STANMORE RESOURCES LIMITED — Audit Report / Information 2025

Apr 30, 2025

==> picture [551 x 144] intentionally omitted <==

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

1 May 2025
Isaac Downs Extension Coal Reserves - Update
----- End of picture text -----

Stanmore Resources Limited (ASX: SMR) (Stanmore or the Company) released its maiden Reserves Statement for the Isaac Downs Extension Project metallurgical coal mine (the Project) on 29 April 2025. Pursuant to Listing Rule 18.8, ASX requested the Company to update information released to the market.

The updated information is not materially different to information previously released to the market and is as follows:

1. Inclusion of information required by Listing Rule 5.9 has been included in the body of the announcement.

2. The categories of coal reserves reported in Table 1 are now accompanied by the quality of coal for each category as required by clause 42 of the Joint Ore Reserves Committee’s Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (December 2012).

3. Details of the Competent Person Statement for the mineral resource used in preparing the coal reserve statement have been updated.

4. A “forward looking statement” cautionary statement has been included.

5. Clarification that Section 5 Estimation and Report of Diamonds and Other Gemstones has been excluded as they are not applicable to this deposit and estimation.

6. Confirmation of Proved and Probable Reserves Estimates and those estimates reflect the view of the Competent Person.

The updated Reserves Statement is as follows.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

1

Highlights

• Successful completion of Isaac Downs Extension Pre-Feasibility study

• 52Mt ROM Coal Reserves, inclusive of 34Mt of Marketable Coal Reserves

• High Reserve confidence with 75% Proved Coal Reserves and 25% Probable Coal Reserves

• +20-year mine life, up to ~4 million tonnes per annum (Mtpa) ROM at a Prime ROM strip ratio of ~7.9:1 bcm/t

• Requires low project capital and utilises existing CHPP, dragline and coal haul road infrastructure

Stanmore Resources Limited (ASX: SMR) (Stanmore or the Company) is pleased to release its maiden Reserves Statement for the Isaac Downs Extension Project metallurgical coal mine (the Project) in accordance with the Joint Ore Reserves Committee’s Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (December 2012) (JORC Code (2012)). This release of JORC Reserves of 52Mt has increased the Total Stanmore Reserves to 586Mt.

Stanmore Chief Executive Officer and Executive Director Mr Marcelo Matos said that the declaration of Reserves for the Isaac Downs Extension Project in accordance with the JORC Code (2012) was an important milestone for the Project, which provided further confidence around reserve definition and the various options to ensure the company maximises returns to shareholders from the Project.

JORC Declaration – Isaac Downs Extension Coal Resources

JB Mining Pty Ltd were engaged by Stanmore to complete an independent assessment of the Open Cut Coal Resources for the Isaac Downs Extension Metallurgical Coal Project. The Resource assessment was completed in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).

Coal resources occur in the Leichhardt and Vermont seams (and its sub plies or splits) in the Permian Rangal Coal Measures. This report supersedes the previous Resource reports dated February (2010) (EPC755, EPC548) and June (2018) (EPC755) and is JORC compliant.

In late 2022 there was a notable drilling program within EPC755 intended to raising resource status down dip and providing greater definition of the Leichhardt seam splits in preparation for detailed mine planning. The program included 14 core holes and 28 chip holes (including 13 coring pilots).

All the drilling was completed in EPC755. An additional 20 existing chip and core holes have been included in the resource model, immediately north of the Isaac River. These holes provide structural definition only.

In September 2024, Stanmore Resources Ltd entered into agreement to access the up-dip area of the deposit in MDL277 and EPC548.

The quoted resources within EPC755, EPC548 and MDL277 are Measured, Indicated and Inferred status and are limited by the Isaac River to the north and by the extent of EPC755 to the south.

Coal quality analysis including clean coal composite testing data, indicates that the Leichhardt seam (LHD) and Upper Vermont ply (V1) will deliver coal products similar to those produced from the Isaac Plains deposit, albeit typically at slightly lower overall yield. These products are a primary coking coal (~9.5% ash) with a secondary thermal coal of export quality. The Upper Vermont seam (V1) also capable of producing a washed coking product with a secondary thermal product at overall lower yields. The Vermont Lower plies (V2, V31 & V32) can deliver a thermal coal product, of high ash and lower energy specification.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

2

Table 1: In situ Resource estimates by seam

Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)	Seam Raw RD (g/cm3) Coal Type* Measured (Mt) Indicated (Mt) Inferred (Mt) Total (Mt)
LHD	1.50	M, T	20.7	1.8	0.2	22.7
L1	1.61	M, T	-	4.7	2.9	7.6
L2	1.61	M, T	-	1.1	0.1	1.2
V1	1.51	M, T	20.9	14.4	7.5	42.8
V2	1.65	T	5.3	25.2	6.7	37.2
V31	1.70	T	3.8	5.5	2.2	11.4
V32	1.68	T	1.9	6.9	3.6	12.4
Total			52.5	59.5	23.1	135.2

*The qualities are weight averaged for Measured and Indicated resources across the IDE deposit.

** Coal Type Potential legend: M – Metallurgical Coal (PCI); T – Thermal coal.

Table 2: Weight averaged Clean Coal Composite Qualities (Measured and Indicated resources)

		Coking Qualities*	Coking Qualities*			Thermal Qualities*	Thermal Qualities*
Seam	Ash adb (%)	Volatiles daf (%)	Total Sulphur adb (%)	CSN	Ash adb (%)	Volatiles daf (%)	Total Sulphur adb (%)	SE MJ/Kg
LHD	9.6	28.4	0.38	3.2	23.3	23.7	0.34	24.7
L1	11.4	27.9	0.32	1.9	23.5	28.6	0.28	25.1
L2	10.9	29.0	0.38	5.6	26.8	28.6	0.26	24.6
V1	9.9	29.1	0.45	5.7	24.4	25.6	0.32	25.2
V2	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	27.4	26.2	0.31	24.2
V31	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	27.6	29.1	0.47	24.3
V32	N/A	N/A	N/A	N/A	27.0	28.3	0.43	24.5

*The qualities are weight averaged for Measured and Indicated resources across the IDE deposit.

Note: The above is a high-level indication for the whole resource. A more sophisticated Whole of Resource optimisation blending model was used to generate marketable product qualities for Reserves.

Resources are estimated in accordance with the “Australian Guidelines for Estimation Reporting and Classification of Coal Resources” (December 2014) and are reported in compliance with the JORC Code (2012).

Total reportable resources have increased in the Isaac Downs Extension deposit by 46.4Mt from the previous resource report (2010) to detail the full extent of resources (see more detail in Appendix A – Table 1). The expansion of drilling across multiple programs, extending resources downdip to the east and south and the additional reporting of resources for the Leichardt splits (L1 and L2) have driven the change in resources.

The 2018 resource estimate reported resources within EPC755. Resources within EPC755 have increased by 38.2Mt which is attributable to the extension of resources to the south beyond Cherwell Creek and the additional reporting of resources for the Leichardt splits (L1 and L2).

