ROX RESOURCES LIMITED — Capital/Financing Update 2013

Oct 8, 2013

ASX/MEDIA RELEASE

9 October 2013

RE-RELEASE OF MAIDEN CAMELWOOD MINERAL RESOURCE

On 3 October 2013 Rox Resources Limited ("Rox" or "the Company") announced to ASX the Maiden Camelwood Mineral Resource. That release, on the last page, included a section titled "About Rox Resources" which included information on Exploration Results and Mineral Resources that had previously been released to ASX with a Competent Persons Statement as defined in the 2004 edition of the JORC Code, however the Company did not include a further Competent Persons Statement for those particular results in the Maiden Camelwood Mineral Resource release. Accordingly to ensure full compliance with ASX Listing Rules the Company now re-releases the Maiden Camelwood Mineral Resource without the section titled "About Rox Resource"

ENDS

For more information:

Shareholders

Brett Dickson Company Secretary Tel: +61 8 9226 0044 admin@roxresources.com.au

ASX ANNOUNCEMENT 3 OCTOBER 2013

Rox Resources Limited

ASX: RXL

Address: Level 1 30 Richardson Street WEST PERTH WA 6005

PO Box 1167 West Perth WA 6872

Ph: (61 8) 9226 0044 Fax: (61 8) 9325 6254

Email: admin@roxresources.com.au

Web: www.roxresources.com.au

ABN: 53 107 202 602

Projects:

Mt Fisher: nickel-gold (100%)

Reward: zinc-lead (49%)

Bonya: copper-silver (earning up to 70%)

Marqua: phosphate (100%)

MAIDEN CAMELWOOD MINERAL RESOURCE

• Maiden Camelwood Mineral Resource of 1.6Mt @ 2.2% nickel
• Mineral Resource contains 34,600 tonnes of contained nickel
• 40% of nickel metal content in higher confidence Indicated Mineral Resource category
• Higher grade core of 520,000 tonnes at 3.1% nickel
• Mineralisation open at depth and along strike

Rox Resources Limited (ASX: RXL) ("Rox" or "the Company") is pleased to advise that it has completed the maiden September 2013 Mineral Resource estimate for the Camelwood nickel sulphide deposit.

The resource estimate comprises 1.6 million tonnes at 2.2% nickel containing 34,600 tonnes of contained nickel. Encouragingly 40% of the resource estimate sits in the higher confidence Indicated Mineral Resource category, using a 1.0% nickel lower cut-off (Table 1).

At the higher cut-off grade of 2.5% nickel the Mineral Resource contains 16,200 tonnes of nickel with approximately 47.5% in the Indicated Mineral Resource category (Table 2). The resource at this higher cut-off grade is 520,000 tonnes at 3.1% nickel.

Rox Managing Director, Mr Ian Mulholland commented "We are highly encouraged by the maiden resource estimate at Camelwood which provides an excellent foundation on which the Company can build. It shows that there is a significant amount of nickel sulphide mineralisation at Camelwood, which remains open in all directions, and which should increase with further drilling".

"Further drill testing of the Fisher East area is currently underway to explore for repeats of the Camelwood deposit. We remain confident that our exploration activities will unearth additional deposits across our extensive 655km2 landholding at Mt Fisher. Deposits of the style of Camelwood do not typically occur in isolation. "

In further commentary Rox Chairman, Mr Jeff Gresham, stated "to be able to complete an intensive drilling program and a resource estimate only nine months after its discovery is a significant achievement and a credit to the Rox team. Exploration and evaluation of the Mt Fisher nickel project is at a very early stage and I am confident that with further exploration and drilling the nickel resources will be significantly expanded."

The Mineral Resource estimate has been completed in accordance with the guidelines of the JORC Code (2012 Edition). The tables to support the requirements of the JORC Code (2012 Edition) with regard to Sampling Techniques and Data (Section 1), Reporting of Exploration Results (section 2), and Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources (Section 3) are appended to this report.

Rox's database was audited by nickel sulphide specialist consultants Optiro Pty Ltd ("Optiro"), who also estimated the Mineral Resource in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) – see Appendix. A summary of the information used in the Mineral Resource Estimate follows.

The deposit is part of the Mt Fisher project and is located approximately 500 km north of Kalgoorlie in Western Australia. Camelwood is a nickel sulphide deposit hosted in an overturned sequence of felsic and ultramafic (plus mafic) units within a belt of arcuate greenstone units. Primary mineralisation consists of pyrrhotite + pentlandite (+ violarite) + pyrite sulphides in massive, semi-massive (net texture) or disseminated forms. The overall deposit style is similar to the Kambalda nickel sulphide deposits in Western Australia.

Discovered in December 2012, Camelwood has been sampled by reverse circulation (RC) and diamond drilling (DD) on an east-west grid pattern ranging from 50 m by 50 m to over 100 m by 100 m. A total of 28 RC holes (4,484 m) and 40 DD holes (14,401 m) were used to define the resource. Holes were generally angled towards the west at varying angles (between 60° and 90°) in order to optimally intersect the mineralisation. Currently mineralisation has been defined as relatively tabular zones, extending over a strike of 1,450 m and up to 500 m down-dip in the central part of the deposit. The thickness of the mineralisation is variable, ranging from 0.5 m to 15 m. The deposit is situated beneath a veneer (10-15m) of transported clays and deeply weathered gossan, while the sulphide mineralisation starts from about 90m below surface.

The main lithological units at Camelwood are a felsic hangingwall, ultramafic host and mafic footwall, all of which form an overturned package that strikes 345° and is moderately dipping (~60°-65°) to the east. The mineralisation is hosted within the ultramafic, immediately adjacent to the felsic (hangingwall) contact. Sulphide mineralisation has been modelled into disseminated, semi-massive (net) and massive sulphide domains, based on lithological logging. Two distinct lodes, the Main and North zones, have been defined, and have been domained using 0.5% Ni and 1.0% Ni cut-off grades. The grade cut-offs appear to correlate well with the disseminated and semi-massive/massive mineralisation boundaries. Three generations of cross-cutting felsic & mafic intrusives have been modelled, all of which transect the mineralisation. No major structural offsets are observed at Camelwood, although low angle/sub parallel shearing is evident in the drill core.

For the purpose of the estimation, all mineralised samples were composited to 1 m intervals, weighted by both length and density. Where density measurements were absent, a density regression calculation using nickel grade was applied.

Optiro generated a single block model with a parent cell size of 10 mE by 25 mN by 5 mRL, with sub-celling down to 0.5 mE by 1.25 mN by 0.25 mRL for adequate domain volume resolution. The estimate was completed in CAE Studio 3 (Datamine) using Ordinary Kriging. Five elements were estimated; Ni (%), As (ppm), S (%), Fe (%) and Mg (%), as well as specific gravity. All estimates were completed at the parent cell scale. Validation of the block model shows acceptable correlation of the input data to the estimated grades.

