam-like horizon, occurring between depths of 1m to 30m and extends west beyond the infill drilled area (see Figure 3).

Methodology

All relevant drill hole details and results were previously reported by Deep Yellow in announcements made to the ASX on 2 September, 19 August 2021, 21 August 2019, 27 November 2018, 05 November 2018, 17 October 2018 and 2 October 2018.

Figure 3 shows the Tumas Deposits drill hole locations with the collars coloured according to grade thickness (GT- eU3O8 ppm x metre thickness) outlining the extent and nature of the mineralisation over the 40km length of channel tested which was the focus of this current ORE work.

CONCLUSION

Ongoing exploration and drilling of the Tumas palaeochannel continues to prove highly successful, fully endorsing the new approach that has been taken in both identifying and testing of what has proven to be a highly prospective regional target.

The infill drilling, undertaken to improve the classification of uranium Mineral Resources at Tumas 3 and 1 East, shows an extremely high >100% conversion rate from Inferred to Indicated Mineral Resources and subsequent uplift in Ore Reserve outcomes, which has positive implications for upgrading the remainder of Tumas Inferred Mineral Resources.

The 114.1Mlb total Mineral Resource grading 249ppm U3O8 at Tumas 1, 1 East, 2 and 3 as shown on Table 1 and Table 2 in Appendix 1, now includes 98.7Mlb of Indicated Mineral Resources and 15.3Mlb Inferred Mineral Resources. Ore Reserves within these deposits now include 68.4Mlb at 345ppm U3O8, sufficient for the 20+ year LOM targeted by the current DFS.

As has been previously stated, work is clearly confirming that increasing the palaeochannel calcrete Mineral Resource base toward the upper of the stated range of 100M-150Mlb uranium Mineral Resources in the 300ppm to 500ppm U3O8 grade range remains a realistic objective, with a number of deposits to the west remaining open in both depth and extension.

The 50km of highly prospective palaeochannel identified, still to be tested in detail, provides significant exploration upside to further increase the uranium resource base. An eventual 30year LOM at 3Mlb pa for the Tumas Project is becoming a real possibility.

The current infill drilling and resultant positive ORE shows that a large proportion of the current Inferred Mineral Resources identified to date has a high probability to be upgraded to the

Page 14 of 41

Indicated JORC reporting status, of which a substantial proportion may convert to Ore Reserves. This has further important positive implications for the future of the Tumas Project.

Yours faithfully

JOHN BORSHOFF Managing Director/CEO Deep Yellow Limited

This ASX announcement was authorised for release by Mr John Borshoff, Managing Director/CEO, for and on behalf of the Board of Deep Yellow Limited.

For further information contact:

John Borshoff Managing Director/CEO T: +61 8 9286 6999 E: john.borshoff@deepyellow.com.au

About Deep Yellow Limited

Deep Yellow Limited is a differentiated, advanced uranium exploration company, in pre-development phase, implementing a 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, counter-cyclical acquisitions to build a global, geographically diverse asset portfolio. A PFS was completed in early 2021 on its Tumas Project in Namibia and a Definitive Feasibility Study commenced February 2021. 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.

ABN 97 006 391 948

Unit 17, Spectrum Building 100–104 Railway Road Subiaco, Western Australia 6008

PO Box 1770 Subiaco, Western Australia 6904

DYL: ASX & NSX (Namibia) DYLLF: OTCQX

www.deepyellow.com.au @deepyellowltd deep-yellow-limited

==> picture [16 x 13] intentionally omitted <==

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

==> picture [103 x 52] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [135 x 63] intentionally omitted <==

Page 15 of 41

Competent Persons’ Statements

Mineral Resource Estimate:

The information in this announcement that relates to the Tumas Mineral Resource Estimate is based on work completed by Mr. D Princep, B.Sc. Geology, who is a Fellow and Chartered Professional of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and 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. Princep consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Geophysics Component:

The deconvolution of the relevant Tumas 3 down-hole gamma data to convert the data to equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) was performed by experienced in-house personnel and checked by Dr Patrick Brunel, a geophysicist who works as a consultant with 25 years of relevant experience in the industry. Dr. Brunel obtained his doctorate in Earth Sciences (Geophysics) in 1995 and has over 10 years’ experience with this type of process 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). Dr Brunel in a member of the European Association of Geoscientists and Engineers and consents to the inclusion in this announcement of those 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 announcement, 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.

Ore Reserve Statement

The information in this announcement that relates to Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Mr Quinton de Klerk, who is employed by Cube Consulting. Mr de Klerk is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the activity he is undertaking 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 de Klerk consents to the inclusion in this announcement of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

Project and Technical Expertise

Mr Darryl Butcher is a process engineer/metallurgist working for Deep Yellow and has sufficient relevant experience to advise the Company on matters relating to mine development and uranium processing, project scheduling, processing methodology and project capital and operating costs. Mr Butcher is satisfied that the information provided in this announcement has been determined to a Pre-Feasibility Study level of accuracy and that the relevant modifying factors determined by the PFS are suitable to use as modifying factors for this updated ORE.

