FENIX RESOURCES LTD — Capital/Financing Update 2023

Oct 2, 2023

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT

FENIX ACQUIRES 10 MILLION TONNE RIGHT TO MINE OVER HIGH-GRADE WELD RANGE IRON ORE DEPOSIT

Targeting Production Growth and Mine Life Extension

HIGHLIGHTS

• Binding agreement signed with Sinosteel Midwest Corporation securing the exclusive right to mine and export up to 10 million dry metric tonnes of iron ore from the high-grade Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit in the Weld Range.

• The Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit has a JORC 2012 compliant total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate of 20.5 million tonnes at a grade of 61.3% Fe.

• Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit is located only 20 kilometres from Fenix’s current mining operations at the Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine allowing for significant operational synergies for future mining activity and the utilisation of the Company’s existing infrastructure and regional transport and logistics capabilities.

• The Transaction significantly increases Fenix’s portfolio of Mid-West iron ore projects with mineable, attributable Mineral Resources, which includes the Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine, the Shine Iron Ore Mine, and the Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit.

• Acquisition cost of $1 per tonne plus a Base Royalty and a variable Profit Share Royalty. Cash consideration of $10 million to be paid as $5 million cash on signing and $5 million cash upon receipt of approval of a Mining Proposal for Beebyn-W11.

• Fenix will maintain exclusive sole control of all mining, hauling, logistics and port operations relating to the mining and export of 10 million dry metric tonnes of iron ore.

• Fenix has demonstrated an ability to rapidly and successfully develop a Weld Range direct shipping ore project into production and has the advantage of existing highly efficient, inhouse mining, haulage and port capabilities.

• Securing the 10 million tonne Right to Mine from the high-grade Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit follows the Company’s acquisition of Mount Gibson’s Geraldton Port infrastructure and the consolidation of the Fenix-Newhaul business, with Fenix targeting growth in iron ore production as well as further cost reductions from economies of scale.

• The Company intends to immediately progress required approvals with the expectation that mining activities will commence at Beebyn-W11 during 2024.

• The Right to Mine agreement continues the strong partnership between Fenix and the Sinosteel Group and provides scope for the parties to investigate further opportunities to monetise high-value projects within the vast resource rich Mid-West region.

Fenix Resources Limited ( ASX:FEX ) ( Fenix or the Company ) is pleased to announce execution of definitive documents with Sinosteel Midwest Corporation Limited ( SMC ) for the

P +61 08 9226 2011 E info@fenixresources.com.au ABN 68 125 323 622

FENIX RESOURCES LTD

ASX:FEX fenixresources.com.au

1

exclusive right to mine and export up to 10 million tonnes of iron ore from the high-grade Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit (the Transaction or Right to Mine ).

The form of the Right to Mine provides Fenix with 100% control of all mining and export activities and allows the Company to take 100% of the net profits after the payment of royalties to SMC. The Right to Mine allows for Fenix to mine and sell up to 10 million dry metric tonnes of ore from Beebyn-W11 within a 10-year term from commencement.

Beebyn-W11 has a JORC 2012 Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate of 20.5 million tonnes at a grade of 61.3% Fe (see Table 1 below for detail). Fenix's due diligence indicates that the resource can be mined in a similar manner to the Company’s existing operations at Iron Ridge.

The Transaction consideration payable by Fenix to SMC comprises:

• An upfront payment of $5 million in cash upon execution of definitive documents;

• $5 million milestone cash payment, payable upon receipt of mining approvals;

• a fixed $2 per tonne Base Royalty payment; and

• a variable Profit Share Royalty based on a share of notional profit, calculated as actual revenue received for Beebyn-W11 shipments, less certain actual costs, less a fixed margin (as detailed below).

The low upfront consideration and variable royalty structure reflects SMC’s desire to maintain upside exposure to Beebyn-W11 and share in the benefits of Fenix’s established logistics experience and infrastructure.

==> picture [439 x 342] intentionally omitted <==

Image 1: Fenix’s assets in Western Australia’s Mid-West region

2

Commenting on the Transaction, Mr John Welborn, Chairman of Fenix, said:

“From the inception of Fenix’s production from Iron Ridge, Sinosteel have been a valued partner both as an off-taker and a provider of infrastructure. I am delighted to be expanding our mutually successful partnership with this important right to mine agreement.

Fenix is committed to an exciting growth path to expand our high-grade, high-margin mining operations in the Mid-West. Our unique road, rail and port infrastructure and capabilities provide an advantage which enables the efficient monetisation of highquality regional deposits which for too long have been stranded.

We are delighted to have secured this initial 10 million tonne right to mine opportunity with Sinosteel and look forward to working with them in partnership to unlock the immense value in their extensive iron ore holdings in the Mid-West.

Fenix’s operations in the Mid-West, following our strategic consolidation of our haulage business and the acquisition of Mount Gibson’s port and rail infrastructure, have significant scale potential. Our strategic intent is to expand our resource inventories, maintain the quality of our operations, and materially boost production to enable cost reduction and the generation of strong profit margins to reward our shareholders.”

3

==> picture [426 x 378] intentionally omitted <==

Image 2: Map showing Beebyn-W11 relative to the current Iron Ridge haulage route

ABOUT SINOSTEEL MIDWEST CORPORATION

Sinosteel Midwest Corporation is part of the Sinosteel Group, a Chinese State Owned Enterprise ultimately controlled by China Baowu Steel Group, the world’s largest steel producer. The Sinosteel Group is one of the biggest suppliers of raw materials to Chinese steel mills and is committed to responsible and sustainable development.

Following the acquisition of Midwest Corporation in 2008, SMC has been actively exploring and developing iron ore opportunities from one of the largest land holdings in the expanding Mid-West resources region of Western Australia.

SMC’s Weld Range Project, including the identified iron ore deposits at Beebyn and Madonga, has long been expected to be a catalyst for major infrastructure development in the Mid-West.

In October 2020, Fenix announced a binding offtake agreement with the Sinosteel Group for 50% of the life-of-mine iron ore production from the Company’s Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine. At the same time, Fenix acquired SMC’s storage shed at Geraldton Port and related truck unloading and conveyor infrastructure (see ASX Announcements dated 14 October 2020).

The Sinosteel relationship, through the foundational offtake agreement and the port infrastructure acquisitions, have been intrinsic and fundamental to Fenix’s success as an emerging iron ore producer in the Mid-West.

4

ABOUT THE BEEBYN-W11 IRON ORE DEPOSIT

The Beebyn-W11 iron ore deposit is located within the greater Weld Range Iron Ore Project and has been under the control of the Sinosteel Group since the acquisition of Midwest Corporation Limited in 2008. Beebyn-W11 is located approximately 20km from Fenix’s flagship Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine, a premium direct shipping ore deposit located approximately 360km northeast of Geraldton in Western Australia’s Mid-West.

Beebyn-W11 is a high-grade hematite banded iron formation deposit within the Beebyn area (M 51/869-I) of SMC’s Weld Range Iron Ore Project north of Cue. SMC has been evaluating the Madonga and Beebyn tenements within the Weld Range which has included multiple completed drilling programs and feasibility studies since 2010. SMC secured a Mining Proposal approval for the Weld Range project in 2015 which allowed for the export of up to 10 million tonnes per annum of direct shipping ore products.

