JAMESON RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2014

Feb 5, 2014

==> picture [590 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

----- Start of picture text -----

ASX RELEASE
----- End of picture text -----

6 February 2014

Fast Facts ASX: JAL

Share Price Range (6mths)	$0.19 - $0.28
Shares on issue	189,665,619
Options ($0.15 -$0.20)	10,976,390
Market Capitalisation	~$36M

Major Shareholders (as at February 5, 2014)

Dunlevy & Crown Mountain Project Updates

Highlights

• Jameson has received a list of subjects requested by the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) to be addressed in the Dunlevy Notice of Work (NoW).

• This supplemental information (revised wildlife reports) for the NoW will be submitted later this week.

Macquarie Bank	10.5%
Pershing Aus Nom P/L	5.0%

Directors & Management

David Fawcett (Chairman) Art Palm (Executive Director & CEO) David Prentice (Non Executive Director) Jeff Bennett (Non Executive Director)

• Jameson has taken action to maintain control over the Dunlevy project area.

• Advanced evaluation of Crown Mountain North Block coal quality continues to confirm it as a hard coking coal.

• Results from the final two South Block holes have been received.

Key Projects

Crown Mountain Coal Project Elk Valley Coalfield, Canada Dunlevy Coal Project Peace River Coal Field, Canada

Investment Highlights

• Positioned in world class metallurgical coalfields

• Significant development expertise on board with successful track record

• Modern rail and port facilities

As previously announced, two of the Dunlevy applications were approved on December 27, and tenure subsequently granted. These two licenses contain the proposed Dunlevy Phase I and Phase II exploration. Exploration can commence once MEM approves the NoW, the review of which is progressing. MEM identified several areas where additional information is required; the wildlife reports are being revised to address the new requirements. Jameson will submit that information to MEM later this week. A date for final approval is not known, but once approval is received site preparation can commence, followed shortly thereafter by drilling.

• Strong financial position

Newsflow / Catalysts

Dunlevy NoW approval Q1 2014e Dunlevy exploration starts Q1 2014e Crown PFS completion Q2 2014e Dunlevy initial expl results Q2 2014e

Overview

Through a series of events, Jameson’s control over the Dunlevy project area has been maintained. MEM returned the five licenses that were not granted, and Jameson re-applied for the affected areas (with some adjustment to account for environmental issues raised during the review process). Timing and breadth of the pending exploration program is not affected by these actions.

Contact Details

Australia

L2, 79 Hay Street, Subiaco WA, 6008 P +61 (8) 9200 4473 F +61 (8) 9200 4463 Overview E admin@jamesonresources.com .au

Canada

S8, 1199 West Hastings, Vancouver P +1 (604) 629-8605

Canmet has completed advanced testing on the Crown Mountain North Block coal: the attached results (Table 1) display hard coking coal across all samples. Results on the South Block remain in process, although initial lab analyses are now available for the two remaining holes. Hole CM13-15-CH, at 8.5 FSI, displays the best coking coal characteristics to-date, including the favorable North Block holes: see Table 2. Hole CM13-25-CH (southernmost hole) was drilled in an area that appears to have suffered from some oxidation, and the results are therefore not representative, particularly flotation and FSI. Nevertheless, for disclosure purposes, these results are presented in Table 3.

www.jamesonresources.com.au

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

Discussion of Issues - Dunlevy

In late December the Ministry of Energy and Mines (MEM) approved two of seven coal license applications for the Dunlevy project; these licenses, numbers 418441 and 418442, have now been issued. Jameson has also received from the MEM a list of subjects to be addressed in the wildlife impact and mitigation plans as part of the supporting documentation for the Notice of Work (NoW). These subjects are being addressed by Jameson and its consultants, with report submittal anticipated for late this week. Once the NoW is approved, field activities will be initiated with drilling to follow in 2-3 weeks when site preparations are sufficiently advanced.

As previously announced, MEM did not approve the five other pending Dunlevy applications. These have now been returned to the Company and we have submitted replacement applications with adjusted boundaries to address certain MEM concerns. These revised applications will maintain Jameson’s control over a large portion of the Dunlevy coal basin.

Three applications that were affected by the Coal Land Reserve (CLR) established in 2012 to protect Caribou were also returned to the Company as a result of the MEM decision not to accept tenure applications while land is in CLR. Figure 1 displays the current Dunlevy license status.

To summarize, the Dunlevy project is moving forward, with exploration activities to commence as soon as the NoW is approved. The return and resubmission of the unapproved applications does not materially affect the exploration plan or its execution, but does allow the Company the opportunity to resolve outstanding issues while exploration is executed on the approved licenses. Given favourable exploration results and additional wildlife study by our consultants, we will be well positioned to negotiate extension of tenure to access additional resources.

Discussion of Results – Crown Mountain

Canmet has completed a full suite of analyses on the North Block coal. While several of these results were reported in part in previous announcements, the complete data table is presented here for the first time. This data continues to support the conclusion that the North Block coal is hard coking coal.

Similar evaluations are underway for the South Block coal. We are awaiting the sole heated oven (SHO) test results to complete the collection of the primary coal quality data; these results are expected soon and will be released when available.

Additional initial coal quality analyses from Birtley Coal and Minerals Lab (Birtley) have been received. Jameson previously released results of five of the seven total large diameter core (LDC) holes drilled in 2013. The remaining two LDC holes (CM13-15-CH and CM13-25-CH) have now been processed by Birtley. Both holes are located in the South Block of Crown Mountain (Figure 2).

CM13-15-CH is located in the northern portion of the South Block. The target was the 10 seam, which represents the largest tonnage source in that resource area. Coal quality of the 10 seam was

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au

excellent: the 8.5 FSI ranks it as the best hole in the program. For an 8.8 percent product ash, recovery is 58 percent. Table 2 contains the full results for this hole.