Grade continuity of the mineralisation at Camelwood is good, with a range of 270 m in the major direction in the nickel variogram. Due to the moderate-strong correlation of nickel with the other elements, the same search parameters were used for the estimation of each element. The search ranges were based on approximately half the range of the nickel variogram (150 m by 100 m by 8 m) in order to prevent oversmoothing of the local estimates. Three estimation search passes were used.

Hard estimation boundaries were applied between the Main and North domains, as well as between the 0.5% and 1.0 % Ni sub-domains. Between the oxidation interface one-way estimation boundaries were used, i.e. the estimation of the fresh material did not incorporate the oxidised or transitional composites but the oxide and transitional domains used all of the data. The premise for this is to acknowledge any secondary supergene enrichment of nickel within the oxide profile as it is not considered representative of the primary mineralisation. Violarite (a supergene nickel sulphide mineral) has been observed by the Rox geologists in drill spoils; however, this data was not captured in the logging and was therefore not incorporated into the interpretation of the oxide, transitional and fresh interfaces.

The Camelwood mineralisation has demonstrated sufficient continuity in both geological and grade areas to support the definition of Inferred and Indicated Mineral Resources in accordance with the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC Code, 2012 edition). Indicated Mineral Resources were classified using a nominal drilling density of less than 75 m by 75 m, well defined geological and grade continuity and a high level of confidence in the volume estimate of the mineralisation. In the case of Inferred Mineral Resources, the criteria include a nominal drilling density of greater than 75 m by 75 m and a lower confidence in the geological continuity and volume definition (Figure 1). Approximately 12 % of the total resource has been extrapolated (i.e. the nickel has been estimated in search pass three or assigned), with minimal extrapolation distances beyond drillholes.

Optiro carried out a site visit to the Camelwood deposit on 22-23 July 2013. Mark Drabble (Principal Consultant), who is acting as Competent Person, inspected the deposit area, the core logging and sampling facilities.

IAN MULHOLLAND Managing Director

Table 1: Camelwood Mineral Resource reported at a 1.0% nickel cut-off

	Camelwood Mineral Resource - September 2013
		Grade	Contained Metal
	Tonnes (Mt)	Ni %	Nickel (kt)
		Indicated Mineral Resource
Oxide	-	-	-
Transitional	-	-	-
Fresh	0.6	2.4	13.8
Total Indicated	0.6	2.4	13.8
		Inferred Mineral Resource
Oxide	0.03	1.7	0.5
Transitional	0.02	1.7	0.7
Fresh	0.9	2.1	19.6
Total Inferred	1.0	2.1	20.8
Total	1.6	2.2	34.6

Table 2: Camelwood Mineral Resource reported at a 2.5% nickel cut-off

	Camelwood Mineral Resource - September 2013
		Grade	Contained Metal
	Tonnes (Mt)	Ni %	Nickel (kt)
		Indicated Mineral Resource
Oxide	-	-	-
Transitional	-	-	-
Fresh	0.2	3.2	7.7
Total Indicated	0.2	3.2	7.7
		Inferred Mineral Resource
Oxide	-	-	-
Transitional	-	-	-
Fresh	0.3	3.0	8.4
Total Inferred	0.3	3.0	8.4
Total	0.5	3.1	16.2

Figure 1: Camelwood Prospect Drill Long Section showing Resource Categories (Orange = Indicated, Green = Inferred)

Figure 2: Cross Section 7035800N through the Camelwood deposit

			Grade	Contained Metal
Ni% cut-off	Category	Tonnes (Mt)	Ni%	S%	Nickel (kt)
	Indicated	0.68	2.2	9.8	14.7
0.5	Inferred	1.89	1.4	6.1	27.3
	Total	2.56	1.6	7.1	42.0
	Indicated	0.57	2.4	11.0	13.8
1.0	Inferred	1.00	2.1	9.4	20.8
	Total	1.57	2.2	10.0	34.6
	Indicated	0.51	2.6	12.0	13.1
1.5	Inferred	0.79	2.3	10.4	18.0
	Total	1.29	2.4	11.0	31.0
	Indicated	0.38	2.8	14.1	10.8
2.0	Inferred	0.42	2.8	12.6	11.6
	Total	0.80	2.8	13.3	22.4
	Indicated	0.24	3.2	16.8	7.7
2.5	Inferred	0.28	3.0	14.2	8.5
	Total	0.52	3.1	15.4	16.2
	Indicated	0.13	3.6	19.7	4.6
3.0	Inferred	0.15	3.3	16.0	4.8
	Total	0.27	3.4	17.7	9.4
	Indicated	0.05	4.1	23.0	2.2
3.5	Inferred	0.02	4.0	20.9	1.0
	Total	0.08	4.1	22.3	3.2

Table 3: Camelwood Mineral Resource Estimate at Various Cut-Off Grades

Hole	East	North	Depth(m)	Dip	Azimuth	From(m)	To(m)	Interval	Ni%	m%
MFED001	355997	7035799	397.3	-75	270	282.6	294.0	11.4	2.93	33.4
		Including				282.6	289.0	6.4	3.80
		Including				282.6	285.5	2.9	4.66
MFEC002	355996	7035702	261.5	-75	270	211.7	228	16.3	1.79	29.2
		Including				211.7	218	6.3	2.53
		Including				212.0	212.47	0.47	5.42
MFED003	355991	7035593	210.9	-80	270	178.3	185.8	7.5	1.22	9.2
		Including				178.3	178.7	0.4	3.76
MFED004	355900	7036097	216.1	-60	270	197.3	214.4	17.1	0.47	8.0
MFED005	355995	7035900	421.3	-78	270	382.0	387.7	5.7	2.25	12.8
		Including				382.0	382.4	0.4	5.38
		And				384.6	387.7	3.1	3.37
		Including				384.6	386.3	1.7	4.64
MFED006	355995	7035900	346.2	-70	270	317.7	319.0	1.3	2.55	3.3
		Including				317.7	318.3	0.6	3.76
MFED007	356000	7035795	421.1	-85	270	388.7	389.9	1.2	5.20	6.2
		Including				388.7	389.4	0.7	7.79
MFED008	355999	7035850	376.3	-80	270	350.5	352.3	1.8	2.81	5.1
		Including				350.5	350.8	0.30	4.03
MFED009	355999	7035850	426.9	-85	270	401.66	403.70	2.04	1.61	3.3
		Including				401.66	401.88	0.22	3.49
		And				402.75	403.70	0.95	2.60
MFED010	355999	7035850	367.2	-72	270	341.11	347.26	6.15	3.30	20.3
		Including				341.11	341.38	0.27	3.43
		And				341.66	341.85	0.19	10.97
		And				342.25	347.26	5.01	3.43
		Including				342.25	343.89	1.64	5.81
MFED011	355999	7035850	316	-62	270	293.71	293.98	0.27	1.88	0.5
MFED012	355996	7035702	427.1	-90	270	375.68	376.42	0.74	3.84	2.8
MFED013	355823	7036149	171.45	-65	270	140.87	141.55	0.68	5.88	4.0
MFED014	355823	7036149	162.3	-55	270	130.60	138.00	7.40	1.89	14.0
		Including				130.60	132.05	1.45	3.60
MFED015	355859	7036150	240.85	-78	270	202.45	202.91	0.46	1.47	0.9
		And				217.32	217.52	0.20	1.04
MFED016	355816	7036302	297.95	-60	270	NSR
MFED017	355900	7036698	751.05	-60	270	NSR
MFED018	355995	7036000	450.4	-85	270	414.98	416.63	1.65	3.19	5.6
		And				417.63	417.83	0.20	1.55
MFED019	355999	7036000	369.5	-74	270	340.69	344.00	3.31	1.88	6.2
		Including				340.69	341.54	0.85	5.01
MFED020	356000	7035749	309.3	-75	270	269.7	277.0	7.3	1.94	14.2
		Including				269.7	275.0	5.3	2.40