Page 16 of 41

APPENDIX 1

JORC RESOURCES

Table 1: Total Resources

==> picture [486 x 523] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cut-off Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 U3O8 Resource Categories (Mlb U3O8)
Deposit Category
(ppm (M) (ppm) (t) (Mlb) Measured Indicated Inferred
U3O8)
BASEMENT MINERALISATION
Omahola Project - JORC 2004
INCA Deposit ♦ Indicated 250 7.0 470 3,300 7.2 - 7.2 -
INCA Deposit ♦ Inferred 250 5.4 520 2,800 6.2 - - 6.2
Ongolo Deposit # Measured 250 7.7 395 3,000 6.7 6.7 - -
Ongolo Deposit # Indicated 250 9.5 372 3,500 7.8 - 7.8 -
Ongolo Deposit # Inferred 250 12.4 387 4,800 10.6 - - 10.6
MS7 Deposit # Measured 250 4.4 441 2,000 4.3 4.3 - -
MS7 Deposit # Indicated 250 1.0 433 400 1 - 1 -
MS7 Deposit # Inferred 250 1.3 449 600 1.3 - - 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 ♦ Indicated 100 78.0 320 24,900 54.9 - 54.9 -
Inferred 100 10.4 219 2,265 5.0 - 5.0
Tumas 3 Deposits Total 88.3 308 27,170 59.9
Tumas 1 & 2 Project – JORC 2012
Tumas 1 & 2 Deposit ♦ Indicated 100 54.1 203 10,987 24.2 - 24.2 -
Tumas 1 & 2 Deposit ♦ Inferred 100 2.4 206 503 1.1 - - 1.1
Tumas 1 & 2 Project Total 56.5 203 11,499 25.3
Tumas 1E Project – JORC 2012
Tumas 1E Deposit ♦ Indicated 100 36.3 245 8,873 19.6 19.6
Tumas 1E Deposit ♦ Inferred 100 19.4 216 4,189 9.2 9.2
Tumas 1E Deposit Total 55.7 235 13,061 28.8
Sub-Total of Tumas 1, 2 and 3 200.6 258 51,736 114.1
Tubas Red Sand Project - JORC 2012
Tubas Sand Deposit # Indicated 100 10.0 187 1,900 4.1 - 4.1 -
Tubas Sand Deposit # Inferred 100 24.0 163 3,900 8.6 - - 8.6
Tubas Red Sand Project Total 34.0 170 5,800 12.7
Tubas Calcrete Resource - JORC 2004
Tubas Calcrete Deposit Inferred 100 7.4 374 2,800 6.1 - - 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 - 2.7 -
Aussinanis Deposit ♦ Inferred 150 29.0 240 7,000 15.3 - - 15.3
Aussinanis Project Total 34.6 237 8,200 18.0
Calcrete Projects Sub-Total 276.6 248 68,536 150.9 - 105.5 45.3
GRAND TOTAL RESOURCES 325.3 273 88,936 196.0 11.0 121.5 63.4
----- End of picture text -----

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 originally calibrated at Pelindaba, South Africa in 2007. Recent calibrations were carried out at the Langer Heinrich Mine calibration facility in July 2018 and September 2019.

Sensitivity checks are conducted by periodic re-logging of a test hole to confirm operations. During drilling, probes are checked daily against standard source.

Page 17 of 41

Table 2: Tumas 1, 1 East, 2 and 3 - JORC 2012 MRE - Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at various cut off grades

==> picture [440 x 273] intentionally omitted <==

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

Detail Indicated Inferred Total
Cut- Tonnes Grade Metal Tonnes Grade Metal Tonnes Grade Metal
Deposit
off M ppm Mlb M ppm Mlb M ppm Mlb
200 22.35 298 14.69 10.13 265 5.92 32.48 288 20.61
150 Tumas 1E 31.25 263 18.14 16.53 231 8.4 47.78 252 26.54
100 36.27 245 19.56 19.42 216 9.23 55.69 234 28.79
200 11.84 343 8.96 0.71 357 0.56 12.55 344 9.52
150 Tumas 1 19.7 275 11.95 1.15 286 0.73 20.85 276 12.68
100 33.76 212 15.76 2.09 212 0.98 35.85 212 16.74
200 4.85 367 3.92 0.06 350 0.05 4.91 367 3.97
150 Tumas 2 8.69 281 5.38 0.13 262 0.07 8.82 280 5.45
100 20.33 189 8.47 0.39 166 0.14 20.72 188 8.61
200 45.32 440 43.91 3.51 364 2.81 48.83 434 46.72
150 Tumas 3 63.17 364 50.76 6.25 280 3.85 69.42 357 54.61
100 77.99 320 54.94 10.36 219 4.99 88.35 308 59.93
200 84.36 385 71.48 14.41 294 9.34 98.77 371 80.82
150 TOTAL 122.81 318 86.23 24.06 247 13.05 146.87 307 99.28
100 168.35 266 98.73 32.26 216 15.34 200.61 258 114.07
----- End of picture text -----

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 18 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

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

==> picture [694 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

		Commentary
		The recent (2018-2021) drilling relies on down hole gamma
		data from calibrated probes which were converted into
		equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) by experienced DYL personnel and have been confirmed by a competent person (geophysicist). Geochemical assays were used to confirm the conversion results.
		Appropriate factors were applied to all downhole gamma
		counting results to make allowance for drill rod thickness,
		gamma probe dead times and incorporating all other applicable
		calibration factors.
	Total	gamma eU3O8
		33 mm Auslog total gamma probes were used and operated by
		Company personnel.
		RMR’s gamma probes were calibrated by a qualified technician at Langer Heinrich Mine in July 2018 (T003, T029, T030, T164 and T165) and in September 2019 (T029, T030, T161, T162,
		T164 and T165).
		During drilling, the probe was checked daily using sensitivity
		checks against a standard source.
		Gamma measurements were taken at 5cm intervals at a logging
		speed of approximately 2m per minute.
		Probing was done immediately after drilling mainly through the
		drill rods and in some cases in the open holes. Rod factors were
		established to compensate for reduced gamma counts when
		logging through the rods.
		The gamma measurements were recorded in counts per
		second (c/s) and were converted to equivalent eU3O8values

Criteria JORC Code explanation

 Commentary

Sampling techniques  Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.  In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.