CM13-25-CH encountered a geologic feature during drilling that was not readily apparent in the field. As a result, much of the core is oxidized. Such oxidation renders FSI determination useless, and interferes with the coal’s ability to be recovered by froth flotation. The results from this hole will be discounted due to oxidation. Table 3 contains results from this hole, for the purpose of full disclosure only. Due to the oxidation issue, no averages have been calculated, and the reader is cautioned that the data presented is most likely influenced by oxidation and not representative. The nearest LDC hole, CM11-19-CH is believed more representative of the South Block.

Note that the provided information and weighted average results are presented here for simplification purposes only; truly representative parameters for the project can only be determined once size consist is estimated by the engineers and further detailed evaluation is performed; this work is underway by our third party consultants.

Crown Mountain environmental assessment work continues as a fast-track program. With continuation of stream water quality sampling over the next 3 months, the required 2-year history will be complete. Ground water monitoring is ongoing, the weather station is operating, a wildlife study is underway, and overburden characterization (ML/ARD) is progressing. Jameson still intends to trigger the EA regulatory process later this year as planned.

The prefeasibility study (PFS) at Crown Mountain is off to a good start. Siting studies are underway for the plant and rail loadout while the geologic model is being updated with 2013’s exploration and coal quality results. Yield optimization studies, involving size liberation and blending strategies, are at an advanced stage. Periodic updates will be provided during this process, estimated to take approximately 6 months to complete.

SUMMARY – PROJECTS MOVING FORWARD

Jameson is advancing both of its projects, and 2014 has started out well for the company. The recent capital raise of $3 million (before fees) assures the Company has adequate funds on hand to execute the Crown Mountain PFS, Crown Mountain environmental field work, and Dunlevy exploration program.

On Behalf of the Board of Directors,

==> picture [88 x 44] intentionally omitted <==

Art Palm Chief Executive Officer

==> picture [590 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

		CM12-01-CH 8 SEAM	CM12-01-CH 9 SEAM	CM12-01-CH 10 SEAM	CM12-01-CH 8/9/10 BLEND	CM11-11/12-CH 9/10 BLEND
	Proximate Analysis (db)
	Ash (%)	8.90	9.50	9.43	8.57	8.48
	Volatile Matter (%)	21.40	19.09	20.85	20.25	20.43
	Volatile Matter (daf) (%)	23.49	21.09	23.02	22.15	22.32
	Fixed Carbon (%)	69.70	71.41	69.71	71.18	71.09
	Sulphur (%)	0.50	0.55	0.55	0.55	0.60
	Phosphorous (%)	0.071	0.090	0.072	0.076	0.061
	Ash Analysis (adb)
	SiO2 (%)	56.31	56.73	58.55	57.57	59.09
	Al2O3 (%)	29.58	33.14	29.13	30.40	29.59
	Fe2O3 (%)	3.21	1.74	1.57	3.32	3.12
	P2O5 (%)	1.83	2.17	1.74	2.04	1.66
	CaO (%)	1.35	2.26	2.37	2.47	1.98
	MgO (%)	0.17	<0.20	0.26	0.21	0.20
	SO3 (%)	<0.10	0.12	0.25	0.28	0.17
	Na2O (%)	<0.20	<0.20	<0.20	<0.20	<0.20
	K2O (%)	0.68	0.40	0.57	0.56	0.68
	Basicity Index	0.065	0.053	0.074	0.077	0.070
	Gieseler Plasticity
	Initial Softening Temp (C)	444	462	438	444	443
	Fusion Temp (C)	463	n/a	452	458	460
	Max Fluid Temp (C)	465	468	471	470	469
	Final Fluid Temp (C)	480	476	492	487	487
	Solidification Temp (C)	490	492	500	494	494
	Melting Range (C)	46	30	62	50	51
	Max Fluidity (ddpm)	5.4	1.3	47	11	8.5
	Dilitation
	Softening Temp (C)	417	426	409	410	411
	Max Contraction Temp (C)	472	500	454	464	462
	Max Dilitation Temp (C)	n/a	n/a	486	485	491
	Contraction (%)	21	17	24	22	22
	Dilitation (%)	-21	-17	15	-21	-20
	C + D (%)	0	0	39	1	2
	SD3.5 (%)	-17	-14	19	-14	-14
	FSI	6	2.5	8	6.5	7
	Caking Index G	45	18	68	59	58
	Proximate Analysis Coke (db)
	Ash (%)	10.79	11.28	11.27	10.41	10.41
	Volatile Matter (%)	0.62	0.72	0.83	1.18	0.82
	Fixed Carbon (%)	88.59	88.00	87.90	88.41	88.77
	Sulphur (%)	0.39	0.44	0.46	0.46	0.47
	CSR	74.0	76.5	76.7	73.6	75.7
	CRI	20.8	16.6	15.9	20.5	17.3
		Table 1 – North Block Results (Source: CANMET)

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au

							FSI 8.00 8.00 8.00 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 8.50 9.00 8.50 9.00 3.50 5.50 7.50 9.00 3.00 8.00 8.00 8.50 8.00 8.50 8.50 9.00 7.83 8.50
	SEAM	THICKNES S(m)	SIZE FRACTION	GRAVITY	RECOVERY (%)	ASH (%)	FSI
	10 Upper	3.88	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	17.36	8.56	8.00
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	35.84	9.34	8.00
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	58.88	7.63	8.00
			0.25mmX0	flotation	83.92	12.22	8.50
	10 Middle(a)	0.77	25mm X 9.5mm	1.50	23.03	7.99	8.50
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.50	44.14	8.76	8.50
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	64.31	9.10	8.50
			0.25mmX0	flotation	88.80	14.66	8.50
	10 Middle(b)	0.72	25mm X 9.5mm	1.80	94.87	5.65	8.50
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.80	94.69	5.52	9.00
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.80	96.17	4.06	8.50
			0.25mmX0	flotation	96.31	2.98	9.00
	10 Middle(c)	1.40	25mm X 9.5mm	1.80	34.22	9.92	3.50
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.80	80.87	7.11	5.50
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.80	86.26	4.70	7.50
			0.25mmX0	flotation	95.62	4.67	9.00
	10 Middle(d)	0.76	25mm X 9.5mm	1.50	15.74	11.21	3.00
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.50	43.84	9.72	8.00
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	69.55	8.83	8.00
			0.25mmX0	flotation	89.62	13.56	8.50
	10 Middle Rider	0.60	25mm X 9.5mm	1.50	13.31	13.39	8.00
			9.5mm X 2mm	1.50	28.73	11.09	8.50
			2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	51.03	8.80	8.50
			0.25mmX0	flotation	76.22	9.91	9.00
	WEIGHTED AVERAGE – 10 SEAM				58.1	8.81	7.83
	ACTUAL LAB FSI OF BLEND						8.50

