Company: ALM
Filing Date: 2025-07-11
Form Type: F-10/A
Source: 0001641172-25-018741
Chunk: 109

Company: Almonty Industries Inc.
Filing Date: 2025-07-11
Form: F-10/A
Chunk 109
---
 this table for
comparison purposes.

The following observations
were made from the comparison table:

| ● | Approximately half of the Indicated                                                               
 tonnes in the previous estimate were converted to Measured Mineral Resources due to the increased 
 drilling and improved understanding of the geology gained through underground mapping.            |
| ● | Measured plus Indicated tonnes increased                                                          
 by 12% overall, while the Inferred tonnes increased by 5% overall between the two estimates.      |
| ● | The change in density is not significant.                                                         |
| ● | Measured plus Indicated grades decreased                                                          
 by 46%, while Inferred grades decreased by between 68% between the two estimates.                 |
| ● | The net result in the Measured plus                                                               
 Indicated categories was a decrease in the contained tungsten metal of 29%.                       |
| ● | The net result in the Inferred category                                                           
 represents a decrease in the contained tungsten metal of 59%.                                     |

AMC considered that the decrease
in grades was mainly due to the previous method (TT) of creating the mineralization volumes from the underground development surveys,
and then estimating grade into those volumes from the coded intersections in the database. The coding in the database is not based on
a 3D interpretation but is interpreted on a drill hole-by-drill hole basis.

| 64 |

<div align='center'>Table 6-6 – Comparison of 2012 and 2014 Mineral Resource Estimates</div>

A-Z Mining
Professionals Ltd./TT (Wardrop) Feasibility Study (June 2015)

In 2014, AMC was commissioned
by Woulfe to develop a resource block model completely independent of the TT geology block models. On an A-Z Mining review of the completed
AMC model, A-Z Mining and Woulfe decided not to retain the AMC resource model due to the technical methodology employed.

The Feasibility Study
relied on the TT 2015 updated resource block model, which included the 2013 Phase 4 drilling programme (7,200 m of additional definition
drilling to significantly increase confidence in the resources).

The Indicated Mineral
Resource in the TT phase 4 updated model is shown in Table 6-7 below reported at 0.15% WO cut-off grade above 600 mrl. The
resource is only reported above -3 level (600 mrl).

The TT reported resources
were limited to the -