Table 4: Camelwood Diamond Drilling Results

ROX RESOURCES LIMITED - ASX RELEASE 3 October 2013

		Including				269.7	270.2	0.5	6.67
MFED021	355999	7035749Including	249.9	-62	270	226.0226.0	229.0227.0	3.01.0	1.943.36	5.7
MFED022	356109	7035796Including	274	-70	270	246.2246.2	250.0249.0	3.82.8	2.733.49	10.3
MFED023	356106	7035799	403	-65	270	377.4	382.0	4.6	2.58	12.0
		IncludingIncluding				377.4	380.0	2.6	3.28
		And				377.4379.0	377.9380.0	0.51.0	4.984.26
MFED024	356241	7035612	435.3	-60	270	409.8	410.3	0.5	6.44	3.2
MFED025	356241	7035612	401.4	-50	270	373.8	380.8	7.0	2.40	16.8
		Including				373.8	378.0	4.2	3.17
MFED026	356195	7035903	504.5	-65	270	483.0	485.7	2.7	5.20	14.0
		Including				483.9	485.7	1.8	6.30
MFED027	356110	7035698	346.0	-65	270	317.3	320.4	3.1	2.11	6.5
		Including				317.3	317.8	0.5	4.27
MFED028	356197	7035899	550.0	-73	270	522.8	523.0	0.2	5.29	1.3
MFED029	356184	7035754	448.0	-57	270	406.4	407.2	0.8	3.40	2.7
MFED030	356135	7035002	250.0	-75	270	233.95	235	1.05	0.48	0.5
MFED031	356153	7035951	535.9	-72	270	496.85	497.1	0.25	9.01	2.2
MFED032	356151	7035503	373.2	-65	270	312.7	316.1	3.4	2.74	9.3
		Including				314.6	316.1	1.5	4.11
MFED033	356151	7035503	284.9	-51	270	265.2	268.4	3.2	3.39	10.9
		Including				265.6	268.4	2.8	3.72
MFED034	356153	7035951	484.0	-65	270	455.0	456.6	1.6	2.25	3.6
		Including				455.0	455.5	0.5	5.29
MFED035	356132	7035600	306.5	-58	270	283.5	289.8	6.3	1.54	14.3
		And				293.0	296.5	3.5	1.35
MFED036	356363	7035800	604.5	-58	270	569.0	570.6	1.6	3.69	6.1
MFED037	356065	7035650	276.3	-65	270	246.6	249.6	3.0	1.58	15.1
		Including				246.6	247.7	1.1	3.21
		And				251.0	253.2	2.2	1.79
		And				255.0	257.9	2.9	2.21
MFED038	356270	7035500	433.0	-64	270	392.8	393.1	0.3	4.52	7.0
		And				395.1	398.3	3.2	1.43
Including							395.5	0.4	3.76
And						402.0	402.8	0.8	1.38
MFED039	356094	7035790	381.8	-60	270	358.8	366.1	7.3	1.88	13.6
		Including				358.8	364.4	5.6	2.13
		Including				358.8	359.2	0.4	6.05
		And				365.5	366.1	0.6	2.43
MFED040	356180	7035398	322.0	-60	270	290.0	291.9	1.9	3.11	5.8
MFED041	356181	7035398	346.8	-72	270	315.9	316.2	0.3	2.44	0.7

Table 5: Camelwood RC Drilling Results

Hole	East	North	Depth(m)	Dip	Azimuth	From(m)	To(m)	Interval	Ni%	m%
MFEC001	355899	7035798	162	-70	270	130	133	3	1.27	3.8
		Including				130	132	2	1.58
MFEC002	355956	7035802	242	-75	270	212	216	4	1.99	8.0
MFEC003	355986	7035594	172	-65	270	141	146	5	1.45	12.4
		And				152	155	3	1.72
		Including				152	154	2	2.22
MFEC004	355974	7035692	182	-60	270	159	179	20	1.06	21.2
		Including				159	165	6	1.36
		Including				169	174	5	1.49
MFEC005	355903	7035893	187	-60	270	147	148	1	2.99	3.0
MFEC006	355994	7035506	150	-65	270	126	126	1	2.48	2.5
MFEC007	355854	7035998	150	-60	270	118	121	3	1.82	5.5
MFEC010	355829	7036103	150	-60	270	118	136	18	1.53	27.5
		Including				119	128	9	2.04
MFEC012	355832	7036200	168	-70	270	153	154	1	1.10	1.1
MFEC013	355818	7036247	162	-60	270		Terminated short of target
MFEC015	355845	7036059	162	-60	270	125	130	5	1.33	6.7
MFEC016	355881	7035958	156	-60	270	129	133	4	1.11	4.4
MFEC017	355720	7036259	86	-60	270		NSR (gossanous 56-65m)
MFEC020	355928	7035750	174	-60	270	141	146	5	1.80	12.0
		Including				141	143	2	2.49
		And				157	159	2	1.49
MFEC021	355769	7036249	150	-60	270	105	124	19	1.32	25.1
MFEC022	355933	7035854	216	-60	270	186	187	1	2.55	2.6
MFEC023	355750	7036300	141	-60	270	101	120	19	0.44	8.4
MFEC024	355970	7035650	186	-60	270	144	148	4	1.27	9.2
		And				155	159	4	1.04
MFEC025	355697	7036402	130	-60	270	NSR
MFEC026	356000	7035397	138	-75	270	111	112	1	1.13	1.1
MFEC027	356003	7035300	102	-75	270		NSR (gossanous 78-79m)
MFEC028	355993	7035558	156	-70	270	146	148	2	1.36	2.7
MFEC029	356054	7035294	150	-65	270	134	135	1	1.22	1.2
MFEC030	356058	7035199	156	-60	270	140	144	4	1.90	7.6
		Including				140	141	1	2.84
MFEC031	356059	7035096	140	-60	270	124	126	2	1.12	2.2
MFEC032	355826	7036155	174	-60	270	144	146	2	2.02	4.0
MFEC033	356070	7035001	138	-60	270	119	121	2	3.50	7.0
		Including				119	120	1	5.71

