Green Shift Commodities - Regulatory Filings 2023

National Instrument 43‐101 INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REPORT

ARMSTRONG LITHIUM PROPERTY

Thunder Bay Mining Division, Ontario, Canada

NTS 52I/08E Centred at: Latitude 50° 26’ 30’’ North, Longitude 88° 13’ 52” West UTM NAD 83, Zone 16, 416400 mE, 5,588,463 mN

Prepared for Green Shift Commodities Ltd. 303 – 217 Queen St. West Toronto, ON Canada M5V 0R2

==> picture [215 x 60] intentionally omitted <==

Effective Date: November 24, 2023 Issue Date: December 7, 2023

Prepared by:

Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation 101‐278 Bay St. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada P7B 1R8

Caitlin Jeffs, P.Geo

Alexander Hughes, P.Geo

==> picture [179 x 62] intentionally omitted <==

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Caitlin Jeffs, B.Sc., P.Geo.

Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation 101‐278 Bay St. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Telephone: (807) 345.5380 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTHOR

I, Caitlin Jeffs , do hereby certify that:

I am a Partner of Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation, the geological consulting firm tasked with this report.
This certificate applies to the technical report titled “National Instrument 43‐101 Independent Technical Report, Armstrong Lake Property” (the “Technical Report”) prepared for Green Shift Commodities Ltd. (the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 24, 2023.
I am a member in good standing of the Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO #1488).
I am a graduate of the University of British Columbia (Hons. B.Sc., 2002).
I have practiced geology for 21 years in a variety of settings, mostly in Northwestern Ontario, Canada, and Chile. I have specific experience in LTC Pegmatites in Ontario, including planning, executing and managing mapping, trenching and drilling programs on lithium properties in the Armstrong, Ontario area and in Eastern Ontario.
I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43‐101 (“NI 43‐101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43‐101) and past relevant work experience, I am a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43‐101.
I completed a personal Inspection of the Armstrong Lithium Property on September 13, 2023.
I have no previous involvement with the property that forms the subject of this Technical Report.
I am independent of the parties involved in the transaction for which this report is required, other than providing consulting services, as per Section 1.5 of NI 43‐101.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portion of the Technical Report for which I am responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading
I have read National Instrument 43‐101, companion policy NI 43‐101CP and Form 43‐101F1, and the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
I am solely responsible for sections 1‐3, 8‐27 and jointly responsible for sections 4‐7 of the Technical Report.
I consent to the filing of this Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their website accessible by the public.

Effective Date: November 24, 2023 Date of signing: December 07, 2023

[Signed and Sealed]

Caitlin L. Jeffs, B.Sc., P.Geo. (APGO #1488)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Alexander Hughes, HB.Sc., P.Geo.

Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation 101‐278 Bay St. Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada Telephone: (807) 345.5380 Email: [email protected]

CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTHOR

I, Alexander Hughes , do hereby certify that:

I am an employee of Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation, the geological consulting firm tasked with this report.
This certificate applies to the technical report titled “National Instrument 43‐101 Independent Technical Report, Armstrong Lake Property” (the “Technical Report”) prepared for Green Shift Commodities Ltd. (the “Issuer”) with an effective date of November 24, 2023.
I am a member in good standing of the Professional Geoscientists of Ontario (APGO #3669).
I am a graduate of the Lakehead University (Hons. B.Sc., 2017).
I have practiced geology for 6 years in a variety of settings, mostly in Northwestern Ontario, Canada. I have experience in mineral exploration throughout Ontario, including planning, executing and managing mapping, drilling programs, and soil surveys. I also have experience in underground production and exploration in Archean lode gold mines in Ontario
I have read the definition of "qualified person" set out in National Instrument 43‐101 (“NI 43‐101”) and certify that by reason of my education, affiliation with a professional association (as defined in NI 43‐101) and past relevant work experience, I am a “qualified person” for the purposes of NI 43‐101.
I completed a personal Inspection of the Armstrong Lithium Property on September 13, 2023.
I have no previous involvement with the property that forms the subject of this Technical Report.
I am independent of the parties involved in the transaction for which this report is required, other than providing consulting services, as per Section 1.5 of NI 43‐101.
As of the effective date of the Technical Report, to the best of my knowledge, information and belief, the portion of the Technical Report for which I am jointly responsible for contains all scientific and technical information that is required to be disclosed to make the Technical Report not misleading.
I have read National Instrument 43‐101, companion policy NI 43‐101CP and Form 43‐101F1, and the portions of the Technical Report for which I am responsible for have been prepared in compliance with that instrument and form.
I am jointly responsible for sections 4‐7 of the Technical Report.
I consent to the filing of this Technical Report with any stock exchange and other regulatory authority and any publication by them, including electronic publication in the public company files on their website accessible by the public.

Effective Date: November 24, 2023 Date of signing: December 07, 2023

[Signed and Sealed]

Alexander Hughes, HB.Sc., P.Geo. (APGO #3669)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

	Table of Contents
Table of Contents ................................................................................................................................................. iv
List of Tables ........................................................................................................................................................ iv
List of Figures ....................................................................................................................................................... iv
1	Summary ....................................................................................................................................................... 1
2	Introduction .................................................................................................................................................. 2
	2.1 Issuer for Whom the Technical Report is Written and Purpose for Which the Report was Prepared 2
	2.2 Terms of Reference and Units .............................................................................................................. 3
	2.3 Sources of Information and Data ......................................................................................................... 3
	2.4 Details of the Personal Inspection on the Property by the Qualified Person ...................................... 3
3	Reliance on Other Experts ............................................................................................................................ 4
4	Property Description and Location ............................................................................................................... 4
	4.1 Location ................................................................................................................................................ 4
	4.2 Mineral Tenure ..................................................................................................................................... 5
	4.3 Issuer’s Title or Interest in the Property .............................................................................................. 7
	4.4 Permits and Authorization ................................................................................................................... 7
	4.4.1 Exploration Plan ............................................................................................................................... 8
	4.4.2 Exploration Permit ........................................................................................................................... 8
	4.5 Environmental Considerations ............................................................................................................. 8
5	Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, Physiography ......................................................... 9
	5.1 Access, Infrastructure, and Resources ................................................................................................. 9
	5.2 Physiography, Climate and Vegetation .............................................................................................. 10
6	History ......................................................................................................................................................... 10
	6.1 Property History ................................................................................................................................. 10
	6.2 Historical Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates ............................................................ 11
7	Geological Setting and Mineralization ........................................................................................................ 12
	7.1 Regional Geology ............................................................................................................................... 12
	7.2 Structural Geology ............................................................................................................................. 12
	7.3 Property Geology ............................................................................................................................... 17
	7.4 Mineralization – Crescent Lake Pegmatite Group ............................................................................. 17
8	Deposit Types .............................................................................................................................................. 18
9	Exploration .................................................................................................................................................. 19

iii

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

9.1	2023 Reconnaissance Prospecting and Geological Mapping ............................................................. 19
9.2	2023 UAV Magnatometer Survey ...................................................................................................... 28
10	Drilling .................................................................................................................................................... 31
11	Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security .......................................................................................... 31
12	Data Verification ..................................................................................................................................... 32
12.1	Site Inspection .................................................................................................................................... 32
13	TO 22 Not Applicable .............................................................................................................................. 33
23	Adjacent Properties ................................................................................................................................ 33
23.1	Green Technologies Metals: Seymour Project ................................................................................... 33
23.2	Battery Age Minerals: Falcon Lake Project ........................................................................................ 33
24	Other Relevant Data and Information .................................................................................................... 36
25	Interpretation and Conclusions .............................................................................................................. 36
26	Recommendations ................................................................................................................................. 36
27	References .............................................................................................................................................. 36
Appendices Back of document

List of Tables

Table 5‐1 Climate of Armstrong, Ontario (Environment Canada, 2022) ....................................................... 10
Table 6‐1 – Historical assessment work on the Armstrong Lithium Property .................................................... 11
Table 9‐1 – Prospecting Results (annotated samples indicate samples with above average crustal levels for Cs,
Li, Rb, and Ta). ..................................................................................................................................................... 20
Table 12‐1 ‐ 2023 Armstrong Lithium Property check sample results ................................................................ 32