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

3

JORC Declaration – Isaac Downs Extension Coal Reserves

Palaris Australia Pty Ltd (Palaris) have been engaged by Stanmore to complete an independent assessment of the Open Cut Coal Reserves for the Isaac Downs Extension Metallurgical Coal Project. The Reserve assessment was completed in accordance with the JORC Code (2012).

A Pre-Feasibility Options Study (PFS) has been completed that demonstrates the technical feasibility and economic viability of the Project. The PFS study resulted in an overall Run of Mine (ROM) Coal Reserves of 52Mt, inclusive of 34Mt (~65% yield) Marketable Coal Reserves at an overall Prime ROM strip ratio of ~7.9:1 bcm/t (refer also Table 1 below). The Project produces two main products over the mine life

• Metallurgical Coal - 10.5% ash PCI product – primary product

• Thermal Coal - ~ 19% average ash product – secondary product

Pit optimisation techniques (margin ranking) with consideration of applicable modifying factors were used to determine the economic Pit limits and estimate Reserves.

The Resource classification is consistent with the Australian Guidelines for Estimation and Classification of Coal Resources (2014), and all resources are reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012). Drill hole spacing analysis (DHSA) was conducted to determine the spacing required to achieve appropriate confidence levels for classifying Resources as Measured, Indicated, or Inferred. The analysis was based on raw ash content and seam thickness. A summary of the distances used for Resource classification based on the outcomes from DHSA are summarised in Appendix A (Table 1, Section 3 – Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources). Only distances from coal quality points of observation have been considered for the Resource classification, consistent with previous estimates. Coal Reserves have been classified into Proven and Probable categories by intersecting the planned mining blocks from the Life of Mine plan with the Measured and Indicated Resource polygons respectively. The Reserve was then assessed to determine if the application of any modifying factors would result in subsequent reclassification. The material modifying factors used in the conversion from Resources to Reserves include :A recoverable working section thickness of 0.3 m was used as the minimum cut-off for ROM Reserves. Loss and dilution assumptions applied to working sections include roof loss (0.1m), floor loss (0.1m), floor dilution (0.05m) and roof dilution (0.05m). Geological losses were additionally applied to remove coal from normal fault planes to better reflect reality. Geotechnical modifying factors as shown below were used in the pit shell design.

Table 3: Geotechnical modifying factors

Geotechnical Design Zone Batter Angle (°) Max Bench Height (m) Minimum Bench Width (m)	Geotechnical Design Zone Batter Angle (°) Max Bench Height (m) Minimum Bench Width (m)	Geotechnical Design Zone Batter Angle (°) Max Bench Height (m) Minimum Bench Width (m)	Geotechnical Design Zone Batter Angle (°) Max Bench Height (m) Minimum Bench Width (m)
VE Interburden (HW and EW)	65	To LL Seam	-
LL Fresh Overburden (HW)	65	To Weathered	10m at Base
LL Fresh Overburden (EW)	45	30	55m at Base, and 10m as required
Weathered Zone (HW and EW)	45	To Surface	10m at Base
Lowwall Batter	30	To Surface	-

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

4

Inferred or Unclassified Coal was excluded from the Reserve estimate. A maximum raw ash cut off (40%) was used in the generation of Coal Reserves. Additional geological losses were applied to generate reserves in areas where there were normal faults present, to better reflect reality. An image of the pit shell is shown in Figure 2 below.

A strip-mining method was selected based on the geological characterisation of the deposit. A 600t excavator will mine the upper waste horizons and a smaller 400t excavator will mine the coal to minimise coal dilution and losses thereby maximising coal recovery. Dragline, dozer push & cast blasting will be used in the lower overburden horizons. A recoverable working section thickness of 0.3 m was used as the minimum cut-off for ROM Reserves. Loss and dilution assumptions applied to working sections include roof loss (0.1m), floor loss (0.1m), floor dilution (0.05m) and roof dilution (0.05m). Coal mined at the project will be hauled via road trains to the already existing Isaac Plains Coal Handling and Preparation Plant (CHPP) to the north of the project for processing. A bridge to cross the Isaac River to enable coal haulage from the project to the CHPP will be built.

The existing CHPP is a typical two product plant with dense medium cyclones, teetered bed separator and Jameson flotation cells to process the coarse, fines and ultrafine coal respectively. There is a sufficient level of coal quality, washability data and simulations completed to adequately characterise the deposit and determine the product specifications of the reserves. A Whole of Resource Optimisation model (WOROM) was used to determine the product types and yields. Overall processing yield is expected to be ~65% for the project. The reject material is planned to be managed in-pit in Isaac Plains. Existing rail and port infrastructure and agreements will be used for the project’s logistics.

Environmental and social studies are underway, and these will support the various applications for environmental and social approvals. Stanmore holds pre-requisite mineral tenure for Mining Lease applications for the project. Stanmore plans to address land tenure and Native Title matters in parallel with other inputs to the Mining Lease applications. Environmental, social and approvals risks have been identified and considered in project design. The environmental, social, and approvals forward work plan sets out an appropriate path forward to securing approval for the project and managing the identified risks, which are considered typical of a Bowen Basin coal mine project. There is sufficient allocation for new electrical infrastructure to continue the dragline mining method of operations for the project.

Due to the project being an extension of the existing Isaac Downs mine, the input assumptions are commercially sensitive and not disclosed. The methodology used to calculate operating costs includes a combination of firstprinciples build-up from a detailed mine plan and existing cost databases. Capital costs are supported by a sufficient level of engineering design and vendor quotes to meet a Pre-Feasibility Study (PFS) standard. Exchange rate and macroeconomic assumptions were provided by Stanmore and are considered reasonable by the Competent Person. A discounted cash flow (DCF) model was completed to validate the project's economic viability. Queensland state royalties, as well as private royalties where applicable, have been estimated and applied as costs in the financial model. The study resulted in a positive NPV for the project using a discount rate of 10%. This is the first reported Statement of Open Cut Coal Reserves for the Isaac Downs Extension Project.

Table 4: Open Cut Reserve estimates

Table 4: Open Cut Reserve estimates	Table 4: Open Cut Reserve estimates	Table 4: Open Cut Reserve estimates	Table 4: Open Cut Reserve estimates
Reserves Proved (Mt) Probable (Mt) Total (Mt)
Coal Reserves	39	13	52
Marketable Reserves	27	7	34

Note: Estimates are not precise calculations and are rounded to reflect order of accuracy Coal Reserves are at 7.0% (as received) average total moisture (ROM) Marketable Reserves are at ~ 10.8% (as received) average total moisture (Product)

Coal Reserves are the point at which the coal is delivered to the processing plant prior to processing.

Marketable Reserves refer to product coal (saleable coal) after processing.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

5

Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality

Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality	Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality	Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality	Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality	Table 5: Marketable Reserve estimate - Quality
Product Quality Proved Marketable (Mt) Probable Marketable (Mt) Total (Mt)
Coking	10.5% ash PCI	16	1	17
Thermal	~19% ash	12	5	17
Total 27 7 34

Note: Estimates are not precise calculations and are rounded to reflect order of accuracy Marketable Reserves are at ~ 10.8% (as received) average total moisture (Product)

Figure 1: General Location Plan

==> picture [358 x 506] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

6

Figure 2: Isaac Downs Extension Pit Shell

==> picture [429 x 608] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

7

Competent Person’s Statement Resources

The information in this report relating to Coal Resources for the Isaac Downs Extension is based on information compiled by Mr Roderick Macpherson who is a full-time employee of Stanmore Resources and has held the position of Superintendent Strategic Resources since May 2022. Mr Macpherson is a qualified Geologist with an Honours degree from the NSW Institute of Technology majoring in Applied Geology and is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG). Mr Macpherson has sufficient experience in mining, exploration, and resource modelling relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Macpherson consents to the inclusion of the Coal Reserves information in reports by the company, in the form and context in which it appears.