Table 2 – CM13-15-CH Lab Result Summary (Source: Birtley Coal and Minerals Laboratory)

==> picture [590 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

SEAM	THICKNESS (m)	SIZE FRACTION	GRAVITY	RECOVERY (%)	ASH (%)
9 Seam	2.44	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	69.36	11.70
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	83.42	9.89
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	90.80	6.18
10 Upper(a)	0.70	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	55.58	9.66
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	61.92	9.98
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	69.16	7.84
10 Upper(b)	0.83	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	89.25	8.60
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	77.02	8.45
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	86.29	5.55
10 Upper(c)	0.54	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	31.80	13.86
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	41.27	12.55
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	48.53	6.72
10 Upper(d)	0.90	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	95.43	12.16
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	95.64	8.93
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	96.90	5.83
10 Middle(a)	0.80	25mm X 9.5mm	1.60	3.02	19.30
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.60	38.74	18.23
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.60	19.52	16.22
10 Middle(b)	3.35	25mm X 9.5mm	1.50	66.25	14.89
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.50	46.15	11.83
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.50	40.77	10.20
10 Lower	1.27	25mm X 9.5mm	1.45	37.83	14.85
		9.5mm X 2mm	1.45	55.06	11.48
		2mm X 0.25mm	1.50	77.41	9.11

Table 3– CM13-25-CH Lab Result Summary (Source: Birtley Coal and Minerals Laboratory)

NOTES: (1) FSI not included due to oxidation (2) Flotation not included due to oxidation (3) Averages not included due to incomplete testing (oxidation)

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au

==> picture [590 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [484 x 495] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 1 – Dunlevy Licensing Status

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au

==> picture [590 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

==> picture [407 x 602] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Crown Mountain Drill Hole Location Plan

==> picture [590 x 130] intentionally omitted <==

Note Regarding Resource Compilations:

This information was extracted from the Company’s ASX Announcement titled “Initial Coal Resource of 90 million Tonnes at Crown Mountain” dated 4 February 2013 which was prepared and disclosed under the National Instrument 43-101. The announcement is available from the Company’s ASX announcements platform (ASX:JAL). The Company is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcement and all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the Mineral Resource estimates in the relevant announcement continue to apply and have not materially changed. The information has not been updated since to comply with the JORC Code 2012 on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported .

About Jameson Resources Limited

Jameson Resources Limited (ASX:JAL) is a junior resources company focused on the acquisition, exploration and development of strategic coal projects in western Canada. The Company has a 90% interest in the Crown Mountain coal project, and a 100% interest in the Peace River coal projects located in British Columbia. Jameson’s tenement portfolio in British Columbia is positioned in coalfields responsible for the majority of Canada’s metallurgical coal exports and are all close to railways connecting to export facilities.

To learn more, please contact the Company at +61 89200 4473, or visit: www.jamesonresources.com.au

Competent Person Statement

The information in this report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr. Geoff Jordan P.Geo., a Competent Person, who is a Member of a Recognised Professional Organisation (RPO) included in a list that is posted on the ASX website from time to time, being the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. Mr. Jordan is an employee of Norwest Corporation and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which 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 Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Jordan consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.

The information in the report to which this statement is attached that relates to exploration and laboratory testing results is based on information compiled by Mr. Art Palm P.Eng., a Competent Person who is a Member of a Recognised Professional Organisation (RPO) included in a list that is posted on the ASX website from time to time, being the Association of Professional Engineers and Geoscientists of British Columbia. Mr. Palm is a full time employee of Jameson Resources Limited and has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which 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 Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr. Palm consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr. Palm holds the following securities in Jameson Resources Limited: 1,350,000 Ordinary Shares, 3,000,000 performance rights and 83,333 $0.15 options expiring 30 September 2014.

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au

==> picture [590 x 137] intentionally omitted <==

Forward Looking Statements

This announcement contains “forward-looking statements”. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation: estimates of future earnings, the sensitivity of earnings to commodity prices and foreign exchange rate movements; estimates of future production and sales; estimates of future cash flows, the sensitivity of cash flows to commodity prices and foreign exchange rate movements; statements regarding future debt repayments; estimates of future capital expenditures; estimates of resources and statements regarding future exploration results; and where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, forward looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. Such risks include, but are not limited to commodity price volatility, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in resource or reserve rates from those assumed in the company’s plans, as well as political and operational risks in the countries and states in which we operate or sell product to, and governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annual Reports, as well as the Company’s other filings. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly any revisions to any “forward looking statement” to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this release, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling	 Nature and quality of sampling (eg cut channels, random chips, or	Reverse circulation (“RC”) and large diameter core (“LDC”) drilling
techniques	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.	was used to collect samples. RC samples were collected on 0.5m intervals as soon as coal zones were reached. Drilling was stopped between each sample for dewatering and to allow accurate interval separation.
	 Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.	Sample bags were assigned hole and individual sample numbers, zipped tied and stored in heavy duty plastic tubs for transportation to laboratory.
	 Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.	For LDC drilling, all coal seams ≥0.5m were sampled. The entire coal zone was sampled and bagged for analysis. Rock partings ≥0.5m
	 In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be	were sampled and bagged separately.
	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	A suite of geophysical logs, including density, gamma, neutron, temperature and drill hole deviation were run both within drill pipe on all holes and in the open hole where ground conditions permitted.
	problems. Unusual commodities or mineralisation types (eg
	submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure of detailed information.
Drilling	 Drill type (eg core, reverse circulation, open-hole hammer, rotary air	In 2012 Jameson Resources Limited (“Jameson”) undertook an
techniques	blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc) and details (eg core diameter, triple or standard tube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit or other	exploration drilling program which included 40 reverse circulation drill holes for a total of 5,707m.
	type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc).	In 2013 Jameson undertook an exploration drilling program which
		included a total of 6 RC drill holes for 796m and 7 LDC (150mm) core
		holes for 853m using standard tube.
		LDC holes were twinned from existing 2012 and 2013 RC pilot holes.
		Holes were drilled vertical. The majority of the hole was cored.
		Certain sections of thick interburden(sandstone)were hammer