As part of Fenix’s due diligence procedures, Resources WA were engaged to update the historical Mineral Resource Estimate for Beebyn-W11 (on a standalone basis) compliant with the JORC 2012 Edition. The update resulted in a total Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource Estimate of 20.5Mt at 61.3% Fe as set out in Table 1 below:

W11 Mineral Resources as of	W11 Mineral Resources as of	September	2023 (50% Fe cut-off)	2023 (50% Fe cut-off)	2023 (50% Fe cut-off)
JORC	Tonnage	Density	Fe	SiO2	Al2O3	LOI	P	S
classification	(Mt)	(t/m3)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)	(%)
Measured (Meas.)	13.22	3.45	61.78	3.66	2.66	2.86	0.07	0.03
Indicated (Ind.)	7.25	3.43	60.34	4.70	2.63	3.71	0.08	0.07
Meas. & Ind.	20.47	3.45	61.27	4.03	2.65	3.16	0.07	0.04
Inferred	0.90	3.02	56.38	7.75	5.62	4.54	0.11	0.01

Table 1: JORC 2012 Beebyn-W11 Mineral Resource Estimate

Notes: Stated at a Fe cut-off grade of 50%. Rounding of the figures has occurred. Geological discount of 10% applied

5

The Mineral Resource Estimate was supported by pit optimization work which demonstrated reasonable prospects of eventual economic extraction in relation to a conventional, open pit drill & blast operation. Further information relevant to understanding the Mineral Resource Estimate is set out at Appendix 1: JORC Table 1 Report.

==> picture [451 x 370] intentionally omitted <==

Image 3: Proximity of Iron Ridge Mining Licence and Beebyn-W11 Mining Licence

TRANSACTION DETAILS & TERMS

The transaction grants Fenix the exclusive right to mine from the Beebyn-W11 deposit up to the earlier of (i) mining and selling of 10 million tonnes of ore from the Beebyn-W11 deposit or (ii) 10 years from the date of the agreement.

Cash Payment of A$10 million (equivalent to $1 per tonne)

Cash consideration comprises:

• An upfront payment of A$5 million upon execution of definitive documents; and

• A$5 million milestone payment, payable upon receipt of mining approvals.

Base Royalty:

A fixed $2 per dry metric tonne base royalty on all iron ore sales under the Right to Mine.

6

Profit Share Royalty:

The Profit Share Royalty payable to SMC will be 12.5% of notional profit from commencement until Fenix has recouped its capital investment from ‘notional profit’ (see below), at which point it reverts to 50% of notional profit.

Notional profit is calculated as:

• Actual Revenue received for Beebyn-W11 shipments (in Australian dollars, net of sea freight costs, any product premiums or discounts, moisture adjustments, taxes and duties etc.); less

• Actual state royalties and native title royalties payable; less

• Actual Mining Costs, which includes drill & blast, load & haul within Beebyn-W11, crushing & screening and certain other allowable costs relating to mining operations; less

• A fixed margin per tonne of product, which is intended to cover road haulage to Geraldton, port costs, marketing costs and overheads, inclusive of a profit margin, and is indexed according to a weighted-average rise and fall formula; less

• The base royalty.

Project development:

Fenix is responsible for all project development (including obtaining all required approvals), mining operations, transportation of DSO product to Geraldton Port and marketing and sales of product.

Capital investment:

Fenix is responsible for all capital expenditure required to bring Beebyn-W11 into production.

Fenix will recover 50% of capital expenditure from SMC (capped at $12.5 million plus interest on all capital expenditure) through a reduced Profit Share Royalty payable to SMC of 12.5% of notional profit. Once the capital expenditure, plus interest, has been recovered from SMC, the Profit Share Royalty percentage reverts to 50% of notional profit.

Infrastructure and approvals:

The Parties must negotiate in good faith to agree acceptable locations for key infrastructure such as crushing and screening equipment, waste dump, stockpiles and a haul road. If the parties cannot agree within 30 days of Fenix making a request for approval, either party may terminate the agreement and, in such cases, SMC must refund all consideration paid by Fenix.

SMC must use its best endeavours, and provide all assistance reasonably required by Fenix, to assist Fenix in securing any approvals or third-party consents required for mining activities.

Offtake:

SMC (or its nominee) shall have the first right of refusal to enter into an offtake agreement for Beebyn-W11 ore. If SMC does not accept an offer from Fenix to match a competing offtake proposal, Fenix will be free to proceed with the third-party offtake proposal.

Suspension:

Where Fenix ships less than 100,000 dmt of product over any rolling 12-month period (starting from the date Fenix receives approval for its Mining Proposal and subject to extension in certain scenarios), Fenix must pay a Minimum Monthly Payment of $100,000 (which is subject to reduction in certain scenarios) until such time as it has shipped 100,000 dmt over the preceding 12 months.

Minimum Monthly Payments are treated as a non-refundable pre-payment of Base Royalty.

7

Termination:

Either party may terminate the agreement where the other party commits a material breach or defaults on an obligation to make a payment, an insolvency event occurs in respect of the other party, or if a force majeure event has been in effect for 36 consecutive months.

Fenix may terminate if the Platts 62% Fe index averages less than US$100/t over a threeyear period.

SMC may terminate if the obligation to pay the Minimum Monthly Payment has been paid for 12 consecutive months, however, if SMC does so, SMC must pay to Fenix an amount equal to Fenix’s capital expenditure less any amount recovered through the reduced profit share percentage.

SMC may elect to take ownership of Beebyn-W11 fixtures and the haul road constructed by Fenix at the expiry or termination of the agreement, subject to certain conditions.

Expansion and cost savings opportunities:

If Fenix identifies opportunities for further investment and expansion of iron ore mining in SMC’s Weld Range project, the parties must use reasonable endeavours to agree the grant of further rights to mine to Fenix allowing for:

• greater volumes of iron ore (in 10,000,000 dry metric tonne increments); and

• a longer mining term.

The agreement provides for Fenix to propose alternate transport methods (which may include rail or more efficient trucking) to realise and share cost savings among the parties.

Other conditions:

Fenix will assume and comply with relevant commitments under the existing Native Title agreement between SMC and the Wajarri Yamatji People, including:

• A payment of $200,000 upon first shipment

• A royalty payable to the Wajarri Yamatji People on all production from Beebyn-W11; and

• Commitments to implement and fund an Aboriginal Employment and Training Policy.

Fenix will be responsible for the rehabilitation of the site at the end of the production period (unless SMC advises otherwise) and will maintain a rehabilitation fund.

Fenix will own all Beebyn-W11 product mined. SMC will retain both legal and beneficial ownership to all tenements and all other iron ore deposits at the Weld Range Iron Ore Project, however the agreement includes a mechanism by which the Parties may expand the agreement to include other deposits from SMC’s Weld Range Project, as described above.