Competent Person’s Statement Reserves

The Reserve estimates for Isaac Downs Extension is based on information compiled by Mr Ryan Gomez, who is a Member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM) (#3053930). Mr Gomez is the General Manager of Studies and Optimisation at Palaris. He has sufficient experience relevant for the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person, as defined in the 2012 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Mr Gomez has over 7 years’ experience in the estimation, assessment, evaluation, and economic extraction of Coal Reserves. Mr Gomez consents to the inclusion of this Reserve Estimate in reports disclosed by the Company in the form in which it appears. Neither Mr Gomez or Palaris have a direct or indirect financial interest in, or association with Stanmore Resources, or the properties and tenements reviewed in this report, apart from standard contractual arrangements for the preparation of this report and other previous independent consulting work. In preparing this report, Palaris has been paid a fee for time expended based on its standard hourly rates. The present and past arrangements for services rendered to Stanmore Resources do not in any way compromise the independence of Palaris with respect to this review.

The appended JORC Code (2012) – Table 1 sets out all the information material to understanding the estimate of the Project Resources and Reserves.

Forward looking statements

This document contains certain “forward-looking statements”. The words “forecast”, “estimate”, “like”, “anticipate”, “project”, “opinion”, “should”, “could”, “may”, “target” and other similar expressions are intended to identify forward looking statements. Indications of, and guidance on, future earnings and financial position and performance are also forward-looking statements. You are cautioned not to place undue reliance on forward looking statements. Although due care and attention has been used in the preparation of forward-looking statements, such statements, opinions and estimates are based on assumptions and contingencies that are subject to change without notice, as are statements about market and industry trends, which are based on interpretations of current market conditions. Forward looking statements including projections, guidance on future earnings and estimates are provided as a general guide only and should not be relied upon as an indication or guarantee of future performance. Other than where required by law, Stanmore does not undertake to publicly update or review any forward-looking statements whether as a result of new information or future events.

This announcement has been approved for release by the Board of Directors of Stanmore Resources Limited.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

8

Further Information

Investors

Media

Investors@stanmore.net.au Media@stanmore.net.au

Our Brisbane corporate office is located on Turrbul and Jagera Country, on the banks of Meanjin, while our mining leases sit within Barada Barna, Jangga and Widi country.

Follow us on LinkedIn.

==> picture [24 x 24] intentionally omitted <==

About Stanmore Resources Limited (ASX: SMR)

Stanmore Resources Limited controls and operates the South Walker Creek, Poitrel and Isaac Plains Complex metallurgical coal mines as well as the undeveloped Isaac Downs Extension, Eagle Downs, Lancewood and Isaac Plains Underground projects, in Queensland’s prime Bowen Basin region. Stanmore Resources holds several additional high-quality prospective coal tenements located in Queensland’s Bowen and Surat basins. The Company is focused on the creation of shareholder value via the efficient operation of its mining assets and the identification of further development opportunities within the region.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

9

Appendix A

JORC CODE 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1 FOR ISAAC DOWNS EXTENSION RESOURCES & RESERVES APRIL 2025

The text presented in Table 1 – Sections 1-3 have been copied directly from the current Resources Statement prepared by Matt Walsh (JB Mining Services) and compiled by Roderick Macpherson (Competent Person, see sign off on page 8).

Note: Isaac Plains South has been renamed to Isaac Downs Extension. Any reference in Table 1 to Isaac Plains South is the same as Isaac Downs Extension.

Section 5 Estimation and Report of Diamonds and Other Gemstones have been excluded as they are not applicable to this deposit and estimation.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in each section apply to all preceding and succeeding sections.)	Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in each section apply to all preceding and succeeding sections.)
Criteria	Explanation
Sampling Techniques	Core holes were partly cored. Drilling rigs comprised both conventional and top head drive units providing 100mm and 200mm core for coal quality sampling and 63.5mm (HQ) for geotechnical sampling. All cores were photographed, geologically logged, sampled and bagged in the field. Open hole rotary drilling provided chip samples where seams were not cored. All holes were attempted to be drilled vertical. Almost all holes were geophysically logged.
Drilling techniques	Wireline and conventional core drilling. Rotary drilling using blades, poly crystalline diamond (PCD) or hammer bit. Based on pilot hole depths, 100mm cores were taken from several metres above the target seams to several metres below.
Drill sample recovery	Core sample drilled and recovery noted by supervising geologist. Sample weights are compared with estimated weights to aid determination of sample recovery. Density logs used to check sample recovery. Redrills were required where core recoveries are <95%, except when due to adverse geological conditions.
Logging	Drill cuttings and cores were lithologically logged in the field. Lithological logs were encoded directly in the field on industry standard coding sheets. Coal seam intercepts were corrected to downhole geophysics. Cores were photographed. Where possible, wireline logging of all drill holes has been routinely undertaken for the industry standard suite of logs - calliper, natural gamma and density. Where the drillholes are relatively shallow, no down hole deviation surveys were carried out. Where holes targeted deeper areas down dip, down hole deviation surveys were carried out. The level of detail is considered to be appropriate for coal resource definition.
Sub- sampling techniques and preparation	Full cores were used for sample testing. Core sampling was completed at the drill site or core shed. Core samples were bagged to reduce oxidation and transported to the lab as soon as reasonable. Samples have been crushed and sub-sampled in NATA registered laboratories using appropriate Australian Standards for coal testing. All samples are weighed, air dried then re-weighed before being crushed. Sampling is generally on a whole seam basis. Raw coal analyses were carried out on the samples including Proximates, RD, phosphorus, total sulphur, SE, chlorine. Comprehensive washability and clean coal composite analyses were carried out on the whole seam samples including the full suite of tests on the primary coking and secondary thermal composites. Analyses of Floats 1.375 material was initially performed to allow assessment of the target quality of the final clean coal composites and to “quickly” access coking properties such fluidity, which deteriorates with time. The coking clean coal composites were subject to the following suite of tests, Proximates, phosphorus, total sulphur, CSN, Gray King Coke Type, Giesler Fluidity, Dilatometer, Ash Analyses, Petrographic analyses, Reflectance Ro Max. The Thermal clean coal composites were subject to the following suite of tests, Proximates, phosphorus, SE, chlorine and fluorine total sulphur, CSN, HGI, Ultimate Analyses, Ash Fusion Temperatures and Ash Analyses.
Quality of assay data and laboratory tests	NATA registered laboratories have been used for all coal testing. NATA laboratories have quality assurance/quality control schemes.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