Notes:

• Grid coordinates GDA94: Zone 51, Collar positions determined by hand held GPS and confirmed by DGPS.
• All holes RL 537 AHD confirmed by DGPS.
• Hole azimuths planned to be 270 degrees, but hole deviations may result in hole paths different to those intended. Correct lateral positions of down hole intercepts are shown on the Figures.
• RC drilling (hole prefix MFEC) by reverse circulation face sampling hammer, then 1 metre samples split and bagged.
• Diamond drilling (hole prefix MFED) by HQ/NQ diamond core, with core cut in half and sampled to either significant geological boundaries or even metre intervals.
• Diamond drill samples weighed in water and air to determine bulk density, and then crushed to 6.5mm
• 3-5kg sample preparation by pulp mill to nominal P80/75um.
• Ni assays by ICP-OES following a 4 acid digest (Intertek analysis code 4A/OE).
• Certified Reference Standards and field duplicate samples were inserted at regular intervals to provide assay quality checks. Review of the standards and duplicates are within acceptable limits.
• Cut-off grade 1% Ni with up to 2m of internal dilution allowed (with the exception of holes MFED004 & MFEC023).
• Given the angle of the drill holes and the interpreted 60 degree dip of the host rocks, reported intercepts will be more than true width.

Appendix

The following information is provided to comply with the JORC (2012) requirements for the reporting of the Camelwood Mineral Resource estimate on tenements E53/1318, E53/1716 and P53/1496.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Sampling techniques	Nature and quality of sampling (e.g. cut channels,random chips, or specific specialised industrystandard measurement tools appropriate to theminerals under investigation, such as down holegamma sondes, or handheld XRF instruments, etc).These examples should not be taken as limiting thebroad meaning of sampling.	The Camelwood deposit has been sampled in a nominal 50 m by50 m to 100 m by 100 m spacing using a combination of 5.5"(140 mm) reverse circulation percussion (RC) and diamond (DD)drillholes. The core size is dominantly NQ2 size diameter, andtwo HQ size holes were drilled (including 1 metallurgical). Thesummary of drilling used in the Mineral Resource is 30 RC holesfor 4,688 m, and 41 DD holes for 15,152.2 m. Holes were angledtowards grid west at varying angles to intersect the mineralisedzones at close to perpendicular.
	Include reference to measures taken to ensuresample representivity and the appropriatecalibration of any measurement tools or systemsused	Drillhole locations were picked up by a licenced surveyor forholes MFED001 to MFED017 and RC holes MFEC001 toMFEC024. The remaining holes have been picked up by Roxusing a Differential GPS unit with an accuracy of <0.3m. RCsamples were collected by riffle or cone splitters. The majority ofthe Camelwood Mineral Resource is defined by diamond coredrilling, which was logged for lithology, structure, alteration,geotechnical and other attributes. The Rox sampling protocolsand QAQC have been reviewed by Optiro and are as per industrybest practice procedures.
	Aspects of the determination of mineralisation thatare Material to the Public Report. In cases where'industry standard' work has been done this wouldbe relatively simple (e.g. 'reverse circulation drillingwas used to obtain 1 m samples from which 3 kgwas pulverised to produce a 30 g charge for fireassay'). In other cases more explanation may berequired, such as where there is coarse gold thathas inherent sampling problems. Unusualcommodities or mineralisation types (e.g.submarine nodules) may warrant disclosure ofdetailed information	Diamond core is dominantly NQ2 size, sampled on geologicalintervals, with a minimum of 0.1 m up to a maximum of 1.5 m.NQ2 core is cut into half, or quarter for HQ holes. RC drillholeswere sampled on 1m intervals using riffle or cone splitter units.Samples were sent to Intertek Genalysis in Kalgoorlie, crushed to10mm, dried and pulverised (total prep) in LM5 units (Somesamples > 3kg were split) to produce a sub-sample. The pulpswere then sent to Perth for analysis by four acid digest with amulti-element ICP-OES finish (code: 4A/OE-multi element). Au,Pt and Pd were analysed by 50 gram fire assay with a massspectrometer finish. Internal laboratory QA uses CRM's, blanks,splits and replicates, along with 10% repeats.
Drilling techniques	Drill type (e.g. core, reverse circulation, open-holehammer, rotary air blast, auger, Bangka, sonic, etc)and details (e.g. core diameter, triple or standardtube, depth of diamond tails, face-sampling bit orother type, whether core is oriented and if so, bywhat method, etc).	Drilling techniques were Reverse Circulation (RC) and diamondcore (DD). The RC hole diameter was 140mm face samplinghammer. Hole depths range from 100m to 220m.DD hole diameter was mostly NQ2 with HQ pre-collar and upperhole portions. Two full holes were drilled HQ. Hole depths rangefrom 140m to 640m. The core was orientated using a Camtechorientation tool. Pre-collars for diamond holes were drilled usinga roller bit and reamed to HW casing size.
Drill sample recovery	Method of recording and assessing core and chipsample recoveries and results assessed	Diamond drill core recoveries were logged and recorded in thedatabase. Overall recoveries were >95%, and there were nosignificant core loss or recovery problems.RC drill recoveries varied, with wet samples (generally below150m depth) presenting lower sample recoveries.
	Measures taken to maximise sample recovery andensure representative nature of the samples	Diamond core was reconstructed into continuous sample runson an angle iron used for orientation marking. Depths aremeasured and checked against marked depths on the coreblocks.RC samples were visually checked for recovery, moisture andcontamination and notes made in the logs.
	Whether a relationship exists between samplerecovery and grade and whether sample bias mayhave occurred due to preferential loss/gain offine/coarse material.	Most of the samples used in the Mineral Resource estimatecome from diamond core drilling which had high recoveries.There is no observable relationship between recovery and grade,and therefore no sample bias.

