Announcement PDF ASX Announcement 18 July 2024 Alligator Energy - Projects Update -Amended THE ANNOUNCEMENT OF 17 JULY 2024 HAS BEEN AMENDED AS IT INADVERTANTLY OMITTED THE COMPETENT PERSON’S STATEMENT – THIS IS THE ONLY CHANGE TO THE RELEASE. Alligator Energy (ASX: AGE, ‘Alligator’ or ‘the Company’) is pleased to provide the following update regarding recent progress on its portfolio of development and exploration projects: Highlights: Samphire Project • The Samphire Retention Lease application continues to progress with lodgement of all additional information requested by the Department of Energy and Mining (DEM) relating to the conduct of the Field Recovery Trial (FRT) on track for later this week. • An Expression of Interest for the on-site assembly of the FRT plant modules and associated infrastructure has been issued to seven short-listed local Whyalla contractors. Five have now progressed through the next round of evaluation. • Construction work for the FRT set to commence once all approvals are in place and currently targeted for Q4. • Since the last Samphire update (May 20241), drilling has focussed primarily on areas up to 2kms from the Blackbush mineralisation, investigating encouraging historical intercepts and those encountered in previous AGE drilling programs (Blackbush Extension 2) and a new area Blackbush Northeast (Figure 1). At this stage, drilling in Blackbush Northeast has confirmed the presence of both oxidised and reduced sands within the paleochannel which are key ingredients when exploring for uranium roll front mineralisation. In addition, encouraging medium-high uranium grades were intersected at Blackbush Extension 2, namely: o o o 1 BBRM24-255: 1.18m @ 0.016% (1,682ppm) pU3O8 from 54.04m and 0.87m @ 0.14% (1,399ppm) pU3O8 from 60.35m, BBRM24-258: 0.57m @ 0.13% (1,357ppm) pU3O8 from 54.76m, and BBRM24-267: 1.18m @ 0.53% (5,332ppm) pU3O8 from 52.96m. AGE ASX Release 1 May 2024: Extension of Uranium Mineralisation at Samphire Uranium Project Blackbush Deposit, 02801940.pdf (weblink.com.au) ASX: AGE ABN 79 140 575 604 | Suite 2, 128 Bowen St, Spring Hill, QLD 4000 | +61 (0) 7 3839 3904 info@alligatorenergy.com.au | www.alligatorenergy.com.au | Page 1 of 13 These areas will be further tested with follow-up drilling along with new exploration target areas in the north and northeastern palaeochannels (Figure 1). • In addition, step-out drilling at the Blackbush Deposit has focused on uranium mineralisation recently delineated west of Blackbush West1 (Blackbush Extension 1 - Figure 1). Interpretation suggests that the palaeochannel as well as the uranium mineralisation is extending northwards and drilling is currently underway to investigate this trend. Key intercepts showing that this mineralisation has not yet been closed out in this area include: o o BBRM24-275: 0.53m @ 0.019% (192ppm) pU3O8 from 61.26m and 0.71m @ 0.48% (4807ppm) pU3O8 from 65.01, BBRM24-276: 0.51m @ 0.06% (618ppm) pU3O8 from 65.93m. Drilling in this area will continue in addition to commencing exploration north of Blackbush West as part of Blackbush Extension 1 drilling program. Figure 1: Recent drilling at the Samphire Project. Intercepts above 250ppm pU3O8 (yellow dots), 100ppm-250ppm pU3O8 (red dots) and <100ppm pU3O8 (blue dots). Areas to be drilled tested for the remainder of 2024 also shown. 2 Alligator Rivers Uranium Province • • A high resolution airborne magnetic and radiometric survey has recently been completed over the entire Nabarlek North tenement package (Alligator Rivers Uranium Province, Figure 2). Several similar surveys were flown historically over disjointed areas and varying resolutions (to 200 x 200m) within the tenement package. The intention of this Alligator initiated survey was to: o re-fly at a higher resolution at 100m x 100m and then at 50m x 50m over identified areas of interest, and o obtain data from one single survey of the entire tenement package for consistency and increased precision for drill targeting. Preliminary results show a significant improvement in data resolution highlighting previously unknown structural trends (U40 trend) and prospective geological domains and structural complexities (Figure 2). Alligator has not yet received the final data from the Contractor as processing is in progress. A full release upon receipt of the final data and interpretation will be issued showing targets selected for the 2024 drilling program planned to commence midlate August. Figure 2: Comparison between resolutions of historical vs newly acquired preliminary magnetic data (flown by AGE, June – July 2024). Yellow circles denote areas of structural complexities that share similarities to known uranium mineralisation in the region and will be subject to further detailed interpretation. Green circles highlight areas already considered to be potential targets areas of interest for the 2024 drill program. Note this data is preliminary and not the final product to be delivered by the Contractor. Big Lake Uranium Project • The inaugural Big Lake drill program on Alligator’s 100% owned EL6367 remains underway with activities at all primary drill targets completed except for location 2 which is currently impacted by rain (Figure 3). Other areas tested include site 10 where drilling to date has shown evidence of potential paleochannel sands which will be tested further. 