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		drilled.
		RC holes were drilled using a conventional face hammer, PDC or tri-
		cone drill bit.
Drill sample	 Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries	Core recovery from the LDC was excellent - overall greater than 95%.
recovery	and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.	Prognosis depth to coal seams was known from the geophysical log of the RC pilot hole. The driller was advised prior to reaching top of seam. Core catcher tools were used through less competent coal zones to ensure maximum recovery.
	 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.	For the majority of LDC holes all of the coal seam recovered was submitted to laboratory for coal quality test work
		2012 RC samples were largely wet and passed over a static 100
		mesh screen. 2013 RC samples were passed over a 325 mesh
		vibrating screen to ensure the vast majority of fine coal was retained
		and dewatered as much as possible.
		Sample was collected in polywoven cloth bags on 0.5 metre intervals.
Logging	 Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and	All core was photographed immediately following separation of split
	geotechnically logged to a level of detail to support appropriate	barrel at rig and also following mark-up.
	Mineral Resource estimation, mining studies and metallurgical studies.	Core was geologically and geotechnically logged before sampling and shipment to lab.
	 Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel, etc) photography.	RC holes were geologically logged.
	 The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.	Holes were geophysically logged as described in the section above.
		All geophysical tools were calibrated by the logging Company
		(Century Wireline) using their internal calibration procedures.
		Geophysical logs are analysed extensively and used to confirm and
		correct geological logs. Validation of geological logs against
		geophysics is undertaken to ensure accuracy.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sub-	 If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core	All core coal samples were bagged and placed into heavy duty plastic
sampling techniques	taken.  If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc and	tubs on site before being transported to Birtley Coal & Minerals (“Birtley”) in Calgary for coal quality test work.
and sample preparation	whether sampled wet or dry.  For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the	Roof and floor dilution samples were also collected and sent to laboratory for test work.
	sample preparation technique.	Core samples from the roof and floor along with selected zones of
	 Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise representivity of samples.	interburden have been retained for metal leaching and acid rock drainage analysis. The British Columbia Ministry of Energy and Mines requires this data as part of the environmental approvals
	 Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in	process.
	situ material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half sampling.	All remaining core sample (non-coal) was retained in wooden boxes and has been retained on pallets at each drill site within project area.
	 Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being sampled.	The majority of RC sample collected through the coal zones was retained.
		Birtley complies with Australian Standards for sample preparation and
		sub-sampling.
		The collection of LDC ensured sufficient bulk sample was retained for
		all the required coal quality test work.
Quality of	 The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and	Birtley adheres to ASTM and ISO preparation and testing
assay data and	laboratory procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.	specifications and has Quality Control processes in place. Birtley adopts standard quality control procedures and have
laboratory tests	 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.	participated in the International Canadian Coal Laboratories Round Robin Series (CANSPEX) since its inception. Geophysical tools were calibrated by the logging Company Century Wireline using their internal calibration procedures.
	 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	 The verification of significant intersections by either independent or	Many levels of analysis results verification are included in the ASTM
of sampling	alternative company personnel.	standards relating to coal quality analysis.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary	Commentary
and	 The use of twinned holes.		All LDC holes are twinned holes from RC pilot holes drilled in 2012
assaying	 Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data		and 2013 by Jameson. All holes have geophysical logs.
	verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.		Sample and coal quality results were verified by Jameson and
	 Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		Norwest Corporation before being reported or used in the resource model.
			All analytical data is provided by the coal laboratory and reviewed by
			external consultants for comments and reporting. No adjustments are
			made to any coal quality data: they are reported as received from the
			laboratory.
			Coal quality data is stored in electronic format (Microsoft Excel) and
			then transferred to a database retained by Norwest Corporation in
			Calgary.
Location of	 Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drill holes (collar and		All Jameson drill hole and trench locations are positioned by external
data points	down-hole surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource estimation.		professional contract surveyors Garrett Winkel Land Surveying Ltd both prior to and on completion of drilling campaign.
	 Specification of the grid system used.		Holes are surveyed in UTM NAD83 CSRS datum with geodetic (sea
	 Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		level) elevation.
			LIDAR topographic survey data with a 1m by 1m spacing was used
			to create gridded topographical surface.
Data	 Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.		Drill holes were nominally spaced at 150m in the North Block where
spacing and distribution	 Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral		geology is classified as Complex and at 250-300m spacings in the South Block where geology is classified as moderate.
	Resource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s) and		A total of 12 trenches were constructed using a back hoe. Coal
	classifications applied.		seams exposed were surveyed and provided additional data points
	 Whether sample compositing has been applied.		used to confirm the geological model.
			The data spacing is considered sufficient to give accurate control to
			the resource model and give the required confidence to the resource
			areas.
			Coalqualitysamples were individuallyanalysed. Individual samples

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		from coal intervals from the 2013 drill campaign were subsequently
		composited on a seam basis.
Orientation	 Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of	The orientation and spacing of the drilling grid is deemed to be
of data in	possible structures and the extent to which this is known, considering	suitable to detect geological structures and coal seam continuity
relation to	the deposit type.	within the resource area.
geological structure	 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.
Sample	 The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Core when removed from the borehole remains in the core splits until
security		identified and photographed.
		All coal sample is then bagged and labelled both internally and
		externally, then placed in heavy duty sealed plastic tubs.
		Samples are transported to laboratory on a hole by hole basis at the
		completion of each drill hole. A list of samples is created and a
		receipt is provided by the local courier.
		All of the un-sampled core is placed in heavy duty sealed wooden
		boxes and placed on pallets, strapped with metal banding and stored
		on-site.
Audits or	 The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.	Jameson together with Norwest Corporation, Birtley Coal & Minerals
reviews		Laboratory and other independent consultants were responsible for
		implementing and developing the sampling techniques and data
		capture.
		 Birtley adheres to ASTM and ISO preparation and testing
		specifications and has Quality Control processes in place.
		All drill hole and analytical data is stored and retained by Norwest
		Corporation in a database. Jameson has retained copies of all
		analytical reports and data in excel format

