ENERGY METALS LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2015

Jun 30, 2015

==> picture [263 x 98] intentionally omitted <==

ABN 63 111 306 533

==> picture [49 x 702] intentionally omitted <==

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

1[st ] July 2015

ASX Code - EME

For further information, contact:

Dr Weidong Xiang Energy Metals Limited

Telephone: 61 8 9322 6904 Facsimile: 61 8 9321 5240 Email: enquiry@energymetals.net Level 2, 8 Colin Street West Perth WA 6005

PO Box 1323 West Perth WA 6872

This report and further information are available on Energy Metals’ website at:

www.energymetals.net

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

691 TONNES U3O8 MAIDEN RESOURCE KARINS DEPOSIT, NORTHERN TERRITORY

HIGHLIGHTS

• JORC- reported, inferred category, uranium resource estimate of 691 tonnes U3O8 at 556ppm average grade (200ppm cut-off) obtained for the historical Karins uranium deposit, Ngalia Basin, NT .

• Resource estimate based on digitised and reprocessed gamma logs for 110 historical drill holes.

• Historical data and metadata verified and archival drill core re-logged, providing a high-confidence dataset as basis of the resource estimation.

Significant drill hole intercepts include:

• 1.3m at 4,092ppm eU3O8 from 7.7m in RPH95

• 1.9m at 1,200ppm eU3O8 from 87.0m in RPH83

• 1.0m at 1,489ppm eU3O8 from 27.2m in RPH77

• 0.6m at 2,547ppm eU3O8 from 29.9m in RPH66

• 6.1m at 830ppm eU3O8 from 10.9m in RPH64

• 1.6m at 916ppm eU3O8 from 42.6m in RPH43

• 1.5m at 722ppm eU3O8 from 62.6m in RPH18

• 4.9m at 1,240ppm eU3O8 from 61.9m in RPH04

Energy Metals Limited (ASX: EME) is pleased to advise that a maiden uranium resource estimate has been obtained for the historical Karins deposit, located approximately 260km northwest of Alice Springs in the Ngalia Basin, Central Australia (Figure 1). The deposit lies on tenement applications MLN1952 and MCS318-328; part of a joint venture between EME (53.3%), Paladin Energy Ltd (41.7%) & Southern Cross Exploration NL (5%).

The Karins area was recognised as prospective for sandstone-hosted uranium by Central Pacific Minerals (CPM) in 1973 following discovery of carnotite in drill cuttings from a seismic shot hole. Subsequent exploration work, including the drilling of 110 exploration holes, was carried out by CPM in the period 1974 to 1981. EME acquired CPM’s interest in the project in 2005, including all the historical exploration records which are now held in EME’s archives.

1

The Ngalia Basin, which is some 12,600 km[2] in size, is recognised as one of the Northern Territory’s significant and most prospective uranium provinces (JSU Ngalia Basin Uranium Mineral System Project, Northern Territory Geological Survey Record 2012-003) . In 2014, EME began a program of systematic documentation and evaluation of historical uranium deposits and prospects located on its Ngalia Basin tenure. Because of the thorough and meticulously kept CPM exploration records for the Karins deposit held in EME archives, it was recognised early on that this data would be of sufficient quality to proceed with a JORC-compliant resource estimation, provided geological criteria such as sufficient continuity of mineralisation and appropriate drill hole density could be demonstrated. A review by EME’s resource consultants CSA Global Ltd confirmed that the appropriate criteria were met for Karins and EME elected to proceed with a resource estimate.

Exploration Results

Karins is a tabular uranium-vanadium-style deposit similar to the Bigrlyi deposit, although with an oxidised zone (carnotite zone) of variable thickness that extends from near surface to as much as 60m depth. The fresh host rocks are generally, reduced, light grey, feldspathic, fine to medium grained sandstones containing interbedded greenish-grey siltstone or mudstone. Primary uranium mineralisation is usually present as uraninite. Drilling by CPM showed the presence of widespread uranium mineralisation, which occurs as a series of discontinuous sheets or pods, over a strike length of approximately 5.8km. Mineralised zones, which typically vary in thickness from 0.2 to 6m, were intercepted from surface to approximately 100m depth within shallowly dipping (15 to 22 degrees) sandstone beds of the Mt Eclipse Formation. The mineralised sandstone is confined by upper and lower shale units; the latter is a prominent marker bed 3 to 10m thick known as the ‘red shale’. Drillhole collar locations and other drilling details are provided in Annexure 1.

All CPM’s drill holes were logged open-hole, by independent geophysical contractors, using downhole gamma probe tools (initially the sensitive L1 probe for all holes with follow up using the O1 or ore probe over significant mineralised zones). The downhole gamma probe was used as the primary analytical tool to measure eU3O8 grade. A number of drill core samples were assayed for uranium and vanadium for comparative purposes, however, these data are not considered to be sufficiently robust nor representative to be used in the resource estimation; a number of samples were assayed to determine the extent of possible radiometric disequilibrium but no evidence of any systematic deviation from equilibrium was found.

Drill hole information and gamma log data for all drill holes, including associated metadata and probe calibration records, were compiled from EME’s archives. Historical gamma logs were archived as a compilation of analogue printouts on paper charts; these were scanned at high resolution, digitised and converted to counts per second (cps) data at 10cm intervals downhole. Using the calibration data and hole information, the cps data was reprocessed to yield deconvolved eU3O8 values according to well established methods. Significant intercepts, i.e. those defined as: minimum width 0.3m, maximum internal dilution 0.3m, cut-off grade 100ppm eU3O8, have been detailed in Annexure 2. All relevant drilling data, gamma logging data and geological data including lithological logs have been converted to digital format, verified and loaded into EME’s database. A summary of the information provided for the resource estimation is given in Table 1 below.

2

Table 1. Database Summary used in the Resource Estimation

Category	Total
Number of Drill holes	110
Total metres drilled	5,563.6
Number of Downhole Surveyrecords	110
Number of Gamma logged intervals (at 10 cm)	49,378
Number of Mineralised intervals based on 10 cmgamma-logging	79
Historical mineralised intervals based on gamma logging	35
Number of assays	168
Number of Intervals with lithological data	648

==> picture [483 x 330] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1. Map showing the location of the Karins Deposit in relation to the Ngalia Basin (in green), EME tenement boundaries and various deposits and prospects (significant deposits on EME tenure identified).

Land tenure and site access

Joint venture tenements MLN1952 (formerly SML85) and MCS318-328 (formerly MC699H-709H) were applications made by CPM in 1977 to cover the Karins prospect following cessation of the underlying EL453. Although Mineral Claims (such as MCS318-328) are considered non-compliant titles under the NT’s current Mineral Titles Act (the Act ), such applications remain in force under transitional provisions until they are transitioned to an alternative suitable title under the Act. The exact areas of Mineral Leases and Mineral Claims in the NT are subject to survey of the boundary

3

and datum pegs, and this is the case with MLN1952 and MCS318-328. Therefore the exact tenement locations and geometry may differ from those displayed on the NT Department of Mines and Energy mineral titles system or in Figure 2 below. EME holds all the relevant historical records associated with the original tenement applications.