 The recent (2018-2021) drilling relies on down hole gamma data from calibrated probes which were converted into equivalent uranium values (eU3O8) by experienced DYL personnel and have been confirmed by a competent person (geophysicist). Geochemical assays were used to confirm the conversion results.  Appropriate factors were applied to all downhole gamma counting results to make allowance for drill rod thickness, gamma probe dead times and incorporating all other applicable calibration factors. Total gamma eU3O8  33 mm Auslog total gamma probes were used and operated by Company personnel.  RMR’s gamma probes were calibrated by a qualified technician at Langer Heinrich Mine in July 2018 (T003, T029, T030, T164 and T165) and in September 2019 (T029, T030, T161, T162, T164 and T165).  During drilling, the probe was checked daily using sensitivity checks against a standard source.  Gamma measurements were taken at 5cm intervals at a logging speed of approximately 2m per minute.  Probing was done immediately after drilling mainly through the drill rods and in some cases in the open holes. Rod factors were established to compensate for reduced gamma counts when logging through the rods.  The gamma measurements were recorded in counts per second (c/s) and were converted to equivalent eU3O8values

Page 19 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [694 x 422] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation  Commentary
over 5cm intervals using probe-specific K-factors. These
intervals were subsequently composited to 1m intervals.
 Disequilibrium studies done in 2008 on 22 samples derived
from the nearby Tumas 1 and 2 zones by ANSTO Minerals
indicated that the U [238] decay chains of the wider Tumas deposit,
of which Tumas 1E is part, are within an analytical error of ±
12% and considered to be in secular equilibrium.
Chemical assay data
 Geochemical samples were derived from Reverse Circulation
(RC) drilling at intervals of 1m. Samples were split at the drill
site using a riffle splitter to obtain a 1kg sample from which 120g
was pulverized to produce a subset for XRF-analysis.
 Prior to 2020, drill samples were dispatched to ALS in
Johannesburg, South Africa for uranium and sulphur analysis
using pressed powder pellet XRF and Leco Furnace and
Infrared Spectroscopy, respectively. 15% of all uranium
mineralised intersections were analysed.
 For the 2021 drilling program close to 80% of uranium
mineralised intersections were analysed by handheld XRF in-
house in the RMR laboratory. The instrument was regularly
checked by analysing standards.
 The samples were taken for confirmatory assay to be compared
to the equivalent uranium values derived from down-hole
gamma logging.
 Previous assay results from the area have confirmed the
equivalent uranium grades and are within an acceptable
statistical error margin of 10%.
Drilling  Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air  RC infill drilling was used for the Tumas 1E campaign.
techniques blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple  All holes were drilled vertically, and intersections measured
or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other
present true thicknesses.
type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).
----- End of picture text -----

Page 20 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

• Criteria JORC Code explanation Drill sample  Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries recovery and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.

• Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.

• 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.

• Commentary

• Drill chip recoveries were good, generally greater than 90%.  Drill chip recoveries were assessed by weighing 1m drill chip samples at the drill site. Weights were recorded in sample tag books.

• Sample loss was minimised by placing the sample bags directly underneath the cyclone.

• Drilling air pressures were monitored during the drilling program

• All drill holes were geologically logged.

• The logging was qualitative in nature. A dominant (Lith1) and a subordinate lithology type (Lith2) was determined for every sample representing a 1m interval with assessment of ratio/percentage.

• Other parameters routinely logged include colour, colour intensity, weathering, oxidation, alteration, alteration intensity, grain size, hardness, carbonate (CaCO3) content, sample condition (wet, dry) and a total gamma count was derived from a Rad-Eye scintillometer.

• In the most recent drilling program, 6,982m were geologically logged, which represents 100% of metres drilled. The full Tumas 1E dataset contains 8,280 logged intervals amounting to 13,312m.

• Lithology Codes for palaeochannel lithologies used are: AL=Alluvion, AG=Gravel, AGS=Gravel silty sandy, SAT=Silty sand, SR=Red sand, CA=Calcrete un-differentiated, CAW=Calcrete whitish, CAB=Calcrete brownish, CAF=Calcrete pale red _Fine grained, SS=Sandstone, SC=Conglomerate, SA=Sand, SSF=Sandstone fine_CaCO3 cement, GY=Gypsum, CH=Chert, SSD=Dolomitic sandstone, QCO=Quartzitic conglomerate, CY=Clay, SH=Shale, REW=Reworked bedrock & calcrete.

Page 21 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
			Lithology Codes for the channel floor or basement lithologies used are: SD=Dolomite, ST=Siltstone, SM=Mudstone, GG=Granite, ALAS=Alaskite, PQM=Micaceous quartzite, MS=Micaschis, MB=Marble, PSAM=Psammite, MPEL=Metapelite, HQ=Vein quartz, GZ=Pegmatite, PZ=Biotite gneiss, PQ=Quartzite, PG=Gneiss undifferentiated, PR=Magnetite gneiss, PT=Granitised gneiss, OD=Dolerite, HS=Skarn, PA=Amphibolite, BU=Mafic extrusive, MM=Massive magnetite, GD=Granodiorite, BI=Massive biotite, SB=Breccia, BR=Bedrock, PX=Calc-silicate, PK=Calc-silicate gneiss
Sub-sampling	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core		Sample splitters used were a 2-tier riffle splitter mounted on the
techniques and sample preparation	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	 	rig giving an 87.5% (reject) and a 12.5% sample (assay sample) and a portable 2-tier (75%/25%) splitter for any oversize assay samples. All sampling was dry. The sampling techniques are common industry practice. Sample sizes are considered appropriate to the grain size of the
	maximise representivity of samples.		material being sampled.
	 Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the		Standards were inserted after each 23rdprimary sample,
	in situ material collected, including for instance results for field		followed by a duplicate of the 22ndprimary sample.
	duplicate/second-half sampling.  Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	 	Blanks were inserted randomly, but commonly following a high- grade primary sample determined by gamma scintillometer. RMR uses two different standards, (AMIS0087 = alaskite,
			Goanikontes) and (AMIS0092 = calcrete, Langer Heinrich
			Uranium Mine). Previously AMIS0087 standards reported
			within two standards deviation at an average of 207ppm U3O8
			while the expected value is 205ppm U3O8; Previously
			AMIS0092 standards also performed within the acceptable
			limits of the two standard deviations at an expected value of
			338ppm U3O8, against an average derived assay of 339ppm
			U3O8.