3 • Drilling has been suspended for a 2-3 week break to allow for rain affected areas to dry before resumption of the program particularly to test area 10 will be completed early-mid August. The objective of the inaugural drill campaign was to calibrate the seismic/AEM interpretations of the upper (<500m) sections of the Cooper basin with the potential for existence of uranium rollfront systems in prospective host formations. • Results from this program will be presented in a forthcoming release once drilling and interpretation has been completed. Figure 3: Proposed (priority and secondary drill sites) on EL6367 for 2024. Priority based on logistical simplicity and testing a broad range of basin sections and interpretations. Alligator CEO, Greg Hall, said: “The team at Alligator remain exceptionally busy on preparations ahead of the anticipated final approvals for the field recovery trial, our first foray into the Cooper Basin targeting the potential to be a new uranium-bearing basin at Big Lake and finalising plans for our 2024 drilling program at Nabarlek North. This platform sets the Company up for significant progress on all three core projects and hence the potential for solid news flow in the second half of the year” This announcement was authorised for release by the CEO and Managing Director. 4 Contacts For more information, please contact: Mr Greg Hall Mr Mike Meintjes CEO & Director CFO & Company Secretary gh@alligatorenergy.com.au mm@alligatorenergy.com.au For media enquiries, please contact: Alex Cowie Media & Investor Relations alexc@nwrcommunications.com.au Forward Looking Statement This announcement contains projections and forward-looking information that involve various risks and uncertainties regarding future events. Such forward-looking information can include without limitation statements based on current expectations involving a number of risks and uncertainties and are not guarantees of future performance of the Company. These risks and uncertainties could cause actual results and the Company’s plans and objectives to differ materially from those expressed in the forward-looking information. Actual results and future events could differ materially from anticipated in such information. These and all subsequent written and oral forward-looking information are based on estimates and opinions of management on the dates they are made and expressly qualified in their entirety by this notice. The Company assumes no obligation to update forward-looking information should circumstances or management’s estimates or opinions change. Information in this report is based on current and historic Exploration and Resource Drilling Results compiled by Dr Andrea Marsland-Smith who is a Member of the AusIMM. Dr Marsland-Smith is employed on a full-time basis with Alligator Energy as Chief Operating Officer, and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration (including 21 years in ISR uranium mining operations and technical work) and to the activity she 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. Dr Marsland-Smith consents to the inclusion in this release of the matters based on her information in the form and context in which it appears. About Alligator Energy Alligator Energy Ltd is an Australian, ASX-listed, exploration company focused on uranium and energy related minerals, principally cobalt-nickel. Alligator’s Directors have significant experience in the exploration, development and operations of both uranium and nickel projects (both laterites and sulphides). 5 Projects 6 APPENDIX 1 - In accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.7.2 the Company provides the following information. Table 1A: All significant uranium intersections from PFN logging (pU 3O8) of the rotary mud drilling program summarised above 0.5m minimum thickness, ≥ 0.010% pU3O8 (100ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m. Note: pU3O8 grades have been acquired by a Prompt Fission Neutron Tool (PFN22) which was calibrated at the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL) calibration facility (Adelaide) and then checked for repeatability by regularly logging a fibreglass-cased calibration hole onsite (MRC002,723703E, 6324350N (GDA94), depth 84.5m). All pU3O8 grades were calculated and corrected for borehole size from caliper data taken every 5cm downhole and using the equation {2.737*({EPITHERM}/{THERMAL}-0.02)}*{-1*Power(10,06 )*Power({CAL},2)+0.0097*{CAL}-0.0313} Summarised above 0.25m minimum thickness, ≥ 0.010% pU3O8 (100ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m. HoleID