The area outside MLN1952 and MCS318-328, on which a number of un-mineralised holes are situated and on which potential strike extensions of the deposit may occur, lies within EL24462 (Figure 2). This is an application owned 100% by EME. The land underlying EL24462 was formerly part of the Mount Allan pastoral lease but in 1988 it was converted to Aboriginal Freehold land under the Aboriginal Land Rights (Northern Territory) Act 1976 (the ALRA ). The land is currently held by the Yalpirakinu Aboriginal Land Trust. Under the ALRA, access to and future grant of titles encroaching on Aboriginal Freehold land (including MLN1952, MCS318-328 and EL24462) requires an agreement with traditional owners and their representatives, in this instance, the Central Land Council (CLC). EME next has an opportunity to negotiate an exploration agreement for EL24462 on 7 December 2015 when the tenement is released from ALRA moratorium. Additionally, grant of Mineral Leases for uranium in the NT (such as MLN1952) require Federal Government approval.

==> picture [467 x 413] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Map showing the location of Karins Deposit exploration drill collars (black dots) in relation to tenement boundaries, the Tanami Road and the Mt Allan trigonometric station (refer to the discussion above for further information). Topographic contour lines (brown) and drainages (blue) are shown.

4

Resource Estimation Procedure

Mineralised envelopes at a 100ppm eU3O8 cut-off grade were interpreted and wireframed (Figures 3 & 4). The wireframes were constructed on the basis of a sectional interpretation in which the boundaries were extrapolated to half the nominal section spacing beyond the extents of current drilling. For profiles containing only one drill hole, an average bedding dip of 20 degrees was assumed. Using the digital lithological logs, digital models were generated for the shale horizons, base of alluvial cover, and boundary between oxidised sandstone (predominance of carnotite mineralisation) and reduced sandstone (predominance of uraninite mineralisation).

The Karins downhole eU3O8 data were composited over mineralised intervals using the following parameters: minimum thickness 0.3m, 100ppm eU3O8 cut-off grade, 0.3m maximum width of internal waste, no external dilution, and minimum grade-thickness of 30 ppm·m. Statistical and geostatistical analysis were then performed. The block model was created and filled following application of a coordinate transformation to provide a constant orientation of mineralisation for interpolation purposes. The Inverse Distance Weighted Squared method was used for interpolation of grades in the block model. The dimensions of the parent blocks were set at 5х5х0.5m with subcelling applied at the boundaries of the model. Modelled cells located above the alluvial cover surface were removed. An average bulk density of 2.48t/m[3] , as measured from Karins core samples held in EME’s core storage facility, was used. The distribution of grades obtained is shown in Figure 5 and the resulting resource estimate, which is classified as inferred, is provided in Annexure 3 for various cut-off grades.

==> picture [477 x 218] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 3. Example of the Interpretation of Mineralised Bodies along the RPH92, RPH64, RPH91 section.

5

==> picture [481 x 247] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4. Wireframe models of the mineralised bodies.

==> picture [482 x 254] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5. View showing grade distribution within mineralised bodies.

6

Summary

The Mineral Resources are summarised in Table 2 for a 200ppm U3O8 cut-off grade:

Table 2: Estimate of Mineral Resources for the Karins Deposit (Ngalia Basin)

				Grade	Grade	Mineral Resources	Mineral Resources
Category	Type	Volume '000 m3	Tonnes '000 t	U3O8	U	U3O8	U3O8
				ppm	%	tonnes	M lb
Inferred	Oxidised	290	719	526	0.045	379	0.83
Inferred	Primary	211	524	597	0.051	312	0.69
Inferred	Total	501	1,243	556	0.047	691	1.52

Notes:

1. The Mineral Resources are for a 100% interest in the joint venture and not the Mineral Resources attributable to the individual joint venture partners.

2. Mineral Resources are based on 200 ppm cut-off grade per resource block.

3. Mineral Resources that are not Mineral Reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability.

4. Mineral Resources are based on JORC-2012 definitions.

5. Mineral Resources are based on a bulk density of 2.48 t/m[3] .

6. Rows and columns may not add up exactly due to rounding.

The Mineral Resources have been classified and reported in accordance with JORC (2012) requirements. The resource classification is based on the assessed level of confidence in sample methods used, geological interpretation, drill spacing and geostatistical measures.

Energy Metals believes the mineral resources defined here make a valuable contribution to total regional uranium resources in the Ngalia Basin – a significant uranium province in the NT – as well as enhancing the economics of any potential regional mining development since the resource is located at open pittable depths. The economics of any mining development could be further enhanced if the uranium is amenable to in-situ recovery methods, as suggested by the favourable deposit geology at Karins including confinement of mineralisation by shale horizons. In addition, EME believes there is considerable scope for expansion of the deposit down-dip of the current resource, which is largely untested, as well as along strike. Access to the deposit for further exploration and test work will require grant of the mineral titles and an agreement with the Aboriginal landowners.

For and on behalf of the Board.

Weidong Xiang Managing Director 1[st] July 2015

7

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resource estimation is based on information compiled by Mr Dmitry Pertel, Principal Consultant Geologist, CSA Global Ltd and Dr Maxim Seredkin, Principal Consultant Geologist, CSA Global Ltd. Information in this report relating to the interpretation and determination of gamma probe results is based on information compiled by Mr Evgeny Sirotenko, consultant geophysicist, under supervision of Dr Maxim Seredkin, Principal Consultant Geologist, CSA Global Ltd. Mr Pertel is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG) and is an employee of CSA Global. Dr Seredkin is a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (FAusIMM), a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (MAIG), and is an employee of CSA Global. Mr Pertel and Dr Seredkin have sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined by the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves – The JORC Code (2012)”, and Mr Pertel and Dr Seredkin both consent to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears.

Information in this report relating to exploration results, data, cut-off grades and QAQC analysis is based on information compiled by Dr Wayne Taylor and Mr Lindsay Dudfield. Mr Dudfield is a member of the AusIMM and the AIG. Dr Taylor is a member of the AIG and is a full time employee of Energy Metals; Mr Dudfield is a consultant to Energy Metals. They both have sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves – The JORC Code (2012)”. Dr Taylor and Mr Dudfield both consent to the inclusion of the information in the report in the form and context in which it appears.

8

Annexure 1. Collar coordinates for historical drilling at the Karins Deposit, GDA94 datum, Zone 52.