Development Pathway

Fenix has proven its ability as a successful, high-margin iron ore producer since commencing operations at Iron Ridge in 2020. The acquisition of the 10 million tonne Right to Mine from the nearby Beebyn-W11 deposit provides Fenix an opportunity to replicate the operational success at Iron Ridge, realising obvious synergies from the shared haulage route and economies of scale.

Following completion of the Transaction, Fenix intends to progress all approvals required as quickly as possible with the ambition of commencing mining activities at Beebyn-W11 during 2024.

Advisors

Poynton Stavrianou acted as financial advisor and Thomson Geer acted as legal counsel to Fenix in relation to the Transaction.

8

INFORMATION REQUIRED BY LISTING RULE 5.8.1

Geology and Geological Interpretation

Beebyn-W11 is a near surface, near vertically dipping Archaean banded iron formation (BIF) surrounded by mafic igneous rocks within the ENE trending Weld Range greenstone belt (Kenworthy, 2008). The lithologies in the area are multiply deformed and locally intruded by igneous rocks. The BIFs strike at approximately 070[o] and dip steeply (>80[o] ) to the SE (Duuring, et al ., 2017) and are cut by several steeply dipping NE-SW striking faults.

The mineralised units have four types with gradations between the types: massive haematite, interbedded haematite-goethite, goethite, and well-banded magnetite.

There are two categories of mineralisation: supergene - goethite-hematite mineralisation, which are the product of meteoric fluid alteration affecting BIF in the near-surface supergene environment, and hypogene - massive magnetite, specular haematite, goethite, and limonite ore bodies (Duuring et al ., 2017).

The Beebyn-W11 deposit shows good continuity of mineralisation within well-defined geological constraints. The CP considers the model suitable for reporting.

- Sampling and Sub Sampling Techniques

The data used for the Mineral Resource estimation was obtained from core and rock chips from diamond (DD) and Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling respectively. Sampling of the DD core was a mixture of quarter, half, and whole core samples. Sampling was taken according to geological boundaries. Overall, the sample lengths varied at 1 m to 2 m. The RC samples were subdivide using a combination of riffle split, rotary, spear, and grab on 1 m intervals. A 3.5 kg to 5 kg sample was collected for every metre for the RC drilling under dry conditions. Sample procedures followed during the historic sampling campaigns are assumed to have been in line with industry standards at that time. The type and size of the samples taken are appropriate to the mineralization type and geochemical analyses preformed and for use in the Mineral Resource estimation.

Whole-rock geochemistry was undertaken via X-Ray Fluoresce (XRF) fusion spectrometry. The type of analysis is considered appropriate for the type of ore body and samples. Loss-onIgnition (LOI) was determined using thermos-gravimetric methods at 1,000[o] C. SMC routinely used four commercial laboratories for the Beebyn deposits, these being, SGS Australia (Pty) Ltd, Ultra Trace (Pty) Ltd, Genalysis Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd, and AMDEL.

Certified reference material (CRM), duplicate and blank samples were inserted into the sample stream to determine the quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) of the geochemical analytical process. The analysis of the CRM sample results for Fe (%) indicate acceptable levels of sample accuracy and precision. The results give a satisfactory level of confidence for use of the sample data in the Mineral Resource estimation process. The QAQC results for SiO2 and Al2O3 also reflected a satisfactory level of confidence. Field duplicate results indicated that there was sample precision achieved by RC drilling. Samples were sent to umpire laboratories and similar precisions were noted amongst the laboratories.

Drilling Techniques

Both DD and RC drilling were completed. The DD was completed predominantly using HQ and PQ core diameters. The average drill hole spacing largely conforms to ~100 m along strike is and varies between ~20 m and ~50 m on dip. The end of hole depths ranged from 54 m to 360.4 m below surface (mbs). Within the database, 13 DD DHs were completed using HQ core diameter, and five using PQ core diameter. Most of the RC DHs were completed using a 5.5-inch bit with the cuttings delivered to a cyclone. A total of 56 RC drill holes are captured in the drill hole database.

9

The drill holes were angled at predominantly between -50[o] and -90[o] from horizontal. The available drill hole recoveries were above a 90% average in the mineralized zone (>35% Fe) and it is therefore inferred that the DD core is representative of the mineralization. There is no relationship between sample recovery and grade.

Since 2006, downhole surveys were predominantly undertaken using north seeking gyroscope method. Where DD drill holes were unable to be surveyed camera surveys were attempted with the tool inside the rods. The survey of the drill hole collars was undertaken using the Real Time Kinetic Global Positioning System device (RTK-GPS) method. The grid system used was MGA94 Zone 50.

Criteria used for Classification

The Mineral Resource was classified in accordance with the Australasian Code for the Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (JORC, 2012). The Mineral Resource for W11 has been classified into Measured, Indicated and Inferred after appropriate consideration of relevant factors, these included geological and grade continuity, drill hole spacing, data quality, QAQC results of sample data, interpolation and extrapolation of estimates, and available density data. The applied classification appropriately reflects the CP’s view of the deposit.

Estimation Methodology

Estimation was undertaken in four domains (BIF 1 to BIF 4) using composited drill hole data. A length of 2 m was used as the composite length with a minimum gap of 0.1 m. Flagging of drill hole data per estimation domain was conducted. Mineralised domains were defined on the stratigraphy, rock type and total iron grade. Univariate and bi-variate statistics were undertaken on the sample data.

Ordinary kriging (a linear unbiased geostatistical method) was conducted for Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, LOI, P, and S, and a moving average for bulk density. The block size (X, Y and Z) used relates to approximately half the average distance between drill holes. The block model dimensions are X = 25 m, Y = 10 m and Z = 10 m parent cell sizes. Three search ranges were employed.

Cut-off grade

A DSO using a 50% total iron cut-off grade was applied. The parameters used to derive the cutoff are mining dilution and recovery has been modelled at a geological level/resolution of the block model, price of USD 80 – 100/t, mining, processing, transport, and G&A have been considered. The price net of sell costs of AUD/dtmu of 1.05 – 1.09 and an exchange rate of 0.65 – 0.75 AUD/USD were considered.

Mining and Metallurgical Methods and Parameters, and Other Modifying Factors Considered to Date

The material reported in the Mineral Resource is considered to meet Reasonable Prospects for Eventual Economic Extraction based on the following considerations:

Mining is anticipated to be via conventional open pit methods using selective mining and blasting, with dilution kept to a minimum. A development of a target product specification of 62% Fe at a primary target of 1 Mt/annum DSO material, with a lifespan of 10 years. The target specifications for the fines product is an average Fe grade of greater than 58.0%, an average SiO2 grade of below 5.5%, and an average Al2O3 grade below 2.6%. In the Prefeasibility Study in 2008/2009, SRK determined that the average in-situ contaminant grades of SiO2 and Al2O3 would limit the marketability of the fines. As such, selective mining is needed. Blending between mining areas of the high-contaminant material should be considered through the life of the mine.