Easting Northing RL Azimuth Dip Hole Depth Depth From Depth To Thickness (m) pU3O8 pU3O8 (m) (m) (m) (%) (ppm) 62.82 63.11 0.29 0.0397 397 Grade x Grade x Thickness Thickness (GDA94, Z53) (GDA94, Z53) BBRM24-251 724199 6324750 13.8 0 -90 84 BBRM24-252 724400 6324849 12.0 0 -90 75 BBRM24-253 724400 6324898 12.3 0 -90 78 BBRM24-254 724400 6324950 12.6 0 -90 72 55.05 55.39 0.34 0.0055 55 0.0019 19 BBRM24-254 724400 6324950 12.6 0 -90 72 56.72 57.33 0.61 0.0453 453 0.0276 276 BBRM24-255 724349 6324950 13.0 0 -90 109.4 54.54 56.32 1.78 0.1152 1152 0.2050 2051 BBRM24-255 724349 6324950 13.0 0 -90 109.4 60.35 61.22 0.87 0.1399 1399 0.1217 1217 BBRM24-256 724450 6324951 12.8 0 -90 75 BBRM24-257 724350 6325001 13.4 0 -90 72 BBRM24-258 724400 6325001 12.9 0 -90 83 0.0779 779 BBRM24-259 724450 6325000 12.8 0 -90 72 No significant intersections BBRM24-260 724375 6325051 17.6 0 -90 69 No significant intersections BBRM24-261 724424 6325051 12.9 0 -90 82 No significant intersections BBRM24-262 724476 6325051 13.0 0 -90 67 No significant intersections BBRM24-263 725100 6325000 9.7 0 -90 87 No significant intersections BBRM24-264 725100 6325100 9.9 0 -90 110 No significant intersections BBRM24-265 725100 6325200 10.5 0 -90 68 No significant intersections BBRM24-266 725199 6325201 10.2 0 -90 68 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 52.14 52.43 0.29 0.2741 2741 0.0795 795 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 52.96 54.14 1.18 0.5332 5332 0.6292 6292 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 74.91 75.33 0.42 0.0113 113 0.0047 47 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 87.83 89.29 1.46 0.0311 311 0.0453 454 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 93.27 93.76 0.49 0.0290 290 0.0142 142 BBRM24-267 724436 6325100 13.7 0 -90 105 94.21 94.49 0.28 0.0235 235 0.0066 66 BBRM24-268 725001 6325200 10.9 0 -90 66 No significant intersections BBRM24-269 725299 6325101 9.3 0 -90 110 No significant intersections BBRM24-270 725500 6325100 8.1 0 -90 110 No significant intersections BBRM24-271 725552 6325099 7.9 0 -90 108 No significant intersections BBRM24-272 725651 6325100 7.7 0 -90 110 No significant intersections BBRM24-273 725649 6325000 7.3 0 -90 102 No significant intersections BBRM24-274 725550 6325200 8.1 0 -90 110 BBRM24-275 722325 6324240 23.9 0 -90 83 61.05 61.79 0.74 0.0146 146 0.0108 108 BBRM24-275 722325 6324240 23.9 0 -90 83 63.87 64.34 0.47 0.0588 588 0.0276 276 BBRM24-275 722325 6324240 23.9 0 -90 83 64.99 65.8 0.81 0.4221 4221 0.3419 3419 BBRM24-276 722275 6324250 27.1 0 -90 85 61.56 61.98 0.42 0.0063 63 0.0026 26 BBRM24-276 722275 6324250 27.1 0 -90 85 62.3 62.8 0.5 0.2427 2427 0.1214 1214 BBRM24-276 722275 6324250 27.1 0 -90 85 64.06 64.41 0.35 0.1286 1286 0.0450 450 BBRM24-276 722275 6324250 27.1 0 -90 85 65.92 66.47 0.55 0.0588 588 0.0324 323 BBRM24-277 722250 6324310 28.2 0 -90 72 (m%) (mppm) 0.0115 115 No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections 54.76 55.36 0.6 0.1299 1299 No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections 7 Table 1B: All significant uranium intersections from PFN logging (pU3O8) of the rotary mud drilling program summarised above 0.5m minimum thickness, ≥ 0.025% pU3O8 (250ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m. Summarised above 0.5m minimum thickness, ≥ 0.025% pU3O8 (250ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m. Easting Northing (GDA94, Z53) (GDA94, Z53) BBRM24-251 724199 BBRM24-252 BBRM24-253 HoleID Hole Depth Depth From Depth To Thickness pU3O8 pU3O8 (%) (ppm) RL Azimuth Dip 6324750 13.8 0 -90 84 No significant intersections 724400 6324849 12.0 0 -90 75 No significant intersections 724400 6324898 12.3 0 -90 78 No significant intersections BBRM24-254 724400 6324950 12.6 0 -90 72 No significant intersections BBRM24-254 724400 6324950 12.6 0 -90 72 BBRM24-255 724349 6324950 13.0 0 -90 109.4 55.04 56.22 1.18 0.1682 BBRM24-255 724349 6324950 13.0 0 -90 109.4 60.35 61.22 0.87 0.1399 BBRM24-256 724450 6324951 12.8 0 -90 75 BBRM24-257 724350 6325001 13.4 0 -90 72 BBRM24-258 724400 6325001 12.9 0 -90 83 BBRM24-259 724450 6325000 12.8 0 -90 72 No significant intersections BBRM24-260 724375 6325051 17.6 0 -90 69 No significant intersections BBRM24-261 724424 6325051 12.9 0 -90 82 No significant intersections BBRM24-262 724476 6325051 13.0 0 -90 67 No significant intersections BBRM24-263 725100 6325000 9.7 0 -90 87 No significant intersections BBRM24-264 725100 6325100 9.9 0 -90 110 No significant intersections BBRM24-265 725100 6325200 10.5 0 -90 68 No significant intersections BBRM24-266 BBRM24-267 BBRM24-267 BBRM24-268 BBRM24-269 BBRM24-270 BBRM24-271 BBRM24-272 BBRM24-273 BBRM24-274 BBRM24-275 BBRM24-275 BBRM24-276 BBRM24-277 725199 724436 724436 725001 725299 725500 725552 725651 725649 725550 722325 722325 722275 722250 6325201 6325100 6325100 6325200 6325101 6325100 6325099 6325100 6325000 6325200 6324240 6324240 6324250 6324310 10.2 13.7 13.7 10.9 9.3 8.1 7.9 7.7 7.3 8.1 