Announcement PDF ASX Announcement 24 August 2026 Alligator Energy Ltd (ASX: AGE) (Alligator or the Company) is pleased to report initial drilling results from its 2026 exploration program at the Big Lake Uranium Project in South Australia’s Lake Eyre Basin, with drilling confirming further uranium mineralisation at Site 101. Highlights • Thirty-three aircore holes completed for 4,112 metres, with further uranium mineralisation intersected at Site 10. • Follow-up drilling at Site 10 has intersected uranium mineralisation associated with the interpreted redox boundary between oxidised and reduced sands, providing further geological evidence supporting Alligator’s roll-front uranium exploration model. • Key intersections, reported above a 100ppm eU3O8 cut-off, include: o AC26-006: ▪ 1.0 metres at 0.018% (180ppm) eU3O8 from 98.1m (GT 180m.ppm) ▪ 0.9 metres at 0.019% (190ppm) eU3O8 from 100.4m (GT 170m.ppm) o AC26-009: ▪ 1.9 metres at 0.032% (320ppm) eU3O8 from 100.9m (GT 610m.ppm) • Regional drilling 6km south of Site 10 has intersected similar oxidised and reduced sands at comparable depths, while the prospective palaeochannel remains open to the southeast and is interpreted from seismic data to extend a further ~12km Alligator CEO and Managing Director Dr Andrea Marsland-Smith said: We are pleased with the early results from this year’s drilling at Big Lake. The work at Site 10 has confirmed further uranium mineralisation and is giving us a much clearer picture of how the roll-front system is developing and the potential scale. What is particularly encouraging is that drilling 6 kilometres south of Site 10 has intersected similar oxidised and reduced sands at comparable depths, suggesting the favourable geological setting extends well beyond the discovery area. Big Lake remains a large, early-stage exploration opportunity and our focus is now on progressively defining the redox front at Site 10 and beyond, the broader palaeochannel system and using the information we now have to inform the drilling strategy to also be applied to other areas of the project. 1 AGE ASX Announcement; Assay Results from the Big Lake Uranium Project confirm Significant Uranium Discovery ASX:AGE - Assay Results Confirm Uranium Discovery - Big Lake Further Uranium Mineralisation Intersected at Big Lake as Roll- Front Model Strengthens 2 Drilling Program Detail & Objectives Thirty-three aircore holes have been completed as part of Alligator’s ongoing 2026 drilling campaign. The program has been exploring within sands of a large palaeochannel within the Namba Formation at depths between 70-130m from surface (Figure 1). Drillholes have been sited both north and south of Site 10 (Figure 2); the site of the initial uranium discovery in 2024 with the objective of providing additional geological context to: 1) Strengthen the interpretation of the 2024 results and provide a broader perspective of their significance; 2) Locate the precise level(s) of the uranium mineralisation within the host sands using downhole gamma geophysical logging; 3) Regionally map the alteration (redox) state of the sands around Site 10 to provide guidance to the siting of successive drillholes to precisely target roll-front uranium mineralisation, and 4) Determine if the system has regional scale. Figure 1: Big Lake Uranium Project location and exploration target area 3 Follow-up drilling west and northwest of Site 10 (Figure 2) and detailed mapping of the alteration of the palaeochannel sand units has confirmed the mineralisation discovered in the 2024 program is part of a larger uranium roll front system within oxidised and reduced sands 75m-120m below surface2. The presence of regional cells of oxidised and reduced sands coinciding with anomalous uranium at the boundary of the two (the redox front) is distinctive of sandstone-hosted uranium mineralising systems akin to what is observed at other in-situ recovery (ISR) uranium operations worldwide (Kazakhstan, US) and in South Australia (i.e. Beverley, Four Mile and Honeymoon). The current drilling has identified a southeasterly trending redox front of significant scale within the sand horizon that hosts uranium mineralisation in hole AC24-021 drilled in 2024 (Figure 2). Downhole gamma responses across the redox front show features consistent with typical uranium roll-front morphology, where the uranium appears to sit in an organised redox-controlled system where there are “gamma tails” behind peak mineralisation in AC26-006 (1m at 0.018% eU3O8; 0.9m at 0.019% eU3O8), a higher-grade nose at the front of the redox front in AC26-009 (1.9m at 0.032% eU3O8) and shows direction (Figures 2 and 3). Figure 2: Site 10 drilling including AB Cross-section. Additional regional fences of holes drilled 6km south of Site 10 have preliminarily confirmed continuation of the prospective palaeochannel which is open to the southeast for a potential further 12 km as interpreted from seismic data. 2 The 2024 results were based on laboratory chemical assays of samples collected from 1 m aircore intervals reported