MACRO METALS LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2014

Mar 3, 2014

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT AND MEDIA RELEASE

4 March 2014

MAIDEN 205 MILLION TONNE ORE RESERVE AT AGBAJA

Highlights

• Maiden Ore Reserve of 205 Mt @ 45.7% Fe

• Ore Reserve confirms PFS assumption for an initial minimum 21 year mine plan

• Important milestone for Definitive Feasibility Study due for completion end Q4 2014

Australian based iron ore development company, Kogi Iron Limited (ASX: KFE) (“Kogi”, “Kogi Iron” or the “Company”) and its 100% owned Nigerian operating company, KCM Mining Limited (“KCM”) are pleased to detail a maiden Ore Reserve estimate for the 100% owned Agbaja Iron Ore Project located in Kogi State, Republic of Nigeria, West Africa (“Agbaja” or “Agbaja Project”).

Ore Reserve Estimate

The maiden Ore Reserve estimate for the Agbaja Project (“Maiden Ore Reserve”) totals 205 million tonnes at 45.7% Fe and is classified as Probable Ore Reserve (refer Table 1 below).

Table 1 – Agbaja Project Ore Reserve Summary

Classification	Ore Tonnes (Mt)	Fe (%)	SiO2 (%)	Al203 (%)	P (%)	Mn (%)	LOI (%)
Probable	205	45.7	9.93	10.56	0.93	0.08	10.51

Note 1. Tonnes are expressed in dry metric tonnes

The Maiden Ore Reserve was determined in accordance with the JORC Code (2012) by Mr Harry Warries of independent, international mining consultancy, Coffey Mining Pty Ltd (“Coffey”) and closely follows the 29 January 2014 announcement by the Company of a positive Preliminary Feasibility Study (“PFS”) into the development of the Agbaja Project.

A detailed summary of the supporting project assumptions and data (Table 1 as per JORC (2012) guidelines) is provided in Appendix A.

Commenting on the Maiden Ore Reserve, Kogi’s Managing Director Mr Iggy Tan, said: “This Ore Reserve is another important milestone in Kogi’s vision to be an African iron ore producer and comes only a matter of weeks after the Company announced the very positive results from its PFS, giving us further confidence in the Agbaja Project.”

“The 205 million tonne Maiden Ore Reserve re-affirms the PFS findings that there is sufficient mineable ore of requisite grade within the Stage 1 and Stage 2 mining areas at Agbaja to support economic mining and processing operations at an annual rate of 5.0 million tonnes of iron ore concentrate, for 21 years. The Maiden Ore Reserve will be the basis for a Definitive Feasibility Study (“DFS”) at Agbaja, which the Company expects to complete by the end of 2014.”

Kogi Iron Limited 13 Colin Street PO Box 1934 Telephone: +61 8 9200 3456 ABN 28 001 894 033 West Perth Western Australia 6005 West Perth Western Australia 6872 Facsimile: +61 8 9200 3455 KCM Mining Limited Australia Australia Website: www.kogiiron.com (Nigerian Subsidiary)

==> picture [106 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Summary of Kogi’s Mineral Resource and Ore Reserves Estimates

Over the last two years the Company has been pleased to announce progressive increases in the size and geological confidence of the Agbaja Project Mineral Resource/Ore Reserve estimates, as the level of knowledge and geological understanding of the Project has grown. These announcements are summarised below:

Date of ASX Announcement 28 September 2012 10 December 2013 10 December 2013 27 February 2014	Resource/Reserve Estimation Maiden Resource (Inferred) Updated Mineral Resource (20% increase) Maiden Indicated Mineral Resource Maiden Ore Reserve	Tonnes & Grade 488 Mt @ 42.7% Fe 586 Mt @ 41.3% Fe 466 Mt @ 41.4% Fe 205 Mt @ 45.7% Fe

The general relationship between the exploration phase of the Project (Mineral Resources) and the development phase (Ore Reserves) is best illustrated by Figure 1 below, which is taken from the JORC Code (2012) and is populated with the Company’s Updated Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve numbers.

Figure 1 – General relationship between Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (2012 JORC)

==> picture [313 x 188] intentionally omitted <==

Cut-off grade

As the processing method selected by the Company for the Agbaja Project incorporates magnetic separation, the cut-off for ore determination was not based on Fe, rather, it was based on the magnetic susceptibility of the mineralised material. The magnetic susceptibility measurements identified that the boundary between magnetic and non-magnetic material is very sharp, i.e. the material is either magnetic or not. The lateritic (Zone A) horizon is non-magnetic.

A cut-off of 20 x 10 -3 SI within the Zone B (Oolite) resource was used for ore determination. It is noted that the Oolite zone was based on a nominal 30% Fe lower cut-off.

The deposit exhibits a relatively consistent ore profile that comprises a layer of lateritic material (non-magnetic and not treated at this stage of the Project) followed by a layer of oolitic material (magnetic). In addition, the deposit is relatively contiguous and readily discernible. As such, no pit optimisation was undertaken. The pit design was based on the Stage 1 and Stage 2 mining areas that exhibited the lowest waste to ore strip ratio and was sufficiently large to sustain a 21 year mine life (refer figure 2 below).

2

==> picture [106 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Figure 2 – Proposed Stage 1 & Stage 2 Mining Areas

==> picture [407 x 172] intentionally omitted <==

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

Stage 1 Mine Area
Stage 2 Mine Area
15 Years
6 Years
----- End of picture text -----

Preliminary Feasibility Study (Material Assumptions and Outcomes)

In determining the Maiden Ore Reserve, Coffey undertook detailed mine planning work based on the Company’s 466 million tonne Indicated Mineral Resource (refer ASX Announcement 10 December 2013) and considered various material assumptions and Modifying Factors from the PFS which are summarised in Table 2 below and discussed in more detail on pages 18 to 23 of this announcement (Appendix A – JORC Code (2012) Table 1).

Table 2 – Summary of the Material Modifying Factors applied in Ore Reserve Determination

Item	Unit	Value
Crusher feed Crusher feedyield	Mtpa %	11.1 45
Product rate	Mtpa	5
Product price Royalty (of net revenue)	US$/dmt %	73 4
Initial capital expenditure Sustainingcapital	US$M US$M	497 144
Processing cost Barging and transhipping Average mining costs (Contract mining) General and administration cost	US$/dmt product US $/dmt product US $/dmt product US$/dmtproduct	13.96 18.77 8.12 2.13
Mining dilution Miningrecovery	% %	1 94
Overallpit wall slope angle(inclusive of a rampsystem)	degrees	40

The PFS determined that the Agbaja Project is a robust and attractive project. The payback of the Project is excellent at four years with a net present value of US$420 million (@ 12% discount) and Internal Rate of Return of 23.7%. The Project ranks in the bottom quartile for capital intensity and bottom half of operating cost curve of magnetite projects around the world. Agbaja is positioned in the most attractive cost profile and lowest capital intensity matrix quadrant (bottom left quadrant), which reflects in the overall potential and robustness of the Project.

Mining Method, Recovery, Dilution and Infrastructure

The Agbaja iron ore deposit comprises an extensive shallow (on average less than 30m) flat-lying channel iron deposit of material that is relatively soft and friable. It is proposed the deposit be mined using traditional truck/excavator open pit development which will result in a low strip ratio of 0.55 to 1 over the 21 year mine plan. The low stripping ratio is a distinct advantage for the Project and is expected to deliver relatively low mining costs, estimated in the PFS at US$3.69/t of ore feed to the processing plant, which equates to US$8.12/t of iron ore concentrate produced.

3

==> picture [106 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

The mine plan is primarily based on Indicated Resources with 8% of the mill feed being classified as Inferred Resources. The Maiden Ore Reserve is located within the two initial mining areas (Stage 1 and Stage 2) identified during the PFS, as illustrated in Figure 2. The mine plan incorporates a two year mining ramp-up, with steady state production of 5 Mtpa of product (or 11.1 Mtpa of crusher feed based on a yield of 45%) reached in Year 3. The average total material movement (ore and waste) after Year 3 ranges from 18 Mtpa to 21 Mtpa.

In the absence of geotechnical parameters, the pit design was based on a terrace style pit wall configuration, adopting 75 degree batter angles, in conjunction with 2m high benches and 2m wide berms. Mining dilution and mining recovery was modelled by regularising the sub-blocked resource model using a selective mining unit (SMU) of 20mE x 20mN x 2mRL. The SMU resulted in a 6% ore loss and a 1% dilution in Fe grade.

