ASX:ESR 24 January 2022 Massive Sulphides Intersected Under Carr Boyd Mine HIGHLIGHTS  CBDD064 intersects Massive and Semi-Massive Nickel-Copper Sulphides beneath the Carr Boyd Nickel Mine (Figure 1)  Main Zone – 16.96m(1) Massive and Semi-Massive Ni-Cu-S from 193.9m  Mid Zone – 1.32m(1) Semi-Massive to Matrix Ni-Cu-S from 242.9m  Lower Zone – 12.91(1) Semi-Massive, Matrix and Disseminated Ni-Cu-S from 256.1m  Logging and geochemical analysis by CSIRO will determine the Carr Boyd sulphide’s relationship to the T5 mineralisation found on the Basal Contact  Confirmation that massive sulphide mineralisation continues below the old workings  Mine Fault located and work to begin to identify mineralisation off-set direction and distance so as to exploit further potential  Figure 1: Massive and semi-massive nickel-copper sulphides in CBDD064 at ~198m downhole. (1) Downhole intersection quoted Estrella Resources Limited (ASX: ESR) (Estrella or the Company) is pleased to announce the intersection of two broad zones of massive and semi-massive nickel-copper sulphides below the Carr Boyd workings. The mineralisation was intersected in CBDD064 (Table 1), a diamond drillhole that was targeted across the dip of mineralisation to assist the Company and CSIRO in understanding the relationship of the Carr Boyd mineralisation to the T5 Discovery on the Carr Boyd basal contact 1km away to the northwest. _________________________________________________________________________________ Office Address London House, Level 11, 216 St Georges Terrace, PERTH WA 6000 Postal Address GPO Box 2517, PERTH WA 6831 Phone +61 8 9481 0389 Fax +61 8 9463 6103 Email info@estrellaresources.com.au The intersection confirms the continuation of nickel-copper sulphides below the old workings and coincides with a Downhole Electromagnetic (DHEM) response modelled from the top portion of CBDD056A which was drilled by Estrella into the basal contact in October 2021 (Figure 2). The DHEM hole is too far from Shoot 4 at depth for any mineralisation to be detected. Figure 2: Location of CBDD064 mineralisation in relation to the historical workings and the Carr Boyd basal contact. The Carr Boyd Mine (Figure 2 and Figure 3) was worked between 1972 and 1976 by Western Mining Corporation (WMC) before being closed due to lowering nickel prices and WMC’s commitments elsewhere. A large fault had been identified as controlling mineralisation along the eastern edge of the main shoot. This fault was predicted to close off mineralisation at depth however this was a theory not proven before the mine closed. Predictions as to the location of the off-set mineralisation were tested unsuccessfully by drilling in the 1990’s and early 2000’s. The mine fault has a similar orientation to an off-set in the basal contact identified by Estrella’s drilling last year. None of the historical core from the project was saved which will make identification of the magnitude and direction of the off-set of the fault more difficult. Subsequent drilling and limited DHEM around the workings have also failed to account for additional mineralisation except for an area called Shoot 4 which has received some drilling. Of more importance to Estrella is to prove or disprove the concept that the Carr Boyd mineralisation was derived from a much larger pool of sulphides located on the T5 basal contact, the area within an intrusion where nickel-copper sulphides will most likely accumulate before later events remobilise those sulphides elsewhere. Work by Estrella and the CSIRO should be able to resolve this link. If proven, the opportunity then exists that this large pool of sulphides still exists at depth. The company aims to continue to use drilling, DHEM and its seismic interpretation to explore this opportunity fully. Figure 3: Picture taken in the 1990's underground at Carr Boyd showing extensive remobilised breccia mineralisation. Estrella Managing Director Chris Daws commented: “I am highly encouraged by these latest rounds of results from CBDD064 as it confirms massive sulphide mineralisation continues below the old Carr Boyd workings. While our focus is very much on drilling, we are also highly focused on determining the Carr Boyd sulphide’s relationship to the T5 mineralisation found on the Basal Contact. Through our ongoing work with the CSIRO, which includes logging and geochemical analysis, we are highly confident on determining this link which, if it exists, means a very exciting time ahead for investors as it is proof this large pool of sulphides may still exist at depth. I look forward to updating investors as we progress with our findings and as we continue to explore this world-class opportunity. The Board has authorised for this announcement to be released to the ASX. FURTHER INFORMATION CONTACT Christopher J. Daws Managing Director Estrella Resources Limited +61 8 9481 0389 info@estrellaresources.com.au Media: David Tasker Managing Director Chapter One Advisors E: dtasker@chapteroneadvisors.com.au T: +61 433 112 936 Competent Person Statement The information in this announcement relating to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Steve Warriner, who is the Exploration Manager of Estrella Resources, and a member of The