List of Figures Figure 2‐1 ‐ Verification sample with large muscovite crystals ............................................................................ 3 Figure 4‐1 – Provincial and local location ............................................................................................................. 5 Figure 4‐2 ‐ Current Armstrong Lithium Property Land Tenure Map (Author A. Hughes) ................................... 6 Figure 5‐1 – Armstrong Lithium Property Access ................................................................................................. 9 Figure 7‐1 ‐ General geology of peraluminous granites and REE mineralization relative to the Armstrong Lithium Property. (Modified after Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003) ................................................................... 14 Figure 7‐2 ‐ Regional geology of the Caribou Greenstone Belt. (Author A. Hughes) (Modified from Ontario Geological Survey, 2011) .................................................................................................................................... 15 Figure 7‐3 ‐ Property scale geology of the Armstrong Lithium Property. (Author A. Hughes) Modified from Map 2100 (Pye, 1966) ......................................................................................................................................... 16

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8‐1 ‐ Fractionation of granitic melts and zoning relationship with incompatible elements (Breaks, 2003) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 19 Figure 9‐1 – Lithology mapping and sampling location 2023 Summer Exploration Program (Author A. Hughes) ............................................................................................................................................................................ 23 Figure 9‐2– 2023 geochemical sample results showing cesium (Cs) values in parts per million (ppm) ............. 24 Figure 9‐3– 2023 geochemical sample results showing lithium (Li) values in parts per million (ppm) .............. 25 Figure 9‐4– 2023 geochemical sample results showing rubidium (Rb) values in parts per million (ppm) ......... 26 Figure 9‐5– 2023 geochemical sample results showing tantalum (Ta) values in parts per million (ppm) ......... 27 Figure 9‐6 ‐ Total Magnetic Intensity – Reduced to Pole Map Armstrong Lithium Property (Author J. Quinn) . 29 Figure 9‐7 ‐ 1[st] Vertical Derivative Magnetics Armstrong Lithium Property (Author J. Quinn) .......................... 30 Figure 23‐1: Adjacent projects to the Armstrong Lithium Property (Author A. Hughes) ................................... 35

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

1 Summary

The Armstrong Lithium Property (“Armstrong” or the “Property”) is located approximately 55 kilometers northeast of Armstrong and 112 kilometers due north of Nipigon. The Property is within the Cresent Lake and Falcon Lake Areas of the Thunder Bay Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. The Property is centered at 50° 26’ 30’’ North latitude by 88° 13’ 52” West longitude, or UTM NAD83 Zone 16 U 5,588,463 m North by 412,572 m East.

The Authors conducted a site visit to the Armstrong Lithium Property on September 13[th] , 2023.

The Property currently consists of 90 contiguous unpatented single cell mining claims totaling 1,850 hectares. The unpatented claims are currently 100% owned by David Thomson and under option to Green Shift Commodities Ltd. to purchase 100% (“Green Shift” or the “Company”).

The Project is located within the Caribou Lake Greenstone Belt (CLGB), which trends ENE along the top of Lake Nipigon. The CLGB ranges from 3.5 to 15 km wide and extends eastward for 80 to 100 km, where it merges along strike with the Onaman–Tashota greenstone belt (MacDonald, ter Meer, Lowe, Isaac, & Scott, 2009). In the area of the Project, a prominent SSW‐trending arm of the belt wraps around the northwest end of a large felsic pluton. The contacts of the pluton are composed of tonalite and granodiorite, with lesser granite, monzonite and diorite phases. The SSW arm area is also cut by a series of prominent late SSW‐trending faults with left‐lateral displacement that dictate the odd shape of Crescent Lake.

The Property is comprised of a large volcanic package to the north, and a granitic intrusion to the south. The volcanic unit has been metamorphosed to at least the greenschist facies, while local occurrences of garnet suggest amphibolite facies locally. Several instances of pegmatite are noted across the Project, with notable showings including the Tebishogeshik (Zig Zag) and Dempster L28 occurring immediately west of the Project Area. In outcrop, both dike and irregular pod‐like morphologies are common, with bodies ranging from less than 10 cm to several meters wide. Typical mineralogy includes white, pink and locally blue perthitic and non‐ perthitic potassium feldspar, quartz, biotite, and white muscovite. Green muscovite, tourmaline, apatite and garnet may be present locally, as well as graphic intergrowths of quartz and potassium feldspar and tourmaline and quartz.

Breaks (2003) states that the Crescent Lake Group Pegmatites exhibit simple internal zoning which includes the following:

Border zone: an assemblage of garnet ‐ potassium feldspar interchangeable with muscovite mica – quartz – albite
Outer zone: an assemblage of green muscovite‐quartz‐albite with blocky potassium feldspar and minor garnet, euhedral block oxide minerals and fine‐grained green secondary mica
Spodumene core zone with sodic aplite pods: an assemblage of muscovite‐blocky potassium feldspar‐ green spodumene‐quartz‐albite with minor black tantalum‐oxide minerals and garnet.
Albite replacement as veins and patches: interpreted to intrude the spodumene core zone and the muscovite‐quartz‐albite outer zone and contain fine‐grained black oxide minerals associated with fine‐ grained green mica.

Over the past year, Green Shift has collected data from grass roots prospecting and drone‐borne magnetic surveys overt select areas of the Property.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Green Shift completed a prospecting program from August 30 to September 10, 2023 which included reconnaissance prospecting and geological mapping. The work was contracted to Fladgate. A total of 287 mapped features and 89 samples were collected on the Project.

Green Shift completed an unmanned aerial geophysical survey program on the Armstrong Lithium project. The work was contracted to Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation and took place from September 19[th] to September 28[th] , 2023. The goal of the survey was to map the magnetic signature of the underlying geology on the property.

The Armstrong Lithium Property is an early‐stage exploration property located in a region with known LCT pegmatites of economic interest. A preliminary field exploration program including mapping and sampling and a UAV magnetometer survey on the Armstrong Lithium Property conducted by Green Shift completed in Summer of 2023 has located numerous LCT pegmatites. The presence of elevated Li, Cs, Be and Ta indicated the correct environment and source melt for higher grade Li pegmatites, although no spodumene bearing pegmatites were found at this time, further work is warranted to investigate for more pegmatites on the property.

Based on conclusions outlined in the previous section a program is recommended to further delineate and define known LCT pegmatites on the property. Elevated Li, Cs, Rb and Ta numbers imply that the source melt for the pegmatites on this property are prospective for spodumene. Due to the variability of pegmatites, even at the outcrop scale, further work is required to determine if these pegmatites could be spodumene bearing.

2 Introduction

2.1 Issuer for Whom the Technical Report is Written and Purpose for Which the Report was Prepared

Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation (“Fladgate”) was contracted by Green Shift Commodities Ltd. ("Green Shift" or the "Company") to complete a National Instrument 43‐101 ("NI 43‐101") Technical Report for the Armstrong Lithium Property (“Armstrong” or the “Property”) in the Crescent and Falcon Lake Townships, Thunder Bay Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. The Property is considered an early‐stage exploration property.

Green Shift was incorporated on December 06, 2005 in Ontario as U3O8 Corp. The Company’s primary business activity is mineral property exploration and development. The Company’s common shares trade on the TSX Venture Exchange (“TSX‐V”) in Canada and in the US on the Over the Counter QB (“OTCQB”). October 19, 2022 the Company’s name was changed from U3O8 Corp. to Green Shift Commodities Ltd. The Company’s shares are traded on the TSX‐V under the symbol GCOM and in the U.S. on the OTCQB under the symbol GRCMF. The Company’s head office and registered and records office is located at 303‐217 Queen St. West, Toronto, ON, M5V 0R2.

Caitlin Jeffs, P. Geo. (“Jeffs”) of Fladgate and Alex Hughes, P.Geo. (“Hughes”) of Fladgate (the “Authors”) are responsible for the preparation of the current technical report. Jeffs is an independent Qualified Persons as defined by NI 43‐101, Hughes is an independent professional geologist.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

2.2 Terms of Reference and Units

All units of measurement used in this technical report are in metric. All currency is in US dollars, unless otherwise noted.

2.3 Sources of Information and Data

The Authors have reviewed geological reports and miscellaneous technical papers, and other public information as listed in Section 27 (References). In addition, the Authors have reviewed news releases which are posted on SEDAR (www.sedar.com) under Green Shift’s public company profile.

