Announcement PDF 14 April 2025 Overland Project expansion: Adjacent uranium tenure granted Highlights: • Significant expansion and exploration upside: 799 km2 of highly prospective uranium exploration tenure added, adjoining the existing Overland Project. • Promising geology: Multiple potential uranium sources, pathways, and traps identified through geological and geophysical analysis within the new and existing tenure. • Significant Potential: The new tenure adds to the prospective zone with gaseous hydrocarbon emissions along the margin of the Nadda Basin (Renmark Trough) that could potentially generate Kazakh 1 style uranium mineralisation. o • Kazakh-style deposits are a significant contributor to global uranium supply, accounting for approximately 40% of the world’s total supply. Engage with this announcement at the AR3 investor hub. AR3 Managing Director and CEO, Travis Beinke, said: “The granting of this extensive new tenure at the Overland Project marks another step forward in our strategy to build an outstanding uranium exploration portfolio. The addition of 799km2 of highly prospective ground, adjoining our existing Overland Project, enhances our discovery potential. Our technical team's analysis has identified compelling geological features indicative of the potential for substantial uranium mineralisation, particularly given the proximity to the Nadda Basin and the potential for 'Kazakh-style' in-situ recovery amenable deposits. This strategic addition underscores our commitment to delivering long-term value for our shareholders by determinedly pursuing high-impact exploration opportunities in a sector vital to the global clean energy transition." Australian Rare Earths Limited (ASX:AR3, or “Company”) is pleased to announce that prospectivity analysis of the surrounding ground at its Overland Uranium Project in South Kazakh style deposits are ISR amenable, sedimentary hosted deposits occurring in Kazakhstan generated by hydrocarbon based reductants and which provide ~40% of the world’s uranium supply 1 Australia has identified additional high-potential targets for uranium exploration leading to the successful application for an expanded project footprint with the granting of EL7055. This strategic expansion adds 799km2, immediately adjoining AR3’s Overland Uranium Project. It expands AR3’s total project area to approximately 4,800 km2 of land in a frontier uranium play in South Australia’s Murray Basin (see figure 1) The project area is located in South Australia, approximately ~220km southwest of Boss Energy’s Honeymoon Mine. AR3’s initial on-ground exploration program within EL7001 and EL6678 at the Overland Project has confirmed the potential for both deeper paleochannel hosted, in-situ recoverable (ISR) deposits and shallow surficial deposits in this setting. AR3 believes the new EL7055 holds similar promise for uranium exploration, targeting paleochannel sediments of the Renmark Group which are considered geologically analogous to those in the Eyre Formation, which hosts Boss Energy’s successful uranium operations. Figure 1: Overland Project area including new EL7055 geology and structure (faulting) Next steps • Drill Program: AR3’s initial 2025 drilling program will continue to follow up the near surface uranium occurrence intersected in EL6678 to determine its extent, and to test additional targets for similar mineralisation style. In addition, high-priority initial targets on EL6678 will be drill-tested, focusing on deeper paleochannel-hosted, in-situ recoverable (ISR) deposits. • • • Drilling will also target the highly prospective drill targets along the western margin of a palaeovalley setting within EL7001 defined through drilling completed in 2024 and more recently in 2025. Assay Results: AR3 has sent samples from its recent drilling for assay analysis and expects results to be released progressively over the next few months. Data Analysis: AR3 continues to compile and interpret all existing geological and geophysical data. Geophysical Surveys: AR3 is working on developing suitable remote sensing techniques to further refine the geometry of prospective paleochannel targets. The announcement has been authorised for release by the Board of Australian Rare Earths Limited. For further information please contact: Australian Rare Earths Limited Travis Beinke Managing Director and CEO T: 1 300 646 100 Media Enquiries Jessica Fertig / Genna Bower Tau Media E: info@taumedia.com.au Engage and Contribute at the AR3 investor hub: https://investorhub.ar3.com.au/ Competent Person’s Statement The information in this report that relates to Exploration results is based on information compiled by Australian Rare Earths Limited and reviewed by Mr Rick Pobjoy