Australasian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr. Warriner has sufficient experience relevant to 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 Resource and Ore Reserves”. Mr. Warriner consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Table 1: Visual sulphide intersection details of CBDD064 Hole ID & Zone CBDD064 Main Zone 16.95m Mid Zone 1.32m CBDD064 Lower Zone 13.2m Semi-Massive Massive Highly Disseminated Pyroxenite Semi-Massive Semi-Massive Semi-Massive Massive Massive Highly Disseminated Massive Semi-Massive Massive Stringer Highly Disseminated Disseminated Disseminated Semi-Massive Visual Sulphide Estimation 40% 90% 40% Trace 50% 60% 50% 70% 80% 40% 95% 50% 80% 10% 10% 5% 2% 50% Visual Pentlandite Estimation 10% 10% 5% Visual Chalcopyrite Estimation 5% 5% 2% 10.0% 10% 1% 5.0% 10% 5% 30% 5% 10% 2% 5% 1% 50% 5% 20% 25% 1% 5% 10% 2% 5% 10% 20% 5% 5% 1% 50% 5% Matrix Stringer Stringer Cloud Stringer Pyroxenite Semi-Massive Stringer Disseminated Semi-Massive Cloud Matrix Matrix 25% 20% 25% 1% 25% Trace 50% 5% 5% 50% tr 10% 30% 5% 5% 5% 1% 2% 5% 2% 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 5% 5% 1% 1% 5% 1% 1% 5% Depth From Depth To Interval Sulphide Texture 193.90 195.17 195.86 197.17 197.32 198.03 198.56 198.82 199.83 200.40 200.90 201.32 203.97 207.83 208 208.55 209.8 242.93 195.17 195.86 197.17 197.32 198.03 198.56 198.82 199.83 200.40 200.90 201.32 203.97 207.83 208 208.55 209.8 210.85 243.41 1.27 0.69 1.31 0.15 0.71 0.53 0.26 1.01 0.57 0.50 0.42 2.65 3.86 0.17 0.55 1.25 1.05 0.48 243.41 256.06 256.26 257.25 258.58 258.82 259.4 260.75 261.43 263.97 264.7 265.9 266.68 244.25 256.26 257.25 258.58 258.82 259.4 260.75 261.43 263.97 264.7 265.9 266.68 268.97 0.84 0.20 0.99 1.33 0.24 0.58 1.35 0.68 2.54 0.73 1.20 0.78 2.29 Table 2: Drill hole collar details Hole ID Final Depth Easting Northing RL Dip Azimuth Status CBDD064 CBDD056A 276.9 831.8 367398 367393 6672991 6672993 424 427.3 -63 -74 147 265 Completed Completed APPENDIX 1 JORC TABLE 1 - JORC CODE, 2012 EDITION – TABLE 1 Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data (Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Sampling  Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut  DD core samples have been half cut with an automatic techniques channels, random chips, or specific core saw. specialised industry standard  0.25m-1.1m samples are collected from the core trays as measurement tools appropriate to the marked out by the supervising geologist. minerals under investigation, such as  A handheld XRF tool was used to verify the mineralisation down hole gamma sondes or handheld with samples reporting >0.3% Ni in disseminated zones XRF instruments, etc.). These and >1% Ni in the matrix sulphide zones. examples should not be taken as  XRF results have not been reported and are used as a limiting the broad meaning of sampling. logging/sampling verification tool only.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Core is cut and sampled to ensure the sample is representative and no bias is introduced. Cutting of specific, banded or stringer sulphide zoned core is done orthogonal to the banding to ensure there is no bias.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are material to the Public Report.  Determination of mineralisation has been based on geological logging, visual sulphide estimates and confirmation using a pXRF machine. Samples were dispatched to an accredited laboratory for multi-element analysis. .  Diamond core drilling was used to obtain 3m length samples from the core barrel which are then marked in one meter intervals, based on core block measurements.  Samples are selected based on geological logging boundaries or on nominal meter marks.  Collected samples weigh a nominal 2-3 kg (depending on sample length).  Samples have been dispatched to an accredited commercial laboratory in Perth for analysis.  Samples are being analysed using a 4-acid digest, MEICP for 33 elements and ore zone samples are also being tested for Au & PGE elements using ICP analysis.  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 30g 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 Drilling techniques Drill sample recovery  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, facesampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).  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.  Drilling was undertaken using NQ2 sized drill core.  Holes have been collared with mud rotary from surface, HQ rough cored to top of fresh rock then NQ2 cored to EOH.  Core recovery was recorded by the field crew and verified by the geologist.  RQD measurements were digitally recorded to ensure recovery details were captured.  Sample recovery in all mineralised zones is high with negligible core loss observed.  Diamond core drilling is the highest standard and no relationship has been established between sample recovery and reported grade as the core is in very good condition. _________________________________________________________________________________ Criteria Logging Subsampling techniques and sample preparation Quality of assay data and laboratory tests Verification of sampling and assaying JORC Code explanation  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.  