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, location and ownership including	Jameson through its wholly owned Canadian subsidiary NWP Coal
tenement	agreements or material issues with third parties such as joint	Canada Ltd (“NWP Coal”) has a 100% interest in the five granted coal
and land tenure	ventures, partnerships, overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or national park and environmental settings.	licenses and one coal licence application covering the Crown Mountain project. The licenses 418150, 418151, 418152, 418153, 418154 and 418430 (Application) cover a combined area of 3,563 ha.
status	 The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any	NWP Coal acquired the coal license rights from Robert J Morris in
	known impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.	2011. On completion of the transaction, Jameson has acquired a
		90% interest in the property, the remaining 10% being retained by Mr
		Robert J Morris as an undivided 10% interest (non-profit sharing)
		Jameson holds an option to acquire the remaining 10% interest. The
		option agreement requires that Jameson pay an annual rental fee of
		C$100,000. If Jameson elects to exercise the option and acquire the
		remaining 10% interest in the property it is obliged to pay Mr Robert J
		Morris a fee of C$2,000,000 which may take the form of a series of
		staged payments.
		The only other payment that the property is subject to is the annual
		rental fee of C$18,116 and the statutory production royalties to the
		BC Provincial government.
		The licences are in good standing and Jameson is unaware of any
		impediments to the security of tenure.
Exploration	 Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.	In 1969, Crowsnest Industries Ltd. completed a drilling program of 11
done by other parties		holes for a total of 1,668.m. Geophysical logs and survey data of the hole collars are the only records that remain from this drill program.
		In 1979, Crownsnest Resources Ltd / Shell Canada completed a
		drilling program of 7 holes for a total of 901m. Core drilling was
		attempted in two shallow holes.
		In 1980 and 1981, exploration using other methods was completed
		Onlyminimal coalqualitydata was available from the historical

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		exploration programs.
Geology	 Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.	The Crown Mountain Coal project lies within the Elk Valley coal field
		in southeast British Columbia, Canada.
		The property is divided into three structural domains with separate
		geological attributes. The domains are referred to as the North Block,
		South Block, and Southern Extension. The Crown Mountain thrust
		fault (“CMF”) separate the North Bock from the South Block and
		Southern Extension.
		Coal seams are hosted within the Jurassic to Lower Cretaceous Mist
		Mountain Formation. The coal bearing Mist Mountain Formation is
		underlain by the Morrissey Formation which includes the regional cliff
		forming Moose Mountain Member.
		Drilling has intersected three principal seams, named 8 Seam, 9
		Seam and 10 Seam. The 8 and 10 Seams consist of three major
		plies. The term major seam has been defined to include all seven
		seams in order to distinguish them from other coal horizons referred
		to as rider seams.
		The seven major seams have combined average net coal zone
		thickness of 35.32m in the North Block, 15.04m in the South Block
		and 14.79m in the Southern Extension.
Drill hole	 A summary of all information material to the understanding of the	At Crown Mountain a total of 71 holes have been drilled on site. A
Information	exploration results including a tabulation of the following information	total of 40 holes were drilled by Jameson in 2012, and a total of 13
	for all Material drill holes:	holes in 2013. Some of the holes were drilled as angle holes.
	o easting and northing of the drill hole collar	All of the holes excluding CMR79-104 were used in the 2012
	o elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drill hole collar	resource model. In addition, 12 trenches, 39 outcrop points with coal description and 203 outcrop points with dip and dip direction data were used in the 2012 resource model.
	o dip and azimuth of the hole	A full list of the drill holes used in the 2012 resource estimate
	o down hole length and interception depth	including easting, northing, RL, dip and azimuth, down hole depth and
	o hole length.	coal zone combined thickness and hole length is presented at the end of Table 1.
	 If the exclusion of this information isjustified on the basis that the

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	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	 In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques,	For Crown Mountain a minimum coal thickness of 0.5m and a
aggregation methods	maximum and/or minimum grade truncations (eg cutting of high grades) and cut-off grades are usually Material and should be stated.	maximum non-separable parting thickness of 0.5m was used for coal and waste discrimination
	 Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade	The compositing of the Reverse Circulation (RC) samples was done
	results and longer lengths of low grade results, the procedure used	by checking the thicknesses and depths of the recorded sample
	for such aggregation should be stated and some typical examples of	intervals against the depths on the geophysical logs. The sample
	such aggregations should be shown in detail.	intervals were then corrected to the logs, where needed. The
	 The assumptions used for any reporting of metal equivalent values should be clearly stated.	composites of the 0.5m samples were assembled based on the sample description and the seam limits of the coal interval from the geophysical logs.
		The compositing of the core samples was completed in a similar
		manner as the RC samples; the first step was to adjust the sample
		depths to those of the geophysical logs and then prepare the
		composites based on sample description, seam limits of the coal
		interval from the geophysical logs, and, additionally, from information
		on the core photographs. Separable and non-separable partings
		greater than a thickness of approximately 20cm were sampled
		independently from the coal. Depending on the parting thicknesses
		they were included or excluded in the composites. Selected rock
		parting, roof, and floor samples were analyzed separately from the
		coal.
Relationship	 These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of	All 2013 holes were drilled vertical. Drill holes had a natural tendency
between	Exploration Results.	to deviate from vertical because of the varying dips of strata and also
mineralisatio n widths and	 If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drill hole angle is known, its nature should be reported.	variance in competency between coal seams and harder sandstone partings.
intercept lengths	 If it is not known and only the down hole lengths are reported, there should be a clear statement to this effect (eg ‘down hole length, true width not known’).	Any bias in apparent thickness was eliminated using geophysical logs. Differentiation of coal of mineable thickness from separable waste
		intervals is based on true thickness. Using the down-hole survey for
		each drill hole,in combination with footwallpolylines of each seam,