10

Mining Plus, an Australian consultancy, undertook pit optimisations and scheduling (in Datamine Studio NPVS) of the Beebyn W11 deposit in May 2023. Optimisation input costs and prices were provided by Fenix Resources or taken from previous studies undertaken on the Beebyn project. Mining, blasting, crushing, loading, road haulage to port, port and general and administration costs were applied. The exchange rate used (AUD to USD) ranged between 0.65 and 0.75. Measured, Indicated, and Inferred material was allowed to be considered as DSO material for the pit optimisation.

As part of a previous Feasibility Study conducted for SMC at Beebyn the characteristics and metallurgical properties of the iron ore were determined via rock strength, crushing work index and abrasion index testing of core. These indicate moderate rock strengths, low abrasivity and moderate crushing power requirements. The stages of ore processing include mining, crushing, and screening to produce lump and fines products.

In 2009, SRK Consulting studied the geochemical characterisation of Weld Range waste and mineralised rock-static and kinetic testing to assess the potential for acid and metalliferous drainage from rock exposed during mining. At Beebyn, 99% of the waste was classed as nonacid forming (NAF). The remainder of the as potentially acid forming (PAF).

The CP was not made aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socioeconomic, marketing, political or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate. There is a potential heritage constraint that was considered in the pit optimization exercise.

Audits and Reviews

Three historical audit reports are available, these being: Franks, M and Murphy, M, 2010, Technical Review: Beebyn and Madonga Resource Estimates, Prepared by XSTRACT Mining Consultants Pty Ltd, Unpublished (Project No P1143); Sommerville, B, 2009, Review of Resource Modelling Process, SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Unpublished; and Sommerville, B, 2010, Weld Range Fatal Flaw Review of Mineral Resource Estimates, SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Unpublished. This report was not available at the time of the compilation of Table 1.

The XSTRACT findings were that the 2009 MRE was estimated to a satisfactory industry standard, and the estimates could be used in the Feasibility Study, they considered the mineralisation (geological) cut-off of 48% was acceptable, they noted that the composite length of 2 m is appropriate and that there were no significant issues with the DH data. Furthermore, they recommended that refinement of the estimation parameters is recommended, and they agreed with the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred classification applied to the MRE, and considered the bulk density sampling has acceptable spatial coverage. The methodology used for the 2009 Mineral Resource was not materially different to that used in the 2013 Mineral Resource estimation. The Sommerville (2009) review considered the methodology used to estimate the Feasibility Study Mineral Resource suitable for developing a Mineral Resource estimate. It is not known whether the 2013 Mineral Resource was independently immediately post completion.

11

Competent Persons Statement

The information in this announcement relating to Sampling Techniques and Data, Reporting of Exploration Results and Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Dr Heather King, a Competent Person who is a member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions (SACNASP) and a Fellow of the Geological Society of South Africa (GSSA). Dr King is an employee of A&B Global Mining (Pty) Ltd, a sub-consultant of ResourcesWA Pty Ltd. Dr King has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Dr King consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on, and the information fairly represents, their information in the form and context in which it appears.

Authorised by the Board of Fenix Resources Limited. For further information, contact:

John Welborn Dannika Warburton Chairman Investor & Media Relations Fenix Resources Limited +61 401 094 261 john@fenixresources.com.au dannika@investability.com.au

Follow Fenix Resources:

Twitter: twitter.com/Fenix_Resources LinkedIn: www.linkedin.com/company/fenix-resources Facebook: www.facebook.com/fenixresources1 Website: fenixresources.com.au Join Fenix’ mailing list: https://fenixresources.com.au/subscribe/

12

==> picture [448 x 409] intentionally omitted <==

Fenix Resources (ASX: FEX) is a high grade, high margin iron ore producer with assets in the MidWest mining region of Western Australia. The Company’s 100% owned, flagship Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine is a premium direct shipping ore operation located approximately 360km north east of Geraldton that hosts some of the highest grade iron ore in Western Australia.

Production commenced at Iron Ridge in December 2020 and is currently operating at the production run rate of 1.3 million tonnes per annum. Fenix has produced and exported more than 3 million tonnes of premium iron ore, generating excellent cash flow and profitability since commencement of production.

Fenix operates a unique fully integrated mining and logistics business. High quality iron ore products are transported by road to Geraldton using the Company’s 100% owned Fenix-Newhaul haulage and logistics business. The Company operates its own loading and storage facilities at the Geraldton Port with storage capacity of up to 400,000 tonnes and loading capacity of more than 5Mt per annum.

The acquisition of Mount Gibson Iron Limited’s Mid-West iron ore, port and rail assets in July 2023 significantly expands Fenix’s Mid-West asset base and provides an excellent foundation for future growth. The assets acquired include the Shine Iron Ore Mine currently on care and maintenance located 230km east of Geraldton, two on-wharf bulk material storage sheds at Geraldton Port, two rail sidings at Ruvidini and Perenjori, and remaining mining assets and obligations at Extension Hill Iron Ore Mine.

In October 2023, Fenix secured a Right to Mine 10 million tonnes from Sinosteel Midwest Corporation’s Beebyn-W11 Iron Ore Deposit. Beebyn-W11 is located only 20km from Iron Ridge and provides an opportunity to boost mining production, extend the life of regional operations and further reduce costs. Fenix is progressing approvals with the ambition of commencing mining at Beebyn-W11 during 2024.

The Company is led by a proven team with deep mining and logistics experience and benefits from strategic alliances and agreements with key stakeholders, including the Wajarri Yamatji people who are the Traditional Custodians of the land on which the Iron Ridge Iron Ore Mine is located.

Fenix is focused on promoting opportunities for local businesses and the community. The Company has generated more than 200 local jobs. Fenix is proud to have a strong indigenous representation in the Company’s workforce and to be in partnership with the traditional owners.

==> picture [595 x 43] intentionally omitted <==

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

ASX:FEX | fenixresources.com.au
----- End of picture text -----

Appendix A – JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Report Beebyn W11 Iron Deposit

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	• Nature and quality of sampling (e.g., cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. • Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. • Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g., ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g., submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.	• The data used for the Mineral Resource estimation was obtained from core and rock chips from diamond (DD) and Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling respectively. • Sampling of the DD core was a mixture of quarter, half, and whole core samples. • Sampling was taken according to geological boundaries. • Overall, the sample lengths varied at 1 m and at 2 m. • The RC samples were subdivide using a combination of riffle split, rotary, spear, and grab on 1 m intervals. • Sample procedures followed during the historic sampling campaigns are assumed to be in line with industry standards at that time. • A 3.5 kg to 5 kg sample was collected for every metre for the RC drilling under dry conditions. A field duplicate sample was taken every 10thsample. A retention sample was also be taken. The assay sample was collected every metre from the ‘small split’ off the cyclone, as was the field duplicate sample. The retention sample was taken from the ‘large split’. For assaying, two 1 m samples were combined to produce a 2 m sample for the RC drill holes (DHs).
Drilling techniques	• Drill type (e.g., core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g., core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit, or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	• Both DD and RC drilling were completed. The DD was completed predominantly using HQ and PQ core diameters. Within the database, 13 DD DHs were completed using HQ core diameter, and five using PQ core diameter. Most of the RC DHs were completed using a 5.5-inch bit with the cuttings delivered to a cyclone. • A total of 56 RC drill holes are captured in the drill hole database, four with the coding of STF and three with the code WB. The abbreviations for ‘STF’ and ‘WB’ are not known to the author at the time of this report. • The drill holes were angled at predominantly between -50oand - 90ofrom horizontal. • Recording and measuring drill hole depths and core recoveries were performed. • Drilling was undertaken both vertical to and at an angle to the BIF units.
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.	• The DD recovery was semi-quantitative and calculated by measuring the length of the core run and using the following equation: o Core recovery % = (length of core measured - cavities) x 100. • Recoveries were not recorded for the RC chip samples. • The available drill hole recoveries are above on average 90% in the mineralized zone (>35% Fe) and it is therefore inferred that the DD core is representative of the mineralization. • There is no relationship between sample recovery and grade. • The loss of fines and segregation of the denser iron ore particles during sub-sampling was noted by SRK in 2009 as not being significant.