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.  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. Commentary  Detailed industry standard of collecting core in core trays, marking meter intervals & drawing core orientation lines was undertaken.  Core trays were photographed wet and dry prior to sampling.  Drill hole logs are recorded in Excel spread sheets and validated in Micromine Software as the drilling progresses.  The entire length of all holes is logged.  The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative company personnel.  The use of twinned holes.  Results verified internally by Company personnel  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  Core is half cut using an automatic core saw to achieve a half-core sample for laboratory submission.  The sample preparation technique is considered industry best standard practice.  No field duplicates have been collected in this program. Field duplicates will be collected once initial results are returned and resampling of the mineralised zones is warranted.  Sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the mineralisation.  No handheld XRF results are reported however the tool was used to verify the mineralisation with reporting >0.3% Ni in disseminated zones and >1% Ni in the matrix sulphide zones.  DHTEM parameters are as follows;  Tx Loop size: 500 x 800 m  Transmitter: GAP HPTX-70  Receiver: EMIT SMARTem24  Sensor: EMIT DigiAtlantis  Station spacing: 2m to 10m  Tx Freq: 0.5 Hz  Duty cycle: 50%  Current: ~130 Amp  Stacks: 32-64  Readings: 2-3 repeatable readings per station  Hole CBDD0028 is twinning hole CBP042. No other twinning is warranted at this stage.  The data was collected and logged using Excel spreadsheets and validated using Micromine Software. The data will be loaded into an externally hosted and managed database.  No adjustments have been made to the assay data other than length weighted averaging.  The holes were pegged using a hand-held GPS + 3m  The rig was setup over the nominated hole position and final GPS pickup occurred at the completion of the hole. Criteria JORC Code explanation 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  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.  The measures taken to ensure sample security.  The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data. Orientation of data in relation to geological structure Sample security Audits or reviews Commentary  Holes are progressively surveyed by DGPS on a batch basis.  MGA94_51  Topography is relatively flat and control is more than adequate given the early stage of the project. A 3D drone ortho-photographic survey had been used to create a DTM of the project area.  Refer to Cross Sections and Plans included  Not applicable, no Mineral Resource is being stated.  No compositing has been applied. Intercepts are quoted as length weighted intervals.  The drill hole orientation does not introduce a sample bias.  Samples are in the possession of Estrella’s personnel from field collection to laboratory submission.  No audits or reviews have been conducted for this release given the early stage of the project. Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results (Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section.) Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Mineral  Type, reference name/number,  Carr Boyd Nickel Pty Ltd (a wholly owned subsidiary of tenement and location and ownership including ESR) holds a 100% interest in the nickel and base metal land tenure agreements or material issues with rights to the project. status third parties such as joint ventures,  There are no known impediments to operate in the area. 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. Exploration  Acknowledgment and appraisal of  The Carr Boyd Rocks deposit was discovered by Great done by other exploration by other parties. Boulder Mines, in a joint venture with North Kalgurli Ltd parties in 1968. The deposit was mined between 1972 and 1975, during which time they explored for additional breccia pipe occurrences near the mine.  WMC acquired Great Boulder Mines Ltd in 1975, briefly reopening the mine in 1977 before closing it permanently shortly thereafter due to a collapse in the nickel price. The mine had produced 210,000t at 1.44% Ni and 0.46% Cu before its closure.  From 1968 Pacminex Pty Ltd held most of the ground over the CBLC outside of the immediate mine area. Between 1968 and 1971 they conducted extensive exploration programs searching for large basal contact and/or stratabound Ni-Cu deposits. It was during this time that most of the disseminated and cloud sulphide occurrences such as those at Tregurtha, West Tregurtha and Gossan Hill were discovered.  Defiance Mining acquired the regional tenements from Pacminex in 1987 and focused on exploration for PGE deposits between 1987 and 1990. In 1990 Defiance purchased the Carr Boyd Rocks mine from WMC and switched focus to the mine area between 1990 and 2001, leaving many PGE targets untested.  From 1990 Defiance dewatered the mine to conduct testwork and feasibility studies on the remnant mineralisation. Metallurgical testwork, Mineral Resource estimations, and scoping studies were completed. Around 1996 the focus shifted again to regional exploration for large tonnage basal contact deposits.  