Section 1 Sampling Techniques and Data

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Logging	Whether core and chip samples have beengeologically and geotechnically logged to a level ofdetail to support appropriate Mineral Resourceestimation, mining studies and metallurgicalstudies.	Detailed geological and geotechnical logs were carried out on alldiamond drill holes for recovery, RQD, structures etc. whichincluded structure type, dip, dip direction, alpha angle, betaangle, texture, shape, roughness, fill material, and this data isstored in the database.
	Whether logging is qualitative or quantitative innature. Core (or costean, channel, etc)photography.	Logging of diamond core and RC chips recorded lithology,mineralogy, mineralisation, structure (DD only), weathering,colour, and other sample features. Core was photographed bothwet and dry and is stored in plastic core trays. RC chips arestored in plastic RC chip trays.
	The total length and percentage of the relevantintersections logged	All holes were logged in full except for the rock roller bitdiamond hole pre-collars (0-120m in most cases).
Sub-samplingtechniques andsample preparation	If core, whether cut or sawn and whether quarter,half or all core taken.	Drill core was cut in half on site using a core saw. All sampleswere collected from the same side of the core, preserving theorientation mark in the kept core half.
	If non-core, whether riffled, tube sampled, rotarysplit, etc and whether sampled wet or dry.	RC samples were collected on the drill rig using a cone splitter.Some of the mineralised samples were collected wet, and thesewere noted in the drill logs and database.
	For all sample types, the nature, quality andappropriateness of the sample preparationtechnique.	The sample preparation followed industry best practice. Thisinvolved oven drying, coarse crushing of diamond core to~10mm, followed by pulverisation of the entire sample in anLM5 or equivalent pulverising mill to a grind size of 85% passing75 micron.
	Quality control procedures adopted for all subsampling stages to maximise representivity ofsamples.	Field QC procedures involve the use of Certified ReferenceMaterials (CRM's) as assay standards, along with blanks,duplicates and barren waste samples. The insertion rate of thesewas approximately 1:50.
	Measures taken to ensure that the sampling isrepresentative of the in situ material collected,including for instance results for fieldduplicate/second-half sampling.	No diamond core field duplicates were taken. For RC drilling fieldduplicates were only taken on a routine basis at an approximate1:20 ratio using the same sampling techniques (i.e. cone splitter)and inserted into the sample run for the first 5 holes. After thatno field duplicates were taken.
	Whether sample sizes are appropriate to the grainsize of the material being sampled.	The sample sizes are considered more than adequate to ensurethat there are no particle size effects relating to the grain size ofthe mineralisation which lies in the percentage range.
Quality of assay dataand laboratory tests	The nature, quality and appropriateness of theassaying and laboratory procedures used andwhether the technique is considered partial or total.	The analytical technique involved a four acid digest followed bymulti-element ICP/OES analysis (Intertek analysis code 4A/OE).The four acid digest involves hydrofluoric, nitric, perchloric andhydrochloric acids and is considered a "complete" digest formost material types, except certain chromite minerals.
	For geophysical tools, spectrometers, handheld XRFinstruments, etc, the parameters used indetermining the analysis including instrument makeand model, reading times, calibrations factorsapplied and their derivation, etc.	No geophysical or portable analysis tools were used todetermine assay values stored in the database.
	Nature of quality control procedures adopted (e.g.standards, blanks, duplicates, external laboratorychecks) and whether acceptable levels of accuracy(i.e. lack of bias) and precision have beenestablished.	Internal laboratory control procedures involve duplicate assayingof randomly selected assay pulps as well as internal laboratorystandards. All of these data are reported to the Company andanalysed for consistency and any discrepancies.Check assays were undertaken at an independent third partyassay laboratory and correlated extremely well.
Verification ofsampling andassaying	The verification of significant intersections by eitherindependent or alternative company personnel.	Both senior technical personnel from the Company (ManagingDirector, Chairman and Exploration Manager) and the PrincipalConsultant Geologist from Optiro have visually inspected andverified the significant drill core intersections.
	The use of twinned holes.	One RC hole was twinned when it was suspected that downholecontamination had occurred. The contamination was confirmedwith a twin RC hole as well, and the original RC hole and allassociated results were deleted from the database.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	Documentation of primary data, data entryprocedures, data verification, data storage (physicaland electronic) protocols.	Primary data was collected using a standard set of Exceltemplates on Toughbook laptop computers in the field. Thesedata are transferred to Geobase Pty Ltd for data verification andloading into the database.
	Discuss any adjustment to assay data.	No adjustments or calibrations have been made to any assaydata.
Location of datapoints	Accuracy and quality of surveys used to locatedrillholes (collar and down-hole surveys), trenches,mine workings and other locations used in MineralResource estimation.	Initial drill hole surveying was carried out by Phil Richards,licensed surveyor for holes MFED001-017 and MFEC001-024.Subsequent surveying was undertaken by the Company using aDigital GPS unit check surveys made of the base station andpreviously surveyed drill hole locations.
	Specification of the grid system used.	The grid system is MGA_GDA94, zone 51 for easting, northingand RL.
	Quality and adequacy of topographic control.	The topographic surface was generated from drill collar surveysand also digital terrain models generated from low levelairborne geophysical surveys.
Data spacing anddistribution	Data spacing for reporting of Exploration Results.	The nominal drill hole spacing is 100 x 100 metres, with someareas closed into 50 x 50 metre spacing.
	Whether the data spacing and distribution issufficient to establish the degree of geological andgrade continuity appropriate for the MineralResource and Ore Reserve estimation procedure(s)and classifications applied.	The mineralisation and geology showed very good continuityfrom hole to hole and is sufficient to support the definition of aMineral Resource or Ore Reserve and the classificationscontained in the JORC Code (2012 Edition).
	Whether sample compositing has been applied.	No sample compositing has occurred for diamond core drilling.Sample intervals are based on geological boundaries with evenone metre samples between.For RC samples, sample compositing occurred over 4 metreintervals for non-mineralised material, but all mineralisedintervals were sampled at a one metre interval.
Orientation of datain relation togeological structure	Whether the orientation of sampling achievesunbiased sampling of possible structures and theextent to which this is known, considering thedeposit type.	The deposit strikes at about 345 degrees and dips to the east atbetween -60 to -65 degrees. The drill orientation was planned tobe 270 degrees, so slightly oblique to the perpendiculardirection, however, many drill holes swung slightly south (toabout 255 degrees) so were drilling essentially perpendicular tostrike. This is confirmed in structural logging of mineralisedzones.
	If the relationship between the drilling orientationand the orientation of key mineralised structures isconsidered to have introduced a sampling bias, thisshould be assessed and reported if material.	No sampling bias is believed to have been introduced.
Sample security	The measures taken to ensure sample security.	Sample security is managed by the Company. After preparationin the field samples are packed into polyweave bags anddespatched to the laboratory. For a large number of samplesthese bags were transported by the Company directly to theassay laboratory. In some cases the sample were delivered to atransport contractor who then delivered the samples to theassay laboratory. The assay laboratory audits the samples onarrival and reports any discrepancies back to the Company. Nosuch discrepancies occurred.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of samplingtechniques and data.	A review of the sampling techniques and data was carried out byOptiro as part of the Mineral Resource estimate. The database isconsidered by Optiro to be of sufficient quality to support theMineral Resource estimate. In addition, from time to time, theCompany carries out its own internal data audits.