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		an algorithm was used to convert down-hole lengths into true
		thickness for each of the intervals in a given coal zone.
Diagrams	 Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of	Formal resource and other technical reports containing diagrams
	intercepts should be included for any significant discovery being	drawn to JORC listed requirements have been prepared by
	reported These should include, but not be limited to a plan view of	independent consulting firm Norwest Corporation.
	drill hole collar locations and appropriate sectional views.	Diagrams include location maps, drill hole location plans and
		appropriate sectional views.
		Jameson has also prepared diagrams for external reporting according
		to JORC listed requirements.
Balanced	 Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not	Norwest completed a resource estimate for Crown Mountain based
reporting	practicable, representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be practiced to avoid misleading reporting of	on Jameson’s 2012 drilling campaign. The resource estimate was released in February 2013 and expressed the opinion that the
	Exploration Results.	majority of Crown Mountain coal is expected to be hard coking coal
		similar to that shipped from neighbouring mines.
		Norwest also identified the need to perform additional exploration,
		including bulk sampling, before definitive clean coal quality (and plant
		yield) can be determined. Results from the coal quality test work from
		the 2013 drilling campaign are expected by year end subject to lab
		availability/schedule.
Other	 Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported	Crown Mountain seams appear to have more non-separable partings
substantive	including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical	than nearby mines, plant yield may be below the prevailing yields of
exploration data	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.	60 to 70 % in the Elk Valley. Some groundwater has been encountered in drill holes. Five ground water monitoring stations (piezometers) have been installed in selected drill holes. In addition a well has been installed in one of the
		drill holes in the North Block to monitor water volumes.
		As a requirement of the Environmental Assessment, significant rock
		core and cuttings have been collected from the 2013 drilling
		campaign to address potential metal leaching and acid rock drainage
		issues.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Further work	 The nature and scale of planned further work (eg tests for lateral	The Crown Mountain geological model and resource estimate will be
	extensions or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).	revised on receipt of the 2013 coal quality testwork.
	 Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions,	Jameson has proposed to commence a pre-feasibility study following
	including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas,	revision of the geological model.
	provided this information is not commercially sensitive.	Further drilling will be required to upgrade the resource status in the
		Southern Extension from Inferred to Indicated.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section. This section is subject to change following update of existing geological model and resource estimation on receipt of all outstanding analytical results.)

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database	 Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for	Data is recorded manually onto logsheets in the field. Information is
integrity	example, transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for Mineral Resource estimation purposes.	entered into the Norwest database. Data correction and validation checks are undertaken both internally and by external consultants
	 Data validation procedures used.	before the data is used for modeling purposes.
Site visits	 Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and	Jameson has undertaken several site visits during the year including
	the outcome of those visits.	being present for the duration of the 2012 and 2013 drilling programs.
	 If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.	Several reviews were conducted of the field procedures and sampling
		practices, and they were deemed to be of an acceptable industry
		standard at the time of the visit.
		The Vice President of independent consultants Norwest Corporation
		undertook several site visits in 2012 and 2013
Geological	 Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of ) the geological	Geological interpretation of stratigraphy and seam continuity is at a
interpretatio	interpretation of the mineral deposit.	stage where confidence is high.
n	 Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.	An improved interpretation of the overall strata will be undertaken
	 The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource estimation.	once the 3D geological model has been updated with 2013 exploration data.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	 The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource
	estimation.
	 The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.
Dimensions	 The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as	The Crown Mountain property is divided into two distinct structural
	length (along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below	domains separated by a northerly trending thrust fault or CMF. There
	surface to the upper and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.	are three prospects within the project area, the “North Block” which is
		positioned above the CMF and the “South Block” and “Southern
		Extension” which are both below the CMF.
		Strike lengths for each of the three prospects are; North Block –
		1.5km, South Block - 4.4km and Southern Extension – 4.1km.
		The major seams in the North Block are structurally bound within a
		south plunging syncline, extending from surface to a maximum depth
		of 155m. Coal seams in the South Block and Southern Extension
		extend from surface to a maximum depth of 150m and are structurally
		bound within a dip slope monoclinal setting.
Estimation	 The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s)	The resource model for the Crown Mountain project was developed
and	applied and key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade	using Mintec’s geological modeling and mine planning software,
modelling techniques	values, domaining, interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a description of computer software and parameters used.	Minesight®. This system is widely used throughout the mining industry for digital resource model development. The selected block size was based on the density of the drill hole dataset as well as the requirements for the mining selectivity of this
	 The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine	deposit, in this case being 25m x 25m x 5m.
	production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes appropriate account of such data.	The Geological Type is classified as “Moderate” in the South Block and Southern Extension and “Complex” in the North Block.
	 The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.	Thickness models were prepared for the seven major seams 8 upper,
	 Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of	8 middle, 8 lower, 9, 10 upper, 10 middle and 10 lower plus the Rider
	economic significance (eg sulphur for acid mine drainage	Seams where appropriate.
	characterisation).	The depth limit for the potential surface mineable resource was based
	 In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to	on a vertical cut-off ratio limit of 20:1 m3/tonne.
	the average sample spacing and the search employed.	Acoaldensityvalue of 1.53 g/ccwas usedforthe conversionof