Page 22 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

• Criteria JORC Code explanation Quality of  The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and assay data laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is and considered partial or total. laboratory  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, tests etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading 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.

  • Commentary

  • The analytical method employed was ICP-MS (Lithium Borate Fusion). The technique is industry standard and considered appropriate.

  • In-house XRF measurements were taken by a Hitachi X- MET8000 Expert Geo instrument.

  • AUSLog downhole gamma tools were used as explained under ‘Sampling techniques. This is the principal evaluating technique.

  • 15% of mineralised holes will be sent for analysis to ALS during the most recent infill drilling programme.

  • In general the quality control standards analysed with the mineralised samples from the previous drill programmes performed well and did not show any bias.

  • Comparison between the assayed samples from previous drilling programs in th area and equivalent composited gamma data showed an acceptable correlation on a metre-by-metre basis and a good correlation based on population distribution. The comparison confirms that the gamma derived values are appropriate for use in the MRE.

• Verification of  The verification of significant intersections by either independent or sampling and alternative company personnel. 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 geology logs were recorded in the field using tablets and secured Microsoft Excel logging spreadsheets. Logging codes are derived from pre-defined pulldown menus minimizing mislogging and misspelling. All digital information was downloaded to a server and validated by the geologist at the end of every drill day.

• Sample tag books were utilized for sample identification.

• The field drill data of those logs and tag books (lithology, sample specifications etc.) is validated by the relevant project geologist before dispatching for import into a geological database.

Page 23 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
		     	Twinning of RC holes was not considered due to the nuggetty nature of the mineralisation. Data was uploaded onto a file server following a strict validation protocol. Equivalent eU3O8values are calculated from raw gamma files by applying calibration, casing factors where applicable and deconvolution. The factors applied to individual logs are stored in a database on a file server. Equivalent U3O8data is composited from 5cm to 1m intervals. The ratio of eU3O8versus assayed U3O8for matching composites is used to quantify the statistical error. It was found that they all lie within statistically acceptable margins.
Location of data points	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.  Specification of the grid system used.  Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	  	The collars were surveyed by an in-house surveyor using a differential GPS. All drill holes are vertical and shallow; therefore no down-hole surveying was deemed necessary. The grid system is World Geodetic System (WGS) 1984, Zone 33.
Data spacing	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.		The data spacing and distribution is optimised along the Tumas
and distribution	 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.		palaeochannel direction. North-South drill line spacing is 50m with 100m hole spacings offset by 50m on alternate drill lines achieving an overall 70m by 70m hole spacing. The drill pattern is considered sufficient to establish an Indicated Mineral Resources.
			The total gamma count data, which is recorded at 5cm intervals,
			is converted to equivalent uranium value (eU3O8) and
			composited to 1m intervals.

Page 24 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [694 x 318] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation  Commentary
Orientation of  Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of  Uranium mineralisation is strata bound and distributed in a fairly
data in possible structures and the extent to which this is known, continuous horizontal layer. Holes were drilled vertically and
relation to considering the deposit type.
mineralised intercepts therefore represent the true width.
geological structure  If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a  All holes were sampled down-hole from surface. Geochemical
samples were collected at 1 m intervals. Total-gamma count
sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.
data was collected at 5 cm intervals.
Sample  The measures taken to ensure sample security.  1m RC drill chip samples were prepared at the drill site. The
security 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. Sample preparation
for dispatch to ALS laboratories in South Africa was done at
RMR’s own prep-lab facility.
 Upon completion of the preparation 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 sample
storage yard at Rocky Point located outside Swakopmund.
Audits or  The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and  Dr J Corbin from GeoViz Consulting Australia undertook a
reviews data. drilling data review. He concluded his audit commenting:
“Overall, the data available is of reasonably good quality and
easily accessible.”
----- End of picture text -----

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	The work to which the Exploration Results relate was undertaken on
tenement and	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	exclusiveprospecting grant EPL3496 and EPL3497
		Page25of41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
land tenure status	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.  The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	   	The EPLs were originally granted to Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd (RUN) in June 2006. RUN is a wholly owned subsidiary of Reptile Mineral Resources and Exploration (Pty) Ltd (RMR), the latter being the operator. The EPLs are in good standing. A renewal application was submitted to the Ministry of Mines and Energy within the legislated timeframe. A Mining Lease application including the Tumas Resources was submitted to the Ministry of Mines and Energy on 21 July 2021. The EPL is located within the Namib-Naukluft National Park in Namibia. There are no known impediments to the Project beyond Namibia’s standard permitting procedures.
Exploration done by other parties	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	 	Prior to RMR’s ownership of these EPLs, some work was conducted by Anglo American Prospecting Services (AAPS), General Mining Corporation and Falconbridge in the 1970s. Assay results from the historical drilling are incomplete and available on paper logs only. There are no digital records available from this period. Data from this historical information does not form part of the Mineral Resource dataset.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.		Tumas mineralisation occurs as secondary carnotite enrichment of
			variably calcretised palaeochannel and sheet wash sediments and
			adjacent weathered bedrock.
			Uranium mineralisation at Tumas is surficial and strata-bound in
			Cenozoic sediments, which include from top to bottom scree, sand,
			gravel, gypcrete, various intercalated calcareous sand and calcrete
			horizons overlying discordant Damaran age folded sequences of
			meta-volcanics and meta-sediments. Predominant basement
			stratigraphy is Nosib-Swakop Group with Chuos Fm being the
			highest lithostratigraphic level in the project area exposed. East of
			Tumas 3 is Kuiseb Fm exposed formingthe highest lithostratigraphic