as U ppm, while the 2026 results are derived from calibrated downhole gamma logging with data reported at 0.1 m intervals eU3O8. The two datasets have been generated using different measurement techniques and are not directly comparable. The more continuous downhole gamma measurements assist in defining the vertical distribution of uranium mineralisation, while differences in reported interval thicknesses may also reflect geological variability between drillholes. A B 4 The same oxidised and reduced sands were intersected at approximately 100 metres below surface, consistent with the depth of mineralisation at Site 10, suggesting redox fronts are not isolated to Site 10. Figure 3: Site 10 drilling roll front morphology (Note for the purposes of this figure, uranium grades in AC26 holes are reported as eU3O8 and in the AC24 hole uranium grade is reported as U3O8). Note: AC24-025 has poorly constrained true vertical depth as the angled drillhole projects onto the section from outside the section plane (refer Figure 2). The 2024 aircore sampling method used for AC24-025 (refer Footnote 2) does not eliminate the potential for cross-interval contamination. Uranium anomalism immediately below the principal mineralised interval may therefore have broadened the reported assay response. Further Work Based on the initial results from Site 10 and the surrounding area, further drilling is planned for the remainder of Q3 2026, with the program potentially continuing into Q4 2026 subject to results and weather. Planned work includes: • Further drilling in the Site 10 area to: o compare previous assay results with downhole gamma logging results; o better define the geometry, extent and continuity of the interpreted redox front. • Additional stratigraphic drill fences across the central area of EL6367 to continue regional palaeochannel model and identify areas for further follow-up drilling. 250 100 0 Oxidised Reduced REDOX Soil Sandstone Claystone Lithology SURFACE B U Roll Front Nose U Roll Front Tails 20m Vertical and Horizontal Scale A 5 • Conduct a heritage survey for drill access to new prospective areas across the Project. This announcement was authorised for release by the Board of Alligator Energy Ltd. Engage with this announcement at the Alligator Energy InvestorHub. Contacts For more information, please contact: Dr Andrea Marsland-Smith CEO & Managing Director Mr Blayney Morgan Interim Chief Financial Officer Jeffrey Sterlson GM - Government Relations, Communications and Public Affairs js@alligatorenergy.com.au Registered Office: Level 1, 5-7 King William Road, Unley, SA 5061 This announcement contains or may contain certain forward-looking statements and comments about future events, that are based on Alligator’s beliefs, assumptions and expectations and on information currently available to management as at the date of this announcement. Often, but not always, forward-looking statements can generally be identified by the use of forward-looking words such as "may", "will", "expect", "plan", "believes", "estimate", "anticipate", "outlook", and "guidance", or similar expressions, and may include, without limitation, statements regarding plans, strategies and objectives of management, anticipated production and production potential, financial forecasts, product quality estimates of future Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. Such statements are only expectations or beliefs and are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties which could cause actual values, results or performance achievements to differ materially from those expressed or implied in this presentation. Where Alligator expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and on a reasonable basis. No representation or warranty, express or implied, is made by Alligator that the matters stated in this presentation will in fact be achieved or prove to be correct. Except as required by law, Alligator undertakes no obligation to provide any additional or updated information or update any forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events, results or otherwise. Readers are cautioned against placing undue reliance on forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are beyond the control of Alligator, the directors, and management of Alligator. These factors include, but are not limited to difficulties in forecasting expected production quantities, the potential that any of Alligator's projects may experience technical, geological, metallurgical and mechanical problems, changes in market prices and other risks not anticipated by Alligator, changes in exchange rate assumptions, changes in product pricing assumptions, major changes in mine Forward Looking Statement 6 plans and/or resources, changes in equipment life or capability, emergence of previously underestimated technical challenges, increased costs, and demand for production inputs. The information in this announcement that relates to Exploration Data, Exploration Results related to the projects is based on and fairly represents