In 2001 Titan Resources Ltd (Titan) acquired the project and recommenced economic evaluations of the remnant material at Carr Boyd Rocks before embarking on another regional exploration program focusing on the basal contact. An aeromagnetic survey, airborne EM reprocessing, and several programs of RAB and RC drilling were completed.  From 2005 Yilgarn Mining entered a JV with Titan and continued with some regional exploration but focused most attention in and around the Carr Boyd Rocks mine.  In 2007 Titan was acquired by Consolidated Minerals Ltd (Consmin). Consmin conducted IP surveys and detailed gravity surveys but did not drill any targets before selling the project to Salt Lake Mining (SLM) in 2013. SLM completed limited drilling to meet expenditure commitments, before selling the project to Apollo Phoenix Resources in 2016.  Apollo sold the project to ESR in 2018. Criteria JORC Code explanation Commentary Geology  Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.  The Carr Boyd project lies within the Achaean Yilgarn Craton in a 700km belt of elongate deformed and folded mafic, ultramafic rocks and volcanic sediments intruded by granitoids which is referred to as the NorsemanWiluna Belt. The belt has been divided into several geological distinct terranes, with the project area lying at the northern end of the Gindalbie terrane (Swager, 1996).  The geology of the Carr Boyd area is dominated by the Carr Boyd mafic-ultramafic intrusive complex (CBIC).  Several distinctive styles of Ni and Ni-Cu mineralisation have been identified within the CBIC. At the Carr Boyd Rocks Nickel Mine Ni-Cu mineralisation is hosted within several 20 - 60m diameter brecciated pipe-like bodies that appear to be discordant to the magmatic stratigraphy. Mineralisation is hosted by a matrix of sulphides (pyrrhotite, pentlandite, pyrite and chalcopyrite) within brecciated Bronzite and altered country rock clasts.  Stratiform Ni-Cu-PGE mineralisation has been identified at several different locations within the layered magmatic complex.  Estrella is in the process of re-mapping and reclassifying the Carr Boyd Igneous Complex. Previous “Layered Intrusive” models are misleading as the complex is made up of many overprinted and juxtaposed, smaller layered and non-layered intrusives that have progressed from Ultramafic to Mafic over time. The complex is better described as a magma feeder zone, where the earliest melts passing through the Morelands Formation have assimilated graphitic sulphidic shales, reached sulphur saturation and deposited nickel sulphides along basal contacts.  These basal contacts are not restricted to the base of the complex, but can form within the complex, wherever access was gained by these earlier flows.  The complex has then been intruded and inflated over time by progressively more mafic, barren magmas to produce what we see today. 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  All relevant drillhole information can be found in the Tables and sections within the announcement.  No information is excluded. Criteria JORC Code explanation explain why this is the case. Data aggregation methods  In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.  Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of highgrade 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.  The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.  These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration Results.  If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.  If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘down hole length, true width not known’).  Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being reported. These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.  Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of Exploration Results.  Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminating substances.  The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions or Relationship between mineralisation widths and intercept lengths Diagrams Balanced reporting Other substantive exploration data Further work Commentary  Intersections are reported on a 0.5% Ni cut-off with SG and length weighted intervals.  All intercepts are reported using SG and length weighted intervals.  No metal equivalents have been stated  True widths have not been stated. The variable orientation of mineralisation within magma feeders combined with a structural overprint and steep drill angles make true width calculations highly misleading.  Maps and sections with drill hole locations are included in the announcement.  All new drillhole information within this announcement is reported  Everything meaningful and material is disclosed in the body of the report.  Geological observations are included in the report.  No bulk samples, metallurgical, bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and/or rock characteristics test were carried out.  There are no known potential deleterious or contaminating substances.  Diamond drilling and DHTEM geophysical testing is continuing. Criteria JORC Code explanation large-scale step-out drilling).  Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive. Commentary