The Authors have carefully reviewed all of the Property information and assumes that all of the information and technical documents reviewed and listed in the “References” are accurate and complete in all material aspects. Information regarding the Property history, regional property geology, deposit type and exploration (Sections 5‐12) have been sourced from the previous technical reports and assessment reports and revised or updated as required. The Authors believe the information used to prepare this Technical Report is valid and appropriate considering the status of the Property and the purpose of the current technical report. By virtue of the Authors’ technical review of the Property, the Authors affirm that the work program and

recommendations presented herein are in accordance with NI 43‐101 requirements. The Authors believe the current report complies with all disclosure requirements set out in the NI 43‐101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects (2016).

2.4 Details of the Personal Inspection on the Property by the Qualified Person

Jeffs and Hughes conducted a site visit to the Armstrong Lithium Property on September 13[th] , 2023. There is currently no exploration or mining activities on the Property. Green Shift has completed limited surface exploration on the Property to date. The property required an overnight trip and a stay at the camp established by the prospecting crew.

During the site visit, the Jeffs and Hughes examined three outcrops considered typical of the pegmatites found on the property and three verification samples were taken.

==> picture [254 x 191] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2‐1 ‐ Verification sample with large muscovite crystals

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

3 Reliance on Other Experts

The Report has been prepared by Fladgate Exploration Consulting Corporation (‘Fladgate’) for the Issuer. The Authors have not relied on any report, opinion or statement of another expert who is not a qualified person, or on information provided by the Issuer concerning legal, political or tax matters relevant to the Report.

For the purposes of this report the Author have relied on ownership information provided by Lithium One Metals Inc., as well as claim information available on the website of the Ontario Government’s Mining Lands Administration System (‘MLAS’). The Authors have not researched property title or mineral rights for the Property and expresses no opinion as to the ownership status of the Property. The option agreement provided by Lithium One Metals for the claims is discussed in Item 4, “Property Description and Location” below, and the claim information MLAS website is current as of the effective date of this Report.

4 Property Description and Location

4.1 Location

The Property is located approximately 20 kilometers north northeast of Ferland, 55 kilometers northeast of Armstrong and, 112 kilometers due north of Nipigon, (

), within the Cresent Lake and Falcon Lake Areas of the Thunder Bay Mining Division, Ontario, Canada. The Property is centered at 50° 26’ 30’’ North latitude by 88° 13’ 52” West longitude, or UTM NAD83 Zone 16 U 412,572 m East and 5,588,463 m North.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [322 x 415] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4‐1 – Provincial and local location

4.2 Mineral Tenure

The Property currently consists of 90 contiguous unpatented single cell mining claims (Figure 4‐2) (Appendix I) totaling 1,850 hectares. The unpatented claims are currently 100% owned by David Thomson and under option to Green Shift. All unpatented claims are currently in good standing and active with anniversary dates of November 24, 2023. To maintain mining claims in good standing in Ontario exploration work reports must be submitted along with details on expenditures and $400 worth of work must be completed on each cell every year. Work credits can be banked and applied in later years. A total of $36,000 work credits is required each year to keep all of the Armstrong Lithium property claims in good standing. Mineral claims do not include any surface ownership rights and in the event an economic deposit is found, a mining lease would be required.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [666 x 325] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [666 x 81] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 4‐2 ‐ Current Armstrong Lithium Property Land Tenure Map (Author A. Hughes)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

4.3 Issuer’s Title or Interest in the Property

Pursuant to the option acquisition agreement dated August 15, 2023, Green Shift has acquired an existing Option to purchase a 100% interest in the Project for consideration comprised of:

I. 1,500,000 common shares of Green Shift at a deemed price of $0.095 per Common Share
II. CAD$60,000 in cash, payable within five business days after the date upon which GCOM has first completed one or more equity offerings for gross proceeds of a minimum of CAD$5,000,000 in the aggregate.

In addition, in the event that GCOM has exercised the Option and publicly files a technical report in compliance with National Instrument 43‐101 – Standards for Mineral Disclosure containing a current mineral resource, then Green Shift will pay to the vendors of the Option a bonus payment equal to CAD$300,000.

In order to exercise the Option, GCOM has agreed to assume the remaining obligations under the original option agreement, including:

I. The issuance of 100,000 Common Shares immediately upon closing of the Transaction
II. Payment of CAD$15,000 in cash on or before November 21, 2023
III. Payment of CAD$20,000 in cash payable on or before November 21, 2024
IV. The grant of a 1.0% net smelter returns royalty on the Project (the “Royalty”). The Royalty may be repurchased by the Company for a cash payment of CAD$200,000.

In addition, in respect of the first financing that the Company completes following the exercise of the Option, the Company has agreed to grant the optionor the right to participate in such financing and subscribe for a maximum of 100,000 Common Shares upon the same terms as the financing.

The Common Shares issued in connection with the Transaction are subject to a hold period expiring four months and one day from the date of issuance. There are no finders’ fees payable in connection with the Transaction and each of the vendors of the Option and the optionor is an arms‐length party with respect to the Company (Green Shift Commodities Ltd., 2023).

4.4 Permits and Authorization

The Ontario Mining Act regulations require exploration plans and permits, with graduated requirements for early exploration activities of low to moderate impact undertaken on mining claims, mining leases and licenses of occupation. Exploration plans and permits are not required on patented mining claims. To complete any work aside from non‐destructive surface sampling, a mineral exploration permit is required.

The Property current has no active exploration permit.

Fladgate is unaware of any other significant factors and risks that may affect access, title, or the right, or ability to perform the exploration work recommended for the Property.

There are a number of exploration activities that do not require a plan or permit and may be conducted while waiting for a plan or permit is effective. These may include the following:

Prospecting activities such as grab/hand sampling, geochemical/soil sampling, geological mapping

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Stripping/pitting/trenching below thresholds for permits
geophysical surveys such as radiometric, magnetic
Baseline data acquisition such as taking photos, measuring water quality, etc.

4.4.1 Exploration Plan

Those proposing to undertake minimal to low impact exploration plan activities (early exploration proponents) must submit an exploration plan. Early exploration activities requiring an exploration plan include:

Geophysical activity requiring a power generator
Line cutting, where the width of the line is 1.5 m or less
Mechanised drilling for the purposes of obtaining rock or mineral samples, where the weight of the drill is 150 kg or less
Mechanised surface stripping (overburden removal), where the total combined surface area stripped is less than 100 m2 within a 200 m radius
Pitting and trenching (of rock), where the total volume of rock is between 1 m3 and 3 m3 within a 200 m radius.

To undertake the above early exploration activities, an exploration plan must be submitted, and any surface rights owners must be notified. Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the exploration plan activities will be notified by the MNDM and have an opportunity to provide feedback before the proposed activities can be carried out.

4.4.2 Exploration Permit

Those proposing to undertake moderate impact exploration permit activities (early exploration proponents) must apply for an exploration permit. Early exploration activities that require an exploration permit include:

Line cutting, where the width of the line is more than 1.5 m
Mechanised drilling, for the purpose of obtaining rock or mineral samples, where the weight of the drill is greater than 150 kg
Mechanised surface stripping (overburden removal), where the total combined surface area stripped is greater than 100 m2 and up to advanced exploration thresholds, within a 200 m radius
Pitting and trenching (rock), where the total volume of rock is greater than 3 m3 and up to advanced exploration thresholds, within a 200 m radius.

The above activities will only be allowed to take place once the permit has been approved by the MENDM. Surface rights owners must be notified when applying for a permit. Aboriginal communities potentially affected by the exploration permit activities will be consulted and have an opportunity to provide comments and feedback before a decision is made on the permit.

4.5 Environmental Considerations

Green Shift has advised Fladgate that there are no outstanding or pending adverse environmental issues attached to the Property. No mining or other potentially disruptive work has been carried out, on the Property, beyond that described in this report.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, Physiography

5.1 Access, Infrastructure, and Resources

The Project is approximately 230 kilometers north of Thunder Bay and can be reached year‐round by vehicle by traveling 5 kilometers east on Trans‐Canada Hyw 11/17, heading north towards Armstrong on Hwy 527 for 200 kilometers, then from Armstrong traveling east on Airport Road East for approximately 60 kilometers, and heading north on Jackfish for and additional 3 kilometers (Figure 5‐1). The Jackfish Road is considered a gravel logging road and is in consistent use by locals and Whitesand First Nation.

==> picture [469 x 362] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 5‐1 – Armstrong Lithium Property Access

The central and northwestern portions of the property are completely cut off by road access, and have proven very difficult to access by ATV. Historical accounts provide details of old logging roads, or access trails leading to several showings on the property, however these trails have not been in use since the 1950s, and are now overgrown.