information provided by Nick Jervis-Bardy MAusIMM 3088924. Nick Jervis-Bardy is employed on a full-time basis with Alligator as Geoscience Lead and has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration (including 5 years in ISR uranium mining operations and technical work) and to the activity he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the JORC Code. Mr Jervis-Bardy consents to the inclusion in this release of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Alligator Energy is a uranium project development and exploration company with projects that have clear pathways for approval and development. The Alligator Energy Directors and Leadership Team have significant uranium experience including uranium ISR operations at Beverley and Four Mile (Heathgate Resources), achieving approval of WA’s first uranium mine at the Wiluna Uranium Project (Toro Energy), and senior management roles with WMC Olympic Dam and ERA Ranger Mine. Projects About Alligator Energy Competent Person’s Statement 7 APPENDIX 1 - In accordance with ASX Listing Rule 5.7.2 the Company provides the following information. Significant intersections calculated where interval has 0.5m minimum thickness, average of >0.01% U3O8 (100ppm eU3O8) with internal dilution 0.20m. Most holes returned no significant uranium intersections; significant intersections are limited to AC26-006 and AC26-009 in this batch.” HoleID Easting (GDA94,Z53) Northing (GDA94,Z53) RL Azimuth Dip Hole Depth (m) Depth From (m) Depth To (m) Thickness (m) eu3o8 (%) Grade x Thickness (%) eu3o8 (ppm) Grade x Thickness (ppm) AC26-001 425400 6880023 33.4 0 -90 126 No Significant Intersections AC26-002 425414 6880077 32.7 0 -90 129 No Significant Intersections AC26-003 425429 6880126 32.6 0 -90 126 No Significant Intersections AC26-004 425450 6880008 33.4 0 -90 129 No Significant Intersections AC26-005 425463 6880062 33.2 0 -90 126 No Significant Intersections AC26-005A 425461 6880067 33.2 0 -90 27 No Significant Intersections AC26-006 425479 6880110 32.2 0 -90 129 98.1 99.1 1.0 0.018 0.01 180 180 AC26-006 425479 6880110 32.2 0 -90 129 100.4 101.3 0.9 0.019 0.01 190 190 AC26-009 425529 6880095 32.3 0 -90 129 100.9 102.8 1.9 0.032 0.03 320 610 AC26-010 425551 6880192 30.6 0 -90 126 No Significant Intersections AC26-014 425540 6880144 30.6 0 -90 126 No Significant Intersections AC26-015 425492 6880159 32.1 0 -90 129 No Significant Intersections AC26-050 426117 6878168 41.1 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-051 426096 6878370 40.4 0 -90 143 No Significant Intersections AC26-052 426086 6878568 39.8 0 -90 135 No Significant Intersections AC26-053 426083 6878774 37.8 0 -90 141 No Significant Intersections AC26-059 426566 6877719 39.1 0 -90 129 No Significant Intersections AC26-060 426629 6877912 37.7 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-062 426620 6878328 36.6 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-079 426685 6875661 39.1 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-080 426766 6875736 39.2 0 -90 129 No Significant Intersections AC26-081 426848 6875811 39.3 0 -90 120 No Significant Intersections AC26-082 426498 6874368 35.4 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-083 426578 6874442 35.1 0 -90 100 No Significant Intersections AC26-084 426655 6874521 35.5 0 -90 135 No Significant Intersections AC26-085 426730 6874599 35.5 0 -90 135 No Significant Intersections AC26-086 426807 6874677 36.6 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-087 426880 6874758 38.0 0 -90 138 No Significant Intersections AC26-089 426590 6874079 34.3 0 -90 120 No Significant Intersections AC26-089A 426584 6874051 34.5 0 -90 60 No Significant Intersections AC26-107 426076 6876887 41.7 0 -90 135 No Significant Intersections AC26-108 425556 6880243 30.7 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-109 426081 6878481 39.4 0 -90 132 No Significant Intersections AC26-110 426077 6878430 39.7 0 -90 131 No Significant Intersections 8 JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1 Sections 1, 2 and 3 Section1 – 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. • 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. • The work is based on air-core drilling and all grade determinations are from downhole geophysical logging. Sondes were appropriately calibrated. • Downhole wireline logging used a natural gamma sonde. • The sonde was calibrated at the Saskatchewan Research Council (SRC) test facilities and the Australian Mineral Development Laboratories (AMDEL) calibration facility (Adelaide) to allow calculation of uranium grade (eU3O8) from logged natural gamma. 