10

Verification of sampling and assaying	On arrival at the laboratory, sample mass is compared with theoretical mass to check for recovery and thickness loss/inconsistencies. Samples are compared with geophysics to confirm to ensure consistency and check for core loss. If lithological logs are adjusted to geophysics, sample depths are adjusted accordingly. Numerous holes drilled in close proximity- cross checked for consistency in seam elevation, thickness and quality.
Location of data points	The survey grid is AMG84 Zone 55 which is based on the AGD84 datum. The height datum is the Australian Height Datum. Drill hole collars are surveyed by registered surveyors post drilling. Drillhole collars have been checked against the DTM and found to be consistent.
Data spacing and distribution	A total of 505 holes are in the lithological database of which 486 are used for structure modelling. 77 cored holes are used in the coal quality model. Chip drillhole spacing is approximately 250 metres in the updip half of resource area, while 100mm cored holes spacing is approximately 500m. Recent drilling has looked to improve the density of drilling in the downdip area to the E and SE of the box cut area. Drilling density is sufficient to classify the majority of the updip portion as Measured and Indicated status. New drilling has provided sufficient confidence to extend Indicated and Inferred resources south of Cherwell creek in the Vermont seam package (V1 – V32) and the upper Leichardt split (L1). Some cores are excluded from modelling due to inappropriate sampling/ analyses and or core loss.
Orientation of data in relation to geological structure	Drilling has attempted to maintain hole verticality. The general dip of the area is 2-6 degrees to the east, steepening around faults. Drill hole spacing downdip is essentially equivalent to that along strike (with the exception of Lox definition drilling).
Sample security	Core samples were bagged and labelled with a unique field sample ID. Field sample despatch records were compiled detailing the sample depths, general composition (coal/parting) and intended analyses instructions. On arrival at the laboratory field samples were re-weighed and confirmed against sample despatch advice data.
Audits or reviews	Coal seam intercepts are corrected to downhole geophysics. Drillhole collars have been checked against the DTM and found to be consistent. Several internal reviews have been undertaken.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

11

Section 2	Section 2	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)	Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.)
Criteria		Explanation
Mineral tenement and land tenure status		EPC755 covering 36 sub-blocks was granted to Aquila Coal Pty Ltd, a subsidiary of Aquila Resources, on 10 April 2002 for a period of 3 years. Since then the EPC has changed ownership several times and the current holder is Stanmore IP Coal Pty Ltd, a wholly owned subsidiary of Stanmore Coal Limited. The permit has also been subject of some relinquishment. Its present area covers 19 sub- blocks. In September 2024 Stanmore entered into a new “Designated Area Agreement” signed with the Moranbah South joint venture (Anglo Coal (Grosvenor) Pty Ltd 50% and Exxaro Australia Pty Ltd 50%), providing Stanmore the rights to explore, study and then apply for a future mining lease over the granted area, encompassing the up-dip portion of the Rangal Coal measure deposit in MDL277 and EPC548. An outcome of the negotiations with MBS JV included a signing payment, a payment upon first coal being mined or from 10 years of a mining lease being granted over the designated area and a payment of a capped future “royalty” linked to coal price thresholds. Tenure No. Status Date Granted Expires Sub Blocks Holder EPC 755 Granted 17/08/2001 9/04/2028 19 Stanmore IP Coal PtyLtd EPC548 Granted 23/02/1994 22/02/2027 1 Anglo Coal (Grosvenor) PtyLtd MDL277 Granted 08/07/2008 31/07/2026 Exxaro Australia PtyLtd
		first coal being mined or from 10 years of a mining lease being granted
		a payment of a capped future “royalty” linked to coal price thresholds.
		Tenure No.	Status	Date Granted	Expires	Sub Blocks	Holder
		EPC 755	Granted	17/08/2001	9/04/2028	19	Stanmore IP Coal PtyLtd
		EPC548	Granted	23/02/1994	22/02/2027	1	Anglo Coal (Grosvenor) PtyLtd
		MDL277	Granted	08/07/2008	31/07/2026		Exxaro Australia PtyLtd
Exploration done by other parties		The earliest recorded exploration in the ar
		Ltd in the 1960’s. A series of shallow drill
Geology		Regional Geology The Isaac Plains SOUTH resource area is located in the northern part of the Permo-Triassic Bowen Basin containing principally fluvial and some marine sediments. The Bowen Basin is part of a connected group of Permo-Triassic basins in eastern Australia, which includes the Sydney and Gunnedah Basins. The Basins axis orientation is NNW-SSE roughly parallel to the Paleozoic continental margin. Tectonically, the basin can be divided into NNW-SSE trending platforms or shelves separated by sedimentary troughs. The units from west to east are the Springsure Shelf, Denison Trough, Collinsville Shelf/Comet Platform, Taroom Trough, Connors and Auburn Arches (interrupted by the Gogango Over-folded Zone) and the Marlborough Trough. Development of the basin in the Early Permian was in the form of half grabens which subsequently became areas of regional crustal sag. The basin has suffered NE-SW oriented extensional and compressional events during its history which has influenced deposition and formed large synclinal and anticlinal features. Structurally the Isaac Plains SOUTH project is located near the western boundary of the deformed Nebo Synclinorium west of a major thrust system.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

12

Relationships between stratigraphic Supersequences and lithostratigraphic units in the Bowen Basin (modified from Brakel et al. (2009), Fielding et al. (2001) and others)

==> picture [409 x 240] intentionally omitted <==

Local Geology

Tertiary

Quaternary sediments range in thickness from 2 to 20m (average 7.8m) in the deposit area. Quaternary sediments appear to thicken to the west close to the subcrop of the Vermont seam. Some thicker Quaternary is seen along the banks of the Isaac River in the north and a minor amount along Cherwell Creek to the south.

Weathering

Depth of weathering over the whole deposit ranges from 11 to 36m (average 20.3m). In the seam subcrop zone the depth of weathering averages 19.5m. Deeper weathering zones are generally related to faulting.

Structure and Faulting

In the IP South area, the Rangal Coal Measures dip to the east at 2 to 6 degrees. Dips steepen in the vicinity of major faults. Refer to the following figure for V1 seam structure floor contours and major faults. East of the deposit (beyond the limit of drilling) a major thrust system - the Isaac Thrust has been regionally interpreted and identified in the MGCRA seismic line 94-4 to the east of the Isaac River.

North-north-west trending thrust faults and orthogonal transverse faults feature in the resource area. A major thrust fault with a throw up to 30m occurs in the middle of the deposit area. A significant NE trending normal fault with throws of 10-28m occurs in the northern portion of the deposit area. V1 Seam structure floor contours below.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

13

Igneous Geology

Following a review of the Department of Natural Resources regional magnetic survey it has been concluded that there are no significant Tertiary basalt flows in the IP South Project area. Tertiary basalt flows do exist to the west of the resource area in the local Council basalt quarry. No igneous material has been intercepted in drill holes within the resource area.