						TRUE AZIMUTH (degrees)	TOTAL DEPTH (m)
HOLE NUMBER	EASTING (m)	NORTHING (m)	ELEVATION (m)	DRILL TYPE*	DIP (degrees)			Completion Date
RPH01	802720	7515665	633	PH	-90	5	100.0	13/09/1974
RPH02A	803619	7516114	633	PH	-90	5	85.0	16/09/1974
RPH03	804262	7515714	636	PH	-90	5	86.0	18/09/1974
RPH04	802621	7515534	634	PH	-90	5	86.0	19/09/1974
RPH05	802571	7515375	635	PH	-90	5	139.0	20/09/1974
RPH06	802744	7515683	633	PH	-90	5	17.0	29/10/1974
RPH07	802693	7515700	633	PH	-90	5	21.0	28/10/1974
RPH08	802651	7515728	633	PH	-90	5	19.0	28/10/1974
RPH09	802604	7515752	633	PH	-90	5	19.0	28/10/1974
RPH10	802556	7515770	633	PH	-90	5	20.0	29/10/1974
RPH11	802766	7515634	634	PH	-90	5	29.0	29/10/1974
RPH12	802810	7515610	634	PH	-90	5	30.0	29/10/1974
RPH13	802857	7515591	634	PH	-90	5	30.0	03/11/1974
RPH14	802909	7515583	634	PH	-90	5	27.0	04/11/1974
RPH15	802673	7515681	633	PH	-90	5	30.0	04/11/1974
RPH16	802666	7515515	634	PH	-90	5	80.0	08/11/1974
RPH17	802573	7515554	634	PH	-90	5	81.0	11/11/1974
RPH18	802596	7515544	634	PH	-90	5	79.0	15/11/1974
RPH19	802642	7515523	634	PH	-90	5	82.0	18/11/1974
RPH20	802670	7515584	634	PH	-90	5	59.0	03/09/1975
RPH21	802569	7515488	635	PH	-90	5	99.0	03/09/1975
RPH22	828505	7504045	610	PH	-90	5	37.0	02/09/1975
RPH23	828468	7503817	609	PH	-90	5	61.0	04/09/1975
RPH24	828698	7503901	610	PH	-90	5	50.0	05/09/1975
RPH25	828990	7504099	611	PH	-90	5	50.0	05/09/1975
RPH25A	828992	7504099	611	PH	-90	5	100.0	14/09/1975
RPH26	829849	7504679	613	PH	-90	5	43.0	09/09/1975
RPH27	830213	7505802	617	PH	-90	5	50.0	09/09/1975
RPH28	829671	7505124	615	PH	-90	5	38.0	09/09/1975
RPH29	829537	7505748	616	PH	-90	5	38.0	10/09/1975
RPH30	831880	7501712	600	PH	-90	5	26.0	10/09/1975
RPH31	831632	7501490	599	PH	-90	5	44.0	10/09/1975
RPH32	831853	7501091	598	PH	-90	5	44.0	10/09/1975
RPH33	802241	7515830	635	PH	-90	5	60.0	04/05/1976
RPH34	801807	7516082	639	PH	-90	5	61.0	05/05/1976
RPH35	801391	7516361	642	PH	-90	5	50.0	05/05/1976
RPH36	800974	7516658	644	PH	-90	5	64.0	05/05/1976
RPH37	800516	7516870	647	PH	-90	5	48.0	06/05/1976
RPH38	800117	7517168	650	PH	-90	5	31.0	06/05/1976
RPH39	803147	7515423	636	PH	-90	5	54.0	06/05/1976
RPH40	803626	7515273	639	PH	-90	5	38.0	06/05/1976

9

RPH41	804049	7515029	636	PH	-90	5	48.0	07/05/1976
RPH42	804525	7514872	630	PH	-90	5	52.0	07/05/1976
RPH43	805053	7514811	625	PH	-90	5	53.0	07/05/1976
RPH44	805532	7514654	621	PH	-90	5	50.0	07/05/1976
RPH45	805304	7514773	624	PH	-90	5	35.0	07/05/1976
RPD46	805077	7514854	625	DD	-90	5	55.6	07/05/1976
RPH47	805032	7514764	625	PH	-90	5	55.0	08/07/1976
RPH48	804814	7514884	627	PH	-90	5	34.0	08/05/1976
RPH49	804287	7514954	633	PH	-90	5	41.0	08/05/1976
RPH50	803862	7515197	639	PH	-90	5	33.0	09/05/1976
RPH51	804985	7514782	625	PH	-90	5	44.0	09/05/1976
RPH52	805008	7514827	625	PH	-90	5	41.0	09/05/1976
RPH53	805079	7514745	625	PH	-90	5	48.0	09/05/1976
RPH54	805103	7514790	625	PH	-90	5	62.0	10/05/1976
RPD55	805097	7514845	625	DD	-90	5	32.0	10/05/1976
RPH56	802072	7516042	636	PH	-90	5	55.0	11/05/1976
RPH57	802153	7515879	636	PH	-90	5	44.0	11/05/1976
RPH58	801894	7516028	638	PH	-90	5	49.0	11/05/1976
RPH59	801744	7516179	639	PH	-90	5	35.0	11/05/1976
RPH60	802065	7515932	637	PH	-90	5	47.0	12/05/1976
RPH61	802325	7515781	635	PH	-90	5	51.0	12/05/1976
RPH62	802455	7515704	634	PH	-90	5	53.0	12/05/1976
RPH63	802306	7515851	635	PH	-90	5	34.0	12/05/1976
RPH64	801639	7516296	640	PH	-90	5	25.0	13/05/1976
RPH65	801591	7516210	641	PH	-90	5	38.0	13/05/1976
RPH66	802908	7515501	634	PH	-90	5	52.0	13/05/1976
RPH67	802132	7515646	638	PH	-90	5	128.0	14/05/1976
RPD68	802897	7515479	634	PH	-90	5	58.7	13/07/1976
RPH69	803388	7515348	639	PH	-90	5	42.0	14/07/1976
RPH70	805757	7514590	620	PH	-90	5	45.0	15/07/1976
RPH71	805989	7514492	619	PH	-90	5	61.0	15/07/1976
RPH72	806276	7514503	619	PH	-90	5	35.0	16/07/1976
RPH73	806515	7514425	619	PH	-90	5	22.0	16/07/1976
RPH74	806801	7514439	619	PH	-90	5	12.0	16/07/1976
RPH75	801164	7516465	643	PH	-90	5	45.0	17/07/1976
RPH76	800723	7516725	646	PH	-90	5	45.0	17/07/1976
RPH77	800319	7517017	648	PH	-90	5	33.0	17/07/1976
RPH78	799869	7517231	651	PH	-90	5	46.0	18/07/1976
RPH79	799653	7517386	652	PH	-90	5	37.0	18/07/1976
RPD80	799408	7517438	654	PH	-90	5	59.6	22/07/1976
RPD81	801665	7516283	638	DD	-90	5	20.4	23/07/1976
RPD82	801613	7516311	640	DD	-90	5	19.0	23/07/1976
RPD83	802173	7515709	638	DD	-90	5	106.8	09/08/1976
RPD84	802625	7515502	634	DD	-59	26	84.5	27/07/1976
RPD85	800304	7516989	648	DD	-59	6	36.7	28/07/1976