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, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc). • Drilling was contracted to Wallis Drilling of Western Australia. Using a Mantis 200 Automated Aircore (AC). • Drill hole collar locations were positioned using a Garmin GPS with an approximate X- Y tolerance of 3 to 5 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. • Sample recovery from the AC drilling is monitored during drilling with an assessment made on the volume and weight of material recovered relative to the drill interval. If AC sample recovery is poor, it is logged as such. This is systematically recorded in the logging database. • Cross-interval contamination is assessed regularly but it is not possible to eliminate from the AC drilling process. However, no significant contamination issues have been encountered in this program. • For this program no apparent relationship was observed between sample recovery and grade. No sample bias is expected. 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 • Standard sample logging procedures are utilised, including logging codes for lithology, minerals, colour, weathering etc. • A chip tray sample is taken for all 1 m intervals. 9 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography. • The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged. • All chip trays are photographed for digital archiving. • Average natural gamma ray activity is measured for each sample. The instrument was purchased in 2023, pre-calibrated from counts to instrument-independent decay rate (µSv/hr). The conversion accounts for specific instrument crystal volume, sensitivity, and dead-time. Sub- sampling 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. • The AC drilling process does not generate core but sediment chips as returns. • The chips are recovered at one-meter intervals via the cyclone – wet or dry. • ~ 0.5-1 kg samples for laboratory analysis are extracted from the one-meter interval bulk return by random scoops.To ensure laboratory reliability, duplicates are taken at a minimum of every 25 samples. • QAQC on all downhole gamma data was performed on a hole-by-hole basis to confirm data integrity. • Downhole gamma data was supplied in 0.1m intervals. 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. • Geophysical logging was carried out by Wallis Drilling using the NOVAxG driller- operable gamma logging tool. • Lab samples previously reported in Uppm were converted to U3O8ppm using the stoichiometric relationship between U and U3O8.Conversion factor: 1.1792 • NOVAxG data was supplied in uncorrected API units and converted to U3O8 using factors supplied by the tool manufacturer (IMDEX Global Solutions) o Conversion valid between 50-34,000 CPS o Correction for hole size: 0.950 (NQ hole size) o Rod factor: 1.257 (Hx) o U3O8 = 0.16337 * 0.950 * 1.257 * API – 48.905 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. • Alligator’s field geologists are supervised by the Project Lead/Senior Geologist. • All field data is entered into excel spreadsheets (supported by look-up tables) at site and subsequently validated on import into the centralized Access database. • Hard copies of logging and sampling data are stored in the local office and electronic data is stored on the company server. • As an early exploration/part stratigraphic drilling program, twinning of results is not required. However, all new data will be compared against legacy drill datasets, Alligator’s previous aircore drill data, geophysical coverage etc, to check for a consistent picture, possible discrepancies in new and old data and anomalies – leading to 10 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary an enhanced picture of local prospectivity. 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 coordinate information was collected using handheld GPS utilizing GDA 1994, Zone 54. While the spatial location is expected to be 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. Data spacing and distribution • Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results. • Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied. • Whether sample compositing has been applied. • The AC drill lines (or fences) of three to ten drillholes were strategically placed within the Big Lake Project to: • Corroborate seismic/airborne electromagnetic (AEM) interpretations of potential mineralisation bearing channels and host sequences (in this case, primarily the Namba Formation) • Test the quality and variability of potential host formation. • Potentially make intercepts into host formations with indicators of uranium, uranium transport or uranium deposition. 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. • Drill traverses were generally designed to be orthogonal to the predicted course of interpreted palaeochannels. However, this was impractical in many cases owing to: • Access restrictions due to oil and gas infrastructure or to minimise environmental disturbance. • Uncertainty of palaeochannel geometry at this early stage of exploration. • Inherent ambiguity of datasets due to spatial resolution or penetration limitations (particularly for AEM data in conductive cover terrain). Sample security • The measures taken to ensure sample security. • Company geologists supervise all sampling and subsequent storage in field and transport to point of dispatch to the assay laboratory. Audits or reviews • The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. • Reviews