23.9 23.9 27.1 28.2 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 -90 68 105 105 66 110 110 108 110 102 110 83 83 85 72 (m) (m) (m) (m) Grade x Grade x Thickness Thickness (m%) (mppm) 1682 0.1984 1985 1399 0.1217 1217 0.0774 773 0.6292 0.0413 6292 413 0.0102 0.3413 0.0315 102 3413 315 No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections 54.76 55.33 0.57 0.1357 1357 No significant intersections 52.96 87.84 54.14 88.94 1.18 1.1 0.5332 0.0375 5332 375 No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections No significant intersections 61.26 65.01 65.93 61.79 65.72 66.44 0.53 0.71 0.51 0.0192 0.4807 0.0618 192 4807 618 No significant intersections 8 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Sampling techniques • Nature and quality of sampling (eg 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. • Rotary mud drilling was used to obtain 2m samples in the non-target area and 1m mud /chip samples within the target area. • Downhole wireline logging using a Prompt Fission Neutron (PFN) tool was used to calculate pU3O8 from the ratio of epithermal and thermal neutrons. • The PFN used in this program was calibrated using industry standard procedures at the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL) calibration facility (Adelaide). • In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (eg ‘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 (eg submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information. Drilling techniques • Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, facesampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • All holes were drilled by Watson Drilling with typical hole diameter being 6” (152.4mm). • All holes were vertical. 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. • Caliper data show that borehole size increases in zones of unconsolidated sands, hence all pU3O8 grades were calculated and corrected for borehole size from caliper data taken every 5cm downhole using the equation {2.737*({EPITHERM}/{THERMAL}-0.02)}*{- • 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. 1*Power(10,-06 )*Power({CAL},2)+0.0097*{CAL}0.0313} • Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support Chip/mud samples were collected 2m in non-target areas and then 1m in the zones of interest (i.e. the target Kanaka Beds). Logging 9 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary appropriate Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies. • Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • All samples are geologically logged compliant with industry standards which included lithology, mineralogy, grain size/rounding/sorting, colour, redox. • All samples were photographed using a high-resolution camera. • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. Subsampling techniques and sample preparation • If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core 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. Quality of assay data and laboratory tests • The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total. • For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc, the parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc. • Nature of quality control procedures adopted (eg standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (ie lack of bias) and precision have been established. 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. • The depth of investigation of the PFN tool approximately 25-40 cm radius around the borehole to allow for accurate measurement of the ratio of epithermal/thermal neutrons for pU3O8 calculations. • QA/QC of pU3O8 data included repeatability checks by regularly logging a fibreglasscased calibration hole onsite (MRC002,723703E, 6324350N (GDA94), depth 84.5m). MRC002 has sufficient assay data in the target zone to compare/calibrate PFN data. • Repeat runs in rotary mud holes that remained open after drilling for sufficient time to allow for PFN logging was also performed. Three geophysical tools were used: • Prompt Fission Neutron Tool (PFN) serial number 22 manufactured by Geoinstruments Inc, Nacogdoches, Texas. Neutron generator 78-80kV, logging at 0.5m/minute. • Multisurvey tool (MST) serial number 24 manufactured by Geoinstruments Inc, Nacogdoches, Texas. Measures 16Normal, 64Long borehole resistance, Point Resistance, and Self Potential and uncalibrated natural gamma for depth matching. • GeoVista 3-arm caliper, serial number 5589, measures the bore-hole size in millimetres for the length of the bore hole. • QA/QC of pU3O8 data included repeatability checks by regularly logging a fibreglasscased calibration hole onsite (MRC002,723703E, 6324350N (GDA94), depth 84.5m). MRC002 has sufficient assay data in the target zone to compare/calibrate PFN data. • Natural gamma (on the caliper tool) was used for depth matching the PFN. • No wireline stretch was observed during the 10 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary program. 