10

RPH86	799227	7517624	655	PH	-90	5	33.0	07/08/1976
RPH87	799002	7517730	656	PH	-90	5	39.0	07/08/1976
RPH88	798798	7517874	658	PH	-90	5	27.0	07/08/1976
RPH89	798568	7517980	659	PH	-90	5	42.0	07/08/1976
RPH90	800336	7517045	648	PH	-90	5	24.0	07/08/1976
RPH91	801643	7516317	640	PH	-90	5	12.0	08/08/1976
RPH92	801624	7516268	642	PH	-90	5	32.0	08/08/1976
RPH93	801686	7516263	638	PH	-90	5	20.0	09/08/1976
RPH94	801581	7516322	640	PH	-90	5	20.0	09/08/1976
RPH95	801554	7516359	640	PH	-90	5	17.0	10/08/1976
RPH96	801514	7516387	641	PH	-90	5	16.0	10/08/1976
RPH97	801473	7516417	641	PH	-90	5	14.0	10/08/1976
RPH98	801433	7516449	642	PH	-90	5	12.0	10/08/1976
RPH99	801391	7516478	642	PH	-90	5	10.0	10/08/1976
RPH100	801218	7516566	643	PH	-90	5	13.0	10/08/1976
RPH101	801089	7516589	644	PH	-90	5	26.0	10/08/1976
RPH102	802807	7515820	632	PH	-90	5	150.0	18/08/1979
RPH103	802979	7516163	630	PH	-90	5	117.0	19/08/1979
RPH104	803116	7516451	629	PH	-90	5	96.0	05/10/1980
RPH105	803229	7516673	628	PH	-90	5	133.0	06/10/1980
RPH106	803333	7516877	626	PH	-90	5	90.0	13/06/1981
RPH107	803409	7517104	625	PH	-90	5	90.0	14/06/1981
RPH108	803299	7516770	627	PH	-90	5	120.0	15/06/1981
RPH109	803498	7516653	628	PH	-75	35	102.0	15/06/1981

*PH = Percussion Hole; DD = Diamond Drill Core

11

Annexure 2. Significant eU3O8 (Deconvolved Gamma Log) intercepts from the Karins Deposit based on the criteria: minimum width 0.3m, maximum internal dilution 0.3m, 100ppm eU3O8 cut-off grade. Grade x Thickness values >1000 are highlighted in bold italics.

					GRADE eU3O8 (ppm)
HOLE NUMBER	FROM (m)	TO (m)	WIDTH (m)	Gamma Probe*		Grade x Thickness
RPH01	16.0	16.8	0.8	O-1	444	355
RPH04	58.6	58.9	0.3	O-1	322	97
and	61.9	66.8	4.9	O-1	1,240	6075
RPH11	18.7	19.2	0.5	O-1	457	228
RPH12	13.1	13.6	0.5	L-1	115	57
RPH17	58.8	59.9	1.1	L-1	156	172
RPH18	58.6	59.0	0.4	O-1	494	198
and	62.6	64.1	1.5	O-1	722	1082
and	65.6	67.2	1.6	O-1	282	452
RPH19	60.9	61.5	0.6	O-1	1,086	651
and	65.7	66.3	0.6	O-1	264	159
RPH20	35.4	36.5	1.1	O-1	333	366
and	47.5	48.5	1.0	O-1	282	282
and	53.6	55.8	2.2	O-1	275	606
RPH25A	36.2	37.7	1.5	L-1	110	166
RPH33	38.7	39.5	0.8	O-1	238	191
and	40.3	40.6	0.3	O-1	204	61
RPH34	46.1	46.4	0.3	O-1	274	82
RPH36	17.6	18.0	0.4	L-1	120	48
and	21.1	21.4	0.3	L-1	104	31
and	21.7	22.3	0.6	L-1	104	62
RPH37	33.4	34.6	1.2	O-1	297	356
and	35.2	35.6	0.4	O-1	123	49
RPH43	42.6	44.2	1.6	O-1	916	1466
RPH51	43.6	43.9	0.3	L-1	131	39
RPH56	8.5	9.2	0.7	L-1	120	84
RPH57	39.4	40.3	0.9	O-1	215	193
RPH59	25.9	26.6	0.7	O-1	190	133
RPH61	31.4	32.0	0.6	L-1	154	93
and	36.9	37.2	0.3	L-1	121	36
and	37.8	38.7	0.9	L-1	120	108
RPH62	49.9	50.2	0.3	L-1	106	32
RPH63	22.8	23.6	0.8	O-1	331	265
and	23.9	24.4	0.5	O-1	106	53
RPH64	10.9	17.0	6.1	O-1	830	5066
RPH66	29.9	30.5	0.6	O-1	2,547	1528
and	31.4	31.7	0.3	O-1	106	32
and	41.4	42.1	0.7	O-1	348	243
RPH67	102.7	103.1	0.4	O-1	476	190

12

and	104.6	105.1	0.5	O-1	469	234
RPD68	33.5	33.8	0.3	O-1	318	95
and	35.2	35.5	0.3	O-1	298	89
and	38.8	39.3	0.5	O-1	435	218
and	47.4	48.0	0.6	O-1	277	166
RPH75	15.0	15.6	0.6	L-1	139	84
and	34.4	36.4	2.0	L-1	113	225
RPH76	38.8	39.6	0.8	O-1	362	289
RPH77	27.2	28.2	1.0	O-1	1,489	1489
and	29.5	29.9	0.4	O-1	123	49
RPH78	36.9	37.7	0.8	L-1	109	87
and	38.3	38.6	0.3	L-1	102	30
RPD81	10.4	12.7	2.3	O-1	756	1738
RPD82	10.1	15.3	5.2	O-1	408	2122
RPD83	87.0	88.9	1.9	O-1	1,200	2280
RPD84	63.8	66.5	2.7	O-1	515	1389
and	67.0	68.2	1.2	O-1	373	447
and	73.1	74.1	1.0	O-1	281	281
RPH91	8.1	8.9	0.8	L-1	151	121
RPH92	23.9	24.7	0.8	O-1	332	266
and	29.1	29.4	0.3	O-1	106	32
RPH93	10.5	12.8	2.3	O-1	326	749
and	14.0	14.3	0.3	O-1	118	35
and	14.6	16.5	1.9	O-1	450	854
and	17.4	18.0	0.6	O-1	145	87
RPH94	13.5	15.1	1.6	O-1	351	561
and	16.6	16.9	0.3	O-1	106	32
RPH95	7.7	9.0	1.3	O-1	4,092	5320
and	9.4	9.7	0.3	O-1	133	40
and	11.2	11.6	0.4	O-1	314	126
and	13.6	14.1	0.5	O-1	228	114
RPH96	12.2	13.2	1.0	O-1	273	273
and	14.4	14.7	0.3	O-1	106	32
RPH97	5.6	8.2	2.6	O-1	580	1507
and	10.6	11.1	0.5	O-1	228	114
and	11.8	12.2	0.4	O-1	121	48
RPH98	8.8	9.2	0.4	L-1	115	46
RPH99	6.3	7.2	0.9	L-1	129	116
RPH101	15.9	17.2	1.3	O-1	459	597

*Gamma probe: O-1 = Ore-Probe; L-1 = Lithology Probe.