As the Agbaja deposit exhibits a relatively consistent ore profile that comprises a layer of lateritic material (non-magnetic and not treated at this stage of the Project) followed by a layer of oolitic material (magnetic) and the deposit is relatively contiguous and readily discernible, no pit optimisation was undertaken and the pit design was based on an area that exhibited the lowest waste to ore strip ratio.

The primary infrastructure required for the development of the Project are: general administration and services infrastructure, general mining facilities, natural gas fired power station at site, process plant, a 22 km slurry pipeline pumping concentrate from the process plant to the river barging facility, a river barging facility which will be powered by dedicated diesel generators, a barge transfer station located some 600 km from the river barging facility where the iron ore product is transferred onto ocean going barges, and a floating transhipment storage facility where the product will be loaded onto Panamax or Cape size ships.

Mineral Resource Estimation Methodology

The Zone B (Oolite) component of the 466 million tonne Indicated Mineral Resource (which was the major portion of the Updated Mineral Resource announced by the Company on 10 December 2013) was estimated by Coffey and forms the basis for the Maiden Ore Reserve estimate (refer Table 3).

Table 3 – Updated Mineral Resource (2013) at 20% Fe cut-off

	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project	Kogi Iron – Agbaja Project
	Grade Tonnage for Laterite (Zone A) and Oolitic (Zone B) Horizons - December 2013
				20% Fe lower cutoff is applied
Classification	Tonnes (Mt)	Fe (%)	SiO2 (%)	Al2O3 (%)	P (%)	LOI (%)	CaO (%)	K2O (%)	MgO (%)	Mn (%)	Na2O (%)	S (%)	TiO2 (%)
				Zone A
Indicated	147.5	33.2	24.24	14.77	0.32	10.4	0.03	0.07	0.07	0.05	0.02	0.04	0.98
Inferred	33.9	31.7	26.15	15.04	0.30	10.3	0.04	0.07	0.07	0.04	0.01	0.04	0.98
Total Indicated + Inferred	181.4	32.9	24.60	14.82	0.31	10.4	0.03	0.07	0.07	0.04	0.02	0.04	0.98
				Zone B
Indicated	318.7	45.2	10.54	10.51	0.92	10.8	0.22	0.01	0.08	0.09	0.02	0.08	0.25
Inferred	86.3	44.7	11.25	10.73	0.87	10.8	0.13	0.01	0.07	0.07	0.01	0.05	0.26
Total Indicated + Inferred	405.0	45.1	10.69	10.56	0.91	10.8	0.20	0.01	0.08	0.08	0.02	0.07	0.25
				Combined Zone A and Zone				B
Total Indicated	466.2	41.4	14.87	11.86	0.73	10.7	0.16	0.03	0.08	0.07	0.02	0.07	0.48
Total Inferred	120.1	41.1	15.45	11.95	0.71	10.6	0.11	0.03	0.07	0.06	0.01	0.04	0.46
Total Indicated + Inferred	586.3	41.3	14.99	11.88	0.72	10.7	0.15	0.03	0.08	0.07	0.02	0.06	0.48

4

==> picture [106 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Estimation and modelling techniques used for the Updated Mineral Resource (2013)

The Updated Mineral Resource was estimated using Ordinary Kriging techniques in Vulcan mining software, search parameters were based on variography carried out on the 1m composites and supported by geological knowledge gained from field mapping and drill hole data. The Updated Mineral Resource estimate was compared with the previous Coffey 2012 Resource estimate (Maiden Mineral Resource), with the differences being accounted for by extensional and infill drilling, and improved understanding of the geology and mineralisation after the 2013 field work.

The primary commodity considered in the Updated Mineral Resource estimation was Fe. A full suite of elements was also estimated (SiO2, Al2O3, P, LOI, CaO, K2O, MgO, Mn, Na2O, S, TiO2) with some of those elements considered to be deleterious (P, SiO2 and Al2O3). The parent block size has considered the drill hole spacing and variography, as have the search parameters. The geological/mineralisation interpretation was developed for Zone A (Laterite) and Zone B (Oolite) using hard boundaries (wireframes). Selective mining units were not defined or corrected for in the Mineral Resource estimate. However, a bulk open pit mining scenario possibly using continuous miners was considered in selection of the parent block size.

Processing Method

Figure 3 below, illustrates the proposed process flow sheet for Agbaja, where a primary grind size for run-of-mine ore of 600 micron has been selected, with a final grind size at a relatively coarse 250 micron. Grinding will be followed by Low Intensity Magnetic Separation (LIMS) which is a robust, high capacity and well established mineral processing technology. Yield is expected to be ~45% and following microbial treatment of the ex-plant concentrate to reduce the phosphorous content to 0.25% in open swimming pool style vats, the final iron ore concentrate is expected to have a grade of ~56% Fe with SiO2 3.8%, Al2O3 6.6% and P 0.25%. From the bio-leach vats the concentrate slurry will be thickened for pumping down from the Agbaja Plateau to a barge loading facility at Banda on the banks of the Niger River, where it will be dewatered and loaded onto river barges for transport down river to a transfer station at Escravos, then transferred to ocean going barges for delivery to a transhipper, moored in the Gulf of Guinea.

Figure 3 – Proposed Process Flow Sheet Schematic

==> picture [466 x 333] intentionally omitted <==

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

Excavator and
Truck Mining
Ore Haulage
ROM
Primary
Crusher/Sizer
> 15mm
< 15mm
Crushed
Ore Sec
Stockpile Crusher
+600 µm
+250 µm
Ball Mill Rougher
LIMS
Cleaner
Mags LIMS
-600 µm
Non Tertiary
Mags -250 µm Mags Crusher
Non Mags Tails thickener
Tailings Return
Plateau Slurry Pipeline Nutrients to Pit
& Microbes
Banda Bio Leach Ponds
Return and Makeup Water
Pipeline
Water Storage
Banda Barge Facility
River Barge
----- End of picture text -----

5

==> picture [106 x 31] intentionally omitted <==

Mineral Tenement

The Maiden Ore Reserve is wholly situation within Exploration Licence (EL) 12124 which was granted under the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007 to KCM Mining Limited, a wholly owned subsidiary of Kogi Iron. EL12124 was granted on 23 January 2012 for 3 years and may be renewed for a further two, two year periods on application.

Social and Environmental Impact

An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was undertaken by Greenwater Environmental Services Limited (Greenwater), a Nigerian company that is accredited by the Nigerian Federal Ministry of Environment (FMEnv).

The ESIA concluded that, on balance, the Project would have a positive impact on the social aspects of the area and gauged that it would positively impact the local stakeholder economy, the Local Government area and the communities of the Agbaja Plateau generally, with similar positive impacts on Kogi State and Nigeria.

In terms of environmental impact, the ESIA reported that the areas directly affected by Kogi Iron’s proposed mining and processing activities are predominantly low value scrub land and savannah woodland intercepted by grasslands, all of which have limited agricultural use or environmental significance. There were no rare or endangered species of flora or fauna identified in the proposed mine and operational areas, and furthermore the ESIA stated that anticipated environmental impacts from planned mining, processing and associated activities can be mitigated and managed via the requisite Environmental Management Plan, submitted as part of the ESIA. Kogi submitted the ESIA to the FMEnv in February 2014 and following a public exposure period and a panel review by the FMEnv it is anticipated that ESIA will be approved. There is currently no reason to believe that after the public consultation period and a formal review of the ESIA, the necessary Government approvals will not be received within the timeframes anticipated in the PFS.

-end-

6

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Appendix A

‘JORC Code 2012 Table 1’ Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

(Criteria in this section apply to all succeeding sections).