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	 Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.	volumes of in-place coal to tonnes.
	 Any assumptions about correlation between variables.	The resource areas include a provision at the coal outcrop to allow for
	 Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the resource estimates.	oxidation and weathering of the coal at the surface. The oxidation limit was taken to be 10m vertically
	 Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping.	Coal thicknesses were determined from drill hole intersections on the property, as well as from geophysical logs.
	 The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison
	of model data to drill hole data, and use of reconciliation data if
	available.
Moisture	 Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural	The tonnages are reported on an As Received Basis with natural
	moisture, and the method of determination of the moisture content.	moisture included. The moisture content is determined from the
		results of Proximate Analysis laboratory testing.
Cut-off	 The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters	Two resource estimates were made using different minimum net coal
parameters	applied.	thickness criteria. One estimate was made using a minimum thickness of 0.5 m and the second was made using a minimum of
		0.75m. In both cases these estimates were used to define potential
		surface mineable coal in the individual seams but the results were
		planned for use in examining different mining options.
Mining	 Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum	The targeted coal seams at Crown Mountain are suitable for open-cut
factors or	mining dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining	operations using the truck/shovel mining method. It is expected that
assumptions	dilution. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider	the mining conditions at Crown Mountain will be very similar to those at the nearby mines which also use the truck/shovel method.
	potential mining methods, but the assumptions made regarding
	mining methods and parameters when estimating Mineral Resources
	may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should be
	reported with an explanation of the basis of the mining assumptions
	made.
Metallurgical	 The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical	In January 2013, the coal quality aspects of Crown Mountain were
factors or	amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of	reviewed by independent consultants Kobie Koornhof Associates Inc.
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential metallurgical methods, but the assumptions	using public data from historic exploration, regional quality studies and data from the adjacent coal mines. They concluded that in the

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	regarding metallurgical treatment processes and parameters made	absence of detailed quality data which would allow a definitive
	when reporting Mineral Resources may not always be rigorous.	classification of these coals, and based on the information available,
	Where this is the case, this should be reported with an explanation of	the coals from Crown Mountain are considered to be similar in quality
	the basis of the metallurgical assumptions made.	or very close to, the premium Canadian coking coals.
		Norwest Corporation made recommendations in February 2013 to
		undertake a LDC drilling program to obtain bulk sample for
		washability testwork to determine plant yield as well as develop a
		definitive understanding of the coking properties of clean coal
		product.
		Results from the LDC testwork are still being processed.
Environmen-	 Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue	The Preliminary Economic Assessment (“PEA”) study shows open-pit
tal factors or	disposal options. It is always necessary as part of the process of	mining will commence from the North and advance southwards to the
assumptions	determining reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the potential environmental impacts of the mining and	Southern Extension over a 24 year mine life. Waste will be placed as either back fill as mining is completed or delivered to a West Dump
	processing operation. While at this stage the determination of	adjacent to the South and North pits.
	potential environmental impacts, particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this should be reported with	The PEA shows the wash plant facility will be located on the west side of the North Pit. It is proposed to deliver plant refuse to the West Dump.
	an explanation of the environmental assumptions made.	The greatest potential impacts of surface mining are likely to be those
		that affect surface water. In mines developed some years ago in
		similar physical locations with such topographical constraints, it was
		the accepted practice in waste dump areas to construct rock drains in
		the core of the dump as a means to conveying run-off. This method is
		no longer acceptable for water management since precipitation and
		runoff waters still interact with mined materials and can thus dissolve
		substances that occur in those rocks. These affects can cause the
		surface waters to acquire elevated levels of chemicals beyond those
		of the original water state. Thus the mine design will require that a
		water impoundment system be employed that minimizes this
		interaction while ensuring that all mine-affect waters can be treated
		prior to release.
		Environmental baseline studies are well advanced with the BC MOE
		required twoyear monthlywater samplingandqualitytest work

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
		scheduled for completion in April 2014.
		Hydrological studies including the installation of several down-hole
		ground water monitoring stations were completed in conjunction with
		the LDC drilling program in September 2013.
		Interburden rock samples for the purpose of geochemical analysis to
		evaluate the potential for metal leaching and acid rock drainage have
		been retained.
Bulk density	 Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the	A coal density value of 1.53 g/cc was used for the conversion of
	assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the	volumes of in-place coal to tonnes.
	frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.	Additional bulk density testwork is being undertaken on the samples, both coal and interburden, from the 2013 drilling program.
	 The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by
	methods that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity,
	etc), moisture and differences between rock and alteration zones
	within the deposit.
	 Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the
	evaluation process of the different materials.
Classificatio	 The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying	The Resource Estimate has been prepared in accordance with the
n	confidence categories.	requirements of the Canadian National Instrument (NI) 43-101 and
	 Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (ie relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input	the CIM Definition Standards. NI 43-101 is the Canadian equivalent of the JORC Standard.
	data, confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality,	The mineral resources are classified as to the assurance of their
	quantity and distribution of the data).	existence into one of three categories JORC equivalent categories
	 Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of the deposit.	Measured, Indicated and Inferred. The category to which a resource is assigned depends on the level of confidence in the geological information available (CIM Definition Standards –GSC Paper 88-21).
Audits or	 The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.	An internal Company review of the Resource and the associated

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
reviews		Technical Reports have been undertaken prior to public release of
		this information.
Discussion	 Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and	The Categories were considered acceptable by the Qualified Person
of relative	confidence level in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach	during the classification of the resources.
accuracy/ confidence	or procedure deemed appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative	The accuracy of resource estimates is, in part, a function of the quality and quantity of available data and of engineering and geological interpretation and judgment by the Qualified Person.
	discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and	Based on the historical and 2012 drill hole data, the resource
	confidence of the estimate.	estimate is considered reasonable.
	 The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local	Additional data and analysis available subsequent to the 2013
	estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be	Resource Estimate estimates may necessitate revision. These
	relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should	revisions may be material.
	include assumptions made and the procedures used.	There is no guarantee that all or any part of the estimated resources
	 These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate	will be recoverable
	should be compared with production data, where available.

Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Ore Reserves

This section is not addressed as no Coal Reserves have been determined at this stage of investigations.

Section 5 Estimation of Diamonds and Gems

This section is not addressed as no diamonds or other gemstones are reported for this EPC.

