DEEP YELLOW LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2021

Jul 28, 2021



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

NEWS RELEASE

29 July 2021

DRILLING AT TUMAS 3 DELIVERS SIGNIFICANT RESOURCE UPGRADE

HIGHLIGHTS

• DFS resource upgrade drilling at Tumas 3 has delivered an impressive 117% direct conversion of the existing Inferred Mineral Resource to Indicated Mineral Resource category, with an additional 5.7Mlb of Indicated Mineral Resources identified from peripheral zones

• Total Indicated Mineral Resource increase of 26.5Mlb represents 124% of existing Inferred Mineral Resources

• Total Indicated Resource at Tumas 3 increased from 28.4Mlb at 299ppm to 54.9Mlb at 320 ppm eU3O8

• Infill drilling increases the overall Mineral Resource at Tumas 3 to 59.9Mlb at 308ppm eU3O8

o Includes additional identified Inferred Resource of 5.0Mlb at 220ppm eU3O8

• Total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource at Tumas 1, 2 and 3 (excluding Tumas 1 East) now stands at 79.1Mlb at 271ppm eU3O8

• Since 2017, successful exploration over the Tumas Palaeochannel has increased the Mineral Resource base fourfold

• Highly effective cost of discovery of only 9.3cents/lb U3O8

• Only 60% of the known regional Tumas palaeochannel system has been drilled, significant upside potential with 50km of channel systems remaining to be tested



Uranium developer Deep Yellow Limited (ASX: DYL) ( Deep Yellow ) is pleased to announce a significant and impressive Mineral Resource Estimate ( MRE ) upgrade for the Tumas 3 deposit, located in EPL3496 in Namibia. The deposit is held by Deep Yellow through its wholly owned subsidiary Reptile Uranium Namibia (Pty) Ltd ( RUN ). See Figure 1.

In June 2021, the Company completed a 4-month, 911hole (17,679m) infill RC drilling program covering the Tumas 3 deposit (see Figure 2). The targeted area contained 28.4Mlb of Indicated Mineral Resources grading 299ppm and 21.4Mlb of Inferred Mineral Resources grading 244ppm eU3O8 using a 100ppm cut off.

The primary goal of the DFS resource upgrade drilling program at Tumas 3 was twofold:

• i. Focus on converting the remaining Inferred Mineral Resources at Tumas 3 (21.4Mlb) to Indicated Mineral Resources status; and

• ii. Test the immediate peripheral zones to properly close off Tumas 3.

Pleasingly, the drilling program at Tumas 3 has successfully converted 117% of the Inferred Mineral Resources (by metal on a panel-by-panel basis) available within the area to an Indicated Mineral Resources category. The program also successfully identified an additional 5.7Mlb Indicated and 5Mlb Inferred Mineral Resources.

The total increase in Indicated Mineral Resources represents 124% of the existing Inferred Mineral Resources at Tumas 3, thereby adding considerable value to the Tumas Project.

Overall, at a 100ppm eU3O8 cut off, the Tumas 3 MRE has delivered increased Indicated Mineral Resources that now stand at 54.9Mlb grading 320ppm, with an additional Inferred Mineral Resource delineated in this area of 5.0Mlb at 220ppm eU3O8, totalling 59.9Mlb at 308ppm eU3O8.

This is a notable improvement in both the quality and amount from the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource of 49.8Mlb (previously announced in the Tumas Pre-Feasibility Study on 10 February 2021) to 59.9Mlb eU3O8, with 92% of the overall Tumas 3 MRE now in the Indicated Mineral Resource category.

The MRE was undertaken using various cut-off grades using a minimum thickness of 1m and conforms to the 2012 JORC Code of Mineral Resources Reporting.

These confirmed resource increases from Tumas 3, along with the yet to be incorporated MRE that will result from the Tumas 1E resource upgrade drilling currently being undertaken, are considered more than sufficient to support the Company’s objective of achieving a minimum 20-year Life of Mine ( LOM ) for the Tumas Definitive Feasibility Study ( DFS ). This is underway and progressing as planned.

