Mutooroo  Magnetite  Project Inferred  Resource  Estimate  of  the  

Muster  Dam  Magnetite  Fe  Deposit  and    

Regional  Magnetite  Fe  Potential  19th October 2012

Andrew Burtt, Project Geologist

Staff Update Minotaur Head Office

Mutooroo  Magnetite  Project Maiden Resource Location Braemar Fe stones Helimagnetics Magnetic modelling and resource drillhole planning Resource Drilling Davis Tube Recovery Testwork Petrology Geotech Duffields and Regional Drilling Muster Dam Resource and Exploration Target Update

Maiden  JORC  Inferred  Resource

1.5 Billion Tonnes @ 15.2% DTR and 18.02% Fe (Head) at 10% DTR cut-off

with 228 Mt of contained magnetite concentrate

Concentrate Grade Fe 69.8% Al2O3 0.4% P2O5 0.002% S 0.002% SiO2 2.8% LOI -3.3%

Location

Braemar  Ironstones

Area 1 Area 2

Area 3

3,497 line kilometres with flight line spacing of 50m and terrain clearance of 25m

Heli-­magnetics

Muster  Dam  Magnetic  Anomaly Outcropping steeply east dipping, magnetite-bearing diamictite and siltstone

2D  Forward  Modelling 15 Sections Modelled

Section: MDN001

Section: MDN001

Section: MDN001

Planned  Resource  Drillholes

Section: MDN001

36 planned RC drillholes for 10,600m on

400m sections 150m apart

Resource  Drilling

Section: MDN001

49 x RC drillholes for 13,031m 10 x Diamond drillholes for 2,883m

Diamictite

Siltstone

Resource  Drilling

Section: MDN001

Section MDN001

Excellent correlation between modelled and drilling

Section: MDN001

Section MDN001

Resource  Drilling Excellent correlation between modelled and drilling

Section: MDN001

Section MDN01

Resource  Drilling Excellent correlation between drillholes using wireline logs

Section: MDN001

Section MDN04

Resource  Drilling Excellent correlation between drillholes using wireline logs

Section: MDN001

Section MDN04

Resource  Drilling Excellent correlation between drillholes using wireline logs

Low DTR Dilution zone

Section: MDN001

Sections MDN01 and MDN04

Resource  Drilling Preliminary Lithostratigraphy

Low DTR Dilution zone

Davis  Tube  Recovery  (DTR) 2,355 5m RC composite samples for DTR/XRF at 45µm grind size 558 5m ¼ core samples for DTR/XRF at 45µm grind size

Head sample input (20g) Magnetite concentrate sample recovered (DTR)

DTR or Mass Recovery = Wt Mag(g) / Wt Head(g)

Davis  Tube  Recovery  (DTR) Sample Preparation Parameters Once produced the 150g sub- for DTR test work. Precisely weigh and record the 150g sub-sample weight Pulverise the 150g sub-sample in a C125 ring pulveriser for 90 seconds Wet screen the sample at 45 micron and record oversize weight Dry and regrind the oversize material for 4 seconds for every 5g of oversize sample Repeat the screening until less than 5g is above 45 microns Filter press the total sample, dry and homogenise Using a 3 decimal place balance, extract from the pulverised product a 20g sample for DTR test work.

DTR parameters The precisely weighed 20g sub-sample was subjected to Davis Tube Recovery test work using the following parameters: Stroke Frequency 60/minute Stroke Length 38mm Magnetic Field 3000 gauss Tube Angle 45 degrees Tube Diameter 25mm Washing Time 20 minute or until clear

A magnetic concentrate or DTR is collected in a small container after washing is complete. The magnetic concentrate is then vacuum filtered, washed, dried and precisely weighed

DTR or Mass Recovery = Wt Mag(g) / Wt Head(g)

Davis  Tube  Recovery  (DTR)