ASX ANN	Criteria JORC Code Explanation Commentary Competent Person
	~~OUNCEMENT AND MEDIA RELEASE~~ Sampling techniques  Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels, random chips, or specific specialised industry standard measurement tools appropriate to the minerals under investigation, such as down hole gamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc.). These examples should not be taken as limiting the broad meaning of sampling.  Include reference to measures taken to ensure sample representivity and the appropriate calibration of any measurement tools or systems used.  Aspects of the determination of mineralisation that are Material to the Public Report.  In cases where ‘industry standard’ work has been done this would be relatively simple (e.g. ‘reverse circulation drilling was used to obtain 1m samples from which 3kg 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)maywarrant disclosure of detailed information.  The Agbaja deposit was sampled using a Reverse Circulation (RC) and diamond drill holes (DD) on nominal 200m x 100m grid spacing. A total of 686 RC drill holes were drilled for 16,244m. The DD was primarily used to ‘twin’ the RC drill holes. A total of 11 DD drill holes were drilled for 233m.  RC drilling samples were taken at consecutive 1m intervals down hole and riffle split to 1-2kg then dispatched for sample preparation at ALS Minerals, Ghana.  Twin drilling by PQ diamond coring was undertaken for the DD drill holes. Core was shipped to ALS/AMMTEC laboratories in Perth and 1m interval samples were taken (complete core sections) for analysis.  All drilling was logged with recovery recorded and entered into a sampling database with standardised codes onsite soon as practically possible after the drill hole was completed. WC(Warwick Crowe)
	Drilling techniques  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, face-sampling bit or other type, whether core is oriented and if so, by what method, etc.).  Vertical RC drilling (6 inch hole diameter) was conducted using a face-sampling drill bit. RC drilling accounts for 99% of the drilling database. RC drill hole depths range from 12.5m to 35.5m with 3 deeper RC holes drilled to a maximum of 84m for sterilisation purposes. Vertical diamond drilling was conducted using double tube PQ sized conventional 1.6m drill tube on a converted RC drilling rig. DD drill hole depths range from 16.9m to 29.8m. WC
	Drill sample recovery  Method of recording and assessing core and chip sample recoveries and results assessed.  Measures taken to maximise sample recovery and ensure representative nature of the samples.  Whether a relationship exists between sample recovery and grade and whether sample bias may have occurred due to preferential loss/gain of fine/coarse material.  RC samples are weighed and recorded on site then transferred to the database for each 1m interval. Sample weights typically exceeded 20kg before riffle splitting.  Recovery of diamond drilling was recorded on site and averaged 70% (total hole) and 73% for the main mineralised section.  A twin hole review of 9 DD twins was completed, and shows no significant sample bias. WC

7

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Logging		Whether core and chip samples have been geologically and geotechnically		All RC drill holes were geologically logged at a sample interval of 1m for lithology, colour,	WC
		logged to a level of detail to support appropriate Mineral Resource estimation,		weathering, minerals, magnetism, main particle size and general observations in
		mining studies and metallurgical studies.		standard company template using a standard code library.
		Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative in nature. Core (or costean, channel,		Logging was both qualitative (e.g. lithology description, colour and comments) and
		etc.) photography.		quantitative (e.g. measurement of magnetic susceptibility).
		The total length and percentage of the relevant intersections logged.		The drill holes were logged in their entirety (100%).
				Logging of the 2013 diamond drillholes included recording of lithological contacts,
				weathering contacts, and structural orientations; dry core photos were taken. All core
				was logged in standard company template using a standard code library.
				Loggingis of sufficientqualityand detail for use in mineral resource studies.
Sub-sampling		If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter, half or all core taken.		Samples are riffle split at site through 2-tier riffle splitter. The splitter is cleaned after	WC
techniques and		If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotary split, etc. and whether sampled		each sample.
sample preparation		wet or dry.		The laboratory sample preparation by ALS (Ghana) of RC drill samples from site is of
		For all sample types, the nature, quality and appropriateness of the sample		industry standard, comprising drying, crushing to <2mm p70%, riffle split sub-sample of
		preparation technique.		250g, pulverization to 75µm p85%.
		Quality control procedures adopted for all sub-sampling stages to maximise		Field duplicates and blanks are inserted at a ratio of approximately 1 in 16. Kogi
		representivity of samples.		standards (two covering different grades) are inserted at a ratio of approximately 1 in 8.
		Measures taken to ensure that the sampling is representative of the in situ		Sample and particle sizes are appropriate for the target mineral (Fe).
		material collected, including for instance results for field duplicate/second-half		Complete core (PQ size) was crushed in 1m intervals and split for analyses at
		sampling.		ALS/AMMTEC laboratories, with crushing to <2mm p70%, riffle split sub-sample of
		Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grain size of the material being		250g, pulverization to 75µm p85%.
		sampled.		The sampling techniques are considered appropriate, and provide a representative
				sample for assaying.
				The twin hole review was completed for 9 DD/RC hole twins, and results show no
				significant samplingbias.
Quality of assay		The nature, quality and appropriateness of the assaying and laboratory		Assay of the RC and DD samples used industry standard techniques. Assaying was	WC/DS(David
data and laboratory		procedures used and whether the technique is considered partial or total.		performed by ALS Geochemistry, Perth, Western Australia with methods comprising 24	Slater)
tests		For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRF instruments, etc., the		elements/oxides by XRF fusion (ALS code ME-XRF21n) and LOI1000 by TGA furnace
		parameters used in determining the analysis including instrument make and		(ALS code ME-GRAO5). The techniques are considered to represent total
		model, reading times, calibrations factors applied and their derivation, etc.		concentration.
		Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g. standards, blanks, duplicates,		Kogi QAQC iron ore standards are inserted in the drill hole sample sequences randomly
		external laboratory checks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy (i.e. lack		at a ratio of approximately 1 in 8 prime samples; blanks and field duplicates are inserted
		of bias) and precision have been established.		at a ratio of approximately 1 in 16 prime samples.
				The Kogi QAQC sample results are assessed from the certificated laboratory reports
				and show acceptable levels of accuracy and precision with respect to known values in
				the case of standards and blanks, and the correlated duplicate and prime samples. The
				laboratory also conducts routine internal standard, pulp duplicate and repeat assays
				which have been analysed with no major issues determined.
				Coffey has completed an independent review of the available QAQC data for both the
				2011-2012 and 2013 drill programs and determined that acceptable levels of accuracy
				andprecision have been established for the sub-samplingand assaying processes.

8

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Verification of		The verification of significant intersections by either independent or alternative		Coffey has checked core photos against the assay and geological logs. Data is entered	WC/DS
sampling and		company personnel.		into an industry standard relational database by independent data specialist group
assaying		The use of twinned holes.		Maxwell Geoservices. Data entry procedures include standard error and missing data
		Documentation of primary data, data entry procedures, data verification, data storage (physical and electronic) protocols.		checks; final entered data is checked by a Kogi geologist. Data storage is hardcopy logs and assay reports, and digital data on a file server with back-ups in Perth, Australia.
		Discuss any adjustment to assay data.		No adjustments have been made to the assay data.
				A twin hole program of 11 holes has been completed; however only twin assay data for 9
				pairs was available. Coffey has reviewed the twin hole assay data and finds minor
				‘tailing’ has occurred in the RC drilling at the oolite – kaolinitic sandstone contact where
				possible loss of circulation due to hole blowout has occurred. However, the results of
				the DD holes, globally, are comparable with the RC holes notwithstanding the above.
				A member of the Coffey team Brendan Botha (Pri.Sci.Nat, MGSSA) conducted a site
				visit in January 2012, reviewing data from the RC drilling programme, and concluded all
				RC drilling procedures were appropriate. David Slater (responsible for the resource
				estimate) has not visited the Project, but has reviewed DD photographs and reports.
				For the drilling phase, geological data is entered directly into a standard company
				template spreadsheet using a standard code library. The data is then compiled in a
				standardised relational database and validated.
				Assay data for the drilling is provided as comma delimited files from the laboratory and
				extracted through a query directly into the assay table, eliminating the chance of data-
				entry transcription errors. Spot checks are made, validating against the original
				laboratory certificates. The global database is managed by a specialised database
				consultant Maxwell Geoservices in Fremantle Western Australia.
				Data has been provided to Coffey as an Access database from Maxwell Geoservices.
				Basic validation checks (e.g. looking for missing or overlapping intervals) were
				conducted by Coffey to ensure the resource database was internally consistent and
				contained no obvious errors.
				All of the 2011-2012 and 2013 assay data with the exception of two diamond drilling twin
				holes (assaying not completed) and hole L20S-03RC (identified as problematic due to a
				possible samplepreparation issue)was used in the resource estimation.
Location of data		Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locate drillholes (collar and down-hole		Drill hole collars are surveyed using DGPS by registered surveyor (MinStaff Survey Pty	WC/DS
points		surveys), trenches, mine workings and other locations used in Mineral Resource		Ltd) and tied into a global grid. The grid system used is UTM WGS85_32N.
		estimation.		Downhole surveys for the 2013 holes were not taken as holes are vertical and shallow.
		Specification of the grid system used.		The surface topography used in the resource is derived from a combination of the 30m
		Quality and adequacy of topographic control.		Shuttle Radar Topography Mission (SRTM) and drillhole collars. For mine planning, a
				detailed topography that eliminates the vegetation canopy is recommended. The
				topography is adequate for use in the mineral resource estimate, and has been
				considered in resource classification at the resource margins where the lower accuracy
				SRTM data was used.