Power requirements for the Project can either be supplied by establishing a local line into an existing power line by using gas powered generators. Water requirements for the project can be provided on site. There is a

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

very experienced workforce available across northwestern Ontario, with personnel available in Thunder Bay, Dryden, Nipigon, and across northwestern Ontario. Contractors, equipment and supplies can be brought in from Thunder Bay and its surrounding region

There is an airport in Thunder Bay with international service to major centers such as Toronto and Montreal. Armstrong contains access to as well as access to CN rail lines, one that runs east‐west along the Trans‐ Canada Highway, and another that runs north‐south along Highway 634, passing approximately 16 kilometers from the project site.

5.2 Physiography, Climate and Vegetation

Climate in the area is typical of northwestern Ontario with cold, snowy winters and warm summers. The mean winter temperature is ‐13°C and the mean summer temperature is 14°C. Annual precipitation averages approximately 400‐700mm (Table 5‐1) and snowfall averages 25cm monthly (Armstrong Weather Station, Environment Canada, 2022). The operating season is best carried out the summer season due to concerns of accessibility via roads in the winter months.

The Project is topographically variable, with a mixture of ridges, marshes and lakes, and is situated at 360 m above sea level on average. Vegetation is dominated by black and white spruce, balsam, and cedar, with alder, poplar and birch trees closer to more water saturated areas.

Table 5‐1 Climate of Armstrong, Ontario (Environment Canada, 2022)

Months	Normal	Warmest	Coldest
January	‐19°C	‐12°C	‐24°C
February	‐116°C	‐9°C	‐22°C
March	‐8°C	‐1°C	‐15°C
April	1°C	7°C	‐6°C
May	8°C	15°C	2°C
June	14°C	21°C	8°C
July	17°C	23°C	11°C
August	16°C	22°C	10°C
September	10°C	16°C	5°C
October	3°C	7°C	‐1°C
November	‐5°C	‐2°C	‐10°C
December	‐14°C	‐10°C	‐19°C

6 History

6.1 Property History

Lithium was first noted in the area in 1956 with the discovery of the Zig Zag showing (Figure 7‐2), and the area has been explored by numerous companies since then. The reported work summarized in Table 3 represents a compilation of exploration activities that occurred on, or in close proximity to, the Property. Work completed on the property has been primarily prospecting and sampling which has found anomalous tantalum and elevated cesium in white pegmatite outcrop, To date no drilling has been conducted on the Armstrong Lithium Property.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Table 6‐1 – Historical assessment work on the Armstrong Lithium Property

Assessment File ID	Year	Operator	Township	Type of work	Work Summary
52I08NE0007	1979	J. Donner	Falcon Lake Area	Compilation and Interpretation ‐ Ground Geophysics, Geochemical, Geological Survey / Mapping, Reconnaissance Ground Exploration	Resampling of the lithium zone as defined in previous work done in 1975 by J. Donner north of the current Project border. It was noted a change of the contact orientation between the greenstone and granite east Zigzag Lake. The strike and dip were found to change from east‐west with a vertical dip to S30E dipping 40E. Geochemical sampling adjacent to drift cover showed anomalous lithium (300 ppm) that was found to be comparable to the rocks adjacent to the lithium and tantalum pegmatite zones to the west (Anderson D. T., 1979)
52I08NW0001	1984	J Donner	Crescent Lake Area	Assaying and Analyses, Geochemical, Manual Labour,	John Donner conducted a prospecting survey to evaluate the economic potential of the granitic rocks within the Project boundary. All samples were analyzed for lithium (Li). Of the 70 samples collected 8 samples were classified as anomalous with Li values 2x over background – 110 to 148 ppm Li. Additionally, 10 samples were classified as highly anomalous with values from 4x to 10x background – 170 to 816 ppm Li (Anderson C. D.,1984).
20000007669	2010‐ 2011	Canadian Orebodies Inc, Kenneth George Fenwick	Crescent Lake Area	Geochemical Sampling	10 samples out of 38 grab samples were collected on the Armstrong Lithium Property, 28 were in close proximity Li values ranging from 4.4 to 56 Li ppm and anomalous Tantalum values of 72.1 ppm and 41.4 ppm (Thompson & Henderson,2011).
20000013878	2016	Canadian Orebodies Inc	Crescent Lake Area	Assaying and Analyses	Regional structural analysis of the Project area highlighted the orientation and en‐echelon habit of the pegmatites; (1) Steeply dipping pegmatites were identified as T‐ fracture infilling from E‐W sinistral strike‐slip faults while (2) shallow dipping bodies were a result of normal to parallel faulting (Watkeys, 2016).

6.2 Historical Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

The Project is an early‐stage exploration property. To the Authors’ knowledge, there have been no historical Mineral Resources or Mineral Reserves estimated for the Project.

7 Geological Setting and Mineralization

7.1 Regional Geology

The Project is located within the Caribou Lake Greenstone Belt (CLGB), which trends ENE along the top of Lake Nipigon ( Error! Reference source not found. ), extending eastward from the larger Onamon‐Tashota Greenstone Belt, and lying along the northern margin of the Wabigoon Subprovince marked by the Sydney Lake‐Lake St. Joseph Fault zone. The CLGB ranges from 3.5 to 15 km wide and extends eastward for 80 to 100 km, where it merges along strike with the Onaman–Tashota greenstone belt (MacDonald, ter Meer, Lowe, Isaac, & Scott, 2009).

The CLGB differs from the Marshall Lake portion of the Tashota belt in being dominated by mafic and ultramafic rock compositions, including komatiites, with lesser intermediate and felsic metavolcanic rocks. The CLGB also contains horizons of metasedimentary units, including abundant iron formation. Numerous Archean‐aged mafic and ultramafic bodies intrude the volcanics. Lying near the north end of the Nipigon Embayment, the area has also been affected by the Proterozoic Mid‐Continental Rift event, expressed locally by outliers of Logan diabase sills that form prominent hills in the area, and can be seen on magnetic maps as strong highs or lows.

In the area of the Project, a prominent SSW‐trending arm of the belt wraps around the northwest end of a large, early, composite felsic pluton. The contacts of the pluton can be seen on regional vertical gradient magnetic maps, and is reported (Pye, 1968) to be composed of tonalite and granodiorite, with lesser granite, monzonite and diorite phases. The SSW arm area is also cut by a series of prominent late SSW‐trending faults with left‐lateral displacement that dictate the odd shape of Crescent Lake.

7.2 Structural Geology

From MacDonald, ter Meer, Lowe, Isaac, & Scott (2009);

At least 2 phases of deformation affect the east‐central CLGB area. The first phase (D1) is recorded as a regional‐scale, penetrative foliation (S1), subparallel to primary volcanic and sedimentary bedding (S0) where observed. For this reason, in most areas, it forms a composite S0–S1fabric, generally parallel to the overall northwest to west trend of the CLGB.Stratigraphic facings, where observed from pillowed volcanic flows and graded bedding, are consistently to the north. Pye (1968) documented several anticline and syncline structures that trend parallel to the regional foliation directions in the CLGB, based on reversals in stratigraphic facing and foliation dip directions. He interpreted these structures as a result of an upright, isoclinal folding (F1) event that presumably formed the S0–S1 foliation. S1 foliation in the metavolcanic rocks was observed to generally dip steeply to the north with minor local dip reversals. S1 foliation orgneissosity in the southern biotite tonalite gneiss generally displays shallow 30º dips that become progressively shallower to the south.

A second phase of deformation is recorded locally with the development of an S2 fabric, particularly near the margins of the CLGB, where it may have been produced by the intrusion of

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

granodiorite to tonalite bodies. This phase (D2) is also observed in moderate to steeply plunging, close folds (F2), particularly along the southern margin of the CLGB

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [868 x 364] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7‐1 ‐ General geology of peraluminous granites and REE mineralization relative to the Armstrong Lithium Property. (Modified after Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [739 x 399] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [739 x 81] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7‐2 ‐ Regional geology of the Caribou Greenstone Belt. (Author A. Hughes) (Modified from Ontario Geological Survey, 2011)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [712 x 385] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [712 x 78] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 7‐3 ‐ Property scale geology of the Armstrong Lithium Property. (Author A. Hughes) Modified from Map 2100 (Pye, 1966)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

7.3 Property Geology

The Property is comprised mostly of a large volcanic package on the northern portion of the Property, and a granitic intrusion to the south (Figure 7‐3). The volcanic unit has been metamorphosed to at least the greenschist facies, while local occurrences of garnet suggest amphibolite facies locally.