14

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

Criteria

• Whether core and chip samples have been • The lithology, weathering, colour, porosity, texture, hardness, oxidation, magnetism, moisture, dominant minerals, grain size,

• geologically and geotechnically logged to a and structure for the RC chips and DD core were logged.

• level of detail to support appropriate Mineral • Logging is on a qualitative basis. Resource estimation, mining studies and • Geotechnical and metallurgical logging and sampling is metallurgical studies.

• Logging • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative • understood to have been completed on select drill holes. The level of detail is sufficient to support Mineral Resource in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) estimation.

• photography.

• • The total length and percentage of the • The total length of the drilled metres at W11 that were used in the Mineral Resource estimation (MRE) is 12,569.50 m. It is the

• relevant intersections logged. understanding of the CP that all the mineralised intersections were logged.

• • If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.

• • If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, • The DD samples represent ¼ and ½ and sawn DD core as well rotary split, etc and whether sampled wet or as a low percentage of whole core (typically for NQ size core) dry. samples.

• • For all sample types, the nature, quality, and • Following the cyclone RC chips were split using a tiered riffle

• Sub- appropriateness of the sample preparation splitter where the weight of the RC samples collected for sampling technique. geochemical analysis was approximately 3.5 - 5 kg per 2 m. For techniques • Quality control procedures adopted for all wet samples a scoop method was used. and sample sub-sampling stages to maximise • Core samples were taken mostly at 1 m intervals. preparation representivity of samples. • The type and size of the samples taken are appropriate to the • Measures taken to ensure that the sampling mineralization type and geochemical analyses preformed. is representative of the in-situ material • The sample types are appropriate for the use of grade data in collected, including for instance results for the MRE phase. field duplicate/second-half sampling.

• Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.

15

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 (e.g., standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e., lack of bias) and precision have been established.	• Whole-rock geochemistry was undertaken. The whole-rock geochemical assaying was via X-Ray Fluoresce (XRF) fusion spectrometry. The type of analysis is considered appropriate for the type of ore body and samples. • Loss-on-Ignition (LOI) was determined using thermos- gravimetric methods at 1,000oC. • Sinosteel Midwest Corporation (SMC) routinely used four commercial laboratories, these being, SGS Australia (Pty) Ltd, Ultra Trace (Pty) Ltd, Genalysis Laboratory Services (Pty) Ltd, and AMDEL. • Quality assurance and quality control (QAQC) procedures involved the insertion of certified reference material (CRM) samples, field and pulp duplicates, and blank samples into the sample stream. • The following measures were implemented to ensure the representivity of the_in-situ_material collected: o A total of four CRM samples per 96 samples. o Field duplicate samples were inserted into the sample stream. o A duplicate RC sample every 10thsample and collected via a second chute on the riffle splitter. o Blank samples were inserted into the sample stream approximately every 20 m. • The analysis of the QAQC CRM sample results for Fe (%) indicate acceptable levels of sample accuracy and precision. The results give a satisfactory level of confidence for use of the sample data in the Mineral Resource estimation process. QAQC results for SiO2and Al2O3also reflected a satisfactory level of confidence. • Field duplicate results indicated that there was sample precision achieved by RC drilling. • Samples were sent to umpire laboratories and similar precisions were noted amongst the laboratories. • It is not known if SMC undertook laboratory audits. • Up to 2010, DataShed Data Management software was used during the QAQC activities. Post 2010, it is not known whether DataShed was continued. The drill hole data used in the MRE was extracted from DataShed into a Microsoft Access database.
Verification of sampling and assaying	• The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel. • The use of twinned holes. • Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols. • Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	• For W11, it is understood that no twinned DHs were undertaken. • It is assumed that verification of the drill hole database was undertaken during external auditing of previous MREs. The Competent Person (CP) does not have knowledge whether external verification was completed. • It is not known whether verification of intersections and interpretation was completed for the 2013 MRE. However, for the FS, SRK noted that the data which formed the basis of the estimates of the Beebyn was acceptable. SRK did not undertake a detailed audit of the database, which at that time was maintained via a SQL server, DataShed. It is assumed that the for the 2013 MRE the same database was used. • No adjustment to the assay data within the database has been undertaken to the CP’s knowledge. • The drill hole data provided to the CP is titled “WR_Beebyn_Complete_201208, which contained data from 2006 to 2010”

16

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
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.	• Since 2006, downhole surveys were predominantly undertaken using north seeking gyroscope method. Where DD DHs were unable to be surveyed camera surveys were attempted with the tool inside the rods. • The survey of the drill hole collars was undertaken using the Real Time Kinetic Global Positioning System device (RTK-GPS) method. Within the DH database, a single DH (WRRD0480) was coded with GPS only and it is not known if this refers to conventional handheld GPS or RTK-GPS. • The grid system used was MGA94 Zone 50. • It is not known whether check measurements of a representative set of DH collars have been undertaken during previous audits or by previous CPs. • The surface topography was surveyed in 2009 using LiDAR survey technique at 0.5 m intervals. LiDAR surveys are suitable for high-definition modelling of the surface topography. The topographic surface (digital terrane model or DTM) was modelled using 1 m LiDAR survey points. • The drill holes are not flush with the DTM, and it is recommended that the collars are resurveyed, or ‘dropped’ onto the DTM for use in the estimation process. This is not considered a high risk as the LiDAR surveys are more accurate than RTK-GPS method used to survey the DH collars.
Data spacing and distribution	• Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing, and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied.	• The average drill hole spacing is variable but largely conforms to ~100 m along strike is and varies between ~20 m and ~50 m on dip. • Several of the drill holes have deflections drilled. • The end of hole depths ranged from 54 m to 360.4 m below surface (mbs). • The drill hole collars are located between ~582,500 and 583,410 X (E), and 7,027,457 Y and 7,026,800 Y (N) (Figure 1). • The drill holes on strike and dip cover the known extent of the ore bodies. • The drill hole data spacing, and distribution is sufficient to establish geological and grade continuity and is therefore suitable for use in geostatistical estimation techniques and Mineral Resource tabulation. Figure 1. 3D view of the drill hole traces at W11 • The sampling process for RC chips aggregated 1 m samples into 2 m samples for submission to the laboratories. Core samples were not aggregated. In the geostatistical modelling the samples were composited to 2 m intervals. This is considered representative of the sample lengths within the DH database.