1.5 Bt @ 15.2% DTR with Fe recovery Wt. Mag (DTR) x Fe% (Conc) --------------------------------------- Wt. Head (~20g) x Fe% (Head) Av. 59% Fe recovery at 69% Fe conc

0

20

40

60

80

100

120

60 62 64 66 68 70 72 74

Fe%

Rec

over

y

Fe% grade DTR Concentrate

Muster Dam Magnetite Iron Deposit Fe% grade DTR conc vs Fe% recovery

Testwork Bulk sample - MD003: 30 255m Resource Analysis Average for interval: DTR 16.55%, Fe(c) 69.93%, SiO2(c) 2.55%, Fe(h) 18.57%, SiO2(h) 49.48% Testwork

1m samples composited to 5m then split of 5m combined to produce bulk sample without grinding Wet sieve and size distribution to -53um Cyclosizing of -53um and -45um sample Wet Low Intensity Magnetic Separation (WLIMS) at -53 and -45 um

Testwork

0.00 0.05 0.10 0.15 0.20 0.25 0.30 0.35 0.40 0.45 0.50 0.55 0.60 0.65 0.70 0.75 0.80 0.85 0.90 0.95 1.00 1.05 1.10 1.15 1.20 1.25 1.30 1.35 1.40 1.45 1.50 1.55 1.60 1.65 1.70 1.75 1.80 1.85 1.90 1.95 2.00 2.05 2.10 2.15 2.20 2.25 2.30 2.35 2.40 2.45 2.50

0 10 20 30 40 50 60 70 80 90

Size

Pas

sing

(mm

)

Percent Passing (%)

Size Distribution

Series1

52.7% passing at 53um

Try and replicate action of RC hammer in initial crush-grind circuit to reduce capital and operating cost Carpentaria proposing hammer mills as first stage crush/grind

Testwork

Composite Feed (45um) Screen   Head Conc

Mass Recovery to LIMS Mags (%)  

Weight(kg) Total   9.981   19.02% Fe     WLIMS Feed (-45) kg   4.5298  +45um   5.353       Mags   0.91668  68.78% Fe 20.26  -45um   4.628       Non-Mags   3.6083  

9.981 kg @ 19.02% Fe = 1.916kg of Fe

screen

+45 um

5.353 kg

-45 um LIMS 4.5298 kg mag

Non-mag

3.6083 kg

0.917 kg @ 68.78% Fe (conc)

0.63 Kg of Fe 32% of original 1.916kg Fe

Wet Low Intensity Magnetic Separation (WLIMS)

Petrology Petrology observations

Hematite

Quartz

Mica

Magnetite

MDD005 200m

Matrix of diamictite same as siltstone Carbonate observed up to 10 to 25% though

usually <5% - reduces BWi Av. visual abundance of magnetite ~ 16% Av. visual abundance of hematite ~ 2-3% Mag and Hm occur as monomineralic

particles free of inclusions in 60:40 ratio Bonding of oxide grains to rock gangue is

weak indicating easy liberation Av. visual magnetite grainsize 25-60um

indicating grindsize of <45um to liberate grains No evidence of martitisation of magnetite or

complex intergrowths that are a result of secondary hm replacement of magnetite

Petrology Mutooroo vs Petrology Comparison

Hawsons and Mutooroo deposits exhibit remarkable similarity, as one would expect in an

Magnetite from both deposits tends to have a grain size which usually averages 40µ to 80µ and are free of inclusions

overall the Mutooroo samples are coarser grained Hematite develops in two habits in both deposits. It can be bladed to tabular and fabric-

equigranular Muster Dam hematite has magnetite lamellae Both deposits contain diagenetic 1) fabric and these develop in the more dolomite-rich material from both areas Tourmaline can be upto 1% and this phase, along with dolomite, anhydrite and apatite suggests perhaps a closed basin, saline depositional environment.