The metavolcanics throughout the Property occur in several different forms, ranging from massive basalts to sheared volcanic units, however they are mostly observed as moderately sheared and metamorphosed schists which are commonly mistaken for sedimentary units when observing a weathered outcrop. A fresh surface will reveal a fairly chloritized intermediate to mafic volcanic unit.

Several instances of pegmatite are noted across the Project, with notable showings including the Tebishogeshik (Zig Zag) and Dempster L28 occurring immediately west of the Project Area (Pye, 1966) (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003). In outcrop, both dike and irregular pod‐like morphologies are common, with bodies ranging from less than 10 cm to several meters wide. Grain size is generally coarse to very coarse grained with local fine‐grained sugary textured phases that may contain abundant garnets, green muscovite and magnetite. Typical mineralogy of the coarser grained more massive phases includes white, pink and locally blue perthitic and non‐perthitic potassium feldspar, quartz, biotite, and white muscovite. Green muscovite, tourmaline, apatite and garnet may be present locally, as well as graphic intergrowths of quartz and potassium feldspar and tourmaline and quartz. Less commonly, these pegmatites may contain tantalite, fluorite, and spodumene (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003).

While the Dempster East showing tends to be a more ‘finer‐grained’ pegmatite, the more economically viable Tebishogeshik showing is more coarse‐grained with large spodumene crystals, as well as equally large muscovite, feldspar and quartz throughout the entire strike length of the showing (~670m).

7.4 Mineralization – Crescent Lake Pegmatite Group

Breaks (2003) states that the Crescent Lake Group Pegmatites exhibit simple internal zoning which includes the following:

Border zone
Outer zone
Spodumene core zone with sodic aplite pods
Albite replacement as veins and patches.

The border zone is described as an assemblage of garnet ‐ potassium feldspar interchangeable with muscovite mica – quartz – albite occasionally as clevelandite with minor black and sometimes dark brown oxide minerals (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003). This mineral assemblage is not found in all of the pegmatites and is found where the dyke contacts the country rock.

The outer zone is described as an assemblage of green muscovite‐quartz‐albite with blocky potassium feldspar and minor garnet, euhedral block oxide minerals and fine‐grained green secondary mica. The outer zone exhibits a gradational contact with the central spodumene core zone (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003).

The spodumene core zone is described as an assemblage of muscovite‐blocky potassium feldspar‐green spodumene‐quartz‐albite with minor black tantalum‐oxide minerals and garnet. The oxide minerals are variable fine to coarse‐grained and wedge‐shaped. Green spodumene megacrysts are common in the core zone and in the Tebishogeshik and Chappais pegmatites sodic aplite pods have been observed. The aplite

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

pods contain minor fine‐grained black tantalum‐oxide minerals and blue fluorapatite with locally abundant garnet and muscovite (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003).

Albite replacement as veins and patches is interpreted to intrude the spodumene core zone and the muscovite‐quartz‐albite outer zone. The albitized zones contain fine‐grained black oxide minerals associated with fine‐grained green mica. Blocky potassium feldspar, up to 20 cm in diameter, is variably replaced by irregular masses of albite (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003). Thin platy to rectangular black grains of columbite‐tantalite, up to 6 x 7 mm in size, are disseminated in rare quantities throughout these albitized areas (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003).

8 Deposit Types

Lithium‐cesium‐tantalum (LCT) pegmatites are granitic rocks that form relatively small igneous bodies and are characterized by large crystals. LCT pegmatites comprise a compositionally defined subset of granitic pegmatites. The major minerals are quartz, potassium feldspar, albite, and muscovite; typical accessory minerals include biotite, garnet, tourmaline, and apatite. The principal lithium ore minerals are spodumene, petalite, and lepidolite; cesium mostly comes from pollucite; and tantalum mostly comes from columbitetantalite. Tin ore as cassiterite and beryllium ore as beryl also occur in LCT pegmatites, as do a number of gemstones and high‐value museum specimens of rare minerals. Individual crystals in LCT pegmatites can be enormous: the largest spodumene was 14 meters long, the largest beryl was 18 meters long, and the largest potassium feldspar was 49 meters long. (Dwight C. Bradley, 2017)

LCT pegmatites are associated with S‐type, peraluminous (Al‐rich), quartz‐rich granites. S‐type granites crystallize from a magma produced by partial melting of pre‐existing sedimentary source rock (Figure 8‐1). They are characterized by the presence of biotite and muscovite, and the absence of hornblende. NYF pegmatites are enriched in rare earth elements (“REE”), U, and Th in addition to Nb, Y, F, and are associated with A‐type, subaluminous to metaluminous (Al‐poor), quartz‐poor granites or syenites (Černý, 1991).

Lithium‐cesium‐tantalum pegmatites account for about one‐fourth of the world’s lithium production, most of the tantalum production, and all of the cesium production. Giant deposits include Tanco in Canada, Greenbushes in Australia, and Bikita in Zimbabwe.

Most LCT pegmatites are hosted in metamorphosed supracrustal rocks in the upper greenschist to lower amphibolite facies. Lithium‐cesium‐tantalum pegmatite intrusions generally are emplaced late during orogeny, with emplacement being controlled by pre‐existing structures. Typically, they crop out near evolved, peraluminous granites and leucogranites from which they are inferred to be derived by fractional crystallization. In cases where a parental granite pluton is not exposed, one is inferred to lie at depth.

Two families of rare‐element pegmatites are common in the Superior Province, Canada: Li‐Cs‐Ta enriched (“LCT”) and Nb‐Y‐F enriched (“NYF”) (Selway, Breaks, & Tindle, 2005)

Rare‐element pegmatites derived from a fertile granite intrusion are typically distributed over a 10 to 20 km[2] area within 10 km of the fertile granite (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, The Georgia Lake Rare‐Element Pegmatite Field and Related S‐type, Peraluminous Granites, Quetico Subprovince, North‐Central Ontario, 2008). These pegmatites have very distinct zoning with complex mineralogy dependent on the initial composition of the parent granite (Evans, 2008). While pegmatites fractionate from granitic melts derived from batholiths or stocks, the bulk of lithium‐, tantalum‐, cesium‐bearing pegmatites occur as dykes, either individually or in

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

swarms. Pegmatite formation begins from peraluminous S‐types granitic melts, with multiple stages of fractionation taking place before the final phase, ultimately creating radially emplaced granite pegmatite dykes, elevated in incompatible elements which include your typical rare‐earth elements Figure 8‐1. It is generally accepted that economically viable pegmatites are only created from S‐type granites, as I‐type granitic melts do not contain the necessary abundance of incompatible elements for proper fractionation (Breaks, Selway, & Tindle, 2003).

==> picture [456 x 284] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 8‐1 ‐ Fractionation of granitic melts and zoning relationship with incompatible elements (Breaks, 2003)

9 Exploration

9.1 2023 Reconnaissance Prospecting and Geological Mapping

All samples were submitted to Activation Laboratories in Thunder Bay, Ontario, Canada for whole rock geochemical analysis. The analytical codes used include Ultratrace 6 (ICP‐OES – ICP‐MS) and 8‐peroxide‐all elements (Na2O2 digest/ICP‐OES). The Authors note that no standards or blanks were included in the sample stream.

The primary focus of the 2023 exploration program was to define and better understand the lithium bearing pegmatite placement on the Project in order to develop targets for future exploration programs. Samples were chosen based on visual observations of pegmatites with favourable Li‐bearing mineralization; beryl, muscovite, tourmaline. The collection sites of the prospecting samples and lithology mapping are illustrated in Error! Reference source not found. .

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Mapping station and UTM coordinates (NAD83 UTM 16N) were recorded using a handheld GPS and data such as lithology, texture, mineral content, alteration, and a general rock description for each rock sample taken (Figure 9‐1). Each representative grab sample was taken from an outcrop using a hammer. From there, the sample was placed into a poly sample bag along with a sample tag labeled with a corresponding sample number from a sample tag booklet. Flagging tape was used to mark the sample location on the ground as well as on a nearby tree. Access was derived from North Road along with various historic logging roads.

Relevant analytical results of the samples are listed in Table 9‐1 below including lithium, cesium, rubidium and tantalum. Average crustal levels for the above elements are Li (20 ppm), Cs (4 ppm), Rb (112 ppm) and Ta (2 ppm). From the mapping samples, 17 out of 89 samples are above crustal averages for all four elements and the mean for all of the samples is above the crustal averages for all four elements supporting the model that the Armstrong Lithium Property pegmatites are sourced from a peraluminous granite melt and, in a region, prospective for Li bearing pegmatites (Figures 9‐2 to 9‐5).