Coal Seams

General

The Leichhardt (LHD) and the V1 ply of the Vermont Seam of the Rangal Coal Measures form the principal economic coal resources in the Isaac Plains South Project area. The boundary between the Rangal Coal Measure and the underlying Fort Cooper Coal Measures is the typical a cream to brown tuffaceous claystone band (commonly called the Yarrabee Tuff – YT). The YT has been identified immediately below the V1 coal ply in most drill holes in the IP South Project area. Technically the V2 and V3 coal plies are the top of the Fort Cooper Coal Measures.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

14

Leichhardt Seam

The Leichhardt Seam is typically 2.5m thick and splits down dip into the L1 and L2 seams. Once split, the L1 and L2 seams thin progressively downdip to the E and SE. The L1 seam is typically 1.1m thick, and L2 is 0.92m thick. At depth the L2 seam disappears within a strong coarse sandstone sequence. The coalesced LHD seam has some stone bands that are consistent over relatively short distances. The Leichhardt whole seam raw ash averages 21.0%.

Vermont Seams

The Vermont seam lies approximately 25 m below the Leichhardt seam and varies in total thickness between 5-9m (V1 to V32 including parting). There are three plies identified in the Vermont seam (V1, V2 and V3, which is further split into V31 and V32 plies). V1 averages 1.8 metres in thickness, V2 averages 1.4 metres, V31 averages 0.4 metres and V32 averages 0.4 metres. Coal Quality

Leichhardt and Vermont seam coal in the Isaac Plains SOUTH area may be classified as medium volatile bituminous coal (ASTM Classification) with a reflectance in the order of 1.00%. The LHD seam is generally low in ash and exhibits reasonable washability characteristics. The Vermont seams are higher in ash and exhibit poorer washability characteristics than the LHD seam. The seams can be beneficiated to produce a coking primary and thermal secondary product.

Weighted Average Raw Coal Qualities (%adb) by Seam *

									Sp.
	Seam	Lab RD	IM%	Ash %	VM%	TS%	Chlorine	Phos. %	Energy (Kcals/
									Kg)
	LHD	1.50	2.2	21.4	22.6	0.42	0.06	0.102	26.3
	L1	1.61	1.6	31.2	21.0	0.29	0.05	-	22.7
	L2	1.61	1.9	33.9	20.2	0.27	0.04	-	21.7
	V1	1.51	2.1	24.1	22.0	0.46	0.05	0.079	25.3
	V2	1.65	2.4	36.3	19.3	0.40	0.04	0.066	20.8
	V31	1.70	2.1	41.9	19.5	0.41	0.04	0.035	18.7
	V32	1.68	2.1	40.4	19.0	0.48	0.04	0.016	19.3

The qualities are weight averaged for Measured and Indicated resources across the Isaac Plains South deposit. Weight averaged Coking Clean Coal Composite Qualities

	Sea m	Lab Yield	Ash adb	Volatiles adb	CS N	Total Sulphur adb	Phos. adb	Basicity Index	Log Fluidity
	LH D	48.8	9.6	28.4	3.2	0.38	0.059	0.18	1.48
	L1	23.3	11.4	27.9	1.9	0.32	0.089	0.19	1.86
	L2	20.5	10.9	29.0	5.6	0.38	0.028	0.14	2.35
	V1	30.5	9.9	29.1	5.7	0.45	0.067	0.16	1.87

*The qualities are weight averaged for Measured and Indicated resources across the Isaac Plains South deposit. Clean coal standardised against a coking product target ash of 9.5%.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

15

Weight averaged Thermal Clean Coal Composite Qualities*

	Sea m	Lab Yield	Ash adb	VM adb	Total Sulphur adb	SE MJ/Kg	Phos. adb	CS N	Fe02 in Ash %
	LHD	27.8	23.3	23.7	0.34	24.7	0.118	1.0	6.7
	L1	30.3	23.5	28.6	0.28	25.1	0.129	1.0	5.4
	L2	33.0	26.8	28.6	0.26	24.6	0.029	1.0	6.2
	V1	47.6	24.4	25.6	0.32	25.2	0.086	1.0	4.4
	V2	71.9	27.4	26.2	0.31	24.2	0.015	1.4	4.8
	V31	59.4	27.6	29.1	0.47	24.3	0.008	3.2	3.4
	V32	65.5	27.0	28.3	0.43	24.5	0.008	1.0	5.5

*The qualities are weight averaged for Measured and Indicated resources across the Isaac Plains South deposit. Clean coal standardised against a thermal product target ash of 28%.

Opportunity exists for further optimisation and assessment of coal product and types. The clean coal is presented at a coking target ash of 9.5% and a thermal target ash of 28%. Results of recent plant simulations by MCQR suggest some optimization of coal products by seam/ply is possible by targeting different average primary and secondary ash levels than those defined in previous simulation studies. Different target ash levels will alter yield and CSN characteristics. This change in ash could also result in some differences in coal product analysis (relative to present results).

	Given the large amount of data as detailed in the following table- tabulation of all the	drill hole
	locations and seam intercepts would overload this document with information of limited value.
	Instead, plots of the holes used for structural and quality modelling demonstrate the location and
	density of the drilling data
Drill hole	Number Details
information	486 Total Number of Holes in Database including barren holes
	452 Holes in used in Structural Model
	77 Holes in used in Quality Model
	Drill hole locations are shown in the following diagram

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

16

==> picture [488 x 476] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

17

==> picture [71 x 265] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [352 x 256] intentionally omitted <==

Data	A number of contiguous coal seam samples have been composited on an industry standard length
aggregation	by density basis for Raw coal quality and length by density by yield basis for clean coal quality.
methods	Reported coal quality is by Seam.
Relationship
between	Tabulated coal thickness are downhole thicknesses. Coal resource modelling and estimation
mineralisatio	methods adjust for seam thickness versus the apparent thickness. Seam structure modelling is based
n widths and	on triangulation of the structure roof and floor intercepts. Seam thickness is derived by structure roof
intercept	minus floor models.
depths
	Apart from figures embedded in the text of this table, appended to the end of this document are the
Diagrams	following diagrams: Resource outline plots, Seam contour and thickness plots and Raw ash coal
	quality plots.
	All data and geological information is reported on. Where data has not been used an explanation is
Balanced	provided as to why the data has been excluded from the modelling and resource definition. Coal
reporting	resources are reported by seam, confidence level (Measured, Indicated and Inferred) in depth
	categories and by tenement.
Other
substantive	2D seismic surveys provide support for structural interpretation.
exploration	Locations of the surveys are shown in the previous diagram.
data
Further Work	Structural and Coal quality drilling is required to improve the data density and resource confidence down dip and south of Cherwell creek.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

18

Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources Section 3 (Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section.)