17

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	• Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material.	• The dip and the azimuth of the drilling is dominantly orientated - 50° to -90° to the SE. The bulk of the drilling intersected the BIFs at less than 90o. • It is not known if the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures introduced a sampling bias.
Sample security	• The measures taken to ensure sample security.	• The procedure for sample security was not available at the time of this reporting.
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	• It is not known if audits and reviews were previously conducted on the sampling techniques and data.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

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

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	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 tenement number is M 51/869-I which has an expiry date of 02/06/2036 and is held by SMC. The area of the tenement is 6,093.5 Ha. Based on the information at hand there is security of tenure at the time of reporting. • It is not known by the CP whether there are any existing impediments nor any potential impediments which may impact exploration and development activities. • There is a Heritage Agreement. SMC has an existing land access agreement with the owner of Beebyn station for explorationpurposes.
Exploration done by other parties	• Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	• Exploration of the Beebyn deposits goes back to 1962 when the Mines Department of Western Australia undertook exploration. Subsequently, in the early 1070s’ Northern Mining Corporation N.L. undertook exploration and in 2005 Midwest Corporation Limited started exploration. In the early 1970s’ an adit was driven into W11 to provide a bulk sample of the mineralisation.
Geology	• Deposit type, geological setting, and style of mineralisation.	• Near surface, near vertically dipping Archaean banded iron formation (BIF) surrounded by mafic igneous rocks within the ENE trending Weld Range greenstone belt (Kenworthy, 2008). • The lithologies in the area are multiply deformed and locally intruded by igneous rocks. • Dolerite, basalt, and gabbro form the country rock/boundary to the BIFs (SRK, 2008). • The BIFs form a well-defined ridge on the landscape and the lenses outcrop at the centre of the ridge. • The BIFs strike at 070oand dip steeply (>80o) to the SE (Duuring,et al., 2017). • The BIFs and mafic rocks are cut by several steeply dipping NE- SW striking faults.

18

Criteria

JORC Code explanation

Commentary

==> picture [246 x 237] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2. Geology map of the Weld Range in Western Australia with the location of the Beebyn deposit shown (After Duuring and Steffen, 2012, and references therein)

• The mineralised units have four types with gradations between the types: o Massive haematite, o Interbedded haematite-goethite, o Goethite, and o Well-banded magnetite.

• • There are two categories of mineralisation:

• supergene - goethite-hematite mineralisation, which are the product of meteoric fluid alteration affecting BIF in the near-surface supergene environment, and

• o hypogene - massive magnetite, specular haematite, goethite, and limonite ore bodies (Duuring et al ., 2017).

• The hypogene mineralisation is a high-grade (>55 wt% Fe) iron consisting of magnetite and specular hematite BIF ore bodies that have been locally replaced by supergene goethite-hematite ore within several hundred meters of the present erosion surface.

==> picture [246 x 219] intentionally omitted <==

19

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		Figure 3. Mineralisation Styles are Beebyn (Source, Duuring,et al., 2017). • A total of four (BIF) are present, BIF1 to BIF 4, and the hanging wall contacts are gradational whilst the footwall contacts are sharp (SRK, 2008). o BIF 1 is the most significant mineralised unit. It is interlayered with thin shale and mafic units. The mineralisation contains a greater proportion of magnetite and magnetic haematite with an associated higher iron-ore grade and lower Loss of Ignition (LOI). The unit is ~40 m thick. BIF 2 – 4 are thinner at between ~2 m - ~10 m. The goethite content of this lense is lower than BIF 2 – 4. BIF 1 can be subdivided into high and low Al2O3domains. o BIF 2 is a thin and discontinuous BIF horizon and locally merges with BIF 1. BIF 2 has on average a 2 m horizontal width. o BIF 3 – BIF 3 has on average a 7 m horizontal width. o The BIF 4 lense does not appear to be well mineralised. Figure 4. 3D view of the BIF 1 to 4 units and bounding faults for W11. • BIF 2 to 4 have Fe in the range of 55 – 60% and have higher LOI (5 – 8%) than BIF 1. • The BIF is not always completely altered to goethite-hematite and in these regions the BIF occurs as the footwall, hanging wall and internal waste (SRK, 2008). • The mineralogy of the BIFs includes minnesotaite, siderite, quartz, magnetite, greenalite, stilpnomelane, pyrite, and chamosite with trace amounts of pyrrhotite, arsenopyrite, chalcopyrite, apatite, and rockbridgeite (Gole, 1980). • Haematite is the major iron oxide and occurs as fine (<0.02 mm), decussate micro platy crystals, as granular crystals, and as cryptocrystalline haematite (Kenworthy, 2008). • The mineralogy of the interbedded high Al2O3Fe-shale (which occurs as laminated 2 cm to 30 cm-thick bands) includes chamosite, stilpnomelane, siderite, greenalite, pyrite, magnetite, minnesotaite, and quartz with trace amounts of ilmenite, chalcopyrite, and apatite” (Gole, 1980). • The SiO2content of the BIFs relative to the iron grade is considered low (Duuring,et al., 2012). BIF 1 BIF 2 BIF 3 BIF 4 Faults W11
Drill hole Information	• A summary of all information material to the understanding of the 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. _	• Exploration Results have not been declared and are for this reason not presented in Table 1.

20

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Data aggregation methods	• In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g., cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high-grade results and longer lengths of low-grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	• Exploration Results have not been declared and are for this reason not presented in Table 1. • Metal equivalent values are not reported.
Relationshi p between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths	• These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results. • If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported. • If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g., ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	• Exploration Results have not been declared and are for this reason not presented in Table 1. • Intercepts are quoted as downhole lengths. • The dip and the azimuth of the drilling is dominantly orientated - 50° to -90° to the SE. The bulk of the drilling did intersect the ore bodies at less than 90o.
Diagrams	• Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	• Reader is referred to Section 1 – Data spacing and distribution subsection, and Section 2 – Geology subsection. • Furthermore, maps, plans and sections are included in the body of the announcement.
Balanced reporting	• Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.	• Exploration Results have not been declared and are for this reason not presented in Table 1.
Other substantive exploration data	• Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.	• Outcrop geological mapping was undertaken and used as a source for the geological model. Both magnetic (including total magnetic intensity) and radiometric geophysical surveys have been conducted. • Aerial photography was undertaken. • Metallurgical testwork, bulk density testing, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics studies have been undertaken.
Further work	• The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g., tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling). • Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	• No further drilling is currently planned.