Additionally, geochemical analysis of the samples shows a positive A/CNK ratio. The A/CNK molecular ratio [Al2O3/(CaO + Na2O + K2O)] which is commonly used to indicate whether a sample or a stock/pluton is mildly peraluminous (A/CNK = 1.0 to 1.1) or strongly peraluminous (A/CNK > 1.2). The A/CNK ratio, the higher the aluminum content and the greater the abundance of aluminum‐rich minerals, such as garnet and muscovite which are the more common minerals in a fertile pluton. In short, barren granites will have a low A/CNK ratio, fertile granites will have a moderate A/CNK ratio and rare‐element pegmatites will have a high A/CNK (F. W. Breaks, 2006). In this case, a 1.71 average A/CNK for all the samples is considered in the vicinity of a strongly peraluminous fertile pluton.

Table 9‐1 – Prospecting Results (annotated samples indicate samples with above average crustal levels for Cs, Li, Rb, and Ta).

Sample ID	Easting NAD83	Easting NAD83	Cs (ppm)	Li (ppm)	Rb (ppm)	Ta (ppm)	A/CNK
1290001	411164	5587355	5	6	283	9	1.66
1290002	411158	5587368	14	5	544	28	1.41
1290003	411263	5588072	6	5	124	0	1.45
1290004	411184	5588531	10	25	498	5	1.73
1290005	411624	5588578	119	17	690	2	1.55
1290006	411637	5588572	54	10	475	4	1.49
1290007	411569	5588296	21	53	725	2	2.40
1290008	411573	5588302	2	50	69	1	1.79
1290009	411532	5588269	14	37	488	6	1.87
1290010	411465	5588235	6	27	174	37	1.87
1290011	411871	5588878	1	17	13	0	0.84
1290012	411877	5588589	1	11	7	40	1.52
1290013	411879	5588591	1	4	3	6	1.55
1290014	411862	5588601	17	14	200	87	1.67
1290015	412047	5588405	3	12	72	0	1.93
1290016	411562	5588233	2	43	58	1	1.53
1290017	411373	5588147	1	6	63	0	1.49
1290018	411355	5588099	43	175	771	8	2.15
1290019	411340	5588109	17	58	537	5	1.81
1290020	411346	5588104	11	25	254	17	1.50
1290021	411353	5588102	10	96	169	2	1.44
1290022	411338	5588116	26	22	514	3	1.50
1290023	411311	5588137	18	9	251	1	1.83

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Sample ID	Easting NAD83	Easting NAD83	Cs (ppm)	Li (ppm)	Rb (ppm)	Ta (ppm)	A/CNK
1290024	411249	5587981	4	8	63	0	1.60
1290025	411254	5587991	3	10	46	0	1.57
1290026	411263	5587990	3	23	44	1	1.57
1290027	411334	5587968	3	7	70	0	1.67
1290028	411373	5588033	1	5	34	4	1.59
1290029	411372	5588025	8	2	158	3	1.66
1290030	411381	5588045	2	4	49	8	1.51
1290031	412012	5588075	22	21	297	34	1.69
1290032	411493	5587940	1	4	41	6	1.67
1290033	411492	5587953	2	3	54	0	1.68
1290034	411447	5587983	4	6	100	3	1.52
1290035	411417	5587940	1	5	53	0	1.44
1290036	411378	5587909	2	6	54	0	1.88
1290037	411260	5587934	15	5	269	1	2.04
1290038	411219	5588090	21	36	371	4	1.94
1290039	411153	5588193	4	9	64	1	1.59
1290040	411083	5588153	2	7	37	0	1.57
1290041	411116	5588132	8	11	108	3	1.43
1290042	411072	5588121	3	9	52	1	1.41
1290043	410971	5588064	5	11	59	0	1.62
1290044	410533	5587911	8	12	50	0	1.89
1290045	410476	5587873	6	17	80	4	1.98
1290046	410413	5587915	14	26	159	12	1.71
1290047	410410	5587922	5	22	43	1	2.22
1290048	410477	5587945	12	74	74	0	1.71
1290049	410477	5587940	12	47	93	0	1.65
1290050	410572	5588060	3	23	18	0	1.65
1290051	410589	5588082	12	8	197	16	1.52
1290052	410582	5588092	4	31	56	0	1.71
1290053	410604	5588052	11	4	449	2	1.56
1290054	410604	5588058	3	24	55	0	1.76
1290055	410694	5588121	6	16	52	0	1.75
1290056	410691	5588135	7	9	47	0	2.00
1290057	410985	5588325	3	23	27	1	1.66
1290058	411020	5588340	6	11	86	1	1.77
1290059	411347	5587807	32	21	232	2	1.77
1290060	411366	5587807	6	21	45	0	1.65
1290061	411386	5587847	20	8	49	1	2.10
1290062	411370	5587859	12	12	61	1	2.17
1290063	411387	5587848	5	8	84	0	2.07
1290064	411251	5588502	41	18	1000	98	1.84
1290065	411259	5588501	33	24	943	37	2.36
1290066	411274	5588460	39	5	1640	>100	1.62
1290067	411261	5588195	48	18	424	20	1.91
1290068	411238	5588169	23	24	435	13	1.66
1290069	411237	5588170	40	26	517	16	1.76
1290070	411094	5588039	3	11	60	1	1.68
1290071	411522	5587721	3	6	67	1	1.75
1290072	411505	5587581	6	13	68	0	2.09
1290073	411418	5587479	2	7	54	0	1.92
1290074	411356	5587429	6	11	70	0	1.58
1290075	412481	5587212	2	8	62	0	1.54

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Sample ID	Easting NAD83	Easting NAD83	Cs (ppm)	Li (ppm)	Rb (ppm)	Ta (ppm)	A/CNK
1290076	412605	5587237	4	10	109	1	1.26
1290077	412570	5587466	1	6	64	5	1.24
1290078	412946	5587194	1	6	45	3	1.59
1290079	412952	5587153	2	5	91	4	1.67
1290080	412974	5587134	1	4	30	2	1.60
1290081	413001	5587105	3	6	97	2	1.69
1290082	412948	5587102	4	9	84	1	1.52
1290083	412909	5587092	5	2	94	0	1.89
1290084	411716	5587300	4	7	95	0	1.45
1290085	411776	5587344	3	6	79	0	1.70
1290086	411809	5587227	1	5	76	0	1.92
1290087	411881	5587152	4	4	94	0	2.07
1290088	411904	5587149	4	7	69	0	1.66
1290089	411189	5588532	141	223	511	17	1.67
1290090	411163	5588545	3	17	32	2	0.88
1290091	411186	5588530	21	142	1240	4	2.98

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [42 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [683 x 354] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [683 x 90] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐1 – Lithology mapping and sampling location 2023 Summer Exploration Program (Author A. Hughes)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [42 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 407] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 82] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐2– 2023 geochemical sample results showing cesium (Cs) values in parts per million (ppm)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [42 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 407] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 82] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐3– 2023 geochemical sample results showing lithium (Li) values in parts per million (ppm)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [42 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 407] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [650 x 82] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐4– 2023 geochemical sample results showing rubidium (Rb) values in parts per million (ppm)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [42 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [649 x 406] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [649 x 82] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐5– 2023 geochemical sample results showing tantalum (Ta) values in parts per million (ppm)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

9.2 2023 UAV Magnatometer Survey

The program consisted of 186 traverse lines spaced at 25m and 21 tie lines spaced at 25m totaling 382 flown line kilometers. Universal Ground Control Software (UgCS) was used in planning the drone survey. Flight lines were planned as perpendicular as possible to the known underlying geology. The principle geophysical sensor used was a Gem Systems Canada GSMP‐35U potassium vapor sensor mounted on a UAV platform. Fladgate used the DJI Matrice 600 Pro UAV to complete this survey.