13

Annexure 3. Karins Deposit Resource Report.

					Grade	Grade	Mineral Resources	Mineral Resources
Cut off grade	Category	Type	Volume '000 m3	Tonnes '000 t	U3O8 ppm	U %	U3O8	U3O8
							tonnes	M lb
0	Inferred	Oxidised	438	1,087	391	0.033	425	0.94
		Primary	335	831	420	0.036	349	0.77
		Total	773	1,918	404	0.034	775	1.71
100	Inferred	Oxidised	438	1,087	391	0.033	425	0.94
		Primary	335	831	420	0.036	349	0.77
		Total	773	1,918	404	0.034	775	1.71
200	Inferred	Oxidised	290	719	526	0.045	379	0.83
		Primary	211	524	597	0.051	312	0.69
		Total	501	1,243	556	0.047	691	1.52
300	Inferred	Oxidised	178	441	693	0.059	305	0.67
		Primary	143	354	754	0.064	268	0.59
		Total	321	795	721	0.061	573	1.26
400	Inferred	Oxidised	107	265	937	0.079	249	0.55
		Primary	108	268	892	0.076	239	0.53
		Total	215	534	914	0.078	488	1.08
500	Inferred	Oxidised	75	187	1,139	0.097	213	0.47
		Primary	85	212	1,008	0.085	213	0.47
		Total	161	399	1,069	0.091	426	0.94
600	Inferred	Oxidised	58	143	1,321	0.112	189	0.42
		Primary	65	161	1,144	0.097	184	0.41
		Total	123	304	1,227	0.104	373	0.82
700	Inferred	Oxidised	48	118	1,466	0.124	173	0.38
		Primary	58	144	1,203	0.102	173	0.38
		Total	106	262	1,321	0.112	347	0.76
800	Inferred	Oxidised	42	103	1,568	0.133	162	0.36
		Primary	53	131	1,248	0.106	164	0.36
		Total	95	234	1,389	0.118	325	0.72
900	Inferred	Oxidised	36	90	1,670	0.142	151	0.33
		Primary	47	117	1,295	0.11	152	0.33
		Total	84	208	1,458	0.124	303	0.67
1,000	Inferred	Oxidised	33	81	1,756	0.149	142	0.31
		Primary	43	105	1,334	0.113	140	0.31
		Total	75	186	1,517	0.129	283	0.62

Note: All figures in the tables are rounded, and therefore the total sums might not be the direct sum of the input figures

14

The following commentary is provided to ensure compliance with the JORC (2012) requirements for the reporting of Mineral Resource Estimates as discussed above for the Karins Deposit located on tenements MLN1952 and MCS318-328.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
Sampling	 Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or		The primary sampling instrument at the Karins Deposit was the
techniques	specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate		downhole gamma tool (or ‘probe’) which was used to obtain a total
	to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma		gamma count reading with depth down each drill hole. Drilling was by
	sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should		rotary percussion (PH) or diamond core drilling (DD) methods and drill
	not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.		lines were on a nominal 250m spacing (eastings) with closer spacing
	 Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity		(50 to 25m) within mineralised zones. Drill holes were mostly vertical
	and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems		to optimally intersect shallow-dipping mineralisation. Original
	used.		analogue gamma log data was digitised at 10cm intervals downhole
	 Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the		and converted to standard format LAS files followed by calculation of
	Public Report.		equivalent U3O8(eU3O8) grades (see below for further information on
	 In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be		gamma log processing procedures).
	relatively simple (eg ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1		The total count gamma logging method used here is a common
	m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge		method used to estimate uranium grade where the radiation
	for fire assay’). In other cases more explanation may be required,		contribution from thorium and potassium is small (as is the case for
	such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling		sandstone-hosted deposits of the Bigrlyi-type considered here).
	problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg		Gamma radiation is measured from a volume surrounding the drill
	submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.		hole that has a radius of approximately 35cm. Therefore the gamma
			probe samples a much larger volume than drill spoil or drill core
			samples recovered from a drill hole of normal diameter; gamma
			logging is considered to provide a more representative sample of the
			ore body and is preferred over geochemical assay of drill samples.
			Estimates of uranium concentration determined from gamma ray
			measurements are based on the commonly accepted initial
			assumption that the uranium is in secular equilibrium with its daughter
			products (radionuclides), which are the principal gamma ray emitters
			along the U-series decay chain. If uranium is in disequilibrium as a
			result of the redistribution (depletion or enhancement) of uranium
			relative to its daughter radionuclides, then the true uranium
			concentration in the holes logged using the gamma probe will be
			higher or lower than those reported. Closed can gamma
			measurements and chemical assay data from 17 samples from both
			the carnotite and uraninite zones of the Karins Deposit confirm that
			there is no systematic deviation from equilibrium and a correction for

15

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		disequilibrium has not been made. i.e. the Radioactive Equilibrium
		Factor (REF) = U3O8/eU3O8= 1. This is consistent with current
		knowledge of other Ngalia Basin uranium deposits such as Bigrlyi.
Drilling	 Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air	Most of the drilling was by the rotary percussion (PH) method using
techniques	blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple	tricone roller bits and an air hammer. Hole sizes ranged from 4.5 to
	or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other	6.5 inches and were not cased except for PVC collars in the top 2-
	type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	4m. Seven NQ-size diamond core holes were drilled and the core is
		archived in EME’s Bigrlyi core yard. As part of data validation
		procedures, four drill core holes were re-logged by EME geologists.
Drill sample	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries	Drill spoil recovery is not relevant to the sampling method used (i.e.
recovery	and results assessed.	downhole gamma logging).
	 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	Four historical diamond core holes were re-logged by EME geologists
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate	for lithology, colour, grain-size, stratigraphic unit, oxidation state,
	Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical	alteration, cementation, weathering and other features; data was
	studies.	recorded digitally and the core was photographed. Scintillometer and
	 Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or	Niton portable XRF measurements were undertaken at 20cm
	costean, channel, etc) photography.	intervals through ore zones to confirm the width of mineralisation. The
	 The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	coded data was verified according to Energy Metals’ standard logging
		look-up tables. The re-logs were found to be in good agreement with
		previous logging records, which provided confidence in the quality of
		original CPM logging, and permitted EME to proceed with digitisation
		of the remaining CPM historical drill core logs.
		PH drill chip samples were logged at the time of drilling by CPM
		geologists and the hard copy lithological logs were converted to
		digital format by EME geologists using EME’s standard codes.