who is the Chief Technical Officer of the Company and a member of the Australian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM). Mr Pobjoy has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation, the type of deposit under consideration and to the activities undertaken to qualify as a Competent person as defined in the 2012 edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”. Mr Pobjoy consents to the inclusion in this report of the matters based on this information in the form and context in which it appears. About Australian Rare Earths Limited Australian Rare Earths (AR3) is an emerging diversified critical minerals company, strategically positioned to meet the growing global demand for uranium and rare earth elements. The Company’s vast 4,800 km² Overland Uranium Project in South Australia shows strong uranium discovery potential, with initial drilling identifying opportunities for substantial near-surface and deeper deposits. Simultaneously, AR3's Koppamurra Rare Earths Project in South Australia and Victoria has secured important government support through a $5 million grant to accelerate development. With support from global advanced industrial materials manufacturer, Neo Performance Materials, AR3 is progressing toward a Pre-Feasibility Study and a demonstration facility, solidifying its role in diversifying global rare earth supply chains for the clean energy transition. With strategic projects and strong government support, AR3 is poised for significant growth in the critical minerals market. JORC Table 1 Criteria Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data Comment Explanation Sampling techniques Nature and quality of sampling (e.g., cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling. Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used. Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report. In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g., ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kg was pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fire assay’). In other cases, more explanation may be required, such as where there is coarse gold that has inherent sampling problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (e.g., submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. • Air Core drilling methods were used to obtain samples from the Overland drilling program between October-December 2024 and January-April 2025 • The following information details the Air Core drill sampling process: • All Air Core drill samples were collected from the rotary splitter mounted at the bottom of the cyclone into a pre‐numbered calico bag. The samples were geologically logged at 1 m intervals. • Based on hole‐diameter, generic material density and a 20% split on the cyclone samples averaged ~1.5‐2.5 kg in mass. • Chip trays were used to collect a representative sample for each 1m sample interval for each hole. • After the samples were collected within the calico bags, they were screened for anomalous gamma radiation using a handheld Ranger EXP survey meter (S/N R318772) calibrated 23/09/2024 prior to being geologically logged and tested with a pXRF at the drill site. • The gamma screening was conducted by placing the handheld Ranger survey meter ~10cm from the calico sample for 5‐10sec and noting the dose rate in µSv. If elevated dose rates were detected the field crew was then notified before any additional sample logging was conducted and the anomalous reading recorded in the geological log. • A handheld Olympus Vanta pXRF Analyser (Model Vanta M Series S/N 842924) was used to assess the geochemistry of the Air Core samples in the field. The pXRF analysis provided screening analysis to characterize the sample lithology and full suite of elements. • The pXRF sampling was analysed through the calico bag with a beam count time of 20-30 sec beam 1 and 10 sec beam 2. One pXRF analysis per sample was performed. • Samples are laid on a workbench and flattened to create a stable surface for the pXRF. The pXRF is placed on the sample with the beam down for the analysis. • All readings were taken at ambient temperatures between 10 and 45 degrees Celsius. The Olympus Vanta is rated for continuous operation within this temperature range. • Samples range from dry to wet, this is dependent on which formation is being intercepted and whether drilling water has been injected. A Uranium standard Oreas 121 (215 ppm U, sourced from Mantra Resources Nyota Prospect, Tanzania, which is a Tabular Sandstone hosted deposit) was used to verify the accuracy of the pXRF before and after each analysis session. The OREAS 121 standard was prepared using an industry standard pXRF sample cup and analysed for 20-30 sec