9

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Data spacing and		Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.		The drilling was conducted on an approximate 100m by 200m NE-SW oriented grid with	WC/DS
distribution		Whether the data spacing and distribution is sufficient to establish the degree of		some closer spaced and overlapping drill holes. This is considered sufficient to establish
		geological and grade continuity appropriate for the Mineral Resource and Ore		the continuity of geology and mineralisation for the purposes of the Mineral Resource
		Reserve estimation procedure(s) and classifications applied.		estimate.
		Whether sample compositing has been applied.		Initial RC drilling (~160 holes) was sampled at 0.5m intervals. These were composited
				to 1m intervals for assay. The remaining holes were subsequently sampled and
				assayed at 1m intervals. This 1m sample interval is sufficient to map the geological and
				grade continuity for the mineral resource definition.
				Diamond drilling was used to twin 11 RC holes. The DD holes were drilled in
				approximate 1.5m run lengths. The core was subsequently divided into regular 1m
				intervals for assay. The continuity of core and its 1m interval subdivision for assay is
				suitable forgeological andgrade comparison with the twinned RC holes.
Orientation of data		Whether the orientation of sampling achieves unbiased sampling of possible		All holes were drilled vertically and perpendicular to flat-lying to sub-horizontal	WC
in relation to		structures and the extent to which this is known, considering the deposit type.		sedimentary beds and channels that host the iron mineralisation.
geological		If the relationship between the drilling orientation and the orientation of key		Drill traverses are oriented approximately across the strike of the palaeochannels.
structure		mineralised structures is considered to have introduced a sampling bias, this
		should be assessed and reported if material.
Sample security		The measures taken to ensure sample security.		RC drill sampling was supervised by the site geologist; all samples were transported at	WC
				end of shift to site base camp and stored in enclosed sheds within camp confines with
				24 hour security guards present. Samples were split on-site and packed into large
				drums mounted on pallets and then sealed for export. The samples were submitted to
				the ALS laboratory security-system in Ghana.
				Diamond core was packed into core trays at site and transported to base camp at the
				end of each shift. As for the RC samples, the DD samples were stored in enclosed
				sheds within camp confines with 24 hour security guards present. Core trays were
				sealed andpacked into crates for direct shipment to ALS/AMMTEC laboratories in Perth.
Audits or reviews		The results of any audits or reviews of sampling techniques and data.		The Company’s RC drilling and assay procedures were independently reviewed by	WC/DS
				Coffey during the site visit as part of the September 2012 Inferred Mineral Resource.
				The sampling techniques were found to be of sufficient quality and appropriate for this
				type of deposit to be used in Mineral Resource estimation.

10

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

‘JORC Code 2012 Table 1’ Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

(Criteria listed in the preceding section also apply to this section).

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Mineral tenement		Type, reference name/number, location and ownership including agreements		The tenement was granted under the Nigerian Minerals and Mining Act 2007 to KCM	WC/DS
and land tenure		or material issues with third parties such as joint ventures, partnerships,		Mining Limited. EL12124 was granted on 23 January 2012 for 3 years. The definition of
status		overriding royalties, native title interests, historical sites, wilderness or		the perimeter is delineated by topographic co-ordinates (Longitude/Latitude,
		national park and environmental settings.		Degree/Minute/Second).
		The security of the tenure held at the time of reporting along with any known		Kogi Iron has a 100% beneficial interest in the tenements.
		impediments to obtaining a licence to operate in the area.		The tenement boundary has been transposed to UTM grid for use in the resource model.
				The resource model mineralisation is bounded bythe northern margin of the tenement.
Exploration done		Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration by other parties.		Previous exploration and resource work carried out by other parties is detailed in reports:	WC
by other parties				- Jones, H.A. 1958: The oolitic ironstones of Agbaja Plateau, Kabba Province.
				Records of the Geological Survey of Nigeria, pp20-43.
				- Maynard, A.J. 2011: Independent Geological Report on Iron Project Licenses in Kogi
				State, Nigeria. Report for Energio Limited (now Kogi Iron Limited) and included in
				ASX Announcement, Prospectus dated 15 December 2011.
				- Crowe, W. 2011: Summary Field report on the Geological and Geophysical Survey
				Program within the KCM Mining Ltd. Iron Ore Tenements EL8583 and EL8886 in
				Kogi State, Nigeria. Report prepared by International Geoscience.
				- Coffey Mining (SA) Pty Ltd., 2012: Resource Estimation of the Agbaja Plateau Iron
				Ore Project,Kogi State,Nigeria.
Geology		Deposit type, geological setting and style of mineralisation.		Iron mineralisation within the Agbaja Plateau is a Channel Iron type deposit hosted in the	WC
				sub-horizontal to very shallow east dipping, Late Cretaceous Agbaja Formation and
				typically forms the resistant hard cap top of the plateau. The margins of the plateau are
				characteristically bound by prominent escarpments of a few metres to 10s of meters above
				a flanking scree slope comprising eroded Agbaja Formation and the softer underlying Patti
				and Lokoja Formations.
				The Agbaja Formation and the iron mineralisation is laterally and areally extensive across
				the Agbaja Plateau and consists of an upper unit comprising beds of ferruginous
				sandstone and reworked oolite/pisolite material (referred to as the Laterite unit) that
				overlies a sequence of massive ferruginous oolite and pisolite in a ferruginous matrix
				(referred to as the Oolitic unit).
				Both the Lateritic and Oolitic units show an overprinting secondary ferruginisation, often
				seen as harder vertical and horizontal bands which have exploited bedding and fracture
				surfaces, and as concentric zonations within the units and typically between ferruginous
				fractures. Subsequent weathering with associated lateritisation has overprinted the
				overlying sandstone unit and the upper edge of the main oolitic unit. The principal iron
				minerals in both the matrix and ooids/pisolites of the main oolititc unit are goethite and
				maghemite/magnetite, and in the upper lateritic sandstone (including thin oolitic layers)the
				principal iron mineral isgoethite with subordinate hematite.
Criteria	JORC Code Explanation		Commentary		Competent Person

11

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Drillhole		A summary of all information material to the understanding of the exploration		As outlined in Section 1 of this table, there are 686 RC drill holes and 11 DD holes at the	WC/DS
Information		results including a tabulation of the following information for all Material		Agbaja Project dating back to 2011, forming the basis for the Mineral Resource estimate
		drillholes:		outlined in Section 3 of this Table. Material drill results for the Agbaja Project have
		 easting and northing of the drillhole collar  elevation or RL (Reduced Level – elevation above sea level in metres) of the drillhole collar		previously been announced to the market as required under the reporting rules defined by the JORC Code (2004) and the ASX Listing Rules. All material exploration results relevant to the Agbaja Project area have been considered in establishing the Mineral Resource discussed in section 3. Going forward any new exploration results that result in a material
		 dip and azimuth of the hole  downhole length and interception depth		change to the existing Mineral Resource in section 3 will be updated as required under JORC Code 2012 and current ASX Listing Rules. A drill hole collar plan was provided in Figure 1 in the 10 December 2013 ASX
		 hole length		announcement titled “Mineral Resources at Agbaja increase 20% to 586MT includes an
		If the exclusion of this information is justified on the basis that the information		Indicated Mineral Resource of 466MT”.
		is not Material and this exclusion does not detract from the understanding of
		the report,the Competent Person should clearlyexplain whythis is the case.
Data aggregation		In reporting Exploration Results, weighting averaging techniques, maximum		No material changes to exploration results or drill hole intercepts are stated in this ASX
methods		and/or minimum grade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) and cut-off		announcement. This statement relates to a Mineral Resource only. .
		grades are usually Material and should be stated.
		Where aggregate intercepts incorporate short lengths of high grade 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
		clearlystated.
Relationship		These relationships are particularly important in the reporting of Exploration		No material changes to exploration results or drill hole intercepts are stated in this ASX
between		Results.		announcement. This statement relates to a Mineral Resource only. .
mineralisation		If the geometry of the mineralisation with respect to the drillhole angle is
widths and		known, its nature should be reported.
intercept lengths		If it is not known and only the downhole lengths are reported, there should
		be a clear statement to this effect (e.g. ‘downhole length, true width not
		known’).
Diagrams		Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) and tabulations of intercepts		No material changes to exploration results or drill hole intercepts are stated in this ASX	WC/DS
		should be included for any significant discovery being reported These should		announcement. This statement relates to a Mineral Resource only.
		include, but not be limited to a plan view of drillhole collar locations and		A drill hole plan and typical cross section were provided in Figures 1 and Figure 2
		appropriate sectional views.		respectively of the 10 December 2013 ASX announcement titled “Mineral Resources at
				Agbaja increase 20% to 586MT includes an Indicated Mineral Resource of 466MT”..
				Cross sections and photos of the geology and mineralisation have been released in
				previous ASX announcements.
Balanced reporting		Where comprehensive reporting of all Exploration Results is not practicable,		No material changes to exploration results or drill hole intercepts are stated in this ASX
		representative reporting of both low and high grades and/or widths should be		announcement. This statement relates to a Mineral Resource only. .
		practiced to avoid misleadingreportingof Exploration Results.