Criteria	Explanation
Database integrity	Lithological logs, wireline geophysical logs, assay results and coal intersection depths have been reconciled in previous modelling and resource estimations. Random checks of seam intercepts depths with downhole geophysics show no inconsistencies.
Site visits	The previous competent person site visit was during the 2013 drilling campaign. The competent person has experience in modelling of nearby deposits in the same formation.
Geological interpretation	The geological interpretation for this resource estimate is based in the integration of all drillhole and coal quality data. There is sufficient drilling data to allow an unambiguous interpretation of the area. The interpretation is consistent with previous work on the deposit.
Dimensions	The dimensions of the Isaac Plains South resource are approximately 4.8 km north south (downdip) by 2 km east west. The resource dips to the east at 2 to 6 degrees. The target seams range in depth from 20m to 150m.
Estimation and modelling techniques	Geological modelling and resource estimation has been carried out by the Competent Person using Maptek’s VULCAN 3-D geological modelling software. The model is of seams with waste modelled as a default. Seam structure modelling (20x20m grid) is based on triangulation of the structure roof and floor intercepts. Seam thickness is derived by structure roof minus floor models. Coal quality models (100x100m grid) are generated using the Inverse Distance Algorithm.
Moisture	Air dry Relative Density and Inherent Moisture are modelled from directly from analytical data for each seam. There is no MHC data to assist in the estimation of insitu Moisture. An insitu moisture of 5% is assumed for this resource estimation. Insitu density is calculated using the Preston & Sanders formula.
Cut-off parameters	The resources at Isaac Plains South are considered to have reasonable prospects of eventual extraction by opencut methods. Economic studies indicate open cut mining is viable to a cumulative waste to coal insitu tonnes ratio of 15:1 to the V32 seam. The driving component is the value of the coking coal product. Highwall mining of the V1 seam is viewed as viable. • The up-dip limit is the full fresh coal thickness coal line. • The down-dip limit for open cut resources is the 15:1 cumulative waste to insitu tonnes ratio down to the V32 seam • The northern limit is set by a ~120m offset to the Isaac River • The southern limit is set by the lox and reasonable limit of drilling data. This terminates short of the southern lease boundary. A sterilisation offset of 100m either side of Cherwell Creek has been applied • Underground resources are assumed to be mined by Highwall mining with a maximum penetration of 250m • Minimum seam thickness for open cut is 0.3m • Minimum seam thickness for highwall mining is 1.5m • Raw ash <60% for coal
Mining factors or assumptions	The assumed open cut mining method is overburden and coal removal by dragline, shovel and trucks. Underground mining by highwall mining methods is only viable for the V1 seam. A maximum penetration of 250m is assumed for the HW mining resource.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	This coal resource estimation is based on the assumption that the coal will require beneficiation prior to export.
Environmental factors or assumptions	Resources are excluded within 120m of the Isaac River in the north and within 100m either side of Cherwell Creek in the south.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

19

Bulk density

In-situ density is estimated using the Preston & Sanders formula. Air dry Relative Density and, Inherent Moisture are modelled directly from analytical data for each seam. In situ Moisture is assumed to be 5%.

Resource classification is based on the density of Coal quality Points of Observation (POB) and Structural POB. In this deposit the Coal quality POB have a lower density than the structure POB and thus are the principal delimiter of the resource.

A quality point of observation for each seam is defined as a cored hole with coal recovery of >90% and having clean coal composite data. Supportive raw coal quality has been used to qualify indicative and inferred resource where locally consistent.

A quantity point of observation for each ply is defined as a ply drill hole intercept with downhole geophysics or fully cored section. Structural definition is aided by 2D seismic surveys which provide some fault definition and proof of seam continuity.

The vast majority of structural holes have downhole geophysics.

Seam thickness contours indicate continuity and consistency with local trending. Seam correlation is aided by the Yarrabee Tuff stratigraphic marker and facilitated by downhole geophysics and detailed core logging. Despite the faulting, the structural geology is simple and well understood.

Seam thickness has a low coefficient of variation (indicating good consistency) as shown in the chart below. Raw coal ash has a lower variability than seam thickness as shown in the following chart.

Coefficient of variance

Classification

==> picture [357 x 200] intentionally omitted <==

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

1.00
0.90
0.80
0.70
0.60
0.50
0.40
0.30
0.20
0.10
0.00
LHD L1 L2 V1 V2 V31 V32
Raw Ash Thickness
----- End of picture text -----

Results from geostatistical studies have provided a basis for the following classification criteria.

Drill Hole Radius of Influence for Resource Classification

Criteria	Measured	Indicated	Inferred
Structure	250	500	1500
Quality (Grade)	250	500	1500

Resource outline plots are attached to this table.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

20

Audits or reviews

Several internal reviews were undertaken by Stanmore Resources. Checks included model validation against database and fault interpretation as well as resource estimation checks.

Discussion of relative accuracy/confi dence

Confidence classification involves evaluation of both structural definition as well as grade definition. Confidence in structural definition involves confidence both in seam thickness consistency/continuity as well as confidence in seam location. Confidence in seam thickness prediction is high as indicated by locally trending consistent contours and the large range of the seam thickness variogram. Confidence in coal quality prediction is also reasonably high due to locally trending consistent contours.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

21

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Mineral Resource estimate for conversion to Ore Reserves	 Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the conversion to an Ore Reserve.  Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported additional to, or inclusive of, the Ore Reserves.	 The Mineral Resource estimate used as the basis for this Coal Reserve Statement is described in the document “Isaac Plains South Deposit”, October 2024, prepared by Mr. Matt Walsh. The Competent Person, Mr Walsh, has sufficient expertise that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit and activity to qualify as a Competent Person as specified under the JORC Code (2012) and is a member of the Australian Institute of Geologists (AIG).  Note: For clarity, the Isaac Plains South is the same location as Isaac South for the purposes of this report, and in fact the project name is now Isaac Downs Extension.  The Resources Statement was compiled in accordance with The JORC Code (2012).  The Coal Resources reported are inclusive of the Coal Reserves.
Site visits	 Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the outcome of those visits.  If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	 A site visit to the existing Isaac Downs project was undertaken on 16thApril 2025 by the Reserves Competent Person (CP) Mr. Ryan Gomez.  Mr. Ryan Gomez has visited key existing infrastructure (dragline, CHPP and main coal transport roads) that will be used in the Isaac South project.  An inspection of future infrastructure locations i.e., bridge crossing and dragline crossing across the Isaac River has confirmed that the proposed plans can be practically realised and sufficient allowance for capital costs have been made.  A pit visit of Isaac Downs to observe the geology and structural conditions indicate that there is sufficient consideration in the mine design parameters to recover the estimated coal reserves for the proposed Isaac South project. No red flags have been found as part of the site visit.
Study status	 The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be converted to Ore Reserves.  The Code requires that a study to at least Pre- Feasibility Study level has been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material Modifying Factors have been considered.	 Palaris (on behalf of Stanmore) have completed a Pre-Feasibility Study (options study) for the project. The CP Mr. Ryan Gomez is satisfied that there has been a sufficient level of technical studies, engineering design and cost estimation to meet the requirements of a Pre-Feasibility Study.  The study outcomes have shown that there is a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable.  There has also been adequate consideration of all required modifying factors i.e., geological, geotechnical, environmental etc to adequately convert the mineral resource to reserves. Based on the confidence levels of the modifying factors the appropriate reserve classification of Proved and Probable have been reported.
Cut-off parameters	 The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.	 There has been a maximum raw ash cutoff of 40% applied for a coal resource block to be considered as coal reserve. Raw ash above this cut-off has been treated as waste.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

22

• Palaris determined the economic pit limits using a pit optimisation technique (margin ranking) in Spry Software. The detailed mine design was completed in Vulcan software to generate Reserves. Sufficient consideration of geological, geotechnical, environmental and other modifying factors have been considered in the mine design. Additional geological losses have been applied to the Resource model in areas where there are normal faults present, to ensure a better representation of Mine Reserves. A dig, dump and haulage mine schedule was completed in Spry software to simulate the mine plan.