16

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sub-	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core	Samples of half core were submitted for uranium (and vanadium)
sampling	taken.	assay work historically by CPM, however, these data were not used
techniques and sample preparation	 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.	for the present resource estimation work as they are not considered sufficiently robust nor representative in comparison with the gamma log measurements.
	 Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to
	maximise representivity of samples.
	 Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field
	duplicate/second-half sampling.
	 Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material
	being sampled.
Quality of	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	The gamma tools used for downhole gamma ray measurements were
assay data	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered	calibrated and operated by geophysical contractors McPhar
and	partial or total.	Geophysics Pty Ltd until 1975 and after this time by Geoex Pty Ltd of
laboratory tests	 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	South Australia who acquired the assets of McPhar. Calibration information including k-factors and deadtime corrections and hole information including hole diameter and fluid levels/type were
	derivation, etc.	recorded for each hole. The accuracy and reproducibility of the probe
	 Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks,	data were monitored using two on-site standard radioactive sources
	duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels	(a low-level and a high-level source) and the monitoring data was
	of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established.	included on each paper log and deemed satisfactory.
		All drill holes were probed open-hole with the L1 or lithology gamma
		probe which employed a sensitive 4 x 1 inch detector crystal.
		Intervals of significant mineralisation (off-scale on the L1 probe) were
		re-probed with the O1 or ore gamma probe which employed a less
		sensitive 1 x ¾ inch detector crystal.
		Approximately half the drill holes (i.e. those with a standing water
		level) were logged electrically to provide downhole electric potential
		and resistivity information. One hole was logged with a neutron probe
		to provide porosity information. This data has not been digitised nor
		used for the present resource estimation purposes.
		The counts per second (cps) downhole gamma data were recorded
		on paper charts with an analogue pen recorder; for some holes the
		cps data was also recorded in digital printout form for the O1 probe.
		Logging parameters including the time constant, logging speed and
		chart scale were recorded. Both L1 and O1paper logs were digitised

17

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		by EME’s geophysical contractor and converted into digital standard-
		format LAS files.
		LAS file data were converted to equivalent U3O8values (eU3O8in
		ppm) using the specified probe calibration factors and taking into
		account drill-hole size, fluid levels and other parameters. The eU3O8
		data was filtered (deconvolved) to correct for smearing of the gamma
		signal at mineralised interfaces so that true grades and thicknesses
		more closely reproduce actual grade. The eU3O8grades were
		calculated by consultant geophysicist Mr Evgeny Sirotenko under the
		supervision of Dr Maxim Seredkin using the well-established
		methodology of Khaikovich and Shashkin, widely tested and upheld in
		the evaluation of uranium deposits in Kazakhstan and the former
		USSR.
		Good agreement, better than 10 percent, was found for eU3O8grade
		composites calculated by CPM from the O1 digital printouts and
		grade-composites calculated by Sirotenko for the same intervals. This
		provides confidence in the quality of gamma log data.
Verification	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or	Significant uranium intersections for the four re-logged NQ holes were
of sampling	alternative company personnel.	verified by geological personnel from the Uranium Resources
and assaying	 The use of twinned holes.  Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data	Company (URC), Beijing, China; URC is the technical arm of the China General Nuclear Power Corporation (CGNPC), the major
	verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.	shareholder of Energy Metals Ltd.
	 Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	Two holes were probed twice with the O1 gamma probe as a
		duplicate check and one hole was probed over its entire length with
		both the L1 and O1 probes as a check for internal consistency. In
		both cases the results were found to be in good agreement
		No twinned holes are available from the historical data set (see
		comments in Section 3).
		Historical data including paper gamma and lithological logs were
		stored in a series of archive boxes in Energy Metals library. The data
		is a complete record of exploration works conducted in the period
		1974 to 1981.
		No adjustments were made to eU3O8assay data other than the
		standard reprocessing (deconvolution) discussed above.
Location of	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and	Hole collar locations of which there are 110 were determined using
data points	down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations	three independent data-sets. The primary data-set comprised CPM’s
	used in Mineral Resource estimation.	original exploration drill hole plans, which were scanned at high
	 Specification of thegrid system used.	resolution and carefully georeferenced to allow extraction of hole

18

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	 Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	coordinates. The drill collars locations were compared with drill sites
		identifiable from Google Earth (GE) imagery and with the same drill
		sites converted from CPM’s original local coordinate grid. Agreement
		between the three data-sets was found to be excellent and the
		accuracy of the collar coordinates is judged to be better than +/-10m
		in the horizontal plane.
		The coordinates are located on the MGA94 grid, Zone 52 using the
		GDA94 datum (see Annexure 1).
		In the vertical plane topographic control was provided by a digital
		elevation model generated from NatMap topographic data, local
		benchmark data supplied by the NT DIPE, GE imagery and original
		CPM RL survey data. Accuracy is judged to be at least +/-1m in the
		vertical plane.
		Most holes were drilled vertically and as no surveys were undertaken
		were assumed to have remained vertical to the end of hole. Several
		angle holes were drilled but no historical downhole surveys are
		available; in these cases the starting azimuth was assumed to be
		constant until end of hole; as most holes were short, <120m, this is
		considered to be a reasonable assumption.
Data spacing	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	The Karins deposit was drilled on lines with a nominal 250m spacing
and	 Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the	(eastings); within mineralised zones drilling was infilled to 25 to 50m
distribution	degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral	spacing (eastings). Limited down-dip drilling was undertaken on
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and	panels with 100m step-outs.
	classifications applied.	Energy Metals and consultants CSA Global consider the spacing
	 Whether sample compositing has been applied.	sufficient to establish continuity of geology and grade for the
		purposes of estimation of an inferred mineral resource at Karins.
		Downhole gamma logs were measured at 10cm spacing and were
		composited as discussed in Annexure 2 for resource reporting
		purposes.
Orientation	 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of	Several investigations have shown that Bigrlyi-style (tabular stratiform
of data in	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering	sandstone-hosted) uranium mineralisation exhibits no significant
relation to	the deposit type.	structural control. Mineralisation is controlled by physical and
geological structure	 If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	chemical characteristics of the host rock such as permeability and redox state and is influenced by primary depositional and sedimentological features.
		The deposit occurs in shallowly dipping beds and was sampled by
		vertical drill holes; downhole gamma probe data was subsequently
		corrected for mineralised zone boundaryeffects bydeconvolution,

19

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		therefore there is no bias of sampling related to orientation of
		mineralised zones.
Sample	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Not applicable.
security
Audits or	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	No audits or reviews were conducted, however, the historical gamma
reviews		probe data has been verified to an acceptable standard.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral	 Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including	The Karins Deposit is located on tenement applications MLN1952
tenement	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	(Mineral Lease North) and MCS318-328 (Mineral Claim South) which
and land	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests,	are part of a joint venture between Energy Metals Ltd (53.3%),
tenure status	historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental	Paladin Energy Ltd (41.7%) and Southern Cross Exploration (5%).
	settings.	Energy Metals is the operator of the Joint Venture.
	 The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	Tenement application EL24462, which is 100% Energy Metals
	known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	owned, surrounds the Karins Deposit and covers along-strike
		geological units to the east, but does not contain any known mineral
		resources at present.
		Mineral Claims (such as MCS318-328) are considered_non-compliant_
		titles_under the Northern Territory’s current_Mineral Titles Act(the
		Act); such applications remain in force under transitional provisions
		until they are transitioned to an alternative suitable title under the Act.
		The exact areas of Mineral Leases and Mineral Claims in the
		Northern Territory, including MLN1952 and MCS318-328, are subject
		to survey of their boundary and datum pegs.
		The exploration licence applications are all located on Aboriginal
		freehold land granted in 1988 under the_Aboriginal Land Rights_
		(Northern Territory) Act 1976(the ALRA). The land was formerly part
		of the Mount Allan pastoral lease and is now held by the Yalpirakinu
		Aboriginal Land Trust.
		Under the ALRA, access to and future grant of titles encroaching on
		Aboriginal Freehold land (including MLN1952, MCS318-328 and
		ELA24462) requires an agreement with traditional owners and their
		representatives the Central Land Council. At present no agreement
		exists.