Page 26 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [752 x 416] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
levels. All sequences are highly metamorphosed and characterized
by isoclinal folding in partly over thrusted sheets lying staggered on
top of each other. Strike is generally NE-SW to NNE-SSW, mostly
steep dipping. Three different folding events are observed.
 The majority of the mineralisation in the project area is hosted in
calcrete. Locally, the underlying Proterozoic bedrock shows traces
of mineralisation in weathered contact zones of more schistose
basement types; this however seldomly occurs.
Drill hole  A summary of all information material to the understanding of the  1,473 RC holes were drilled over 24,942m in the 2021 infill drilling
Information exploration results including a tabulation of the following information program.
for all Material drill holes:  All relevant drilling on Tumas 3 and 1E was carried out between
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
February 2021 and August 2021.
o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in
metres) of the drill hole collar  All holes were drilled vertically, and intersections measured present
o dip and azimuth of the hole true thicknesses.
o down hole length and interception depth
o hole length.
 If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the
information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
explain why this is the case.
Data  In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,  5cm gamma intervals were composited to 1m intervals.
aggregation maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high  1m composites of eU3O8 were used for the estimate.
methods grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.  No grade truncations were applied.
 Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade
results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used
for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of
such aggregations should be shown in detail.
 The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values
should be clearly stated.
Relationship  These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of  The mineralisation is sub-horizontal and all drilling vertical,
between Exploration Results. therefore, mineralised intercepts are considered to represent true
mineralisation  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole widths.
widths and angle is known, its nature should be reported.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 27 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [700 x 345] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
intercept  If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there
lengths should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true
width not known’).
Diagrams  Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of  All relevant intercepts were included within the text and appendices
intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being of previous releases.
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 of all Exploration Results is not  Comprehensive reporting, including two previous announcements of
reporting practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades Exploration Results of the 2021 program covering the Tumas 1E
and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
project area, were practised throughout the drilling program.
Exploration Results.
Other  Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported  The wider area of the Tumas palaeochannel was subject to some
substantive including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical drilling from the 1970s on by Anglo American Prospecting Services,
exploration survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and
Falconbridge and General Mining Corporation.
data method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,  Downhole gamma-gamma density logging for bulk density was
groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential
derived from recent work at Tumas 1, 2 and 3 and in analogy to
deleterious or contaminating substances.
Langer Heinrich Uranium Mine mining in the same lithologies and
geological settings East and North-East of Tumas Zone 3.
 500 in house bulk density determinations were carried out on core
samples from Tumas 1, 2 and 3. Additionally 50 samples were sent
to ALS in Johannesburg for verification of the results.
Further work  The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral  The palaeochannel mineralisation continues westwards into Tumas
extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). 1 and 2.
 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
provided this information is not commercially sensitive.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 28 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

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

==> picture [694 x 350] intentionally omitted <==

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

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
integrity example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection safeguard data integrity which covers the following aspects:
 and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes. Data validation procedures used.  Capturing of all exploration data; geology and downhole probing;
 QA/QC of all drilling, geophysical and laboratory data;
 Data storage (database management), security and back-up;
 Reporting and statistical analyses used industry standard software
packages including Micromine and GS [3] .
Site visits  Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and  During all drilling programs regular site visits were conducted by the
the outcome of those visits. Company’s Competent Person who signed off on all exploration data.
 If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.  More recently, the Company’s current Competent Person has
undertaken regular visits with the most recent visit being in June
2021.
 The Competent Person for Mineral Resources has visited the site
numerous times with the most recent being in 2017.
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. sedimentary channel-fill is very high. This type of geology is well
 Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made. known and readily recognised in the RC drill chips.
 The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource
estimation. The factors affecting grade distribution are channel morphology and
 The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource bedrock profile, with bedrock “highs” indicative forming areas of
estimation. mineralisation traps.
 The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
Dimensions  The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as  The infill drilled mineralisation in Tumas 3 and 1E has a total strike
length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface length of approximately 20km, 100 to 1,200m wide, 0 to 30m deep.
to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.
The main mineralised calcrete reaches from a shallow depth below
surface of -1 to -2m deep down to -25m
----- End of picture text -----

Page 29 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [694 x 20] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

Estimation		The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)	The present estimates are based on grade domains controlling the
and modelling		applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade	interpolations into block estimates. Block sizes used are 50m East x
techniques		values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance	50m West x 3m elevation.
		of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.	Estimation of block values used Multi Indicator Kriging (MIK). Mineralisation surfaces were derived around an 80ppm eU3O8
		The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine	minimum value.
		production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate	As the estimate was based on MIK no grade capping was applied.
		takes appropriate account of such data.	The MIK estimate was based on a total of 14 indicator bin values
	  	The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to	representing 10% probability increments up to 70% then 5% increments to 95% then 97% and 99% in order to more reasonably model the high-grade component of the dataset. Directional variograms based on 14 indicator bins are used in the
		the average sample spacing and the search employed.	current estimates.
		Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	A maximum search distance of 200m x 200m x 10.4m was used
		Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	within the estimate. Panel proportions were limited by the modelled
		Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control	basement profile as any basement hosted mineralisation is not
	 	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 if available.	considered for processing. Block validation was done using qualitative drill hole displays over block estimates. The current block estimate throughout correlates well with composited eU3O8 GT (Grade-Thickness) data.
			No correction for water was made other than any that may have
			been applied during the calculation of downhole equivalent uranium
			values.
			A block support correction was applied to the MIK estimate to derive
			final block proportions and grades. This correction value adjusts the
			tonnes and grade for each panel based on the likely mining and
			grade control parameters. The general progression of this process is
			to increase overall tonnes and reduce overall grades. Final smu
			sizes were set at 4m x 4m x 3m with a target grade control spacing
			of 4m x 4m x 1m.