 The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e. either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by preliminary or detailed design).

• The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s) and other mining parameters including associated design issues such as pre-strip, access, etc.

• The assumptions made regarding geotechnical

• Mining parameters (e.g. pit slopes, factors or stope sizes, etc), grade assumptions control and pre-production drilling.

• The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit and stope optimisation (if appropriate).

• The mining dilution factors used.

• The mining recovery factors used.

• Any minimum mining widths used.

• The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion.

• The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.

• The mining method is a conventional dragline strip mining method, supported by truck and excavator prestrip and coal mining, as well as cast blasting and bulk dozer push operations.

• Waste will initially be hauled to out of pit dumps but will transition to in-pit dumping as capacity becomes available.

• Waste and Coal accesses for the Excavator fleet are separate, with Waste access via endwall and/or highwall ramps, and coal access via lowwall ramps developed by the dragline mining method.

• This is a proven mining method and considered appropriate for future planning based upon geology, deposit characterisation and strip ratio.

• The below table shows the geotechnical parameters used in the mine design

	 The below table sh mine design	ows the ge	otechnical param	eters used in the
	Geotechnical Design Zone	Batter Angle (°)	Max Bench Height (m)	Minimum Bench Width (m)
	VE Interburden (HW and EW) LL Fresh Overburden (HW)	65 65	To LL Seam To Weathered	- 10m at Base
	LL Fresh Overburden (EW)	45	30	55m at Base, and 10m as required
	Weathered Zone (HW and EW) Lowwall Batter	45 30	To Surface To Surface	10m at Base -

• Mining modifying factors used were:

• Minimum thicknesses:

  • coal – 0.3m

• parting – 0.3m

• o Mining section loss and dilution:

• roof loss – 0.10m

• floor loss – 0.10m  roof dilution – 0.05m  floor dilution – 0.05m  dilution density – 2.32 t/m[3]  dilution ash – 85% (ad)

• o Moisture bases:

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

23

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
		 ROM – 7.0%  Product – ~10.8% (determined through wash model and varies depending upon product type)  Strip and block widths are 56m in both pits. This is considered a reasonable width for the mining methods, equipment selection and applied productivities.  Only areas where the measured and indicated coal polygons intersect the pit shell have been classified as reserves. Measured polygons have been converted to Proved Reserves and Indicated polygons converted to Probable Reserves in this estimate. There are some inferred resources on the far extents of the mine plan, inclusive of where the LHD seam splits to L1 and L2 plies in the south – these have been converted to “unclassified” coal tonnages and are not included in the reserves.  A series of dams, levees, creek diversion and new on site mine administration and maintenance infrastructure is required to support the mining method and the project, along with electrical transmission lines and substations. These are not currently in place but are included in the pit development capital works schedule.
Metallurgical factors or assumptions	 The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that process to the style of mineralisation.  Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in nature.  The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work undertaken, the nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied.  Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements.  The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples are considered representative of the orebody as a whole.  For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the specifications?	 All coal is planned to be processed at the existing Isaac Plains CHPP to the north of the project. The CHPP has dense medium cyclones, teetered bed separator and Jameson flotation cells to process the coarse, fines and ultrafine coal respectively.  The coal processing methodology is a proven and well tested technology in the market.  Coal quality and washability simulations were completed by McMahon Resources and further simulations completed by A&B Mylec using a Whole of Resource Optimisation Model (WOROM) to determine product specifications and yield. These simulations consider CHPP efficiencies and recovery factors. Many options and scenarios are available to adjust product types and associated yield.  Sulphur and phosphorous were also considered in the simulations. There are no concerns of materiality with deleterious elements identified.  The two main products produced are • Primary metallurgical coal product – 10.5% ash PCI product • Secondary thermal coal product – average ~19% ash thermal product (~5700 kcal/kg)  For the purposes of this Reserve statement, the scenario which produces a ~ 50/50 split of Metallurgical coal and Thermal coal, at ~17Mt each (34Mt total marketable product coal) is reported.  No bulk samples or test pits have been completed, but coal quality is anticipated to be similar to that mined at Isaac Downs.  There has been sufficient level of drilling and testing of coal quality parameters to identify both metallurgical and thermal properties of coal.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

24

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Environmental	 The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the consideration of potential sites, status of design options considered and, where applicable, the status of approvals for process residue storage and waste dumps should be reported.	 The status of environmental impact assessments are in early stages but works have commenced. The completion of studies and field surveys is well underway with impact assessments scheduled to follow the completion of baseline studies.  Environmental constraints, based on desktop-based information and supplemented with early survey and study results, has informed the development and refinement of the project design.  Environmental constraints that have influenced project design include: o Backfilling mine voids where required and necessary to minimise the environmental impacts. o Flood management and flood protection measures during operation and post closure. o Stream diversion of the Conrock Gully around mine operations. o Use of strip mining to ensure improved progressive rehabilitation outcomes. o Use of mining equipment like draglines, dozer push and cast blast that promote lower diesel burn and reduce diesel emissions.  While environmental impact assessments are at an early stage, it is considered unlikely that there are significant unforeseen environmental constraints that could arise and materially affect the project.  Waste rock and rejects/tailings geochemical and geotechnical characterisations are underway via a sampling and analysis campaign. This will be followed by an assessment of potential geochemistry impacts and management strategies.  These studies will inform the design of waste rock dumps, reject and tailings storage facilities, rehabilitation planning and mine closure designs.  Stanmore proposes to dispose of rejects and tailings in existing approved tailings storage facilities and pits at the Isaac Plains mine.
Infrastructure	 The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.	 Isaac South will utilise existing capacity from infrastructure located at the existing Issac Plains project owned by Stanmore and join onto the electrical and raw water networks of that location. The Reserve competent person is satisfied that there is sufficient water available from the existing Isaac plains project agreements to service Isaac South.  A series of dams, levees, creek diversion and new (minimal) on site mine administration and maintenance infrastructure is also required to support the project, along with electrical transmission lines and substations. These are not currently in place but are included in the pit development capital works schedule.  The workforce is anticipated to be drawn primarily from Isaac Downs as its production ramps down, and housed in existing accommodation facilities.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

25

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Costs	 The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs in the study.  The methodology used to estimate operating costs.  Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements.  The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals and co- products.  The source of exchange rates used in the study.  Derivation of transportation charges.  The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges, penalties for failure to meet specification, etc.  The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.	 Capital costs have been estimated for the project as part of the PFS study with sufficient level of engineering design and quotes obtained for the capital cost estimates. These costs are considered reasonable for this project and meet PFS level study requirements.  Following the initial infrastructure development costs and initial purchase of mining equipment, the ongoing capital requirements are mainly for major equipment maintenance.  All operating costs were estimated as part of the PFS study. Mining costs have been estimated based on a combination of Palaris equipment cost databases, first principles mining cost build up and a detailed review of Stanmore current operating costs. Site overheads have been estimated in conjunction with Stanmore.  Long-term exchange rate, product pricing, and transportation charge assumptions were provided by Stanmore during the PFS study.  Queensland state royalty, and additionally private royalties where applicable, have been estimated and applied as a cost in the financial model.  Palaris and the Reserve competent person has reviewed all costs and they are considered appropriate and meet PFS study requirements.
Revenue factors	 The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates, transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns, etc.  The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals, minerals and co-products.	 Long term price forecasts were provided by Stanmore as part of the PFS study process  Thermal prices are energy-adjusted based on benchmarks.  These assumptions have been reviewed by the Reserve competent person and are considered reasonable for the purposes of estimating Reserves.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