Importantly, the Tumas 3 Mineral Resource upgrade has increased the overall Indicated and Measured Resource base at a 100ppm eU308. cut-off associated with the Tumas Channel (Tumas1, 2, 3 and Tubas) from 56.7Mlb to a total of 83.2Mlb eU308 (See Appendix 1 JORC Resource Table).

The mineralisation at Tumas 3 occurs as a discrete mineralised deposit, occurring separately from other uranium deposits identified previously within this palaeochannel system at Tumas 1, 1E, 2 and Tubas Red Sand/Calcrete deposits (see Figure 1).

Total surficial Measured, Indicated, and Inferred Mineral Resources at a 100ppm eU308. cutoff in the Tumas palaeochannel - Tumas 1, 1E, 2, 3 and Tubas Red Sand and Calcrete (excluding the Aussinanis Project) are now 132.7Mlb at 253ppm eU308. (See Appendix 1 JORC Table).

Commenting on the impressive result Deep Yellow Managing Director Mr John Borshoff said: “ The MRE upgrade from the recently completed Tumas 3 infill drilling program has been nothing short of astounding, with the result achieved well beyond our internal expectations and is a strong reflection of the great work of the Deep Yellow team and what we are building in Namibia.

“In simple terms, we have achieved a 124% conversion rate from Inferred Resource status to Indicated, improving both the quality and quantity of the resource base whilst also growing the size of Tumas 3 through the identification of an additional 5Mlb of Inferred Resources. Importantly, the Tumas palaeochannel holds a further 54Mlb of uranium in the Inferred Resource category available for future upgrading to Indicated Resource status. What excites me and the team is that we are only just scratching the surface at Tumas, with only 60% of the known regional Tumas palaeochannel system drilled and a further 50km remaining to be tested.

Page 2 of 27

“As we move forward, we are focused on successful delivery of the Tumas DFS and, importantly, continue to tick the boxes as we progress key workstreams. The results, as currently announced, provide great confidence that we will have a resource base sufficient to support the +20-year LOM target of the current DFS and beyond this, augers very well for the longer-term future of this exciting project.”

==> picture [426 x 240] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [426 x 240] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1: EPLs 3496, 3497 showing Tumas deposits and main prospect locations over palaeochannels.

Tumas 3 Mineral Resource Estimate Summary

The Mineral Resource was estimated by Multi Indicator Kriging.

The final MRE was reported at a number of cut-off grades from 100ppm to 200ppm eU3O8 and the Mineral Resources derived from these cut-off grades indicate the mineralisation remains robust and consistent (see Table 1).

Page 3 of 27

The MRE covers the Tumas 3 deposit, between coordinates 498,600E to 513,000E, as shown in Figure 2.

Prior to commencing the drilling program at Tumas 3, the total remaining Inferred Resource was 21.4Mlb. The program was completed throughout the majority of the Tumas 3 deposit. At a 100ppm cut-off, the updated MRE has an Indicated Mineral Resource totalling 54.9Mlb at 320ppm eU3O8 (as shown in in Table 1), returning a remarkable 124% increase in Indicated category material relative to the existing Inferred Mineral Resources (117% conversion to Indicated status based on contained metal and on a panel-by-panel basis).

The conversion based on tonnes is approximately 93%, indicating that the infill drilling has locally improved the grade of the deposit by limiting the influence of peripheral, low grade mineralisation.

The drilling also identified a further 5Mlb in the Inferred Mineral Resource category.

The 100ppm eU3O8 cut-off was selected based on previous mining studies and represents the most continuous mineralisation within the deposit.

Table 1. Tumas 3 – JORC 2012 MRE at various cut-off grades

==> picture [421 x 80] intentionally omitted <==

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

Indicated Inferred Total
Cut-off M Grade Mlb M Grade Mlb M Grade Mlb
tonnes eU3O8 tonnes eU3O8 tonnes eU3O8
100 77.99 320 54.94 10.36 219 4.99 88.35 308 59.93
150 63.17 364 50.76 6.25 280 3.85 69.41 357 54.61
200 45.32 440 43.91 3.51 364 2.81 48.83 434 46.73
----- End of picture text -----

Notes: 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.

When compared to the previous MRE for the deposit (Table 2), the differences relate to the conversion of a significant portion of the previous Inferred Mineral Resources’ due to completion of the recent infill drilling and inclusion of the Tumas 3 Far West mineralisation (between 498,600mE and 500,400mE), which previously had no resource associated with it.