of the sampling techniques were not undertaken. Section 2 – Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral tenement and land tenure status • Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings. • The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area. • The Big Lake Project (Tenement Holder - Big Lake Uranium Pty Ltd, project operated by Alligator Energy Ltd) is comprised of 7 exploration licences (EL 6367, EL 6847, EL 6848, EL 6849, EL 6902, EL 6903 and EL 6904) covering 6,422km2. The initial licence - EL 6367 was granted on 22nd July 2019 for a two-year period and covers an area of 818 km2. This licence was renewed for an additional three-years, expiring 21July 2030. A further 6 licences 11 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary were added to the project in 2022 and 2023. EL6367 covers part of the Strzelecki regional reserve on its western side and parts of the Cooper Creek flood plain. The licence also covered parts of 6 historical exploration leases, ELs 4068, 4069, 4071, 4072, 4073 and 4076 previously held by TC Development Corporation Pty Ltd between 2008 and 2013. • • A Native Title Agreement for Mineral Exploration (NTMA) for Exploration between Big Lake Uranium Pty Ltd and Yandruwandha Yawarrawarrka Traditional Landowners (Aboriginal Corporation) RNTBC (INC 3840) has been instrumented and endorsed (RI 53024) on 2 August 2023.The agreement covers EL 6367, EL 6847, EL 6849, EL 6902, EL 6903 and EL 6904.Heritage sites in the area take the form of registered sites, which the company has full understanding of the location, and are excluded from exploration. Like any other jurisdiction, Alligator is required to protect heritage and archaeological sites via work area clearances on an as-needs basis. • • Alligator operates under an approved authorisation (Exploration Program for Environmental Protection and Rehabilitation) with the SA Government. Exploration done by other parties • Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties. • Historic work across the tenement area (EL 6367) has predominantly focused on petroleum exploration which actively commenced on-ground exploration in the mid-1960s. To date 424 petroleum wells have been recorded within the licence boundary and active production is ongoing with processing taking place at SANTOS’ nearby Moomba facility. Petroleum drilling across the tenement has provided valuable uranium exploration data through gamma logs which are valuable for the construction of simplified stratigraphic logging, however the primary focus of these holes lies much deeper than economic uranium exploration targets. Petroleum drilling in the district typically targets stratigraphic horizons of the Eromanga Basin approximately 1300m deep and Cooper Basin approximately 3000m deep. • Four 3D seismic surveys overlap parts of the licence giving almost total coverage. Seismic Survey (Year conducted) Moomba Big Lake 3D (1997) Barina-Farina 3D (1998) Caladan-Daralingie 3D (2001) Greater Strzelecki 3D (2001) • Over 1000 2D seismic profiles have been 12 Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary conducted across the exploration licence over the past 50 years. Quality of the 2D data varies with vintage, with those being shot from the mid 90’s onwards generally the best datasets for geological interpretation. In 2019 the SA government began reprocessing open file 2D seismic to generate pre-stack time and depth migrated datasets for the Cooper Basin 2D cubed programme. 3855 lines have currently been reprocessed, 205 of which are located within the Big Lake Project. This reprocessed data provides a filtered full-offset final migration that enhances the data lower in the seismic profile, providing insights to possible fluid migration paths beneath, and into, the stratigraphy targeted by AGE. • Aside from Petroleum exploration only modest mineral exploration has been conducted within the licence. Uranium exploration was conducted by TC Development Corporation Pty Ltd who held 6 licences (EL4068, EL4069, EL4071, EL4072, EL4073 & EL4076) overlapping EL6367 amongst others in the region. TC Development Corporation Pty Ltd held the licences between 2008 and 2013, with active on-ground exploration conducted during 2008 and 2009. • On-ground exploration by TC Development consisted primarily of rotary mud drilling of 148 holes totalling 20,584 m. These holes concentrated around historic gamma anomalies identified in petroleum well logs. Hole depths range from 60 to 290 m depth and average 140 m targeting the Eyre Formation proximal to hydrocarbon domes. Gamma logs and lithology was recorded for all holes with 3687 interval samples analysed for geochemistry through XRF by Genalysis Labs WA. Geology • Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation. • The Big Lake exploration project lies on the eastern edge of the Cooper – Eromanga basins between the Patchawarra and Tenappera Troughs. The basins have a long history of oil and gas extraction and the uranium occurrence model follows analogues of occurrences above