21

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	JORC Code explanation
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.	• The data transcription, storage, and validation procedures are assumed to be representative of the industry standard at that time.
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.	• A site visit was not undertaken by the CP as no further drilling activities have since occurred to 2012. The CP has relied on the previous Mineral Resource CPs.
Geological interpretati on	• 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 of grade and geology.	• Geological interpretation was based on surface mapping, geophysical (magnetic and radiometric) surveys, downhole logging, geochemical assay results for DD and RC samples, and down hole geophysical (magnetic susceptibility and natural gamma) information. • Outcrop mapping and the consistency of intersections support geological and grade continuity. • The lithostratigraphy of the Weld Range BIF is well understood. • It is considered that another interpretation is not warranted as the geological context of the deposits are well known. • It is understood that the depth of weathering within the drill core has not been consistently logged and hence represents a risk during the mining. The depth of weathering in the dolerites has been measured at 30 - 60 mbs and deeper against the BIFs. Figure 5. Cross-section showing the weathering surface and drill hole traces overlain on the BIF block model. • Further and closer spaced drilling may improve the confidence in the geological modelling, but it is not expected that further drilling will materially change the grade and geological continuity. • A~48% Fe cut-off was used to constrain the mineralisation. Weathering su Drill hole trace Block model

22

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
Dimensions	• The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.		• The known extent of the mineralisation modelled at W11 is: o BIF 1: ~785 m along strike, average ~30 m horizontal width, average vertical depth of ~350 m. o BIF 2: ~265 m along strike, average ~2 m horizontal width, average vertical depth of ~200 m. o BIF 3: ~750 m along strike, average ~7 m horizontal width, average vertical depth of ~300 m. o BIF 4: ~700 m along strike, average ~4 m horizontal width, average vertical depth of ~200 m.
Estimation and modelling techniques	• The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) 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 parameters used. • The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine 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 economic significance (e.g., sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation). • In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the average sample spacing and the search employed. • Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units. • Any assumptions about correlation between variables. • Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates. • Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. • The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.		• The estimation and modelling were undertaken by Mr Kahan Cervoj in 2012/2013. At the time Mr Cervoj was a full-time employee of SMC, and a Member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Cervoj was the Competent Person for the Mineral Resources of Beebyn for the 2012 Mineral Resource. • Estimation was undertaken in four domains (BIF 1 to BIF 4). • Estimation was undertaken using Datamine software. • Estimation using composited drill hole data was conducted. The domain field was used to constrain the composites. A length of 2 m was used as the composite length with a minimum gap of 0.1 m. • Flagging of drill hole data per estimation domain and weathering was conducted. • Univariate and bi-variate statistics were undertaken on the sample data. • Estimation of the following elements and compounds were undertaken: o Ordinary kriging (a linear unbiased geostatistical method) - Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, LOI, P, S TiO2, CaO, MgO, and MnO, and o Inverse distance squared - K2O, As, Pb, Zn, Ba, Cl and Na2O. o Moving average for bulk density. • Top cutting/capping of Fe (%) grades was not undertaken. Top cutting/capping of sulphur, CaO, and MnO occurred to constrain the impact of spatially isolated extreme high grades. • The block size (X, Y and Z) used relates to approximately half the average distance between drill holes. Kriging neighbourhood analyses were undertaken to confirm the block model cell sizes. • The block model was non-rotated with the following origin: o X origin: 576,738. o Y origin: 7,024,820. o RL origin: 100. • Block model dimensions : o X = 25 m parent cell size (minimum of 2.5 m and a median of 12.5 m). o Y = 10 m parent cell size (minimum of 1.0 m and a median of 5.0 m). o Z = 10 m parent cell size (minimum of 0.5 m and a median of 10.0 m). • Kriging neighbourhood analysis was conducted to determine the optimal block size. • The block model extended to 450 mbs. • Mineralised domains were defined on the stratigraphy, rock type and total iron grade. • Three search ranges were employed. • Kriging neighbourhood analyses were undertaken to determine the minimum and maximum number of samples to enter the kriging algorithm. Axis rotation (Datamine) 3 1 3 -40o 110o -170o Direction bearing, Dip, Plunge -09o/227o, 68o/293o, -20o/320o Pass ID Pass 1 Pass 2 Pass 3
			Axis rotation (Datamine)	3	1	3
				-40o	110o	-170o
			Direction bearing, Dip, Plunge	-09o/227o, 68o/293o, -20o/320o
			Pass ID	Pass 1	Pass 2	Pass 3

23

Criteria	JORC Code explanation			Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
			Search distance: 1, 2, 3	250, 65, 25	375, 97.5, 37.5		500, 130, 50
			Number of samples: Min. Max.	8, 60	8, 60		8, 40
			Ellipsoid / Octant	Ellipsoid – Octant
			Min. number of octants	2
			Min. number of samples per octant	1
			Max. number of samples per octant	8
			Constraint per DH	7
			Discretisation	5E x 10 N x 10 RL
			Axis rotation (Datamine)	3	1	3
				-10o	100o	0o

24

Criteria	JORC Code explanation				Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
			Direction bearing, Dip, Plunge		00o/070o, 80o/160o, -10o/340o
			Pass ID		Pass 1			Pass 2		Pass 3
			Search distance: 1, 2, 3		350, 200, 100			700, 400, 200		1,400, 800, 400
			Number of samples: Min. Max.		4, 60			4, 60		4, 40
			Ellipsoid / Octant		Ellipsoid – Octant
			Min. number of octants		N/A
			Min. number of samples per octant		N/A
			Max. number of samples per octant		N/A
			Constraint per DH		N/A
			Discretisation		5E x 10 N x 10 RL
				Direction			C1		C2		C

25

Criteria	JORC Code explanation						Commentary	Commentary
			Fiel d		Degree **(o) **		% of total C	% of total C	R1 (m)		% of total C		R2 (m)		t
			Fe	Dir. 1	- 09/227		21	28	24 37 8.5		24		266 115 29		2
				Dir. 2	68/293
				Dir. 3	- 20/320
			SiO2	Dir. 1	- 09/227		29	25	26		46		405
				Dir. 2	68/293				61.5				117
				Dir. 3	- 20/320				18				25
			Al2O 3	Dir. 1	- 09/227		32	23	35.5		26		111		2
				Dir. 2	68/293				5.5				42
				Dir. 3	- 20/320				13				26
			Table 5. Theoretical semi-variogram modelled parameters • Validation of the Mineral Resource estimates was undertaken using: o Comparison of drill hole sample data to block estimates, o Comparison of composited samples to block estimates, and o Swath plots. • Validation of the estimates via swath plot analysis indicated an overall positive bias of estimated Fe grades in the block model as compared to the sample data. • Table 6 provides the summary of average naïve, declustered and OK estimates for each of the BIF lenses. There is a reasonable correlation between the values for Fe, but to a lesser extent for SiO2and Al2O3. The model was setup for Fe as the primary variable and was not geared for SiO2and Al2O3, therefore the higher variance is not a significant concern.
				Fe Naïve						SiO2
						Decl .	OK	Variance (OK/Naïv e)		Naïve		Decl.		OK
			BIF 1	62.22		61.9 6	61.5 7	-1.0		3.33		3.64		3.76
			BIF 2	51.65		52.5 3	52.0 0	0.7		10.3		9.87		9.93
			BIF 3	60.61		60.4 6	61.2 2	1.0		5.05		5.24		4.83
			BIF 4	52.23		52.5 5	52.2 7	0.1		10.34		9.97		10.4		7
				Al2O3 Naïve
						Decl .	OK	Variance (OK/Naïv e)
			BIF 1	2.19		2.12	2.38	8.0
			BIF 2	8.75		8.38	8.54	-2.5
			BIF 3	4.35		4.30	3.92	-11.0
			BIF 4	7.34		7.05	7.37	0.4
Moisture	• Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.		• No information is available for moisture content; however, density was on a dry density basis. • Tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.