Table 2. Tumas 3 – Comparison between previous and updated MRE

==> picture [336 x 72] intentionally omitted <==

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

Previous MRE Updated MRE
Class M tonnes Grade Mlb M tonnes Grade Mlb
Ind 43.18 299 28.43 77.99 320 54.94
Inf 39.58 245 21.35 10.36 219 4.99
Total 82.76 273 49.78 88.35 308 59.93
----- End of picture text -----

Table 3 outlines the combined Mineral Resources of Tumas 1, 1E, 2 and 3, all of which are the focus of the Tumas DFS.

Page 4 of 27

Table 3. Tumas 1, 1E, 2 and 3 - JORC 2012 MRE - Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources at 100 ppm eU3O8 cut-off

==> picture [360 x 125] intentionally omitted <==

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

Deposit Category Tonnes (M) Grade U3O8
(ppm) Mlb
Tumas 3 Indicated 78.0 320 54.9
Tumas 3 Inferred 10.4 219 5.00
Sub Total 88.3 308 59.9
Tumas 1, 1E & 2 Deposit Indicated 54.1 203 24.2
Tumas 1, 1E & 2 Deposit Inferred 54.0 250 29.8
Sub Total 108.1 226 54.0
Tumas 1, 1E, 2 and 3 Total 196.4 263 113.9
----- 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.

ASX Additional Information

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

Deposit Parameters: The Tumas 3 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 domains used for the current extended MRE study were interpreted to capture continuous zones of mineralisation above a 100ppm eU3O8 cut off. The mineralisation included in this study has a strike length of approximately 15.7km and ranges in width between 400m to 1,700m, extending to a maximum depth of 45m along the main Tumas channel. Within this zone the largest area of detailed infill drilling extends for approximately 10km strike length and was the main focus of the MRE. Thicknesses vary from 1m to 18m. The mineralisation occurs in a reasonably continuous, seam-like horizon, occurring between depths of 2m to 25m and extends west beyond the infill drilled areas.

Drilling on the project has mostly used RC methods. Drilling that formed the basis of the MRE included recently completed infill drilling as well as RMR drilling dating back to 2009 and amounted to 4,206 drill holes for a total of 95,118m. A number of drill holes were regional in nature and the subsequent dataset used for the final estimates was limited to 84,806 1m intervals. Drilling achieved recoveries of around 90%. All drill chips were geologically logged, and their radioactivity was measured. All the data was added into a well-maintained database.

The 2020 infill drilling of the previously 100m by 100m spaced holes was carried out along 50m spaced lines using 100m hole spacing, achieving a staggered overall spacing of approximately 70m x 70m. This was deemed sufficient for the determination of Indicated Mineral Resources.

Page 5 of 27

The 2017 and 2018 drilling programs were carried out on a spacing of 100m x 100m. Pre2017 drilling carried out by the Company was along regional 2km spaced drill lines with drill holes spaced 50m apart.

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

The geochemical assays were used to confirm the validity of the eU3O8 values determined by down-hole gamma probing. After validation, the eU3O8 values derived from the down-hole gamma logging were given preference over geochemical assays for the resource estimation due to the greater sampling volume. In house handheld XRF measurements of nearly all the mineralised samples were used to further confirm the equivalent uranium determinations.

All relevant drill-hole details and results were previously reported by Deep Yellow in announcements made to the ASX on13 July 2021, 8 June 2021, 5 May 2021, 12 May 2020, 2 April 2020, 21 October 2019, 27 March 2019, 17 April 2018, 5 July 2018, 14 December 2017, 27 September 2017, 11 July 2017, 22 June 2017, 22 May 2017 and19 April 2017.

Figure 2 shows the Tumas 3 Deposit drill hole locations with the collars coloured according to grade thickness (GT- eU3O8ppm x metre thickness), outlining extent and nature of the mineralisation over the 14km length of channel tested which was the focus of this current MRE work. One East-West long-section and two North-South cross-sections through the resource of the Tumas 3 uranium mineralisation are shown in Figures 3, 4 and 5 respectively.