on beam 1 and 10 Sec on beam 2. A silica blank is used to monitor the accumulation of contamination on the lens of the pXRF. Analysis of the blank is undertaken before and after each analysis session. Review of pXRF standard and blank data is checked to ensure the pXRF is operating correctly before and after each session. Samples were selected for assay at the end of the hole based on geology, pXRF, and natural downhole gamma response. Field duplicates were taken at a rate of ~1:40 and inserted blindly into the sample batches. Field Standards were taken at a rate of ~1:40 and inserted blindly into the samples batches. Samples were submitted to Bureau Veritas in Adelaide for analysis. The sample weights were recorded (wet and dry) and samples were dried at 105 degrees for a minimum of 24 hours. The samples were secondary crushed to 3 mm fraction and then pulverised to 90% passing 75 µm. Excess residue was maintained for storage while the rest of the sample was placed in 8x4 packets and sent to the central weighing • • • • • • • • • • • laboratory. The samples were submitted for analysis using Mixed Acid Digest – Lithium Borate Fusion ICP‐MS method (BV Code SC302) with detection limits for each element shown in ppm Ag (0.2 ppm), Al (50.0 ppm), As (1.0 ppm), Au (0.01 ppm), Ba (2.0 ppm), Be (0.5 ppm), Bi (0.1 ppm), Ca (100.0 ppm), Cd (0.5 ppm), Ce (0.1 ppm), Co (1.0 ppm), Cr (20.0 ppm), Cs (0.1 ppm), Cu (1.0 ppm), Dy (0.05 ppm), Er (0.05 ppm), Eu (0.05 ppm), Fe (100.0 ppm), Ga (0.2 ppm), Gd (0.2 ppm), Hf (1.0 ppm), Ho (0.02 ppm), In (0.05 ppm), K (100.0 ppm), La (0.1 ppm), Li (10.0 ppm), Lu (0.02 ppm), Mg (50.0 ppm), Mn (50.0 ppm), Mo (0.5 ppm), Na (100.0 ppm), Nb (0.5 ppm), Nd (0.05 ppm), Ni (2.0 ppm), P (50.0 ppm), Pb (1.0 ppm), Pr (0.05 ppm), Rb (0.2 ppm), Re (0.1 ppm), S (50.0 ppm), Sb (0.1 ppm), Sc (1.0 ppm), Se (5.0 ppm), Si (50.0 ppm), Sm (0.05 ppm), Sn (0.1 ppm), Sr (0.5 ppm), Ta (0.1 ppm), Tb (0.02 ppm), Te (0.2 ppm), Th (0.1 ppm), Ti (50.0 ppm), Tl (0.1 ppm), Tm (0.05 ppm), U (0.1 ppm), V (20.0 ppm), W (0.5 ppm), Y (1.0 ppm), Yb (0.05 ppm), Zn (2.0 ppm), Zr (10.0 ppm) Select samples, often at the bottom of the holes thought to be weathered basement/saprolite material were also analyzed for gold using Lead collection Fire Assay AAS (BV Code FA001) where a detection limit for Au (0.01 ppm) • A laboratory repeat was taken at ~ 1 in 21 samples. • Commercially obtained standards were inserted by the laboratory at a rate of ~ 1 in 9 into the sample sequence. • After the hole was drilled to completion a Reflex EZ Gamma logging tool (serial number GAM‐043) rented from Imdex, and operated by the drilling crew was run down the hole, inside the rods/innertube to log the natural gamma response of the sediments. The gamma tool was last calibrated by Imdex on October 9th, 2024, as noted in the provided Certificate of Conformance. • The survey was run in and out of the hole at a speed of no more than 10m/min and the downhole speed was reviewed after the survey. • The up (out) survey was then used to plot sections, after reviewing both in and out. • Before each downhole gamma survey the Reflex EZ Gamma logging tool was checked with an EZ‐Gamma confidence checker by AR3 staff (S/N 025). The confidence checker was last calibrated 29/08/24. • Using the EZ‐Gamma confidence checker at the start of each run allows the gamma tool to be checked ensuring it is within specifications and the tool has not been damaged or faulty providing confidence an accurate gamma reading is collected for each hole. The check is completed by first running the gamma tool for ~3-5min to measure Background Gamma (BKG) in cps. A second survey is then conducted after sliding the EZ‐ Gamma Confidence checker (Jig serial number 025) over the gamma probe and measuring a Sleeve Response (SR) in cps. The BKG value is subtracted from the SR value which provides a Calculated Sleeve Response (CSR) value in cps. The CSR is then compared to the Expected Value (EV) of the gamma checker which is certified to be 636 cps. A resulting pass value= 636 cps +/‐ 10 % and required before the survey tool is confirmed as operating within expected limits. The formula used for checking the gamma tool is as follows; CSR= SR-BKG • • • • • CSR is compared to the EV of the confidence checker which is certified to 636cps (for jig serial number 025) +/- 10% (for pass value of 573-700cps). After the gamma survey is completed, the data is uploaded to the Imdex hub IQ portal (https://iq.imdexhub.com) from the rig via satellite internet and available for review. Drilling techniques • The Fairview uranium occurrence shown on maps within this report is based on reported SA Geodatabase Reference sample #152296 (Explorers sample 45835) sourced