26

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Cut-off parameters	• The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	• A Direct Shipping Ore (DSO) using a 50% total iron cut-off grade was applied. • The parameters used to derive the cutoff are: o Mining dilution and recovery has been modelled at a geological level/resolution of the block model. o Price of USD 80 – 100/t. o Mining, processing, transport, and G&A have been considered. o Price net of sell costs of AUD/dtmu of 1.05 – 1.09. o Exchange rate of 0.65–0.75 AUD/USD.
Mining factors or assumption s	• Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions made.	• There has been no previous mining at Beebyn other than a small adit to obtain bulk metallurgical samples. • Mining is anticipated to be via conventional open pit methods using selective mining and blasting, with dilution kept to a minimum. • A development of a target product specification of 62% Fe at a primary target of 1 Mt/annum DSO material, with a lifespan of 10 years. The target specifications for the fines product is: o an average Fe grade of greater than 58.0%, o an average SiO2grade of below 5.5%, and o an average Al2O3grade below 2.6%. • In the PFS, SRK determined that the average_in-situ_ contaminant grades of SiO2and Al2O3would limit the marketability of the fines. As such, selective mining would be needed. Blending between mining areas of the high-contaminant material should be considered through the life of the mine. • Mining Plus, and Australian consultancy, undertook pit optimisations and scheduling (in Datamine Studio NPVS) of the Beebyn W11 deposit in May 2023. o Optimisation input costs and prices were provided by Fenix Resources or taken from previous studies undertaken on the Beebyn project. o Mining, blasting, crushing, loading, road haulage to port, port and general and administration costs were applied. o The exchange rate used (AUD to USD) ranged between 0.65 and 0.75. o Measured, Indicated, and Inferred material was allowed to be considered as DSO material for the pit optimisation. • The narrow width of BIF 2 raises concern as to what will be the achievable mining recovery for this lens.
Metallurgic al factors or assumption s	• 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.	• As part of the FS the characteristics and metallurgical properties of the iron ore were determined. Rock strength, crushing work index and abrasion index testing of core indicates moderate rock strengths, low abrasivity and moderate crushing power requirements. • The stages of ore processing include mining, crushing, and screening to produce lump and fines products. • The design determined in the FS is based on a conservative envelope of Run-of-Mine size distribution which is based on assumptions and benchmarking of operations running on similar ore.
Environme ntal factors or assumption s	• 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. _	• In 2009, SRK Consulting studied the geochemical characterisation of Weld Range waste and mineralised rock- static and kinetic testing to assess the potential for acid and metalliferous drainage from rock exposed during mining. The following findings were presented: o At Beebyn, 99% of the waste was classed as non-acid forming (NAF). The remainder of the as potentially acid forming (PAF). • All the mineralised material was classed NAF. • There is a potential heritage constraint that was considered in the pit optimization exercise. • The CP was not made aware of any environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic, marketing, political or other relevant factors that could materially affect the Mineral Resource estimate.

27

Criteria	JORC Code explanation		Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary	Commentary
Bulk density	• Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size, and representativeness of the samples. • The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit. • Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation process of the different materials.		• Density data is calculated on a dry bulk density basis for drill core samples. • Density measurements were derived by immersion using diamond core that was wax sealed. Prior to 2009, the core was plastic wrapped and 1 in 20 samples wax coated to allow a calibration between the two methods. Since, 2009, only wax- coated samples were used. The correlation between the wrapped and the waxed samples is acceptable. • Density data was collected for intervals ranging from 0.1 m to 1.5 m, with an average interval of 0.17 m (SRK, 2009). • Density has been interpolated using a moving average method. Where data was not locally available, density was assigned using a conditional mean approach.
Classificati on	• The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying confidence categories. • Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e., 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.		• The Mineral Resource for W11 has been classified into Measured, Indicated and Inferred. • Appropriate consideration of the relevant factors was undertaken, and the following factors were used in the classification of the W11 ore bodies: o Geological and grade continuity. o Drill hole spacing. o Data quality. o QAQC of sample data. o Interpolation or extrapolation of estimates. o Available density data. o Economic criteria. • The applied classification appropriately reflects the CP’s view of the deposit. • Table 7 provides a summary of the Mineral Resource for W11 at a Fe cut-off of 50% and a geological discount of 10%. The Mineral Resource is reported inclusive of Ore Reserves.
			Classifi cation	Tonnage (Mt)	Bulk Density **(t/m3) **	Fe (%)	SIO2 (%)	AL2O3 (%)	LOI (%)
			Measur ed (Meas.)	13.22	3.45	61.78	3.66	2.66	2.86
			Indicate d (Ind.)	7.25	3.43	60.34	4.70	2.63	3.71
			Meas. & Ind.	20.47	3.45	61.27	4.03	2.65	3.16
			Inferred	0.90	3.02	56.38	7.75	5.62	4.54
			Table 7. Mineral Resources for Fe, with deleterious elements/minerals (SiO2, Al2O3, P, S) stated as of January 2013 at a cut-off grade of 50% and geological discount of 10%
Audits or reviews	• The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.		• Three historical audit reports are available, these being: o Franks, M and Murphy, M, 2010, Technical Review: Beebyn and Madoonga Resource Estimates, Prepared by XSTRACT Mining Consultants Pty Ltd, Unpublished (Project No P1143). o The XSTRACT findings were: ▪ the 2009 MRE was estimated to a satisfactory industry standard, and the estimates could be used in the Feasibility Study. ▪ they considered the mineralisation (geological) cut-off of 48% was acceptable. ▪ noted that the composite length of 2 m is appropriate. ▪ no significant issues with the DH data. ▪ noted that refinement of the estimation parameters is recommended. ▪ agreed with the Measured, Indicated, and Inferred classification applied to the MRE. ▪ considered the bulk density sampling has acceptable spatial coverage. o Sommerville, B, 2009, Review of Resource Modelling Process, SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Unpublished (SMM001_GEO_RP_2_Rev1).

28

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		▪ The review considered the methodology used to estimate the Feasibility Study Mineral Resource. ▪ SRK concluded that the approach and methods were suitable for developing a MRE. o Sommerville, B, 2010, Weld Range Fatal Flaw Review of Mineral Resource Estimates, SRK Consulting (Australasia) Pty Ltd, Unpublished (SMM001_GEO_RP_4_Rev1). This report was not available at the time of the compilation of Table 1. • It is not known whether the 2013 Mineral Resource was independently audited.
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	• Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and 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 of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. • The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. • These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where _available. _	• The W11 deposit shows good continuity of mineralisation within well-defined geological constraints. The CP considers the model suitable for reporting.

29