20

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		EME next has an opportunity to negotiate an exploration agreement
		for EL24462 from 7 December 2015 when the tenement is released
		from ALRA moratorium.
		Grant of Mineral Leases for uranium in the NT (such as MLN1952)
		are subject to Federal Government approval.
Exploration	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	All the exploration data reported here is the result of drilling programs
done by		undertaken by Central Pacific Minerals (CPM) in the period 1974-
other parties		1981. Energy Metals acquired CPM’s interest in the project in 2005 together with all the historical data including historical drill core.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	Karins is a Bigrlyi–style, tabular, stratiform, sandstone-hosted
		uranium-vanadium deposit of Carboniferous age located in the north
		central Ngalia Basin (NT). Refer to Figure 1.
Drill hole	 A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	Refer to Annexure 1 and Annexure 2.
Information	exploration results including a tabulation of the following information
	for all Material drill holes:
	o easting and northing of the drill hole collar
	o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in
	metres) of the drill hole collar
	o dip and azimuth of the hole
	o down hole length and interception depth
	o hole length.
	 If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the
	information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from
	the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly
	explain why this is the case.
Data	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	Exploration results, i.e. mineralised intercepts, are reported as
aggregation	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high	equivalent U3O8values (eU3O8) from processed gamma logs. For
methods	grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.	reporting purposes in Annexure 2, gamma log intersections have
	 Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade	been composited from 10cm deconvolved eU3O8values. A cut-off
	results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used	grade of 100ppm U3O8has been used with a minimum thickness of
	for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of	0.3m, a maximum internal dilution of 0.3m and no external dilution. A
	such aggregations should be shown in detail.	REF value of 1 was applied, i.e. U3O8/ eU3O8= 1. Results are
	 The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values	reported in Annexure 2.
	should be clearly stated.
Relationship	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	Based on geological mapping work by CPM geologists and structural
between	Exploration Results.	measurements of drill core, beds are shallowly dipping between 15
mineralisatio	 If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole	and 22 degrees. Most holes have been drilled vertically and true

21

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
n widths and	angle is known, its nature should be reported.	widths of intersections are approximately 95% of the reported
intercept	 If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there	downhole widths.
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	Refer to Figures 2 to 5 in the body of the text.
	intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being
	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of
	drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.
Balanced	 Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	All results have been reported.
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades
	and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of
	Exploration Results.
Other	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	The recovery of vanadium is not considered an economic proposition
substantive	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical	for Bigrlyi-style deposits at present.
exploration data	survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density,
	groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential
	deleterious or contaminating substances.
Further work	 The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	No further work is planned until the mineral titles covering the deposit
	extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	are granted.
	 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,
	including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,
	provided this information is not commercially sensitive.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	 Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for	Data used in the Mineral Resource estimate was sourced from
integrity	example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection	original hardcopy. Hardcopy data was converted to digital format and
	and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	collated, tabulated & verified by several persons before being
	 Data validation procedures used.	validated upon importation into EME’s Geobank database. Resource
		consultants CSA were provided with a validated Micromine database
		by EME. Relevant tables from the database were exported to
		Micromine .DAT format for import into Micromine 2014 software for
		use in the Mineral Resource estimationprocedure.

22

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Validation of the imported data included checks for missing, duplicated
		and/or incorrectly recorded collar locations, survey data, sample data,
		gamma log data & lithological log data.
		Original historical gamma logs were reprocessed and deconvolved to
		yield eU3O8(ppm) values which correlated with historical digital print-
		out information stored in EME’s archives. The average difference is
		+/-5%foreU3O8 grades and+/-8%forgrade-thicknesses ofeU3O8.
Site visits	 Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and	No site visits were undertaken by the Competent Person (Resource
	the outcome of those visits.	Estimation) or CSA staff.
	 If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	CSA has relied on Energy Metals for all data regarding the deposits,
		and giventhe current stage ofthe project, considers this appropriate.
Geological	 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of the geological	There is a reasonable level of confidence in the geological
interpretation	interpretation of the mineral deposit.	interpretation of the Karins deposit. The geology is traceable and
	 Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	reasonably continuous between drill holes and sections. Geological
	 The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource	controls such as the dip of the sedimentary rocks have been used to
	estimation.	constrain the extrapolation of mineralisation within stratigraphic
	 The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource	bounds. It is recommended in future exploration programs that several
	estimation.	holes are “twinned” to validate the historical data and a more detailed
	 The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.	estimation of the Radioactive Equilibrium Factor (REF) be undertaken. It is further recommended that the possibility of in-situ recovery of the
		uranium at the Karins deposit be investigated; this would include
		hydrogeological test work and laboratory leaching tests. More exploration
		work is needed along the southern flank of the deposit, i.e. down-dip of
		currently known mineralised bodies.
		Geological structure and gamma logging have formed the basis for
		the geological interpretation. The Radioactive Equilibrium Factor (REF)
		is assumed to be 1 based on comparison of closed can gamma and
		chemical assay measurements from 17 samples.
		Further work may be required to better define the geometry and limits
		of the mineralisation, particularly with depth, but no significant
		downside changes to the currently interpreted mineralised volume are
		anticipated.
		Mineralisation is primarily concentrated within sandstones between
		silt/claystone lenses & interlayers that form lower and upper
		confining layers. A zone of oxidation is developed at the upper part
		of the deposit. Mineralised host sedimentary rocks are covered by
		<5m of alluvial/aeolian sediments.
		Grade continuity is controlled by redox boundaries within sandstones
		and siltstones;regionallythe deposits are hosted alongthe northern