26

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Market assessment	 The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity, consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the future.  A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely market windows for the product.  Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.  For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.	 Stanmore has completed market assessments from M Resources for the product types at Isaac Downs South project, and the results of this assessment have informed product strategy and pricing assumptions.  The PFS has been completed on the basis that thermal markets may be limited and the mining strategy focuses on achieving a 50/50 split of coking to thermal for marketable products. A degree of flexibility within the CHPP is available to adjust products as market conditions change.  The below table shows the product types and quality  Coking product is 10.5% ash PCI product  Thermal product is ~19% ash product average
Economic	 The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value (NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc.  NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and inputs.	 The inputs to the economic analysis of the Project are derived from capital and operating cost estimates outlined in the “Costs” section of Table 1. The economic modelling is in real terms at a discount rate of 10.0%.  The NPV results produced from economic modelling generated a positive and acceptable NPV at a 10.0% discount rate, and the study outcomes show that the mine is both technically feasible and economically viable.  Sensitivity analysis has been conducted on key value drivers. The results indicate that the mine is sensitive to variations in the coal price, the exchange rate, operating costs, strip ratio and yield variances.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

27

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Social	 The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to social licence to operate.	 Real property land access, mineral tenure and Native Title agreements are not yet established for the project. These are proposed to be negotiated and dealt with in parallel or as part of the mining lease application process.  Stakeholder engagement plans are currently being developed for the project. Initial engagement activities are currently underway and will inform the Social Impact Assessment and Social Impact Management Plan for the project.  The views of the Isaac Regional Council and Office of the Coordinator-General are being sought and engagement with wider group of regulators and stakeholders is underway.  Further consultation activities will be required to support the approvals processes and secure agreements, local community and stakeholder support for the project.  The existing social infrastructure and community engagement arrangements of the Isaac Downs and Isaac Plains mines may also be continued and extended to the project, with Stanmore’s existing operations at Isaac Plains and Isaac Downs mines providing strong foundations for social licence to operate for this project.  Non-government organisations, such as environmental third-party interest groups, may seek to become involved in the project approval processes. Stanmore is aware of the concerns typically raised by these groups and their modus operandi for challenging the approval of fossil fuel projects. This remains a material risk to the approvals for the project to be carefully monitored and managed by Stanmore.  It is the view of the Competent person that a sufficient level of engagement work has commenced and therefore cannot foresee any material impacts on the social licence to operate.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

28

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Other	 To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves:  Any identified material naturally occurring risks.  The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements.  The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.	 Naturally occurring risks o The project area lies within and adjacent to the Isaac River floodplain. Flood modelling has been undertaken, and flood protection measures are developed and designed to meet state requirements. This should be sufficient for approval by the regulator before project execution. o The deposit is characterised by several faults (reverse, normal and strike slip faults). A geotechnical report has been completed to inform sufficient mine design, mining direction has also been considered to minimise the impacts of these faults.  Government agreements and approvals o Stanmore has actively progressed baseline studies to support the preparation of an Environmental Impact Statement and associated documentation to support the environmental approvals process for the project. The mine plan considered measures to minimise the environmental impact including backfilling the mine in the flood plain, planned progressive rehabilitation and use to mining equipment/method to minimise diesel emissions. o Stanmore has planned and scheduled the future activities required to address the mining and environmental approvals for the project and is aware of the numerous schedule risks associated with these approvals processes. o Stanmore is well informed of the statutory requirements and administrative procedures for mining and environmental approvals for the project. Stanmore has recent and locally relevant experience in securing these approvals at the Isaac Downs mine. o In general, it is rare for bona fides and properly made applications for approvals for coal mining projects to be refused in the Bowen Basin, Queensland. However, regulatory requirements and administrative procedures are increasing in complexity and level of detail, resulting in increasing challenges to securing project approvals to schedule. o Adversarial non-government organisations continue to challenge proponents during specific stages of the approvals processes, typically seeking to delay projects and/or apply political pressure to decision makers to refuse projects. o In summary, there are reasonable grounds that all necessary Government approvals to be obtained in due course. However, there remains two to three years of work to be carefully managed to negotiate and secure project approvals, with numerous schedule risks to be managed.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

29

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Classification	 The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence categories.  Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.  The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from Measured Mineral Resources (if any).	 Mineral Resource to Ore Reserve conversion: o Mining domains within Measured Resource have been converted to Proved Reserve o Mining domains within Indicated Resource have been converted to Probable Reserve o Mining domains within Inferred Resource or no classification have not been converted into Reserves o Note that the area south of Cherwell creek includes some declared Coal Resources, but as this area is not included in the current mine plan, it has not been included in Coal Reserves  This appropriately reflects the view of the competent person (Ryan Gomez) with regard to the Isaac South/Isaac Downs Extension opencut reserves  The Reserve Estimate consists of 75% Proved Reserves and 25% Probable Reserves  This appropriately reflects the view of the Competent person regarding the confidence levels for the project The table below shows the Coal Reserve and Marketable classification The below table shows the marketable reserve coal quality  Coking product is 10.5% ash PCI product  Thermal product is ~19% ash product average Note: Coal Reserves are the point at which the coal is delivered to the processing plant prior to processing. Marketable Reserves refer to product coal (saleable coal) after processing.
Audits or reviews	 The results of any audits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.	 Palaris have complete an internal audit of the JORC Resource prior to declaring reserves.  An internal peer review of Reserves was complete by Palaris.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

30

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary
Discussion of relative accuracy/ confidence	 Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.  The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.  Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are remaining areas of uncertainty at the current study stage.  It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate should be compared with production data, where available.	 The confidence categories identified for coal resources were determined by Mr Matt Walsh – CP for Coal Resources. Palaris have independently reviewed and agree with the coal resource classifications provided. Upon consideration of the modifying factors within the pit shell, the CP for Coal Reserves Mr Ryan Gomez considered it appropriate to convert all reserves within the measured resource polygons to Proved Reserves and all the Indicated resource polygons to Probable Reserves.  The Reserves result in 39Mt ROM of Proved Reserves with high confidence levels and 13Mt ROM of Probable Reserves of relatively lower confidence.  The pit shell extents of a mine are heavily reliant of forecast coal prices. Significant changes to long term coal forecasts could have an impact on the pit shell and Reserve extents. This is however an inherent risk to any open cut mining operation and its Reserves.  As the Isaac South Project is an extension of the existing Isaac Downs project, there is high confidence in the modifying factors used as the site conditions are expected to be very similar to the current operations.

==> picture [72 x 30] intentionally omitted <==

31