from the SA Geodatabase available on SARIG https://minerals.sarig.sa.gov.au/RockSamp leDetails.aspx?SampleNo=45835 • Sample #152296 was collected by A.F. Crooks on 20/08/1984 and the sample was analyzed by XRF. Details on the lab or XRF device was not specified. • The Prairie Dam uranium occurrence shown on maps within this report is sourced from the SA Geodatabase available on SARIG (https://map.sarig.sa.gov.au/). • The Prairie dam uranium occurrence mineral (SARIG deposit number is 11087) is detailed within open file report number Env 3527 and discovered in 1971. Drill type (e.g., core, reverse circulation, open‐ hole • hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (e.g., core diameter, triple or standard • tube, depth of diamond tails, face‐ sampling bit, or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • • • Drilling was completed using a Wallis “Mantis 200” Air Core drill rig with an onboard Sullair compressor (560cfm @ 200psi). Air Core drilling is a form of reverse circulation drilling where the sample is collected at the face and returned inside the inner tube. The drill cuttings are removed by injection of compressed air into the hole via the annular area between the inner tube and the drill rod. Air Core drill rods used were 3 m long. NQ diameter (76 mm) drill bits and rods were used. All Air Core drill holes were vertical with depths varying between ~36m and 200 m Drill sample recovery Method of recording and • assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed. Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the • samples. Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to • preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material. • • • • • Logging Whether core and chip • samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining • studies and metallurgical studies. Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. Drill sample recovery for Air Core drilling is monitored by recording sample condition descriptions where ‘Poor’ to ‘Very Poor’ were used to identify any samples recovered which were potentially not representative of the interval drilled. A comment was included where water injection was required to recover the sample from a particular interval. The use of water injection can potentially bias a sample. Minimal water injection was required during this drilling program and used sparingly. Overall, no consistent/significant loses of sample material was observed. The rotary splitter was set to an approximate 20% split, which produced approximately 1.5‐2.5 kg sample for each meter interval. The 1.5‐2.5 kg sample was collected in a pre‐ numbered calico bag and the remaining 80% (5 kg to 8 kg) was disposed directly into the sump as drilling progressed. At the end of each drill rod, the drill string is cleaned by blowing down with air to remove any clay and silt potentially built up in the sample pipes and cyclone. The relationship (if any) between sample recovery and grade is unknown No sample recovery information was reported in historical reports relating to historical drilling within this release. All Air Core samples collected in calico bags were logged for lithology, colour, cement type, hardness, percentage rock estimate, and any relevant comments such as moisture, sample condition, evidence of reducing or oxidizing conditions, and vegetation/organic material. Geological logging data for all drill holes was qualitatively logged onto Microsoft Excel spreadsheet using a field laptop with validation rules built into the spreadsheet including specific drop‐ down menus for each variable. The data was uploaded to the Australian Rare Earths Azure Data Studio database. • • Sub‐sampling techniques and sample preparation If core, whether cut or sawn • and whether quarter, half or all cores taken. If non‐core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and whether sampled • wet or dry. For all sample types, the nature, quality, and appropriateness of the • sample preparation technique. Quality control procedures adopted for all sub‐sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples. Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in‐ situ material collected, including • for instance results for field • duplicate/second‐half sampling. Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material • being sampled. • Every drill hole was logged in full and logging was undertaken with reference to a drilling template with codes prescribed and guidance to ensure consistent and systematic data collection. The density drilling is not sufficient to support consideration of resource estimation, or mining and no geotechnical logging was completed. 