Petrology Petrology observations

Hematite with magnetite lamellae

Magnetite

MDD02-127.5m

As mag:hm ratio is 60:40 then maybe possible to extract extra Fe from the deposit if hm is paramagnetic

Geotech SRK Geotechnical Analysis of the Muster Dam Magnetite Fe Deposit

Groundwater conceptual model overall suggests that dewatering and depressurisation issues may be effectively managed using straightforward techniques No significant structural issues affecting the deposit however sedimentary bedding combined with two joints sets may form wedge failure of the pit wall Wedge analysis undertaken to determine minimum berm widths 5m footwall and 7m hangingwall Rock mass analysis undertaken with a note that the discontinuity count being regarded as artificially high resulting in SRK being conservative with the overall pit wall slope design Overall pit wall slope to be reviewed after upcoming geotech/metallurgical drilling as triple tubes will be implemented to reduce induced fracturing allowing a more accurate record of number of discontinuities.

Geotech

Note: Example design only Final design pending

 

Min Inter-ramp angle        

Maximum Inter-ramp angle      

Weathering   Depth (m)  Bench face angle  

Bench height (m)  

Berm Width (m)  

Inter-ramp angle  

Bench face angle  

Bench height (m)  

Berm Width (m)  

Inter-ramp angle  

HW   Top 15m   50   15   9   35   50   15   9   35  SW   15 - 155m   70   20   12   45   70   20   9   50  UW   150 - 350m   70   20   9   50   70   20   7   55  

Duffields    and  Regional  Drilling

1 2

3

4

Duffields    and  Regional  Drilling

1 2

3

4

1vd tmi image

Duffields    and  Regional  Drilling

1 2

3

4 Hole-ID Prospect Type Interval (m) DTR mag% Fe_Head Fe_Conc SiO2_Conc Al2O3_Conc P_Conc S_Conc LOI_Conc

DFDD001 Duffields DDH 280 17.61 19.59 70.27 2.28 0.28 0.003 0.005 -3.24

DFDD002 Duffields DDH 305 16.60 19.06 69.56 3.06 0.27 0.00 0.01 -3.03

DF011 Duffields RC 195 18.24 20.98 70.56 2.09 0.20 0.003 0.005 -3.33

DF014 Duffields RC 100 16.55 18.61 69.92 2.68 0.30 0.002 0.006 -3.15

Average 17.25 19.56 70.08 2.53 0.26 0.003 0.006 -3.19

Duffields    and  Regional  Drilling

1 2

3

4

Hole-ID Prospect Type Interval (m) DTR mag% Fe_Head Fe_Conc SiO2_Conc Al2O3_Conc P_Conc S_Conc LOI_Conc

MUT11 Peaked Hill West RC 75 16.85 17.67 69.48 2.97 0.52 0.002 0.020 -3.19

MUT12 Peaked Hill RC 100 20.19 19.14 69.60 3.34 0.28 0.003 0.004 -3.35

MUT15 Duffields West RC 125 14.51 18.51 70.58 2.11 0.20 0.002 0.002 -3.37

Muster  Dam  Resource DTR Mag Cut Off % BTonnes DTR Mag Recovery % Fe Head Grade %

6 1.60 14.84 17.96 8 1.58 14.93 18.02 10 1.51 15.18 18.20 12 1.36 15.64 18.57 14 1.02 16.47 19.17 16 0.54 17.74 20.01 18 0.18 19.38 20.77

Muster Dam Concentrate Grades

Category Billion Tonnes

Magnetite DTR %

Fe% Al2O3 % P2O5 % S % SiO2 % LOI %

Inferred 1.5 15.2 69.8 0.4 0.002 0.002 2.8 -3.3

Exploration  Target

Target Area No of Bands

Strike (km) Thickness (m)

Volume (Bill m3) Tonnage (Bt)