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. 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 relation to geological structure • Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type. • If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this should be assessed and reported if material. • Drillholes are sited using a Garmin handheld GPS • Drilled holes are surveyed Leica iCON GPS 60 which uses the 4G network to obtain corrections from SmartNet base stations (Continuously Operating Reference Stations (CORS)) located around Whyalla. The SmartNet corrections result in RTK RMS accuracy of 10-20mm in XY and 20-30mm in Z. • Grid system GDA94 Projection 53H • Drill spacing varies from 50x100m, 200x200m, 50 x 25m and 200 x 200m centres as program was designed to validate historical drilling and infill where there is sparse historical information. • pU3O8 intercepts calculated above 0.5m minimum thickness, >0.025% pU3O8 (100ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m • No compositing was applied. • The Samphire mineralisation is interpreted to be contained in horizontal to subhorizontal sequence of sediments and underlying weathered granite. This interpretation is derived from the significant historic drilling and geological interpretation of the area. All drillholes are vertical which is appropriate for the orientation of the mineralisation Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Rotary mud/chip samples are stored in AGE’s secured storage facility in Whyalla. Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. No audits or reviews undertaken of sampling techniques to date. Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral tenement and land tenure status • Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to • The JORC2012 compliant Blackbush deposit, referenced historical drilling and geophysics covering the Samphire project are located on Exploration Licence EL5926 originally granted 20th November 2016 for a term expiring 2018. The licence was subsequently renewed for a further 3 years expiring in November 2021. A further renewal has been lodged with DEM and is pending. 11 Criteria JORC Code explanation operate in the area. Exploration done by other parties • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. Geology • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. Drill hole Information • A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material drill holes: o easting and northing of the drill hole collar o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar o dip and azimuth of the hole o down hole length and interception depth o hole length. • If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of the report, the Competent Person should clearly explain why this is the case. Data aggregation methods • In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated. • Where aggregate intercepts incorporate Commentary • EL5926 is 100% held by S Uranium Pty Ltd a wholly owned subsidiary of Alligator Energy Ltd. • The land covering the licence area is Crown Lease; consisting of several leases over 2 pastoral stations. • Samphire Uranium Limited (SUL), previously UraniumSA (ASX: USA) historically conducted almost all previous exploration within EL5926 defining the Plumbush (JORC2004) and Blackbush (JORC2012) resources and all relevant drilling, geophysics except ground magnetics conducted by AGE in 2021. • USA conducted preliminary Insitu Recovery (ISR) hydrogeological testwork on the Blackbush deposit with pump testing and hydrogeological modelling. • Third party drilling is confined to one rotary mud hole for lignite exploration located in the southeast of the licence area. • Mineralisation is dominantly sediment hosted uranium within the Eocene Kanaka Beds. Minor amounts of mineralisation are present in the overlying Miocene Melton sands (informal name) and underlying Samphire granite (informal name) • Drillhole information that relates to historic drilling was previously reported by Uranium SA (ASX: USA) in ASX release “Samphire Project Update” 27 September 2013. • Drillhole information relating to post 2021 are summarised in Table 1 Appendix 1 of the following releases: o ASX release “Exceptional High Grade Uranium Results – Samphire Project” March 29, 2022 o ASX release “Resource Drilling complete with highest grades found so far at Samphire Uranium Project” November 23, 2022 o ASX release “Samphire Drilling Update” June 8, 2023. o Table 1 Appendix 1 of this release. Rotary Mud pU3O8 intercepts for both rotary mud holes are calculated above 0.5m minimum thickness, >0.025% pU3O8 (100ppm pU3O8) with internal dilution 0.25m 12 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary short lengths of high grade results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of such aggregations should be shown in detail. Relationshi p between mineralisati on widths and intercept lengths • The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values shoul