Drill Hole Data

	Hole Name	Dip	Azm	Lease	Prospect	Hole Type	Coal Zone Combined Net Thickness(m)	Geological Model	Core Diameter	Geophysical Tools Run	Total Depth (m)	Year Drilled
	CM12-01-CH	Vertical	-	418150	North	LDC	32.89	YES	150mm	CDRGNVT	152	2013
	CM11-12-CH	Vertical	-	418150	North	LDC	15.42	YES	150mm	CDRGNVT	73	2013
	CM13-15	Vertical	-	418151	East	RC	8.8	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	139	2013
	CM13-15-CH	Vertical	-	418151	East	LDC	10.22	YES	150mm	CDRGNVT	124	2013
	CM11-11-CH	Vertical	-	418151	North	LDC	13.67	YES	150mm	CDRGNVT	126	2013
	CM13-06	Vertical	-	418151	North	RC	4.95	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	54	2013
	CM13-17	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	8.35	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	194	2013
	CM11-22-CH	Vertical	-	418151	South	LDC	15.74	YES	150 mm	CDRGNVT	126	2013
	CM13-25	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	12	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	115	2013
	CM13-25-CH	Vertical	-	418151	South	LDC	10.89	YES	150mm	CDRGNVT	102	2013
	CM11-19-CH	Vertical	-	418151	South	LDC	18.55	YES	150 mm	CDRGNVT	150	2013
	CM13-20	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	11.85	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	158	2013
	CM13-19	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	4.5	YES	n/a	CDRGNVT	136	2013
	CM11-02	50	60	418150	North	RC	27.1	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	174	2012
	CM11-04	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	19.45	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	184	2012
	CM11-12	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	14.8	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	116	2012
	CM11-03B	50	265	418150	North	RC	23.6	YES	n/a	DGN	125	2012
	CM11-03A	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	31.9	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	186	2012
	CM11-07	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	18.8	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	163	2012
	CM11-02B	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	22.8	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	144	2012
	CM11-11	Vertical	-	418151	North	RC	14.25	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	142	2012
	CM11-08	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	2.85	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	82	2012
	CM11-22	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	14.8	YES	n/a	CDRGV	166	2012
	CM11-14	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	17.1	YES	n/a	DGN	136	2012
	CM11-18	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	13.25	YES	n/a	DGNV	109	2012
	CM11-16C	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	13.8	YES	n/a	DGN	111	2012
	CM11-20	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	12.1	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	131	2012
	CM11-19	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	14.5	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	172	2012
	CM11-17	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	19.35	YES	n/a	DGN	169	2012
	CM12-21	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	0	YES	n/a	DGN	160	2012
	CM11-21	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	6.65	YES	n/a	DGN	62	2012
	CM11-15	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	11.8	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	141	2012
	CM11-22B	50	75	418151	South	RC	13.35	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	160	2012
	CM12-18	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	9.7	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	231	2012
	CM12-01A	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	30.9	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	178	2012
	CM12-01B	50	265	418150	North	RC	29.2	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	148	2012
	CM12-09	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	13.05	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	163	2012
	CM12-10	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	29.25	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	172	2012
	CM12-17	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	10.45	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	148	2012
	CM12-19	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	9.85	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	182.5	2012
	CM12-28	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	12.45	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	142	2012
	CM12-29	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	3	YES	n/a	n/a	64	2012
	CM12-25	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	2.8	YES	n/a	CDGN	133	2012
	CM12-24	Vertical	-	418151	South	RC	0	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	157	2012
	CM12-31	Vertical	-	418153	North	RC	16.95	YES	n/a	DGN	100	2012
	CM12-16	Vertical	-	418151	North	RC	14.1	YES	n/a	DGN	82	2012
	CM12-06	50	256	418150	North	RC	22.15	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	175.5	2012
	CM12-04	Vertical	-	418150	North	RC	24.25	YES	n/a	DGN	181	2012
	CM12-34A	Vertical	-	418154	Southern Exte	RC	17.5	YES	n/a	CDRGV	118	2012
	CM12-34B	60	60	418154	Southern Exte	RC	17	YES	n/a	DGN	109	2012
	CM12-33B	65	60	418151	Southern Exte	RC	4.6	YES	n/a	CDRGNV	123	2012
	CM12-36B	70	60	418154	Southern Exte	RC	0	YES	n/a	CDRGV	75	2012
	CM12-38B	50	60	418151	Southern Exte	RC	4.55	YES	n/a	DGNV	192	2012
	CMD79-101B	Vertical	-	418150	North	Core	14.62	YES	Hole dia. 43/4"	DGN	45.2	1979
	CMD79-105B	Vertical	-	418151	South	Core	4.5	YES	Hole dia. 51/2"	DGN	66.3	1979
	CMR69-25	Vertical	-	418150	North	Rotary	25.9	YES	n/a	n/a	152.7	1969
	CMR69-26	Vertical	-	418150	North	Rotary	22.12	YES	n/a	GN	147.2	1969
	CMR69-27	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	9.9	YES	n/a	GN	141.4	1969
	CMR69-28	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	13.71	YES	n/a	GN	126.8	1969
	CMR69-29	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	18.32	YES	n/a	GN	121.6	1969
	CMR69-30	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	8.3	YES	n/a	n/a	134.1	1969
	CMR69-31	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	11.75	YES	n/a	GN	189.6	1969
	CMR69-32	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	13.48	YES	n/a	GN	140.2	1969
	CMR69-33	Vertical	-	418150	North	Rotary	20.34	YES	n/a	GN	189.6	1969
	CMR69-34	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	11.2	YES	n/a	GN	164	1969
	CMR69-35	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	12.19	YES	n/a	GN	161.2	1969
	CMR79-101	Vertical	-	418150	North	Rotary	23.22	YES	n/a	CDRG	201.2	1979
	CMR79-102	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	6.2	YES	n/a	CDRGN	265	1979
	CMR79-103	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	9.62	YES	n/a	DGN	138.8	1979
	CMR79-104	Vertical	-	418151	South	Rotary	4.8	NO	n/a	DG	140.5	1979
	CMR79-106	60	250	418150	North	Rotary	15.8	YES	n/a	DGN	54	1979
									Note - Geophysical Tools C Caliper D Density R Resistivity G Gamma N Neutron (through pipe) V Deviation T Temperature

==> picture [591 x 17] intentionally omitted <==

www.jamesonresources.com.au