Muster Dam 1 5.5 to 6.5 100 to 325 0.30 to 0.45 1.0 to 1.5 Muster Catch 2 1.7 to 2.3 80 to 150 0.03 to 0.06 0.05 to 0.15 Muster South 1 1.7 to 2.3 80 to 120 0.03 to 0.06 0.05 to 0.15 Duffield 1 1 3.0 to 3.5 100 to 300 0.09 to 0.13 1.0 to 1.5 Duffield 2 2 1.5 to 2.5 80 to 100 0.25 to 0.40 0.1 to 0.3

Surrender Dam 4 3.0 to 3.5 80 to 150 0.10 to 0.15 0.2 to 0.4 Totals 16.4 to 20.6 80-325 0.80 to 1.25 2.4 to 4.0

The term should not be misconstrued as an estimate of Mineral Resources and Reserves as defined in the JORC Code (2004), and the term has not been used in that context. The term is conceptual in nature and it is uncertain if further exploration will result in the determination of a Mineral Resource. Refer Clause 18 of the JORC Code (2004).

Target Area Bands Strike (km) Thickness (m) Volume (Bill m3) Tonnage (Bt) Muster South 1 1.7 to 2.3 80 to 120 0.05 to 0.1 0.15 to 0.3 Muster Catch 2 1.7 to 2.3 80 to 150 0.05 to 0.12 0.15 to 0.3 Duffields 1 1 4.5 to 5.0 150 to 450 0.3 to 0.65 1.0 to 1.9 Duffields 2 2 1.5 to 2.5 80 to 100 0.05 to 0.08 0.15 to 0.2 Surrender Dam 4 3.0 to 3.5 80 to 150 0.1 to 0.17 0.3 to 0.5 Peaked Hill 1 1.0 to 1.2 40 to 60 0.015 to 0.025 0.05 to 0.08 Peaked Hill West 1 1.0 to 2.0 50 to 100 0.03 to 0.06 0.09 to 0.18 Pegline Dam 1 1.0 to 1.5 120 to 230 0.07 to 0.1 0.2 to 0.3 Red Dam 1 0.8 to 1.0 120 to 230 0.055 to 0.07 0.15 to 0.2 16.2 to 21.3 80 to 450 0.7 to 1.4 2.2 to 4.2

Initial Exploration Target

Updated Exploration Target

+ 1.5 Bt at Muster Dam

Total 4 to 6 Bt

Project  Future  

Metallurgical testwork diamond core drilling Including Hematite recovery testwork Crush and grind technique optimisation e.g. Impact crushers Determine optimum P80 grind size to maximise Fe recovery

Completion of Scoping Study

Disclaimer This presentation has been prepared by the management of Minotaur Exploration Limited (ASX: MEP) for the general benefit of analysts, brokers and investors and does not constitute specific advice to any particular party or persons. Information herein is based on publicly available information, internally developed data and other sources. Where an opinion, projection or forward looking statement is expressed in this presentation, it is based on the assumptions and limitations mentioned herein and is an expression of present opinion only. No warranties or representations are made or implied as to origin, validity, accuracy, completeness, currency or reliability of the information. MEP specifically disclaims and excludes all liability (to the extent permitted by law) for losses, claims, damages, demands, costs and expenses of whatever nature arising in any way out of or in connection with the information, its accuracy, completeness or by reason of reliance by any person on any of it. Where MEP expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to the success of future exploration and the economic viability of future project evaluations, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and is believed to have a reasonable basis. However, such projected outcomes are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors which could cause actual results to differ materially from projected future results. Such risks include, but are not limited to, exploration success, metal price volatility, changes to current mineral resource estimates or targets, changes to assumptions for capital and operating costs as well as political and operational risks and government regulatory outcomes. MEP disclaims any obligation to advise any person if it becomes aware of any inaccuracy in or omission from any forecast or to update such forecast.

Information in the foregoing presentation that relates to Exploration Results, Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by Dr A. P. Belperio, who is a Director and full-time employee of the Company and a Fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Dr A. P. Belperio has a minimum of 5 years experience, which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that he is undertaking, to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves . Dr A. P. Belperio consents to inclusion in the presentation of matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.