The raw data was then imported into Oasis Montaj Software to be further processed. The steps involved in filtering the data are as follows:

A filter was applied to the data based on the lock parameter of the magnetometer. All values that were recorded that did not have a lock value of 1 were removed. The datapoints which remained after this filter were correctly oriented with the Earth’s magnetic field.
The second filtering step was based on the geometry of the survey area. Data outside the defined survey area were removed. This included data that was gathered while the UAV was in flight to and from the takeoff/landing site and data that was gathered as the UAV takes corners at the end of survey lines. This step reduced edge effects and insured that sampling points were evenly distributed throughout the survey area.
A filter was applied that removed any data that was not collected at the programmed survey elevation. This step removes any data that was collected while the UAV was on the ground in between surveys or while the UAV was rising to the programmed survey elevation.
The next processing step involved subtracting the observed diurnal variations from the residual magnetic field data. This is completed by analyzing the change of the magnetic field in the base station measurements with time and correcting for this change.
Finally, the data was levelled and microlevelled through Oasis montaj to get the TMI magnetic data for the area

Subsequent reduction to pole and 1[st] vertical derivation calculations were performed to create the final maps using PyGMI software.

The results of the survey were presented through a total field – reduced to pole and 1[st] vertical derivative map (Figures 9‐5 and 9‐6) where the contact between the mafic metavolcanics to the east and the granitic rocks to the west is clearly defined. These two units appear as mag‐highs with a long mag‐low separating the two. Furthermore, to the west, a division between the previously mapped foliated tonalite suite and gneissic tonalite suite can be seen. There are multiple narrow linear structures in both mag maps that do not seem to correspond to any previously mapped with the exception of a singular mapped fault in the western area of the survey. These thin linear structures can be seen more clearly on the 1VD map (Figure 9‐6) . Multiple occurrences of faulting have been noted by previous exploration in the area so it is likely that these linear features are also related to faulting.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [487 x 452] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐6 ‐ Total Magnetic Intensity – Reduced to Pole Map Armstrong Lithium Property (Author J. Quinn)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [479 x 223] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 9‐7 ‐ 1[st] Vertical Derivative Magnetics Armstrong Lithium Property (Author J. Quinn)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

The results of the survey were presented through a total field – reduced to pole and 1st vertical derivative map. What stands out the most when looking at both maps is the separation between the mafic metavolcanics to the east and the granitic rocks to the west. These two units appear as mag‐highs with a long mag‐low separating the two (C1). Furthermore, to the west, a division between the previously mapped foliated tonalite suite and gneissic tonalite suite can be seen (C2). There are multiple thin, linear structures in both mag maps that do not seem to correspond to any previously mapped with the exception of a singular mapped fault in the western area of the survey. These thin linear structures can be seen more clearly on the 1VD map (Figure 3). Multiple occurrences of faulting have been noted by previous exploration in the area so it is likely that these linear features are also related to faulting.

The Author Jeffs reviewed results from the UAV magnetic survey conducted by Fladgate in 2023 and believes that the procedures and methods used by Fladgate are consistent with industry standards and are suitable for the purposes intended.

10 Drilling

Green Shift has not completed any drilling on the Project.

11 Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security

In the field, handheld GPS and Samsung cell phones were used to record UTM coordinates for mapping stations and sampling stations using QField software with a Garmin GPS for back and hand written notes recorded in sample tag books. The lithology, texture, grain size, colour, structure, and mineralization were recorded for each mapping and sampling station.

To collect grab samples, a representative sample approximately 1 to 3 kg in weight was broken from the sample source using a hammer. Chip sampling was typically utilized when the rock was too cohesive to break a large piece of rock off the sample source. Multiple chips of rock collected over a 1 m2 area were combined to create a single representative sample.

Each sample was placed in its own poly sample bag with a unique tag and closed with a zip tie. Flagging tape was used to mark the sample location in the field.

Samples were delivered by Fladgate personnel to Activation Laboratories (‘ Actlabs ’) in Thunder Bay, Ontario. Actlabs Laboratories in Thunder Bay, Ontario is accredited to ISO 9001:2015 standard and is independent of Green Shift. Upon receipt, samples were logged Actlabs tracking system and weighed. They were then dried at 105 degrees Celsius and crushed until 75% of the sample material passes through a 2mm screen. A 250 g split was taken and pulverized until 85% of the split can pass through a 75‐micron screen. The prepared samples were analyzed by 4 Acid “Near Total” Digestions ICP‐OES/ICP‐MS.

For this sampling program, the internal QA/QC of Actlabs was relied upon. They conduct routine screen tests to verify crushing and pulverizing efficiency, make sample preparation duplicates to verify sample repeatability, and utilize analytical quality controls (blanks, standards, and duplicates). It is the authors opinion that the sample collection, preparation, security, analytical and QA/QC measures used during surface sampling campaigns were adequate for this stage of exploration.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

The Author Jeffs is of the opinion that the sample preparation, analysis, QA/QC and security protocol used by Green Shift to date is appropriate for a grass roots exploration program. The exploration data is not currently being used for a Mineral Resource Estimate (“MRE”) and the Authors are of the opinion that the level of data is not sufficient to support a MRE. If the Project experiences a rapid advancement to an MRE phase, including drilling a comprehensive QA/QC program will need to be implemented.

12 Data Verification

The following section summarise the data verification procedures that were carried out and completed and documented by the Authors for this technical report.

The data presented in this report has primarily come from the assessment field database from the Ontario Ministry of Mines. The Authors compared the data from various assessment files and the government published geological materials to verify the data descriptions. The authors can verify that the information has been presented accurately as reported in those files and reports.

The Company relied on the QA/QC results from Actlabs and the Authors reviewed the process and verify they are sufficient for this early exploration project.

The Authors verify that the information has been presented accurately as reported in those files and reports.

12.1 Site Inspection

The Authors visited the Project on September 13, 2023. Verification aspects were to include access, sample locations, and observe mineralization and lithologies on the Project. Access to the property was gained by vehicle from Thunder Bay, Ontario. Traverse to sample sites from the 2023 field program were conducted during the property visit.

Several pegmatites were observed in the area and varied in width from 1 to 6 meters in length trending approximately northeast‐southwest hosted within foliated to gneissic hornblende bearing granodiorite. Pegmatites were predominantly composed of albite, quartz, and green to silver muscovite ( Error! Reference source not found. ) with localized occurrences of beryl and garnet. Results and descriptions of the collected and submitted grab samples are located in Error! Reference source not found.

Table 12‐1 ‐ 2023 Armstrong Lithium Property check sample results

Original Sample ID	Original Sample UTM X	Original Sample UTM Y	CS (ppm)	Li (ppm)	Rb (ppm)	Ta (ppm)
1290004	411184	5588531	9.57	25	498	4.51
1290065	411259	5588501	33.4	24	943	37.2
1290019	411340	5588109	16.6	58	537	4.79
Check Sample ID	Check Sample UTM X	Check Sample UTM Y	CS (ppm)	Li (ppm)	Rb (ppm)	Ta (ppm)	Significant Mineralogy
1290092	411180	5588532	10.5	33	586	3.57	whitepegmatite with course silver/white
1290093	411260	5588502	29.8	28	852	18.1	Whitepegmatite withgreen muscovite
1290094	411344	5588108	59.3	239	994	2.32	White to pink pegmatite with micro garnets, verycoarse muscovite books

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

13 TO 22 Not Applicable

The Property is an early‐stage exploration project and therefor these sections are not applicable.

23 Adjacent Properties

The Armstrong Lithium Property is within proximity to two other mineral exploration projects (Figure 23‐1). These properties include Green Technologies Metals Flagship Seymour Project and Battery Age Minerals Flacon Lake Project. What follows are descriptions of geology, history and past operations on these adjacent properties.

Note that the Authors have not independently verified the following information and the geology, mineralization, and historical mineral resources on adjacent properties is not necessarily indicative of the mineralization on the Armstrong Lithium Property that is the subject of this technical report.

23.1 Green Technologies Metals: Seymour Project

The 100% owned Seymour Project is comprised of 15,140 hectares and is located near Armstrong, Ontario, approximately 230km north of the major regional township and port of Thunder Bay. The Project has an existing Mineral Resource estimate of 9.9 Mt @ 1.04% Li2O (comprised of 5.2 Mt at 1.29% Li2O Indicated and 4.7 Mt at 0.76% Li2O Inferred) at North and South Aubry Deposit areas. The resource estimated was completed according to Australasian Code for reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves by John Winterbottom a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. (Cox, 2022)

The Seymour project area comprises of 4 high priority target areas; Aubry Complex, Pye East Limb, Pye West Limb and Forsythe, plus a number of highly prospective areas with structural and geophysical similarities to the well mineralized zones at North and South Aubry. Drilling to date has focused on the Aubry target areas with a number of additional targets areas still requiring further drilling and exploration.