1m Air Core sample interval was homogenised within the cyclone and the rotary splitter was set to an approximate 20% split producing around 1.5‐2.5 kg sample for each metre interval. The 1.5‐2.5kg sample was collected in a pre‐ numbered calico bag and the 80% (5 kg to 8 kg) portion was disposed directly into the sump as drilling progressed. Duplicates were generally taken within intervals which indicated potential for anomalous U mineralization based on geology, pXRF, and gamma signature. These duplicate samples were collected by splitting the 1m interval by emptying the sample on to a table, mixing and splitting into 1/8th subsamples and randomly assigning 4 of the splits into the duplicate and 4 remaining as the primary. The 1.5‐2.5 kg sample collected in the calico bag was logged by the geologist onsite. Approximately 10‐20g of sample material from each for each 1m calico sample placed in a chip tray. The logged calico samples were scanned with a pXRF onsite through the calico bag. At the end of the drillhole samples were selected for analysis. Samples selected for analysis were placed in polyweave bags labelled with the sample number, From‐To interval, and Hole ID, then segregated into bulka bags for transport to the • • • Quality of assay data The nature, quality and • and laboratory tests appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory • procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. For geophysical tools, • spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g., standards, blanks, • duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e., lack of bias) and precision have been established. lab for analysis. No correction factors were applied to pXRF results. Field duplicates of all the samples were completed at a frequency of ~1 in 40 samples. Field standards were inserted into the sample sequence at a frequency of ~1:40. Standard reference Material (SRM) samples were inserted into the sample batches at a frequency rate of 1 per 10 samples by the laboratory and a repeat sample was taken at a rate of 1 per 21 samples. An on‐site geologist oversaw the sampling and logging process and selected samples for analysis based on the logging descriptions pXRF analysis, and downhole gamma response. The detailed geological logging of samples provides lithology (sand/clay component) The 1.5 kg Air Core samples were assayed by Bureau Veritas laboratory in Wingfield, Adelaide, South Australia, which is considered the Primary laboratory. The samples will be initially oven dried at 105 degrees Celsius for 24 hours. Samples will be secondary crushed to 3 mm fraction and the weight recorded. The sample will then be pulverised to 90% passing 75 µm. Excess residue will be maintained for storage while the rest of the sample is placed in 8x4 packets and sent to the central weighing laboratory. All weighed samples will then be analysed using the Multiple Elements Fusion/Mixed Acid Digest analytical method; The samples were submitted for analysis using Mixed Acid Digest – Lithium Borate Fusion ICP‐ MS method (BV Code SC302) with detection limits for each element shown in ppm Ag (0.2 ppm), Al (50.0 ppm), As (1.0 ppm), Au (0.01 ppm), Ba (2.0 ppm), Be (0.5 ppm), Bi (0.1 ppm), Ca (100.0 ppm), Cd (0.5 ppm), Ce (0.1 ppm), Co (1.0 ppm), Cr (20.0 ppm), Cs (0.1 ppm), Cu (1.0 ppm), Dy (0.05 ppm), Er (0.05 ppm), Eu (0.05 ppm), Fe (100.0 ppm), Ga (0.2 ppm), Gd (0.2 • • • • • • ppm), Hf (1.0 ppm), Ho (0.02 ppm), In (0.05 ppm), K (100.0 ppm), La (0.1 ppm), Li (10.0 ppm), Lu (0.02 ppm), Mg (50.0 ppm), Mn (50.0 ppm), Mo (0.5 ppm), Na (100.0 ppm), Nb (0.5 ppm), Nd (0.05 ppm), Ni (2.0 ppm), P (50.0 ppm), Pb (1.0 ppm), Pr (0.05 ppm), Rb (0.2 ppm), Re (0.1 ppm), S (50.0 ppm), Sb (0.1 ppm), Sc (1.0 ppm), Se (5.0 ppm), Si (50.0 ppm), Sm (0.05 ppm), Sn (0.1 ppm), Sr (0.5 ppm), Ta (0.1 ppm), Tb (0.02 ppm), Te (0.2 ppm), Th (0.1 ppm), Ti (50.0 ppm), Tl (0.1 ppm), Tm (0.05 ppm), U (0.1 ppm), V (20.0 ppm), W (0.5 ppm), Y (1.0 ppm), Yb (0.05 ppm), Zn (2.0 ppm), Zr (10.0 ppm) Select samples, often at the bottom of the holes thought to be weathered basement/saprolite material were also analyzed for gold using Lead collection Fire Assay AAS (BV Code FA001) where a detection limit for Au (0.01 ppm) Field duplicates were collected and submitted at a frequency of ~1 per 40 samples. Bureau Veritas will complete its own internal QA/QC checks that include a Laboratory repeat every 21st sample and a standard reference sample every 9th sample prior to the results being released. Australian Rare Earths submitted field standards at a frequency of ~1:40 samples. Australian Rare Earths inserted field blanks at a frequency of ~1:40 samples. The adopted QA/QC protocols are acceptable for this stage of test work. The sample preparation and assay techniques used are industry standard and provide a total analysis. • The Fairview uranium occurrence is based on reported SA Geodatabase Reference sample #152296 (Explorers sample 45835) sourced from the SA Geodatabase available on SARIG (https://minerals.sarig.sa.gov.au/RockSample Details.aspx?SampleNo=45835) • Sample #152296 was collected by A.F. Crooks on 20/08/1984 and the sample was analyzed by XRF, details on the lab or XRF device were not specified. Verification of sampling and assaying The verification of • significant intersections by either independent or • alternative company personnel. The use of twinned holes. Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and • electronic) protocols. Discuss any adjustment to assay data. • • • Location of data points Accuracy and quality of • surveys used to locate drill • holes (collar and down‐ hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation. Specification of the grid system used. • Quality and adequacy of topographic control. All results are checked by the company’s Chief Technical Officer. Field based geological logging for drill holes was entered directly into an Excel spreadsheet format with validation rules built into the spreadsheet including specific drop‐down menus for each variable. This digital data was then uploaded to the Australian Rare Earths Azure Data Studio database. Assay data will be received in digital format from the laboratory and uploaded to Australian Rare Earths Azure Data Studio database. Field and laboratory duplicate data pairs of each batch will be plotted to identify potential quality control issues. Standard Reference Material sample results will be checked from each sample batch to ensure they are within tolerance (<3SD) and that there is no bias. U3O8 is the industry accepted form for reporting Uranium. An oxide factor for U3O8 of 1.1793 was used for reporting throughout this report. All maps are in GDA94/MGA zone 54. All overland coordinate information was collected using handheld GPS utilizing GDA 1994, Zone 54. While spatial location is expected to be recovered within 3 – 5 m, it is possible that the elevation can be as much as 10 m out with respect to the currently established geoid. Drillhole RL has been corrected using An Australian wide SRTM. The 1 second SRTM Level 2 Derived Smoothed Digital Elevation Model (DEM‐S) is derived from the 2000 SRTM. The DEM‐S has a ~30m grid which has been adaptively smoothed to improve the representation of the surface shape and is the preferred method for shape and vertical accuracy from STRM products. The smoothing process estimated typical improvements in the order of 2‐3 m. This would make the DEM‐S accuracy to be of approximately 5 m. Data spacing and distribution Data spacing for reporting • of Exploration Results. Whether the data spacing, • and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. Whether sample compositing has been applied. Orientation of data in Whether the orientation of • relation to geological sampling achieves unbiased structure sampling of possible • structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. Sample security The measures taken to • ensure sample security. • • • Locations of Overland drill holes are reported within the appendices of this report. No geological or grade continuity estimations are being determined from the Overland drilling data. All Overland drill holes were drilled vertically as detailed in the appendices of this report. There is no indication that a sampling bias exists as the geology is relatively flat lying therefore vertical holes are appropriate. After logging, the samples in calico bags were tied and placed into polyweave bags, labelled with the drill hole and sample numbers contained within the polyweave and transported to the site laydown area, at the end of each day. Sample selections were determined at the drill site and at the end of the day the polyweave bags were placed into bulk bags for either sending to the lab or storage facility. Samples were shipped at a frequency of once every ~10 days during drilling. Samples were transported to the lab by AR3 • Audits or reviews The results of any audits or • reviews of sampling techniques and data. personnel or by courier. The laboratory inspected the packages and did not report tampering of the samples and provided a sample reconciliation report for each sample dispatch. Internal reviews were undertaken by AR3’s Exploration Manager and Chief Technical Officer during the drilling, sampling, and geological logging process and throughout the sample collection and dispatch process to ensure AR3’s protocols were followed. Criteria Mineral tenement and land tenure status Section 2 Reporting Exploration Results