Prospectivity, High Potential and Future Drilling

Ongoing drilling of the Tumas palaeochannel continues to prove highly successful in outcome, fully endorsing the new approach that has been taken in both identifying and testing what has proven to be a highly prospective regional target. The infill resource upgrade drilling, in order to improve the classification of uranium Mineral Resources at Tumas 3, shows an extremely high >90% conversion rate from Inferred to Indicated Mineral Resources and has positive implications for upgrading the remainder of Tumas 1, 1E and 2 Inferred Mineral Resources.

The 113.9Mlb total resource grading 263ppm eU3O8 at Tumas 1, 1E, 2 and 3 as shown on Table 3, now includes 79.1Mlb of Indicated Mineral Resources and 34.8Mlb Inferred Mineral Resources. This translates to approximately 3Mlb/km for the 40km over which these deposits occur. The 132.7Mlb of Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resources, now attained for the overall Reptile Tumas palaeochannel project (see Appendix 1), represents a remarkable fourfold increase in the surficial palaeochannel resource base on this project since the new-focus investigations commenced in 2017.

As has been previously stated, work is clearly confirming that increasing the palaeochannel calcrete resource base toward the upper of the stated range of 100M-150Mlb uranium resources in the 300 to 500ppm U3O8 grade range remains a realistic objective, with Tumas 3 remaining open to the immediate west and Tubas Red Sand and Calcrete Deposit open at depth and in extension, all occurring within the 50km of highly prospective palaeochannel still remaining to be tested in detail.

Page 6 of 27

Furthermore, the current infill drilling and resultant high MRE conversion to Indicated Mineral Resources shows that a large proportion of the current Inferred Mineral Resources identified to date have high probability to be upgraded to the Indicated JORC reporting status, which has important and positive implications for the Tumas Project.

Value Through Exploration

Since new management became involved at Deep Yellow in late 2016, 66.1Mlb Indicated and 34.5Mlb of Inferred U3O8 Resources have been added to the Reptile Project uranium inventory.

This was achieved by concentrating the exploration effort on calcrete-associated uranium mineralisation within the Tumas palaeochannel. Exploration expenditure from November 2016 to April 2020 on Reptile has been close to A$9.3M. This calculates into a discovery cost for delineation of the total Resources that have been identified, including 62% reporting in the Measured and Indicated Resource status, of 9.3c/lb U3O8, highlighting an abnormally high discovery efficiency and value addition.

Importantly, the ongoing exploration success at Tumas highlights that delineation of additional uranium resources, when targeting near-surface targets and working within a highly prospective palaeochannel system, can be a very cost-effective approach.

==> picture [425 x 221] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2: Tumas 3 Deposit, showing area of infill drill hole locations and GT contours over palaeochannel outline

Page 7 of 27

==> picture [425 x 251] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3: Tumas 3 Deposit, Northwest-Southeast drill hole long-section

==> picture [425 x 252] intentionally omitted <==

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

Page 8 of 27

==> picture [425 x 250] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5: Tumas 3 Deposit, North-South drill hole cross-section, 506050E

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.

About Deep Yellow Limited

Deep Yellow Limited is a differentiated, advanced uranium exploration company, in predevelopment 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 DFS 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.

Page 9 of 27

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 [104 x 51] intentionally omitted <==

Competent Person’s Statement

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, M.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 the report 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 report, it confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original announcements and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the resource estimates in those original announcements continue to apply and have not materially changed.

Page 10 of 27

APPENDIX 1

JORC RESOURCES

==> picture [464 x 460] intentionally omitted <==

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

Cut-off Tonnes U3O8 U3O8 U3O8 Resource Categories (Mlb U3O8)
Deposit Category
U(ppm 3O8) (M) (ppm) (t) (Mlb) Measured Indicated Inferred
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, 1 East & 2 Project – JORC 2012
Tumas 1 & 2 Deposit ♦ Indicated 100 54.1 203 11,000 24.2 - 24.2 -
Tumas 1 & 2 Deposit ♦ Inferred 100 54.0 250 13,500 29.8 - - 29.8
Tumas 1 & 2 Project Total 108.1 226 24,500 54.0
Sub-Total of Tumas 1, 2 and 3 196.4 263 51,670 113.9
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 272.4 251 68,470 150.7 - 85.9 64.8
GRAND TOTAL RESOURCES 321.1 277 88,870 195.8 11.0 101.9 82.9
----- 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 11 of 27

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 (2018-2020) 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.