Page 30 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		The MIK estimate is considered to be a recoverable Mineral Resource. There is potential to recover the vanadium that is a component of the mineralisation (from carnotite) however this has not been considered as part of this MRE. Average drill spacing is a staggered 100m x 50m and the Mineral Resource panels are centred on alternating drill holes.
Moisture	 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	An visual assessment of sample material was done during the sampling process and samples were classified as either “dry” or “wet”. The current drilling program did intersect water at times. As the majority of grade values applied within the MRE are based on downhole logging whether the sample is wet or dry is not considered material. Tonnages are estimated dry.
Cut-off parameters	 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	Composites less than 0.75m were excluded from the estimation process. This only relates to samples at the start or end of drill holes. The final MRE was reported at a range of cut-off grades starting at 100ppm U3O8and going up to 900ppm U3O8. Based on previous mining studies a cut-off grade of 100ppm was selected for the reporting of the MRE.
Mining factors	 Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum	Potential mining scenarios will be open cast mining using three-metre
or	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining	high flitches; after stripping of unconsolidated sandy grits and screes
assumptions	dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining	(expected to be free-digging).
	reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider	The MRE has been limited by the application of a basement profile
	potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining	derived from drill hole logging as it is expected that any basement
	methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not	hosted mineralisation would not be recoverable using the expected
	always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported	processing flowsheet.
	with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	Block support corrections applied to the MRE follow the expected
		mining process.

Page 31 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		The MRE was assessed for reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction and the reported estimate reflects the outcome.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	 The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	More detailed mineralogical characterisation tests were conducted from the lower Tumas areas which presents the Company with a sound understanding of how a calcrete ore from Tumas would respond to beneficiation and further downstream processing. Currently metallurgical test work is underway in Perth, Australia using drill core drilled in 2019 and 2020. Also, the nearby Langer Heinrich uranium mine has successfully mined and processed calcrete ore for almost a decade. Although it is under care and maintenance and its calcrete grade is higher; the mineralogical characteristics remain very similar.
Environmen- tal factors or assumptions	 Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	SoftChem, as independent consultant, completed a scoping level Environmental Impact Assessment for the Tumas Project in 2013. With mining progressing along the channel parameter, waste material will be backfilled into mined-out areas so to provide for ongoing rehabilitation of the mined-out areas progressively throughout the life of the mine. Any remaining waste rock stockpiles will be shaped and contoured to blend into the surrounding environment.
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, the	gamma) from drilling at Tumas 1 and 2 in 2014.
	frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.  The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc),	Further borehole density logging (gamma-gamma) from recent drilling at Tumas 1, 2 and 3 was carried out in 2020. In 2020 bulk density determinations were carried out in-house and by
	moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the	ALS in Johannesburg.
	deposit.	At the Langer Heinrich mine bulk density is defined at an SI of 2.40
	 Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation	(after mining geologically equivalent material for 10 years).
	process of the different materials.	Evaluation of all data resulted in an average density of 2.35.
		The current estimate is usingan SI of 2.35.

Page 32 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [694 x 419] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
 Due to differences between the bulk density values derived from the
in-house measurement process and that from both the ALS checks
and downhole density logging the MRE has been classified as
Indicated. It is expected that the Company will carry out additional
bulk density determinations in order to provide for a more definitive
density value to be applied to the MRE.
Classification  The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying  This MRE reflects an Indicated Mineral Resource.
confidence categories.  Semi-variography modelling indicates long range grade continuity of
 Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie
greater than 100m.
relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input
 Maximum search ranges used were set to maximum of 200m.
data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality,
quantity and distribution of the data).  A primary horizontal search of 55m (4 sectors and 16 samples) was
 Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view used to assign a first eU3O8 block estimate; 75m (4 sectors and 16
of the deposit.
samples) was used for the second search pass and these broadly
equate to Indicated Mineral Resources. A third pass search of 100m
(4 sectors and 16 samples) was used to allocate Inferred Mineral
Resources with a final search pass of 200m (2 sectors and 8 samples).
Vertical search components were 3m, 4.1m, 5.2m and 10.4m
respectively.
 The average mineralised thickness is in the order of 2m to 10m.
 The Competent Person is satisfied that the applied methodology is
appropriate for reporting an Indicated Mineral Resource and that the
resulting block estimates are true reflections of the underlying drilling
data.
Audits or  The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.  No additional reviews were conducted beyond those carried out by
reviews the various Competent Persons over time.
Discussion of  Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and  The applied geostatistical approach applied to arrive at the current
relative confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach Indicated Mineral Resource is considered sound and is appropriate to
accuracy/ or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For
the style of mineralisation contained within the deposit. The same
confidence example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to
estimation methodology has been successfully applied at the nearby
quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence
limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative Langer Heinrich mine for a period of over 15 years.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 33 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [694 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and  The presented block model is considered to be a reasonable
confidence of the estimate. representation of the underlying sample data.
 The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local  It is this Competent Person’s opinion that the classification of portions
estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
of this Indicated Mineral Resource could be improved to measured
relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
status by confirming the validity of the currently available bulk density
include assumptions made and the procedures used.
 These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate information.
should be compared with production data, where available.
----- End of picture text -----

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves	Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore Reserve. Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	The Mineral Resource estimates for the Tumas 3, Tumas 1&2 and Tumas 1E deposits used as a basis for conversion to the Ore Reserve estimate reported here was compiled by David Princep of Gill Lane Consulting using data supplied by Deep Yellow. The data included drilling and assay data, geological interpretation, density checks and comparisons to independent check estimates. The September 2021 Tumas Mineral Resource is inclusive of the September 2021 Ore Reserves.
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 (CP) has not attended a site visit to this location due to prevailing travel restrictions relating to the enduring pandemic. The CP has relied on DYL personnel to relate site specific information. Furthermore, the CP has knowledge of the country having worked there for 5 years and had also previously attended a site visit to the Langer Heinrich site situated very close to the Tumas project and is also analogous in relation to the orebody presentation and style of proposed mining.
Study status	The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to	The Tumas Uranium Project was the subject of a pre-feasibility study (PFS)
	be converted to Ore Reserves.	including the estimation of a Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve for the Tumas
		open pits and treatment facility. The January 2021 Ore Reserve has included all
	The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level has	aspects of the PFS study.
	been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such