23.2 Battery Age Minerals: Falcon Lake Project

The 90% owned Falcon Lake Lithium Project covers a total of 214 mining claims covering 4,280 hectares of ground in the east‐west trending Caribou Lake‐O’Sullivan Greenstone Belt which extends eastward into the Onamon‐Tashota Greenstone Belt. The Project area is located approximately 7km northeast of Armstrong, Ontario.

The first reported work on the Falcon Lake property was completed in 1956 by British Canadian Lithium Mines Ltd (‘BCLM’). Geological mapping and diamond drilling carried out by BCLM intersected lithium showings. Notable results from drilling at this time include 1.23% Li2O over 13.7’ (4.18m), and 1.09% Li2O over 36.0’ (10.97m) at a vertical depth of 70’ (21.33m) (Donaldson, 1956).

Exploration carried out from 2009 and onward included mapping, grab and channel sampling and a small drilling program. This compilation of work confirmed pegmatite continuity and lithium and tantalum down dip from surface trenching. Further exploration in 2016 (Britt, 2016) returned spodumene bearing intercepts as follows:

24.4m at 1.48% Li2O from 10.9m; including

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

9.0m at 1.95% Li2O from 20.4m in drill hole FLDD006; and
21.7m at 1.09% Li2O from 48.0m; including
7.9m at 1.31% Li2O from 49.8m in drill hole FLDD001.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [683 x 332] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [683 x 84] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 23‐1: Adjacent projects to the Armstrong Lithium Property (Author A. Hughes)

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

24 Other Relevant Data and Information

There is no other relevant data or information available that is necessary to make the technical report understandable and not misleading. To the Authors’ knowledge, there are no significant risks and uncertainties that could reasonably be expected to affect the reliability or confidence in the exploration information.

25 Interpretation and Conclusions

26 Recommendations

Further detailed mapping is recommended to follow up on possible along strike extensions to pegmatites including channel sampling across previously identified pegmatite outcrops and stripping in areas where there is limited outcrop exposure coincident with structures identified through geophysics.

The estimated budget for the recommended program would be approximately $250,000 including personnel, vehicles, excavator for stripping, saws, water pumps, room and board in a camp and assays.

27 References

Anderson, C. D. (1984). Geochemical Report, Crescent Lake Area. Assessment Report. Anderson, D. T. (1979). 1979 Appendix to 1975 Interim Report, Falcon Lake Area. Assessment Report.

Breaks, F. W., Selway, J. B., & Tindle, A. G. (2003). Fertile peraluminous granites and related rareelement mineralization in pegmatites, Superior Province, northwest and northeast Ontario: Operation Treasure Hunt; Ontario Geological Survey, Open File Report 6099.
Breaks, F. W., Selway, J. B., & Tindle, A. G. (2008). The Georgia Lake Rare-Element Pegmatite Field and Related S-type, Peraluminous Granites, Quetico Subprovince, North-Central Ontario. Ontario Geological Survey.
Britt, T. (2016). Summer 2016 Regional Structural Study and Drilling Program, Crescent Lake Project, Falcon Lake and Zigzag Properties. Canadian Orebodies.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Černý, P. (1991). Rare-element granitic pegmatites. Part I: Anatomy and Internal Evolution of Pegmatite Deposits. Geoscience Canada.

Cox, L. (2022, 06 22). https://www.greentm.com.au/seymour-project .

Donaldson, A. (1956). Geology and Mineral Deposits in the Motsen Claim Group West of Falcon Lake, Ontaio. British Canadian Lithium Mines Ltd.

Dwight C. Bradley, A. D. (2017). Mineral-Deposit Model for LIthium-Cesium-Tantalum Pegmatites. Reston, Virginia: U.S. Geological Survey.
Evans, R. K. (2008). "An Abundance of Lithium". Published in response to W. Tahils 2007 paper "The Trouble with Lithium".
F. W. Breaks, J. S. (2006). Gertile and Peraluminous Granites and Related Rare-Element Mineralilzation in Pegmatities, North-Central and Northeastern Superior Province, Ontario, Open File Report 6195. Sudbury: Ontario Geological Survey.
Green Shift Commodities Ltd. (2023, 09 15). Green Shift Closes Previously Announced Acquisition of Option to Acquire the Armostrong LIthium Project. Toronto, Ontario.
MacDonald, C. A., ter Meer, M., Lowe, D., Isaac, C., & Scott, G. M. (2009). Precambrian geology of the Caribou Lake greenstone belt, northwestern Ontario; Ontario Geological Survey, Preliminary Map P.3613, scale 1:50 000. Preliminary Map.
Pye, E. G. (1968). Geology of the Crescent Lake area, District of Thunder Bay. Geological Report, Geoscience Report.
Selway, J. B., Breaks, F. W., & Tindle, A. G. (2005). A review of rare-element (Li-Cs-Ta) pegmatite exploration techniques for the Superior Province, Canada and large worldwide Tantalum deposits. Exploration and Mining Geology.
Watkeys, M. (2016). Crescent Lake Project Area, Ontario, Canada (Structural Study Report). Technical Report.

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix I

Tenure ID	Anniversary Date	Work Required	Registered Holder	Township / Area
639021	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639024	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639026	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639030	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639043	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639051	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639456	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639473	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639485	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639494	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639498	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639054	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639058	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639022	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639029	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639033	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639038	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639045	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639047	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639050	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639454	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639457	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639464	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639487	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639489	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639492	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639496	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639502	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639057	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639028	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639034	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639037	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639041	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639042	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639459	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639474	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639476	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Tenure ID	Anniversary Date	Work Required	Registered Holder	Township / Area
639479	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639049	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639461	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639466	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639468	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639470	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639472	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639475	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639481	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639486	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639488	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639490	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639495	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639504	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639056	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639036	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639039	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639046	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639458	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639460	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639462	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639463	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639477	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639480	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639497	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639500	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639023	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639040	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639044	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639048	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639478	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639491	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639493	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639501	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639503	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639053	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639055	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639059	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639025	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639027	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639031	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA

NI 43-101 Technical Report Armstrong Lithium Property

==> picture [41 x 22] intentionally omitted <==

Tenure ID	Anniversary Date	Work Required	Registered Holder	Township / Area
639032	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639455	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639465	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639469	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639471	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639484	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639499	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639035	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639052	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA, CRESCENT LAKE AREA
639467	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639482	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA
639483	24-Nov-23	400	David Thomson	FALCON LAKE AREA

AI assistant

Green Shift Commodities — Regulatory Filings 2023

45937_rns_2023-12-18_ecd778a4-6feb-4061-8ca9-669b27c3de33.pdf

National Instrument 43‐101 INDEPENDENT TECHNICAL REPORT

ARMSTRONG LITHIUM PROPERTY

Caitlin Jeffs, B.Sc., P.Geo.

CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTHOR

Alexander Hughes, HB.Sc., P.Geo.

CERTIFICATE OF THE AUTHOR

List of Tables

1 Summary

2 Introduction

2.2 Terms of Reference and Units

2.3 Sources of Information and Data

2.4 Details of the Personal Inspection on the Property by the Qualified Person

3 Reliance on Other Experts

4 Property Description and Location

4.1 Location

4.2 Mineral Tenure

4.3 Issuer’s Title or Interest in the Property

4.4 Permits and Authorization

4.4.1 Exploration Plan

4.4.2 Exploration Permit

4.5 Environmental Considerations

5 Accessibility, Climate, Local Resources, Infrastructure, Physiography

5.1 Access, Infrastructure, and Resources

5.2 Physiography, Climate and Vegetation

6 History

6.1 Property History

6.2 Historical Mineral Resource and Mineral Reserve Estimates

7 Geological Setting and Mineralization

7.1 Regional Geology

7.2 Structural Geology

7.3 Property Geology

7.4 Mineralization – Crescent Lake Pegmatite Group

8 Deposit Types

9 Exploration

9.1 2023 Reconnaissance Prospecting and Geological Mapping

9.2 2023 UAV Magnatometer Survey

10 Drilling

11 Sample Preparation, Analyses, and Security

12 Data Verification

12.1 Site Inspection

13 TO 22 Not Applicable

23 Adjacent Properties

23.1 Green Technologies Metals: Seymour Project

23.2 Battery Age Minerals: Falcon Lake Project

24 Other Relevant Data and Information

25 Interpretation and Conclusions

26 Recommendations

27 References

Appendix I

More from Green Shift Commodities

Green Shift Commodities Regulatory Filings 2023