23

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			margin of the Ngalia Basin, which is an elongate intracratonic
			depression about 300km long (east-west) and 40km wide (north-
			south) on average. This basin is filled with late Proterozoic to
			Palaeozoic aged sedimentary rocks, predominantly
			continental/marine arkosic sandstone, and Neoproterozoic glacigene
			deposits and quartzite.
Dimensions	 The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as		Mineralisation is stratiform in nature but is variably distributed
	length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below		along strike and at depth due to the probable epigenetic genesis of
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.		the deposit. The dimensions of the main Karins ore bodies are
			approximately 3.7km of strike length with an average plan width of
			150m and maximum modelled plan width of 350m. The total strike
			length of the Karins deposit is some 5.8km overall. Stratigraphy &
			mineralisation dips between 15 and 22 degrees. The mineralised
			interval varies between 0.2m to 6.1m averaging 1.0m. The model
			extends from 2m below surface to 120 metres below surface.
Estimation	 The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)		Gamma logging has been used for the definition of mineralised
and	applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade		intervals and interpretation (wireframing) of mineralised bodies. The
modelling	values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance		REF is assumed to be 1. The deposit has been separated into zones
techniques	of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation		of predominantly oxidised mineralisation (carnotite) and primary
	method was chosen include a description of computer software and		reduced mineralisation (uraninite). The model consists of 23
	parameters used.		mineralised domains as defined by the wireframe model.
	 The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine		Grade estimation was calculated by the Inverse Distance Weighted
	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes		Squared method (IDW2) using Micromine 2014 software in a
	appropriate account of such data.		flattened model to horizontal surface. Omni directions and downhole
	 The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.		semivariograms have been used for the definition of the distance of
	 Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of		interpolation. No top cutting of extreme grade values was
	economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage		undertaken. The number of samples within the mineralised
	characterisation).		wireframes for each deposit was generally too small to establish what
	 In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed.  Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.  Any assumptions about correlation between variables.  Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	  	constitutes an extreme grade value. No previous estimates have been completed for this deposit and no mining has taken place. No assumptions have been made regarding recovery of by- products. No other elements were estimated.
	 Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.		The block model was constructed using a 5mE x 5mN x 0.5mRL
	 The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison		parent block size, with sub-celling to 4mE x 4mN x 2mRL for
	of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if		domain volume resolution. The parent cell size was chosen on the
	available.		basis of the general morphology of mineralised bodies and in order to
			avoid thegeneration of unrealisticallylarge blocks. The sub-celling

24

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
			size was chosen to maintain the resolution of the mineralised bodies.
			The sub-cells were optimised in the models where possible to form
			larger cells.
			The search ellipse radii were determined from evaluation of the
			exploration drill hole distribution due to the low ranges of
			semivariograms (low variable mineralisation). Omnidirectional
			semivariograms were generated with a range of 90m for the
			Northings & Eastings, and downhole semivariograms were
			generated with a range of 4m. The first search radii were 10 x 10
			x 1m, second 25 x 25 x 2m, third 60 x 60 x 2.67m then 90 x 90 x
			4m. The model cells that did not receive grades from the first
			runs were then estimated using radii incremented by the 90 x 90
			x 4m.
			No selective mining units were assumed in this estimate.
			There is a positive correlation between eU3O8and V2O5for the
			oxidised mineralised bodies.
			Geological boundaries were used to guide the interpretation of
			mineralised lenses. Specifically, mineralisation is interpreted to occur
			along redox boundaries within the shallow dipping 20° Mt Eclipse
			Sandstone. Mineralised bodies have been separated into oxidised &
			primary reduced facies. Many profiles contain one drillhole only.
			Grade envelopes at 100ppm eU3O8were defined for interpretation
			purposes.
			A 200ppm eU3O8cut-off grade was applied to mineralisation inside
			envelopes. No top cuts have been applied at this stage.
			Validation of the block model consisted of a comparison between the
			block model volume and the wire-framed volumes. Grade estimates
			were validated by visual comparison with the drill data. No
			reconciliation data is available at this earlystage of theproject.
Moisture	 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural		The tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
	moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off	 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters		A cut-off grade of 100ppm U3O8has been used for interpretation and
parameters	applied.		200ppm U3O8for resource estimation modelling. Based on CSA’s
			experience with this type of deposit; this is considered a reasonable
			cut-off which could result in eventual economic extraction.
Mining	 Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum		At this stage of resource development it is assumed that mining
factors or	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining		would be by open pit methods. Future hydrogeological investigations
assumptions	dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining		and leaching tests would be useful in determining whether solution
	reasonableprospects for eventual economic extraction to consider		miningmaybepossible.

25

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding
	mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources
	may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be
	reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions
	made.
Metallurgical	 The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical		Metallurgical testwork is required to determine if the deposit is
factors or	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of		amenable to solution mining and/or heap leaching. There is a
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to		requirement for a certain level of natural permeability and for
	consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions		mineralisation to occur below the watertable if in-situ recovery is to be
	regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made		considered. Hydrological pumping cluster tests would need to be
	when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.		undertaken if the deposit is found to be amenable to in-situ extraction
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of		processes.
	the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.
Environmen-	 Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue		No detailed assumptions regarding possible waste and process
tal factors or	disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of		residue options have been made at this early stage.
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to
	consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and
	processing operation. While at this stage the determination of
	potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project,
	may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of
	these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where
	these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with
	an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.
Bulk density	 Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the		Bulk density testing was carried out on both mineralised & un-
	assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the		mineralised drill core from the Karins deposit. Energy Metals supplied
	frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and		CSA with a table comprising 12 bulk density determinations from two
	representativeness of the samples.		drill holes. The rock types found at Karins include sub-arkosic
	 The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by		sandstone and shale.
	methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,		Density estimates were obtained using the Archimedes method on
	etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones		the selected core samples. The balance was calibrated using two
	within the deposit.		standard weights. An oven was used to dry the core to evaporate
	 Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the		excess moisture and hairspray was used to seal the exterior to
	evaluation process of the different materials.		account for natural porosity (voids) when necessary. Test work to
			date has shown that there are no significant density differences due
			to sample porosity or alteration type.
			The same average bulk density of 2.48 t/m3has been applied to all
			material in the models.
Classification	 The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying		CSA has considered several factors in the classification of the
	confidence categories.		Mineral Resources such as search ellipse dimensions, geological

26

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
	 Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie		data and exploration drill hole grids. The Karins deposit has been
	relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input		classified as Inferred-category Mineral Resources due to: limited data
	data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality,		for REF definition, need to verify historical gamma logging by drilling
	quantity and distribution of the data).		twin holes, and the fact that many exploration sections are based on
	 Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s		single drill holes only.
	view of the deposit.		The Inferred classification has taken into account all available
			geological and sampling information, and the classification level is
			considered appropriate for the current stage of the project.
			The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately reflects the views of the
			Competent Persons.
Audits or	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.		No audits of the Mineral Resource estimate has been undertaken at
reviews			this time.
Discussion of	 Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and		The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate is reflected in
relative	confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach		the reporting of the Mineral Resource to Inferred classification as per
accuracy/	or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For		the guidelines of the 2012 JORC Code.
confidence	example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to		The resource statement refers to global estimation of tonnes and
	quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence		grade.
	limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative		No production data is available for comparison.
	discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and
	confidence of the estimate.
	 The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local
	estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be
	relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should
	include assumptions made and the procedures used.
	 These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
	should be compared withproduction data, where available.

27