Page 34 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [699 x 419] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan Operational costs and modifying factors have been applied in optimisation and
that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material design of the Reserve pit.
Modifying Factors have been considered. These updated Ore Reserves are based on the same assumptions as those
derived within the PFS study with the exception of the resource models for Tumas
3 and Tumas 1E which have been updated as discussed in the preceding sections
of this table. DYL has provided written assurance to the CP that there are no
material factors differing from those derived within the PFS Study which may
influence the updated Ore Reserves estimation.
Cut-off The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied. A lower MIK block cut-off grade of 150ppm U3O8 has been applied in estimating
parameters the Ore Reserve. Due to strategic objectives of target feed grades, this lower cut-
off is slightly elevated from the calculated cut-off grade of 121ppm U3O8. .
Mining factors The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or The Resource model which formed the basis for estimation of the Ore Reserve
or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. was used in an open pit optimisation process to produce a range of pit shells using
assumptions either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by operating costs and other inputs derived from as part of the PFS. The resultant
optimal shell was then used as a basis for detailed design.
preliminary or detailed design).
The mining method assumed in the Ore Reserve study is open cut with
The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining
conventional excavator and truck fleets. The open pits will be developed using
method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design
single staged designs.
issues such as pre-strip, access, etc.
Geotechnical recommendations made by independent consultants have been
The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (e.g. pit applied in optimisation and incorporated in design, although these have minimal
slopes, stope sizes, etc), grade control and pre-production drilling. impact on the pit designs due to their very flat and shallow nature.
The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit No additional mining dilution and recovery factors have been applied to the MIK
and stope optimisation (if appropriate). estimated resources since they are considered to be a recoverable resource and
include the estimation of an information effect.
The mining dilution factors used.
No Inferred Mineral Resources are included in the Ore Reserve estimation and
The mining recovery factors used. reporting process and are therefore not included in any revenue estimates and are
treated as waste in the estimation of Ore Reserves.
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.
Metallurgical The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that The metallurgical process proposed for the treatment of the Tumas Ore is similar
factors or process to the style of mineralisation. to that used at the nearby Langer Heinrich Mine which operated from 2007 to 2018
assumptions
----- End of picture text -----

Page 35 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria JORC Code explanation 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 as a whole.

For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?

Commentary when it was placed into care and maintenance due to depressed uranium prices. The process consists of:

1. beneficiation through scrubbing and classification by size, with barren coarse material rejected to tailing;

2. alkali (carbonate/bicarbonate) leaching at elevated temperature;

3. CCD washing of the leach discharge;

4. membrane concentration of the pregnant liquor from the CCD circuit;

5. recovery of vanadium as V2O5 (red cake) from the membrane retentate liquor;

6. recovery of uranium as UO3 (yellow cake) from the vanadium recovery section barren liquor; and

7. disposal and permanent storage of process tailings into in-pit tailings storage facilities.

The metallurgical process includes some aspects that are novel.

In particular:

1. the use of membranes to concentrate the pregnant liquor is a novel application for the uranium extraction industry, but is commercially established in the broader contemporary minerals extraction industry;

2. the method used to recovery vanadium is also novel, but relies on chemistry that is well described in literature; and

3. some aspects of reagent recycling in the metallurgical process are novel to the uranium extraction industry, but commercially established elsewhere.

The remaining elements of the metallurgical process are based on well-tested technology.

Metallurgical testing has been undertaken on representative samples of the Tumas Ore. Two bulk composite samples were generated using 5 separate primary Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling samples (~30kg) and 13 diamond core samples (whole PQ core, ~540kg). This metallurgical testwork was limited to the beneficiation and leaching aspects of the samples tested only, as the hydrometallurgy is well understood.

The only economic mineral present in the Tumas Ore is carnotite, which is a carbonate mineral of uranium and vanadium. Two separate ore types have been identified in the Tumas Ore and no material variation in processing performance has been identified. The same overall metallurgical recovery of 93.8% is appropriate for both ore types.

Page 36 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		The only potentially deleterious element in the Tumas Ore is vanadium and the metallurgical process has been developed to remove (as a by-product) the vanadium that is co-leached with the uranium.
Environmenta l	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.	An Environmental Impact Assessment (EIA) is being undertaken for Tumas. Tumas is located in Namibia, which has a long and continuous (since the 1970s) history of uranium mining and export. Waste rock has been determined as non- acid generating and will be stored both in-pit and in surface waste rock dumps. A mining licence application has been lodged (MLA 176), the approvals process for which will consider the appropriateness of the storage methods proposed.
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.	The region in which the Tumas Project is located has: 1. established road (tarmac-covered road within 10km of the proposed treatment plant site) access; 2. established residential towns suitable for the projected needs of the Project within 70km of the Project location; 3. established power (10km from the proposed treatment plant site) and water (~30km from the proposed treatment plant site) infrastructure; 4. an established class 7 port (suitable for the export of uranium concentrates) ~70km from the proposed treatment plant site; 5. an international airport ~60km from the proposed treatment plant site; and 6. an established telephone communication network.
Costs	The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital	The estimated capital costs for the development of the Tumas Project have been
	costs in the study.	developed by a Ausenco Services Pty Ltd and have a stated accuracy of ±25%. Plant capital costs were developed using a mixture of supplier quotations (major
	The methodology used to estimate operating costs.	mechanical equipment) and relevant factoring.
	Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements.	The total capital cost, including capital expenditure estimates for mining, process
	The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals and co- products.	plant, infrastructure, spares, first fills, construction indirects, EPCM, commissioning, owner’s costs, capitalised pre-production costs and contingency, is US$320M.
	The source of exchange rates used in the study.	Operating costs for the Project have been developed based on a detailed
	Derivation of transportation charges.	metallurgical balance, supplier published or quoted utility, reagent and consumable costs, local labour market rates and limited factoring. The operating
	The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to meet specification, etc.	cost estimate has a stated accuracy of ±10% and an effective date of December 2020.
		The uranium price used (US$65/lb U3O8flat) for the financial analysis is based on
		a report obtained from an independent third-partyuranium marketingexpert and

Page 37 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.	has been set at 3%. The vanadium price used (US$7/lb V2O5) is based on published market rates as used in the PFS. The currency exchange rate assumed (N$:US$ = 16.75) is based on the average published exchange rate for the first 10 months of 2020. Transport charges have been based on local contractor rates in the case of road transport and established shipping and handling charges for uranium concentrate. Converter charges are based on established converter rates and no allowance has been made for product specification penalties. All royalties and export levies payable in Namibia have been included in the cost estimates.
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.	The uranium price used (US$65/lb U3O8flat) for the financial analysis is based on a report obtained from an independent third-party uranium marketing expert. The vanadium price used (US$7/lb V2O5) is based on published market rates as used in the PFS The currency exchange rate assumed (N$:US$ = 16.75) is based on the average published exchange rate for the first 10 months of 2020. Transport charges have been based on local contractor rates in the case of road transport and established shipping and handling charges for uranium concentrate. Converter charges are based on established converter rates and no allowance has been made for product specification penalties. All royalties and export levies payable in Namibia have been included in the cost estimates.
Market	The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity,	A marketing report obtained from an independent third-party uranium marketing
assessment	consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the future.	expert that considered current and forecast nuclear electricity production, installed commercial nuclear generating capacity, secondary uranium supplies, primary
		uranium production, the global uranium market balance and price outlook and
	A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely	marketing and logistics was commissioned to provide the basis for uranium price
	market windows for the product.	and volume forecasts.
	Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.	The vanadium price used was based on current published prices for red cake as
		used in the PFS. Vanadium is a bi-product of uranium extraction in the process
	For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and	and has little impact on Project economic outcomes, so a more detailed analysis
	acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.	was not considered to be warranted at this stage.

Page 38 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [699 x 396] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
Economic The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value The financial model as developed for the PFS for the assessment of the Tumas
(NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs Project was created by an independent third-party expert. Revenues and costs
including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc. are captured in the model in real US dollars (in some cases converted from real
Namibian dollars at the base case starting exchange rate). Sensitivity analysis is
NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions applied to the real US dollar cashflows. The subsequent cashflows are inflated in
and inputs. summary form to perform both tax and working capital calculations. Valuation
cashflows are shown as both nominal and real US dollars and the user can decide
whether to apply a real or nominal US dollar discount rate to determine value. The
model carries inflation indices for both US dollars and Namibian dollars. The
assumed rate of annual inflation is 1.5% for US dollars and 5% for Namibian
dollars. A cumulative index is created for inflation in each currency as a time series.
The index representing the cumulative inflation difference between US dollar and
Namibian dollar inflation is that predicted by ‘Purchasing Power Parity’ theory.
Capital and operating costs as well as revenue streams were developed as
described above and suitable allowances were made for the required product
inventory build in the marketing process.
Sensitivity analysis is conducted in the model on a deterministic basis by changing
each variable in isolation through a range of – 40% to +40% in increments of +10%.
Inputs are grouped into the following categories for the purposes of sensitivity
analysis:
• U3O8 Price;
• V2O5 Price;
• Mining Costs;
• Processing Costs & G&A Costs;
• Downstream Costs (excluding Royalties);
• Capex and Sustaining Capex;
• Discount Rate; and
• USD/NAD Exchange Rate.
The project was shown to be sensitive to uranium price, with a 10% increase in
price lifting the NPV8.6 from US$204M to US$278M (36%). It was moderately
sensitive to N$:US$ exchange rate with a 10% increase lifting the NPV8.6 from
US$204M to US$226M (11%) and total operating cost (including freight and TC’s
with a 10% increase dropping the NPV8.6 from US$204M to US$167M (18%), but
relatively insensitive to other factors that were analysed including individual
operating cost elements.
Social The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to As part of the EIA that is underway, initial meetings with all stakeholder groups
social licence to operate. have been undertaken and further meetings will be undertaken as this process
continues.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 39 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Other	To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves: Any identified material naturally occurring risks. The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements. The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.	The production of uranium concentrate involves risk specific to that commodity. These risks are being and will be actively managed. To date, no marketing arrangements have been established for the proposed production. All mineral permits associated with the Ore Reserves Estimate are in good standing and the company is currently in the process of completing an EIA in order to obtain an Environmental Clearance Certificate (ECC) for the proposed development. An application for a Namibian Mining Licence (ML) was lodged in July 2021. There is a reasonable expectation that the ECC and ML will be issued well within the timeframe required for the proposed mining development. Other than the satisfactory completing of a future feasibility study, securing suitable financial backing for capital, the ECC and ML, there are no other known unresolved matters that are dependent on a third party that may materially impact the future exploitation of the reserve.
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 classification of the Tumas Ore Reserve has been carried out in accordance with the recommendations of the JORC code 2012. It is based on the density of the drilling, estimation methodology, the orebody experience and the mining method to be employed. Results of optimisation and design reasonably reflect the views held by the Competent Person of the deposit. All Probable Ore Reserves have been derived from Indicated Resources.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	No external audits or reviews of the Ore Reserve estimate have been undertaken.
Discussion of	Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence	Whilst appreciating that reported Ore Reserves are an estimation only and subject
relative accuracy/ 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	to numerous variables common in mining operations, it is the opinion of the Competent Person that there is a reasonable expectation of achieving the reported Ore Reserves commensurate with the classification.
	relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such
	an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the
	factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the
	estimate.

Page 40 of 41

APPENDIX 2

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report (continued)

==> picture [699 x 20] intentionally omitted <==

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

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

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.

Page 41 of 41