Section 2 Reporting of Exploration Results

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Mineral tenementand land tenurestatus	Type, reference name/number, location andownership including agreements or material issueswith third parties such as joint ventures,partnerships, overriding royalties, native titleinterests, historical sites, wilderness or nationalpark and environmental settings.	Camelwood is located within Exploration License E53/1318,E53/1716 and Prospecting License P53/1496. Rox Resourcesholds an option to purchase P53/1496 and E53/1318 which areheld by Gerard Victor Brewer. E53/1716 is 100% owned by RoxResources Limited.
	The security of the tenure held at the time ofreporting along with any known impediments toobtaining a licence to operate in the area.	The tenements are all in good standing and no knownimpediments exist.
Exploration done byother parties	Acknowledgment and appraisal of exploration byother parties.	No previous exploration has been done at the Camelwoodprospect.
Geology	Deposit type, geological setting and style ofmineralisation.	The geological setting is of Archaean aged komatiite system,bounded by hangingwall basaltic rocks and footwall felsicmetasediments. Mineralisation is mostly situated at the(eastern) basal ultramafic - felsic contact. The rocks are stronglytalc-carbonate altered. Metamorphism is mid-upperGreenschist. The deposit is analogous to Kambalda style nickelsulphide deposits.
Drill holeInformation	A summary of all information material to theunderstanding of the exploration results including atabulation of the following information for allMaterial drill holes:•easting and northing of the drill holecollar•elevation or RL (Reduced Level –elevation above sea level in metres) ofthe drill hole collar•dip and azimuth of the hole•down hole length and interceptiondepth•hole length.	Refer to drill results tables 4 & 5 and the Notes attached thereto.
Data aggregationmethods	In reporting Exploration Results, weightingaveraging techniques, maximum and/or minimumgrade truncations (e.g. cutting of high grades) andcut-off grades are usually Material and should bestated.	All reported assay intervals have been length weighted. No topcuts have been applied. A lower cutoff of 1% is applied with upto 2m of internal dilution allowed. See Notes to Tables 4 & 5.
	Where aggregate intercepts incorporate shortlengths of high grade results and longer lengths oflow grade results, the procedure used for suchaggregation should be stated and some typicalexamples of such aggregations should be shown indetail.	High grade massive sulphide intervals internal to broader zonesof mineralisation are reported as included intervals. See Tables 4& 5.
	The assumptions used for any reporting of metalequivalent values should be clearly stated.	No metal equivalent values have been used or reported.
Relationshipbetweenmineralisationwidths and interceptlengths	These relationships are particularly important inthe reporting of Exploration Results.If the geometry of the mineralisation with respectto the drill hole angle is known, its nature should bereported.If it is not known and only the down hole lengthsare reported, there should be a clear statement tothis effect (e.g. 'down hole length, true width notknown').	The mineralisation at Camelwood is moderately east dippingthroughout the deposit. Drillhole azimuths are planned at 2700and are inclined between -500 and -900 degrees. Given the angleof the drill holes and the interpreted -600 dip of the host rocksand mineralisation, reported intercepts will be more than truewidth.
Diagrams	Appropriate maps and sections (with scales) andtabulations of intercepts should be included for anysignificant discovery being reported These shouldinclude, but not be limited to a plan view of drillhole collar locations and appropriate sectionalviews.	Refer to Figures 1-3 in the text.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Balanced reporting	Where comprehensive reporting of all ExplorationResults is not practicable, representative reportingof both low and high grades and/or widths shouldbe practiced to avoid misleading reporting ofExploration Results.	All results are reported
Other substantiveexploration data	Other exploration data, if meaningful and material,should be reported including (but not limited to):geological observations; geophysical survey results;geochemical survey results; bulk samples – size and	All core samples are measured for bulk density by the laboratoryusing the water displacement method. Multi element assayingon all samples was carried out for a suite of potentiallydeleterious elements such as Arsenic and Magnesium.
method of treatment; metallurgical test results;bulk density, groundwater, geotechnical and rockcharacteristics; potential deleterious orcontaminating substances.		Geotechnical data was collected from all diamond drillholesincluding recovery and RQD. Structural information wasrecorded; structure type, thickness, lithology, and alpha/betaangles (dip and dip direction).
Further work	The nature and scale of planned further work (e.g.tests for lateral extensions or depth extensions orlarge-scale step-out drilling).Diagrams clearly highlighting the areas of possible	Further work is being planned for extensional diamond drilling atCamelwood.
	extensions, including the main geologicalinterpretations and future drilling areas, providedthis information is not commercially sensitive	Metallurgical sighter testwork is currently being carried out onboth massive and disseminated ore types by METs Pty Ltd.