12

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Other substantive		Other exploration data, if meaningful and material, should be reported		No material changes to exploration results or drill hole intercepts are stated in this ASX	WC
exploration data		including (but not limited to): geological observations; geophysical survey		announcement. This statement relates to a Mineral Resource only.
		results; geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and method of
		treatment; metallurgical test results; bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical
		and rock characteristics; potential deleterious or contaminatingsubstances.
Further work		The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g. tests for lateral extensions		This mineral resource is to be incorporated into a Scoping Study which is currently being	WC
		or depth extensions or large-scale step-out drilling).		undertaken and will detail a proposed mining plan.
		Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible extensions, including the main geological interpretations and future drilling areas, provided this information is not commercially sensitive.		The Company plans to carry out a staged and detailed exploration program in the surrounding area and assessment in the dry seasons of 2014 and 2015. The initial primary focus will be on the CID areas on the Agbaja plateau. These programs will be designed to
				include closer-spaced RC drilling on the Agbaja plateau and closer-spaced geological
				mapping and geochemical sampling of the mesa escarpments on each of the plateaus.
				The work will be focused on the thicker parts of the iron- mineralised units with a view to
				defining areas for subsequent resource definition drilling, matched to future project and
				mine planning requirements.

13

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

‘JORC Code 2012 Table 1’ Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in section 2, also apply to this section).

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Database integrity		Measures taken to ensure that data has not been corrupted by, for example,		The 2013 data collection was directly into company standardized logging spreadsheets.	WC/DS
		transcription or keying errors, between its initial collection and its use for		Entry of assay data into the database was through direction extraction via a database query
		Mineral Resource estimation purposes.		from the laboratory files. Checks have been conducted on aspects of the data entry by
		Data validation procedures used.		database consultant Maxwell Geoservices using their propriety software and checked by
				Kogi. Data is stored in a single relational database.
				Coffey has conducted its own validation process on the data, with checks looking for
				missing/overlappingintervals, missingdata, extreme values. No material issues were noted.
Site visits		Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the		Warwick Crowe has visited the site on numerous occasions since 2010 and supervised the	WC/DS
		outcome of those visits.		2012 and 2013 drilling programme on site.
		If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.		A member of the Coffey team, Brendan Botha (Pri.Sci.Nat, MGSSA), conducted a site visit in
				January 2012, reviewing data from the RC drilling programme. All RC drilling procedures
				were considered industry standard. David Slater (responsible for the Mineral Resource
				estimate) has not visited the Project, but has reviewed core photographs and site reports
				completed byCoffey.
Geological		Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of) the geological		Confidence in the geological model is high due to the similarity between the results of the	WC/DS
interpretation		interpretation of the mineral deposit.		recent DD drilling and project scale mapping.
		Nature of the data used and of any assumptions made.		The understanding of the orientation of the geology and geological controls from mapping
		The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations on Mineral Resource		and recent diamond drilling has been used to support the mineralisation interpretations used
		estimation.		in the Mineral Resource estimate.
		The use of geology in guiding and controlling Mineral Resource estimation.		The current geological and mineralisation interpretation of Zone A (Laterite) and
		The factors affecting continuity both of grade and geology.		Zone B (Oolite) and associated controls is considered robust and suitable for resource estimation.
Dimensions		The extent and variability of the Mineral Resource expressed as length		The block model extends 6750m (E-W), 5000m (N-S) and 200m (vertical). Note that due to	DS
		(along strike or otherwise), plan width, and depth below surface to the upper		drillhole depths and style of mineralisation, the mineralisation is modelled for a maximum
		and lower limits of the Mineral Resource.		vertical extent of ~40m below surface. Mineralisation occurs from surface.

14

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Estimation and		The nature and appropriateness of the estimation technique(s) applied and		The Mineral Resource was estimated using Ordinary Kriging techniques in Vulcan mining	DS
modelling		key assumptions, including treatment of extreme grade values, domaining,		software. Search parameters were based on variography carried out on the 1m composites
techniques		interpolation parameters and maximum distance of extrapolation from data		and supported by geological knowledge gained from field mapping and drillhole data.
		points. If a computer assisted estimation method was chosen include a		The Mineral Resource estimate was compared with the previous Coffey 2012 Resource
		description of computer software and parameters used.		estimate, with the differences being accounted for by extensional and infill drilling, and
		The availability of check estimates, previous estimates and/or mine		improved understanding of the geology and mineralisation after the 2013 field work.
		production records and whether the Mineral Resource estimate takes		The primary commodity considered in the Mineral Resource estimation is Fe. A full suite of
		appropriate account of such data.		elements was also estimated (SiO2, Al2O3, P, LOI, CaO, K2O, MgO, Mn ,Na2O, S, TiO2)
		The assumptions made regarding recovery of by-products.		with some of those elements considered to be deleterious (P, SiO2 and Al2O3).
		Estimation of deleterious elements or other non-grade variables of		The parent block size has considered the drillhole spacing and variography, as have the
		economic significance (e.g. sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).		search parameters.
		In the case of block model interpolation, the block size in relation to the		The geological/mineralisation interpretation was developed for Zone A (Laterite) and
		average sample spacing and the search employed.		Zone B (Oolite) using hard boundaries (wireframes).
		Any assumptions behind modelling of selective mining units.		Selective mining units were not defined or corrected for in the resource estimate. However,
		Any assumptions about correlation between variables.		a bulk open pit mining scenario possibly using continuous miners was considered in
		Description of how the geological interpretation was used to control the		selection of the parent block size.
		resource estimates.		The Mineral Resource estimate was validated through comparison of input and estimated
	 	Discussion of basis for using or not using grade cutting or capping. The process of validation, the checking process used, the comparison of model data to drillhole data, and use of reconciliation data if available.		grades visually and statistically. The estimate was also validated by looking at number of holes and samples used, average distance to informing samples, slope of regression and other statistical checks.
Moisture		Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basis or with natural moisture,		Tonnages are based on in situ dry bulk density measurements.	DS
		and the method of determination of the moisture content.
Cut-off parameters		The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.		A nominal reporting cut-off grade of 20% Fe has been chosen. Further work via mining	DS
				studies is required to further define an economic cut-off.
Mining factors or		Assumptions made regarding possible mining methods, minimum mining		Selective mining units were not defined or corrected for in the resource estimate or a	DS
assumptions		dimensions and internal (or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It is		recoverable resource estimated. However, a bulk open pit mining scenario possibly using
		always necessary as part of the process of determining reasonable		continuous miners was considered and reflected in the block model construction and
		prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential mining		estimation parameters developed.
		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 miningassumptions made.

15

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Metallurgical		The basis for assumptions or predictions regarding metallurgical		It is currently considered that mined material will be crushed to around <10mm by a two	DS
factors or		amenability. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining		stage crushing system. The crushed material will be further milled, fed to a beneficiation
assumptions		reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider potential		plant and through a simple magnetic separation process, with a final upgraded iron ore
		metallurgical methods, but the assumptions regarding metallurgical		concentrate to be produced.
		treatment processes and parameters made when reporting Mineral		Coffey was provided with an ALS Metallurgy report NoA14760 dated February 2013
		Resources may not always be rigorous. Where this is the case, this should		describing the initial test work program conducted on four composite samples of differing
		be reported with an explanation of the basis of the metallurgical		geology within Zone A (Laterite) and Zone B (Oolite). Further detailed test work is currently
		assumptions made.		being conducted by Kogi as per ASX release titled ‘Confirmation of Saleable Iron Ore
				Concentrate – Metallurgical update’ dated 24 July 2013. Coffey notes from the release ‘the
				Metallurgical test work programs on the upper CID-Oolite and Laterite mineralisation will
				continue throughout 2013 with the objective of assessing the suitability of these sections of
				the orebody for the proposed flow sheet, and to optimise mass and iron recovery, and
				concentrate grade for the lower CID-Oolite mineralisation. The Laterite mineralisation is
				typically lower in phosphorus and could potentially be used to blend down phosphorus
				levels in the finalproduct’.
Environmental		Assumptions made regarding possible waste and process residue disposal		An Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) draft has been completed for	DS
factors or		options. It is always necessary as part of the process of determining		submission to the Department of Environmental Protection in December 2013. Baseline
assumptions		reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction to consider the		data in wet and dry seasons has been collected. No detailed assumption regarding
		potential environmental impacts of the mining and processing operation.		possible waste and process residue disposal option sites have been made at this early
		While at this stage the determination of potential environmental impacts,		stage of the project.
		particularly for a greenfields project, may not always be well advanced, the		It is not anticipated that environmental factors will be considered a material constraint
		status of early consideration of these potential environmental impacts		regarding prospects for eventual economic extraction.
		should be reported. Where these aspects have not been considered this
		should be reported with an explanation of the environmental assumptions
		made.
Bulk density		Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, the basis for the assumptions. If determined, the method used, whether wet or dry, the frequency of the measurements, the nature, size and representativeness of the samples.		In situ dry bulk densities were assigned on the basis of measurements collected from the 2013 drill core using a combination of ‘weight in water’ technique and tray weight/volumes. 100 ‘weight in water’ measurements were collected from Zone B material from core measurements and 39 entire tray measurements were collected for Zone A material. The in	DS
		The bulk density for bulk material must have been measured by methods		situ dry bulk densities values applied to the mineralised Zone A and Zone B of the block
		that adequately account for void spaces (vugs, porosity, etc.), moisture and		model are 2.02t/m3and 2.28t/m3respectively.
		differences between rock and alteration zones within the deposit.
		Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimates used in the evaluation
		process of the different materials.
Classification		The basis for the classification of the Mineral Resources into varying		Mineral Resource classification was developed from the confidence levels of key criteria	DS
		confidence categories.		including topography, drilling methods, geological understanding and interpretation,
		Whether appropriate account has been taken of all relevant factors (i.e.		sampling, data density and location, grade estimation and quality of the estimates.
		relative confidence in tonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data,		The area of Indicated Resource and Inferred Mineral Resource is considered appropriately
		confidence in continuity of geology and metal values, quality, quantity and		informed and estimated for the classification.
		distribution of the data).		The resulting Mineral Resource estimate provides an appropriate global representation of
		Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of		this deposit in the view of the Competent Person.
		the deposit.

16

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC Code Explanation	JORC Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Audits or reviews		The results of any audits or reviews of Mineral Resource estimates.		The 2012 Mineral Resource estimate was, completed by Coffey. No independent audit of	DS
				the 2013 Mineral Resource has been completed at this time.
Discussion of		Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence level		The Mineral Resource has been classified as a combination of Indicated and Inferred	DS
relative accuracy/		in the Mineral Resource estimate using an approach or procedure deemed		Mineral Resource.
confidence		appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of		The resource estimate of grade and tonnage is based on the assumption that standard
		statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of the		open cut mining methods will be applied and that high confidence grade control (e.g.
		resource within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not		dedicated RC grade control drilling) will be available for final ore-waste delineation.
		deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors that could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate.		The Mineral Resource estimate is based on a realistic parent cell size and should be considered a global resource estimate, and not a recoverable resource estimate based on
		The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates,		SMU block size.
		and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used.		The relative accuracy and confidence of the Mineral Resource estimate is inherent in the Mineral Resource Classification as coded in the block model; no mine production data is available at this stage for reconciliation and/or comparative purposes.
		These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate
		should be compared withproduction data, where available.

17

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

‘JORC Code 2012 Table 1’ Section 4 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Reserves

(Criteria listed in section 1, and where relevant in sections 2 and 3, also apply to this section).

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Mineral Resource		Description of the Mineral Resource estimate used as a basis for the		The Zone B (Oolite) component of the Mineral Resource as described in Section 3 formed
estimate for		conversion to an Ore Reserve.		the basis for the conversion to Ore Reserves.
conversion to Ore		Clear statement as to whether the Mineral Resources are reported		The Mineral Resources are inclusive of the Ore Reserves.
Reserves		additional to,or inclusive of,the Ore Reserves.
Site visits		Comment on any site visits undertaken by the Competent Person and the		The Competent Person for the Ore Reserves, Mr Harry Warries, has not visited the site.
		outcome of those visits.		No site visit by the Reserve Competent Person was deemed necessary as the site is a
		If no site visits have been undertaken indicate why this is the case.		‘greenfields’ site with no existing mine workings and/or site specific mine infrastructure being
				present.
Study status		The type and level of study undertaken to enable Mineral Resources to be		A Pre-feasibility Study (PFS) was completed by Kogi Iron Limited in January 2014. The PFS
		converted to Ore Reserves.		was undertaken by a team of industry professionals as listed below.
		The Code requires that a study to at least Pre-Feasibility Study level has		 Resource Estimate Coffey
		been undertaken to convert Mineral Resources to Ore Reserves. Such		 Mine Engineering Coffey
		studies will have been carried out and will have determined a mine plan that is technically achievable and economically viable, and that material Modifying Factors have been considered.		 Metallurgy and Processing Tenova Australia  Bioleaching Senders Consulting  Barging Prestedge Retief Dresner Wijnberg
				 Slurrying and Pipeline Paterson and Cooke
				 Operation and Logistics Wilson, Campbell & Associates, Kogi Iron
				 Environmental Greenwater Environmental Services
				 Market Research AME Group
				 Financial Modelling NPV Consultingand Kogi Iron
Cut-off parameters		The basis of the cut-off grade(s) or quality parameters applied.		In addition to the Resource Model, a geo-metallurgical model was developed by Coffey,
				based on magnetic susceptibility measurements taken for all drill holes. In recognition of the
				selected processing method which incorporates magnetic separation, the cut-off for ore
				determination was not based on Fe, rather, it was based on the magnetic susceptibility of the
				mineralised material. The magnetic susceptibility measurements identified that the boundary
				between magnetic and non-magnetic material is very sharp, i.e. the material is either
				magnetic or not. The lateritic (Zone A) horizon is non-magnetic.
				A cut-off of 20 x 10-3SI within the Zone B (Oolite) resource was used for ore determination.
				It is noted that the Oolite zone was based on a nominal 30% Fe lower cut-off.

18

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Mining factors or		The method and assumptions used as reported in the Pre-Feasibility or		The Agbaja Iron Ore Project comprises an extensive, shallow (on average less than 30m),
assumptions		Feasibility Study to convert the Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve (i.e.		flat-lying channel iron deposit. The material is relatively soft and friable and it is proposed to
		either by application of appropriate factors by optimisation or by		mine the resource utilising conventional open pit mining methods.
		preliminary or detailed design).		The deposit exhibits a relatively consistent ore profile that comprises a layer of lateritic
		The choice, nature and appropriateness of the selected mining method(s)		material (non-magnetic and treated as waste) followed by a layer of oolitic material
		and other mining parameters including associated design issues such as		(magnetic). In addition, the deposit is relatively contiguous and readily discernible. As such,
		pre-strip, access, etc.		no pit optimisation was undertaken. The pit design was based on an area that exhibited the
		The assumptions made regarding geotechnical parameters (e.g. pit slopes,		lowest waste to ore strip ratio and was sufficiently large to sustain a 21 year mine life.
		stope sizes, etc.), grade control and pre-production drilling.		In the absence of geotechnical parameters, the pit design was based on a terrace style pit
		The major assumptions made and Mineral Resource model used for pit		wall configuration, adopting 75 degree batter angles, in conjunction with 2m high benches
		and stope optimisation (if appropriate).		and 2m wide berms.
		The mining dilution factors used.		Mining dilution and mining recovery was modelled by regularising the sub-blocked resource
	   	The mining recovery factors used. Any minimum mining widths used. The manner in which Inferred Mineral Resources are utilised in mining studies and the sensitivity of the outcome to their inclusion. The infrastructure requirements of the selected mining methods.		model using a selective mining unit (SMU) of 20mE x 20mN x 2mRL. The SMU resulted in a 6% ore loss and a 1% dilution in Fe grade. The mine plan was primarily based on Indicated Resources with 8% of the mill feed being classified as Inferred Resources. There is a low level of geological confidence associated with inferred mineral resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of indicated mineral resources or that the production target itself
				will be realised for the years that Inferred Resources are scheduled to be mined. The mine
				plan incorporates a two year mining ramp-up, with steady state production of 5Mtpa of
				product (or 11.1Mtpa of crusher feed based on a yield of 45%) reached in Year 3. The
				average total material movement after Year 3 ranges from 18Mtpa to 21Mtpa.
				The primary infrastructure required for the development of the Project are listed below:
				o General administration and services infrastructure.
				o General mining facilities.
				o Natural gas fired power station at site
				o Process plant
				o A 22km slurry pipeline pumping concentrate from the process plant to the river
				barging facility
				o River barging facility, which will be powered by dedicated diesel generators.
				o Barge transfer station, located some 600km from the river barging facility, where the
				iron ore product is transferred onto ocean going barges.
				o A floating transhipment storage facility where the product will be loaded onto
				Panamax or Cape size ships.

19

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Metallurgical		The metallurgical process proposed and the appropriateness of that		The proposed metallurgical process incorporates well-tested technology and comprises
factors or		process to the style of mineralisation.		crushing, grinding, low intensity magnetic separation (LIMS) and bacterial leaching of the
assumptions		Whether the metallurgical process is well-tested technology or novel in		LIMS product to lower the phosphorous grade.
		nature.		No bulk sample or pilot scale test work were undertaken, however, core drill samples
		The nature, amount and representativeness of metallurgical test work		representative of the orebody as a whole were used in metallurgical and mineralogy
		undertaken, the nature of the metallurgical domaining applied and the		testwork.
		corresponding metallurgical recovery factors applied.		The metallurgical testwork to date has focussed on exploring the potential of upgrading the
		Any assumptions or allowances made for deleterious elements.		quality of the ore. Sighter testwork included the assessment of the physical properties of the
		The existence of any bulk sample or pilot scale test work and the degree to which such samples are considered representative of the orebody as a		ore and the ability to separate gangue material from the iron rich bearing rock. The sighter testwork was followed up by pilot testwork, as well as mineralogy assessment.
		whole.		The metallurgical testwork indicated that, based on the processing flow chart adopted, the
		For minerals that are defined by a specification, has the ore reserve estimation been based on the appropriate mineralogy to meet the		crusher feed yield will be 45%, i.e. 1 tonne of crusher feed will produce 0.45 tonne of saleable product.
		specifications?		Bioleaching testwork has indicated that microorganisms isolated from the Agbaja ore can
				reduce the phosphorous levels within the ore of up to 65% to 70%. The testwork focussed
				on the oolite material that is magnetic, as opposed to the lateritic material, which is non-
				magnetic and will not be processed at this stage of the Project.
				The test work indicates that a final fines product with the following specifications could be
				produced:
				o Fe 56%
				o SiO2 3.8%
				o Al2O3 6.6%
				o P 0.25%
				o LOI(1,000 degC) 7.3
Environmental		The status of studies of potential environmental impacts of the mining and		The Environmental and Social Impact Assessment (ESIA) was undertaken by Greenwater
		processing operation. Details of waste rock characterisation and the		Environmental Services Limited (Greenwater), who is accredited by the Nigerian Federal
		consideration of potential sites, status of design options considered and,		Ministry of Environment (FMEnv). In terms of environmental impact, the ESIA reported that
		where applicable, the status of approvals for process residue storage and		the areas directly affected by Kogi Iron’s proposed mining and processing activities are
		waste dumps should be reported.		predominantly low value scrub land and savannah woodland intercepted by grasslands, all
				of which have limited agricultural use or environmental significance. There were no rare or
				endangered species of flora or fauna identified in the proposed mine and operational areas,
				and furthermore the ESIA stated that anticipated environmental impacts from planned
				mining, processing and associated activities can be mitigated and managed via the requisite
				Environmental Management Plan, submitted as part of the ESIA. Kogi submitted the ESIA
				to the FMEnv in February 2014 and following a public exposure period and a panel review
				bythe FMEnv it is anticipated that ESIA will be approved.

20

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Infrastructure		The existence of appropriate infrastructure: availability of land for plant		The Project lies 15 km northwest of the city of Lokoja in Kogi State, and 165 km south west
		development, power, water, transportation (particularly for bulk		(highway) from Nigeria’s capital city of Abuja. Lokoja has reticulated electrical power, cellular
		commodities), labour, accommodation; or the ease with which the		telephone networks, primary and secondary schools, hospitals and other amenities. Abuja,
		infrastructure can be provided, or accessed.		being the political capital of Nigeria is a well-established and serviced city; it has a large
				international airport with daily flights to Europe, the middle east and other African nations and
				is connected to Lokoja by a well maintained duel carriageway tarmac road (driving time ~2
				hours). There is an un-utilised natural gas pipeline that runs close to the proposed
				processing plant from the Northern part of the prolific oil and gas province of the Niger Delta
				and it is assumed that natural gas will be supplied to the site. Kogi will construct a 22km road
				from the river bargingfacilityto theprocessplant site.
Costs		The derivation of, or assumptions made, regarding projected capital costs		The capital cost estimate is commensurate with a PFS level study and were estimated by
		in the study.		the PFS contributors as listed under the Study Status criteria discussed above. Contract
		The methodology used to estimate operating costs.		mining was adopted as the basis of the PFS and, as such, the mine equipment ownership
		Allowances made for the content of deleterious elements.		cost is incorporated into the mine operating costs.
		The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal minerals and co- products.		Metal prices and penalty rates for deleterious elements applicable for the product specification produced at the Project were based on research by the AME Group.
		The source of exchange rates used in the study.		Kogi adopted a foreign exchange rate of US$ : A$ of 1.00.
		Derivation of transportation charges.		The estimated capital costs for the Project are US$497.1M and are summarised below.
		The basis for forecasting or source of treatment and refining charges,		o Mining US$ 11.9M
		penalties for failure to meet specification, etc.		o Processing US$132.8M
		The allowances made for royalties payable, both Government and private.		o River barging and transfer station US$120.3M
				o Utilities and Infrastructure US$108.2M
				o Indirects - EPCM US$ 46.6M
				- Other US$ 32.3M
				- Contingency US$ 45.1M
				The estimated operating costs for the Project are US$42.98/dmt of product and is
				summarised below.
				o Mining US$ 8.12/dmt
				o Processing US$13.96/dmt
				o Barging and transhipping US$18.77/dmt
				o General and Administration US$ 2.13/dmt
				A 3%(FOB) government royalty,as well as a 1% thirdpartyroyaltywas applied.
Revenue factors		The derivation of, or assumptions made regarding revenue factors		The product price was based on the following calculation:-
		including head grade, metal or commodity price(s) exchange rates,		o Base CFR(1)Fe price (based on 58% Fe) US$110/dmt
		transportation and treatment charges, penalties, net smelter returns, etc.		o Shipping (US$ 25/dmt)
		The derivation of assumptions made of metal or commodity price(s), for the principal metals, minerals and co-products.		o Base FOB(2)Fe price (based on 58% Fe) US$ 85/dmt o Fe discount (US$2.5 per Fe unit below 58%) (US$ 5/dmt)
				o Al2O3& P discount (US$ 7/dmt)
				o Final product price (56% Fe) US$ 73/dmt FOB
Notes:
1. CFR = Cost and Freight
2. FOB = Free on Board

21

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Market assessment		The demand, supply and stock situation for the particular commodity,		The market assessment was undertaken by the AME Group.
		consumption trends and factors likely to affect supply and demand into the		AME research found that strong demand and rising prices have motivated steel mills to be
		future.		less stringent in their quality requirements and are increasingly using ores with higher
		A customer and competitor analysis along with the identification of likely		impurities, including some elevated phosphorus ores. As a result, one of China’s largest
		market windows for the product.		steel mills, Shougang (Capital Steel Works), invested in dephosphorising technology in 2005
		Price and volume forecasts and the basis for these forecasts.		and developed an iron ore mine with elevated phosphorus levels near Yichang City in Hubei
		For industrial minerals the customer specification, testing and acceptance requirements prior to a supply contract.		Province in 2007. Currently, high phosphorous ore (in excess of 0.4% P) is being sold to China.
				AME found that there is always a market for lower priced ore. In addition, the Agbaja ore has
				the advantage of low silica and it is also low in other impurities such as alkalis (K2O +
				Na2O), which can cause significant blast furnace operational issues. The titanium content is
				also low, which contributes to the production of a more fluid slag. Finally, the Agbaja product
				isquite coarse,which makes it more attractive for sintering.
Economic		The inputs to the economic analysis to produce the net present value		The financial evaluation undertaken as part of the PFS indicated a net present value (NPV)
		(NPV) in the study, the source and confidence of these economic inputs		of US$420M and an internal rate of return (IRR) of 23.7%.
		including estimated inflation, discount rate, etc.		The key financial parameters were:-
		NPV ranges and sensitivity to variations in the significant assumptions and		o Discount rate 12%
		inputs.		o Tax rate 30%
				o Royalties 4%
				o Start of construction 2015
				o Construction period 2 years
				o Life of mine 21 years
				o Initial capital expenditure US$497.1M
				o Sustaining capital (LOM) US$144M
				o Operating cost US$42.98/dmt
				o Product price US$73/dmt
				Sensitivity analysis indicated that a 10% change in product price, operating cost and capital
				cost resulted in the following impact on the pre-tax NPV:-
				o Product price ±50%
				o Operating expenditure ±31%
				o Capital expenditure ±11%
Social		The status of agreements with key stakeholders and matters leading to		The ESIA assessment indicated that, on balance, the Project would have a positive impact
		social licence to operate.		on the social aspects of the area. The ESIA gauged that the Project would positively impact
				the local stakeholder economy and the Local Government area and communities of the
				Agbaja plateau generally, with similar positive impacts on Kogi State and Nigeria. The
				proposed mine development will contribute to socio-economic development within the host
				communities and result in economic empowerment for the indigenes and residents of the
				Agbaja plateau, predominantly by way of direct and indirect employment opportunities
				(including contract opportunities during the construction and operational phases of the
				proposed mine).

22

==> picture [90 x 26] intentionally omitted <==

Criteria	JORC	Code Explanation	Commentary	Commentary	Competent Person
Other		To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on		Kogi has submitted the ESIA and has no reason to believe that, after the public consultation
		the estimation and classification of the Ore Reserves:		period and a formal review of the ESIA, the necessary Government approvals will be
		Any identified material naturally occurring risks.		received within the timeframes anticipated in the PFS.
		The status of material legal agreements and marketing arrangements.
		The status of governmental agreements and approvals critical to the
		viability of the project, such as mineral tenement status, and government
		and statutory approvals. There must be reasonable grounds to expect that
		all necessary Government approvals will be received within the timeframes
		anticipated in the Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility study. Highlight and discuss
		the materiality of any unresolved matter that is dependent on a third party
		on which extraction of the reserve is contingent.
Classification		The basis for the classification of the Ore Reserves into varying confidence		Probable Ore Reserves were declared based on the Indicated Mineral Resources contained
		categories.		within the pit design that was developed for the Project. The financial analysis showed that
		Whether the result appropriately reflects the Competent Person’s view of		the economics of the Project are robust and the risk analysis did not identify any
		the deposit.		insurmountable risks.
		The proportion of Probable Ore Reserves that have been derived from
		Measured Mineral Resources(if any).
Audits or reviews		The results of anyaudits or reviews of Ore Reserve estimates.		No external audits or reviews of the Ore Reserve estimates have been undertaken.
Discussion of		Where appropriate a statement of the relative accuracy and confidence		The relative accuracy and confidence of the Ore Reserve estimate is inherent in the Ore
relative accuracy/		level in the Ore Reserve estimate using an approach or procedure deemed		Reserve Classification.
confidence		appropriate by the Competent Person. For example, the application of		No mine production data is available at this stage for reconciliation and/or comparative
		statistical or geostatistical procedures to quantify the relative accuracy of		purposes.
	 	the reserve within stated confidence limits, or, if such an approach is not deemed appropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factors which could affect the relative accuracy and confidence of the estimate. The statement should specify whether it relates to global or local estimates, and, if local, state the relevant tonnages, which should be relevant to technical and economic evaluation. Documentation should include assumptions made and the procedures used. Accuracy and confidence discussions should extend to specific discussions of any applied Modifying Factors that may have a material impact on Ore Reserve viability, or for which there are remaining areas of	 	Factors that may affect the global tonnages and the associated grades include:- o Mining dilution o Mining recovery o Process plant performance University test work has demonstrated that significantly reduced phosphorous levels in Agbaja iron ore can be achieved through simple bioleaching. Kogi has recently commenced Stage 2 phosphorous bioleaching investigative work for the Agbaja Project. As part of the DFS, larger pilot plant trails will be conducted to prove that the process is viably commercially and at a large scale.
		uncertainty at the current study stage.
		It is recognised that this may not be possible or appropriate in all
		circumstances. These statements of relative accuracy and confidence of
		the estimate should be compared withproduction data, where available.

23

For more information, please contact:

Corporate Iggy Tan Managing Director Kogi Iron Limited Tel (office): +61 8 9200 3456 Email: info@kogiiron.com

Media Contact Michael Vaughan Cannings Purple Tel (office): +61 8 6314 6300 Email: mvaughan@canningspurple.com.au

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT AND MEDIA RELEASE

About Kogi Iron (ASX: KFE)

Kogi Iron Limited is an Australian company striving towards becoming an African iron ore producer through the development of its 100% owned Agbaja iron ore project located in Kogi State, Republic of Nigeria, West Africa (“Agbaja”). The Agbaja Plateau hosts an extensive, shallow, flat-lying channel iron deposit with a current Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource of 586 million tonnes with an in-situ iron grade of 41.3% reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012). The Mineral Resource covers approximately 20% of the prospective Plateau area within Kogi’s EL12124.

The Company recently completed a Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) which determined that the development of an iron ore mining and processing operation at Agbaja to produce 5 Mtpa of upgraded iron ore concentrate was technically and economically viable. The Project is robust and highly attractive with an IRR of 23.7%, an estimated pre-tax NPV of US$420 million (@ 12% discount) and a four year capital payback. Agbaja’s CAPEX estimate is US$497 million and capital intensity is US$99.4/t, ranking it in the bottom quartile for magnetite projects. Forecast average operating costs of US$42.98/t concentrate FOB places the Project in the bottom half of the operating cost curve of for magnetite projects. The Company is now proceeding with a Definitive Feasibility Study which will be completed by the end of Q4 2014. The PFS established that iron ore concentrate from Agbaja will be transported by river barges on the Niger River from a site approximately 22 km from the planned processing plant to the Gulf of Guinea, then transhipped to large ocean going vessels for export to world markets.

The Company is entering a very exciting phase in its development and planned emergence as an African iron ore producer. Kogi Iron has the scale, the strategy and the team to deliver.

Forward-looking Statements

This announcement contains forward-looking statements which are identified by words such as ‘anticipates’, ‘forecasts’, ‘may’, ‘will’, ‘could’, ‘believes’, ‘estimates’, ‘targets’, ‘expects’, ‘plan’ or ‘intends’ and other similar words that involve risks and uncertainties. Indications of, and guidelines or outlook on, future earnings, distributions or financial position or performance and targets, estimates and assumptions in respect of production, prices, operating costs, results, capital expenditures, reserves and resources are also forward looking statements. These statements are based on an assessment of present economic and operating conditions, and on a number of assumptions and estimates regarding future events and actions that, while considered reasonable as at the date of this announcement and are expected to take place, are inherently subject to significant technical, business, economic, competitive, political and social uncertainties and contingencies. Such forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties, assumptions and other important factors, many of which are beyond the control of our Company, the Directors and management. We cannot and do not give any assurance that the results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by the forward-looking statements contained in this announcement will actually occur and readers are cautioned not to place undue reliance on these forward-looking statements. These forward looking statements are subject to various risk factors that could cause actual events or results to differ materially from the events or results estimated, expressed or anticipated in these statements.

Competent Person’s Statements

The information in this announcement that relates to the 2014 Ore Reserve for the Agbaja Project is based on information compiled by Mr. Harry Warries, Mining Manager of Coffey Mining who is a fellow of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr. Harry Warries has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken 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’. Harry Warries 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 this announcement that relate to Mineral Resources for the Agbaja Project is based on information compiled by David Slater, Principal Resource Geologist of Coffey Mining who is a Chartered Professional Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and by Dr Warwick Crowe, of International Geoscience who is a Member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Both David Slater and Dr Warwick Crowe have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken 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’. David Slater and Dr Warwick Crowe each consent to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears.

==> picture [130 x 139] intentionally omitted <==

24