Sampling		Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or		The recent (2018-2020) drilling relies on down hole gamma
techniques		specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate		data from calibrated probes which were converted into
		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		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.
		used.		Appropriate factors were applied to all downhole gamma
		Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the		counting results to make allowance for drill rod thickness,
		Public Report.		gamma probe dead times and incorporating all other applicable
		In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be		calibration factors.
		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	Total	gamma eU3O8
		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.	 	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).
				Probing at Tumas 3 in 2020 utilised probe T164.
				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 12 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

==> picture [694 x 405] 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 3 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 2020 drilling program close to 100% 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.
 The assay results 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 3 campaign.
techniques blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple
----- End of picture text -----

Page 13 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
	or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).		All holes were drilled vertically, and intersections measured present true thicknesses.
Drill sample recovery	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.  Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.	   	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
Logging	 Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and		All drill holes were geologically logged.
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.  Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.		The 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.
	 The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.		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, 17,679m were geologically
			logged, which represents 100% of metres drilled. The full
			Tumas 3 dataset contains 88,135 logged intervals.
			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,

Page 14 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria	Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
				QCO=Quartzitic conglomerate, CY=Clay, SH=Shale, REW=Reworked bedrock & calcrete. 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 used two different standards, (AMIS0087 = alaskite,
				Goanikontes) and (AMIS0092 = calcrete, Langer Heinrich
				Uranium Mine). AMIS0087 standards reported within two
				standards deviation at an average of 207ppm U3O8while the
				expected value is 205ppm U3O8; AMIS0092 standards also
				performed within the acceptable limits of the two standard
				deviations at an expected value of 338ppm U3O8, against an
				average derived assayof 339ppm U3O8.

Page 15 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.  For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.  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.	      	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 drill holes for 136m representing 15% of mineralised samples at that time were analysed during the most recent infill drilling programme. Blanks performed well, 100% pass rate, all below the detection limit. In general the quality control standards analysed with the mineralised samples from the drill programme performed well and did not show any bias. Comparison between the assayed samples 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		The geology logs were recorded in the field using tablets and
sampling and assaying	alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.		secured Microsoft Excel logging spreadsheets. Logging codes are derived from pre-defined pulldown menus minimizing mis-
	 Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.  Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		logging 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 dispatchingfor import into ageological database.

Page 16 of 27

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 17 of 27

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, considering continuous horizontal layer. Holes were drilled vertically and
relation to 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 data.  Dr J Corbin from GeoViz Consulting Australia undertook a
reviews drilling data review. He concluded his audit commenting:
“Overall, the data available is of reasonably good quality and
easily accessible.”
----- End of picture text -----

Page 18 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Mineral tenement and land tenure status	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.  The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	    	The work to which the Exploration Results relate was undertaken on exclusive prospecting grant EPL3496, (Tumas 3). The EPL was 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 EPL is in good standing and is valid until 4 August 2021. A renewal application has been submitted to the Ministry of Mines and Energy. 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 stratabound in
			Cenozoic sediments, which include from topto bottom scree, sand,
			Page19of	27

APPENDIX 2

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

==> picture [700 x 421] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
gravel, gypcrete, various intercalated calcareous sand and calcrete
horizonts 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 forming the highest lithostratigraphic
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  916 RC holes were drilled over 17,944m in the 2021 infill drilling
Information exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for program.
all Material drill holes:  All relevant drilling on Tumas 3 was carried out between February
o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
2021 and June 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.
----- End of picture text -----

Page 20 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

==> picture [700 x 400] intentionally omitted <==

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

Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary
 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, therefore,
between Exploration Results. mineralised intercepts are considered to represent true widths.
mineralisation  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle
widths and is known, its nature should be reported.
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 2020 program covering the Tumas 3
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 eastwards into Tumas 1
extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). and 2 and westwards into the Tubas Red Sand/Calcrete areas.
 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 21 of 27

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.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	 Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.  Data validation procedures used.	A set of SOPs (Standard Operating Procedures) was defined that safeguard data integrity which covers the following aspects:  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 GS3.
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.	During all drilling programs regular site visits were conducted by the Company’s Competent Person who signed off on all exploration data. More recently, the Company’s current Competent Person has undertaken regular visits since with the most recent visit being in March 2020. The Competent Person for Mineral Resources has visited the site numerous times with the most recent being in 2017.
Geological interpretation	 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological interpretation of the mineral deposit.  Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.  The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.  The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.  _The factors affecting continuity both ofgrade andgeology. _	Confidence in the geological interpretation and modelling of the sedimentary channel-fill is very high. This type of geology is well known and readily recognised in the RC drill chips. The factors affecting grade distribution are channel morphology and bedrock profile, with bedrock “highs” indicative forming areas of mineralisation traps.
Dimensions	 The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length	The drilled mineralisation in Tumas 3 has a total strike length of
	(along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the	approximately 15km, 400 to 1,700m wide, 2 to 25m deep. The infilled
	upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	drilled area of the current resource estimation extends along 10km
		strike length and is 400 to 1,700m wide. The main mineralised calcrete
		reaches from a shallow depth below surface of -2 to -3m deep down
		to -20m/25m

Page 22 of 27

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 techniques		applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and	interpolations into block estimates. Block sizes used are 50m East x 50m West x 3m elevation. Estimation of block values used Multi Indicator Kriging (MIK).
		parameters used.	Mineralisation surfaces were derived around an 80ppm U3O8minimum
		The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine	value.
	 	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data. The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products. Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of	As the estimate was based on MIK no grade capping was applied. The MIK estimate was based on a total of 14 indicator bin values representing 10% probability increments up to 70% then 5%
		economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage	increments to 95% then 97% and 99% in order to more reasonably
		characterisation).	model the high-grade component of the dataset.
	   	In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. Any assumptions about correlation between variables. Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control	Directional variograms based on 14 indicator bins are used in the current estimates. A maximum search distance of 100m x 100m x 5.2m was used within the estimate. Panel proportions were limited by the modelled
		the resource estimates.	basement profile as any basement hosted mineralisation is not
		Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	considered for processing.
		The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Block validation was done using qualitative drill hole displays over block estimates. The current block estimate throughout correlates well
			with composited eU3O8GT (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.
			The MIK estimate is considered to be a recoverable Mineral Resource.

Page 23 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		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 with	processing flowsheet.
	an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	Block support corrections applied to the MRE follow the expected
		mining process.
		The MRE was assessed for reasonable prospects for eventual
		economic extraction and the reported estimate reflects the outcome.

Page 24 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
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), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the	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 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 using an SI of 2.35.
		Due to differences between the bulk density values derived from the
		in-house measurement process and that from both the ALS checks
		and downhole densityloggingthe MRE has been classified as

Page 25 of 27

APPENDIX 2

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

Criteria		JORC Code explanation	Commentary
			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 confidence categories.  Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and distribution of the data).  Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	This MRE reflects an Indicated Mineral Resource. Semi-variography modelling indicates long range grade continuity of greater than 100m. Maximum search ranges used were set to maximum of 100m. A primary horizontal search of 55m (4 sectors and 16 samples) was used to assign a first eU3O8block estimate; 75m (4 sectors and 16 samples) was used for the second search pass and these broadly equate to Indicated Mineral Resources. A final search of 100m (2 sectors and 8 samples) was used to allocate Inferred Mineral Resources. Vertical search components were 3m, 4.1m and 5.2m 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 reviews	or	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	No additional reviews were conducted beyond those carried out by the various Competent Persons over time.
Discussion	of	 Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence	The applied geostatistical approach applied to arrive at the current
relative accuracy/ confidence		level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion	Indicated Mineral Resource is considered sound and is appropriate to the style of mineralisation contained within the deposit. The same estimation methodology has been successfully applied at the nearby Langer Heinrich mine for a period of over 15 years.
		of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of	The presented block model is considered to be a reasonable
		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 potions
		estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be	of this Indicated Mineral Resource could be improved to measured

Page 26 of 27

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 -----

	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.	information.
	These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
	should be compared with production data, where available.

Page 27 of 27