Section 3 Estimation and Reporting of Mineral Resources

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Database integrity	Measures taken to ensure that data has not beencorrupted by, for example, transcription or keyingerrors, between its initial collection and its use forMineral Resource estimation purposes.	Data templates with lookup tables and fixed formatting are usedfor logging and sampling data recording. Data transfer is viaemail with a copy sent to both the Company and the externaldatabase consultant. Sample numbers are unique and prenumbered bags are used. These procedures minimise anypotential errors.
	Data validation procedures used.	Data validation checks are run by Geobase, and they maintain a"master copy" of the database. The Company uses workingcopies which are provided by Geobase on a regular basis.
Site visits	Comment on any site visits undertaken by theCompetent Person and the outcome of those visits.	Mark Drabble, who is acting as Competent Person for theMineral Resource estimate visited the Camelwood site on 22-23July 2013 and inspected the core logging and sample preparationfacilities. A number of minor recommendations were made toimprove procedures, but no major issues were encountered.
	If no site visits have been undertaken indicate whythis is the case.	Not applicable.
Geologicalinterpretation	Confidence in (or conversely, the uncertainty of)the geological interpretation of the mineraldeposit.	There is a high degree of confidence in the geological model ofthe Camelwood deposit, based on consistent stratigraphy in drillholes and highly correlatable rock units and mineralisation. Thenickel sulphide mineralisation consistently occurs at the basalcontact of an ultramafic flow with the footwall felsic sediment.
	Nature of the data used and of any assumptionsmade.	Petrography and lithogeochemistry have been used to assist inthe identification and characterisation of the rock units.
	The effect, if any, of alternative interpretations onMineral Resource estimation.	The geological model is simple and no alternative interpretationsof geology exist. Infill drilling has supported the continuity of thegeological model.
	The use of geology in guiding and controllingMineral Resource estimation.	The key geological control on the Mineral Resource estimate isthe logging of massive versus disseminated sulphide zones. Thiswas a critical factor in domaining the mineralisation so thatassay smoothing across this resource "hard boundary" did notoccur.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The factors affecting continuity both of grade andgeology.	There was good continuity of grade domains (indicated by thenickel variogram Major direction range of 270 metres) andgeological domains. However, great care was taken to properlydomain the sulphide mineralisation types (massive vs.disseminated) as described above.
Dimensions	The extent and variability of the Mineral Resourceexpressed as length (along strike or otherwise),plan width, and depth below surface to the upperand lower limits of the Mineral Resource	The mineralisation at Camelwood extends over a 1,400 metrestrike length, starting at about 90-100 metres below groundsurface (below the completely oxidised zone) and has beendrilled to over 500 metres depth. The deposit is still open alongstrike and at depth. Drilling has penetrated adequately on bothsides of the mineralised zone to define it well.
Estimation andmodellingtechniques	The nature and appropriateness of the estimationtechnique(s) applied and key assumptions,including treatment of extreme grade values,domaining, interpolation parameters and maximumdistance of extrapolation from data points. If acomputer assisted estimation method was choseninclude a description of computer software andparameters used.	Nickel mineralisation at Camelwood was modelled as fourdomains using nickel grade cut-offs and geology. They included;Main 0.5%, Main 1.0%, North 0.5% and North 1.0%. Gradeestimation was completed using Ordinary Kriging (OK). CAEStudio 3 software was used to estimate five elements; Ni%, S%,Fe%, Mg% and As (ppm), as well as specific gravity. Drillholesample data was flagged using domain codes generated fromthree dimensional mineralisation domains and oxidationsurfaces. Sample data was composited downhole to 1 mintervals using a best fit method, and was weighted by lengthand density. A regression technique was used to assign densityvalues where measurements were unavailable for compositing.Intervals with no assays were excluded from the compositingroutine, and intervals with below detection results were reset tohalf detection values. The influence of extreme sampledistribution outliers were reduced by top-cutting, whererequired. The top-cut values were determined using acombination of top-cut analysis tools, including gradehistograms, log probability plots and population statistics. Topcuts were reviewed and applied on a domain basis. Variographywas completed in 3D space using the fresh composites withinthe Main domains only due to the small number of samples.Directional variograms were modelled using normal scorestransformations. Nugget values ranged from 0.04 for Mg to 0.35for Ni . Grade continuity was variable depending on the elementand ranged from 125 m to 280 m in the major direction.
	The availability of check estimates, previousestimates and/or mine production records andwhether the Mineral Resource estimate takesappropriate account of such data.	This is the maiden Mineral Resource for the Camelwood deposit.No previous mining activity has taken place.
	The assumptions made regarding recovery of byproducts.	No recovery assumptions have been built into the model.
	Estimation of deleterious elements or other nongrade variables of economic significance (e.g.sulphur for acid mine drainage characterisation).	The non-grade elements estimated are As (ppm), Fe%, Mg% andS%.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	In the case of block model interpolation, the blocksize in relation to the average sample spacing andthe search employed.Any assumptions behind modelling of selective	A single block model for Camelwood was constructed using an10 mE by 25 mN by 5 mRL parent block size with subcelling to0.5 mE by 1.25 mN by 0.25 mRL for domain volume resolution.Estimation was completed at the parent cell scale. Krigingneighbourhood analysis was carried out in order to optimise theblock size, search distances and sample numbers used.Discretisation was set to 4 by 10 by 2 for all domains.The size of the search ellipse per domain was set toapproximately half the ranges of the nickel variography tominimise the extrapolation of lower grade intervals andtherefore improve the local estimate. The search ellipse was setto 150 m in the major direction by 100 m in the semi-majordirection by 8 m in the minor direction and was kept constantfor all elements due to the moderate to strong correlationbetween elements. Three search passes were used for eachdomain. In general, the first pass was set at 150 m by 100 m by8 m with a minimum of 8 samples in the Main and 6 samples inthe North domains, using an overall maximum of 32 samples. Inthe second pass the search ranges were unchanged, but theminimum number of samples was reduced to 4 samples for alldomains. The third pass ellipse was extended to 10 times theinitial search ellipse and a minimum of 2 and a maximum of 32samples applied. For the estimation of specific gravity in theNorth domains, due to the paucity of data, values calculatedfrom the regression technique where used in the estimation.For the Main domains, only measured density values were used,but the minimum number of samples used for the second andthird search passes was reduced to 2. In all cases, a maximum of5 samples per hole were used.Overall, 77% of the resource was estimated in the first pass.However, some more sparsely-sampled areas werepredominantly estimated on the second or third pass. This hasbeen taken into account during the resource classification. Unestimated blocks, i.e. those outside the range of the third pass,were assigned the estimated domain mean and contribute lessthan 0.5% by volume to the resource.Hard boundaries were used between each of the fourmineralisation domains. In the Main domains, estimationsubdomains were utilised in order to align the search ellipse withthe dominant orientation of the mineralisation. Between thesesubdomains, soft estimation boundaries were used. One-wayestimation boundaries were used at the oxidation interface; i.e.oxidised and transitional material was estimated using bothoxidised and fresh data, whereas the fresh domains used onlyfresh data.
	mining units.Any assumptions about correlation betweenvariables.	No selective mining units were assumed in the estimate.Strong positive correlation exists between nickel and all otherelements estimated, with the exception of As (which has a weakpositive correlation with nickel) and Mg (which has a moderatenegative correlation with nickel). All elements within a domainused the same sample selection routine for block grade
	Description of how the geological interpretationwas used to control the resource estimates.	estimation.The mineralisation interpretation was based on the 3Dgeological interpretation combined with grade data. Two gradedomains, one at 0.5% Ni and the other at 1.0% Ni, weremodelled for both the Main and North structures. The gradeshells correlated well with the massive-semi-massive anddisseminated units.
	Discussion of basis for using or not using gradecutting or capping.	Statistical analysis showed the populations in each domain atCamelwood to generally have a low coefficient of variation (CV)but it was noted that a very small number of outliers existed. Nomore than 2 samples per domain required top-cutting. Topcutting was not required for Mg or density.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
	The process of validation, the checking processused, the comparison of model data to drillholedata, and use of reconciliation data if available.	Validation of the block model included a volumetric comparisonof the resource wireframes to the block model volumes to within0.5%. Validation of the estimate included comparing the blockmodel grades to the declusted input data using a series of tablesand swath plots showing north, easting and elevationcomparisons. Visual validation of grade trends and metaldistribution was also carried out. No mining has taken place,therefore no reconciliation data is available for comparison.
Moisture	Whether the tonnages are estimated on a dry basisor with natural moisture, and the method ofdetermination of the moisture content.	The tonnages are estimated on a dry basis.
Cut-off parameters	The basis of the adopted cut-off grade(s) or qualityparameters applied	A nominal grade cut-off of 0.5% Ni was used to define themineralisation envelope. This correlates well with the geologicallogging of the disseminated and massive mineralisation and thebarren host rock. Within the 0.5% Ni envelope a second domainrepresenting material above 1.0% Ni was identified. Thiscorrelates with the massive and semi-massive material.
Mining factors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible miningmethods, minimum mining dimensions and internal(or, if applicable, external) mining dilution. It isalways necessary as part of the process ofdetermining reasonable prospects for eventualeconomic extraction to consider potential miningmethods, but the assumptions made regardingmining methods and parameters when estimatingMineral Resources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should be reported withan explanation of the basis of the miningassumptions made.	No assumptions regarding the mining methodology have beenbuilt into the model; however, it is expected that mining of theCamelwood deposit will be dominantly by underground mininginvolving mechanised mining techniques.
Metallurgical factorsor assumptions	The basis for assumptions or predictions regardingmetallurgical amenability. It is always necessary aspart of the process of determining reasonableprospects for eventual economic extraction toconsider potential metallurgical methods, but theassumptions regarding metallurgical treatmentprocesses and parameters made when reportingMineral Resources may not always be rigorous.Where this is the case, this should be reported withan explanation of the basis of the metallurgicalassumptions made.	No assumptions regarding the metallurgical recovery have beenbuilt into the model.
Environmentalfactors orassumptions	Assumptions made regarding possible waste andprocess residue disposal options. It is alwaysnecessary as part of the process of determiningreasonable prospects for eventual economicextraction to consider the potential environmentalimpacts of the mining and processing operation.While at this stage the determination of potentialenvironmental impacts, particularly for agreenfields project, may not always be welladvanced, the status of early consideration of thesepotential environmental impacts should bereported. Where these aspects have not beenconsidered this should be reported with anexplanation of the environmental assumptionsmade	No assumptions have been made regarding waste or processreside disposal. No issues are anticipated from an environmentalperspective in the ultimate exploitation of the Mineral Resource,but these would be addressed in the next level of study.

Criteria	JORC Code explanation	Commentary
Bulk density	Whether assumed or determined. If assumed, thebasis for the assumptions. If determined, themethod used, whether wet or dry, the frequency ofthe measurements, the nature, size andrepresentativeness of the samples.	Bulk density was determined on diamond drill core by the assaylaboratory using the water displacement method.A total of 197 out of 430 mineralised samples (beforecompositing) were missing density measurements. These wereRC samples. Where no density data existed a regression formulawas used to assign the density to be used in weighting of thedata composites. The regression formula was generated fromcomparing nickel grades and density values for the Maindomains only. The formula used is: SG_R = 0.1954 x Ni(%) +2.81. Bulk density has been estimated from densitymeasurements for the Main domains, and calculated regressiondensity values for the North domains (due to the paucity ofmeasured data within this domain). Estimated density valuesrange from X t/m3 to Y t/m3
	The bulk density for bulk material must have beenmeasured by methods that adequately account forvoid spaces (vugs, porosity, etc), moisture anddifferences between rock and alteration zoneswithin the deposit,	The water displacement method adequately accounts for voidspaces in the rock. Since the diamond drill core samples arefresh rock there are no moisture issues. The regression formulaabove used for the RC samples would account for any moisture,so sensitivity to these issues is considered low.
	Discuss assumptions for bulk density estimatesused in the evaluation process of the differentmaterials.	See notes above.
Classification	The basis for the classification of the MineralResources into varying confidence categories	The Mineral Resource at Camelwood has been classified asIndicated and Inferred. The Indicated Resource is based on anominal 50 m by 50 m to 75 m by 75 m spaced drill pattern,along with good confidence in the geological (volume) and gradecontinuity of the mineralisation. Areas where the drill spacing isgreater than 75 m by 75 m have been classified as Inferred andexhibit lower confidence in the estimate of grade, specificgravity and volume of the mineralisation.
	Whether appropriate account has been taken of allrelevant factors (i.e. relative confidence intonnage/grade estimations, reliability of input data,confidence in continuity of geology and metalvalues, quality, quantity and distribution of thedata).	Validation of the block model shows acceptable correlation ofthe input data to the estimated grades. The input data iscomprehensive and no biases are believed to have beenintroduced. The geological model has a high degree of continuityand confidence. Infill drilling has confirmed this continuity.
	Whether the result appropriately reflects theCompetent Person's view of the deposit.	The Mineral Resource estimate appropriately reflects the view ofthe Competent Persons.
Audits or reviews	The results of any audits or reviews of MineralResource estimates.	This is the maiden Camelwood Mineral Resource estimate. Theresource was reviewed by Optiro and Rox personnel. Noexternal resource review has been completed.
	Where appropriate a statement of the relativeaccuracy and confidence level in the MineralResource estimate using an approach or proceduredeemed appropriate by the Competent Person. Forexample, the application of statistical orgeostatistical procedures to quantify the relativeaccuracy of the resource within stated confidencelimits, or, if such an approach is not deemedappropriate, a qualitative discussion of the factorsthat could affect the relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate	The relative accuracy of the Mineral Resource estimate isreflected in the reporting of the Mineral Resource as per theguidelines of the JORC Code (2012 Edition). See above note onthe classification of the Mineral Resource into varyingconfidence categories.
	The statement should specify whether it relates toglobal or local estimates, and, if local, state therelevant tonnages, which should be relevant totechnical and economic evaluation. Documentationshould include assumptions made and theprocedures used	The statement relates to global estimates of tonnes and grade.
	These statements of relative accuracy andconfidence of the estimate should be comparedwith production data, where available	No production is available.

Competent Person Statement:

The information in this report that relates to Exploration Results is based on information compiled by Mr Ian Mulholland BSc (Hons), MSc, FAusIMM, FAIG, FSEG, MAICD, who is a Fellow of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and a Fellow of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists. Mr Mulholland has sufficient experience which 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 Mulholland is a full time employee and Managing Director of the Company and 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 report that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr Mark Drabble B.App.Sci (Geology), MAusIMM, who is a Member of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Drabble has sufficient experience which 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 Drabble is Principal Consultant Geologist – Optiro Pty Ltd, and consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears.