Independent Technical Specialist’s Report

Technical Assessment, Review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets of Atlas Iron Limited

CSA Global Report Nº 343.2018 12 July 2018

www.csaglobal.com

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 179

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Report prepared for

Client Name BDO Corporate Finance (WA) Pty Ltd Project Name/Job Code AGOITV02 Contact Name Peter Toll Contact Title Director Office Address 38 Station Street, Subiaco, WA 6008

Report issued by

CSA Global Pty Ltd Level 2, 3 Ord Street West Perth, WA 6005 PO Box 141, CSA Global Office West Perth WA 6872 AUSTRALIA T +61 8 9355 1677 F +61 8 9355 1977 E csaausatcsaglobal.com Division Corporate

Report information

File name R343.2018 ITAVR for BDO on Atlas Iron Mineral Assets (AGOITV02).docx Last edited 13/07/2018 09:33:00 Report Status Final

Authorised by

Jeff Elliott CSA Global Signature: Authorisation BSc., MAIG, FAusIMM, MAICD, AFAIM

© Copyright 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 180 I

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Executive Summary

On 18th June 2018, Redstone Corporation Pty Ltd (“Redstone”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Hancock Pty Ltd (“Hancock”), made an offer for the shares in Atlas Iron Ltd (“Atlas”). Redstone offered A$0.042 per share for all of the ordinary shares in Atlas in which Redstone did not already have a relevant interest. BDO Corporate Finance (WA) Pty Limited (BDO) has been engaged by the Independent Directors of the Company to prepare an Independent Expert’s Report (“the IER”) for inclusion with a Target’s Statement advising whether in their opinion the takeover offer is fair and reasonable to the Company’s shareholders. The Atlas Directors also retained CSA Global Pty Ltd (CSA Global) to prepare an independent opinion on the technical inputs into the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models and to undertake a Market Valuation of Atlas’s Mineral Assets in not included in the DCF models, under instruction from BDO. The DCF valuations were conducted by BDO and informed by CSA Global’s review of and commentary on the suitability of the inputs to the DCF models. The scope of the Report, as advised by BDO to CSA Global comprises: • Providing an independent opinion on the technical inputs underpinning the financial model for each of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs projects. • A valuation of Atlas’s other mineral assets, including the following: o Value of resources not included in the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs models o Material iron assets in the Southeast region o The McPhee Creek Project o The Ridley magnetite project o Lithium tenements at Cisco and Pancho o Copper projects at Copper Range and Walker o potential of Atlas’s tenure portfolio o The technical inputs for the Pilgangoora direct shipping (DSO) spodumene interest o The technical inputs for the Altura Lithium royalty from M45/1231. For each of the operations and development projects reviewed, CSA Global has provided cases including capital and operating cost projections, with DCF models, to BDO. CSA Global concluded that the production cases have a reasonable basis. Atlas currently operates one mine, Mount Webber, in the northern Pilbara, and holds a portfolio of tenements covering a range of identified Mineral Resources, comprising pre-development projects and less advanced projects, as well as lithium, copper and potentially gold targets. The operations considered in this review include the Mount Webber operations and Corunna Downs feasibility study. McPhee Creek is the subject of a completed feasibility study, with mine planning and infrastructure requirements engineered in detail, but the development project has not been committed to as the current iron ore prices do not deliver sufficient cash flows to encourage the development of this project. McPhee Creek has therefore been valued on a resource basis. Considering the high exploration maturity of the Atlas projects, CSA Global considers the potential for additional mineralisation at any of the projects to be moderate to low. Some upside potential has been identified at Corunna Downs which may result in additional resources. Atlas’ tenement portfolio also covers projects for lithium, copper and gold.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 181 II

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The Cisco and Pancho Projects in the Wodgina area cover mapped LCT-type pegmatites hosting spodumene. These pegmatites have yet to be defined or fully explored.The projects could potentially hold lithium pegmatites deposits such as those being mined nearby at Pilgangoora and Wodgina. The focus of the Copper Range and Walker Projects is copper hosted by VMS style mineralisation. Exploration in both areas have identified evidence of mineralisation but much work remains to define resources. Atlas’s large tenement portfolio in the Pilbara covers substantial areas of stratigraphy currently being targeted by other companies for gold mineralisation. A substantial area of Atlas’ Pilbara tenement package covers greenstones with substantial structures interpreted totransect the rock packages. Numerous small gold mineral occurrences are known. A high-level mineral systems review of the tenure identified a number of key criteria for gold deposit formation including suitable structural architecture, evidence of sources and reservoirs for gold and potential trap sites for gold mineralisation. Gold nuggets have been found by numerous parties recently, and also over a long period dating back to the 19th century, in conglomerates near the Mount Roe Basalt. New theories about the significance and origin of this gold have been proposed, and significant interest in tenements covering the key stratigraphic locations was notable in late 2017. The Atlas tenements cover, or are adjacent to, key stratigraphic units associated with the conglomerate gold model. For the purposes of preparing this report, CSA Global has visited the operating sites and projects under development, reviewed material technical reports and management information, and held discussions with management staff both on site and in the Perth offices of Atlas. CSA Global has not visited the exploration projects located away from the operations and projects under development as they are not considered to be material to the overall value of Atlas, and CSA Global concluded it was sufficientlyfamiliar with the project areas that a site visit was not required. CSA Global has not audited the information provided to it but has satisfisfied itself that all the information has been prepared in accordance with proper industry standards and is based on data that CSA Global considers to be of acceptable quality and reliability. Where CSA Global has not been so satisfied, CSA Global has included comment in this report and made modifications to the estimates and forecasts provided by CSA Global to BDO.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 182 III

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Valuation Summary CSA Global understand that under BDO’s Current Discount Scenario, they have assumed that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs will not be developed. Therefore, BDO has instructed CSA Global to value Mount Webber and Corunna Downs, as well as McPhee Creek, on a resource basis. CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the iron ore Mineral Resources of Atlas as at 1 July 2018 is provided in Table 1, assuming that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs is not developed. In the event that Mount Webber and Corunna Downs are mined, CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the material iron ore resources not included in the current mine plans, as at 1 July 2018, is provided in Table 2. Table 1: Value of Mineral Assets as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber Mineral Resources 5 15 10 Corunna Downs Mineral Resources 6 15 10 McPhee Creek Minerals Resources 20 60 40 Ridley Mineral Resources 6.0 18.0 12.0 Davidson Creek Hub Mineral Resources 4.0 12.5 6.5 Mount Dove ground holding 0.25 0.70 0.5 Miralga Creek Mineral Resources 0.15 0.40 0.2 West Pilbara (Anthiby) Project 0.01 0.02 0.01 Mid West (Beebyn) Project 0.01 0.03 0.02 Western Creek Project 0.01 0.04 0.03 Hickman Project 0.00 0.01 0.01 Jimblebar Project 0.03 0.07 0.05 Warrawanda Project 0.03 0.08 0.06 Pardoo Project 0.15 0.40 0.25 Abydos project 0.08 0.25 0.15 Cisco Lithium Project 0.6 3.4 2.2 Pancho Lithium Project 0.1 0.5 0.3 Copper Range Copper 0.03 0.28 0.20 Walker Copper Project 0.02 0.22 0.17 Gold potential of the Atlas Pilbara tenements* 1.2 10.7 4.4 TOTAL 43.7 137.6 87.1 The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur. Note: the Mt Webber & Corunna Downs Mineral asset valuations above are for the full resource base including any residual resources outside the mine plan – the value of these residual resources are shown below in Table 2 Table 2: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources outside the current mine plans as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 0.6 2.0 1.0 Corunna Downs 4.0 10.0 6.5 TOTAL 4.6 12.0 7.5 The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur.

There is significant range in the values derived for the Company’s projects. CSA Global has considered these ranges and concludes that it provides a reasonable representation of possible valuation outcomes for the projects, given the uncertainties inherent in valuing exploration projects. It is stressed that the valuation is an opinion as to likely values, not absolute values, which can only be tested by going to the market.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 183 IV

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Contents

Report prepared for ...... I Report issued by ...... I Report information ...... I Authorised by ...... I

EXECUTIVE SUMMARY ...... II Valuation Summary ...... IV

CONTENTS ...... V

1 INTRODUCTION ...... 1 1.1 Context, Scope and Terms of Reference ...... 1 1.2 Compliance with the VALMIN and JORC Codes ...... 2 1.3 Principal Sources of Information ...... 2 1.4 Authors of the Report – Qualifications, Experience and Competence ...... 3 1.5 Prior Association and Independence ...... 4 1.6 Declarations ...... 5 1.6.1 Results are Estimates and Subject to Change ...... 5

2 IRON PROJECTS ...... 6 2.1 Location and Access ...... 6 2.2 Ownership and Tenure ...... 7 2.2.1 Agreements and Royalties ...... 7 2.3 Geology ...... 8 2.3.1 Mount Webber ...... 8 2.3.2 Corunna Downs ...... 10 2.3.3 McPhee Creek ...... 13 2.3.4 Davidson Creek ...... 18 2.3.5 Miralga Creek ...... 22 2.3.6 Ridley and Pardoo ...... 27 2.3.7 Avalon Point/Abydos ...... 28 2.3.8 East Newman Projects ...... 30 2.3.9 West Newman Projects ...... 32 2.3.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well) ...... 35 2.3.11 Mid West (Beebyn) ...... 37 2.4 Exploration Summary ...... 39 2.4.1 Mount Webber ...... 39 2.4.2 Corunna Downs ...... 39 2.4.3 McPhee Creek ...... 39 2.4.4 Davidson Creek ...... 39 2.4.5 Miralga Creek ...... 40 2.4.6 Ridley and Pardoo ...... 40 2.4.7 Avalon Point/Abydos ...... 40 2.4.8 East Newman Projects ...... 41 2.4.9 West and North Newman Projects ...... 41 2.4.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well) ...... 41 2.4.11 Mid West (Beebyn) ...... 42 2.5 Exploration Potential ...... 42 2.5.1 Mount Webber ...... 42

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 184 V

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.5.2 Corunna Downs ...... 42 2.5.3 McPhee Creek ...... 42 2.5.4 Davidson Creek ...... 43 2.5.5 Miralga Creek ...... 43 2.5.6 Ridley and Pardoo ...... 43 2.5.7 Avalon Point/Abydos ...... 43 2.5.8 East Newman Projects ...... 44 2.5.9 West and North Newman Projects ...... 44 2.5.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well) ...... 45 2.5.11 Mid West (Beebyn) ...... 45 2.6 Iron Mineral Resources ...... 45 2.6.1 Mount Webber Mineral Resource Estimate ...... 46 2.6.2 Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate ...... 50 2.6.3 McPhee Creek Project Mineral Resource Estimate ...... 55 2.6.4 Miralga Creek Project ...... 59 2.6.5 Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource Estimate ...... 61 2.6.6 Western Creek Project ...... 67 2.6.7 Hickman Project ...... 67 2.6.8 Jimblebar Project ...... 68 2.6.9 West Pilbara Project ...... 69 2.6.10 Warrawanda Project ...... 69 2.6.11 Pardoo Project ...... 69 2.6.12 Abydos Project ...... 70 2.6.13 Mid West Project ...... 70 2.6.14 Ridley Project ...... 71 2.7 Mining ...... 74 2.7.1 Site Visit ...... 74 2.7.2 Mining Approach ...... 75 2.7.3 Mine Design...... 75 2.7.4 Mine Equipment ...... 76 2.7.5 Mine Schedule ...... 76 2.7.6 Waste Mining and Disposal ...... 77 2.7.7 Processing ...... 77 2.7.8 Mount Dove Crushing Operations ...... 78 2.7.9 Ore Blending ...... 78 2.7.10 Haulage ...... 79 2.7.11 Capital Cost Estimates ...... 80 2.7.12 Operating Cost Estimates ...... 80 2.7.13 Corunna Downs – Feasibility Study ...... 82 2.7.14 Key physical and financial parameters ...... 88

3 OTHER PROJECTS ...... 89 3.1 Ownership and Tenure ...... 89 3.2 Lithium ...... 89 3.2.1 Mount Francisco Project ...... 90 3.2.2 Pancho Project ...... 91 3.2.3 Pilgangoora DSO Spodumene ...... 92 3.2.4 Altura Royalty ...... 92 3.3 Copper ...... 92 3.3.1 Copper Range Project ...... 92 3.3.2 Walker Project ...... 95 3.4 Gold Potential of Pilbara Portfolio ...... 97

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 185 VI

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

3.5 Balance of Tenement Portfolio...... 98

4 VALUATION OF MINERAL ASSETS NOT FORMING PART OF THE DCF MODELS ...... 99 4.1 Iron Ore Projects ...... 99 4.1.1 Commodities Market ...... 99 4.1.2 Previous Valuations ...... 102 4.1.3 Valuation Approach ...... 103 4.1.4 Project-Specific Value Drivers ...... 104 4.1.5 Comparative Transactions Valuation ...... 110 4.1.6 Yardstick Order of Magnitude Check...... 113 4.1.7 Appraised Value (Tenement Holding Costs) ...... 114 4.1.8 Valuation Opinion for Iron Ore Projects ...... 115 4.2 Other Projects ...... 117 4.3 Summary of valuations ...... 117

5 REFERENCES ...... 119

6 GLOSSARY ...... 122

7 ABBREVIATIONS AND UNITS OF MEASUREMENT ...... 124

APPENDIX 1: VALUATION APPROACHES ...... 126

APPENDIX 2: SUMMARY TENEMENT SCHEDULE ...... 132

APPENDIX 3: COMPARATIVE TRANSACTIONS ...... 139

APPENDIX 4: DETAILED YARDSTICK VALUATION...... 155

APPENDIX 5: GEOSCIENTIFIC FACTOR METHOD DATA FOR OTHER PROJECTS ...... 156

Figures Figure 1: Location of Atlas projects and infrastructure in the Pilbara region of WA ...... 6 Figure 2: Mount Webber geology and deposit locations ...... 9 Figure 3: Corunna Downs regional geology ...... 11 Figure 4: Corunna Downs geology and deposit locations ...... 12 Figure 5: McPhee Creek deposit location plan ...... 14 Figure 6: Main Range general geology ...... 15 Figure 7: Crescent Moon cross section ...... 16 Figure 8: Schematic cross sections through Main Range ...... 17 Figure 9: Davidson Creek Project location plan ...... 20 Figure 10: Davidson Creek regional geology plan ...... 21 Figure 11: Robertson Range sectional interpretation ...... 22 Figure 12: Miralga Creek project location plan ...... 23 Figure 13: Sandtrax geology ...... 24 Figure 14: Miralga Creek section ...... 24 Figure 15: Stratigraphic model for Grants ...... 25 Figure 16: Cross section of Sandtrax ...... 26 Figure 17: Miralga Creek West cross section ...... 26 Figure 18: Pardoo Project tenement location plan ...... 27 Figure 19: Regional geology of Avalon Point...... 28 Figure 20: Mineralised envelope at Avalon Point Source: Johnston, 2013 ...... 29 Figure 21: Structure and stratigraphy of Avalon Point Source: Johnston, 2013 ...... 29 Figure 22: East Newman Project Location Plan Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 30 Figure 23: McCamey’s North geological map ...... 32 Figure 24: West Newman Projects location plan ...... 33 Figure 25: Geology of Anthiby Well ...... 36

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 186 VII

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 26: Section through the Anthiby Well CID (from Louw, 2009) ...... 37 Figure 27: Location of Beebyn deposit ...... 37 Figure 28: Beebyn Geology ...... 38 Figure 29: Mount Webber processing plant ...... 77 Figure 30: Road-train loading ...... 78 Figure 31: Grade bands from April 2018 to August 2018. Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 79 Figure 32: Grade bands from August 2018 for LOM. Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 79 Figure 33: Typical quad road-train ...... 80 Figure 34: Corunna Downs location ...... 83 Figure 35: Location of Corunna Downs Mineral Resources ...... 85 Figure 36: Location of the Cisco and Pancho Projects ...... 89 Figure 37: Simplified Geological Map of the Cisico and Pancho Projects, ...... 90 Figure 38: Pancho pegmatite targets ...... 91 Figure 39: Copper Range Project location and simplified geology Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 93 Figure 40: Copper Range Project geology and exploration targets ...... 94 Figure 41: Copper Range RCP drilling in December 2017 ...... 95 Figure 42: Walker Prospect location ...... 96 Figure 43: Iron ore price history...... 100 Figure 44: Iron ore pricing Jan15–Feb18, and Fe grade discount ...... 101 Figure 45: Continuing discount for low-grade iron ore ...... 102 Figure 46: Comparative grade and quality of the Atlas projects ...... 105 Figure 47: Location of Atlas projects Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 106 Figure 48: Location of Atlas Pilbara projects Source: Atlas, 2018 ...... 107

Tables Table 1: Value of Mineral Assets as at 1 July 2018 ...... IV Table 2: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources outside the current mine plans as at 1 July 2018 ...... IV Table 3: Drilling completed at Corunna Downs ...... 39 Table 4: Pardoo drill summary ...... 40 Table 5: Atlas DSO hæmatite Mineral Resource estimate by project, 31 March 2018...... 45 Table 6: Atlas magnetite Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 46 Table 7: Mount Webber Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 47 Table 8: Mount Webber drillhole database ...... 47 Table 9: Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 51 Table 10: Corunna Downs drillhole database ...... 51 Table 11: Corunna Downs sample search neighbourhoods (grade estimation) ...... 54 Table 12: McPhee Creek Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 55 Table 13: Miralga Creek Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 59 Table 14: Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 62 Table 15: Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 ...... 62 Table 16: Western Creek Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 67 Table 17: Hickman Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 67 Table 18: Jimblebar Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 68 Table 19: West Pilbara Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 69 Table 20: Warrawanda Project Mineral Resource estimate, >53% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 69 Table 21: Pardoo Project Mineral Resource estimate, >53% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 69 Table 22: Abydos Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 70 Table 23: Mid West Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 ...... 70 Table 24: Ridley Mineral Resource estimate (DTR and head grades), 31 March 2018 ...... 71 Table 25: Ridley Mineral Resource estimate (concentrate grades), 31 March 2018 ...... 71 Table 26: Mount Webber mining and processing LOM schedule (including process at Mount Dove) ...... 76 Table 27: Mount Webber operating cost estimate (real 2018) ...... 80 Table 28: Corunna Downs – Corporate Model ...... 84 Table 29: Corunna Downs operating cost estimate (2018 real) ...... 87 Table 30: Product specifications for Platts Indices ...... 99

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 187 VIII

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 31: SNL commodity consensus pricing, 62% Fe ...... 101 Table 32: BDO Iron ore price forecasts (nominal) ...... 101 Table 33: Previous transactions involving the Atlas mineral assets...... 103 Table 34: Valuation basis and methods employed ...... 104 Table 35: Project-specific discount/premium factors ...... 110 Table 36: Summary of analysis of WA DSO iron ore Comparative Transactions ...... 111 Table 37: Undiscounted valuation of DSO iron ore resources considering Comparative Transactions ...... 111 Table 38: Discounted Valuation of DSO iron ore resources considering Comparative Transactions ...... 112 Table 39: Undiscounted valuation of resources outside of the Webber & Corunna financial model ...... 112 Table 40: Discounted Valuation of resources outside of Webber & Corunna financial models ...... 112 Table 41: Summary of analysis of WA magnetite iron ore Comparative Transactions ...... 113 Table 42: Undiscounted Valuation of Ridley magnetite project using Comparative Transactions ...... 113 Table 43: Discounted Valuation of Ridley magnetite project using Comparative Transactions ...... 113 Table 44: Summary of Yardstick order of magnitude crosscheck ...... 114 Table 45: Yardstick Valuation of resources outside the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs financial models .... 114 Table 46: Valuation of Atlas projects considering Appraised Value ...... 115 Table 47: Value of Atlas iron ore Mineral Resources ...... 116 Table 48: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources post current mine plan completion ...... 116 Table 49: Summary valuations of key other projects, as at 1 July 2018 ...... 117 Table 50: Value ofMineral Assets as at 1 July 2018 ...... 118 Table 51: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources outside the current mine plans as at 1 July 2018 ...... 118 Table 52: Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier (PEM) factors ...... 127 Table 53: Geoscience Factor ranking ...... 129 Table 54: Valuation approaches for different types of mineral properties (VALMIN, 2015) ...... 130 Table 55: Company Codes used in tenement schedule ...... 132 Table 56: Comparative WA DSO iron ore transactions ...... 139 Table 57: Comparative WA DSO iron ore transactions analysed ...... 141 Table 58: Comparative Australian magnetite iron ore transactions ...... 143 Table 59: Comparative Australian magnetite iron ore transactions analysed ...... 144 Table 60: Comparative Australian copper exploration asset transactions analysed ...... 145 Table 61: Comparative Western Australian lithium exploration asset transactions analysed ...... 146 Table 62: Comparative transactions of exploration ground prospective for gold in Australia ...... 152 Table 63: Yardstick crosscheck on total Resources ...... 155 Table 64: Yardstick crosscheck for remaining Resources outside of current mine plans ...... 155 Table 65: Weightings for Key Copper and Lithium Projects...... 156 Table 66: BAC for WA, April 2018 ...... 157

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 188 IX

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

1 Introduction

1.1 Context, Scope and Terms of Reference Atlas Iron Limited (Atlas) is a Perth-based mining company that is listed on the Australian Securities Exchange (ASX). Atlas’s key assets are the Mount Webber, Corunna Downs and McPhee Creek iron ore projects in Western Australia (WA). On 18 June 2018, Redstone Corporation Pty Ltd(“ Redstone”), a wholly owned subsidiary of Pty Ltd (“Hancock”), made an offer for the shares in Atlas. Redstone offered A$0.042 per share for all of the ordinary shares in Atlas in which Redstone did not already have a relevant interest. BDO Corporate Finance (WA) Pty Limited (BDO) has been engaged by the Independent Directors of the Company to prepare an Independent Expert’s Report (“the IER”) for inclusion with a Target’s Statement advising whether in their opinion the takeover offer is fair and reasonable to the Company’s shareholders. CSA Global Pty Ltd (CSA Global) was in turn commissioned by BDO to prepare an independent opinion on the technical inputs into the Discounted Cash Flow (DCF) models and undertake a Market Valuation of Atlas’s Mineral Assets in WA not included in the DCF models (“CSA Global Report” or “the Report”) in accordance with the requirements of the VALMIN Code1 2015. The DCF valuations were to be conducted by BDO, informed by CSA Global’s review of and commentary on the suitability of the inputs to the DCF models. BDO will rely on, and the BDO Report will refer to, the CSA Global valuation opinion, and a copy of the CSA Global Report will be appended to the BDO Report. The BDO Report will provide an opinion to Atlas’s shareholders, and as such it will be a public document. CSA Global will provide its consent to the use of the Report in the form and context in which it will be published. The Report is a Technical Assessment and Valuation subject to the VALMIN Code. The Report contains a technical appraisal of Atlas’s Mineral Assets in WA, including geological and mining aspects. A valuation of the assets outside of the current mine plans was also completed. CSA Global used a range of valuation methodologies to reach a conclusion on the value of the assets. The scope of the Report, as advised by BDO to CSA Global, comprises: • Providing an independent opinion on the technical inputs underpinning the financial model which includes the following for each of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs projects: o The level of resources and reserves o Mining physicals (including tonnes of ore mined, quality, waste material and mine life) o Processing assumptions and costs o Production profiles o Operating expenditure o Capital expenditure o Any other relevant technical assumptions not specified above. • A valuation of Atlas’s other mineral assets, including the following: o Value of resources not included in the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs models o Material iron ore assets in the Southeast Pilbara region o The McPhee Creek Project o The Ridley magnetite project

1 Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets (The VALMIN Code) 2015 Edition. Prepared by the VALMIN Committee, a joint committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy and the Australian Institute of Geoscientists.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 189 1

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

o Lithium tenements at Cisco and Pancho o Copper projects at Copper Range and Walker o Gold potential of Atlas’s tenure portfolio o The technical inputs for the Pilgangoora direct shipping ore (DSO) spodumene interest o The technical inputs for the Altura Lithium royalty from M45/1231.

1.2 Compliance with the VALMIN and JORC Codes The Report has been prepared in accordance with the VALMIN Code, which is binding upon Members of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists (AIG) and the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy (AusIMM), the JORC Code2 and the rules and guidelines issued by such bodies as the ASIC and ASX that pertain to Independent Experts Reports. The authors have taken due note of the rules and guidelines issued by such bodies as ASIC and ASX, including ASIC Regulatory Guide 111 – Content of Expert Reports, and ASIC Regulatory Guide 112 – Independence of Experts.

1.3 Principal Sources of Information The Report has been based on information available up to and including 3rd July 2018. The information was provided to CSA Global by Atlas, or has been sourced from the public domain, and includes both published and unpublished technical reports prepared by consultants, and other data relevant to Atlas’s projects. The authors have endeavoured, by making all reasonable enquiries within the timeframe available, to confirm the authenticity and completeness of the technical data upon which the Report is based. Mr Karl Van Olden of CSA Global undertook a site visit to the Mount Webber and Mount Dove operations on 4 May 2018, as detailed in Section 2.7.1 of this Report. CSA Global personnel have not undertaken a site visit to Atlas’s non-operating assets, as there are no current operations to observe, and no additional information material to its assessment would be gained from a site visit. CSA Global Principal Consultants Mark Pudovskis and Ilmar Tehnas have both worked at the Yarrie/Shay Gap/Nimingarra/ operations for BHP and are both very familiar with the Cleaverville Formation and its mineralisation style, which does not vary greatly throughout the Pilbara. They have also visited BHP’s Ord-Ridley deposits near Goldsworthy, adjacent to Atlas’ Ridley deposit which has similar geology (Cleaverville Formation). They have both also worked extensively for over 10 years in the Newman area for BHP and are familiar with the mineralisation styles exhibited by the Marra Mamba Iron Formation, particularly at South Jimblebar and the areas west of Newman. These mineralisation styles do not change in adjacent deposits. The desktop data that they have examined indicates that the mineralisation on the Atlas tenements is similar to that in the nearby BHP tenements which can be considered to be analogous deposits. Tenement information on the Western Australian Mineral Assets was provided by McMahon Mining Title Services (MMTS); details are provided in Section 2.2. CSA Global relies on the independent opinion of MMTS dated 30 June 2018, with regards to the validity, ownership and good standing of Atlas’s tenements. CSA Global makes no other assessment or assertion as to the legal title of the tenements and is not qualified to do so.

2 Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code) 2012 Edition. Prepared by the Joint Ore Reserves Committee of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Minerals Council of Australia (JORC).

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 190 2

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

1.4 Authors of the Report – Qualifications, Experience and Competence The Report has been prepared by CSA Global, a privately-owned consulting company that has been operating for over 30 years; with its headquarters in Perth, WA. CSA Global provides multidisciplinary services to a broad spectrum of clients across the global mining industry. Services are provided across all stages of the mining cycle from project generation, to exploration, resource estimation, project evaluation, development studies, operations assistance, and corporate advice, such as valuations and independent technical documentation. The information in this Report that relates to Technical Assessment of Mineral Assets reflects information compiled and conclusions derived by Mr Ilmar Tehnas and Mr Mark Pudovskis, who are both Members of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mark and Ilmar are not related parties or employees of Atlas. Ilmar and Mark have sufficient experience relevant to the Technical Assessment of the Mineral Assets under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as a Practitioner as defined in the 2015 edition of the “Australasian Code for the Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets”. Mark and Ilmar consent to the inclusion in the Report of the matters based on their information in the form and context in which it appears. CSA Global Principal Geologist Ilmar Tehnas (BAppSc (Geology), MAusIMM) is a highly experienced iron ore specialist, widely acknowledged as an authority on the iron of the Pilbara with over 35 years’ experience. In his career with BHP Billiton Iron Ore and its predecessor companies his focus was on the acquisition and evaluation of a world-class iron ore tenement portfolio in the Pilbara of Western Australia. In that time he acquired expert level knowledge of Australian, and global, iron ore geology, with roles in exploration, evaluation, resource estimation, mine geology, business development, technical services, as well as auditing and training. CSA Global Principal Geologist Mark Pudovskis (BSc (Geology), MSEG, MAusIMM) is a geologist with over 20 years’ multi-commodity (Fe, K, Mn, Al, U, Cu, Pb, Zn, Ag, Au), global experience across a variety of geological terranes, with specialist expertise in exploration and evaluation of iron ore, manganese and potash deposits. In his role as BHP Billiton’s Global Iron Ore Commodity Specialist he worked on over 100 iron deposits with significant experience in West Africa and Latin America. He also led BHPB’s manganese exploration efforts in Australian (East Arnhem Land) and Gabon, as well as potash projects in Canada (Saskatchewan) and Gabon. The valuation of Mineral Resources and Exploration Properties was completed by CSA Global Principal Consultant, Mr Trivindren Naidoo, MSc (Exploration Geology), Grad.Cert (Mineral Economics), FGSSA and MAusIMM. Trivindren is a consulting geologist with over1 9 years’ experience in the minerals industry, including 13 years as a consultant. He has an extensive background in mineral exploration, and specialises in due diligence reviews, project evaluations and valuations, as well as code-compliant reporting. Trivindren’s knowledge is broad-based, and he has wide-ranging experience in the field of mineral exploration and resource development, having managed or consulted on various projects ranging from first-pass grassroots exploration to brownfields exploration and evaluation. Trivindren has the relevant qualifications, experience, competence, and independence to be considered a “Specialist” under the definitions provided in the VALMIN Code and a “Competent Person” as defined in the JORC Code. The valuation of Mineral Resources and Exploration Properties was peer reviewed by CSA Global Principal Consultant, Mr Sam Ulrich, BSc (Hons) Geology, GDipAppFinInv, MAusIMM, MAIG, FFin. Sam has 20 years’ experience in gold, copper and uranium mineral exploration, resource development and more recently in consulting undertaking independent valuation and geological reporting. Sam is a VALMIN specialist having undertaken valuations for Independent Experts Reports, stamp duty assessments, due diligence, and asset impairments in numerous commodities for projects worldwide, he specialises in the valuation of non-producing mineral assets. He has also undertaken Independent Geological Reports (IGR) for IPO’s. Sam has the relevant qualifications, experience, competence, and independence to be considered “a Specialist” under the definitions provided in the VALMIN Code and a “Competent Person” as defined in the JORC Code.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 191 3

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The information in this Report that relates to the Technical Assessment of Mineral Resources was completed by CSA Global Principal Consultant, Ms Maria O’Connor, MAIG, MAusIMM. Maria is an experienced resource geologist with skills in resource estimation, feasibility studies, project evaluations, resources auditing, due diligence studies, exploration geology, grade control, technical reporting and provision of training. Key areas of focus include geostatistical modelling, creating and maintaining geological and resource models, sensitivity analyses, quality assurance/quality control (QAQC) and coordinating transfer of skills emphasising a high degree of collaboration and up-skilling with clients. Maria has the relevant qualifications, experience, competence and independence to be considered a “Competent Person” relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit described in the Report, as defined in the JORC Code. Technical aspects of this Report concerning mining matters have been prepared by CSA Global Principal Engineer, Mr Karl Van Olden, FAusIMM, MAICD. Karl is a mining engineer with 25 years’ experience in planning, development and operation of a diverse range of open pit and underground resource assets across Africa and Australia. Karl’s broad expertise includes mining engineering, business process development, business and mine planning, Ore Reserves, financial analysis and project management. His experience has been gained from operating assets, driving technical excellence within major gold producing companies and global consulting roles, providing a deep understanding of the key drivers for success in the resource industry. Karl has the relevant qualifications, experience, competence and independence to be considered an “Expert” under the definitions provided in the VALMIN Code and a “Competent Person” as defined in the JORC Code. Technical aspects of this Report concerning mining matters have been peer reviewed by CSA Global Principal Engineer, Mr Kent Bannister, BEng (Mining) ARMIT, FAusIMM (CP). Kent has over 40 years’ experience in iron ore, base metals, gold, uranium, manganese, mineral sands and nickel projects worldwide. Kent has held various managerial positions from General Manager to Company Director. Kent has provided consulting services since 1988 and has undertaken, lead or managed over 500 mineral project studies, evaluation and due diligence studies for Australian and international companies. The reviewer of the Report is CSA Global Managing Director, Principal Consultant, Mr Jeff Elliott, BSc (Geology), FAusIMM, MAIG, MAICD, AFAIM. Jeff has over 23 years’ experience in the mining industry during which time he has developed broad capabilities in project evaluation, exploration, resource development and mining for a wide variety of commodities in diverse geological settings and locations. He has significant technical experience in exploration, project assessment, technical valuations, independent reporting and corporate advice. He also has strong financial, business management, communication, and strategy development and implementation skills. Jeff has the relevant qualifications, experience, competence and independence to be considered an “Expert” under the definitions provided in the VALMIN Code and a “Competent Person” as defined in the JORC Code.

1.5 Prior Association and Independence The authors of this Report have no prior association with Atlas in regard to the Mineral Assets, with the exception of Ridley. CSA Global was involved in the initial drill out of the Ridley deposit prior to 2008. The Competent Person for the Ridley Mineral Resource estimate is Mr Malcolm Titley, who was a full-time employee of CSA Global when the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared. CSA Global’s current review of the Ridley Mineral Resource was undertaken by current personnel who have not been previously involved in the project. CSA Global notes that a draft technical specialists’ report was prepared in May 2018 but not finalised by CSA Global for BDO in relation a scheme of arrangement between Atlas Iron and Mineral Resources; this draft material was used in the preparation of this Report. CSA Global used new internal peer reviewers, who had no previous involvement with the draft report for the scheme booklet, to check and review the current document. Based on our internal checks, neither CSA Global, nor the authors of this Report, have or have had previously, any material interest in Atlas or the mineral properties in which Atlas has an interest. CSA Global’s relationship with Atlas is solely one of professional association between client and independent consultant.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 192 4

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

CSA Global is an independent geological consultancy. This Report is prepared in return for professional fees based upon agreed commercial rates and the payment of these fees is in no way contingent on the results of this Report. The fee for the preparation of this Report is approximately A$38,000, the cost of the draft material prepared in relation to the Atlas-MinRes scheme booklet was A$133,000. No member or employee of CSA Global is, or is intended to be, a director, officer or other direct employee of Atlas. No member or employee of CSA Global has, or has had, any material shareholding in Atlas. There is no formal agreement between CSA Global and Atlas to CSA Global conducting further work for Atlas.

1.6 Declarations The statements and opinions contained in this Report are given in good faith and in the belief that they are not false or misleading. The Report has been compiled based on information available up to and including the date of the Report. The statements and opinions are based on the reference date of 3 July 2018 and could alter over time depending on exploration results, mineral prices and other relevant market factors. The opinions expressed in the Report have been based on the information supplied to CSA Global by Atlas. The opinions in the Report are provided in response to a specific request from Atlas to do so. CSA Global has exercised all due care in reviewing the supplied information. Whilst CSA Global has compared key supplied data with expected values, the accuracy of the results and conclusions from the review are entirely reliant on the accuracy and completeness of the supplied data. CSA Global does not accept responsibility for any errors or omissions in the supplied information and does not accept any consequential liability arising from commercial decisions or actions resulting from them. Opinions presented in the Report apply to the site conditions and features, as they existed at the time of CSA Global’s investigations, and those reasonably foreseeable. These opinions do not necessarily apply to conditions and features that may arise after the date of the Report, about which CSA Global had no prior knowledge nor had the opportunity to evaluate. CSA Global’s valuations are based on information provided by Atlas and public domain information. This information has been supplemented by making all reasonable enquiries, to confirm the authenticity and completeness of the technical data. No audit of any financial data has been conducted. The valuations discussed in the Report have been prepared at a valuation date of 1 July 2018. It is stressed that the values are opinions as to likely values, not absolute values, which can only be tested by going to the market.

1.6.1 Results are Estimates and Subject to Change The interpretations and conclusions reached in this Report are based on current scientific understanding and the best evidence available to the authors at the time of writing. It is the nature of all scientific conclusions that they are founded on an assessment of probabilities and, however high these probabilities might be, they make no claim for absolute certainty. The ability of any person to achieve forward-looking production and economic targets is dependent on numerous factors that are beyond CSA Global’s control and that CSA Global cannot anticipate. These factors include, but are not limited to, site-specific mining and geological conditions, management and personnel capabilities, availability of funding to properly operate and capitalise the operation, variations in cost elements and market conditions, developing and operating the mine in an efficient manner, unforeseen changes in legislation and new industry developments. Any of these factors may substantially alter the performance of any mining operation.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 193 5

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2 Iron Projects

Atlas currently operates one mine, Mount Webber, in the northern Pilbara, and holds a portfolio of tenements covering a range of identified iron Mineral Resources, comprising pre-development projects and less advanced projects, as well as lithium, copper and potentially gold targets. CSA Global understands that BDO will value the current and planned operations of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs projects using DCF models. The technical assessments documented in this Report have been conducted to support the valuation of these mineral assets, as well as the mineral assets outside of the current mine plans. The focus has been in assessing risks to the value of the projects, as well as identifying the potential for upside value. The valuation of these assets is on the basis of current market value, i.e. what a willing buyer, acting without compulsion, would pay for these assets now.

2.1 Location and Access The location of Atlas’s projects in the Pilbara region of WA is shown in Figure 1.

Figure 1: Location of Atlas projects and infrastructure in the Pilbara region of WA Source: Atlas

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 194 6

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.2 Ownership and Tenure CSA Global relies on the independent opinion of MMTS, as stated in their letter to Atlas entitled “Atlas Iron Limited – Tenure Review” and dated 10 May 2018, and subsequently updated by email to note that apart from a small number on non material surrnders the tenement portfolio remains the same as the 10/5/18 review (see Appendix 2), with regards to the validity, ownership and good standing of the Atlas tenure for material projects. MMTS confirms that thet enements are current and are in good standing, with the exception of E45/2517-I which is in fair standing. 3. CSA Global makes no other assessment or assertion as to the legal title of the tenements and is not qualified to do so. A summary tenement schedule, as provided by Atlas, is presented in Appendix 2 of this Report.

2.2.1 Agreements and Royalties

Royalties Payable Atlas has standard obligations to pay royalties under Native Title agreements and the Mining Act. In relation to theMount Webber mine: • Atlas must pay a 0.3% FOB sale royalty to Altura Mining (Altura) on Mount Webber production in months when the Platts 62% iron ore index price is greater than A$95.4 The royalty expires once Atlas has extracted ≈28 Mt from the Mount Webber mine in aggregate (expected to occur later this year). • In the unlikely event that Atlas significantly increases its reserve on M45/1197 at Mount Webber, Atlas will need to make a payment to Haoma of A$1.375 (indexed for inflation) for each reserve tonne in excess of 24 Mt (applicable reserve on this tenement is currently ≈21 Mt, inclusive of mining to date).5 In relation to the Corunna Downs Project: • Atlas must pay Gondwana A$250,000 on first production from Corunna Downs. • If Atlas extracts over 30 Mt of iron ore, Atlas must pay a royalty to Gondwana of A$1.13/t for all iron ore sold in excess of 30 Mt, CSA Global understands that this royalty has been assigned to Ochre Group Holdings Ltd. • Atlas owes a royalty of A$0.13/t for all iron ore sold to Adelaide Prospecting. Certain other contractual royalties exist over Atlas’s undeveloped projects, but these are not currently considered material, as they would only become relevant if a decision was made to develop the relevant projects.

Royalties Receivable Atlas owns a 5% gross sales royalty over M45/1231, which covers the majority of Altura’s Pilgangoora Project. Atlas holds royalties over Forge/BBI’s Balla Balla Project as follows – • 4% gross sales for iron in magnetite capped at 5.5Mt of contained Fe, then 1% gross sales for iron in magnetite capped at 36Mt of contained Fe

• 4% gross sales for TiO2 in ilmenite capped at 200,000t of contained TiO2, then 1% gross sales for TiO2 in

ilmenite capped at 1.2Mt of contained TiO2. BBI Group are currently focussing on developing a railroad and port. There appear to be no near-term plans to develop the Balla Balla Project. CSA Global did not have access to any information regarding the financial and technical viability of the project. Given the lack of information, and lack of clarity over the project timing, CSA Global has concluded that there is no reasonable basis to form any valuation conclusions about the Balla Balla royalties.

3 Fair standing is due to the minimum statutory expenditure requirement not yet being met, but it is deemed unlikely to risk the licence 4 See ASX release dated 24 December 2014, which refers to a 1% royalty on Altura’s notional 30% share of production. 5 See ASX release dated 26 March 2012, which refers to a payment of A$5.50/t for Haoma’s notional 25% share.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 195 7

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Atlas holds certain other royalties over third party tenements arising from historical divestments, but these are not considered material in the context of the current value of the company.

2.3 Geology

2.3.1 Mount Webber

Deposit Geology The Mount Webber Project consists of three deposits (see Figure 2): • Gibson/Daltons – one deposit split on a tenement boundary; • Fender – located to the southwest on the same banded iron formation (BIF) unit as Gibson/Daltons; and • Ibanez – located slightly to the west of Gibson on a parallel BIF outcrop. The Project is located within the Archaean age Granite greenstone terrane of the Pilbara Craton, with the deposits occurring within the Gorge Creek and Sulphur Springs Groups of the Pilbara Supergroup (Slomp, 2017). Complex folding and faulting have resulted from the deposits being located between two large granitoid complexes – the Shaw Granitoid Complex to the east and the Yule Granitoid Complex to the west (Hermawan, 2013). The deposits are hosted within the Pincunah Banded Iron Member (Hickman, 2013) of the Kangaroo Caves Formation. The Pincunah Banded Iron Member comprises red-black BIF, chert, tuff, siltstone and shale and is unconformably underlain by the Warrawoona Group mafic and ultramafic lithologies. The BIF and chert of the Pincunah Banded Iron Member form steep-sided ridges with flat-topped summits. The Pincunah Banded Iron Member has been informally divided into Upper and Lower BIF units separated by a thin chert unit. A geological map of the Mount Webber project area by Crossing (2008) (Figure 2) that was included in the resource report (Hermawan, 2013) does not differentiate these separate units, nor does it show the location of surface mineralisation. One dolerite intrusive has been identified in the Fender deposit that cuts the entire sequence, but this has had no apparent effect on the mineralisation.

Mineralisation The mineralisation has been recorded as predominantly gœthite with minor hæmatite (Hermawan, 2013). The mineralisation occurs as lenses of varying sizes ranging from 10 m to 15 m wide to several hundred metres wide and over a kilometre long and occurs in both the Upper and Lower BIF units, although the majority is within the Upper BIF unit. The mineralisation in the Lower BIF unit is thought to be poddy and laterally inconsistent, and consequently of lower prospectivity. The mineralisation has a hard-cap that varies from 10 m to 30 m in depth. It is believed by Atlas that the mineralisation was formed by supergene processes only. This is borne out by the grade and distribution of the bulk of the mineralisation. However, a brief review of the chemistry of Gibson/Daltons revealed the presence of mineralisation that may have a different origin. For example, MWGC0625 contained an interval from 20 m to 60 m grading 63.3% Fe, 0.086% P and 6.15% loss on ignition (LOI). Individual samples had higher grades – the interval 50–52 m contained 65.64% Fe, 0.07% P and 3.95% LOI, indicating this sample had major hæmatite. This was repeated in numerous other holes. Whether this can be separated as a mineable unit could not be determined by this review. The grades are not high enough to definitively suggest a metamorphic origin for some of this material (likely to be martite-gœthite); however, this cannot be totally rejected either. The overall iron grade for the Gibson/Daltons resource (all categories) has been quoted as 57.9% Fe, 0.09% P and 8.3% LOI. The majority of the holes were between 40 m and 80 m deep, with several extending below 100 m. The deepest hole recorded was 120 m.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 196 8

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

A review of the Ibanez database revealed shallower holes, the majority ranging between 30 m and 60 m deep with several deeper than 100 m. The bulk of the mineralisation was goethitic, with minimal hæmatite. A few holes intersected higher grades, e.g. MWRC0933 which averaged 63.3% Fe, 0.094% P and 5.79% LOI for the 36 m intersection between 22 m and 58 m. This is most likely a martite-gœthite rather than having a metamorphic origin.

Daltons

Gibson

Ibanez

Fender

Figure 2: Mount Webber geology and deposit locations (after Crossing 2008)

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 197 9

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Structure The mineralisation occurs in synclinal fold closures where the BIF is thickened by intraformational folding, with the synclines corresponding to the topographic highs and the valleys to eroded antiformal hinges. Tight folding at Gibson/Daltons is believed to reflect a second folding phase which refolded the hinge of the syncline back on itself (Hermawan, 2013). Ibanez contains the largest of the synclinal keels and the geological mapping indicates a steeply dipping stratigraphy; however, the interpretation by Atlas indicates this is not consistent with depth (Hermawan, 2015). This is also the case for the other deposits and indicates that surface dips can be misleading.

2.3.2 Corunna Downs

Deposit Geology The Corunna Downs Project comprises five separate deposits: Split Rock, Shark Gully, Glen Herring, Razorback and Runway, within M45/1257. The project area is located within the Kelly and Coongan greenstone belts of the East Pilbara Craton, between the Shaw and Corunna Downs granitoid complexes (Figure 2). The deposits are located in the Cleaverville Formation of the Gorge Creek Group (Figure 3). The Cleaverville Formation hosted high-grade (+60% Fe) deposits at Goldsworthy, Shay Gap, Yarrie and Nimingarra that were mined as early as 1966 but are now closed. The Cleaverville Formation comprises metamorphosed BIF and cherty BIF together with some interbedded siltstone and chert units and outcrops as a northeast trending plateau extending for some 20 km (Hermawan, 2016). To the north, the Cleaverville Formation and Warrawoona Group are unconformably overlain by the Mount Roe Basalt (the basal unit of the Fortescue Group) and sandstones with beds of conglomerate of Croydon Group, Lalla Rookh Sandstone (Figure 4).

Mineralisation The majority of the mineralisation at Corunna Downs is gœthitic near surface and has probably been formed by supergene processes. This is reflected in the chemistry, which indicates that an overall grade of between 55% Fe and 57% Fe is dominant in the area. The deposits have a hard-cap (hydrated zone) dominated by vitreous gœthite extending to approximately 30 m in some places. There are some indications that a higher grade, metamorphic mineralisation (hypogene or hydrothermal) may be present. At the Runway deposit, zones of hydrothermal breccia have been identified within the BIF, which may indicate that hypogene alteration of the protolith has occurred. An examination of the chemistry of the deposits indicates that this has not resulted in major post-mineralisation alteration ofg œthitic mineralisation to hæmatite (as has occurred elsewhere). Zones of hæmatitic mineralisation were identified at Split Rock (e.g. CDRC0061, grading 61.1% Fe, 0.130% P and 5.6% LOI from 14 m to 48 m) and Glen Herring (e.g. CDRC0366, grading 62.7% Fe, 0.078% P and 7.8% LOI from 64 m to 104 m). However, these zones were rare, and apart from a few isolated grades above 60% Fe, most were lower grade.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 198 10

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 3: Corunna Downs regional geology Source: Warner and Hermawan, 2016

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 199 11

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 200

Figure 4: Corunna Downs geology and deposit locations (after Hermawan, 2016)

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 12

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Structure The structure of the Corunna Downs deposits is complex, with four deformation phases recognised (Hermawan, 2016). These are termed D1 to D4, respectively: • D1: North to north-northeast trending, tight steeply plunging folds associated with bedding plane parallel shear zones. This is the dominant deformation structure across Corunna Downs. • D2: Sub-vertical tight southeast-trending Z folds. • D3: Reactivation of a series of northeast-southwest trending faults which offset the earlier Warrawoona Group volcanics and Euro Basalt of the Kelly Group. Believed to relate to the mineralisation. • D4: Major north-south faulting that offset the D3 structures. One of these offsets the mineralisation at Runway and a second fault offsets the Cleaverville Formation in the north, separating the Glen Herring deposit from the rest of the deposits.

2.3.3 McPhee Creek

Deposit Geology The McPhee Creek Project comprises three deposits (Figure 5): • Crescent Moon; • Main Range; and • Main Range West. All three deposits are located on M45/1243. The tenement was granted for 21 years and expires on 27 April 2035 after conversion from E46/733.

Crescent Moon Crescent Moon is a shallow channel iron deposit (CID) overlying sandstones, siltstones and shales of the Archaean age Corboy Formation of the Gorge Creek Group. The CID has an average thickness of approximately

18 m and is consequently entirely hard-capped, as reflected in the elevated SiO2 and Al2O3 grades (7.1% SiO2 and

6.27% Al2O3). The CID has not been stratigraphically subdivided; the resource model has two domains –pisolite and shale basement – and is based entirely on grade (Lo,2013 ).

Main Range The Main Range deposit is hosted by the Cleaverville Formation of the Archaean age Gorge Creek Group within the Sandy Creek Syncline. In the core of the Sandy Creek Syncline, the Cleaverville Formation conformably overlies the Farrel Quartzite. The Cleaverville Formation comprises BIF, chert and siltstone. To the southeast, the Cleaverville Formation is faulted against lithologies of the underlying Warrawoona Group, principally carbonaceous shales, siltstones, quartzite and volcanics. To the west, the BIF sequence is bounded by chert and shale. Figure 6 shows the general geology of the Main Range deposit (Goldsworthy et al., 2011).

Main Range West The deposit is also known as McPhee Creek West and is in a similar geological setting to Main Range. It consists of a series of Cleaverville Formation BIF, chert and shale in a northwest-southeast trending syncline, offset from the Main Range by a north-south trending fault (Figure 5). Both Lower and Upper BIF units of the Cleaverville Formation have been identified (Hermawan, 2013).

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 201 13

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 202

Figure 5: McPhee Creek deposit location plan

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 14

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 6: Main Range general geology Source: Goldsworthy et al., 2011

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 203 15

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mineralisation

Crescent Moon The mineralisation is described as goethitic CID (Lo, 2013) which is confirmed by thehigh LOI of >10% (Table 12). A cross section of the deposit (from Sweeny, 2013) is shown in Figure 7. The resource is low grade (Table 12) and would not likely be a saleable as a stand-alone product in 2018. It would need to be either beneficiated or blended with higher grade/low impurity product. However, experience elsewhere throughout the Pilbara has indicated that the upgrading of CID through beneficiation is not effective. Typically, the alumina in the form of clays is bound either within or surrounding the ochrous gœthite and gœthite composition of the CID. The alumina is not present as distinct shale bands as seen within the Brockman Iron Formation martite-gœthite style ores which are able to be upgraded by simple crushing screening and washing processes.

Figure 7: Crescent Moon cross section (after Sweeney, 2013)

Main Range The mineralisation is dominated by gœthite, with minor hæmatite (as martite). Petrographic examination of core samples (Teale, 2011) indicated that the mineralisation is entirely supergene with a substantial hard-cap dominated by goethitic void filling. There was no sign of any metamorphic alteration or late stage hydrothermal hæmatite. The resource (Measured, Indicated, Inferred) as shown in Table 12 confirms the goethitic nature of the mineralisation (elevated LOI). Mineralisation was recorded in both the Lower BIF and the Upper BIF units of the Cleaverville Formation.

Main Range West Main Range West is similar to Main Range, in that the mineralisation is gœthite dominated. It occurs in three separate zones termed the southern, central and northern zone. The northern zone is entirely hard-cap, whereas the southern and central zones have been interpreted to contain both hard-cap and primary mineralisation. Mineralisation occurs in both the Lower BIF and Upper BIF units of the Cleaverville Formation. Table 12 outlines the resource of Main Range West. The LOI analyses confirm the goethitic nature of the mineralisation and a review of the database showed that no mineralisation over 60% Fe was present. The origin of the mineralisation is likely to be supergene.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 204 16

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Structure

Crescent Moon The deposit is a small, flat lying channel bound mesa approximately 1.6 km long, 140 m wide and with an average depth of 18 m.

Main Range The Sandy Creek Syncline dominates the structure of the Main Range deposit (Figure 8). It extends over a strike of approximately 7.3 km and varies from 60 m to 1,000 m wide. It is truncated to the northeast by a fault system. The deposit has been interpreted to be overprinted by extensive late stage brittle faulting (Lo, 2013).

Figure 8: Schematic cross sections through Main Range (after Lo, 2013)

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 205 17

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Main Range West The structure of Main Range West has been described as a syncline plunging at approximately 40° to the northeast and southwest (Hermawan, 2013), similar to Main Range. It is separated from Main Range by a north- trending fault.

2.3.4 Davidson Creek The Davidson Creek hub (Jigalong Project) comprises four deposits (Figure 9): • Davidson Creek; • Miji Miji; • Robertson Range (also known as King Brown); and • Mirrin Mirrin. They have all been interpreted as Marra Mamba Iron Formation stratigraphy of the Hamersley Basin forming a west to east to southwest trending arc.

Deposit Geology As asserted by Stewart (2015), “The Jigalong Project lies along the eastern margin of the Sylvania Inlier (Figure 9) on the Robertson SF51-13 1:500 000 geological map sheet. The granite-greenstone basement rocks of the Sylvania Inlier are unconformably overlain by stratigraphy of the Hamersley Basin. The Hamersley Basin is a late Archaean to early Proterozoic depositional basin covering most of the southern portion of the Pilbara Craton. The basal stratigraphic unit is the mafic-volcanic dominated Fortescue Group. The Hamersley Group conformably overlies the Fortescue Group and is largely comprised of BIF, shale, chert and dolomite. Unconformably overlying the Hamersley Basin stratigraphy is the Bangemall Basin. In the Jigalong Project area, the main units exposed are those belonging to the Manganese Subgroup (Figure 10), including: • Stag Arrow Formation (MNs) – represents shallow marine shelf sediments comprising conglomerate, sandstone, siltstone and shale with minor dolomite and banded chert. • Jigalong Formation (MNj) – is interpreted as a turbidite sequence deposited in a transgressive marine environment. • Balfour Formation (MNb) sediments were deposited in a shallow marine environment, remote from sources of terrestrial material. Iron-rich minerals (including magnetite) are noted in the coarser beds of the formation. The four deposits are summarised as follows. Robertson Range has been interpreted as a Marra Mamba Iron Formation dipping to the southeast under cover (Figure 11). Further, the southeast dipping sectional interpretation by Atlas (Stewart, 2015) suggests a West Angela Member overlying a Mount Newman Member (Marra Mamba Iron Formation) is not well supported by any geophysics nor does the deepening thickness (approximately >150 m depth to the east) of the West Angela Member appear sound. Over the Miji Miji deposit, Crowther describes “The Mount Newman Member is observed as a cherty BIF with finely laminated beds of hæmatite. It is highly weathered and contains large amount of clay material near the base of cover and proximal to faulting. The maximum thickness of the unit inferred from drill results is 120 m. The contact between Macleod and Mount Newman has been interpreted as an average dip of approximately 30N”. The Mount Newman Member within the centre of the Hamersley Basin and in a true thickness measures approximately 60–70 m. This significantly contradicts the Crowther description.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 206 18

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The Mirrin Mirrin and Davidson Creek deposits have also been interpreted as Marra Mamba Iron Formation although the detailed breakdown between West Angela, Mount Newman, MacLeod and Nammuldi Members was not present.

Mineralisation The mineralisation at Robertson Range has been described by Graindorge (Snowden, 2011) as comprising detrital and bedded iron deposit (primary and hard-cap mineralisation). Further, Graindorge describes the bedded iron deposit as discrete lenses of hæmatite (martite)-gœthite hosted within the shale dominated West Angela Member and within the Mount Newman Member. According to Crowther (2013), “The Miji Miji mineralisation is hosted within the Mount Newman and West Angela Members of the Marra Mamba Iron Formation. Mineralisation at Miji Miji does not outcrop at the surface. It occurs beneath a layer of cover as three separate deposits generally trending northwest; each mineralised body separated by an area of faulting. Primary mineralisation is dominated by finely beddedhæmatite that is sometimes in specular form. Adjacent to structures and closer to the surface the bedded hæmatite mineralisation contains large amounts of fine material, mostly ferruginous shales and clay. Gœthite occurs in lesser amounts, most commonly within the hydrated zone where it is predominantly massive”. The reported Mineral Resource grades at Miji Miji (Table 15) do not suggest (as reported by Crowther) a dominant hæmatite mineralisation but in fact an aluminous gœthite with minor hæmatite. CSA Global completed a review of the Davidson Creek drillhole database assay file, “DCH_DVC_DB_DH_davidsonck_2013_dhd_assay” which revealed that higher grade (>64% Fe) was present; however, it was not separately domained, and likely too inconsistent or minor to warrant domaining. Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Pty Ltd (Snowden) (Graindorge, 2012) domained a ‘High-grade’ material within the Davidson Creek deposit using a 55% Fe cut-off grade resulting in an estimated Measured, Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource of 161.9Mt grading 57.9% Fe, 5.36% SiO2, 2.56% Al2O3, 0.087% P and 8.54% LOI. The LOI reflects a gœthite dominant mineralogy. Snowden also estimated a ‘Medium Grade’ material (between 52% Fe and 55% Fe), 79.5Mt and a’ Low Grade’ (between 52% Fe and 55% Fe). CSA Global understands that it was this material, complemented by ‘Medium Grade‘ material which was beneficiated by crushing , screening and wet beneficiation to improve the grade to produce an approximate fines product specification (58.5% Fe, 4.5% SiO2, 2.5% Al2O3, 0.09% P, 8.5% LOI (FerrAus Definitive Engineering Study, 2011). The Mirrin Mirrin deposit was interpreted by FerrAus Limited (FerrAus) as West Angela and Mount Newman Member. Snowden, on behalf of FerrAus, reported a West Angela Hard-cap and Primary Mineral Resource plus a Mount Newman Member Hard-cap and Primary Mineral Resource. CSA Global noted that the West Angela Member Primary graded notably better than the Mount Newman Member Hard-cap, indicating that there may be a potential issue with the geological interpretation.

Structure It is difficult to conclude with any confidence whether the structural setting played any significant role in the promotion of the mineralisation process. The reports (Crowther, 2013) have alluded to crosscutting faulting but whether such features enhanced the mineralisation process or negatively impacted the grades remains unknown. CSA Global believes that the proximity to faulting (potential introduction of aluminous fluids post mineralisation), compounded by the basin marginal affect may go a way to explaining the variable and aluminous grades of the Mineral Resource.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 207 19

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 208

Figure 9: Davidson Creek Project location plan Source: Atlas

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 20

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 10: Davidson Creek regional geology plan Source: Atlas.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 209 21

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 11: Robertson Range sectional interpretation Source: Atlas

2.3.5 Miralga Creek

Deposit Geology The Miralga Creek Project (also called the Farrell Well Project) consists of three separate deposits (Miralga Creek E45/3601, Sandtrax E45/2380 and Grants E45/2567) in the Abydos area, part of which was recently mined by Atlas, on the northern margin of the Panorama Greenstone Belt within the East Pilbara Terrane. The location of the three main deposits is shown on Figure 12. A fourth prospect, known as Miralga West (E45/3511) is located some 4 km west of Miralga Creek.

Miralga Creek The Miralga Creek deposit (E45/3601) is hosted within the Cleaverville Formation, part of the Archaean age Gorge Creek Group. The iron formation of the Cleaverville Formation forms a prominent east-west striking ridge which dips steeply to the north. The deposit is bound to the north by the Lalla Rookh Sandstone.

Grants The Grants deposit (E45/2567) is hosted within the Archaean age Cleaverville Formation of the Gorge Creek Group and comprises BIF and chert, separated by thick sequence of quartzites and meta-felsic sandstones (Lo, 2013). Except in the east, it is uncertain whether this is all Cleaverville Formation as the Formation has been described by Lo (2013) as very siliceous and not a true BIF due to the rare iron bands within the chert.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 210 22

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 12: Miralga Creek project location plan Sandtrax is in the Abydos area (from Lo, 2013)

Sandtrax Sandtrax (E45/2308) is located close to the Abydos project area and occurs in the same geological setting. Sandtrax is reported by Crowther, 2012, to occur within the Paddy Market Formation, however later mapping (Sweeney, 2014) confirmed that the Sandtrax deposits occur within the Cleaverville Formation of the Gorge Creek Group. It is bounded to the north by the Lalla Rookh sandstone. The geological map (Sweeney, 2014) is shown as Figure 13.

Miralga West Miralga West (E45/3511) is hosted by the Cleaverville Formation of the Gorge Creek Group in a southwest trending range extending along strike from Abydos, some 40 km to the southwest.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 211 23

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 13: Sandtrax geology (from Sweeney, 2014)

Mineralisation

Miralga Creek Mineralisation at Miralga Creek is goethitic with minor hæmatite and occurs in three separate shallow lenses. Mineralisation has been recorded to a maximum depth of around 100 m and a hard-cap of approximately 10 m has been identified but has not been domained separately. A review of the database did not reveal any mineralisation assaying above 60% Fe, so the origin of the mineralisation is probably supergene, with the steep dips enabling surface fluids to penetrate to depth. The mineralisation is open to the north (Figure 14).

Figure 14: Miralga Creek section (from Stewart, 2015)

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 212 24

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Grants Mineralisation at Grants has been described as goethitic (which is confirmed by the chemistry) extending to a maximum depth of 90 m in some areas (Lo, 2013). The resource modelling report describes the mineralisation extents as 275 m x 155 m, averaging 35 m deep with hard-cap extending to 10 m. A review of the database did not identify any mineralisation exceeding 60% Fe. Genesis of the mineralisation is probably supergene.

Sandtrax The mineralisation at Sandtrax is described as gœthite with minor hæmatite, extending to approximately 50 m in depth. The dimensions of the mineralised lens are 370 m along strike and approximately 50 m wide. It is likely that the mineralisation is entirely hard-capped, although some of the deeper mineralisation may be older supergene. It should be noted that the grade of the Inferred mineralisation at Sandtrax is similar or slightly lower grade to the deposits that have been mined by Atlas at Abydos (Slomp, 2017). Sandtrax is the smallest of the nine deposits, most of which contain between 1.4 Mt and 3 Mt.

Miralga West A small amount of outcropping gœthite has been located on the BIF extending for several hundred metres along strike, and an average width of some 20–30 m.

Structure

Miralga Creek The Cleaverville Formation has been recorded as dipping steeply to the north. The mapping by the Geological Survey of Western Australia (GSWA) has recorded multiple faults throughout the area, but these do not seem to affect the mineralisation.

Grants The structure of Grants does not appear to be well understood. No maps or sections could be found in any of the reports other than the modelling report by Lo (2013). A section from that report is included as Figure 15 and shows a relatively flat sequence of Cleaverville Formation BIF penetrated by several angle holes. The Cleaverville Formation elsewhere is normally steeply dipping so it is unusual for it to be horizontal. This leaves some doubt as to whether the BIF belongs to the Cleaverville Formation or some other, older BIF unit. Considering the small amount of mineralisation and the low grade this is a low priority target.

Figure 15: Stratigraphic model for Grants (from Lo, 2013)

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 213 25

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Sandtrax The structure has been described as complex, with steep dips to both north and south over a short east-west strike length of 370 m. A section from the mapping report (Sweeney, 2014) is included as Figure 16. This shows a steeply dipping to vertical BIF with no indication of dip directions or folding.

Figure 16: Cross section of Sandtrax Source: Sweeney, 2014

Miralga West The Cleaverville Formation BIF is dipping to the south at an angle between 60° and 75°. The structure is shown on Figure 17:

Figure 17: Miralga Creek West cross section Source: Sweeney, 2014

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 214 26

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.3.6 Ridley and Pardoo

Deposit Geology The Pardoo Project lies within the northern extent of the Archaean Pilbara Craton and comprises a series of BIF and chert sequences belonging to the Cleaverville Formation, that occurs in the lower part of the Gorge Creek Group. The resistant character of the Cleaverville Formation has produced the lows hills of the Ord-Ridley Ranges. The lower Cleaverville formation comprises a cherty BIF, that has been replaced at surface by athin gœthite carapace, overlain by a stratigraphy consisting of BIF with occasional interbedded thin shale bands. A prominent, up to 30 m true thickness shale marker overlying a red-black BIF, can be traced laterally over most the northern synclinal limb of the “S” shaped structure. Conformably overlying the BIFs of the Cleaverville Formation at the Project is the Lalla Rookh Sandstone of the Croyden Group. The Pardoo tenement plan is included as Figure 18.

Figure 18: Pardoo Project tenement location plan Source: Atlas, 2018; ATR; Slomp

Mineralisation Iron enrichment in the Cleaverville Formation is found at all stratigraphic levels in the formation and forms irregular pods (predominantly gœthite) with a distinct orientation to the bedding of the BIF (Slomp, 2018). The pods vary in size from lenses 10–15 m wide to pods several hundred metres wide and up to 400 m long and 10– 100 m depth. The Pardoo Mineral Resource is stated in Table 21. A JORC (2004) compliant Mineral Resource was declared for the primary magnetite BIF and was reported in 2008 (Table 24). No further work has been conducted on this resource.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 215 27

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Structure The dominant structure is of a steeply east-plunging syncline in which the northern and southern limbs dip at 75–80° to the south and northeast, respectively. Notable is the fact that in the nose of the fold, there appears to be no thickening of the sequence, dips being similar to elsewhere (i.e. 60–80° southeast and east). The BIF in the nose of the fold is considerably faulted, drag folded and brecciated by axial faulting (Dale, 2006). Considering that the mineralisation which was present (now mined out) formed relatively poddy and discrete lenses, it is likely that small-scale structure, probably localised faulting/deformational, was responsible.

2.3.7 Avalon Point/Abydos

Deposit Geology The Avalon Point prospect is part of the Abydos Project, situated some 120 km south of Port Hedland. It lies entirely on E45/2428 (Figure 19). The deposit is hosted by the Cleaverville Formation of the Gorge Creek Group and occurs within the Pincunah Trend, a part of the Pincunah Greenstone Belt. However, there is a conflict in the Mineralisation Resource Report (Johnston, 2013) where the stratigraphy is assigned to the “Pincunah Formation” (p.28) possibly the Pincunah Banded-Iron Member of the Kangaroo Caves Formation (Sulphur Springs Group) (see Australian Stratigraphic Units Database). On page 14 of the same report, the stratigraphy is assigned to the Gorge Creek Group. In this review, the stratigraphy is accepted by CSA Global as being the Cleaverville Formation as the sectional interpretation (Figure 19) clearly indicates Upper and Lower BIF units typical of the Cleaverville Formation elsewhere.

Figure 19: Regional geology of Avalon Point Source: Hawke, 2012. Note: The unit marked as Pincunah Hill Formation equates to the Cleaverville Formation.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 216 28

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mineralisation The mineralisation is primarily goethitic with some hæmatite and limonite. The mineralisation extends to approximately 60 m in depth in the west and shallows to the east. A hard-cap (hydrated zone) has been interpreted to extend to approximately 10 m (Figure 19).

Figure 20: Mineralised envelope at Avalon Point Source: Johnston, 2013

Structure Avalon Point has been interpreted as a tightly folded syncline along its western side, with folding becoming more open to the east (Figure 21).

Figure 21: Structure and stratigraphy of Avalon Point Source: Johnston, 2013

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 217 29

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.3.8 East Newman Projects The East Newman Projects comprise Caramulla South (E52/1823), Jimblebar Range (E52/1772) and McCamey’s North (E52/2303) all located approximately 50–60 km east of the township of Newman (Figure 19). The Wishbone, Warrawanda Project (E52/1815 and E52/1771) is located approximately 50 km southeast of Newman. All projects have differing geological characteristics.

Figure 22: East Newman Project Location Plan Source: Atlas, 2018

Caramulla South (E52/1823)

Deposit Geology Caramulla South is hosted in the Marra Mamba Iron Formation of the Hamersley Group and has been described as comprising Mount Newman Member and MacLeod Member with a shallow overburden of CzD3 detritals.

Mineralisation Mineralisation is present as predominantly hard-capped martite-gœthite within three zones of approximate dimensions: 1 km x 100 m, 400 m x 200 m and 600 m x 250 m. Table 18 shows Caramulla South to have a small subgrade Inferred Resource with elevated silica and alumina grades. Without selective domaining to identify a higher-grade zone (>60% Fe), it is unlikely the Caramulla South mineralisation is saleable in today’s market.

Structure Described as relatively flat dipping and uncomplicated.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 218 30

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Jimblebar Range (E52/1772)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in an Archaean BIF within the Sylvania Inlier, comprising BIF, chert and shale sequences.

Mineralisation Mineralisation is described asgœthite and limonite transitioning into magnetite BIF. Mineralisation distribution appears variable within two zones of approximate 700 m x 100 m and 600 m x 100 m dimensions. The Inferred Mineral Resource (Table 18) shows elevated silica and low iron with low P (<0.07%). These grades are comparable to what Atlas are selling at present; however, the main factor restricting any material valuation is the fact the deposit is isolated and without any clear transport route to port. On an upside, isolated intercepts of +60% Fe mineralisation were reported; however, CSA Global did not delve into the details of the domaining to investigate whether a smaller tonnage but higher grade (>60% Fe) Mineral Resource could be delineated. This idea is not inconceivable.

Structure The deposit is relatively uncomplicated with the BIF dipping approximately 35–40° to the east. There is no evidence of structural complexity contributing to the mineralisation process.

McCamey’s North (E52/2303)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in the Boolgeeda Iron Formation of the Hamersley Group.

Mineralisation The deposit comprises martite-gœthite mineralisation with the higher grade (>60% Fe) restricted to the Upper BG9 and Lower BG4 units. The mineralisation extends over an 800 m strike and a variable width of 50–200 m and has been reported as open at depth. Atlas noted an increase in hæmatite with depth which may be a product of the hard-capping effect; however, did not comment on whether there was marked improvement in the grades. The high silica, alumina and particularly very high P levels (Table 18) are negative connotations for McCamey’s North. The mineralisation as a standalone product is unlikely saleable in today’s market. Any value may only be retrieved if the product can be blended with a higher quality deposit. This seems unlikely.

Structure The deposit is structurally complex, characterised by laterally disjointed and faulted iron formation (Figure 23). The impact on the structural setting with respect to mineralisation was not reported by Atlas nor did Atlas complete any downhole gamma, structural interpretations or geological mapping.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 219 31

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 23: McCamey’s North geological map Red polygons represent structurally disjointed Boolgeeda Iron Formation Source: Atlas, 2009

Wishbone, Warrawanda (E52/1815 and E52/1771)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in the Sylvania Inlier Granite/Greenstone Belt and is present as steeply dipping BIFs with interbedded metavolcanics, metasediments and ultramafics; intruded by dolerite sills and granitoids.

Mineralisation Mineralisation consists of four elongated zones over an area of approximately 3 km in strike and varying in individual thickness from 35 m to 120 m. An Inferred Mineral Resource (Table 20) indicates that the grades are marginal and suggestive of a gœthite-rich mineralisation. In today’s iron ore market, the product is likely unsaleable without a significant price penalty.

Structure There has been no geophysical work, geological mapping or downhole survey collected which would aid in the understanding of the structural setting.

2.3.9 West Newman Projects The West Newman Projects comprise the Western Creek (E52/2300 and E52/2160), Homestead (E52/1912), Western Ridge (E52/1483 and E52/1604) deposits located approximately 30 km east of the township of Newman (Figure 24). The Halley, Levy, Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker deposits which comprise the Hickman Project (E47/2052 and E47/2053) are located approximately 40 km north of Newman.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 220 32

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 24: West Newman Projects location plan (north to top of figure) Source: Atlas, 2018

Western Creek (E52/2300 and E52/2160)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in an approximately 2.5 km x 200–300 m wide, steeply dipping sequence of Marra Mamba Iron Formation. Atlas state that the mineralisation is hosted in the Nammuldi Member and Mount Newman Member.

Mineralisation Mineralisation has been reported as martite-gœthite style with gœthite dominant present to depths of 10–20 m beneath the surface. The Inferred Mineral Resource (Table 16) indicates mineralisation grades are marginal, particularly the alumina which will be difficult to market without incurring significant price penalties in today’s market.

Structure The mineralisation is hosted in the apex of an antiform. No other details pertinent to the structural setting of the deposit were reported. No geophysical data was collected which may have aided the structural understanding.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 221 33

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Homestead (E52/1912)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in the Marra Mamba Iron Formation comprising an interpreted West Angela Member, Mount Newman Member and MacLeod Member. In CSA Global’s opinion, the Atlas interpretation and justification for the collective domaining used for the resource estimation is vague, and most likely driven by grade as opposed to geology. Downhole geophysics was completed although it was not mentioned whether the gamma logs were instrumental in determining the stratigraphy.

Mineralisation Mineralisation is reported asgœthite with a minor hæmatite and a CzD3 detrital component. The mineralisation geometry is described as 1.4 km strike, 200 m width and to a depth of 50 m. Table 16 shows the globalised Inferred Mineral Resource at a 50% Fe cut-off. Domaining (Strat Code BIF) was based on a “BIF” unit comprising West Angela Member, Mount Newman Member and MacLeod Member. In CSA Global’s opinion, the Atlas interpretation and justification for this collective domaining has not been clearly explained, whether driven by grade or by geology. As seen at Western Creek, the reported mineralisation grades at Homestead, particularly alumina, will be difficult to market without incurring significant price penalties in today’s market. Given the goethitic nature of the mineralisation, any ability to upgrade the mineralisation via beneficiation will prove difficult (refer to Davidson Creek Hub).

Structure The deposit is geologically complex with an inverted sequence of stratigraphy reported. The Marra Mamba Iron Formation is above the Wittenoom Formation which is explained by either thrust fault stacking or an overturned fold. Drilling was insufficient to discern between the theories.

Western Ridge (E52/1483 and E52/1604)

Deposit Geology The deposit is hosted in the Marra Mamba Iron Formation comprising an interpreted Nammuldi Member and Mount Newman Member. Atlas made no mention of the presence of the MacLeod Member. Downhole geophysics was completed on 12 drillholes, but data was deemed inadequate to incorporate into the geological interpretation.

Mineralisation The mineralisation has been described by Atlas asgœthite -rich, implying it is a martite-gœthite style. It is present in two zones, a northern zone of approximately 1.2 km strike x 800 m width, and a southern zone of approximately 700 m strike and 400 m width. An Inferred Mineral Resource (50% Fe cut-off) is shown in Table 16. The Mineral Resource extends to 60 m beneath the surface and is above the water table. The grade-tonnage curve reveals that Western Ridge is very sensitive above a 50% Fe cut-off. The Inferred Mineral Resource from domain 204 (Mount Newman Member Primary) was estimated as 4.4 Mt grading 59.5% Fe, 3.5% SiO2, 2.4% Al2O3, 0.07% P and 9.0% LOI. This is the best quality mineralisation at Western Ridge.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 222 34

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Structure The deposit is described as flat lying with no mention made of any structural complexities.

Halley, Levy, Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker Deposits, Hickman Project (E47.2052 and E47/2053)

Deposit Geology The deposits are hosted in BIF of the Boolgeeda Iron Formation.

Mineralisation The mineralisation, present as localised hæmatite and gœthite, extends over the four deposits: 750 m x 180 m (Halley); 1,000 m x 190 m (Levy); 1,400 m x 130 m (Hale-Bopp); and 600 m x 200 m (Shoemaker). The reported Inferred Mineral Resource (Table 17) shows the alumina and phosphorous levels are prohibitively high and are unsaleable in today’s market. Applying an iron cut-off of 55% Fe does little to improve the deleterious elements.

Structure The dominant structural feature is a series of long narrow folds with northwest trends. What impact the structure has played on the mineralisation was not adequately reported by Atlas.

2.3.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well)

Deposit Geology Anthiby Well (E08/1712) is located on the northern margin of the Ashburton Basin, some 120 km to the west of the township of Paraburdoo (Figure 25). Anthiby Well lies on Wyloo Group lithologies, primarily the Mount McGrath Formation and the Cheela Springs Basalt. The tenement contains two small clusters of CID mesas located at its eastern and western ends, the largest of which is approximately 2,000 m long and up to 400 m wide. The mesas extend up to 40 m above the plain level and are incised by recent drainage. The deepest drilled intersection was 32 m of CID.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 223 35

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 25: Geology of Anthiby Well (from Louw, 2009) Source: Atlas, 2018

Mineralisation The CID is goethitic within an envelope of siliceous channel iron deposit (SCID), which is subgrade (tonnage of SCID not quoted here). The resources (Table 19) are subgrade and would not be marketable in the current environment. They could be blended with higher grade material but are isolated from the rest of Atlas’s deposits and mining operations.

Structure The mesas are flat lying. There is no indication of channel edges or whether there is any extension of the CID beneath plain level. Figure 26 (from Louw, 2009) shows the flat lying nature of the deposit.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 224 36

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 26: Section through the Anthiby Well CID (from Louw, 2009)

2.3.11 Mid West (Beebyn)

Deposit Geology The Beebyn deposit (E51/933) is located approximately 10 km west-southwest of Meekatharra in the mid-west of WA. The deposit occurs within a 3 km long northwest-southeast trending range of Archaean BIF of the Weld Range, which has been intruded by dolerite and gabbro (Hewlett, 2007). The location of the deposits is shown in Figure 27.

Figure 27: Location of Beebyn deposit Source: Hawke, 2011; Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 225 37

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mineralisation Gœthite-hæmatite mineralisation occurs within four distinct zones along a 3 km section of the Weld Range, each zone termed W24, W24N, W22 and W23. Individual zones range from 150 m to 600 m in length. Inferred Mineral Resources have been declared (Table 23). The resources are globalised in that no hard-cap has been delineated on any of these deposits, nor has any internal stratigraphy been identified, or reported as absent.

Structure The deposits occur within a steeply dipping Archaean BIF sequence.

Figure 28: Beebyn Geology Source: Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 226 38

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.4 Exploration Summary

2.4.1 Mount Webber Daltons/Gibson (including Fender) has been extensively drilled with 224 holes being completed on a 20 m x 20 m grid on Daltons (and nominally 20m x 20m on Fender) and on a 20 m x 20 m grid on Gibson. Drilling on Ibanez totalled 1,101 holes for 57,962 m on a rotated 20 m x 20 m grid. Geological mapping was completed by Compass Geological in August 2008 across all deposits. The mapping appeared lithological, outlining units such as siltstones, BIFs, ultramafics, quartzites, etc., without reference to stratigraphy. The BIF was mapped as one unit (not differentiated into upper and lower BIF) possibly due to masking by hard-cap effects. Mineralisation was not recorded on the geological map. The deposits have been extensively explored with no further work necessary, in CSA Global’s opinion.

2.4.2 Corunna Downs The deposits within the Corunna Downs Project have been geologically mapped by Atlas at various stages and at various scales and have been delineated sufficiently to allow some confidence that all outcropping mineralisation has been identified. Drilling as outlined in Table 3 is appropriate, considering the elongated outcrop of the Cleaverville Formation. Degree of maturity is high. Table 3: Drilling completed at Corunna Downs Deposit RC holes Metres Nominal grid Comments Split Rock 134 19,360 40 m x 40 m Deepest hole 264 m; deposit is closed off Shark Gully 81 6,418 40 m x 40 m Deepest hole 174 m; deposit is closed off 40 m x 40 m to 80 m x Further drilling needed to close-out the deposit Glen Herring 68 7,766 40 m to the west Razorback 17 2,180 80m x 20 m Further drilling needed to confirm the resources Runway 145 13,938 40 m x 40 m Deposit has been closed off TOTAL 445 49,662

2.4.3 McPhee Creek

Crescent Moon There has been no geological mapping, however the CID has been extensively reverse circulation percussion (RCP) drilled (192 holes, 5,261 m) on a 25 m x 50 m grid.

Main Range Substantial drilling has been conducted over the Cleaverville Formation. A total of 1,210 RCP holes (135,593 m) and 98 HQ/PQ diamond holes (16,509.3 m) have been drilled on a 50 m x 50 m grid. Detailed geological mapping has also been completed over the entire deposit (Russell, 2011). The geology of the deposit is very well understood.

Main Range West A total of 125 RCP holes (10,123 m) have been drilled on a 50 m x 50 m grid. Geological mapping was restricted to one traverse conducted during the Main Range mapping.

2.4.4 Davidson Creek Robertson Range has been extensively drilled on an approximate 50 m x 50 m spaced grid. However, despite the relatively concentrated drilling, the geological understanding appears inconsistent. Miji Miji has been drilled on a variable 50 m x 200 m grid for a total of 205 RCP holes for 28,038 m.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 227 39

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Previous explorers also completed airborne geophysics, structural interpretations and attempted downhole geophysics.

2.4.5 Miralga Creek

Miralga Creek Miralga Creek has been drilled with 45 RCP holes (4,748 m) on a 40 m x40 m grid spacing and is still open at depth and along strike. Considering the restricted dimensions of the Cleaverville Formation and the patchy nature of the mineralisation, the deposit is well understood.

Grants The Grants resource is based on 39 RCP holes (1,560 m) drilled on a 40 m x 20 m grid. The deposit geology is not well understood.

Sandtrax The Sandtrax resource is based on 33 RCP holes (1,546 m) drilled on a 20 m x 40 m grid. The deposit is poorly understood structurally, despite the drilling.

Miralga West The only work completed at Miralga West is geological mapping and rock chip sampling. Drilling has been planned but not executed.

2.4.6 Ridley and Pardoo The Pardoo Project has been extensively drilled by Atlas between 2006 and 2012, as summarised in Table 4. Table 4: Pardoo drill summary Atlas (2006–2012) Year RCP holes RCP metres DDH holes DDH metres 2006–2007 39 1,522 4 376.6 2007–2008 1,481 69,552 16 946 2008–2009 823 35,533 5 428.5 2009–2010 485 25,922 - - 2010–2011 - - - - 2011–2012 85 6,298 - - Total 2,913 138,827 25 1,751.1

This drilling history does not include earlier work by Independence Group NL and Atlas Gold Ltd between 2003 and 2006 when approximately 15,000m of air-core and RCP was completed. Other exploration activities throughout the Atlas 2006–2012 period included mapping, sampling, geotechnical, metallurgical and hydrogeological work. The fact that Atlas has placed the Pardoo Project into care and maintenance, where it has been since circa 2014, indicates that the residual resource quality is marginal, and any material upside is unlikely.

2.4.7 Avalon Point/Abydos A total of 41 RCP holes have been drilled on a 40 m x 20 m grid with all holes orientated –60° to the west. The area has been mapped as part of the regional Abydos area mapping in 2008 (Crossing, 2008) and has also been the subject of an airborne geophysical survey (Hawke, 2012) but some doubt remains as to the stratigraphy. Exploration maturity is high, despite the conflict in naming the stratigraphy.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 228 40

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.4.8 East Newman Projects

Caramulla South (E52/1823) Total drilling of 159 RCP holes on a variable 100 m x 50 m grid were completed, therefore alluding to a relatively high Exploration Maturity.Ninety -seven (97) holes for 4,485 m were used in the Mineral Resource estimate.

Jimblebar Range (E52/1772) A total drilling of 72 drillholes of which 70 holes for 4,987 m drilled on a variable 80 m spaced sections were used in the Mineral Resource estimate. There was no downhole geophysics, aerial geophysics or density work completed.

McCamey’s North (E52/2303) A total of 235 drillholes for 22,096 m, including 230 RCP drillholes for 21,398 m were used in the Mineral Resource estimate. The significant volume of drilling indicates a very high exploration maturity. Given the high phosphorous style of Boolgeeda mineralisation and the fact that the deposit is densely drilled, any upside potential for higher quality hæmatite mineralisation appears very limited.

Wishbone, Warrawanda (E52/1815 and E52/1771) Total drilling comprises 257 RCP drillholes for 19,600 m on an 80 m x 40 m and 60 m x 30 m spaced grid. Total of 249 RCP drillholes for 18,828 m used for the Mineral Resource estimate. All drillholes were orientated –60°. The exploration maturity can be described as very high, given the density and volume of drilling.

2.4.9 West and North Newman Projects

Western Creek (E52/2300 and E52/2160) A total of 96 RCP drillholes for 7,148 m completed on an approximate 80 m x 40 m spaced grid. Drillholes were angled –50° to –90°. The significant volume of drilling indicates a very high exploration maturity, therefore diminishing the prospects of any upside potential mineralisation.

Homestead (E52/1912) A total of 114 drillholes for 12,675 m were completed over a 100 m x 50 m spaced grid, hence the exploration maturity is relatively high.

Western Ridge (E52/1483 and E52/1604) A total of 157 RCP drillholes for 9,425 m were completed on a nominal drill spacing of 150 m x 50 m with 144 RCP for 8,631 m used in the Mineral Resource estimate. Most of the drillholes were vertical with some orientated – 60° perpendicular to strike. The exploration maturity is high.

Halley, Levy, Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker Deposits, Hickman Project (E47.2052 and E47/2053) Total drilling comprised 97 RCP drillholes for 8,242 m (2010 to 2011) on an approximate 80 m x 40 m and 200 m x 50 m spaced grid representing a high exploration maturity.

2.4.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well) A total of 87 holes (2,644 m) drilled in 2009 (Stewart, 2015) were used in the resource estimate, with drilling being confined to the top of the mesas.Drill spacing is at a nominal 200m by 100m, with local areas of 100m by 100m. There is no indication whether the deposits have been geologically mapped.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 229 41

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.4.11 Mid West (Beebyn) A total of 44 RCP holes (3,691 m) were used in the resource estimation, with a nominal drill spacing of 100m by 20m. Some geological mapping has been done, but its source was not recorded.

2.5 Exploration Potential

2.5.1 Mount Webber Minimal potential remains in the area. The only potential would be along deep-seated structures where the BIF could be metamorphosed by hot fluids from depth. However, unless there has been a major misinterpretation of the geology, this seems unlikely.

Mount Vettel The Mount Vettel project area (E45/4029) is located approximately 17 km west of the Mount Webber mine site. The project has been described as being within BIFs of the Paddy Market Formation. CSA Global consider the Mount Vettel target to fall within the larger Mount Webber project area. Goethitic mineralisation has been identified at the Dead Bullock prospect (Sweeney, 2018). This area shows some signs of hydrothermal activity, enhancing the possibility of hæmatitic mineralisation at depth. The structure of this area is not well known, apart from mineralisation being located in a steep synformal structure (Sweeney, 2018). A total of 34 reverse circulation (RC) holes have been completed at the Dead Bullock prospect and targeting exercises have been completed. Some geological mapping and rock chip sampling has been done. The area needs further mapping and drilling to determine its potential.

2.5.2 Corunna Downs The known deposits (apart from Razorback and Glen Herring) have been drilled on a relatively close spaced grid and have been effectively closed off at depth. Potential for additional mineralisation is present but is limited by the very well-defined outcrop with clear formation boundaries. The resources are at Indicated or Inferred classification, so infill drilling to achieve Measured status will unlikely result in additional resources. The Razorback deposit is small and further drilling is unlikely to add substantially to the resources. There is some potential to add to the Glen Herring resources as the deposit is still open to the west. However, grades are expected to be similar to the current resource. A total of 36 targets have been identified (Hawke, 2014) in the Corunna Downs area based on a combination of field mapping and airborne geophysical survey interpretation, most of them isolated from the four known deposits. Follow-up work needs to be done on these targets, to determine the potential to add to the resources of Corunna Downs.

2.5.3 McPhee Creek

Crescent Moon There is no potential for additional resources as the CID has been drilled out on a close spaced grid. However, it was stated in the resource modelling report (Lo, 2013) that some parts needed infill drilling due to lack of access due to heritage issues. As the required drilling is infill, the potential for increasing the resources is small.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 230 42

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Main Range The deposit has been extensively drilled and closed off in all directions except in some places on the eastern margin. However, the potential to add substantially to the resources is limited by the outcrop extent on the east, and by a tenement boundary on the west. Exploration potential is low, considering the maturity of the deposit.

Main Range West There is some potential for additionalmineralisation beneath the hard-cap in the northern zone but considering the close spaced drill grid and the nature of the outcropping Cleaverville Formation, potential for substantially adding to the resource is low.

2.5.4 Davidson Creek It is difficult to envisage any material upside potential for the Davidson Creek Project. The drilling has been relatively comprehensive, and the style of mineralisation indicates gœthite with elevated alumina and silica. There were no significant intercepts ofhigh -grade (>60% Fe) hæmatite warranting further exploration, but there are extensive areas with material in the high 50s % Fe.

2.5.5 Miralga Creek

Miralga Creek Although the deposit is open to the north, the potential for additional resources within Miralga Creek is limited by the nature of the outcrop and the lack of hæmatite mineralisation at depth. If additional resources are identified, theywould likely be of similar grade to the current Inferred Resources.

Grants Potential for additional resources appears limited due to the cherty nature of the BIF and its flat lying structure. Any further mineralisation is likely to be less than 60% Fe.

Sandtrax Considering the outcropping BIF has been drilled on a close spacing, little to no potential remains on Sandtrax.

Miralga West Potential for oethiticg mineralisation exists but is limited by the outcrop extents. As the deposit has not been drilled, there may be potential for deeper hæmatitic mineralisation beneath the surface gœthite.

2.5.6 Ridley and Pardoo The amount of drilling has been extensive, and consequently the potential for significant additional mineralisation is limited.

2.5.7 Avalon Point/Abydos Some potential remains as mineralisation is open to the north, however this is unlikely to be different to the currently declared grade which is less than ideal. The alumina and silica grades (total greater than 11%), under today’s market conditions, will incur significant price penalties unless the resource can be blended with a higher quality product. Considering the current size of the resource, any additional potential tonnages at Avalon Point are likely to be insignificant.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 231 43

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.5.8 East Newman Projects

Caramulla South In CSA Global’s opinion, the tonnages are insignificant and the reported Mineral Resource grades low. Exploration potential is likely minimal. For these reasons CSA Global concludes that the value of Caramulla is not material to the overall valuation of the Mineral Assets of Atlas or to the value of the Company.

Jimblebar Range The concentration of drillholes appears sufficient to assume that any significant upside potential will not be present. CSA Global considers Jimblebar South as a relatively small deposit of marginal iron grade (57.5%) with elevated silica (8%). The exploration maturity is relatively high and the potential for delineatingadditional material tonnes of >60% Fe appears limited.

McCamey’s North (E52/2303) Given the high phosphorous style of Boolgeeda Iron Formation mineralisation and the fact that the deposit is densely drilled, any upside potential for higher quality hæmatite mineralisation appears very limited.

Wishbone, Warrawanda (E52/1815 and E52/1771) Wishbone is not a high priority deposit. The grades are marginal, and the concentration of drilling alludes to minimal upside potential. Under today’s iron ore market, the Mineral Resource grades will attract a significant price penalty.

2.5.9 West and North Newman Projects

Western Creek (E52/2300 and E52/2160) Any value in the project may only be realised if any higher quality (non-hard-capped) Mount Newman Member mineralisation can be domained. The sections presented in the Atlas report discuss the Nammuldi and the Mount Newman Member, however the sections appear grade driven. The downside in tightening the domaining will be a decrease in the tonnage.

Homestead (E52/1912) With the relatively close spaced drill density of 100 m x 50 m, any material upside potential is unlikely. The value add may be in re-domaining based on geology to identify potential a +60% Fe unit (Mount Newman Member) with lower, and marketable deleterious elements. This of course will lead to a decrease in the overall reportable tonnage. The conclusion is that the Homestead deposit from a grade perspective is marginal and sensitive to the iron grade above a 50% cut-off.

Western Ridge (E52/1483 and E52/1604) Based on the global Inferred Mineral Resource (Table 19) the grades are low. There is minimal upside potential to Western Ridge, as the extensive drilling that has been completed is likely to have identified any upside potential that may have been present.

Halley, Levy, Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker Deposits, Hickman Project (E47.2052 and E47/2053) Given the high drill density and the inherent high phosphorous nature of Boolgeeda mineralisation, it is improbable that there will be any material upside potential for additional higher quality tonnes. Further, the

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 232 44

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

alumina grades are very elevated, therefore rendering the saleability of the Hickman Project mineralisation doubtful without significant price penalties.

2.5.10 West Pilbara (Anthiby Well) Nil, beyond the current subgrade CID resource. The tenement has been adequately explored and the nature of the CID mesas precludes any substantial addition to the resources.

2.5.11 Mid West (Beebyn) The deposit is open at depth and along strike in some areas, but potential is limited by the patchy nature of the mineralisation. CSA Global Assessment Considering the high exploration maturity of the Atlas projects, CSA Global considers the potential for additional mineralisation at any of the projects to be moderate to low. Some upside potential has been identified at Corunna Downs which may result in additional resources.

2.6 Iron Mineral Resources DSO hæmatite Mineral Resources are summarised by project in Table 5, current to 31 March 2018. All DSO Mineral Resource estimates are reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). Note that Mineral Resource estimates are not totalled, given CSA Global does not have exact Mineral Resource estimates for all projects. Table 5: Atlas DSO hæmatite Mineral Resource estimate by project, 31 March 2018 Measured Indicated Inferred TOTAL Cut-off Project Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe grade (Mt)* (%) (Mt)* (%) (Mt)* (%) (Mt)* (%) (% Fe) Mount Webber** 24.1 58.6 15.0 56.2 1.0 56.9 40.0 57.7 50 Corunna Downs - - 51.1 57.2 13 57.0 64.1 57.2 50 McPhee Creek 32.9 57.4 205 56.2 9 55.0 246.9 56.3 48.5 Miralga Creek - - - - 4 57.6 4.0 57.6 50 Davidson Creek Hub 43.2 57.9 339.1 55.9 94 55.8 476.3 56 50 Western Creek - - - - 79 56 79 56 50 Hickman - - - - 70 55.4 70.0 55.4 50 Jimblebar - - 41.1 58.1 28 55.6 69.1 57.1 50 West Pilbara - - - - 38 53.6 38 53.6 50 Warrawanda - - - - 24 56.8 24 56.8 50 Pardoo - - - - 9 55.7 9.0 55.7 53 Abydos - - - - 2 55.9 2 55.9 50 Mid West - - - - 7 57.2 7.0 57.2 50 *Measured and Indicated Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 0.1 Mt; Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1 Mt. **Depleted Mineral Resource estimates have been provided by Atlas for Mount Webber to account for production until 31 March 2018; the remaining Mineral Resources are summarised from those which have been publicly reported. Magnetite Mineral Resources are shown inTable 6, current to 31 March 2018. The magnetite Mineral Resources are reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2004 Edition).

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 233 45

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 6: Atlas magnetite Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 Measured Indicated Inferred TOTAL Cut-off Project Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe Tonnage Fe grade (Mt) (%) (Mt) (%) (Mt) (%) (Mt) (%) Ridley - - 1,100 36.6 910 36.4 2,010 36.5 15% DTR Total - - 1,100 36.6 910 36.4 2,010 36.5 15% DTR * Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 10 Mt. In keeping with the Materiality and Transparency Principles of the VALMIN Code, CSA Global has included all relevant information that investors and their advisors would reasonably require, and expect to find in the Report, for the purpose of making a reasoned and balanced judgement regarding the Technical Assessment being reported. The level of technical assessment completed for each project is commensurate with the perceived materiality of the project with regards to Atlas’ total asset portfolio. CSA Global has reviewed data collection techniques, geological modelling and Mineral Resource estimate procedures to form an opinion on the validity of the technical work underpinning the Mineral Resource estimates for all projects presented above. CSA Global has also independently queried the reported Mineral Resource tonnage and grade from the block models provided for projects that are considered material to this technical assessment. CSA Global has reviewed the reports prepared by Atlas, and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimates in forming a judgement on the appropriateness of the technical work that has been undertaken.

2.6.1 Mount Webber Mineral Resource Estimate The Mount Webber DSO Project comprises the Gibson/Daltons, Fender and Ibanez deposits. The Gibson/Daltons Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report prepared by Atlas in March 2014. An update to the Daltons part of the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a summary report in April 2018. The Fender Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report prepared by Atlas in February 2013. An update to the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a memorandum prepared in April 2018. The Ibanez Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report prepared by Atlas in March 2015. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The depleted Mount Webber Mineral Resource estimate provided by Atlas in April 2018 is shown in Table 7, reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Gibson/Daltons, Fender and Ibanez have been depleted to 31 March 2018.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 234 46

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 7: Mount Webber Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 Tonnage Deposit JORC classification Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) (kt) Measured 16,800 59.0 4.8 1.4 0.10 0.02 8.4 Indicated 12,300 56.5 8.0 1.9 0.09 0.03 8.3 Gibson/Daltons Inferred 100 56.9 9.8 0.9 0.04 0.07 6.3 Subtotal 29,200 57.9 6.2 1.6 0.09 0.02 8.3 Measured 5,200 58.2 5.5 2.1 0.11 0.02 8.5 Fender Indicated 1,900 54.8 8.0 3.3 0.10 0.02 9.4 Subtotal 7,100 57.3 6.2 2.4 0.09 0.02 8.7 Measured 2,100 56.9 7.2 1.8 0.11 0.02 8.9 Indicated 800 54.6 9.7 2.5 0.10 0.03 8.8 Ibanez Inferred 800 56.9 9.0 1.4 0.05 0.08 6.9 Subtotal 3,700 56.4 8.1 1.9 0.09 0.09 8.4 Measured 24,100 58.6 5.2 1.6 0.10 0.02 8.4 Mount Webber – Indicated 15,000 56.2 8.1 2.1 0.09 0.03 8.4 Total Inferred 1,000 56.9 9.1 1.4 0.05 0.08 6.8 TOTAL 40,000 57.7 6.4 1.8 0.10 0.02 8.4 * Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt.

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the Mount Webber Mineral Resource estimate is sourced primarily from RC and a minor number of diamond (DD) drillholes. The drilling is summarised by deposit in Table 8. Table 8: Mount Webber drillhole database Prospect Hole type No. of drillholes Total depth (m) DD 8 439 Daltons RC 649 43,322 Subtotal 657 43,761 DD 3 156 Gibson RC 77 4,951 Subtotal 80 5,107 DD 0 0 Fender RC 361 16,876 Subtotal 361 16,876 DD 15 864 Ibanez RC 1,109 58,350 Subtotal 1,124 59,214 DD 26 1,459 Total RC 2,196 123,499 GRAND TOTAL 2,222 124,958 Drillhole collars were surveyed by licensed surveyors (MHR Surveyors, Perth) using a real-time kinematic (RTK) differential global positioning system (GPS) connected to a state survey mark (SSM) network. Downhole surveys were attempted on all RCP and DD holes using gyroscopic survey methods. Readings were taken at 5 m intervals downhole using a SPT north-seeking gyroscopic survey tool. Quality control (QC) of the gyroscope tool involved field calibration using a test stand and a calibration hole. Since January 2011, RCP chips were logged at 2 m intervals using a standardised set of codes (previously 1 m). Logging codes have been standardised and codes for mineralised material incorporate the lithology, weathering, colour, chip percent, main iron mineral, texture and hardness. Geophysical logging (natural gamma, gamma density, magnetic susceptibility, resistivity) was completed on the vast majority of drillholes. The standard Atlas geological log was entered digitally in the field onto a Toughbook computer. The files are then uploaded into an acQuire database.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 235 47

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

For RCP holes, 3–4 kg samples are collected predominately via cone splitter for each 2 m interval in a pre- numbered calico bag. Samples are kept dry where possible. Samples are dried at 105°C for 12–24 hours and crushed to a nominal size of –3 mm, prior to being pulverised to 90% passing 75 μm. Samples were sent to Ultratrace and ALS Laboratories in Perth for analysis of the Atlas iron ore suite. Subsamples are collected to produce a 66 g sample that is dried further, fused at 1,100°C for 10 minutes and poured into a platinum mould.X -ray fluorescence (XRF) analysis was then completed for Fe, Al2O3, SiO2, CaO, P, S, MnO, MgO, K2O, Na2O, TiO2. Thermo-gravimetric analysis (TGA) was completed for LOI at 1,000°C. Downhole geophysical density measurements were taken every 10 cm as the probe is raised. Regression factors were derived after bulk density determination of DD core (bulk dry density and Archimedes methods) and were applied post estimation (of geophysical density) to obtain a dry bulk density. The width of the hole is also measured as the calliper ascends. This allows for filtering of the data after it is gathered, due to cavities or abnormalities in the drillhole. The effect of water has been disregarded because none of the drillholes intersected the water table. Certified reference materials (CRMs), field duplicates and umpire laboratory analyses were used for quality control. Field duplicates and CRMs were inserted at a ratio of 1:20 with an overall QC insertion rate of 1:10. Sample weights were recorded for all samples. Laboratory duplicates were taken where large samples required splitting down by the laboratory. Laboratory repeats were taken, and standards were inserted at predetermined frequency rate specified by the laboratory. Umpire laboratory analysis was carried out by Ultratrace as independent checks of the primary laboratory assay results and shows good precision. CRMs across a broad range of values were inserted at predetermined intervals by Atlas and randomly by the laboratory at set levels. Results highlight that assay values are accurate and precise. Analysis of field duplicate and laboratory pulp repeat samples reveals that greater than 90% of pairs have less than 10% difference and the precision of samples is within acceptable limits, which concurs with industry best practice. The topographic data was captured and supplied by AAM Pty Ltd with the contours generated using LiDAR technology. The datum used was GDA94 with MGA Zone 50 projection. The contour lines were then used to generate a topography surface using Vulcan™ software. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that data collection methods, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, analytical methods and topographic control, according to the documentation supplied, are consistent with industry standards. At Gibson/Daltons and Fender, due to grade bias and different method of sampling, all holes drilled by Giralia Resources Ltd (Giralia) were excluded from estimation, though they were still used for geological modelling. Data has been collected predominantly by RCP drilling methods which generally provide a high-quality sample, which is supported by a small but adequate number of DD drillholes. Logging, sampling and analytical techniques are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 236 48

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Geological Interpretation and Modelling The stratigraphy of the deposit was modelled mainly based on their chemical composition from the assay data supported by geological mapping. The mineralisation is domained generally using >50% Fe and <15% SiO2 cut- off grades and was divided into two types: hydrated and primary mineralisation. The hydrated mineralisation is generally characterised by high-grade variability, slightly elevated Al2O3 and SiO2, and occasionally anomalous gamma ray data. Primary mineralisation typically shows more consistent mineralisation compared to the hydrated zone, relatively higher grades, and less grade variability. CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers that geological models for the Mount Webber deposits to be well understood by Atlas, and the interpretation of geology and mineralisation to be well constrained using all available data to support decisions. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Mineral Resource estimation

Statistics were reviewed for a suite of variables including Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, S, and LOI. Histograms and summary statistics tables were compiled and reviewed for each variable in each “geozone” (estimation domain based on lithology and mineralisation wireframes). Histograms generally indicated a single population, and there is no reference to data requiring top/bottom cutting to control outliers. Block models were constructed in Vulcan™ software using a block size of 10 m(N) x 10 m(E) x 6 m(RL) and a rotation of 30°. Grades and density in mineralised geozones were estimated by ordinary kriging (OK). Grades and density in waste geozones were estimated using inverse distance weighting (IDW). The chip percentage is estimated using inverse distance weighting to the power of 2 (IDW2) for all geozones. A hard boundary was used between each mineralisation lens. Search ellipses were orientated based on the orientation of the mineralisation, i.e. 30º with the first pass search range of 50 m(E) x 50 m(N) x 10 m(RL) and with second and third passes of 70 m(E) x 70 m(N) x 15 m(RL) and 90 m(E) x 90 m(N) x 20 m(RL), respectively. A minimum of 12 and a maximum of 24 samples were used to estimate the block grades for the first search pass. The minimum number of samples was reduced to 10 and eight for the second and third pass, respectively. A maximum of four samples per drillhole was used per block estimate with cell discretisation of 5 X by 5 Y by 2 Z. Octant-based searching was not used. Downhole geophysical density data was used to estimate density after undergoing validation and correction using dimensional density data sourced from DD holes. Based on the analysis, the estimated geophysical density values are corrected using the multiplying factor derived from regression analysis. The correction factor takes into account the moisture content and rugosity of the holes. Block grade estimation results were validated by means of visual comparison, statistical comparison against composite data, trend (swath) plots, and histograms. Validation of the block model showed good correlation of the input composite data to the estimated block grades. Correlated elements such as iron and silica were also checked to ensure the relationship is maintained after the estimation. Mineral Resources have been classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred based on drillhole intercept spacing, geological confidence, grade continuity and estimation quality. Mineral Resource classification has taken into account the data spacing, distribution, continuity, reliability, quality and quantity of data. The input data is comprehensive in its coverage of the mineralisation and does not misrepresent in situ mineralisation. The definition of mineralised zones is based on geological understanding producing a robust model of mineralised domains.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 237 49

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers the geostatistical analysis, block modelling, grade estimation and classification to be reasonable for the Mount Webber Project and within CSA Global’s expectations for deposits of these type. Risk is accounted for in the block model through the coding of cavities, water table (all resources atMount Webber are above the water table), and the higher confidence parts of the model are considered well estimated with sufficient detail for long-term planning. CSA Global re-reported the Mineral Resource estimate from the block model and was able to reproduce the tonnage and metal estimate tabulated in the Atlas Mineral Resource Reports to within an acceptable tolerance. This gives confidence in Atlas’s reporting procedures. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

2.6.2 Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate The Corunna Downs Project comprises the following deposits: • Split Rock – the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report dated January 2016; • Runway – the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report dated February 2016; • Glen Herring – the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report dated November 2016; • Shark Gully – the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report dated February 2016; and • Razorback – the Mineral Resource estimate is documented in a report dated May 2014. All of the above reports were prepared by Atlas. The Competent Person responsible for the Mineral Resource estimates is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate is shown in Table 9, reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. No mining has taken place at any of the Corunna Downs deposits.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 238 50

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 9: Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018

Deposit JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Measured ------Indicated 22,100 57.12 6.52 1.51 0.12 0.01 8.96 Split Rock Inferred 3,400 56.94 7.23 1.45 0.11 0.01 8.93 Subtotal 25,400 57.10 6.61 1.50 0.12 0.01 8.95 Measured Indicated 11,100 57.32 5.29 2.13 0.04 0.01 9.75 Runway Inferred 300 56.28 7.80 2.17 0.04 0.01 8.93 Subtotal 11,400 57.29 5.36 2.13 0.04 0.01 9.73 Measured Indicated 9,000 56.97 7.54 1.47 0.04 0.01 8.93 Glen Herring Inferred 3,300 56.81 8.54 1.53 0.05 0.01 8.04 Subtotal 12,200 56.93 7.80 1.48 0.04 0.01 8.70 Measured Indicated 8,900 57.59 5.54 2.15 0.09 0.01 9.39 Shark Gully Inferred 300 56.91 6.64 2.32 0.07 0.01 9.02 Subtotal 9,200 57.57 5.57 2.16 0.09 0.01 9.38 Measured Indicated Razorback Inferred 5,900 57.12 5.47 1.81 0.04 0.01 10.01 Subtotal 5,900 57.12 5.47 1.81 0.04 0.01 10.01 Measured Corunna Indicated 51,100 57.22 6.26 1.75 0.08 0.01 9.20 Downs – Total Inferred 13,000 56.98 6.77 1.67 0.06 0.01 9.20 TOTAL 64,100 57.17 6.36 1.73 0.08 0.01 9.20 * Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt.

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the Corunna Downs Mineral Resource estimate is sourced primarily from RCP drillholes. DD core was used for geotechnical work and density determination and was not generally used for analytical purposes or to verify RCP grades. The drilling is summarised in Table 10. Table 10: Corunna Downs drillhole database Prospect Hole type No. of drillholes Total depth (m) DD 6 1,388 Split Rock RC 135 19,490 (November 2013) RCD 2 120 Subtotal 143 20,998 DD 6 890 Runway RC 145 13,938 (18 February 2015) Subtotal 151 14,828 DD 2 173 Glen Herring RC 68 7,766 (7 October 2016) Subtotal 70 7,939 DD 2 223 Shark Gully RC 81 6,418 (2 November 2015) Subtotal 83 6,641 DD Razorback RC 16 2,098 (January 2014) Subtotal 16 2,098 DD 16 2,674 Total RC 445 49,710 RCD 2 120 GRAND TOTAL 463 52,504

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 239 51

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Drillhole collars were surveyed by licensed surveyors (MHR Surveyors, Perth) using a RTK differentialPS G connected to an SSM network. Two collars were not surveyed at Runway. At Shark Gully, the 2015 infill drilling collar pick-ups were completed by a trained site geologist using DGPS. The collar locations are consistent with the topography model. Downhole surveys were attempted on all RCP and DD holes using gyroscopic survey methods. Readings were taken at 5 m intervals downhole using a SPT north seeking gyroscopic survey tool. For RCP holes, 3–4 kg RCP chip samples were collected predominately via a cone splitter for each 2 m interval in a pre-numbered calico bag to collect a nominal 4–6 kg sample. Samples are kept dry where possible; however, a proportion of below water table samples are reported as being moist or wet. Where RCP samples were large (>6 kg), they were crushed down to 3 mm and rotary split down to produce a smaller sample suitable for pulverising. Samples were dried at 105°C for 12–24 hours and crushed to a nominal size of –3 mm, then pulverised to 90% passing 75 μm. RC logging records the abundance/proportion of specific minerals/material types and lithologies, hardness recorded by physical chip percent measurement, weathering and colour. Additionally, DD core was logged for density (dimensional tray method), geotechnical conditions, rock quality designation (RQD), recovery and structure. Each tray was photographed both wet and dry after core mark up and orientation. The entire lengths of RCP holes were logged in 2 m intervals and all drillholes were logged in fill. Where no sample was returned due to voids/cavities, it was recorded as such. All holes were downhole geophysical logged (or attempted) for natural gamma, resistivity, gamma density, calliper and magnetic susceptibility. Not all holes were open at depth which precluded 100% coverage of the drillholes. Samples were submitted to SGS Laboratory or Intertek in Perth and assayed for the extended iron ore suite (24 elements at SGS, 17 elements at Intertek) by XRF and a total LOI by thermogravimetric techniques. Samples were subjected to routine particle sizing analysis by the laboratory to ensure the pulverizing stage is achieving appropriate particle sizes for XRF analysis. This analysis showed that 95% of samples tested returned greater than the 90% passing 75 μm. Diamond twin analysis (where available) showed good precision where core recovery has been sufficient to provide a representative sample of the interval. Geophysical density measurements collected at 10 cm increments were composited to 2 m intervals to correspond with the sample length. Geophysical density measures the in situ density inclusive of moisture and porosity. Filtered and cleaned geophysical density was composited to 2 m and then estimated into the block model in a similar fashion to grades. A regression was applied to account for the moisture, porosity and hole rugosity present in the readings to derive a dry density. The regression has been calculated by comparing geophysical measurements in a DD hole with dry, DD core dimensional density measurements over the same intervals. Geophysical measurements taken in RCP and DD twin holes are also directly compared to account for differences due to downhole effects (rugosity). Dimensional density measurements were determined and used for regression with the geophysics. Density regression factors were applied globally to the Mineral Resources to derive the dry bulk density. At Razorback, geophysical density was estimated on a wet basis; however, a correction is applied to convert the geophysical density to an equivalent dry bulk density. The water table sits approximately 70 m below the ground surface and approximately 38% of the resource is located below water table. Atlas inserts commercially available CRMs at a set frequency of 1:20 (5% of total samples) within its sample batches. Several different standards across a range of grades are used to monitor analytical accuracy and precision. Acceptable levels of accuracy have been achieved with all CRMs reporting within two standard deviations of the certified mean grade for the main elements of interest. Duplicates are inserted at a frequency of 1:20 and analysis shows the data has acceptable precision.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 240 52

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The laboratory also inserts its own standards at set frequencies and monitors the precision of the XRF analysis. These results also reported well within two standard deviations of the mean grades for all main elements of interest. The laboratory also performs repeat analyses of sample pulps at a rate of 1:20 (5% of all samples). These results compare very closely with the original analysis for all elements. Analysis of field duplicate and laboratory pulp duplicates and repeats reveals that greater than 90% of pairs have less than 10% difference. Sampling precision is within acceptable limits and concurs with industry recommended practices. Atlas sent a selection of pulps to an umpire laboratory (Bureau Veritas, Perth)for verification by an independent laboratory. Comparison of results between laboratories did not reveal any issues and analytical precision was considered acceptable. LiDAR topographic data and imagery was collected by Outline Global Pty Ltd based on 10 cm resolution RGB imagery. Two metre vertical contour interval resolution was derived from stereoscopic imagery DTM. The aerial survey was flown on 16 March 2013. At Shark Gully, 2 m vertical contour interval resolution was available with 5 m DTM automatically derived from stereoscopic imagery. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that data collection method, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, analytical methods and topographic control, according to the documentation supplied, are largely consistent with industry standards. No perceived issues have been detected in the review completed by CSA Global. Data has been collected by RCP drilling methods which generally provide a high-quality sample. Logging, sampling and analytical techniques are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Geological Interpretation and Modelling Stratigraphy was interpreted mainly based on geochemical data, geological logging data, core photos, aerial photography, downhole gamma (where available) and geological mapping. The stratigraphic units were modelled, with the number varying between deposits. Four units were modelled at Shark Gully, 15 units were modelled at Runway. Stratigraphic units consisted of quartzite, shale, cherty BIF, siltstone, BIF, jaspilitic BIF, and ultramafic (not all units present in each deposit), generally steeply dipping to the west and trending in a north-north east direction. The mineralisation domain (geozone) is generally divided into two types: primary and hydrated mineralisation. The primary mineralisation contains relatively higher and less variable grades with good continuation along strike. The hydrated mineralisation typically has lower grade, is less continuous with higher variation in grades and overlies primary mineralisation. All mineralised domains were constrained using >=50% Fe and <15% SiO2 cut-off grades. In some deposits, a surficial depleted zone was also modelled. CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers the geological models for the Corunna Downs deposits to be well understood by Atlas, and the interpretation of geology and mineralisation to be well constrained using all available data to support interpretation decisions. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 241 53

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mineral Resource Estimation

Statistics were reviewed for a suite of variables including Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, S, and LOI. Histograms and summary statistics tables were reviewed for each variable in each geozone (estimation domain based on geology and mineralisation wireframes). Histograms were generally single population, and there is no reference to data requiring top/bottom cutting to control outliers. Block models were constructed in Vulcan software using a block size of 20 m(N) x 20 m(E) x 5 m(RL) for all deposits except Razorback, which used a block size of 40 m(N) x 10 m(E) x 5 m(RL). Dynamic anisotropy was used for the primary material in several deposits, while constant search rotations were used for hydrated and models that did not use dynamic anisotropy. Grades and density (from geophysics) in mineralised geozones were estimated by OK. Grades and density (from geophysics) in waste geozones were estimated using IDW2. The chip percentage is estimated using IDW2 or OK for all geozones where available. Generally, hard boundaries were used between domains, though at Glen Herring the hydrated geozones were combined to estimate hydrated blocks, while in the primary, a combination of hard/soft boundaries were used. Search neighbourhood parameters are presented in Table 11. Table 11: Corunna Downs sample search neighbourhoods (grade estimation) Maximum Deposit Search pass Ranges Minimum Maximum Discretisation per drillhole 1 100 x 100 x 20 12 26 Split Rock 2 140 x 140 x 30 10 26 4 5 x 5 x 2 3 180 x 180 x 40 8 26 100 x 100 x 20 (P) 1 16 36 100 x 100 x 10 (H) 140 x 140 x 30 (P) Shark Gully 2 14 36 4 5 x 5 x 2 140 x 140 x 15 (H) 180 x 180 x 40 (P) 3 12 36 180 x 180 x 20 (H) 1 X2.5 DH Spacing 12 36 Razorback 2 X3.5 DH Spacing 10 36 4 5 x 5 x 2 3 X4.5 DH Spacing 8 36 120 x 60 x 30(P) 1 12 36 80 x 60 x 10(H) 140 x 70 x 40(P) Glen Herring 2 10 36 4 5 x 5 x 2 100 x 80 x 15(H) 160 x 80 x 50(P) 3 8 36 120 x 100 x 20(H) 1 100 x 80 x 10 16 36 140 x 120 x 20 (P) 2 14 36 Runway 140 x 120 x 15 (H) 4 5 x 5 x 2 180 x 160 x 30 (P) 3 12 36 180 x 160 x 20 (H) Note: P = primary, H = hydrated. Downhole geophysical density data is used to estimate density after undergoing validation and correction using dimensional density data sourced from diamond holes. The correction factor takes into account the moisture content and rugosity of the holes. Based on the analysis, the estimated geophysical density values are corrected using multiplying factors derived for each deposit. Mineral Resource classification has taken into account data spacing and distribution, continuity, reliability, the water table (where applicable), and the quality and quantity of data. The input data is comprehensive in its

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 242 54

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

coverage of the mineralisation and does not misrepresent in situ mineralisation. The definition of mineralised zones is based on a of geological understanding producing a robust model of mineralised domains. The results of the validation of the block model shows good correlation of the input data to the estimated grades. Density and grade estimation results were validated by means of visual comparison along three different sections (along, across strike and elevations), statistical comparison against composite data, swath plots, and histograms. The correlated elements such as iron and silica were also checked to ensure the relationship is maintained after the estimation. CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers that geostatistical analysis, block modelling, grade estimation and classification has been carried out in a competent manner. The grade continuity modelled is as expected for this style of deposit, and there are low grades in penalty elements (however no specifications sheet was reviewed by CSA Global). The block model validates well against input data and the classification is considered reasonable. Risks are documented in the reports for several deposits and often key risk criteria are coded into the model for downstream use. This is considered good practice. It is noted that grades are estimated into air blocks, which should be removed or re-set to absent to prevent misuse in mine planning. CSA Global re-reported the Mineral Resource estimate from the block model and was able to reproduce the tonnage and metal estimate tabulated in the Atlas Mineral Resource reports. This gives confidence in Atlas’s reporting procedures. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

2.6.3 McPhee Creek Project Mineral Resource Estimate The Mineral Resource estimate for the McPhee Creek Project was publicly reported by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Mineral Resource estimate includes the Main Range and Main Range West BIF deposits and the Crescent Moon CID. The Mineral Resource estimates were reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimates is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The McPhee Creek Mineral Resource estimate is shown in Table 12, reported above a cut-off grade of 48.5% Fe. Table 12: McPhee Creek Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Measured 32,900 57.4 5.6 1.9 0.14 0.01 9.3 Main Range Indicated 200,000 56.3 6.8 2.3 0.14 0.01 9.3 Inferred 4,000 55.3 9.6 1.8 0.11 0.01 9.0 Measured Main Range Indicated West Inferred 4,000 55.4 7.1 2.6 0.06 0.02 10.1 Measured Crescent Indicated 5,000 52.8 7.1 6.2 0.03 0.03 10.9 Moon Inferred 1,000 52.6 7.4 6.8 0.03 0.03 10.8 Measured 32,900 57.4 5.6 1.9 0.14 0.01 9.3 McPhee Indicated 205,000 56.2 6.8 2.4 0.13 0.01 9.4 Creek – Total Inferred 9,000 55.2 8.3 2.5 0.08 0.01 9.6 TOTAL 246,900 56.3 6.7 2.3 0.13 0.01 9.4 Note: Measured Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt. Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 243 55

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the McPhee Creek Mineral Resource estimates is sourced primarily from RCP and DD drillholes. A total of 1,531 RCP holes for 151,103 m, 57 DD holes for 11,147 m and 41 DD tails for 5,370 m support the Mineral Resource estimates. Main Range West and Crescent Moon were drilled by RCP methods, whilst Main Range was drilled by RCP and DD methods. The project was owned by Giralia until March 2011, when it was acquired by Atlas. Drillhole collars were surveyed by licensed surveyors using differentialPS G methods. Downhole surveys at Main Range and Main Range West were completed using a north seeking multi-shot gyroscopic tool, with hole azimuths and dips measured every 5 m to a high degree of accuracy. Downhole geophysical measurements were collected concurrently, comprising in situ density, calliper, magnetic susceptibility and natural gamma, with readings taken at 10 cm intervals. Drillholes at Crescent Moon collapsed soon after completion of drilling and downhole surveys were unable to be carried out. These holes were of shallow depth and vertical, therefore any unrecorded deviation would have minimal effect upon the Mineral Resource estimate. RC drilling conducted by Giralia was sampled at 1 m intervals. The drill samples were geologically logged onto paper templates after which the data was entered intoMicrosoft Excel templates. The spreadsheets were loaded into a structured query language (SQL) database by the Giralia database administrator. RCP drilling conducted by Atlas was sampled at 2 m intervals, with the drill samples geologically logged and data entered into field devices loaded with acQuire field logging templates. Data was loaded into the centralised acQuire drillhole database by the Atlas database administrator. Enforced data validation rules were employed at the data entry and database loading stages, with any validation errors interrogated and issues resolved. All RCP samples collected by Giralia were sourced from 1 m drillhole intervals, with the samples riffle split and the split fractions then composited to 2 m sample lengths. The 2 m composite samples were then re-split by riffle splitting, in order to reduce the total amount of sample sent for XRF analysis. Since Atlas acquired the project, 2 m RCP samples were collected in pre-numbered calico bags using cone splitters. DD core was sampled at 1 m intervals with the whole core sampled after geological logging, density measurements and photography were completed. Samples from the Giralia drilling were sent to Spectrolabs, located in Geraldton for sample preparation and analysis. The Atlas samples were sent to Ultratrace and later, SGS for sample preparation and analysis. Samples were dried at 105°C for up to 24 hours, then crushed to a nominal –3 mm size, and pulverised in an LM2 to 90% passing 75 µm. A 66 g pulp sample was taken and fused at 1,100°C for 10 minutes and poured into a platinum crucible prior to analysis by XRF. The iron ore suite of elements analysed by XRF included Fe, SiO2,

Al2O3, P, CaO, K2O, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, Na2O. A thermogravimetric measurement was completed for LOI at 1,000°C. Downhole geophysical measurements at Main Range were collected from most DD and RCP holes, capturing in situ density and calliper results. The density data did not account for rock porosity and rugosity (borehole smoothness), and it was therefore correlated with dry bulk density results from DD core. The dry bulk density results were measured by a modified form of the calliper method, where the entire core tray was weighed, the mass of the empty tray subtracted, and divided by the volume of core in the tray. A comparison of geophysical and calliper data resulted in a regression formula which was applied to the geophysical data. The geophysical values were multiplied by 0.96 to derive a dry bulk density value. These values were subsequently interpolated into the block model. No DD holes were drilled at Main Range West and Crescent Moon, hence regression of in situ against dry bulk densities was not possible. The Main Range regression formula was applied to the Main Range West model, and a more conservative regression calculation of 0.90 was applied to the Crescent Moon in situ densities to derive a dry bulk density. Atlas submitted CRMs and field duplicates into the sample stream at a rate of 1:20. Atlas note that the field duplicate XRF analyses mirror the original sample with only small differences between the calculated means.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 244 56

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Atlas also indicate that the majority of results were around the expected mean and within two standard deviations of the expected mean, with some outliers. Additional QC results include laboratory repeats (pulp duplicates) with results showing the original and repeat results closely correlated. No twinned drilling of RCP and DD holes were carried out at McPhee Creek. Batches of pulp samples were sent from Spectrolabs to Ultratrace for umpire analyses with results showing no issues and confirming the Giralia sampling and sample analyses were suitable for use in the Mineral Resource estimate. Topographic data was obtained from an aerial survey flown in 2008 (Crescent Moon) and 2010 (Main Range/Main Range West), with 1 m contour data provided to Giralia who prepared the DTM. The datum of the survey matches the datum of the project data. CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers that data collection method, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, analytical methods and topographic control, according to the documentation supplied, are largely consistent with industry standards. Atlas’s QC procedures appear to be robust and of industry standard, and the conclusions drawn by Atlas from the summarised QC results support the reporting of a Mineral Resource. Data has been collected by RCP and DD drilling methods which provide a high-quality sample. Logging, sampling and analytical techniques are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Geological Interpretation and Modelling Gœthite-hæmatite iron ore mineralisation at Main Range and Main Range West is hosted in BIF and in ferruginous laterite/canga. Iron ore mineralisation is predominantly stratabound within the BIF; however, near- surface supergene enrichment and remobilisation has created zones of mineralisation crosscutting the stratigraphy. Areas of complex folding often contain substantial thicknesses of mineralisation, suggesting structural control and iron enrichment in synformal hinges. Mineralisation is bounded by fault zones along the east. The geological models were prepared from data collected from RCP and DD holes. For the Main Range and Main Range West models, a stratigraphic model was prepared as a base, and mineralisation zones interpreted based upon cut-off grades of >50% Fe and <15% SiO2. Drill samples interpreted as mineralisation and with elevated TiO2 and CaO were interpreted to fall within a hydrated zone. Depletion zones were also interpreted where iron was <50% fe. Mineralisation at Crescent Moon is a CID with a strike length of approximately 1,500 m and depth of approximately 15 m. Mineralisation is hosted withingœthit e rich pisolites and contains localised volumes of clay pods. The deposit overlies a shale of the Corboy Formation, which has elevated Al2O3 and is therefore easy to distinguish in drill samples using the XRF analyses. Mineralisation domains were interpreted using cut-off grades of >50% Fe and <15% SiO2 as a guide. All geological models were created following sectional interpretation using the geological logs and geochemistry of RCP and DD samples. Three-dimensional (3D) wireframe solids and surfaces were constructed based on the sectional interpretations. Vulcan software was used for all geological modelling, grade interpolation and reporting of Mineral Resources.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 245 57

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

CSA Global Assessment The geological interpretations for the McPhee Creek deposits appropriately considered stratigraphic and structural controls for the Main Range and Main Range West deposits, with the mineralisation models constrained by these controls. The geological interpretation for the Crescent Moon CID deposit also appropriately considers the control of the palaeochannel containing the pisolite iron mineralisation, with mineralisation domains using defined geochemical limits constrained within the pisolite model. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Mineral Resource Estimation Drill sample data were initially flagged by stratigraphic and mineralisation domains, then composited to 2 m prior to statistical analysis and grade interpolation. Descriptive statistics was compiled for Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, CaO,

K2O, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, Na2O, LOI (1,000°C) and geophysical density, grouped by “geozone” field (estimation domain based on lithology and mineralisation wireframes). Normal scores variograms were modelled for the 12 elements and geophysical data for all geozones for Main Range and Crescent Moon. Main Range West contained insufficient number of samples to allow meaningful assessment of the variograms. Block models were constructed using the solids and surfaces representing the lithology and mineralisation domains to constrain and flag blocks within the block model. Parent block sizes were selected based on half the typical drillhole spacing and assumed mining bench height, with the Main Range and Main Range West block models rotated to represent the strike of mineralisation. The Crescent Moon block model is not rotated. Sub- blocking was used to adequately fill the wireframe volumes with blocks. The Main Range and Main Range West block models used a parent block size of 25 m(N) x 25 m(E) x 5 m(RL) while the Crescent Moon block model used a parent size of 12.5 m(N) x 25 m(E) x 5 m(RL). For the Main Range and Crescent Moon block models, grades were estimated by OK for all grade and geophysical variables. A hard boundary was used between mineralisation domains. The Main Range West block model was interpolated using IDW2. IDW2 was chosen because variograms were not modelled. Sample search parameters were determined following quantitative kriging neighbourhood analysis (QKNA), where parameters were optimised based upon the variogram model and local data distribution. Search ellipses were orientated according to the geometry of the mineralisation domain, with the ellipse radii doubled and tripled for the second and third estimation passes respectively. The in situ density values derived from the geophysical probing were interpolated into the block model using OK, after being composited to 2 m lengths and flagged according to mineralisation domain. The interpolated block density grades were corrected for moisture by applying a regression formula to each block estimate, with a reduction of 4% applied to the in situ density to derive the dry bulk density. Mineral Resources were classified based on drillhole spacing, nature and quality of the drilling and sampling methods, geological understanding and confidence, grade continuity,QAQC analysis, confidence in the estimate of the mineralised volume, results of the model validation and results of metallurgical testwork. The geological interpretations are based on a high-level of geological understanding of the deposits producing robust models of the mineralisation and stratigraphic domains. Measured Mineral Resources were defined at Main Range where the drilling density is 50 m x 50 m (or less), mineralisation displays strong continuity with low variability, is within the primary mineralisation zone and above the water table, is not geologically complex, and estimation results are robust. Indicated Mineral Resources were classified for Main Range and Crescent Moon where the drill spacing is 50 m x 100 m (or less), geological and grade continuity is good, the mineralisation is either primary or hydrated, the areais not geologically complex, and estimation quality is good. Inferred material is classified where the drill spacing is 50 m

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 246 58

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

x 100 m (or less), mineralisation continuity was poor, geology was considered to be complex, and estimation quality is considered poor. Main Range West was wholly classified as Inferred. Block model validation was completed by visual comparison of sample and block grades, statistical comparison of sample and block grades, swath plots, total assay checks and global change of support assessments. The Mineral Resource block models were reported above a cut-off grade of 48.5% Fe, supported by de-sliming processing technology which demonstrated that this cut-off grade will yield good recovery of product grade material to specification. CSA Global Assessment Following a review of the documentation and data supporting the Mineral Resource estimate, CSA Global considers that statistical and geostatistical analyses were carried out competently and the interpreted results support the Mineral Resource classification. The block model block sizes are appropriate for each deposit, and the blocks were correctly flagged according to geological and mineralisation domains. The use of OK for interpolating grade into Main Range and Crescent Moon is considered appropriate by CSA Global; however, CSA Global believe that OK could have been used for the Main Range West model instead of IDW2, by using variogram parameters and sample search parameters from the Main Range model. A material increase in confidence would not be expected by using OK for grade interpolation instead of IDW2; however, CSA Global consider OK to be a more robust estimation technique which is reliant upon the sample population rather than IDW2 which only considers distance to the sample. CSA Global considers that industry good practise has been adopted when forming a judgement on Mineral Resource confidence. The quality of the input data, confidence in the geological interpretation and sampling density were considered. CSA Global re-reported the Mineral Resource estimate from the block model and was able to reproduce the tonnage and metal estimate tabulated in the Atlas Mineral Resource Report. This gives confidence in Atlas’s reporting procedures. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimates were prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

2.6.4 Miralga Creek Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Miralga Creek Project was publicly reported by Atlas on 25 May 2015. The technical report is dated 25 July 2014. The Mineral Resource estimate was classified and reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Miralga Creek Mineral Resource estimate is shown in Table 13, reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Table 13: Miralga Creek Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018

JORC classification Tonnage (kt)* Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Inferred 4,000 57.7 5.29 1.50 0.11 0.012 10.17 Total 4,000 57.7 5.29 1.50 0.11 0.012 10.17 * Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt.

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the Miralga Creek Mineral Resource estimate is sourced primarily from RCP drillholes. A total of 45 RCP holes for 4,748 m was available to support preparation of the Mineral Resource estimate. Drillhole collars were surveyed by licenced surveyors (MHR Surveyors Perth) using a differentialGPS instrument. Downhole surveys were completed using a gyroscopic survey tool, which was calibrated on site using a test stand and calibration hole.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 247 59

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Geological logging was completed for every sample. The entire lengths of the RCP holes were logged. Logging was both qualitative and quantitative in nature. Features that were logged included the abundance/proportion of specific minerals/material types and lithologies, hardness, weathering and colour. Sampling was completed using RCP drill rigs. A 4–6 kg sample was collected via a cone splitter for every 2 m interval directly into a pre-numbered calico bag which was submitted to SGS Laboratory in Perth for analysis. Sample recoveries were generally good. Samples were dried at 105°C for 12–24 hours prior to being crushed to a nominal –3 mm size and pulverised to 90% passing 75 µm. Analysis for the iron ore suite (24 elements) was completed by XRF while total LOI was determined by thermogravimetric techniques. CRMs (1:20), field duplicates (1:20) and umpire laboratory analysis samples were used for external QC. Gamma density was attempted on all RCP holes. Topographic data was based on an aerial survey completed in April 2014 on 2 m resolution contours. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that data collection methods, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, analytical methods and topographic control, according to the documentation supplied, are largely consistent with industry standards. Data has been collected by RCP drilling methods which generally provide a high-quality sample, and recorded sample recoveries are high. Logging, sampling and analytical techniques are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. Field duplicate and CRM results demonstrate good sample precision and analytical accuracy respectively. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Geological Interpretation and Modelling The Miralga Creek stratigraphic model comprises a number of BIF, chert and shale units belonging to the Cleaverville Formation. Mineralisation is predominantly hosted within the upper and middle BIF units. Discontinuous mineralisation is hosted within the lower BIF. Mineralisation occurs in three separate zones at Miralga Creek. All three zones contain a thin layer of hydrated mineralisation from surface down to approximately 10 m. This zone is characterised by elevated titanium and alumina grades and erraticiron grades. Primary mineralisation underlies the hydrated mineralisation andfollows bedding. Sectional interpretation of stratigraphic domains was completed using surface geological mapping, drillhole logging and drillhole geochemistry. These interpretations were used to generate stratigraphic surfaces.

Mineralisation domains were then interpreted based on cut-off grades of >50% Fe and <15% SiO2. The combination of stratigraphic and mineralisation interpretations defined “geozones”, which were used to control grade estimation. Two hydrated domains (geozones 504 and 506) and two primary mineralisation domains (geozones 202 and 204) were defined. CSA Global Assessment Surface mapping and drilling has been completed to support the stratigraphic and mineralisation interpretations. Stratigraphic interpretations appear well considered and the use of >50% Fe and <15% SiO2 cut- off grades to define the limits to the mineralisation appears broadly appropriate. All stratigraphic and mineralisation wireframes and drillholes were loaded into Datamine for review. The mineralisation interpretations were consistent with the documented method of construction, largely

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 248 60

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

encapsulating the >50% Fe and <15% SiO2 material. Three coherent zones of elevated Fe mineralisation were apparent. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Mineral Resource Estimation

Variography was completed in Supervisor software for geozone 204. Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, LOI, MnO, CaO, MgO,

TiO2, K2O, S, Na2O and geophysical density variograms were created and modelled. Geozone 204 was divided into two structural zones (S1 and S2). No variograms were modelled in Geozones 202, 504 and 506 due to a lack of data. Geozone 202 adopted the same parameters as Geozone 204 (S2) due to similar bedding and mineralisation orientations, while variogram parameters were not used for Geozones 504 and 506 given that kriging techniques were not applied. QKNA was carried out to optimise search parameters and block sizes. Two to three search passes were used, with the search ellipse dimensions varying between geozones. A fixed search ellipse was used for eachg eozone. A minimum of 6–12 samples and a maximum of 36 samples were used to inform the estimate. The maximum number of samples per drillhole was set to four. If any blocks were left unestimated, mean grades (or densities) were applied for that geozone. Block models were constructed in Vulcan software using a parent block size of 20 m(N) x 20 m(E) x 5 m(RL). Sub- blocks of 5 m(N) x 5 m(E) x 2.5 m(RL) were created to honour boundary positions. Geozones 202 and 204 were estimated by OK methods. A hard boundary was used between each geozone. Hydrated geozones and waste zones were estimated using IDW2 methods. A discretisation mesh of x5 5 x 2 was used for all blocks. A regression was applied to the estimated (geophysical) density to determine the dry in situ bulk density. All Mineral Resources were classified as Inferred based on drill spacing, data quality, geological and grade continuity, and confidence in the estimation. Block model validation was completed by visual comparison of sample and block grades, statistical comparison of sample and block grades per geozone, comparison of composite and block model grade histograms, swath plots, and change of support (comparison of the theoretical block grade distribution with the composite grade distribution and actual block grade distribution). CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that geostatistical analysis, block modelling, grade estimation, and classification has been carried out in a competent manner. CSA Global re-reported the Mineral Resource estimate from the block model and was able to reproduce the tonnage and metal estimate tabulated in the Atlas Mineral Resource Report. This gives confidence in Atlas’s reporting procedures. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

2.6.5 Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource Estimate The Mineral Resource estimate for the Davidson Creek Hub Project was publicly reported by Atlas on 13 August 2014 with three of the four Mineral Resources prepared by Snowden in late 2011 for FerrAus, the previous owners of three of the deposits in the project. The Mineral Resource estimate includes the Miji Miji, Robertson Range, Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin deposits. The Miji Miji Mineral Resource was prepared by Atlas. The Mineral Resource estimates were classified

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 249 61

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

and reported by Atlas Iron in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition). The Competent Person for the Miji Miji Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp, and the Competent Person for the Robertson Range, Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin Mineral Resource estimates is John Graindorge from Snowden. The Davidson Creek Hub Mineral Resource estimate which was publicly reported in August 2014 is shown in Table 14, reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Table 14: Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 Tonnage Deposit JORC classification Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) (kt) Measured ------Miji Miji Indicated ------Inferred 32,800 56.4 8.0 4.2 0.10 0.01 6.3 Measured 27,900 58.5 5.0 2.8 0.11 0.01 7.8 Robertson Range Indicated 47,100 55.9 7.7 4.1 0.10 0.02 7.3 Inferred 15,100 56.0 8.1 3.4 0.12 0.02 7.5 Measured 15,300 56.9 5.7 3.3 0.07 0.01 9.0 Davidson Creek Indicated 224,000 55.7 6.7 3.8 0.08 0.02 8.9 Inferred 34,900 55.7 8.0 3.0 0.10 0.01 8.4 Measured ------Mirrin Mirrin Indicated 68,000 56.4 6.5 3.2 0.10 0.01 8.8 Inferred 11,500 53.9 8.7 4.4 0.10 0.01 8.9 Measured 43,200 57.9 5.2 3.0 0.10 0.01 8.2 Davidson Creek Indicated 339,100 55.9 6.8 3.7 0.09 0.01 8.7 Hub – Total Inferred 94,300 55.8 8.1 3.7 0.10 0.01 7.6 TOTAL 476,300 56.0 6.9 3.7 0.09 0.01 8.4 Note: Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt. CSA Global was able to reproduce the tonnage and grade estimates for all deposits except Robertson Range, where minor discrepancies were noted. The Mineral Resource estimate reported by CSA Global above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe is shown in Table 15. The differences are not material. Table 15: Davidson Creek Hub Project Mineral Resource estimate, 31 March 2018 JORC Tonnage Deposit Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) classification (kt) Measured ------Miji Miji Indicated ------Inferred 32,800 56.4 8.0 4.2 0.10 0.01 6.3 Measured 36,700 57.2 5.8 3.4 0.11 0.02 8.2 Robertson Range Indicated 38,300 56.5 7.5 3.9 0.10 0.01 6.9 Inferred 15,200 56.0 8.1 3.4 0.12 0.02 7.5 Measured 15,300 56.9 5.7 3.3 0.07 0.01 9.0 Davidson Creek Indicated 224,000 55.7 6.7 3.8 0.08 0.01 8.9 Inferred 34,900 55.7 8.0 3.0 0.10 0.01 8.4 Measured ------Mirrin Mirrin Indicated 68,000 56.4 6.5 3.2 0.09 0.01 8.8 Inferred 11,500 53.9 8.7 4.4 0.10 0.01 8.9 Measured 52,000 57.1 5.8 3.3 0.10 0.01 8.4 Davidson Creek Indicated 330,300 56.0 6.7 3.7 0.08 0.01 8.7 Hub – Total Inferred 94,400 55.8 8.1 3.7 0.10 0.01 7.6 TOTAL 476,700 56.1 6.9 3.7 0.09 0.01 8.4 Note: Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 250 62

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the Davidson Creek Hub Mineral Resource estimates is sourced primarily from RCP and DD drillholes. A total of 2,109 RCP holes for 239,096 m and 176 DD holes for 21,233 m support the Mineral Resource estimate. Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin were drilled by RCP and DD methods, whilst Miji Miji was drilled by RCP methods only. Drillhole collars were surveyed by licensed surveyors using differential GPS methods. Drillholes at Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin were not downhole surveyed, with the exception of eight holes at Robertson Range, comprising 12% of all holes, and 13 DD holes at Mirrin Mirrin, which were surveyed at 30 m intervals. These holes are all vertical and the majority are over 50 m in depth, with many exceeding 100 m depth. The majority of the RCP holes at Miji Miji were downhole surveyed using a north seeking gyroscopic tool with readings taken every 5 m. RC and DD drilling were sampled at 2 m intervals, with the DD samples locally adjusted to reflect lithological contacts. For Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin, the drill samples were geologically logged and loaded into a Microsoft Access database by FerrAus. Data validation rules were employed when the data was loaded into Datamine, with any validation errors interrogated and issues resolved. During the Miji Miji drilling, the geological logs were entered into field laptops and then transferred into an acQuire database managed in Atlas’s Perth office. All RCP samples were sourced from 2 m drillhole intervals and passed through a cone splitter. RCP samples were collected in pre-numbered calico bags. The water table at Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin is interpreted to be between 35 m and 45 m which resulted in a large number of wet RCP samples. The water table at Miji Miji is located above the zones of mineralisation however wet samples were not recorded. RCP samples from Miji Miji were weighed and sample recoveries recorded, with most deemed to be good. No sample recoveries were recorded for the RCP holes from the other three deposits. DD drill core was sampled at 2 m intervals with HQ size half core and NQ size full core samples taken, after geological logging, density measurements and photography were completed. Samples were sent to either ALS, SGS or Ultratrace Laboratories for sample preparation and analyses. The samples were dried at 105°C, then crushed and pulverised to 85–90% passing 75 µm. A pulp sample was taken and fused with flux to form a glass bead prior to analysis by XRF. The iron ore suite of elements analysed by XRF included Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, CaO, K2O, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, Na2O. A thermo-gravimetric measurement was taken for LOI. Density measurements were collected at Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin from DD core which were wax coated, and densities measured using the water displacement method. Density measurements from Davidson Creek totalled 402, while 477 measurements were taken at Robertson Range and 376 at Mirrin Mirrin. Downhole geophysical records for in situ density from six RCP holes at Davidson Creek were also available but not used as part of the Mineral Resource estimate. Downhole geophysical measurements for in situ density were recorded from some holes at Miji Miji but the quantity regarded as insufficient to support meaningful analysis. The absence of DD holes at Miji Miji prevented any regression formulae to be produced. FerrAus submitted CRMs into the sample stream at Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin at a rate of 1:25. FerrAus also indicated the majority of results were around the expected mean and within three standard deviations of the expected mean, with some outliers (<1% of total CRM results). Field duplicates were collected from the cone splitter at a rate of 1:15. The Competent Person believes a reasonable sampling and assaying precision was achieved, after consideration of the number of samples taken from wet ground. Nine DD holes at Davidson Creek, eight at Robertson Range and 13 at Mirrin Mirrin were completed as twins to RCP drillholes to test the validity of the wet RCP samples, with the DD holes typically drilled within 5 m of the RCP hole. The Mirrin Mirrin twin drilling results suggest a loss of fine-grained gœthite sample material from the

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 251 63

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

wet RCP samples although the grade difference is minor. Discussion was not provided by Atlas for the other Mineral Resource estimates. Overall, the DD holes showed a reasonable comparison with the corresponding RCP hole, especially within the mineralised interval and no material difference identified between the drilling methods. For the Miji Miji drilling, Atlas inserted CRMs and field duplicates at a rate of 1:20. The Competent Person deemed the QC results to be of acceptable precision and analytical accuracy to allow the assay data to be used to support the Mineral Resource estimate. Topographic data was obtained from an aerial survey flown in 2007 (Davidson Creek and Robertson Range) and 2008 (Mirrin Mirrin) with 2 m contour data provided to FerrAus who prepared the DTM. Topographic contours for Miji Miji were derived from a gravity survey in 2007, with contours provided at a resolution of 6 m. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that data collection methods, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, analytical methods and topographic control, according to the documentation supplied, are largely consistent with industry standards. Atlas’s QC procedures appear to be robust and of industry standard, and the conclusions drawn by Atlas from the summarised QC results support the reporting of a Mineral Resource. Data has been collected by RCP and DD drilling methods. The DD methods provide a high-quality sample. Although the field duplicate and twin drilling results from wet RCP samples from Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin suggest the wet sampling has not had a significant impact upon the quality of sampling, CSA Global believe there has been insufficient QC and statistical analyses upon the wet RCP samples. Logging and analytical techniques for the Davidson Creek Project are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. The absence of downhole surveys supporting the Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin Mineral Resource estimates presents a risk to the deeper volumes of the Mineral Resources, with the location of drill samples lacking quality assurance. There are Indicated Mineral Resources at depths of >100 m and Measured Mineral Resources at depths between 50 m and 100 m, which are potentially susceptible to volumetric and grade changes once correct sample locations are applied to the block model. However, a cross sectional review of the block model suggests any sample location adjustments will not make a material difference to the grade and tonnage distribution. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Geological Interpretation and Modelling Hæmatite-gœthite mineralisation at the Davidson Creek Hub Project deposits occurs within the Mount Newman and West Angeles members of the Marra Mamba Formation, with the majority of mineralisation in the Mount Newman Member. The deposits occur along the northern and eastern limbs of a regional scale anticline. Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin are located along strike from one another and have a combined strike length of 9.7 km (Robertson Range 2.3 km, and Miji Miji 6.3 km). The Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin mineralisation is not continuous along strike with localised faulting offsetting mineralisation into distinct prospects. Lesser mineralisation occurs in the stratigraphically overlying West Angeles Member, and angular hæmatite-gœthite clasts form detrital mineralisation in the transported cover. Mineralisation at the Robertson Range deposit is comprised of continuous hæmatite-gœthite lenses hosted within the Mount Newman Member, with thickness varying from 25 m to 50 m. Discrete lenses of hæmatite- gœthite occur within the overlying West Angeles Member with thickness up to 30 m, and detrital mineralisation comprises angular hæmatite-gœthite clasts at the southern end of the deposit, with thickness up to 50 m.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 252 64

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mineralisation at Miji Miji is not continuous along strike with primary mineralisation dominated by finely bedded hæmatite, sometimes of specular form.Gœthite occurs in lesser amounts within the hydrated zone. The geological models were prepared from data collected from RCP and DD holes. For the Robertson Range, Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin models, a stratigraphic model was prepared as a base, and mineralisation zones interpreted based on a cut-off grade of >50% Fe, and geological logs of drill samples. For the Miji Miji model, a stratigraphic model was prepared as a base, and mineralisation zones interpreted based upon cut-off grades of >50% Fe and <15% SiO2. Drill samples which were considered as mineralisation with elevated TiO2 concentrations and fluctuating SiO2 and Al2O3 concentrations, were interpreted to fall within a hydrated zone. Depletion zones were interpreted where Fe was <50%. All geological models were created from sectional interpretation of the geological logs and geochemistry of RCP and DD samples, with 3D wireframe solids and surfaces constructed. Datamine software was used by Snowden (Robertson Range, Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin models) and Vulcan software by Atlas (Miji Miji) for all geological modelling, grade interpolation and reporting of Mineral Resources. CSA Global Assessment The geological interpretations for the Davidson Creek Hub deposits appropriately considered stratigraphic and structural controls for the deposits, with the mineralisation models constrained by these controls. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Mineral Resource Estimation Drill sample data was initially flagged by stratigraphic and mineralisation domains, then composited to2 m lengths prior to statistical evaluation of data and grade interpolation. Descriptive statistics were compiled for

Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, P, CaO, K2O, MgO, MnO, S, TiO2, Na2O and LOI (1,000°C), grouped by mineralisation domain. Composited drill data from Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin were then unfolded into planar space prior to variography, with traditional semi-variograms modelled for the 12 elements. Selected secondary grade variables were top-cut prior to variography and grade interpolation. No top-cuts were applied to Miji Miji composited samples prior to variography. Block models were constructed using the solid models and surfaces representing the stratigraphic and mineralisation domains to constrain and flag blocks. Parent block sizes were selected based on half the typical drillhole spacing and the assumed mining bench height. Sub-blocking was used to adequately fill the wireframe volumes with blocks. The Davidson Creek block model used a parent block size of 25 m(N) x 50 m(E) x 4 m(RL), the Robertson Range block model used a parent size of 25 m(N) x 25 m(E) x 4 m(RL), the Mirrin Mirrin block model used a parent size of 25 m(N) x 50 m(E) x 4 m(RL) and the Miji Miji block model used a parent size of 50 m(N) x 100 m(E) x 5 m(RL). The Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin block models were unfolded prior to grade interpolation by OK. A hard boundary was used between mineralisation domains. Sample search parameters were determined from the variogram models. Search ellipses were orientated according to the geometry of the mineralisation domain, with the ellipse radii doubled and trebled for the second and third estimation passes respectively. A minimum of 10 and maximum of 50 samples were used for any block estimate, with search radii for Davidson Creek of 150 m(X) x 100 m(Y) x 20 m(RL), Robertson Range of 70 m(X) x 70 m(Y) x 20 m(RL), and Mirrin Mirrin of 150 m(X) x 150 m(Y) x 25 m(RL). The Miji Miji block model was interpolated using IDW2, with a minimum of 12 and maximum of 36 samples used per block estimate. Search radii of 450 m (major direction) by 175 m x 30 m were used, with the major radius approximately 2.5x the drill spacing.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 253 65

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Dry bulk density values for all measured samples were flagged by stratigraphic and mineralisation domain, and a statistical analysis completed to determine the average density per domain. The average density per domain was applied to the block model. The Miji Miji domains utilised the density values from the Davidson Creek model. Mineral Resources were classified as Measured, Indicated and Inferred based on drillhole spacing, nature and quality of the drilling and sampling methods, geological understanding and confidence, grade continuity, QAQC analysis, confidence in the estimate of the mineralised volume, results of the model validation and results of metallurgical testwork. Measured Mineral Resources were defined at Robertson Range and Davidson Creek within hard-cap mineralisation within the Mount Newman Member <100 m deep where the drilling density is 50 m x 50 m (or less). Indicated Mineral Resources were classified for Robertson Range, Davidson Creek andMirrin Mirrin where drill spacing is 100 m x 50 m (or less) and where the mineralisation displays good continuity. Some Measured volumes were downgraded to Indicated where there was structural complexity or poor geological continuity. Inferred Mineral Resources were classified where the drill spacing is >100 m x 50 m. Miji Miji was wholly classified as Inferred. Block model validation was completed by visual comparison of sample and block grades, statistical comparison of sample and block grades and swath plots. The Mineral Resource models were reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe, supported by metallurgical testwork which demonstrated that this cut-off grade will yield good recovery of product grade material to specification. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global consider that statistical and geostatistical analysis was carried out competently and the interpreted results support the Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource classifications. CSA Global believes there has been insufficient QC data to support use of wet RCP samples. Local block estimates, particularly within the Measured volumes below the water table, should be treated with caution. The block model block sizes are considered large in the easting direction at Davidson Creek within the Measured volumes, where they match the drill spacing, which will have resulted in excessive smoothing of the block grades. The blocks were correctly flagged according to stratigraphic and mineralisation domains. The use of OK for interpolating grade into the deposits is considered appropriated by CSA Global and the use of IDW2 to interpolate grade into the Miji Miji model is appropriately reflected by the Inferred classification. CSA Global considers that industry good practice has been adopted when forming a judgement on Mineral Resource confidence. The quality of the input data, confidence in the geological interpretation and sampling density were considered. CSA Global attempted to re-report the Mineral Resource estimate from the block models and was able to reproduce the Mineral Resource estimate tabulated for Miji Miji, Davidson Creek and Mirrin Mirrin, as publicly reported in August 2014. CSA Global was not able to exactly reproduce the Mineral Resource estimate for Robertson Range, however the difference is not material. CSA Global also notes that the Davidson Creek, Robertson Range and Mirrin Mirrin Mineral Resources reported publicly in 2014 were not accompanied by JORC Table 1 and a summary discussion as required under ASX Listing Rule 5.8.1. Atlas has all necessary documentation however to support these Mineral Resources being reported in accordance with JORC (2012). CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimates were prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 254 66

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.6.6 Western Creek Project All Mineral Resources presented from Section 2.6.6 to 2.6.13 were subject to a lower level of assessment that those presented from Sections 2.6.1 to 2.6.5. A lower level of technical assessment was considered justified given the perceived materiality of each project with regard to Atlas’s total project portfolio. CSA Global did not import the block models, drillhole database and geological interpretations into a 3D software package to review the work. A judgement was made on the technical merit of the work following a review of publicly available documentation and technical reports provided by Atlas. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Western Creek Project is shown in Table 16. Table 16: Western Creek Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018

JORC Tonnage Fe SiO2 Al2O3 P S LOI Location classification (kt) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Western Creek Inferred 22,000 55.6 6.8 4.0 0.07 0.03 8.8 Western Ridge Inferred 47,000 55.9 7.0 4.0 0.06 0.07 8.7 Homestead Inferred 10,000 57.0 5.9 3.1 0.08 0.02 8.1 Total Inferred 79,000 56.0 6.8 3.9 0.06 0.05 8.7 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Western Creek Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Western Creek Mineral Resource estimate was completed around June 2013, with the associated technical report dated 21 August 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Western Ridge Mineral Resource estimate was completed around October 2013, with the associated technical report dated 18 October 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. CSA Global review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Homestead Mineral Resource estimate was completed around March 2013, with the associated technical report dated 24 June 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.7 Hickman Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Hickman Project is shown in Table 17. Table 17: Hickman Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Shoemaker Inferred 40,000 55.3 6.8 4.5 0.17 0.01 8.5 Hale-Bopp Inferred 11,000 55.4 8.3 5.3 0.15 0.02 6.4 Halley Inferred 10,000 56.1 7.1 5.6 0.16 0.02 6.4 Levy Inferred 9,000 55.2 8.2 5.1 0.12 0.03 7.1 Total Inferred 70,000 55.4 7.3 4.8 0.16 0.01 7.7 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Hickman Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 255 67

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The Shoemaker Mineral Resource estimate was completed in March 2013, with the associated technical report dated 28 August 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Halley, Levy and Hale-Bopp Mineral Resource estimates were completed in October 2011, with the associated technical report dated November 2011. The Mineral Resource estimates were classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe.R eview of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.8 Jimblebar Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Jimblebar Project is shown in Table 18. Table 18: Jimblebar Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018

Tonnage Fe SiO2 Al2O3 P S LOI Location JORC classification (kt) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) (%) Indicated 41,100 58.1 5.3 4.4 0.17 0.01 6.1 McCameys North Inferred 6,000 54.1 6.3 6.5 0.20 0.01 8.3 Jimblebar Range Inferred 13,000 57.5 7.0 2.1 0.06 0.04 8.1 Caramulla South Inferred 9,000 53.8 8.1 6.1 0.05 0.03 7.7 Indicated 41,100 58.1 5.3 4.4 0.17 0.01 6.1 Jimblebar Project Inferred 28,000 55.6 7.2 4.3 0.09 0.03 8.0 – Total TOTAL 69,100 57.1 6.1 4.4 0.13 0.02 6.9 Note: Indicated Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 100 kt. Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Jimblebar Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The McCameys North Mineral Resource estimate was completed around June 2011, with the associated technical report dated June 2011. The Mineral Resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred and reported above a cut- off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Jimblebar Range Mineral Resource estimate was completed around September 2012, with the associated technical report dated 28 October 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Caramulla South Mineral Resource estimate was completed around October 2013, with the associated technical report dated 24 October 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Indicated and Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 256 68

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.6.9 West Pilbara Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the West Pilbara Project is shown in Table 19. Table 19: West Pilbara Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018 JORC Location Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) classification Anthiby Well Inferred 38,000 53.6 7.5 4.8 0.04 0.02 9.3 Total Inferred 38,000 53.6 7.5 4.8 0.04 0.02 9.3 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the West Pilbara Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Anthiby Well Mineral Resource estimate was completed around December 2009, with the associated technical report dated December 2009. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.10 Warrawanda Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Warrawanda Project is shown in Table 20. Table 20: Warrawanda Project Mineral Resource estimate, >53% Fe, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Wishbone Inferred 24,000 56.8 6.8 2.7 0.07 0.03 8.6 Total Inferred 24,000 56.8 6.8 2.7 0.07 0.03 8.6 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Warrawanda Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Wishbone Mineral Resource estimate was completed around June to September 2011, with the associated technical report dated September 2011. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 53% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.11 Pardoo Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Pardoo Project is shown in Table 21. Table 21: Pardoo Project Mineral Resource estimate, >53% Fe, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Clare Inferred 1,000 55.2 8.2 1.5 0.12 0.01 10.12 Floyd Inferred 6,000 55.8 7.0 2.5 0.11 0.01 9.79 Isobel Inferred 1,000 54.9 11.3 1.3 0.08 0.05 7.4 Willy Inferred 1,000 56.7 9.8 1.4 0.02 0.10 5.78 Total Inferred 9,000 55.7 7.8 2.3 0.11 0.02 9.2 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Pardoo Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Clare and Floyd Mineral Resource estimates were completed around May 2013, with the associated technical report last edited 6 June 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 257 69

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

cut-off grade of 50% Fe in the technical report, however in the ASX Announcement dated 13 August 2014, a cut- off grade of 53% Fe was adopted. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Isobel Mineral Resource estimate was completed around June 2009, with the associated technical report dated September 2009. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 53% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Willy Mineral Resource estimate was completed around late 2011. The associated technical report is not dated; however, the Mineral Resource is reported as at January 2012. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 53% Fe.R eview of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.12 Abydos Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Abydos Project is shown in Table 22. Table 22: Abydos Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Sandtrax Inferred 1,000 56.2 6.7 2.4 0.03 0.02 10.1 Avalon Point Inferred 1,000 55.7 7.8 2.8 0.11 0.03 8.6 Total Inferred 2,000 55.9 7.4 2.6 0.08 0.03 9.2 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for the Abydos Project was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014, which included Cove, Contacious, Leightons, Mettams, Mullaloo, Sandtrax, Scarborough, Trigg and Avalon Point deposits. Mining depletion has occurred after this announcement, however, leading to continued reduction in Mineral Resources. Mineral Resources remain at the Sandtrax and Avalon Point deposits only. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimates is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas. The Sandtrax Mineral Resource estimate was completed around June 2012, with the associated technical report dated June 2012. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards. The Avalon Point Mineral Resource estimate was completed around October 2012, with the associated technical report dated 21 August 2013. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.13 Mid West Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Mid West Project is shown in Table 23. Table 23: Mid West Project Mineral Resource estimate, >50% Fe, 31 March 2018

Location JORC classification Tonnage (kt) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Beebyn Inferred 7,000 57.2 8.7 3.2 0.07 0.01 5.2 Total Inferred 7,000 57.2 8.7 3.2 0.07 0.01 5.2 Note: Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 1,000 kt. The Mineral Resource estimate for Beebyn was publicly reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) by Atlas on 13 August 2014. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Leigh Slomp. Leigh Slomp is a full-time employee of Atlas.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 258 70

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The Beebyn Mineral Resource estimate was completed around December 2007, with the associated technical report dated 11 December 2007. The Mineral Resource was classified as Inferred and reported above a cut-off grade of 50% Fe. Review of the documentation indicates that the processes applied when preparing the Mineral Resource estimate are consistent with industry standards.

2.6.14 Ridley Project The Mineral Resource estimate for the Ridley Project was publicly reported by Atlas on 26 November 2008. The associated technical report is dated 1 December 2008. There has been no additional work completed on the project since the time of the resource estimation and no material changes have occurred. The Mineral Resource estimate was classified and reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2004 Edition) in 2008 and has not been updated or re-reported in accordance with the JORC Code (2012 Edition) on the basis that the information has not materially changed since it was last reported. The CP still concludes that there are reasonable prospects for eventual economic extraction of the deposit over the multi-decade timeframe relevant for large bulk commodity projects such as magnetite iron ore. The Competent Person for the Mineral Resource estimate is Malcolm Titley. Malcolm Titley was a full-time employee of CSA Global when the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared. The following review was completed by CSA Global personnel with no previous involvement with the project. The Ridley Mineral Resource estimate is shown in Table 24, reported above a cut-off grade of 15% Davis Tube Recovery (DTR). Concentrate grades are shown in Table 25. Table 24: Ridley Mineral Resource estimate (DTR and head grades), 31 March 2018 Tonnage JORC classification DTR (%) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) (Bt)* Indicated 1.10 37.0 36.6 39.41 0.082 0.090 0.045 3.9 Inferred 0.91 37.5 36.4 39.09 0.075 0.088 0.047 4.4 Total 2.01 37.2 36.5 39.27 0.079 0.089 0.046 4.1 * Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 0.01 Bt. Table 25: Ridley Mineral Resource estimate (concentrate grades), 31 March 2018

JORC classification Tonnage (Bt)* DTR (%) Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) Indicated 1.10 37.0 68.9 4.11 0.027 0.012 0.006 –2.7 Inferred 0.91 37.5 68.9 4.08 0.024 0.011 0.006 –2.7 Total 2.01 37.2 68.9 4.10 0.025 0.012 0.006 –2.7 * Indicated and Inferred Mineral Resource tonnages rounded to the nearest 0.01 Bt. The Ridley Mineral Resource is not currently being regularly reported by Atlas. The fact that the BIF contains crocidolite (an asbestiform mineral) and is most likely negatively impacted from an economic beneficiation perspective (assumed very high bond work index, fine grind size and less than 40% weight recovery, based on similar projects), potentially limits the near-term economic viability of this deposit.

Data Collection Techniques Data used to prepare the Ridley Mineral Resource estimate is sourced primarily from DD and RCP drillholes. A total of 161 holes for 35,943 m was extracted from the database to prepare the Mineral Resource estimate. This includes 95 DD holes for 24,690 m and 66 holes for 11,253 m. RC holes were completed using a face-sampling hammer and DD holes were primarily NQ size. RCP methods were primarily used from 2006 to 2007, and DD methods were primarily used in 2008. Approximately 70% of the data was collected in 2008 and the remaining 30% was collected from 2006 to 2007. Collars were located with a differential GPS instrument and a gyroscope was generally used to survey drillholes downhole.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 259 71

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

All drillholes were geologically logged by the geologist as soon as practicable after the completion of the hole. DD core was oriented at the time of drilling using either an orientation spear or a Ballmark orientation tool. Logging was both qualitative and quantitative in nature. The presence and quantity of magnetite anda description of the colour and scale of the chert layering was recorded. Percentages of the other minerals present were recorded as well as a brief description of the rock being logged. An assessment of the level of weathering was also made. All core was photographed. Core was generally sampled for analysis as 4 m quarter core composites for the entire length of the hole. RCP samples were also taken as 4 m composites. Documentation describing sampling and analytical methods from 2006 to 2007 was not provided to CSA Global. All samples for the 2008 program were submitted to ALS Laboratory in Karratha for primary crushing to 100% passing 3.5 mm. A 1 kg subsample was taken for each sample and dispatched to the ALS facility in Malaga, Perth. Samples were then pulverised for head sample chemical analysis and DTR testwork (P80 sizing of 30 µm). The concentrate from the DTR testwork was then dried and subject to chemical analysis. The head and concentrate samples were analysed by fused disc XRF. At the head grade analysis stage, the magnetic susceptibility for each sample was measured using Magnasat. Magnasat measurements were taken prior to DTR testwork. If the Magnasat reading indicated <10% magnetite was present, no DTR test was completed. Quarter core “duplicate” samples (1:25), CRMs (1:25), and umpire laboratory analysis (1:20) samples were used for external QC. Although some issues were noted with the QC results, none were considered to have a material effect on the Mineral Resource estimate. Density measurements were routinely taken at a rate of one sample every drill run using the water immersion method. A total of 22,355 measurements were available to assist with the preparation of the Mineral Resource estimate. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that data collection methods, inclusive of drilling methods, data location methods, density, logging, sampling, and analytical methods, according to the documentation supplied, are largely consistent with industry standards. Data has been collected by RCP and DD drilling methods which generally provide a high-quality sample. Logging, sampling and analytical techniques are considered appropriate, and adequate QC data appears to have been collected to allow the quality of this data to be assessed. Although some issues with QC results were noted, none are considered to have a material effect on the Mineral Resource estimate. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the data was collected does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Geological Interpretation and Modelling Mineralisation occurs as magnetite-bearing BIF at the Ridley Project. The BIF units predominantly consist of magnetite and silica, with accessory hæmatite, minor carbonate, biotite and members of the amphibole group including actinolite, riebeckite, crocidolite, grunerite and amosite. Magnetite if generally fine-grained and occurs as discrete 0.5–2 cm bands intercalated with chert and jaspilite. In areas of strong deformation, the magnetite has been remobilised and occurs as disseminations within the chert. Within the zone of weathering, which is in the order of 20 m to 100 m, the magnetite has been partially or completely oxidised to hæmatite and gœthite. Five steeply dipping BIF units were modelled at the Ridley Project as follows, listed from hangingwall to footwall: • Jaspilite BIF Breccia Unit (JBB);

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 260 72

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• Thickly Bedded Jaspilite Unit (TBJ); • Central Jaspilite Unit 1 (CJP1); • Central Jaspilite Unit 2 (CJP2); and • Mixed BIF Unit (MBF). Sectional interpretation of stratigraphic domains was completed using surface geological mapping, drillhole logging and drillhole geochemistry. A high degree of geological continuity exists, evidenced through surface mapping of good exposures and drillhole logging and geochemistry. In addition to the BIF units, a weathering surface was modelled based largely on DTR results and recoverable Fe in the concentrate. Above this surface low DTR values are recorded due to the oxidation of magnetite. CSA Global Assessment Surface mapping and drilling has been completed to support the stratigraphic and mineralisation interpretations. A large amount of detailed geological work has been completed which has led to interpretation of multiple BIF units. Each unit is very continuous laterally and at depth. The presence of the asbestiform minerals crocidolite and amosite represents a risk to the project which will need to be appropriately managed if the project is developed. All stratigraphic wireframes and drillholes were loaded into Datamine for review. The review indicated that the models have been prepared to a high standard. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the geological modelling was carried out does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

Mineral Resource Estimation Given almost all sample data was collected at 4 m intervals, samples were composted to 4 m prior to statistical analysis and interpolation. Statistical analysis was completed to understand the distribution of head and concentrate grades, and also the DTR results, within each unit. This analysis led to the selection of OK as an interpolation technique.

Top-cuts were applied to head P (0.25%), AL2O3 (0.8%), S (0.5%), LOI (13%), and concentrate AL2O3 (0.5%) following statistical analysis. A bottom-cut was applied for head SIO2 (25%). Statistics were also compiled to understands the distribution of grades above and below the base of oxidation to assist with grade domain definition. A hard boundary was used for all estimated constituents following this analysis. Density statistics were compiled by oxidation state and lithology type, to enable an approach to block model density allocation to be derived. A mean density value for each BIF unit, in addition to a mean value for the oxidised material, was calculated to assign to the block model. Assigned density values were as follows: • JBB: 3.4 g/cm3 • TBJ: 3.4 g/cm3 • CJP1: 3.5 g/cm3 • CJP2: 3.6 g/cm3 • MBF: 3.5 g/cm3 • Oxidised material (all domains): 3.4 g/cm3. Variography was completed for head Fe and other major elements, DTR, and concentrate grades in Supervisor software. The best quality variograms were generated within the CJP2 unit given that this domain contained the most data, including close-spaced (20 m interval) drilling. Variogram parameters from this domain were used to interpolate the other domains. Head Fe parameters were used for Head Fe, SiO2, Al2O3 and LOI grade

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 261 73

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

interpolation. Separate variogram parameters were used for DTR, and head P and S. Head Na2O adopted DTR parameters. Concentrate grades were estimated using the concentrate SiO2 variogram parameters.

Head grades (Fe, SiO2, P, Al2O3, S, LOI, Na2O), DTR and concentrate grades (Fe, SiO2, P, Al2O3, S, LOI) were estimated into the block model. A constant fixed search ellipse was used with the dimensions 300 m along strike x 100 m across strike x 100 m vertically, striking at 080 for the eastern zone and 040 for the western zone (given the change in strike of the stratigraphy). The search dimensions were increased by a factor of three and then 12 if blocks were not informed. A minimum of 12 samples and a maximum of 30 samples were used for the first search pass, and the maximum number of samples per drillhole was set to six. The minimum number of samples was reduced to eight for the second and third search passes. Block models were constructed in Datamine software using a parent block size of 50 m(N) x 50 m(E) x 12 m(RL). Sub-blocks of 5 m(N) x 5 m(E) x 2.4 m(RL) were created to honour boundary positions. A hard boundary was used between each domain and across the base of oxidation. All Mineral Resources were classified as Indicated and Inferred based on drill spacing, and the distance of projection from drillhole data. Indicated Mineral Resources were classified where drilling was completed on 200 m sections, with holes a nominal distance of 80 m apart on each section. The upper limit was placed at the base of oxidation and the lower limit at the base of drilling, and the lateral limits were projected 100 m. Inferred Mineral Resources were classified where drilling was completed on 400 m sections. InferredMineral Resources were projected 200 m along strike and 80–100 m down dip of the limit of drilling. Block model validation was completed by visual comparison of sample and block grades, statistical comparison of sample and block grades per domain, comparison of composite and block model grade histograms and swath plots. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that geostatistical analysis, block modelling, grade estimation, and classification has been carried out in a competent manner. CSA Global re-reported the Mineral Resource estimate from the block model and was able to reproduce the tonnage and metal estimate tabulated in the Atlas Mineral Resource Report. CSA Global considers that the manner in which the Mineral Resource estimate was prepared does not represent a material risk to the ongoing development, mining or global value of the project.

2.7 Mining CSA Global has completed a review of the technical components of the life of mine plans and corporate financial model for Atlas. The mining operations considered in this review include the Mount Webber operations and Corunna Downs feasibility study. The contribution of these two sites has been considered in terms of supporting a DCF representation of value. The McPhee Creek Project has been considered but excluded from the DCF approach, as there is currently insufficient technical and economic support to form a reasonable basis of valuation via the DCF methodology. Valuation of the in-ground Mineral Resource for the McPhee Creek Project is recommended as the most appropriate valuation approach at this time.

2.7.1 Site Visit A site visit to Mount Webber and Mount Dove was completed on 4 May 2018 by Karl van Olden (CSA Global Principal Engineer/Manager Mining). The operations visited included

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 262 74

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• Mount Webber: o Ibanez o Fender o Gibson/Daltons o Processing facility o Haulage route Mount Webber to Port Hedland. • Mount Dove: o Crushing, screening and haulage operations o Haulage route Mount Dove to Port Hedland.

2.7.2 Mining Approach The mining approach to the Mount Webber deposit is by conventional open pit mining methods using drill and blast methods. Mined material is mined in 6 m-high benches. The blasted rock is loaded across two 3 m-high flitches by backhoe excavators into rigid body trucks. Ore and waste is differentiated through grade control practices and ore is trucked to the run-of-mine (ROM) stockpile. Ore is segregated into grade categories, namely: • H0 - +60% Fe • H1 – 57.5 to 60% Fe • H2 – 55 to 57.5% Fe (Ibanez and Fender) • H2 – 53.5 to 57.5% Fe (Gibson/Daltons) • H3 – 53.5 to 55% Fe (Ibanez and Fender) • H3 – 50 to 53.5% Fe (Gibson/Daltons). The ore is fed through the primary of the processing facility by front-end loaders to meet the grade blend required. The ore is blended to fulfil the product specifications, on a shipment by shipment basis out of Port Hedland.

2.7.3 Mine Design The mine design for the Mount Webber open pit operations are predominantly controlled by the mineralisation and the terrain surrounding the deposits. All pits have been designed to analysed geotechnical specifications. The pits are relatively shallow and geotechnical performance has a limited impact on the risks of the deposit. The pits have been sufficiently drilled to estimate the Mineral Resource on which the mine designs are based. The pits have been designed to extract the Mineral Resource and extend to the basement of mineralisation. The Ibanez pit has mostly been depleted, with some higher-grade pods at the base of the pit, being mined at the time of this report. The pits target mineralisation at elevated portions of the Mount Webber Range. The Fender deposit is at the top of a narrow ridge with the processing plant situated to the south of Fender and Gibson/Daltons to the north. The upper benches of the Fender pit have been mined to form an access-way to Gibson/Daltons. Waste from the Fender pit has been used to develop a roadway bridge across a gully to reach Gibson/Daltons. The Gibson/Daltons deposit is scheduled to be mined simultaneously with the Fender pit with the final sequence being a retreat mining approach from north to south for the Fender pit.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 263 75

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

2.7.4 Mine Equipment Atlas employs a specialist mining contractor to undertake mining and processing operations. The contractor provides the mining and processing equipment, completes operations and maintenance activities, .and the contractor charges according the established contract on a fixed and variable cost basis, driven by the activities completed. The updated mining contract is reflected in the life of mine financial model for the Atlas operations. The primary mining equipment pieces include: • Excavators: o 1 x Komatsu PC2000 (200-t) o 1 x Komatsu PC1250 (100-t). • Haul trucks: o 150-t • Ancillary equipment, including: o Drill-rigs o Dozers o Front-end loaders o Water trucks o Graders.

2.7.5 Mine Schedule The life-of-mine (LOM) mining schedule is a continuation of current activities with completion of the active pits forecast in December 2022. The mining schedule has been developed in a detailed manner targeting the delivery of product quantity and quality to specifications (Table 26). Table 26: Mount Webber mining and processing LOM schedule (including process at Mount Dove) Unit Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 2025 Mining – high-grade (fines and lump) Wkt 31,837 4,071 7,258 7,032 6,987 6,488 0 0 0 Mining – waste Wkt 10,482 2,309 2,156 2,105 1,962 1,951 0 0 0 Total material moved Wkt 42,319 6,380 9,414 9,137 8,949 8,439 0 0 0 Mining – fines Wkt 16,342 1,997 3,721 3,644 3,621 3,359 0 0 0 Mining – lump Wkt 15,495 2,075 3,537 3,388 3,366 3,129 0 0 0 Total ore mined Wkt 31,837 4,071 7,258 7,032 6,987 6,488 0 0 0 Mount Webber processing – fines Wkt 16,510 2,080 3,695 3,736 3,640 3,359 0 0 0 Mount Webber processing – lump Wkt 15,638 2,136 3,515 3,474 3,385 3,129 0 0 0 Total ore processed Wkt 32,148 4,216 7,210 7,210 7,025 6,488 0 0 0 Mount Dove Processing – fines Wkt 105 105 0 0 0 0 0 0 Mount Dove Processing – lump Wkt 121 121 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ore processed Wkt 226 226 0 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ore shipped – Mount Webber Wkt 31,990 4,002 7,260 7,220 7,020 6,488 0 0 0 Total ore shipped – Mount Dove Wkt 317 317 0 0 0 0 0 0 Total ore shipped Wkt 32,307 4,319 7,260 7,220 7,020 6,488 0 0 0 Note: 2018 from June 2018. Years are Calendar years (Jan to Dec).

Mining Sequence The mining schedule addresses completion of Ibanez, mining of Fender and Gibson/Daltons with the final sequence being completion of Fender in a north to south direction. The mining is scheduled to be complete in December 2022.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 264 76

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mining Capacity The mining fleet has been mining ore at a rate of 9.0Mt per year for the previous 12-months. The exclusion of the Mount Dove crushing operations has limited the total available crushing capacity for Mount Webber to 7.0Mt per year at the Mount Webber facility. The mining fleet has a demonstrated capacity to mine at a rate of 9.0Mt per year and is thus assumed to be capable fo achieving the planned amount of approximately 7.0 Mt per year. As of June 2018, the Ibanez pit is mostly depleted. The mining activities for the remainder of the LOM will focus on the Gibson/Daltons pit and the completion of the Fender pit. Access to Gibson/Daltons is across the Fender pit, which will be mined in a retreat fashion in a coordinated LOM schedule.

2.7.6 Waste Mining and Disposal Waste is dumped in locations as close to the mining area as possible. The waste is used for roadway construction around the active pits, whenever possible. The LOM strip ratio is 1 : 0.32 (ore t : waste t). Material is classified as waste when the grade is below 53.5% Fe for Ibanez and Fender and below 50% Fe for Gibson/Daltons. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the mining operations and associated mine planning have been completed to an appropriate standard. The mining operations and capability to perform the planned mining activities are considered a low risk to the valuation of the operation. The relatively consistent iron grades across the deposits, with isolated higher-grade pods of ore, provide very little opportunity to mine the available Mineral Resources in a selective manner to increase the iron grade. The high- level of Mineral Resource definition and grade control practices (blast hole sampling and modelling with in-pit controls) will enable the operation to segregate the mined material on the ROM pad for accurate blending of grade and contaminant elements such as Si, Al, and P.

2.7.7 Processing The processing plant at the Mount Webber site was commissioned with a capacity of 6.0 Mt per year and it regularly achieves levels of 7.0 Mt per year. The planned LOM processing throughput for the plant is 7.0Mt per year until completion in December 2022. The ROM pad is adjacent to the plant from which fingers are dumped according to designated grade increments. The ROM ore is fed into a primary crusher and then through one of two circuits to produce Lump or Fines material in a crushed cone.

Figure 29: Mount Webber processing plant

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 265 77

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Front-end loaders then load quad road-trains from the crushed ore cones, for transport to the port. As can be seen in Figure 29.

Figure 30: Road-train loading

2.7.8 Mount Dove Crushing Operations The Mount Dove crushing facility has been used to process approximately 2.0Mt per year of Mount Webber run-of-mine ore. This practice is planned to end in July 2018 as the project economics are detrimentaly affected by the additional costs of the haulage and rehandling involved in this activity.

CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the termination of the Mount Dove crushing operation in July 2018 is a sound decision based on economic grounds. The impact on Mount Webber is to extend the mining life from an end in April 2022 to December 2022.

2.7.9 Ore Blending The ore delivered to the ROM pad is segregated into one of four grade bins according to the %Fe grade bands shown in Figure 31 and Figure 32. The grade bands differ slightly for each pit (Ibanez (IBA), Fender (FEN) and Gibson/Daltons (DAL)) based on the grade distribution of each deposit. Each shipment is built from a blend of these grade bins to meet specifications.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 266 78

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 31: Grade bands from April 2018 to August 2018. Source: Atlas, 2018 PIT GRADE BINS GRADE BANDS High Grade Fe%

H0 >= 60 H1 >= 57.5 to < 60 IBA H2 >= 55 to < 57.5 H3 >= 53.5 to < 55

H0 >= 60 H1 >= 57.5 to < 60 FEN H2 >= 55 to < 57.5 H3 >= 53.5 to < 55

H0 >= 60 H1 >= 57.5 to < 60 DAL H2 >= 53.5 to < 57.5 H3 >= 50 to < 53.5 Figure 32: Grade bands from August 2018 for LOM. Source: Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that grade bins are appropriate to deliver the necessary blended product required in the LOM plan.

2.7.10 Haulage Ore will be hauled by contractors from the mine site to the Utah Point terminal. The ore is hauled in road-trains with a payload of up to 130 tonnes each (Figure 33). The road-trains are loaded with a front-end loader at the processing facility and dumped with a side-cast mechanism at the port destination.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 267 79

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 33: Typical quad road-train

2.7.11 Capital Cost Estimates The Mount Webber capital cost estimate comprises a total of A$1.2 million of sustaining capital at an average rate of A$30,000 per month. The sustaining capital is associated with the infrastructure on site such as buildings, roads, services and facilities. The sustaining capital related to mining and processing equipment is included in the operating cost contract rates for the activities as all capital equipment is owned by the contractors.

2.7.12 Operating Cost Estimates All costs referenced in this report are Real, 2018 values before escalation.The Mount Webber LOM plan applies operating costs to the physical production profile. These operating costs are based on actual and contracted costs. Operating costs are applied as fixed and variable costs (see Table 27. These are real values in 2018 terms. The model escalates these values to nominal values through the application of escalation factors. This escalation is not addressed in this report. Table 27: Mount Webber operating cost estimate (real 2018) Element Unit Value Mining – variable A$/wmt real 5.04 Mining – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 2.35 Processing – variable A$/wmt real 2.25 Processing – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 1.06 Haulage to Port – variable A$/wmt real 16.35 Haulage to Port – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.73 Port handling – variable A$/wmt real 8.30 Port handling – fixed (average monthly) A$M real - Admin and support – variable A$/wmt real - Admin and support – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.74 The above figures exclude processing and haulage for Mount Dove

Mining The mining costs used in the LOM financial model are based on actual and contracted costs and volumes; they include the mining contractor costs and the Atlas mining and administration staff costs. The mining costs include: • Clear and grub (Vegetation and topsoil clearance before mining begins) • Drill and blast

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 268 80

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• Load and haul • Mining administration • Mining technical services • Mobile equipment maintenance • Ancillary services. The boundaries of the mining section are from the open pit to the primary crusher. The mining variable operating cost averages to be A$5.04/wet tonne across the LOM. The fixed mining operating cost applied across the LOM is A$2.35 million per month.

Processing The processing operating costs relate to the costs from the primary crusher to the loading point for the haulage road trains. In the Mount Webber LOM financial model, the processing variable cost for Mount Webber is A$2.25/wet tonne. The fixed processing cost is A$1.06 million per month. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the mining and processing costs are reasonable in real terms as these have been based on contract and actual costs. The fixed and variable rates applied to the physical activities will account for the increased unit costs expected as the operations wind-down at the end of the LOM. Any rise and fall escalations for inflation should be represented in the financial modelling to achieve nominal values.

Haulage to Port The haulage to port comprises loading the road-trains, road haulage to Port Hedland, unloading and the return trip. The one-way distance between Mount Webber and Port Hedland is 230 km. The cost per tonne-kilometre (tkm) is budgeted at A$0.07/tkm for a total variable cost of A$16.35/wet tonne.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 269 81

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the haulage cost in the LOM financial model is an appropriate estimate that is based on current operations. The cost of A$0.07/tkm iswithin a comparable range when compared to a typical industry benchmark. This reflects an efficient haulage operation. The fleet of ≈55 road-trains are being operated efficiently. The roads on which the road-trains operate are sealed and in good condition. There is very little terrain undulation along the haul route.

Port Handling The port handling costs relate to the costs incurred from the point where the truck unloads the crushed ore, to loading into the ship. These real costs average approximately A$8.30/wet tonne. These costs are based on current costs and are applied consistently to all the tonnes from the various deposits. A cost of A$0.20/wet tonne is included for demurrage at the port.

Administration Administration and support costs are applied at an average rate of A$0.74 million per month for the LOM. This value is a weighted average of approximately $1.27 per tonne processed. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the port handling costs and administration costsare reasonable as these are based on actual costs incurred and the current Atlas operating budget.

2.7.13 Corunna Downs – Feasibility Study The feasibility study for the Corunna Downs iron ore operation was reviewed in terms of assessing the technical inputs to the Atlas corporate financial model. The Corunna Downs Project is located approximately 30 km to the northwest of the Mount Webber operations on the road to Marble Bar. The Corunna Downs area is located centrally between the Mount Webber mine and the potential future McPhee Creek Project. The Corunna Downs Project is located 237 km from Port Hedland and 35 km south of Marble Bar.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 270 82

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 34: Corunna Downs location The above-water table Corunna Downs Project will deliver up to 5 million wet tonnes per annum of Lump and Fines iron ore to market over a mine life of approximately five years (refer Table 28).

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 271 83

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 28: Corunna Downs – Corporate Model Production Physicals Unit Total 2018 2019 2020 2021 2022 2023 2024 Mining – high-grade (fines and lump) Wkt 20,900 0 807 4,845 4,743 4,833 4,833 840 Mining – waste Wkt 12,760 0 402 3,023 2,985 2,920 2,920 509 Total material moved Wkt 33,660 0 1,209 7,868 7,728 7,753 7,753 1,349 Mining – fines Wkt 9,841 0 507 2,230 2,212 2,250 2,250 391 Mining – lump Wkt 11,059 0 299 2,614 2,531 2,583 2,583 449 Total ore mined Wkt 20,900 0 807 4,845 4,743 4,833 4,833 840 Processing – fines Wkt 9,846 0 243 2,258 2,321 2,311 2,311 401 Processing – lump Wkt 11,362 0 269 2,663 2,664 2,653 2,653 461 Total ore processed Wkt 21,208 0 512 4,921 4,985 4,964 4,964 862 Total ore shipped Wkt 20,994 0 200 5,010 4,960 4,980 4,980 864 The proposed mining model includes engagement of a proven mining contractor, managed by Atlas to mine the deposit by open pit method using truck and excavator for load and haul. This is consistent with Atlas’s current operating strategy. The mining contractor will be appointed subject to a tendering process. The open pits will be drilled and blasted on 5 m benches and mined on two 2.5 m flitches, consistent with the approach at other Atlas operations. The mining strategy is based on 12 months of capital works prior to ramping up to full production ofup to 5.0 Mt per annum over three months. Runway pit which has a low strip ratio is closest to the ROM pad and is therefore mined first, followed by Shark Gully and Split Rock with Razorback being the last pit to be mined. Split Rock is the largest of all pits within the project area and will be the main source of ore supply for the majority of the mine life. Ore from the pits will be hauled to the ROM pad for blending into the processing plant. The processed ore will be stockpiled and transported by road via Marble Bar to the Utah port facility in Port Hedland. Road haulage of 237 km via Marble Bar will deliver product to Utah to Atlas’s Stockyard 1 (SY1) or Stockyard 2 (SY2) facilities as shown inFigure 34. This will require the upgrade of a 22 km section of the Marble Bar–Hillside Road and bypass around Marble Bar, which will also be sealed to reduce the impacts of noise and dust and reduce road maintenance. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global considers that the operating parameters estimated for the Corunna Downs Project, mining and production plan is estimated to industry standards. The physical mining and production components of the Corunna Downs Project are considered tp be appropriate. The mining scenario for the Corunna Downs feasibility study is production from three deposits, namely Split Rock, Runway, and Shark Gully. The Razorback deposit was identified in the DFS mining plan but has not been included in the Atlas financial model.A fifth Resource has been identified further north from the other deposits, but has not yet been included the production profile, namely Glen Herring. These deposits are shown in Figure 35.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 272 84

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 35: Location of Corunna Downs Mineral Resources

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 273 85

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The current project scenario assumes the use of contractors for the following capital works and operating activities: • Public road upgrade • Bypass around Marble Bar upgrade • Mine access road construction • Crushing and screening • Mining (load and haul, and drill and blast) • Camp construction • Camp management • Road haulage. The overall operating philosophy for the Corunna Downs Project is as per Atlas’s current operations, contract mining and processing, combined with contract haulage. The operating strategy that has been used as a basis for the feasibility study: • A reputable mining contractor will provide drill and blast and load and haul services to the project. The mining contractor will provide all services (excluding mine survey, mine planning and geology), to extract the ore and waste material. Ore will be stockpiled at the project’s ROM pad in preparation for crushing and screening. • A reputable crush and screen contractor will provide crushing, screening and stacking services at a rate of 5 Mt per annum. The crushing and screening operator’s service will include provision of a mobile plant, site establishment, ROM bin feed via front-end loaders from the ROM stockpiles, crushing and screening, sampling and product stacking in preparation for load-out for road haulage to port. • A reputable haulage contractor will load road-trains, followed by road haulage from the mine to port, and finally side-tip unloading at the port. • The Pilbara Port Authority (PPA) provides port services at the Utah Point Port Facility in concert with a reputable stevedore to receive product from haulage, and then stack, reclaim and load the product onto vessels. • A reputable camp services contractor provides site accommodation services for the mine, including camp maintenance, messing, cleaning and laundry services. A suitable accommodation village will be free-issued to the contractor to meet the project’s demand.

Capital Cost Estimate The development capital expenditure (capex) for the project is estimated atA $54 million. This estimate is based on a detailed cost estimation process detailed in the feasibility study. The costs relate to the following categories: • Site earthworks, roads and construction • Contractor mobilisation for mining and plant • Haul road construction and upgrade, including Marble Bar bypass • Non-processing site infrastructure including camp, water treatment and power supply • Owners costs, flights and accommodation • Contingency( ≈15%). A LOM sustaining capital cost of A$3.2 million has been estimated. The sustaining capital is associated to the infrastructure on site such as buildings, roads, services and facilities. The sustaining capital related to mining and processing equipment is included in the contract rates for the activities as all capital equipment is owned by the contractors.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 274 86

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Corunna Downs Operating Cost Estimate The operating costs in the June 2018 Atlas financial model are shown in Table 29. These are real values. The model escalates these values to nominal values through the application of escalation factors, these are not addressed in this report. Table 29: Corunna Downs operating cost estimate (2018 real) Element Unit Value Mining – variable A$/wmt real 3.48 Mining – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 1.66 Processing – variable A$/wmt real 2.29 Processing – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.62 Haulage road – variable A$/wmt real 19.20 Haulage road – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.00 Port – variable A$/wmt real 8.30 Port – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.00 Admin and support – variable A$/wmt real 1.55 Admin and support – fixed (average monthly) A$M real 0.00

Mining Operating Costs The mining operating costs have been developed on a scenario that is similar to Mount Webber operations. It should be noted that the variable mining operating cost over the life of the Corunna Downs operations (A$3.48/t) is substantially lower than that of Mount Webber (A$5.04/t). The fixed mining cost for Corunna Downs is A$1.66 million per month and the average fixed mining cost for Mount Webber is A$2.35 million per month. Based on a total mining cost for the LOM of each deposit, the Corunna Downs costs are approximately 24% lower than Mount Webber.

Processing Costs The processing variable costs of A$2.29/wet tonne are similar to Mount Webber (A$2.25/wet tonne). The fixed processing costs are lower for Corunna Dowwns (A$0.62 million per month) than Mount Webber (A$1.06 million per month).

Haulage Costs The haulage costs of A$19.20/wet tonne result in a unit cost per tonne kilometre of A$0.08/tkm. This compares closely to the A$0.07/tkm budgeted for Mount Webber over a slightly longer distance. Haulage will be on the Marble Bar to Port Hedland national road.

Port Handling The port handling operating cost estimate matches the estimate for Mount Webber.

Administration The administration operating cost estimate is 22% higher than the similar operation at Mount Webber. This is primarily due to the lower tonnage mined from the Corunna Downs deposit compared to Mount Webber. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global understands that the mining operating costs have been based onD FS budget submissions and in the case of the processing and mining costs, a tender process run in early 2017. There is no executed contract for these figures and they remain at a budget estimate level of confidence.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 275 87

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

However, there is a moderate to high risk that the mining operating cost estimate for Corunna Downs has been under-estimated. The difference betweenMount Webber and Corunna Downs estimates is approximately 24%. The mining at Corunna Downs occurs over three small deposits located several kilometres apart. The detailed work in the DFS provides a level of confidence that the mining operating costs are credible. The main reason for the difference inthe mining costs has been expressed by Atlas as being the timing of the Mount Webber contract in a more buoyant part of the market cycle, versus the more subdued view of the iron ore industry during the tender process for Corunna Downs. Based on this, CSA Global recommends that the mining operating costs for the Corunna Downs financial model are not changed to align with Mount Webber for the valuation. The increase in administration costs for Corunna Downs is appropriate.

2.7.14 Key physical and financial parameters In this report, CSA Global have considered the key physical and financial parameters for the Atlas LOM financial model. CSA Global have made comments to several sections and have specific comments as below:

Freight Prices The freight prices used in the modelling show an increasing trend over the life of the operations. These applied rates used in the valuationare within a reasonable range to be expected for the volumes and vessels envisaged over this period, based on the primary destination being Asian destinations such as China, Japan and Korea.

Lump Premium The achieved Lump premium estimated in the financial model is based on 55% of the consensus lump premium of iron ore at 62% Fe. This matches current trends and has been applied to the estimated price over the life of operations. This is a reasonable estimate aligned with current values.

Benchmark Discount for Lump The financial model has applied a 70% factor to the realised fines benchmark discount to arrive at an estimate for the lump benchmark discount. This value is in line with recent trends and is a reasonable estimate.

Rehabilitation The financial model includes an allowance for approximately A$39.2 million (real 2018 terms) for rehabilitation and ongoing monitoring for the Atlas sites over the life of operations and after the operations have ended production. Current operations complete rehabilitation activities during production wherever possible. The costs in this estimate are mostly for de-construction, landform profiling andmonitoring. This estimate is atypical allowance for final rehabilitation of the operations.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 276 88

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

3 Other Projects

In addition to Atlas’s core iron ore projects in the Pilbara, Atlas’s tenement portfolio also holds potential for a range of other commodities, notably lithium, copper and other base metals, as well as gold. CSA Global notes that while of interest as exploration projects, the majority of the portfolio (apart from the tenure covering known resources) covers ground of limited prospectivity or is at an early stage of exploration maturity. Given this status, CSA Global has concluded that these parts of Atlas’s tenement portfolio are not material to the valuation of the mineral assets of Atlas. Projects of elevated interest are briefly discussed below.

3.1 Ownership and Tenure CSA Global relies on the independent opinion of MMTS, as stated in their letter to Atlas entitled “Atlas Iron Limited – Tenure Review” and dated 30 June 2018 (see Appendix 2), with regards to the validity, ownership and good standing of the Atlas tenure for material projects. CSA Global makes no other assessment or assertion as to the legal title of the tenements and is not qualified to do so. A summary tenement schedule, as provided by Atlas, is presented in Appendix 2 of this Report.

3.2 Lithium Atlas’s Cisco and Pancho lithium projects are located approximately 100–130 km south of Port Hedland, in the Pilbara region of Western Australia. Access to the tenements is via the Great Northern Highway and then via access roads and various pastoral tracks.

Figure 36: Location of the Cisco and Pancho Projects Over greyscale TMI image. Source: Atlas

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 277 89

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

3.2.1 Mount Francisco Project Atlas has a joint venture with over the Mount Francisco “Cisco” Lithium Project (E45/4270), which lies about 130 km south of Port Hedland, and 15 km south-southwest of the main Atlas/Global Advanced Metals (GAM) mining centre at Wodgina. The Cisco Project area contains evidence of small-scale, historical, alluvial mining and dry blowing. There is also significant evidence of hard rock mining, generally confined to six identified pegmatites in the central-western portion of the project area. A desktop review of the project area by Atlas (Slomp, 2016) concluded that the project was prospective for lithium-enriched pegmatite bodies. The identified swarm of pegmatite dykes at Mount Francisco was interpreted to contain lithium-caesium-tantalum (LCT) pegmatites, and comprehensive work by Talison and GAM has resulted in the definition of a small tantalum/tin Mineral Resource. Evidence of a high degree of fractionation and favourable geochemical assemblages and mineral occurrences indicate the presence of elevated lithium within the area. Historical RCP drilling intersected anomalous Li2O in two drill holes as shown in Figure 37 (AGO ASX Release 29 March 2017). Pilbara Minerals plan to commence detailed mapping and subsequent drilling in the September 2018 quarter.

Figure 37: Simplified Geological Map of the Cisico and Pancho Projects,

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 278 90

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

showing key prospects and historical drilling Li2O results (Source: Atlas)

3.2.2 Pancho Project The Pancho Project (E45/4517) covers Archaean greenstones of the Wodgina Greenstone Belt to the southwest of the Wodgina Li-Ta deposits, and the Stannum LCT pegmatite. Historical tin, tantalum and beryl mines are present in the tenement. Field traversing has confirmed the presence of a number of pegmatites, with rock chip samples providing geochemical results suggesting an LCT-type pegmatite signature. Thestructural setting of the pegmatites in an interpreted anticline is also conducive to intrusion of pegmatites.

Figure 38: Pancho pegmatite targets

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 279 91

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Source: Cornelius and Grigson (2004), annotation by Atlas

3.2.3 Pilgangoora DSO Spodumene Pilbara Minerals is mining the Pilgangoora Project in the Pilbara and producing a DSO product. Atlas has agreed to purchase 1.0–1.5 Mt of DSO lithium product over a 15-month period. Atlas will process and transport this material using its existing infrastructure. A binding offtake agreement has been signed with Sinosteel, and the first export sale has been achieved in June 2018. Atlas expect to achieve an operating margin of A$15–20/t based on current market prices. CSA Global Assessment CSA Global has reviewed the available Pilgangoora Project technical assumptions andfinancial projections, such as operating cost, capital cost, moisture content and production profile. These values are considered appropriate and fit withtypical performance expectations for an operation of this nature. These operations have commenced and CSA Global considers it likely that PLS will deliver according to the agreement. The ocean freight charges have been estimated at US$11.50/t of product. CSA Global considers this estimate to be consistent with similar freight charges for relatively small quantities to a typical Chinese port. The revenue assumptions are based on an established contract and the profit margin estimates are based on reasonable estimates of costs for both parties. The margin split has been agreed between the parties.

3.2.4 Altura Royalty Altura is targetingits first lithium concentrate sale from their Pilgangoora Project in theSeptember 2018 quarter. Atlas holds a 5% gross sales royalty over M45/1231, which covers the majority of Altura’s Pilgangoora Project. The value of this royalty has been considered by BDO in their Independent Experts Report. CSA Global Assessment Based on the available information CSA Global considers that the physical mining and production plan is in line with expected values for an operation of this nature. CSA Global has reviewed the inputs to the cash flow model developed for the royalty to Atlas and concluded that the value of the royalty aligns with available information on the project and is a reasonable estimate based on the available technical and cost information. CSA Global considers that the revenue assumptions and projected sales price over the life of mine,used by Altura, is within a range of forecast prices that aligns with other industry forecasts.

3.3 Copper

3.3.1 Copper Range Project The project area is located in the Southeast Pilbara region of Western Australia, approximately 50 km east- southeast of Newman (Figure 39). The Copper Range Project is located within the Archaean Jimblebar Greenstone Belt along the north-eastern margin of the Sylvania Inlier. The greenstone sequence comprises north-south striking felsic volcanics, ultramafic schists, quartzites, cherts and BIF (Figure 40). Many of these units have been intruded by granitoids, ultramafics and felsic intrusions. There are also minor exposures of east-west striking Proterozoic units in the north of the project area. At Copper Range, the succession comprises a lower sequence of mafic flows and sills, overlain by the “Copper Range unit” a schist believed to have been derived from dacitic flows and volcaniclastics. A sequence of mafic and ultramafic schists sits stratigraphically above the Copper Range unit. This sequence has been intruded by

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 280 92

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

numerous pyroxenite, peridotite gabbro and dolerite intrusions. The granite-greenstone rocks in the inlier are structurally complex, with several deformation events evident. The Copper Range Project covers a 9 km strike length of the Copper Range unit – a continuous sequence of felsic volcanic rocks that hosts known copper-(gold-zinc-cobalt) mineralisation. The mineralisation styles discovered to date at the Copper Range Project include (in order of exploration priority): • VHMS – Massive Sulphide Cu-(Au); • VHMS – Disseminated (stringer/stockwork) Cu-(Au); and • VHMS – Exhalite Hosted Cu-Au-magnetite. These three deposit styles represent primary volcanogenic-hosted massive sulphide (VHMS) mineralisation that has been re-mobilised and re-constituted by subsequent structural and metamorphic processes during tectonothermal overprinting of a regional VHMS system.

Figure 39: Copper Range Project location and simplified geology Source: Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 281 93

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 40: Copper Range Project geology and exploration targets Source: Atlas, 2018 In October 2017, Atlas completed a six-hole RCP drilling program at Copper Range (50 km east of Newman), with four drillholes drilled at Copper Knob to test the down-dip continuity and western strike extent of the previously identified copper mineralisation, and two holes drilled at Copper Knob East to confirm historical work and test continuity along strike to the east (Figure 41). Six holes totalling 1,363 m were drilled with every hole encountering anomalous copper mineralisation. Significant intersections reported by Atlas (ASX release, 29 January 2018) include: • 16 m at 0.26% Cu from 46 m (including 8 m at 0.48% Cu) in CRRC0001; • 5 m at 0.27% Cu from 32 m (including 2 m at 0.48% Cu) in CRRC0002; • 6 m at 0.27% Cu from 76 m (including 2 m at 0.54% Cu) in CRRC0003; • 14 m at 0.31% Cu from 181 m (including 9 m at 0.39% Cu) in CRRC0003;

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 282 94

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• 2 m at 0.53% Cu from 120 m in CRRC0004; • 41 m at 0.28% Cu from 126 m (including 9 m at 0.42% Cu) in CRRC0004; • 14 m at 0.30% Cu from 117 m (including 5 m at 0.52% Cu) in CRRC0005; and • 9 m at 0.24% Cu from 156 m (including 2 m at 0.39% Cu) in CRRC0006.

Figure 41: Copper Range RCP drilling in December 2017 Source: Atlas Results from the 2017 RC drill campaign found the wide mineralised Copper Knob resource (>0.15% Cu) further extended to the west and at depth, with several intercepts >0.3% Cu. While results found mineralisation at Copper Knob East continues at depth and occurs widely across the stratigraphy which has not been historically adequately tested. Furthermore, gold association at Copper Knob East seems to overprint within the copper lodes, suggesting a boudinaged system. Atlas concluded that this is favourable for additionalstructural settings along the remaining 8–9 km of Copper Range prospective strike, and also down dip and down plunge of known mineralisation. A significant observation by Atlas was that copper occurrences at surface – both as malachite and trace chrysocolla – within ferruginised chloritic schists, and in quartz lodes and quartz breccias indicate that copper mineralisation sits in at least three positions, be they stratigraphic or structural, that extend along the prospective8 –9 km of Copper Range strike potential. Further exploration including geophysics and drilling is required to fully assess the extents of the copper enrichment at the Copper Range Project area.

3.3.2 Walker Project The Walker Project is about 110 km southeast of Port Hedland (Figure 42). In December 2017, Atlas conducted a small RC drill program to test the northern extent of an undercover geophysical target, located near Atlas’s Miralga Creek iron ore Resource, and adjacent to existing Abydos infrastructure. With limited outcrop in the immediate area, the drill program was designed to test the potential for the northeast-southwest trending

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 283 95

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

anomaly to be a buried volcanic sequence that may host a VMS-style polymetallic deposit; given some interpreted similarities to the Sulphur Springs VMS deposit approximately 20 km southwest of the project.

Figure 42: Walker Prospect location Source: Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 284 96

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

A total of nine holes for 1,062 m were completed with several holes intersecting visible sulphides. The sulphide occurrences range from disseminated to semi-massive in nature. Assays for drillhole MRRC0047 have returned the following significant intercepts across two distinct zones of mineralisation (Atlas ASX release, 29 January 2018): • 12 m at 0.46% Cu from 50 m (including 4 m at 1.00% Cu and 10.8 g/t Ag from 58 m); and • 14 m at 0.48% Cu from 94 m (including 4 m at 1.08% Cu and 5.6 g/t Ag from 94 m). In addition, this hole encountered several other zones of enrichment above 0.15% Cu and drillholes MRRC0053 and MRRC0054 also returned intersections above 0.15% Cu. Atlas was encouraged by these results; with the southern extent of the geophysical anomaly yet to be tested and two very similar undercover geophysical targets identified to the southwest. Atlas is planning further work in this area.

3.4 Gold Potential of Pilbara Portfolio Atlas’s large tenement portfolio in the Pilbara covers substantial areas of stratigraphy currently being targeted by other companies for gold mineralisation. Around 1,600 km2 of Atlas’ Pilbara tenement package covers greenstones, with substantial structures interpreted to cut through these rocks. Numerous small gold mineral occurrences are known. A first principles mineral systems review of the East Pilbara district (Wilson 2018), identified a number of key criteria for gold deposit formation including: • The presence of suitable structural architecture providing pathways for mineralising hydrothermal fluids; • Evidence of sources and reservoirs such as gold occurrences, mapped alteration minerals associated with gold systems, gradient changes mapped by geophysical data, and multielement geochemical indicators; and • Potential trap sites for gold mineralisation including intersecting structures, jogs and bends in shear zones, and rheological contrasts between rock types. Specifically, the McPhee Creek, Corunna Downs and Abydos Project areas contain major structures and recorded gold occurrences enhancing gold prospectivity of these project areas; while the Mount Webber, Mount Dove and Wodgina areas contain major structures, with recorded gold occurrences adjacent to or immediately along strike from Atlas tenure. Gold nuggets have been found by numerous parties recently, and also over a long period dating back to the 19th century, in conglomerates near the Mount Roe Basalt. New theories about the significance and origin of this gold have been proposed, and significant interest in tenements covering the key stratigraphic locations was notable in late 2017. Since that time there is only been limited news flow from companiesfocussing on this target type, and the heightened interest in these tenements has receded to a degree. In October 2017, Atlas completed an internal review to determine the prospectivity of its tenements for conglomerate-hosted gold mineralisation. The review was conducted in light of recent gold exploration success in the Pilbara. Atlas has yet to complete any work to validate these target areas, beyond early stage desktop review. In conjunction with the review, Atlas entered into discussions with several exploration companies active in the Pilbara to advance exploration for conglomerate-hosted gold, but market interest in the Pilbara conglomerate story has waned (pers. comm C. Els, 2018).

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 285 97

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

CSA Global Assessment CSA Global has considered this aspect of the Atlas tenement portfolio and concluded that a sizable proportion of the Pilbara tenement package (in the order of 1,570 km²) has potential to host gold mineralisation (predominantly of the orogenic lode gold type). Around 1,000 km², of the tenure covers, or is adjacent to, mapped Mount Roe Basalt and/or Hardey Formation – the key stratigraphic units associated with the conglomerate gold model that has recently been the focus of exploration attention in the Pilbara. The gold prospectivity of theseareas of interest is still largely at a conceptual, grassroots, stage with Atlas yet to undertake much exploration targeting gold. Given this conclusion, CSA Global has decided that the valuation of the gold potential is unlikely to be material to the overall valuation of the mineral assets, but is worthy of quantification. CSA Global has treated the value of gold rights as a separate valuation issue, in addition to the iron ore valuations. This is because gold rights can be easily separated from the iron rights, and the gold exploration potential is mostly in rock types separate to those hosting iron mineralisation.

3.5 Balance of Tenement Portfolio CSA Global used Atlas’s most recent investor presentation (ASX release 14 March 2018) as guide to the assets that the Company considered material. As shown in Appendix 2, Atlas have an extensive tenement portfolio covering directly held tenure, as well as beneficial interests and royalties. CSA Global undertook an assessment of the tenements that do not contain the main mineral assets discussed above in this report. CSA Global concluded that these additional tenements are either peripheral to the main projects, not prospective (e.g. covering areas of granite) or at an early stage of assessment. For these reasons CSA Global has decided that these remaining tenements are not material to the valuation of Atlas.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 286 98

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

4 Valuation of Mineral Assets not forming part of the DCF Models

Valuation of Mineral Assets is not an exact science and a number of approaches are possible, each with varying positives and negatives. While valuation is a subjective exercise, there are several generally accepted procedures for establishing the value of Mineral Assets. CSA Global consider that, wherever possible, inputs from a range of methods should be assessed to inform the conclusions about the Market Value of Mineral Assets. The valuation is always presented as a range, with the preferred value identified. The preferred value need not be the median value and is determined by the Practitioner based on their experience and professional judgement. Refer to Appendix 1 for a discussion of Valuation Approaches and Valuation Methodologies, including a description of the VALMIN classification of Mineral Assets.

4.1 Iron Ore Projects

4.1.1 Commodities Market Prior to 2009, iron ore was not traded in an open market like other commodities, instead large miners (iron ore sellers) and steel mills (iron ore buyers) negotiated the price to be paid on an annual basis. This price was then used by others as a benchmark price for that year. There was also a comparatively smallspot market where iron ore could be sold in a relatively open market and where prices could fluctuate based on demand. The price paid reflected the grade of iron in the ore but also, equally importantly, the deleterious element chemistry of the ore as well as physical parameters and whether the product is lump or fines. The key deleterious elements are silica, alumina, phosphorus and sulphur, but vanadium and titanium, depending on their content, can also be considered deleterious, or a positive, depending on the market. The grade of the deleterious elements is required to be below threshold values, otherwise price penalties are incurred. Since 2009, the largest sellers and buyers have moved away from an annual benchmarking process towards an indexed market that adjusts the price on a quarterly basis, and further to short-term (monthly) contracts and spot sales. The move to spot sales appears to have accelerated since the end of 2011 as the sharp drop in the price of iron ore at that time encouraged buyers to push for contracts to be renegotiated to shorter terms. The RBA estimated that by late 2012, monthly contracts and spot sales accounted for more than half of all Australian iron ore exports, although the share varied somewhat across producers. For simplicity, CSA Global has chosen to use the iron ore fines price as a benchmark. The graph presented in Figure 43 shows the prices for 62% Fe iron ore fines and 58% Fe iron ore fines CFR6 Qingdao China. The specifications for these concentrate types are provided in Table 30, along with the specifications for the high alumina 58% index, and the premium 65% Fe index. Table 30: Product specifications for Platts Indices Moisture. Index Fe (%) SiO2 (%) Al2O3 (%) P (%) S (%) LOI (%) (%) Platts 65% Fe IOPRM00 65.0 3.50 1.00 0.075 8.5 Platts 62% Fe Index TS01021 62.0 4.00 2.25 0.090 0.02 5.0 8.0 Platts 58% Fe Index TS01047 58.0 5.50 1.50 0.050 0.02 10.0 9.0 Platts high Al 58% IODFE00 58.0 5.00 4.0 0.050 10.0 Sources: S&P Global Platts (2018a, 2018b)

6 CFR – Cost and freight to port

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 287 99

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

From Figure 43 (below), it is seen that the iron ore price has decreased dramatically from a monthly average high of US$154.64/t in February 2013 (down from a historic peak of US$185.60/t in January 2011) to a monthly average low of US$39.58/t in December 2015. Since then, the iron ore price has remained volatile but has increased to US$65.40/t by 25 May 2018. Short-term spikes have seen a monthly average high of US$88.07/t in February 2017 and a monthly average low of US$56.01/t in June 2017, with the most recent monthly average high being US$77.46/t in February 2018. The dramatic changes in the iron ore price over this period highlights the need to normalise prices when comparing transactions that occurred over this period.

Figure 43: Iron ore price history Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence

Forecasts of iron ore pricing are provided in Table 31 and Table 32, and discussed in detail in the BDO IER. Note that the ComparativeT ransactions(Secti on 4.1.5) have been normalised to the average spot price for June 2018, which is US$64.81/t. A disconnect in price for the 62% grade product and the 58% grade product from late 2015 can be seen in Figure 43, and is illustrated more clearly in Figure 44 and Figure 45.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 288 100

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 44: Iron ore pricing Jan15–Feb18, and Fe grade discount showing increasing discount for lower-grade iron products (<62% Fe) Source: Liao, 2018

Table 31: SNL commodity consensus pricing, 62% Fe June 2018 (US$) 2017 Average forecast price as at 13 June 2018 (actual) 2018 (forecast) 2019 (forecast) 2020 (forecast) Average Average No. of Average No. of Average No. of High Low High Low High Low price price estimates price est. price est. 71.32 65.90 71.00 63.00 17 63.50 75.00 57.00 17 63.69 75.00 58.00 13 Source: S&P Global Market Intelligence.

Table 32: BDO Iron ore price forecasts (nominal) CFR Iron Ore Prices CY 2018 CY 2019 CY 2020 CY 2021 CY 2022 CY 2023 CY 2024 Fines prices CFR (US$/t) 63.08 62.85 63.58 64.83 66.62 68.63 70.21 Lumps prices CFR (US$/t) 77.57 76.61 78.07 78.82 79.28 79.56 81.39 Source: BDO IER (2018)

Arnold (2018) notes the recent reduction in the high-grade (65% Fe) premium to the 62% Fe benchmark, whereas discounts remain elevated, and Liao (2018) agrees that the discount experienced by the 58% fines will remain high. S&P Global (2018a) notes that discounts on lower-grade material are broadly stable, based on the S&P Global Platts 58% Fe index – discounts began 2018 at 41% to the 62% Fe index and were 44% by 20 February 2018. On 27 March 2018, FMG announced that it had amended its iron ore price guidance to reflect an expected contractual realisation of approximately 65% of the average benchmark Platts 62 CFR index for the financial year ending 30 June 2018 (FMG, 2018). Barich (2018a) notes that the consensus among analysts at a major iron ore conference in Perth in late March 2018 was that Chinese steel mills’ preference for higher-grade ore and continuing discounts for lower grades is a structural shift, not cyclical, which will favour the“ big four”7. The Atlas management view, supported by some other market analysts, is that the shift is likely to be cyclical, and linked to steel demand.

7 , BHP, Vale and FMG

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 289 101

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 45: Continuing discount for low-grade iron ore Source: S&P Global (2018b) Barich (2018a) also noted that penalties had risen for alumina and silica discounts, which by March 2018 had more than doubled since the middle of 2017. S&P Global (2018b) show that by June 2018 silica penalties had decreased to early 2017 levels, but alumina penalties have increased dramatically.

4.1.2 Previous Valuations CSA Global has asked Atlas to provide information on any relevant previous valuations of themineral assets that are currently in the public domain. CSA Global was advised of a previous valuation of Atlas as an operating company, completed by PPB Advisory in April 2016 as part of a debt restructure. PPB Advisory concluded that the fair market value of the business of Atlas, on an ungeared basis, was in the range of A$540 million to A$641 million as at 30 November 2015 (Atlas ASX release 5 April 2016). CSA Global notes that there have been changes in market conditions since November 2015, as discussed above. CSA Global has not been tasked with opining on the value of Atlas as a business. CSA Global has been tasked with opining on the market value of individual mineral assets held by Atlas, specifically the mineral assets not included in the current mine plans. Table 33 summarises previous transactions that CSA Global is aware of, which included some of the relevant mineral assets. CSA Global notes that a draft technical specialists’ report was prepared in May 2018 but not finalised by CSA Global for BDO in relation a scheme of arrangement between Atlas Iron and Mineral Resources; this draft material was used in the preparation of this Report. CSA Global used new internal peer reviewers, who had no previous involvement with the draft report for the scheme booklet, to check and review the current document.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 290 102

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 33: Previous transactions involving the Atlas mineral assets Date Relevant assets Buyer Seller Details Shaw River Atlas acquired mineral rights to Pardoo May 2009 Pardoo Atlas Manganese Tenements from Shaw River for A$150,000. Limited Western Creek, Jimblebar Range, Atlas and Warwick Resources agreed to a merger, Warwick September Jigalong, Woggaginna, Caramulla with one Atlas share to be issued for every three Atlas Resources 2009 South, McCamey’s South, Upper Warwick shares, valuing Warwick at about Ltd Ashburton CIDs A$82 million. McPhee Creek, Daltons-Mount Atlas launched an off-market takeover bid for December Giralia Webber, Western Creek, Anthiby Atlas Giralia, offering 1.5 Atlas shares per Giralia share, 2010 Resources NL Well, Beebyn valuing Giralia at about A$828 million. Atlas agreed to make an off-market bid for the 61% interest in FerrAus that it did not already June 2011 Davidson Creek Hub Atlas FerrAus Ltd hold. Atlas offered one Atlas share for every four FerrAus shares, with an implied bid price of A$106 million for the 61% interest. Atlas entered into an agreement to acquire a 90% Gondwana November interest in the Corunna Downs DSO Project from Corunna Downs Atlas Resources 2011 Gondwana A$2.1 million in cash, paid in three Ltd tranches. Atlas entered into an agreement to acquire the remaining 25% of the iron ore rights it did not already own on the Daltons Joint Venture tenements from Haoma Mining for A$10 million March Haoma in cash, A$23 million in Atlas shares, and Mt Webber Atlas 2012 Mining NL additional annual payments on a pro-rata basis for any additional Reserves estimated on the Daltons joint venture tenements above 24MT, equivalent to A$5.50/t (indexed) for Haoma’s 25% share. Altura Atlas acquired the Mount Webber tenements December Mount Webber Atlas Mining from Altura for A$22 million and a royalty on 2014 Limited production from the tenements. Pilbara Pilbara agreed to purchase a 51% interest in March Atlas Iron Cisco lithium prospect Minerals E45/4270 for A$2.3 million in either cash or 2017 Limited Limited shares, at Pilbara’s election.

4.1.3 Valuation Approach The Valuation Basis employed by CSA Global is Market Value, as defined by the VALMIN Code (2015). The Valuation Date is 1 July 2018. The currency is Australian dollars (A$) unless otherwise stated. In forming an opinion on the Market Value of the Mineral Assets, the valuation approach adopted by CSA Global has been to rely primarily on Market-based methods (primarily the Comparative Transaction method). This was based on the declared Mineral Resources of the iron ore projects and the tenement area of the lithium and copper projects. CSA Global has considered several alternative valuation methods to crosscheck our valuation opinion (Table 34). Alternative methods considered included the income approach (DCF analysis), Yardstick market factors, andthe appraised value approach, based on holding costs. The choice of alternative valuation method employed was dictated by the exploration stage of the asset and the availability of information.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 291 103

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 34: Valuation basis and methods employed Mineral Asset Development stage Basis of valuation Valuation methods Mount Webber resources Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Yardstick outside of the mine plan Corunna Downs resources Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Yardstick outside of the mine plan McPhee Creek resources Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Yardstick Miralga Creek resource Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Davidson Creek Hub Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Resources Pardoo Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Abydos Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Mid West Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Hickman Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Western Creek Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Jimblebar Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Warrawanda Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value West Pilbara Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Ridley Magnetite resources Pre-Development Declared Resource Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Cisco lithium tenement Advanced Exploration Exploration Tenure Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Pancho lithium tenement Early-Stage Exploration Exploration Tenure Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Copper Range Advanced Exploration Exploration Tenure Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Walker Copper Project Advanced Exploration Exploration Tenure Comparative Transactions, Appraised Value Gold potential Early-Stage Exploration Exploration Tenure Comparative Transactions, Modified Kilburn Pilgangoora DSO spodumene Development DCF interest

4.1.4 Project-Specific Value Drivers Project-specific value drivers are discussed below. Key value drivers for the iron ore projects include the quality of the deposits (e.g. iron grade and deleterious element grades), as well as the size of the deposits, and their location in relation to available infrastructure (port, rail, road). CSA Global notes that the effect of these value drivers is cumulative. For example, low iron grade ores are saleable, albeit at a discount to benchmark prices. Products exceeding benchmark specifications for deleterious elements such as silica and aluminium are also saleable up to certain maxima, but attract a further discount based on their concentrations. At some point, the cumulative effect renders the product unattractive to most buyers. The relative quality and size of the Atlasiron ore deposits is depicted in Figure 46, with the location of the project areas depicted in Figure 47, and the relative locations of the Pilbara projects indicated in Figure 48.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 292 104

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 46: Comparative grade and quality of the Atlas projects Note: The blue arrow indicates a trend of increasing iron grade and decreasing silica and aluminium in both diagrams. The ternary diagram (triangle graphic above) normalises the sum of all input variables to 100%, so the axes on the ternary diagram do not represent percentages. The Reference Material symbol (*) indicates the iron ore index specifications listed in the legend to the left.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 293 105

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 47: Location of Atlas projects Source: Atlas, 2018

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 294 106

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Figure 48: Location of Atlas Pilbara projects Source: Atlas, 2018

Mount Webber The Mount Webber deposits (Figure 48) are extensively drilled on a relatively close spacing, therefore the geological risk is minimised. The remaining resources are in the immediate vicinity of resources that are currently being mined, therefore benefit from established infrastructure.

Corunna Downs The deposits are extensively drilled on a relatively close spacing, therefore the geological risk is minimised. The remaining resources are in the immediate vicinity of resources that are included in the current mine plan for the Corunna Downs development project (Figure 48), which has been approved, but is currently on hold. The remaining resources will therefore benefit from the infrastructure that has been committed to.

McPhee Creek The deposits (Figure 47 and Figure 48) are extensively drilled on a relatively close spacing, therefore the geological risk is minimised. This project is the subject of a completed feasibility study, with mine planning and infrastructure requirements engineered in detail. The development project has not been committed to, as the current iron ore prices do not deliver sufficient cash flows to encourage the development of this project. The project has been technically de-risked to a large extent.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 295 107

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Ridley Ridley is the only magnetite resource being valued as part of this package of iron ore assets. It is also the only resource that has not been reported in accordance with the 2012 edition of the JORC Code, as there has been no material work completed in recent years, and it was originally reported in accordance with the 2004 edition of the JORC Code. CSA Global notes the comparative lack of market activity in magnetite iron ore projects in WA in the past three years. It is a comparatively large deposit (~2 Bt), relatively close to the port at Port Hedland (Figure 48). However, it is unlikely to be able to access the nearby rail infrastructure, which is controlled by BHP. Other transport solutions will need to be considered, such as a slurry pipeline considered in the previously completed PFS.

Pardoo The Pardoo deposit is close to Ridley (Figure 48). The BIF surrounding the deposit contains asbestiform minerals, the actual deposit does not. The deposits are small, lower grade and are mostly remnants from earlier mining.

Miralga Creek The deposit is well understood by the Atlas geology team. The deposit is small and comparatively isolated (Figure 48), but of relatively good quality (Figure 46). There is minor upside potential from the less well understood Grants and Sandtrax deposits. Distance to road infrastructure is not insurmountable, but the size of the deposit may make extending the existing infrastructure unattractive.

Newman Projects In today’s seaborne iron ore market, it is difficult to assign a value beyond the tenement holding cost to any of the East and West Newman projects. The negative contributing factors include: • Distance from the coast without an established and accessible rail infrastructure or economically feasible transport route (Figure 47); • Relatively small tonnages with limited upside exploration potential; and • Prohibitive high deleterious grades, notably, alumina, silica and phosphorous grades (Figure 46).

Location Each of the East, West and North Newman projects and Newman Central can be colloquially classified as “stranded” in that, based on today’s iron ore market prices, there is no readily accessible and economic option available to transport mined product to port (Port Hedland) for export. The closest existing rail infrastructure in the region is BHP’s Newman–Hedland rail line and there is no realistic opportunity to access the BHP infrastructure, nor is it likely that BHP has any interest in the deposits. The remaining options are: • Construct a new rail infrastructure system, or • Transport ore via road. CSA Global considers that the size of the deposits and their respective product specifications (see below) when compared to other projects are very unlikely to warrant the construction of standalone rail infrastructure. Transporting the product from these deposits on public highways (e.g. via super quad road-trains), on preliminary assessment likewise to rail appears unattractive. However, distances to the infrastructure controlled by FMG or may provide a viable option tolink these assets to the infrastructure solutions already in place.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 296 108

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Quantity With exception of the Davidson Creek Hub, which has a total reported Mineral Resource estimate of 476 Mt, none of the remaining Newman projects possess tonnages of significant size (all less than 60 Mt of Mineral Resource) to justify standalone rail construction. Rail construction can only be justified on large scale (on the order of a billion tonnes or more) expandable projects comprising marketable quality Mineral Resources. None of the Newman projects possess these attributes. CSA Global understands that higher grade zones within the Davidson Creek deposit have been identified, with a total of 161.9 Mt at a grade of 57.9% Fe, 2.56% Al2O3, 5.36% SiO2 and 0.087% P. Studies have shown that this may potentially be beneficiated to a 58.5% Fe product. Mineral Resource upside potential is also limited given the high exploration maturity.

Quality The host lithologies of the Newman group of projects comprise Marra Mamba Iron Formation, Boolgeeda Iron Formation and Archaean BIF. In each project reviewed, a majority had significant grade quality issues (Figure 46), which in today’s iron ore market (irrespective of the above-mentioned location issues) would either deem them unsaleable or they would incur significant sale price penalties. A case in example is FMG, whose mix of blend products is sold at a significant discount to benchmark prices, with FMG guidance on the discount currently at 35% (FMG, 2018). The Marra Mamba Iron Formation projects comprising the Davidson Creek Hub, Caramulla South, Homestead, Western Ridge and Western Creek are characterised, in every case, by elevated silica and alumina, often above

6% SiO2 and 3% Al2O3. In the case of Caramulla South, the SiO2 was reported above 8% and the Al2O3 above 6%. The Boolgeeda Iron Formation projects comprising McCamey’s North and Hickman projects are characterised by high phosphorous, silica and alumina levels. The silica and phosphorous levels are higher than in the Marra Mamba Iron Formation projects with phosphorous levels greater than 0.15%. Any potential productwould most likely attract significant price penalties in today’s seaborne iron ore market. The Jimblebar Range and Wishbone/Warrawanda Project mineralisation is hosted in Archaean BIF of the Sylvania Inlier.

Warrawanda is characterised by high silica (greater than 7% SiO2) and alumina (3% Al2O3) levels, and like the Marra Mamba Iron Formationp rojects, would incur significant price penalties if able to be sold into the seaborne iron ore trade.

Jimblebar Range is the only Newman Project which exhibits alumina grades (approximately 2% Al2O3) at a marketable level. The negative connotation are the silica levels of approximately 7% SiO2.

Conclusion It is unlikely that any of the Newman group of projects are of grade or tonnage that would support an economic mining project in today’s iron ore market. Irrespective of their stranded location, the levels of the deleterious elements are in many instances prohibitively high, and if saleable would incur significant price penalties. The only retrievable value beyond the holding cost of the tenement would be if the mined product could be blended with a higher quality ore to achieve a blended product aligned to the 62% Fe Platts Index. Given the high exploration maturity and the absence of any material Mineral Resource quality and quantity upside potential, this seems unlikely.

Avalon Point/Abydos Production complete; remnant resources are small and isolated.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 297 109

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Mid West (Beebyn) The deposit is small, of poor quality (Figure 46), isolated and stranded (Figure 47).

West Pilbara (Anthiby) The deposit is small, of poor quality (Figure 46), isolated and stranded (Figure 47).

Project-specific discount/premium factors Based on the considerations discussed above, CSA Global has exercised professional judgement in selecting project-specific discounts or premiums, as summarised in Table 35. Table 35: Project-specific discount/premium factors Project Valuation considerations Discount/premium factor Pardoo Poor quality, small, remnants – closer to port 0.5 Abydos Remnant mineralisation – small 0.5 Mount Webber Operating mine – established infrastructure 1.5 McPhee Creek DFS completed – currently cashflow negative 1 Miralga Creek Small resource, reasonable quality 0.5 Corunna Downs Infrastructure planned and budgeted 1.2 Mid West Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Hickman Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Western Creek Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Jimblebar Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Warrawanda Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Davidson Creek Hub Large, poor quality, but with the potential to beneficiate 0.3 about 1/3 of the resource. Far from port. West Pilbara Stranded, small, poor quality 0.1 Ridley Large project, reasonably close to port. Resource reported 0.8 under previous edition of JORC Code. Magnetite market has been less active.

4.1.5 Comparative Transactions Valuation

DSO Mineral Resources CSA Global has conducted a search for recent market transactions involving Australian DSO iron ore projects, as well as magnetite iron ore projects.As CSA Global’s brief was to assess the value of the iron ore resources outside of the current mine plans, the transactions selected were generally project-level transactions, and involved mostly non-producing assets. The notable exception was the May 2016 acquisition of a 15% interest in Atlas by Glencore. Due to the negative market sentiment, there were not a large number of relevant transactions involving projects that were deemed to be reasonable comparatives to Atlas’ assets. CSA Global identified 11 transactions involving DSO iron ore projects in WA within the last five years. Details of the transactions are provided in Appendix 3. The Mount Gibson acquisition of Shine was excluded as a high outlier (an order of magnitude higher than all the other transactions), therefore the analysis detailed below includes 10 transactions. In analysing the Comparative Transactions, CSA Global assessed the implied purchase price on the basis of A$/t of contained iron in the declared resource base of the project at the time of the transaction. This was then normalised to the June 2018 iron ore price of US$64.81/t (A$87.69/t) to correct for movements in the iron ore price over the period being considered. Table 36 summarises some of the analyses carried out on these transactions.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 298 110

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 36: Summary of analysis of WA DSO iron ore Comparative Transactions All transactions (Excluding outlier) Projects >20 Mt

Implied (A$/t) Normalised (A$/t) Implied (A$/t) Normalised (A$/t) Count 10 10 7 7 Minimum 0.002 0.001 0.002 0.001 Maximum 0.62 0.45 0.62 0.45 Median 0.09 0.10 0.07 0.07 Mean 0.17 0.14 0.14 0.12 Weighted average 0.09 0.10 0.09 0.10

CSA Global Assessment From this analysis, CSA Global concludes that suitable valuation factors based on containediron in the declared resources would be a low factor of A$0.15/t, a high factor of A$0.45/t and a preferred factor of A$0.22/t. The high factor is based on the maximum value. This value pertains to the Ascot acquisition of Wonmunna in March 2014. This transaction included a large deferred payment, with approximately 67% of the consideration paid after fiveears. y In addition, the major part of the upfront payment was share-based. CSA Global consider that a current cash transaction would likely have a lower value, as the risks inherent in deferred payment would not apply. The low factor is based on the mean and the weighted average of the transaction set. The transaction with a value most similar to this factor is the Todd acquisition of Flinders in March 2016. CSA Global consider that the Atlas portfolio includes several projects at a more advanced stage than Flinders’ Ore Project was at when this transaction occurred, and therefore conclude that Atlas’s key assets are likely to have a higher value than this. The preferred factor is based on the upper quartile of the transaction set. The transaction with a value most similar to this was the Maiden acquisition of North Marillana in September 2013. This transaction involved a small (15.6 Mt) low grade (54% Fe) iron ore deposit, but occurred at a time when the iron ore price was high (US$133.96/t). Table 37 summarises the valuation of the remaining DSO iron ore mineral resources, assuming there is no further mining at Mount Webber, and that mining of Corunna is indefinitely deferred.

Table 37: Undiscounted valuation of DSO iron ore resources considering Comparative Transactions Project Contained Fe (Mt) Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Pardoo 5.0 0.8 2.3 1.1 Abydos 1.1 0.2 0.5 0.2 Mount Webber 21.8 3.3 9.8 4.8 McPhee Creek 139.0 20.9 62.6 30.6 Miralga Creek 2.3 0.3 1.0 0.5 Corunna Downs 36.7 5.5 16.5 8.1 Mid West 4.0 0.6 1.8 0.9 Hickman 38.8 5.8 17.5 8.5 Western Creek 44.2 6.6 19.9 9.7 Jimblebar 39.5 5.9 17.8 8.7 Warrawanda 13.6 2.0 6.1 3.0 Davidson Creek Hub# 93.7 14.1 42.2 20.6 West Pilbara 20.4 3.1 9.2 4.5 # Davidson Creek contained Fe based on high-grade portion only

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 299 111

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Based on the project-specific value drivers discussed in Section 4.1.4, CSA Global has exercised professional judgement in selecting project-specific discounts or premiums, as summarised in Table 35. Applying these project-specific discounts and premiums to the values obtained from the consideration of the Comparative Transactions, results in the Discounted Valuation summarised in Table 38. Table 38: Discounted Valuation of DSO iron ore resources considering Comparative Transactions Contained Fe Discount/premium Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) (Mt) factor Pardoo 5.0 0.5 0.4 1.1 0.6 Abydos 1.1 0.5 0.1 0.3 0.1 Mount Webber 21.8 1.5 4.9 14.7 7.2 McPhee Creek 139.0 1 20.9 62.6 30.6 Miralga Creek 2.3 0.5 0.2 0.5 0.3 Corunna Downs 36.7 1.2 6.6 19.8 9.7 Mid West 4.0 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 Hickman 38.8 0.1 0.6 1.7 0.9 Western Creek 44.2 0.1 0.7 2.0 1.0 Jimblebar 39.5 0.1 0.6 1.8 0.9 Warrawanda 13.6 0.1 0.2 0.6 0.3 Davidson Creek Hub# 93.7 0.3 4.2 12.7 6.2 West Pilbara 20.4 0.1 0.3 0.9 0.4 # Davidson Creek contained Fe based on high-grade portion only Table 39 considers the undiscounted value of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs Mineral Resources that are not included in the current mine plans, i.e. the value of the resources that would remain after mining. Table 39: Undiscounted valuation of resources outside of the Webber & Corunna financial model based on Comparative Transactions Project Contained Fe (Mt) Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 3.3 0.5 1.5 0.7 Corunna Downs 24.6 3.7 11.1 5.4

Table 40 considers the discounted value of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs Mineral Resources that are not included in the current mine plans, i.e. the value of the resources that would remain after mining. Table 40: Discounted Valuation of resources outside of Webber & Corunna financial models based on Comparative Transactions Project Contained Fe (Mt) Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 3.3 0.7 2.2 1.1 Corunna Downs 24.6 4.4 13.3 6.5

Magnetite Mineral Resources CSA Global also identified and assessed six transactions involving magnetite iron ore projects in Australia within the last five years. Details of these transactions are provided in Appendix 2. In analysing the comparative transactions, CSA Global assessed the implied purchase price on the basis of A$/t of contained iron in the declared resource base of the project at the time of the transaction. This was then normalised to the June 2018 iron ore price of US$64.81/t (A$87.69/t) to correct for movements in the iron ore price over the period being considered. In analysing the transactions (Table 41), it was clear that the Formosa earn-in to the Ironbridge Project was an outlier. This transaction was the earliest of the transactions considered, and the iron ore price was still very high. In addition, the resource involved was very large, with over 1.5 Bt of contained Fe. For this reason, CSA Global

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 300 112

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

excluded this transaction when assessing a suitable valuation factor for the Ridley deposit, and focused instead on the five remaining transactions, which occurred in the period December 2013 to the current date. Table 41: Summary of analysis of WA magnetite iron ore Comparative Transactions All transactions Excluding Ironbridge

Implied (A$/t) Normalised (A$/t) Implied (A$/t) Normalised (A$/t) Count 6 6 5 5 Minimum 0.005 0.005 0.005 0.005 Maximum 0.28 0.16 0.13 0.07 Median 0.08 0.05 0.04 0.03 Mean 0.03 0.02 0.02 0.02 Weighted average 0.19 0.11 0.02 0.02

CSA Global note that the transaction involving the resource most similar to theR idley magnetite iron ore project in terms of grade and contained iron, is the GIM acquisition of Ularring in October 2015, which is also the latest transaction considered. This transaction had a normalised transaction price of A$0.02/t Fe. CSA Global Assessment From this analysis, CSA Global concludes that suitable market-based valuation factors for the Ridley magnetite iron ore project would be a low factor of A$0.01/t, a high factor of A$0.03/t, and a preferred factor of A$0.02/t. The preferred factor is based on the mean and weighted average of the five remaining transactions, which is similar to the transaction price of Ularring. The low factor is rounded from the minimum transaction value, and the maximum is based on the median value, and was selected as an appropriate symmetrical range around the preferred value. Table 42 summarises the undiscounted valuation of the Ridley magnetite project based on these factors. Table 42: Undiscounted Valuation of Ridley magnetite project using Comparative Transactions Project Contained Fe (Mt) Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Ridley 733.7 7.3 22.0 14.7

Applying the project-specific discount factors summarised in Table 35 results in the Discounted Valuation summarised in Table 43. Table 43: Discounted Valuation of Ridley magnetite project using Comparative Transactions Project Contained Fe (Mt) Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Ridley 733.7 5.9 17.6 11.7

4.1.6 Yardstick Order of Magnitude Check CSA Global used the Yardstick method as an order of magnitude check on the Mineral Resources valuation completed using comparative transactions. The Yardstick order of magnitude check is simplistic (e.g. it is very generalised and does not address project specific value drivers but takes an “industry-wide” view). It provides a non-corroborative valuation check on the primary comparative transactions valuation method, allowing CSA Global to assess the reasonableness of the derived comparative transactions valuation and whether there are any potential issues with their preferred primary valuation method. For the Yardstick order of magnitude check, CSA Global used the average 62% Fe spot price for iron ore for June 2018, being US$64.81/t. Using the exchange rate of US$0.739/A$ (RBA monthly exchange rate for June 2018), and a 16% discount for the 58% Fe product (based on the reported Platts 62% Fe Index and Platts 58% Fe Index average spot prices for June 2018), this gives a discounted spot price of A$73.04/t. In addition, CSA Global utilised the following Yardstick factors for DSO iron ore, in line with commonly used factors for bulk commodities:

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 301 113

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• Inferred Mineral Resources: 0.1% to 0.2% of spot price • Indicated Mineral Resources: 0.2% to 0.5% of spot price • Measured Mineral Resources: 0.5% to 1.0% of spot price. CSA Global also used the following Yardstick factors for magnetite iron ore, based on the difference in market prices for magnetite projects compared to DSO projects: • Inferred Mineral Resources: 0.01% to 0.02% of spot price • Indicated Mineral Resources: 0.02% to 0.05% of spot price • Measured Mineral Resources: 0.05% to 0.1% of spot price. The average 62% Fe spot price for iron ore for June 2018 used as the starting point for the Yardstick order of magnitude check was consistent with that used for the evaluation of Comparative Transactions data so that the results could be compared. Applying these factors to the Atlas resources results in the preferred values and valuation ranges summarised in Table 44. Table 44: Summary of Yardstick order of magnitude crosscheck Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Pardoo 0.4 0.7 0.6 Abydos 0.1 0.2 0.1 Mount Webber 6.0 12.6 9.3 McPhee Creek 24.2 56.9 40.6 Miralga Creek 0.2 0.3 0.3 Corunna Downs 4.8 11.8 8.3 Mid West 0.3 0.6 0.4 Hickman 2.8 5.7 4.3 Western Creek 3.2 6.5 4.9 Jimblebar 4.7 11.1 7.9 Warrawanda 1.0 2.0 1.5 Davidson Creek Hub# 6.9 13.8 10.3 West Pilbara 1.5 3.0 2.2 Ridley* 8.3 19.7 14.0 * Magnetite Yardstick factors applied for Ridley; DSO Yardstick factors applied to all other resources. # Davidson Creek contained Fe based on high-grade portion only Table 52 summarises the value of the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs resources that are not included in the current mine plans. Table 45: Yardstick Valuation of resources outside the Mount Webber and Corunna Downs financial models Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred A$M) Mount Webber 0.4 1.1 0.8 Corunna Downs 3.1 7.4 5.2

4.1.7 Appraised Value (Tenement Holding Costs) CSA Global considered the value of the projects in terms of the annual holding costs of the tenements that comprise the projects (Table 46). The annual holding costs of the tenements are based on information on the annual rent, rates and minimum required expenditure reported by MMTS (2018). The preferred value is based on the total holding costs plus a 10% premium, and the range is 50% above and below this preferred value.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 302 114

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 46: Valuation of Atlas projects considering Appraised Value Total annual Area holding Low High Preferred Project Tenements (km2) costs (A$ ‘000) (A$ ‘000) (A$ ‘000) (A$ ‘000) M45/1157, M45/1158, 236.6 142.0 378.6 260.3 Pardoo and Ridley M45/1159, M45/1190, 38.8 M45/1191, R45/0003 Abydos M45/1179, M45/1241 17.6 240.5 144.3 384.8 264.5 Mount Webber M45/1197, M45/1209 35.05 463.8 278.3 742.1 510.2 McPhee Creek M45/1243 63.8 843.7 506.2 1,349.9 928.0 Miralga Creek E45/3601 6.4 1.3 0.8 2.1 1.4 Corunna Downs M45/1257 164.4 1,888.3 1,133.0 3,021.3 2,077.2 Mid West R51/0002 34.3 20.9 12.5 33.4 23.0 Hickman E45/2052, E45/2054 34.7 6.6 4.0 10.6 7.3 E52/2160, E52/2300, 23.5 14.1 37.6 25.8 Western Creek 29.7 R52/0002, R52/0004 Jimblebar E52/2303, E52/3306 60.1 45.9 27.6 73.5 50.5 Warrawanda R52/0006 34.6 50.3 30.2 80.5 55.3 M52/1034, M52/1043, 432.0 259.2 691.2 475.2 Davidson Creek Hub 141.7 R52/0003, R52/0008 West Pilbara E08/1712 47.4 9.9 5.9 15.8 10.9 Mount Dove ground holding M47/1449 29.4 441.6 265.0 706.6 485.8 Cisco E45/4270 70.4 40.3 24.2 64.5 44.4 Pancho E45/4517 9.6 16.0 9.6 25.6 17.6 Note: Operating and Development stage projects highlighted in green.

4.1.8 Valuation Opinion for Iron Ore Projects CSA Global understand that under BDO’s Current Discount Scenario, they have assumed that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs will not be developed. Therefore BDO has instructed CSA Global to value Mount Webber and Corunna Downs on a resource basis. CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the iron ore mineral resources of Atlas as at 1 July 2018 is provided in Table 47, assuming that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs is not developed. In the event that Mount Webber and Corunna Downs are mined, CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the material iron ore resources that will remain after completion of current mine plans, as at 1 July 2018, is provided in Table 48. CSA Global stresses that this is an opinion on likely value, and not actual value, which can only be tested by going to market.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 303 115

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 47: Value of Atlas iron ore Mineral Resources as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 5.0 15.0 10.0 Corunna Downs 6.0 15.0 10.0 McPhee Creek 20.0 60.0 40.0 Ridley 6.0 18.0 12.0 Davidson Creek Hub 4.0 12.5 6.5 Mount Dove ground holding 0.25 0.70 0.5 Miralga Creek 0.15 0.40 0.2 West Pilbara (Anthiby) 0.01 0.02 0.01 Mid West (Beebyn) 0.01 0.03 0.02 Western Creek 0.01 0.04 0.03 Hickman 0.00 0.01 0.01 Jimblebar 0.03 0.07 0.05 Warrawanda 0.03 0.08 0.06 Pardoo 0.15 0.40 0.25 Abydos 0.08 0.25 0.15 Total 41.7 122.5 79.8

Table 48: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources post current mine plan completion as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 0.6 2.0 1.0 Corunna Downs 4.0 10.0 6.5 Total 4.6 12.0 7.5 The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur. CSA Global’s opinion of the valuation ranges and the preferred values of the Mount Webber, Corunna Downs and McPhee Creek resources, as well as the high-grade portion of the Davidson Creek resource, are primarily based on the Comparative Transactions valuation outcomes, as supported by the Yardstick order of magnitude check. This is also the case for the Ridley magnetite project, where the Yardstick order of magnitude check did not match the Comparative Transactions valuation outcomes as closely, but was nevertheless of the same order of magnitude. CSA Global’s opinion of the remaining iron ore assets is primarily based on the Appraised valuation method, which is based on the holding costs of the tenure. In CSA Global’s view, the discounted valuation completed using the Comparatives Transaction method justifies that there is some value to these tenements, and that incurring the holding costs to maintain the tenure is therefore reasonable. However, in CSA Global’s professional judgement, these particular assets are unlikely to attract a price much higher than the holding costs in the current market, due to the combination of low iron grade, relatively high deleterious element concentrations, generally small isolated resources, and the lack of available infrastructure. The one exception is the Miralga Creek Project, which (although small and isolated) does have a better-quality resource base. CSA Global’s opinion on the value of this project is based on the Comparative Transactions valuation outcomes, as supported by the Yardstick order of magnitude check. Due to its small size, the value of Miralga Creek is also not deemed to be material in the context of the total value of Atlas. CSA Global notes that this results in some greenfields projects, such as the Mid West and West Pilbara, having lower values than remnant resources associated with operations that have ceased, such as Pardoo and Abydos. This is a function of our view on the relative attractiveness of the projects to prospective buyers, based on resource grade and quality, project scale, project isolation, and the availability of infrastructure.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 304 116

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

4.2 Other Projects In line with generally accepted accounting practice, CSA Global has applied a threshold of materiality for individual projects of 10% of the overall value of the mineral asset portfolio, and projects less than 5% of the portfolio are presumed not to be material. Given the iron projects outside the Life of Mine plans have a valuation range of A$50 million to A$65 million, the threshold for a material project will be A$5–6 million, and projects less than $2.5–3.5 million can be presumed to be non-material. CSA Global notes that while of interest as explorationassets , the majority of the tenement portfolio (apart from the tenure covering known resources) covers ground of either limited prospectivity, or at an early stage of exploration maturity. Given this status, CSA Global has concluded that these parts of Atlas’s tenement portfolio are not material to the valuation of the mineral assets of Atlas. Of the projects specifically discussed above, namely Pancho, Cisco, Copper Range, and Walker, CSA Global completed a check of the project values using Comparative Transactions and the Geoscientific Factor methods. Details of the analysis are presented in Appendix 3 (Comparative Transactions) and Appendix 5 (Geoscientific Factor Method). The valuation outcomes of the analysis are presented in Table 49. Table 49: Summary valuations of key other projects, as at 1 July 2018 Area Principal Commodity Low High Preferred Projects (km2) Focus Value Value Value (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) Cisco 70.4 Li 0.6 3.4 2.2 Pancho 9.6 Li 0.1 0.5 0.3 Copper Range 5.6 Cu 0.03 0.28 0.20 Walker 22.4 Cu 0.02 0.22 0.17 Gold Potential of the Atlas Pilbara 1,117- Au 1.2 10.7 4.4 tenements* 1,569 Total – other projects 2.0 15.1 7.3 * Around Corunna Downs, Miralga Creek and McPhee Creek areas adjacent to existing Atlas infrastructure The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur.

CSA Global also notes that in our view, an incoming party is likely to rationalise the tenement portfolio held by Atlas by reduction of some of the low value or low priority holdings.

4.3 Summary of valuations CSA Global understand that under BDO’s Current Discount Scenario, they have assumed that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs will not be developed. Therefore, BDO has instructed CSA Global to value Mount Webber and Corunna Downs, as well as McPhee Creek, on a resource basis. CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the iron ore Mineral Resources of Atlas as at 1 July 2018 is provided in Table 50, assuming that production at Mount Webber will cease and that Corunna Downs is not developed. In the event that Mount Webber and Corunna Downs are mined, CSA Global’s opinion on the value of the material iron ore resources not included in the current mine plans, as at 1 July 2018, is provided in Table 53.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 305 117

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 50: Value ofMineral Assets as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 5 15 10 Corunna Downs 6 15 10 McPhee Creek 20 60 40 Ridley 6.0 18.0 12.0 Davidson Creek Hub 4.0 12.5 6.5 Mount Dove ground holding 0.25 0.70 0.5 Miralga Creek 0.15 0.40 0.2 West Pilbara (Anthiby) 0.01 0.02 0.01 Mid West (Beebyn) 0.01 0.03 0.02 Western Creek 0.01 0.04 0.03 Hickman 0.00 0.01 0.01 Jimblebar 0.03 0.07 0.05 Warrawanda 0.03 0.08 0.06 Pardoo 0.15 0.40 0.25 Abydos 0.08 0.25 0.15 Cisco Li 0.6 3.4 2.2 Pancho Li 0.1 0.5 0.3 Copper Range Cu 0.03 0.28 0.20 Walker Cu 0.02 0.22 0.17 Gold potential of the Atlas Pilbara tenements* 1.2 10.7 4.4 TOTAL 43.7 137.6 87.1 The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur. Note: the Mt Webber & Corunna Downs Mineral asset valuations above are for the full resource base including any residual resources outside the mine plan – the value of these residual resources are shown below in Table 2

Table 51: Value of remaining iron ore Mineral Resources outside the current mine plans as at 1 July 2018 Project Low (A$M) High (A$M) Preferred (A$M) Mount Webber 0.6 2.0 1.0 Corunna Downs 4.0 10.0 6.5 TOTAL 4.6 12.0 7.5 The valuation has been compiled to an appropriate level of precision and minor rounding errors may occur.

There is significant range in the values derived for the Company’s projects. CSA Global has considered these ranges and concludes that it provides a reasonable representation of possible valuation outcomes for the projects, given the uncertainties inherent in valuing exploration projects. It is stressed that the valuation is an opinion as to likely values, not absolute values, which can only be tested by going to the market.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 306 118

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

5 References

Arnold, A., 2018. Platts Analytics: Ore quality & discounts, S&P Global Platts presentation, Global iron ore & Steel Forecast Conference, Perth, 21 March 2018. Atlas Iron Limited, 2013. Annual Report Atlas Iron Limited, 2017. Annual Report Atlas Iron Limited, 2017. Miralga West Prospect, Miralga Creek Project, Proposed Drilling Programme. Australian Stratigraphic Units Database, Geoscience Australia Barich, A., 2018a. China’s shift to high-grade iron ore structural not cyclical, experts say, S&P Global Market Intelligence, 22 March 2018. Barich, A., 2018b. Fortescue’s low discount dream evaporating, analysts say, S&P Global Market Intelligence, 29 March 2018. Cornelius, H. & Grigson, M. 2004. Lithostructural Setting and Controls on Tin-Tantalum Mineralisation in the Wodgina Greenstone Belt, Pilbara Craton, Western Australia. Sons of Gwalia internal Report. Crossing, J. 2008. Geological mapping, Mount Webber Prospect, Pilbara WA for Atlas Iron. Compass Geological. Crowther, H 2012 Sandtrax deposit, Abydos. Mineral Resource Report, Western Australia. Atlas Iron Limited Crowther, H. 2013. Caramulla South Resource Estimate Report, September 2013, Atlas Iron Limited. Crowther, H. 2013. Homestead Resource Estimate Report, June 2013, Atlas Iron Limited. Crowther, H. 2013. Jimblebar Range Resource Estimate Report, October 2013, Atlas Iron Limited. Crowther, H. 2013. Miji Miji Deposit – Mineral Resource Estimate, March 2013 Crowther, H. 2013. Western Creek Resource Estimate Report, August 2013, Atlas Iron Limited. Crowther, H. 2013. Western Ridge Resource Estimate Report, October 2013, Atlas Iron Limited. Crowther, H. 2014 Razorback Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Dale, G. 2006. Pardoo Iron Ore Project, Assessment of Magnetite Potential by Promet Engineers Pty Lt on behalf of Atlas Iron Limited. Doyle, A., 2018. Drivers of price differentials in iron ore. CRU presentation, Global iron ore & Steel Forecast Conference, Perth, 21 March 2018. FMG, 2018. iron ore price realisation guidance, FMG ASX announcement, 27 March 2018. Goldsworthy, J., Joyce, R.M., Bonato, P., D’Hulst, A. 2011. Discovery and Geology of the McPhee Creek Iron Deposit, Northern Pilbara, Western Australia Hawke, P. 2011 Review of geophysics and target generation of tenements covered by the 2011 aeromagnetic survey area 8 (Beebyn/Beebynganna, Weld Range Project). Hawke Geophysics Pty Ltd Hawke, P. 2012 Results of detailed magnetic survey and geophysical interpretation covering the Pincunah (Avalon Point) project area. Hawke Geophysics Pty Ltd Hermawan, W. 2013. Fender, Gibson and Dalton Mineral Resource Report, Atlas Iron Hermawan, W. 2013. Main Range West Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, December 2013. Atlas Iron Limited Hermawan, W. 2015 Ibanez Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate, Atlas Iron Hermawan, W. 2016 Glen Herring Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Hermawan, W. 2016 Runway Deposit Mineral Resource Estimate Report. Atlas Iron Hermawan, W. 2016 Shark Gully Deposit – Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Hewlett, A. 2007 Giralia Resources NL, Summary Report, Mineral Resource Estimate, Beebyn Iron Deposit. CSA Australia Pty Ltd.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 307 119

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Hickman, A. 2013 Wodgina WA 1:100 000 Geological Sheet 2655, second edition, Geological Survey of Western Australia Johnston, A. 2013 Avalon Point - Mineral Resource Report. Atlas Iron Limited Joint Ore Reserves Committee, 2012. Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves. The JORC Code, 2012 Edition. online . Available from http://www.jorc.org (The Joint Ore Reserves Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, Australian Institute of Geoscientists, and Minerals Council of Australia). Liao, T., 2018. iron ore and Steel Market Outlook, Commodities Strategy, March 2018, Citi Research presentation, Global iron ore & Steel Forecast Conference, Perth, 21 March 2018. Lo, 2013. Crescent Moon Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Limited Lo, 2013. Main Range Deposit – Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Limited Lo, A. 2013 Grants Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Limited Lo, A. 2013 Miralga Creek – Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron Limited Louw, G. 2009 Giralia Resources NL, Anthiby Well Project, Mineral Resource Report, Western Australia. CSA Global Pty Ltd. McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd, 2018. Atlas Iron Limited – Tenure Review. Report prepared for Atlas Iron Limited, dated 10 May 2018. Porter, M. 2018. http://www.portergeo.com.au/database/mineinfo.asp?mineid=mn1372 Porter, S. 2011. Mirrin Mirrin Deposit, Resource Estimate, August 2011 FerrAus Limited Russell, R. 2011. Geological mapping of the McPhee Creek Iron Ore Deposit, Northeast Pilbara, WA. Atlas Iron Limited S&P Global Platts, 2018a. Methodology and specifications guide – iron ore January 2018. Available from: http://platts.com S&P Global Platts, 2018b. BHP Billiton switches to IODEX to price Yandi fines: term customers. Available from: http://platts.com S&P Global, 2018a. Commodity Briefing Service – iron ore February 2018. Available from: http://spglobal.com/marketintelligence S&P Global, 2018b. Commodity Briefing Service – iron ore June 2018. Available from: http://spglobal.com/marketintelligence Slomp, L. 2016. Summary Report on Lithium Prospectivity of Mt Francisco E45/4270-I. Internal Atlas Iron Report 159-GEO- EX-REP-0013. DRAFT. Slomp, L 2017 Annual Report for the Period 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017, Abydos Project C40/2007. Atlas Iron Limited Slomp, L, H. 2017. Pardoo Project – Annual Technical Report, Atlas Iron Limited, February 2018 Slomp, L. 2017 Annual Report for the Period 1 May 2016 to 30 April 2017, Abydos Project C40/2017. Atlas Iron Limited Slomp, L. 2017. Annual Report for the period 30 March 2016 to 29 March 2017, Mount Webber E45/4269, E45/4540, M45/1209, P45/2822. Atlas Iron Smith, M. 2011. Halley, Levy, Hale-Bopp and Shoemaker Deposits, Mineral Resource Report, Atlas Iron Limited. Smith, M. 2011. McCamey’s North Deposit, Jimblebar, Mineral Resource Report, Atlas Iron Limited. Smith, M. 2011. Wishbone Deposit, Warrawanda, Mineral Resource Report, Atlas Iron Limited. Stewart, M. 2015 Annual Report for the period 8 October 2014 to 7 October 2015, Anthiby Well. Atlas Iron Limited Stewart, M. 2015. Davidson Creek / Jigalong Project Annual Technical Report for period ending Dec 2014 Sweeney, S. 2013. Crescent Moon and Crescent Moon West Geology and Drilling Report, October 2013. Atlas Iron Limited Sweeney, S. 2014 Abydos Project. Regional Targets Sandtrax, Sandtrax East and Sandtrax West, E45/2308, Target Review and mapping report. Atlas Iron Limited Sweeney, S. 2018 Proposed field work across mapping targets of E45/2922 and Mt Vettel’s Dead Bullock prospect. Atlas Iron Limited Sweeney, S. 2018 Mt Webber Regional Desktop Review of P45/2901-2904 and E45/2922. Atlas Iron Limited

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 308 120

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Teale, G.S., 2011. A Mineragraphic Investigation of a Suite of drill core samples from the McPhee Creek Iron Deposit, Western Australia. Teale & Associates Pty Ltd, Report No CR536 VALMIN, 2015, Australasian Code for Public Reporting of Technical Assessments and Valuations of Mineral Assets (The VALMIN Code), 2015 edition. online . Available from http://www.valmin.org (The VALMIN Committee of The Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy, and The Australian Institute of Geoscientists). Warner, S., Hermawan, W, 2016 Split Rock Mineral Resource Estimate. Atlas Iron

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 309 121

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

6 Glossary

Below are brief descriptions of some terms used in this report. For further information or for terms that are not described here, please refer to internet sources such as Wikipedia www.wikipedia.org. Aeromagnetic A survey undertaken by helicopter or fixed-wing aircraft for the purpose of recording magnetic characteristics of rocks by measuring deviations of the Earth’s magnetic field. Antiformal A topographic feature which is composed of sedimentary layers in a convex formation, but may not actually form a real anticline (i.e., the oldest rocks may not be exposed in the middle). Archaean: Widely used term for the earliest era of geological time spanning the interval from the formation of Earth to about 2,500 million years ago. BIF A rock consisting essentially of iron oxides and cherty silica and possessing a marked banded appearance. Channel iron deposits Iron-rich fluvial sedimentary deposits. Concentrate A product containing valuable metal from which most of the waste material has been eliminated (in this case high-grade magnetite or hæmatite). Density Mass of material per unit volume Direct ship ore (DSO) Material of sufficient grade and quality that little processing is required to produce a saleable product. Dmt Dry metric tonne. DTR Davis Tube Recovery, a test to measure the weight recovery of magnetite from iron ore. Fluvial Processes associated with rivers and streams and the deposits and landforms created by them. Gœthite Gœthite is an iron oxyhydroxide containing ferric iron. It is the main component of rust and bog iron ore. Granitoid A variety of coarse grained plutonic rock similar to granite which mineralogically is composed predominantly of feldspar and quartz. Greenstone terrane Greenstone belts are zones named for the green hue imparted by chlorite minerals within the rocks, which are variably metamorphosed (greenschist) mafic to ultramafic volcanic sequences associated with sedimentary rocks. Hæmatite A mineral form of iron(III) oxide (Fe2O3), one of several iron oxides. It is generally reddish or brown in colour. Hard cap Ferruginised land surface which occurs across all banded iron formation outcrops, as a result of current climatic processes. Hypogene In ore deposit geology, hypogene processes occur deep below the earth's surface, and tend to form deposits of primary minerals, as opposed to supergene processes that occur at or near the surface, and tend to form secondary minerals. Intraformational Being or occurring within a geologic formation. Laterite A cemented residuum of weathering which is generally leached in silica with a high aluminia and/or iron content. Mafic A silicate mineral or igneous rock that is rich in magnesium and iron and is thus a portmanteau of magnesium and ferric. Most mafic minerals are dark in colour, and common rock-forming mafic minerals include olivine, pyroxene, amphibole, and biotite. Magnetic anomaly Zone where the magnitude and orientation of the Earth’s magnetic field differs from adjacent areas. Magnetite A mineral with the chemical formula Fe₃O₄. It is one of the oxides of iron and is ferromagnetic; it is attracted to a magnet and can be magnetised to become a permanent magnet itself.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 310 122

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Martite A variety of hæmatite that is pseudomorphic after magnetite crystals. Pisolite Spheroidal crystalline particle larger than 2 millimetres in diameter Plutonic Relating to or denoting igneous rock formed by solidification at considerable depth beneath the earth's surface. Spot price Current delivery price of a commodity traded in the spot market. Supergene In ore deposit geology, supergene processes or enrichment are those that occur relatively near the surface as opposed to deep hypogene processes. Synclinal Sloping downward from opposite directions so as to meet in a common point or line. Syncline A fold with younger layers closer to the centre of the structure. Turbidite The geologic deposit of a turbidity current, which is a type of sediment gravity flow responsible for distributing vast amounts of clastic sediment into the deep ocean. Ultramafic Igneous and meta-igneous rocks with a very low silica content (less than 45%), generally >18% MgO, high FeO, low potassium, and are composed of usually greater than 90% mafic minerals. Unconformable Consisting of a series of younger strata that do not succeed the underlying older rocks in age or in parallel position, as a result of a long period of erosion or nondeposition. Waste Material which does not contain minerals of economic merit.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 311 123

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

7 Abbreviations and Units of Measurement

% percent ° degree(s) °C degrees Celsius 3D three-dimensional AIG Australian Institute of Geoscientists Altura Altura Mining ASIC Australian Securities and Investments Commission ASX Australian Securities Exchange Atlas Atlas Iron Limited AusIMM Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy BDO BDO Corporate Finance (WA) Pty Ltd BIF banded iron formation Bt billion tonnes CID channel iron deposit CRM certified reference material CSA Global CSA Global Pty Ltd DCF Discounted Cash Flow DD diamond core (drilling) dmtu dry metric tonne units DSO direct shipping ore DTR Davis Tube Recovery FerrAus FerrAus Limited GAM Global Advanced Metals Giralia Giralia Resources Limited GPS global positioning system g/t Grams per tonne GSWA Geological Survey of Western Australia ha hectares Hancock Hancock Prospecting Pty Ltd IDW inverse distance weighting IDW2 inverse distance weighting to the power of 2 IER Independent Expert’s Report km kilometres km2 square kilometres LCT lithium-caesium-tantalum LOI loss on ignition LOM life of mine

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 312 124

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

m metre(s) M million(s) mm millimetres MMTS McMahon Mining Title Services Mt million tonnes OK ordinary kriging Pilbara Minerals Pilbara Minerals Limited PPA Pilbara Port Authority RBA Reserve Bank of Australia QAQC quality assurance and quality control (for sampling and assaying) QC quality control QKNA quantitative kriging neighbourhood analysis RC reverse circulation (drilling) RCP reverse circulation percussion (drilling) Redstone Redstone Corporation Pty Ltd ROM run of mine RQD rock quality designation RTK real-time kinematic SCID siliceous channel iron deposit Snowden Snowden Mining Industry Consultants Pty Ltd SQL structured query language SSM state survey mark t tonne(s) TGA thermogravimetric analysis tkm tonne-kilometre VHMS volcanogenic-hosted massive sulphide WA Western Australia XRF x-ray fluorescence

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 313 125

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Appendix 1: Valuation Approaches

Mineral Assets are defined in the VALMIN Code as all property including (but not limited to) tangible property, intellectual property, mining and exploration Tenure and other rights held or acquired in connection with the exploration, development of and production from those Tenures. This may include the plant, equipment and infrastructure owned or acquired for the development, extraction and processing of Minerals in connection with that Tenure. Business valuers typically define market value as “The price that would be negotiated in an open and unrestricted market between a knowledgeable, willing, but not anxious buyer, and a knowledgeable, willing but not anxious seller acting at arm’s length.” The accounting criterion for a market valuation is that it isan assessment of “fair value”, which is defined in the accounting standards as“ the amount for which an asset could be exchanged between knowledgeable, willing parties in an arm’s length transaction.” The VALMIN Code defines the value of a Mineral Asset as its Market Value, which is “the estimated amount (or the cash equivalent of some other consideration) for which the Mineral Asset should exchange on the date of Valuation between a willing buyer and a willing seller in an arm’s length transaction after appropriate marketing where the parties had each acted knowledgeably, prudently and without compulsion”. Market Value usually consists of two components, the underlying or Technical Value, and a premium or discount relating to market, strategic or other considerations. The VALMIN Code recommends that a preferred or most- likely value be selected as the most likely figure within a range after taking into account those factors which might impact on Value. The concept of Market Value hinges upon the notion of an asset changing hands in an arm’s length transaction. Market Value must therefore take into account, inter alia, market considerations, which can only be determined by reference to “comparative transactions”. Generally, truly comparable transactions for Mineral Assets are difficult to identify due to the infrequency of transactions involving producing assets and/or Mineral Resources, the great diversity of mineral exploration properties, the stage to which their evaluation has progressed, perceptions of prospectivity, tenement types, the commodity involved and so on. For exploration tenements, the notion of value is very often based on considerations unrelated to the amount of cash which might change hands in the event of an outright sale, and in fact, for the majority of tenements being valued, there is unlikely to be any “cash equivalent of some other consideration”. Whilst acknowledging these limitations, CSA Global has identified what it considers to be comparative transactions that have been used in assessing the values to be attributed to the Mineral Assets.

Valuation Methods for Exploration Projects The choice of valuation methodology applied to Mineral Assets, including exploration licences, will depend on the amount of data available and the reliability of that data. The VALMIN Code classifies Mineral Assets into categories that represent a spectrum from areas in which mineralisation may or may not have been found through to Operating Mines which have well-defined Ore Reserves, as listed below: • “Early-stage Exploration Projects” – tenure holdings where mineralisation may or may not have been identified, but where Mineral Resources have not been identified. • “Advanced Exploration Projects” – tenure holdings where considerable exploration has been undertaken and specific targets identified that warrant further detailed evaluation, usually by drill testing, trenching or some other form of detailed geological sampling. A Mineral Resource estimate may or may not have been made but sufficient work will have been undertaken on at least one prospect to provide both a good understanding of the type of mineralisation present and encouragement that further work will elevate one or more of the prospects to the Mineral Resources category.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 314 126

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• “Pre-Development Projects” – tenure holdings where Mineral Resources have been identified and their extent estimated (possibly incompletely) but where a decision to proceed with development has not been made. • “Development Projects” – tenure holdings for which a decision has been made to proceed with construction or production or both, but which are not yet commissioned or operating at design levels. Economic viability of Development Projects will be proven by at least a Prefeasibility Study. • “Production Projects” – tenure holdings – particularly mines, wellfields and processing plants – that have been commissioned and are in production. Each of these different categories will require different valuation methodologies, but regardless of the technique employed, consideration must be given to the perceived “market valuation”. The Market Value of Exploration Properties and Undeveloped Mineral Resources can be determined by four general approaches: Cost; Market; Geoscience Factor or Income.

Cost Appraised Value or Exploration Expenditure Method considers the costs and results of historical exploration. The Appraised Value Method utilises a Multiple of Exploration Expenditure (MEE), which involves the allocation of a premium or discount to past expenditure through the use of the Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier (PEM). This involves a factor which is directly related to the success (or failure) of the exploration completed to date, during the life of the current tenements. Guidelines for the selection of a PEM factor have been proposed by several authors in the field of mineral asset valuation (Onley, 1994). Table 52 lists the PEM factors and criteria used in the Report. Table 52: Prospectivity Enhancement Multiplier (PEM) factors PEM range Criteria 0.2–0.5 Exploration (past and present) has downgraded the tenement prospectivity, no mineralisation identified 0.5–1.0 Exploration potential has been maintained (rather than enhanced) by past and present activity from regional mapping 1.0–1.3 Exploration has maintained, or slightly enhanced (but not downgraded) the prospectivity 1.3–1.5 Exploration has considerably increased the prospectivity (geological mapping, geochemical or geophysical activities) 1.5–2.0 Scout drilling (rotary air blast, air-core, RCP) has identified interesting intersections of mineralisation 2.0–2.5 Detailed drilling has defined targets with potential economic interest 2.5–3.0 A Mineral Resource has been estimated at Inferred JORC category, no concept or scoping study has been completed 3.0–4.0 Indicated Mineral Resources have been estimated that are likely to form the basis of a prefeasibility study 4.0–5.0 Indicated and Measured Resources have been estimated and economic parameters are available for assessment

Market Market Approach Method or Comparative Transactions looks at prior transactions for the property and recent arm’s length transactions for comparative properties. The Comparative Transaction method provides a useful guide where a mineral asset that is comparable in location and commodity has in the recent past been the subject of an“ arm’s length” transaction, for either cash or shares.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 315 127

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

In an exploration joint venture or farm-in, an equity interest in a tenement or group of tenements is usually earned in exchange for spending on exploration, rather than a simple cash payment to the tenement holder. The joint venture or farm-in terms, of themselves, do not represent the Value of the tenements concerned. To determine a Value, the expenditure commitments should be discounted for time and the probability that the commitment will be met. Whilst some practitioners invoke complex assessments of the likelihood that commitments will be met, these are difficult to justify at the outset of a joint venture, and it seems more reasonable to assume a 50:50 chance that a joint venture agreement will run its term. Therefore, in analysing joint venture terms, a 50% discount may be applied to future committed exploration, which is then “grossed up” according to the interest to be earned to derive an estimate of the Value of the tenements at the time that the agreement was entered into. Where a progressively increasing interest is to be earned in stages, it is likely that a commitment to the second or subsequent stages of expenditure will be so heavily contingent upon the results achieved during the earlier phases of exploration that assigning a probability to the subsequent stages proceeding will in most cases be meaningless. A commitment to a minimum level of expenditure before an incoming party can withdraw must reflect that party’s perception of minimum value and should not be discounted. Similarly, any upfront cash payments should not be discounted. The terms of a sale or joint venture agreement should reflect the agreed value of the tenements at the time, irrespective of transactions or historical exploration expenditure prior to that date. Hence the current Value of a tenement or tenements will be the Value implied from the terms of the most recent transaction involving it/them, plus any change in Value as a result of subsequent exploration. Where the tenements comprise applications over previously open ground, little to no exploration work has been completed and they are not subject to any dealings, it is thought reasonable to assume that they have minimal, if any Value, except perhaps, the cost to apply for, and therefore secure a prior right to the ground, unless of course there is competition for the ground and it was keenly sought after. Such tenements are unlikely to have any Value until some exploration has been completed, or a deal has been struck to sell or joint venture them, implying that a market for them exists. High quality Mineral Assets are likely to trade at a premium over the general market. On the other hand, exploration tenements that have no defined attributes apart from interesting geology or a“good address” may well trade at a discount to the general market. Market Values for exploration tenements may also be impacted by the size of the land holding, with a large, consolidated holding in an area with good exploration potential attracting a premium due to its appeal to large companies.

Geoscience Factor The Geoscience Factor method seeks to rank and weight geological aspects, including proximity to mines, deposits and the significance of the camp and the commodity sought. The Geoscience Factor (or Kilburn) method, as described by Kilburn (1990) and expanded on by Goulevitch and Eupene (1994), provides an approach for the technical valuation of the exploration potential of mineral properties, on which there are no defined resources. Valuation is based upon a calculation in which the geological prospectivity, commodity markets, and mineral property markets are assessed independently. The Geoscientific Factor method is essentially a technique to define a Value based upon geological prospectivity. The method appraises a variety of mineral property characteristics: • Location with respect to any off-property mineral occurrence of value, or favourable geological, geochemical or geophysical anomalies • Location and nature of any mineralisation, geochemical, geological or geophysical anomaly within the property and the tenor of any mineralisation known to exist on the property being valued • Number and relative position of anomalies on the property being valued

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 316 128

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

• Geological models appropriate to the property being valued. The Geoscientific Factor method systematically assesses and grades these four key technical attributes of a tenement to arrive at a series of multiplier factors (Table 53). Table 53: Geoscience Factor ranking Address/Off-property Rating On-property factor Anomaly factor Geological factor factor 0.5 Very little chance of Very little chance of Extensive previous Generally mineralisation; Concept mineralisation; Concept exploration with poor unfavourable lithology; unsuitable to the unsuitable to the results No alteration of environment environment interest 1 Exploration model support; Exploration model Extensive previous Deep cover; Generally Indications of prospectivity; support; Indications of exploration with favourable Concept validated Prospectivity; Concept encouraging results; lithology/alteration validated Regional targets (70%) 1.5 Reconnaissance (rotary air Exploratory sampling Several early stage Shallow cover; blast/air-core) drilling with with encouragement targets outlined from Generally favourable some scattered favourable geochemistry and lithology/alteration results; Minor workings geophysics (50% to 60%) 2 Several old workings; Several old workings; Several well-defined Exposed favourable; Significant RCP drilling reconnaissance drilling targets supported by Lithology/alteration leading to advanced project or RCP drilling with recon drilling data encouraging intersections 2.5 Abundant workings; Grid Abundant workings; Several well-defined Strongly favourable drilling with encouraging Core drilling after RCP targets with lithology, alteration results on adjacent sections with encouragement encouraging drilling results 3 Mineral Resource areas Advanced resource Several significant sub- Generally favourable defined definition drilling (early economic targets; No lithology with stages) indication of “size” structures along strike of a major mine; Very prospective geology 3.5 Abundant workings/mines Abundant Several significant sub- with significant historical workings/mines with economic targets; production; Adjacent to significant historical Potential for significant known mineralisation at production; Mineral “size”; Early stage Prefeasibility Study stage Resource areas defined drilling 4 Along strike or adjacent to Adjacent to known Marginally economic Resources at Definitive mineralisation at targets of significant Feasibility Study stage Prefeasibility Study “size” advanced drilling stage 4.5 Adjacent to development Along strike or adjacent Marginal economic stage project to Resources at targets of significant Definitive Feasibility “size” with well drilled Study stage Inferred Resources 5 Along strike from operating Adjacent to development Several significant ore major mine(s) stage project grade co-relatable intersections

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 317 129

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

The Basic Acquisition Cost (BAC) is an important input to the Geoscientific Factor method and it is calculated by summing the application fees, annual rent, work required to facilitate granting (e.g. native title, environmental etc.) and statutory expenditure for a period of 12 months. Each factor is then multiplied serially by the BAC to establish the overall technical value of each mineral property. A fifth factor, the market factor, is then multiplied by the technical value to arrive at the fair market value.

Yardstick The Rule-of-Thumb (Yardstick) method is relevant to exploration properties where some data on tonnage and grade exist may be valued by methods that employ the concept of an arbitrarily ascribed current in situ net value to any Ore Reserves (or Mineral Resources) outlined within the tenement (Lawrence 2001, 2012). Rules-of-Thumb (Yardstick) methods are commonly used where a Mineral Resource remains is in the Inferred category and available technical/economic information is limited. This approach ascribes a heavily discounted in situ value to the Resources, based upon a subjective estimate of the future profit or net value (say per tonne of ore) to derive a rule-of-thumb. This Yardstick multiplier factor applied to the Resources delineated (depending upon category) varies depending on the commodity. Typically, a range from 0.4% to 3% is used for base metals and PGM, whereas for gold and diamonds a range of 2% to 4.5% is used. The method estimates the in situ gross metal content value of the mineralisation delineated (using the spot metal price and appropriate metal equivalents for polymetallic mineralisation as at the valuation date). The chosen percentage is based upon the valuer’s risk assessment of the assigned JORC Code’s Mineral Resource category, the commodity’s likely extraction and treatment costs, availability/proximity of transport and other infrastructure (particularly a suitable processing facility), physiography and maturity of the mineral field, as well as the depth of the potential mining operation.

Income The Income Approach is relevant to exploration properties on which undeveloped Mineral Resources have been identified by drilling. Value can be derived with a reasonable degree of confidence by forecasting the cash flows that would accrue from mining the deposit, discounting to the present day and determining a net present value (NPV). The Income Approach is not appropriate for properties without Mineral Resources.

Valuation Approaches by Asset Stage Regardless of the technical application of various valuation methods and guidelines, the valuer should strive to adequately reflect the carefully considered risks and potentials of the various projects in the valuation ranges and the preferred values, with the overriding objective of determining the “fair market value”. Table 54 below shows the valuation approaches that are generally considered appropriate to apply to each type of mineral property. Table 54: Valuation approaches for different types of mineral properties (VALMIN, 2015) Exploration Mineral Resource Development Production Valuation approach properties properties properties properties Income No In some cases Yes Yes Market Yes Yes Yes Yes Cost Yes In some cases No No

Valuation Bibliography AusIMM (1998): "VALMIN 94 – Mineral Valuation Methodologies". Conference Proceedings.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 318 130

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

AusIMM (2012): “VALMIN Seminar Series 2011-12”. Conference Proceedings, 161pp. CIMVAL (2003). Standards and Guidelines for Valuation of Mineral Properties. Goulevitch, J and Eupene, G. (1994): “Geoscience Rating for Valuation of Exploration Properties- Applicability of the Kilburn Method in Australia and Examples of its Use in the NT”. Mineral Valuation Methodologies Conference, Sydney 27-28 October 1994. AusIMM. pp 175-189. Gregg, L. T. and Pickering, S.M. Jr (2007). Methods for Valuing Previous Exploration Programs During Consideration of Prospective Mineral Ventures in 42nd Industrial Minerals Forum in Asheville, NC. Kilburn, L.C. (1990) “Valuation of Mineral Properties which do not contain Exploitable Reserves” CIM Bulletin, August1990 . Lawrence, R.D. (2000). Valuation of Mineral Properties Without Mineral Resources: A Review of Market-Based Approaches in Special Session on Valuation of Mineral Properties, Mining Millennium 2000, Toronto, Canada. Lawrence, M. (2001). An Outline of Market-based Approaches for Mineral Asset Valuation Best Practice. Proceedings VAMIN 2001 – Mineral Asset Valuation Issues for the Next Millennium. Pp115-137.AusIMM. Lawrence, M. (2011). Considerations in Valuing Inferred Resources. VALMIN Seminar Series 2012. AusIMM. P93–102. Onley, P.G. (2004). Multiples of Exploration Expenditure as a Basis for Mineral Property Valuation. In Mineral Valuation Methodologies Conference. AusIMM. pp191–197. Thompson, I.S. (2000) A critique of Valuation Methods for Exploration Properties and Undeveloped Mineral Resources in Special Session on Valuation of Mineral Properties, Mining Millennium 2000, Toronto, Canada. VALMIN Committee, 2015, “Code for the Technical Assessment and Valuation of Mineral and Petroleum Assets and Securities for Independent Expert Reports”, 2015 edition.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 319 131

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Appendix 2: Summary Tenement Schedule

Table 55: Company Codes used in tenement schedule Code Company Code Company Code Company ATLA Atlas Iron Limited BEGL Beckton Gledhill Pty Ltd VENT Venture Minerals Ltd PIML Pilbara Mines Limited BBIG BBI Group Pty Ltd PROM Prometheus Mining Pty Ltd GSAN Great Sandy Pty Ltd NRAN Novarange Pty Ltd MRES Mineral Resources Ltd KALA Kalamazoo Resources Ltd EMPR Empire Resources Limited

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 320

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 132

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

ATLAS IRON LIMITED - TENEMENT SCHEDULE AS AT 30/06/2018 MANAGED LIVE TENEMENTS Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Comments ID Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount

E08/1712 LIVE WA *ATLA ANTHIBY WELL GIRA 100 15 SB 8/10/2007 18/09/2006 7/10/2019 $0 $8,505 IRON ORE; SIPA CAVEAT; RETENTION STATUS GRANTED E45/2363 LIVE WA *ALTL PILGANGOORA ALTL 100 24 SB 1/05/2006 22/11/2001 30/04/2019 $72,000 $13,608 OLD ACT; IRON ORE; EXCESS TONNAGE; E45/2612 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS GIRA 100 12 SB 22/02/2017 26/03/2004 21/02/2022 $20,000 $1,632 OLD ACT;Iron Ore Rights Granted - 26/6/17

E45/2728 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS DYNA 100 66 SB 24/04/2006 2/03/2005 23/04/2018 $198,000 $37,422 OLD ACT; IRON ORE; ATLAS CAVEAT; EXCESS TONNAGE; ATLA HAVE FE RIGHTS; FMG Application for Forfeiture; NT AD CLOSE AMALG 4/2/18 EoT has been lodged E45/2922 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER GIRA 75 HAOM 25 19 SB 10/07/2008 14/06/2006 9/07/2018 $70,000 $10,773 IRON ORE; Extension of Term applied for E45/3298 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 2 SB 20/08/2009 18/08/2008 19/08/2019 $50,000 $1,134 IRON ORE; E45/3320 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 9 SB 21/01/2011 10/10/2008 20/01/2021 $70,000 $5,103 IRON ORE; ADELAIDE PROSPECTING CONSENT CAVEAT; E45/3321 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 22 SB 21/01/2011 10/10/2008 20/01/2021 $70,000 $12,474 IRON ORE; ADELAIDE PROSPECTING CONSENT CAVEAT; E45/3511 LIVE WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 8 SB 4/06/2013 9/09/2009 3/06/2018 $30,000 $2,400 IRON ORE; Extension of Term applied for E45/3601 LIVE WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 2 SB 30/03/2011 23/12/2009 29/03/2021 $0 $1,134 IRON ORE RIGHTS; RETENTION STATUS E45/3619 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 4 SB 26/10/2010 5/02/2010 25/10/2020 $50,000 $2,268 IRON ORE; E45/3662 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS IBRI 100 1 SB 6/04/2011 12/04/2010 5/04/2021 $20,000 $341 IRON ORE E45/3858 LIVE WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 16 SB 29/10/2012 15/02/2011 28/10/2022 $50,000 $4,800 UNSURE OF INTEREST E45/4029 LIVE WA *ATLA HILLSIDE SHEF 100 9 SB 31/10/2012 2/03/2012 30/10/2022 $50,000 $2,700 NA E45/4269 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 2 SB 9/04/2014 18/09/2013 8/04/2019 $20,000 $600 IRON ORE E45/4311 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 66 SB 6/10/2014 8/11/2013 5/10/2019 $99,000 $14,520 IRON ORE E45/4351 LIVE WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 1 SB 14/08/2014 17/01/2014 13/08/2019 $10,000 $341 IRON ORE RIGHTS E45/4386 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 16 SB 17/11/2014 17/04/2014 16/11/2019 $30,000 $3,520 VPS COMPLIED; E45/4393 LIVE WA *ATLA MCPHEE CREEK ATLA 100 1 SB 2/12/2014 7/05/2014 1/12/2019 $10,000 $220 E45/4517 LIVE WA *ATLA WODGINA ATLA 100 3 SB 7/09/2015 28/01/2015 6/09/2020 $15,000 $660 NA E45/4540 LIVE WA *ATLA BLACK RANGE ATLA 100 42 SB 19/10/2015 10/03/2015 18/10/2020 $42,000 $9,240 iron ore E45/4572 LIVE WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 8 SB 21/01/2016 29/05/2015 20/01/2021 $20,000 $1,760 NA E45/4593 LIVE WA *ATLA HILLSIDE ATLA 100 49 SB 17/02/2016 26/06/2015 16/02/2021 $49,000 $10,780 NA E45/4595 LIVE WA *ATLA HILLSIDE ATLA 100 25 SB 24/02/2016 26/06/2015 23/02/2021 $25,000 $5,500 E45/4596 LIVE WA *ATLA HILLSIDE ATLA 100 9 SB 24/02/2016 26/06/2015 23/02/2021 $20,000 $1,980 NA E45/4639 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 7 SB 20/10/2016 20/10/2015 19/10/2021 $20,000 $952 HILL 50 CONSENT CAVEAT

E45/4643 LIVE WA *ATLA COONGAN ATLA 100 5 SB 1/07/2016 29/10/2015 30/06/2021 $15,000 $1,100

E45/4658 LIVE WA *ATLA HILLSIDE ATLA 100 62 SB 15/07/2016 7/12/2015 14/07/2021 $62,000 $8,432

E45/4670 LIVE WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 1 SB 20/10/2016 15/12/2015 19/10/2021 $10,000 $341 NA E45/4672 LIVE WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 11 SB 20/10/2016 17/12/2015 19/10/2021 $20,000 $1,496 NA

E45/4696 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 17 SB 24/10/2016 5/02/2016 23/10/2021 $20,000 $2,312 NA

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 321 E45/4734 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 31 SB 30/11/2016 6/04/2016 29/11/2021 $31,000 $4,216 NA E45/4774 LIVE WA *ATLA MARBLE BAR ATLA 100 1 SB 2/05/2018 12/05/2016 1/05/2023 $10,000 $341 E45/4841 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 3 SB 3/07/2017 11/10/2016 2/07/2022 $15,000 $408 E45/4875 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 16 SB 11/10/2017 15/02/2017 10/10/2022 $20,000 $2,176 E45/4888 LIVE WA *ATLA EGINBAH ATLA 100 70 SB 18/10/2017 24/02/2017 17/10/2022 $70,000 $9,520 Amalg lodged 9/11/17; NT AD CLOSE AMALG 24/5/18 E45/4889 LIVE WA *ATLA EGINBAH ATLA 100 36 SB 18/10/2017 24/02/2017 17/10/2022 $36,000 $4,896 E45/4900 LIVE WA *ATLA EGINBAH ATLA 100 3 SB 6/11/2017 17/03/2017 5/11/2022 $15,000 $408 E45/4950 LIVE WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 8 SB 8/02/2018 28/06/2017 7/02/2023 $20,000 $1,088 E45/4952 LIVE WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 3 SB 8/02/2018 29/06/2017 7/02/2023 $15,000 $408 E46/0802 LIVE WA *ATLA MCPHEE CREEK GIRA 100 7 SB 15/02/2010 3/10/2008 14/02/2020 $70,000 $3,969 NA E46/0803 LIVE WA *ATLA MCPHEE CREEK ATLA 100 34 SB 20/01/2011 10/10/2008 19/01/2021 $102,000 $19,278 VPS COMPLIED; IRON ORE; ADELAIDE PROSPECTING CONSENT CAVEAT E46/1065 LIVE WA *ATLA MCPHEE CREEK ATLA 100 5 SB 7/09/2015 28/01/2015 6/09/2020 $15,000 $1,100 NA E46/1094 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 14 SB 1/07/2016 13/11/2015 30/06/2021 $20,000 $3,080

E46/1129 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 3 SB 21/10/2016 6/04/2016 20/10/2021 $15,000 $408 NA E47/2052 LIVE WA *ATLA HICKMAN ATLA 100 9 SB 3/02/2010 3/04/2009 2/02/2020 $0 $5,103 IRON ORE; EXCESS TONNAGE; RETENTION STATUS GRANTED E47/2053 LIVE WA *ATLA HICKMAN ATLA 100 3 SB 3/02/2010 3/04/2009 2/02/2020 $50,000 $1,701 IRON ORE; E47/2054 LIVE WA *ATLA HICKMAN ATLA 100 2 SB 3/02/2010 3/04/2009 2/02/2020 $0 $1,134 IRON ORE; RETENTION STATUS GRANTED

E52/1658 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 21 SB 25/08/2005 26/08/2002 24/08/2018 $70,000 $11,907 OLD ACT; PT CONV TO M52/1055; OVER U & B RESERVE; EXCESS TONNAGE; IRON ORE RIGHTS; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY CONSENT CAVEAT & MORTGAGE E52/1772 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR WARW 100 2 SB 29/09/2005 6/05/2004 28/09/2018 $50,000 $1,134 OLD ACT; IRON ORE;

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 133

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Comments ID Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount

E52/2160 LIVE WA *ATLA WESTERN CREEK WARW 100 4 SB 13/10/2008 30/10/2007 12/10/2018 $0 $2,268 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY CONSENT CAVEAT & MORTGAGE; RETENTION STATUS GRANTED E52/2300 LIVE WA *ATLA WESTERN CREEK WARW 100 1 SB 4/08/2009 25/11/2008 3/08/2019 $0 $341 IRON ORE; RETENTION STATUS E52/2303 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR WARW 100 3 SB 2/11/2009 25/11/2008 1/11/2019 $0 $1,701 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; RETENTION STATUS E52/3306 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR EAST WARW 100 6 SB 6/04/2016 18/06/2015 5/04/2021 $0 $1,320 RETENTION STATUS E52/3480 LIVE WA *ATLA NEDS CREEK ATLA 100 8 SB 12/03/2018 18/10/2016 11/03/2023 $20,000 $1,088 E52/3524 LIVE WA *ATLA KOONDRA ATLA 100 11 SB 18/10/2017 22/02/2017 17/10/2022 $20,000 $1,496 G45/0273 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 78.445 HA 12/10/2007 6/02/2006 11/10/2028 $0 $1,304 SV 78.445HA; OVER E45/2330 G45/0315 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 94.99 HA 9/07/2010 14/10/2009 8/07/2031 $0 $1,568 SV 94.99HA; OVER PT E45/2330 G45/0339 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 49 HA 16/11/2016 21/07/2016 15/11/2037 $0 $809 NA G52/0281 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 60.53 HA 23/04/2009 14/12/2007 22/04/2030 $0 $1,007 NA L45/0154 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 526 HA 24/11/2006 26/09/2006 23/11/2027 $0 $8,679 KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE L45/0175 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 20 HA 13/06/2008 20/11/2007 12/06/2029 $0 $330 NA L45/0176 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 22 HA 13/06/2008 20/11/2007 12/06/2029 $0 $363 NA L45/0202 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 186 HA 15/05/2009 10/10/2008 14/05/2030 $0 $3,069 KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY SERVICES MORTGAGE L45/0204 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLO 100 561 HA 30/10/2009 24/11/2008 29/10/2030 $0 $9,257 NA L45/0207 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 46 HA 27/11/2009 25/02/2009 26/11/2030 $0 $759 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY SERVICES MORTGAGE L45/0209 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 26 HA 18/12/2009 20/05/2009 17/12/2030 $0 $429 NA L45/0210 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 15 HA 18/12/2009 20/05/2009 17/12/2030 $0 $248 NA L45/0248 LIVE WA *ATLA MT DOVE ATLA 100 383 HA 1/02/2012 18/11/2010 31/01/2033 $0 $6,320 KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY SERVICES MORTGAGE L45/0280 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 316 HA 13/11/2012 22/02/2012 12/11/2033 $0 $5,214 NA L45/0284 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLO 100 789 HA 5/12/2012 11/04/2012 4/12/2033 $0 $13,019 NA L45/0285 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLO 100 838 HA 13/11/2012 11/04/2012 12/11/2033 $0 $13,827 NA L45/0369 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 59 HA 20/02/2015 15/10/2014 19/02/2036 $0 $974 NA L45/0371 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 127 HA 8/07/2015 28/11/2014 7/07/2036 $0 $2,096 NA L45/0372 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 33 HA 9/07/2015 28/11/2014 8/07/2036 $0 $545 NA L45/0394 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 15 HA 21/04/2016 13/10/2015 20/04/2037 $0 $248 NA L45/0395 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 11 HA 18/07/2016 27/10/2015 17/07/2037 $0 $182 NA L45/0405 LIVE WA *ATLA SHAW RIVER ATLA 100 144 HA 9/11/2016 13/07/2016 8/11/2037 $0 $2,376 L45/0406 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS WEST ATLA 100 425 HA 9/11/2016 15/07/2016 8/11/2037 $0 $7,013 NA L45/0407 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS EAST ATLA 100 115 HA 9/11/2016 19/07/2016 8/11/2037 $0 $1,898 NA L45/0408 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS EAST ATLA 100 140 HA 9/11/2016 20/07/2016 8/11/2037 $0 $2,310 NA L45/0410 LIVE WA *ATLA CHECK ATLA 100 702 HA 9/11/2016 29/07/2016 8/11/2037 $0 $11,583 NA L45/0418 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 68 HA 23/01/2017 20/10/2016 22/01/2038 $0 $1,122 NA L45/0427 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 82 HA 2/08/2017 9/02/2017 1/08/2038 $0 $1,353 L52/0103 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 72 HA 11/11/2008 14/12/2007 10/11/2029 $0 $1,188 NA L52/0105 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 163 HA 11/11/2008 14/12/2007 10/11/2029 $0 $2,690 NA Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 322 L52/0131 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 663 HA 12/08/2011 9/03/2011 11/08/2032 $0 $10,940 NA M45/0932 LIVE WA *ATLA WODGINA ATLA 100 30 HA 18/09/2012 22/06/2000 17/09/2033 $10,000 $561 IRON ORE RIGHTS; KARIYARRA CAVEAT

M45/1157 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 224.55 HA 2/10/2007 6/02/2006 1/10/2028 $22,500 $4,208 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; WANPARTA SUBJECT TO CLAIM CAVEAT;

M45/1158 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 730.15 HA 2/10/2007 6/02/2006 1/10/2028 $73,100 $13,670 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; WANPARTA SUBJECT TO CLAIM CAVEAT;

M45/1159 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 42.165 HA 2/10/2007 6/02/2006 1/10/2028 $10,000 $804 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; WANPARTA SUBJECT TO CLAIM CAVEAT; M45/1170 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 152.6 HA 28/08/2008 26/09/2006 27/08/2029 $15,300 $2,861 IRON ORE; SHAW RIVER CAVEAT M45/1179 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLO 100 1727 HA 9/07/2010 24/11/2008 8/07/2031 $172,700 $32,295 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; NJAMAL CONSENT CAVEAT; M45/1190 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 12.445 HA 25/11/2009 19/05/2009 24/11/2030 $10,000 $243 SV 12.445HA; IRON ORE; M45/1191 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 6.48 HA 25/11/2009 19/05/2009 24/11/2030 $10,000 $131 SV 6.48HA; IRON ORE; M45/1194 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 168.4 HA 9/07/2010 14/10/2009 8/07/2031 $16,900 $3,160 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE

M45/1197 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER GIRA 100 1593.5 HA 26/06/2012 30/04/2010 25/06/2033 $159,400 $29,808 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; NJAMAL CONSENT CAVEAT; 2 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGEs M45/1209 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 1911.5 HA 14/08/2012 7/07/2010 13/08/2033 $191,200 $35,754 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; 2 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGES; NJAMAL CAVEAT M45/1231 LIVE WA *ALTL PILGANGOORA ALTL 100 43.635 HA 26/08/2016 1/11/2012 25/08/2037 $10,000 $823 ATLAS CAVEAT M45/1241 LIVE WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 32 HA 29/10/2013 1/05/2013 28/10/2034 $10,000 $598 NJAMAL CAVEAT; GAMW CAVEAT; ; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY CAVEAT; MRES CAVEAT M45/1243 LIVE WA *ATLA MCPHEE CREEK GIRA 100 6379 HA 28/04/2014 23/08/2013 27/04/2035 $637,900 $119,287 IRON ORE; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE; NJAMAL CAVEAT M45/1257 LIVE WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 16443 HA 27/05/2016 25/09/2015 26/05/2037 $1,644,300 $307,484 4 ADELAIDE PROSPECTING CAVEATS; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY CAVEAT M47/1449 LIVE WA *ATLA MT DOVE ATLO 100 2944.5 HA 9/08/2011 6/07/2010 8/08/2032 $294,500 $55,072 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 134

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Comments ID Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount

M52/0211 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR WARW 100 148.45 HA 11/09/1990 18/04/1990 10/09/2032 $14,900 $2,786 NA M52/0790 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR WARW 100 412.2 HA 26/03/2004 5/06/2002 25/03/2025 $41,300 $7,723 SV 412.2HA; M52/1034 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 998.85 HA 23/04/2009 7/02/2006 22/04/2030 $99,900 $18,681 IRON ORE RIGHTS; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE M52/1043 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 999 HA 22/09/2010 21/04/2008 21/09/2031 $99,900 $18,681 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE P45/2822 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 101 HA 23/11/2012 12/01/2012 22/11/2020 $4,040 $278 NA P45/2972 LIVE WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLO 100 49 HA 24/09/2015 12/02/2015 23/09/2019 $2,000 $135 NA R45/0003 LIVE WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 2867 HA 18/07/2017 5/06/2015 17/07/2022 $0 $23,509 CONV E45/2330; R45/0005 LIVE WA *ATLA PINCUNAH HILL DYNA 100 607 HA 28/07/2017 30/11/2015 27/07/2019 $0 $4,977 Atlas caveat R51/0002 LIVE WA *ATLA BEEBYN GIRA 100 3432 HA 19/05/2017 29/01/2016 18/05/2019 $0 $28,142 R52/0002 LIVE WA *ATLA WESTERN CREEK GIRA 100 950 HA 2/08/2016 5/05/2015 1/08/2021 $0 $7,790 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE R52/0003 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG SEPA 100 5977 HA 9/12/2016 23/06/2015 8/12/2021 $0 $49,011 NA R52/0004 LIVE WA *ATLA WESTERN CREEK GIRA 100 493 HA 2/08/2016 21/07/2015 1/08/2021 $0 $4,043 conv of e52/1912; R52/0005 LIVE WA *ATLA JIMBLEBAR WARW 100 3778 HA 1/11/2016 4/08/2015 31/10/2018 $0 $30,980 NA R52/0006 LIVE WA *ATLA WARRAWANDA WARW 100 3457 HA 1/11/2016 10/08/2015 31/10/2018 $0 $28,347 NA R52/0008 LIVE WA *ATLA JIGALONG AMAN 100 6199 HA 28/07/2017 29/11/2016 27/07/2020 $0 $50,832 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY MORTGAGE

MANAGED APPLICATIONS Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Id Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount Comments E08/2928 PENDING WA *ATLA CHEELA PLAINS ATLA 100 10 SB 14/06/2017 $20,000 $1,360 NT AD CLOSE 18/12/17 E45/4877 PENDING WA *ATLA CORUNNA DOWNS ATLA 100 27 SB 15/02/2017 $27,000 $3,672 2nd in time to Sayona; NT AD CLOSE 27/10/2018 E45/4974 PENDING WA *ATLA STRELLEY ATLA 100 8 SB 10/08/2017 $20,000 $1,088 E45/4979 PENDING WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 11 SB 22/08/2017 $20,000 $1,496 over Mt Webber M45/1197 & 1209, insurance due to High Court decision E45/4987 PENDING WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 35 SB 23/08/2017 $35,000 $4,760 E45/5010 PENDING WA *ATLA PARDOO ATLA 100 5 SB 13/09/2017 $15,000 $680 over M45/1190, 1191, 1194 - High court protection E45/5011 PENDING WA *ATLA ABYDOS ATLA 100 8 SB 13/09/2017 $20,000 $1,088 E45/5048 PENDING WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 58 SB 16/10/2017 $58,000 $7,888 E45/5113 PENDING WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 1 SB 28/11/2017 $10,000 $341 NT AD CLOSE 21/7/18 E45/5114 PENDING WA *ATLA PANORAMA ATLA 100 1 SB 28/11/2017 $10,000 $341 NT AD CLOSE 21/7/18 E45/5163 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY SGMA 100 4 SB 17/01/2018 $15,000 $544 NT AD CLOSE 29/7/18 E45/5164 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY SGMA 100 7 SB 17/01/2018 $20,000 $952 E45/5165 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY SGMA 100 7 SB 17/01/2018 $20,000 $952 NT AD CLOSE 11/9/18 E45/5169 PENDING WA *ATLA STRELLEY ATLA 100 4 SB 19/01/2018 $15,000 $544 E45/5174 PENDING WA *ATLA MT TINSTONE ATLA 100 2 SB 14/02/2018 $15,000 $272 E45/5202 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY ATLA 100 4 SB 3/04/2018 $15,000 $544 Ballot of 2 E45/5203 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY ATLA 100 1 SB 3/04/2018 $10,000 $341 E45/5204 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY ATLA 100 1 SB 3/04/2018 $10,000 $341 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 323 E45/5205 PENDING WA *ATLA DE GREY ATLA 100 1 SB 3/04/2018 $10,000 $341 E45/5232 PENDING WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 7 SB 4/05/2018 $20,000 $952 E47/3785 PENDING WA *ATLA MT DOVE ATLA 100 6 SB 22/08/2017 $20,000 $816 over M47/1449; insurance in relation to High Court decision P45/3043 PENDING WA *ATLA MT WEBBER ATLA 100 50 HA 22/08/2017 $2,000 $138 Over Mt Webber as insurance from High Court decision P45/3044 PENDING WA *ATLA FARRELL'S WELL ATLA 100 26 HA 23/08/2017 $2,000 $72 GDA GAP; NT AD CLOSE 21/6/18 P45/3048 PENDING WA *ATLA MT DOVE ATLA 100 35 HA 8/09/2017 $2,000 $96 OVER M47/1449 due to High Court decision P45/3059 PENDING WA *ATLA EGINBAH ATLA 100 27 HA 10/11/2017 $2,000 $74 NT AD CLOSE 30/9/18

NON-MANAGED GRANTED TENEMENTS Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Id Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount Comments E45/4270 LIVE WA PIML WODGINA ATLA 49 PIML 51 22 SB 17/06/2014 20/09/2013 16/06/2019 $33,000 $6,600 IRON ORE; NO MINING ON RESERVE E45/4704 LIVE WA BEGL MCPHEE CREEK ROYALTY BEGL 100 25 SB 5/07/2017 15/02/2016 4/07/2022 $25,000 $3,400 NA E45/4706 LIVE WA BEGL MCPHEE CREEK ROYALTY BEGL 100 17 SB 2/08/2017 25/02/2016 1/08/2022 $20,000 $2,312 NA E46/0732 LIVE WA GSAN MCPHEE CREEK GIRA 100 25 SB 1/02/2008 18/09/2006 31/01/2020 $75,000 $14,175 IRON ORE; E46/1066 LIVE WA GSAN MCPHEE CREEK ATLA 100 13 SB 7/09/2015 28/01/2015 6/09/2020 $20,000 $2,860 NA E47/1743 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 1 SB 24/02/2014 26/07/2006 23/02/2019 $10,000 $341 PRIORITY 1; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT E47/1744 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 26 SB 24/02/2014 26/07/2006 23/02/2019 $39,000 $7,800 COVERED BY L47/57 (GRANTED FERR); BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT E47/1829 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 4 SB 30/03/2012 22/08/2007 29/03/2022 $30,000 $2,268 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT E47/2225 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 3 SB 27/12/2012 22/12/2009 26/12/2022 $30,000 $900 REC FOR SURRENDER; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT E47/2251 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 17 SB 2/04/2014 28/01/2010 1/04/2019 $30,000 $5,100 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT; AMALG 23/5/16 E47/2382 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 52 SB 2/04/2014 29/06/2010 1/04/2019 $78,000 $15,600 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 135

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Id Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount Comments E52/2056 LIVE WA KALA CORKTREE GIRA 100 20 SB 19/09/2008 2/02/2007 18/09/2018 $70,000 $11,340 KALAMAZOO CAVEAT E52/2057 LIVE WA KALA CORKTREE GIRA 100 20 SB 19/09/2008 2/02/2007 18/09/2018 $70,000 $11,340 KALAMAZOO CAVEAT E57/0681 LIVE WA EMPR YUINMERY GIRA 100 8 SB 5/06/2008 21/12/2006 4/06/2020 $70,000 $4,536 NA

E70/2733 LIVE WA #NRAN YERECOIN NRAN 100 11 SB 5/12/2005 12/11/2004 4/12/2018 $70,000 $6,237 OLD ACT; IRON ORE; PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDED; GIRALIA CAVEAT; EOT REC FOR REFUSAL 27/3/17 E70/2784 LIVE WA #NRAN YERECOIN NRAN 100 25 SB 15/11/2006 2/05/2005 14/11/2018 $75,000 $14,175 OLD ACT; IRON ORE; PRIVATE PROPERTY INCLUDED; GIRALIA CAVEAT; G45/0290 LIVE WA #ATLA WODGINA WODL 100 9.945 HA 22/01/2010 14/07/2009 21/01/2031 $0 $165 SV 9.945HA; OVER E45/2175; GAMW CONSENT CAVEAT; ACN 611488932 CAVEAT G45/0291 LIVE WA #ATLA WODGINA WODL 100 9.677 HA 22/01/2010 14/07/2009 21/01/2031 $0 $165 SV 9.945HA; OVER E45/2175; GAMW CONSENT CAVEAT; ACN 611488932 CAVEAT G45/0321 LIVE WA #ATLA WODGINA WODL 100 296.55 HA 5/10/2011 7/07/2010 4/10/2032 $0 $4,901 sv 296.55HA; ; GAMW CONSENT CAVEAT; ACN 611488932 CAVEAT G47/1229 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 1036 HA 29/01/2007 16/12/2005 28/01/2028 $0 $17,094 SV 1036HA; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; G47/1230 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 15 HA 15/09/2014 14/09/2006 14/09/2035 $0 $248 PRIORITY 1; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT G47/1231 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 10 HA 24/09/2014 14/09/2006 23/09/2035 $0 $165 PRIORITY 1; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT G47/1234 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 38 HA 15/09/2014 15/04/2008 14/09/2035 $0 $627 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT G47/1238 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 40 HA 20/05/2010 4/09/2009 19/05/2031 $0 $660 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L45/0188 LIVE WA VENT ABYDOS VENT 100 57 HA 20/11/2009 5/03/2008 19/11/2030 $0 $941 ATLAS CAVEAT; L45/0189 LIVE WA VENT ABYDOS VENT 100 1808 HA 20/11/2009 5/03/2008 19/11/2030 $0 $29,832 ATLAS CAVEAT; L45/0287 LIVE WA VENT ABYDOS VENT 100 117 HA 28/09/2012 23/04/2012 27/09/2033 $0 $1,931 ATLAS CAVEAT; L47/0057 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 8317 HA 3/03/2000 14/01/1999 2/03/2021 $0 $4,159 SEARCH FOR GROUNDWATER; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; L47/0168 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 53 HA 31/07/2006 16/12/2005 30/07/2027 $0 $875 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0171 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 18 HA 31/07/2006 20/01/2006 30/07/2027 $0 $297 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0174 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 5 HA 1/11/2007 14/09/2006 31/10/2028 $0 $83 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0175 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 14 HA 1/11/2007 14/09/2006 31/10/2028 $0 $231 OVER FERRO M47/804; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0229 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 54 HA 20/03/2014 19/12/2007 19/03/2035 $0 $891 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0242 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 32 HA 28/10/2008 30/04/2008 27/10/2029 $0 $528 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0243 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 4 HA 19/03/2014 30/04/2008 18/03/2035 $0 $66 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0244 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 41 HA 28/10/2008 30/04/2008 27/10/2029 $0 $677 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0245 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 29 HA 28/10/2008 30/04/2008 27/10/2029 $0 $479 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0325 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 137406 HA 13/02/2012 23/07/2008 12/02/2033 $0 $68,703 SEARCH FOR GROUNDWATER; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0384 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 24 HA 16/12/2011 16/08/2010 15/12/2032 $0 $396 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT L47/0385 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 12 HA 16/12/2011 16/08/2010 15/12/2032 $0 $198 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT' REC FOR SURRENDER L47/0386 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 6 HA 16/12/2011 16/08/2010 15/12/2032 $0 $99 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT M20/0118 LIVE WA PROM WELD RANGE WRIO 100 109.75 HA 27/10/1988 19/11/1987 26/10/2030 $11,000 $2,057 SV 109.75HA; IRON ORE; UNIMIN AUSTRALIA CAVEAT M36/0162 LIVE WA DRAI KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 82.125 HA 6/11/1989 4/08/1989 5/11/2031 $10,000 $1,552 RAMELIUS CAVEAT

M36/0176 LIVE WA DRAI KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 203.35 HA 4/04/1990 27/12/1989 3/04/2032 $20,400 $3,815 RAMELIUS CAVEAT

M36/0264 LIVE WA *LIOT KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 85.245 HA 28/06/1993 15/02/1993 27/06/2035 $10,000 $1,608 RAMELIUS CAVEAT Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 324 M36/0265 LIVE WA *LIOT KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 103.3 HA 28/06/1993 15/02/1993 27/06/2035 $10,400 $1,945 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0266 LIVE WA DRAI KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 546.35 HA 28/06/1993 15/02/1993 27/06/2035 $54,700 $10,229 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0328 LIVE WA DRAI KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 284.8 HA 4/05/1999 15/09/1994 3/05/2020 $28,500 $5,330 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0365 LIVE WA RAMR KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 21.665 HA 4/05/1999 25/10/1995 3/05/2020 $10,000 $411 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0376 LIVE WA RAMR KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 121.3 HA 4/05/1999 13/02/1996 3/05/2020 $12,200 $2,281 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0441 LIVE WA RAMR KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 679.15 HA 4/05/1999 18/04/1997 3/05/2020 $68,000 $12,716 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0459 LIVE WA *LIOT KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 326.75 HA 4/05/1999 26/09/1997 3/05/2020 $32,700 $6,115 RAMELIUS CAVEAT M36/0460 LIVE WA *LIOT KATHLEEN VALLEY LRLA 100 947.9 HA 4/05/1999 26/09/1997 3/05/2020 $94,800 $17,728 RAMELIUS CAVEAT

M45/1188 LIVE WA #ATLA WODGINA ATLA 100 51.985 HA 12/11/2009 20/02/2009 11/11/2030 $10,000 $972 IRON ORE; KEY TENEMENT; GLOBAL LOAN AGENCy MORTGAGE; KARIYARRA CONSENT CAVEAT; MRES CAVEAT; Seeking clarification from Legal. Atlas undertaking rehab obligations and then handing over to MinRes. Unclear on reporting requirements, currently assuming MinRes.

M45/1252 LIVE WA #ATLA WODGINA GAMW 100 193.8 HA 23/03/2016 19/02/2015 22/03/2037 $19,400 $3,628 GLOBAL LOAN AGENCY CAVEAT; MRES CAVEAT; Seeking clarification from Legal. Atlas undertaking rehab obligations and then handing over to MinRes. Unclear on reporting requirements, currently assuming MinRes. M47/0297 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 348.7 HA 12/08/1992 14/04/1992 11/08/2034 $34,900 $6,526 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; M47/0298 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 393.95 HA 12/08/1992 14/04/1992 11/08/2034 $39,400 $7,368 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; M47/0311 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 273.65 HA 2/02/1993 3/09/1992 1/02/2035 $27,400 $5,124 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; M47/0312 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 154.15 HA 10/02/1993 3/09/1992 9/02/2035 $15,500 $2,899 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; M47/0360 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 530.95 HA 14/06/1995 14/11/1994 13/06/2037 $53,100 $9,930 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; M47/0361 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 134.55 HA 14/06/1995 14/11/1994 13/06/2037 $13,500 $2,525 IRON ORE; BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; BALLA 2 CAVEAT;

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 136

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Tenement Holder1 Holder2 Current Area Grant Application Expiry Expenditure Rent Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder2 Id Shares Shares Area Unit Date Date Date Commitment Amount Comments M47/0541 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 180 HA 30/01/2014 19/07/2002 29/01/2035 $18,000 $3,366 NA M47/0804 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 334.4 HA 24/09/2007 16/12/2005 23/09/2028 $33,500 $6,265 BUTLER CAVEAT; ASHBRIDGE CAVEAT; M51/0338 LIVE WA WANB BEEBYN WANB 96 437.9 HA 31/01/1990 25/08/1989 30/01/2032 $43,800 $8,191 NA M59/0041 LIVE WA KALA SNAKE WELL KALA 100 557.95 HA 15/09/1986 6/06/1986 14/09/2028 $55,800 $10,435 SV 557.95HA; ATLAS ROYALTY M59/0474 LIVE WA KALA SNAKE WELL KALA 100 1000 HA 19/01/2015 21/08/1997 18/01/2036 $100,000 $18,700 ATLAS ROYALTY

M59/0476 LIVE WA KALA SNAKE WELL KALA 100 1000 HA 19/01/2015 21/08/1997 18/01/2036 $100,000 $18,700 AP 19/8/97;CONV OF P59/1240-1245; STATE DEED WITH MULLEWA WADJARI LODGED 6/3/14; stat deed with wajarri Yamatji lodged 29/12/14; ATLAS ROYALTY

M59/0477 LIVE WA KALA SNAKE WELL KALA 100 1000 HA 19/01/2015 21/08/1997 18/01/2036 $100,000 $18,700 AP 19/8/97;CONV OF P59/1246-1251; STATE DEED WITH MULLEWA WADJARI LODGED 6/3/14; stat deed with wajarri Yamatji lodged 29/12/14; ATLAS ROYALTY

M59/0565 LIVE WA KALA SNAKE WELL KALA 100 609.9 HA 19/01/2015 20/05/2002 18/01/2036 $61,000 $11,407 AP 20/5/02; PT CONV OF E59/467; STATE DEED WITH MULLEWA WADJARI LODGED 6/3/14; stat deed with wajarri Yamatji lodged 29/12/14; ATLAS ROYALTY P47/1300 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 129 HA 17/03/2014 6/09/2006 16/03/2022 $5,160 $355 GDA GAP; BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT P47/1437 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 38 HA 29/06/2012 4/06/2008 28/06/2020 $2,000 $105 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT P47/1521 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 109 HA 29/06/2012 17/07/2009 28/06/2020 $4,360 $300 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT P47/1522 LIVE WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FRSW 100 74 HA 29/06/2012 17/07/2009 28/06/2020 $2,960 $204 BALLA 2 CAVEAT; FORGE RESOURCES SWAN CAVEAT R45/0006 LIVE WA #MRES ABYDOS WODL 100 302 HA 10/11/2017 11/02/2016 9/11/2019 $0 $2,476 CONV OF E45/2308

NON-MANAGED APPLICATIONS TenementId Status Jurisdiction Manager Project Holder1 Holder1Shares Holder2 Holder2Shares CurrentArea AreaUnit GrantDate ApplicationDate ExpiryDate F5Date ExpenditureCommitment RentAmount Comments L47/0406 PENDING WA *BBIG BALLA BALLA FERR 100 1306 HA 19/11/2010 $0 $21,549 AP 18/11/10; 7 MINING ACT OBJECTIONS; NT AD CLOSE 9/8/11

QUARTERLY MOVEMENTS SCHEDULE APRIL - JUNE 2018

Application

ClientName Manager Project TenementId AppDate CurrentArea AreaUnit Comments

ATLA *ATLA DE GREY E45/5202 3/04/2018 4 SB Ballot of 2

ATLA *ATLA DE GREY E45/5203 3/04/2018 1 SB

ATLA *ATLA DE GREY E45/5204 3/04/2018 1 SB

ATLA *ATLA DE GREY E45/5205 3/04/2018 1 SB

ATLA *ATLA MT WEBBER E45/5232 4/05/2018 7 SB

Death

ClientName Manager TenementId Project GrantDate Death DeathReason Comments Remarks Status

ATLA *ATLA P45/2775 FARRELL'S WELL 8/04/2011 30/04/2018 Outright_Surrender NA NA DEAD Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 325 ATLA *ATLA P45/2776 FARRELL'S WELL 8/04/2011 30/04/2018 Outright_Surrender NA NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA E45/4340 WESTERN SHAW 27/05/2015 25/05/2018 Outright_Surrender NA NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA E45/4438 MCPHEE CREEK 27/05/2015 25/05/2018 Outright_Surrender NA NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA P45/2901 MT WEBBER 30/05/2014 28/05/2018 Outright_Surrender GDA GAP NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA P45/2902 MT WEBBER 30/05/2014 28/05/2018 Outright_Surrender GDA GAP NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA P45/2903 MT WEBBER 30/05/2014 28/05/2018 Outright_Surrender GDA GAP NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA P45/2904 MT WEBBER 30/05/2014 28/05/2018 Outright_Surrender GDA GAP NA DEAD

ATLA *ATLA E46/0565 MCPHEE CREEK 24/06/2013 18/06/2018 Outright_Surrender OLD ACT NA DEAD

Grant

ClientName Manager Jurisdiction Project TenementId GrantDate ExpiryDate ExpCom CurrentArea AreaUnit Comments

ATLA *ATLA WA MARBLE BAR E45/4774 2/05/2018 1/05/2023 $10,000 1 SB

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 137

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

10 May 2018

Atlas Iron Limited Level 17, 300 Murray Street Perth WA 6000

Attention: Cara Librizzi

Dear Cara

ATLAS IRON LIMITED - TENURE REVIEW

On 24 April 2018 and 10 May 2018, McMahon Mining Title Services (MMTS) reviewed the Tenements on the enclosed Tenure List (Tenements), by reference to publicly available government databases.

MMTS confirms that based on publicly available information:

Atlas Iron Limited or a subsidiary of Atlas Iron Ltd is the registered holder or joint holder of each of the Tenements; The Tenements are current; The Tenements are in good standing, with the exception of E45/4517-I which is in Fair standing

The enclosed Tenure List outlines:

Tenement Details (Tenement, Status and Holder) Tenure area Expiry and renewal dates Expenditure commitments, rents and rates and security bonds Registered encumbrances (caveats, mortgages and tax memorials) Expenditure reporting status, rent payment status, expenditure history and standing

This letter and the information in the enclosed schedule is accurate as at 10 May 2018.

Yours sincerely

Shannon McMahon Principal McMahon Mining Title Services Pty Ltd

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 326 138

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Appendix 3: Comparative Transactions

Table 56: Comparative WA DSO iron ore transactions Iron ore Date Transaction Project price Buyer Seller Transaction details Comment announced (US$/t) In March 2016, Todd made an unconditional cash offer of A$0.013/share to acquire all the ordinary shares in Flinders. The offer Todd Todd Pilbara Iron Flinders Mines applied to the 81.59% interest in Flinders that Todd did not already acquisition of Mar-16 55.52 Corporation Ore Limited control, and was valued at A$31 million. Todd increased the offer to Flinders Limited A$0.025/share in May 2016, valuing Flinders at A$73.8 million. The Flinders Board unanimously supported the improved offer. In December 2013, Mount Gibson announced an agreement to Mount acquire the iron ore rights to the Shine project for A$15 million in Gibson Mount Gibson Gindalbie cash and trailing royalty. An initial payment of A$12 million followed Deal completed when iron ore price Shine Dec-13 135.79 acquisition of Iron Limited Metals Ltd by the remaining A$3 million at commencement of mining. The was very high. Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 327 Shine Royalty provides that Gindalbie will receive 20c in the dollar for every dollar above A$115 for Platts 62% Fe, per tonne sold. Todd option Todd paid an option payment of A$10 million to secure the exclusive Todd to purchase Pilbara Iron Flinders Mines option to acquire 100% of the project, valid until 31 December 2016. Mar-15 56.94 Corporation Pilbara Iron Ore Limited On electing to exercise the option to purchase, Todd would need to Limited Ore Project pay a further A$55 million, as well as a production royalty. In August 2015, Cullen agreed to sell its 49% interest in the group of Wyloo Iron licences to FMG for: A$50,000 cash at completion, A$900,000 cash Cullen Cullen Ore Rights Fortescue on any decision to extract iron ore on a commercial basis on any part Contingent payments not divestment of Aug-15 55.38 Resources Joint Metals Group of the land the subject of the Royalty Tenements, and a Royalty of considered. Wyloo Limited Venture 1.5% of Gross Revenue on up to 15 Mt of any iron ore produced from the land the subject of the Royalty Tenements. API In December 2017, Helix announced the sale of its diluting 14% Helix Management Helix Resources interest in the Yalleen Iron Ore Project to joint venture partner, API divestment of Yalleen Dec-17 71.28 Proprietary Limited Management for A$0.5 million cash and an uncapped 1% FOB royalty Yalleen Limited on any iron ore produced from the Yalleen Tenement Area. In November 2017, Brockman announced a non-binding agreement Todd Todd farm-in Brockman whereby Todd Corporation subsidiary BBIG could earn a 50% interest Marillana Nov-17 63.21 Corporation to Marillana Mining Limited in the Marillana Project by sole funding a DFS within three years, Limited with BBIG to sole fund up to A$10 million.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 139

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Iron ore Date Transaction Project price Buyer Seller Transaction details Comment announced (US$/t) In August 2017, Riva announced that it had sold the Pilbara Iron WA Iron Pilbara Iron WA Iron Ore Riva Resources Project-Rocklea to WA Iron Ore Pty Ltd for A$150,000 cash and a 1% acquisition of Project - Aug-17 75.06 Pty Ltd Limited royalty on the FOB revenue of any iron ore mined from the project Pilbara Rocklea and sold or otherwise disposed of by the buyer. In November 2016, Cullen announced the sale of its remaining 30% interest in Mount Stuart to API, the holder of the remaining 70% API interest. Consideration included a lump sum cash payment of Cullen Cullen Mount Management A$1 million on completion of the sale, with contingent payment of divestment of Nov-16 72.03 Resources Stuart Proprietary A$1 million on an unconditional final investment decision to proceed Mount Stuart Limited Limited with development of an iron ore mine on the tenements, and an uncapped 1% FOB royalty on all iron ore extracted from the tenements. In May 2018, Emergent announced that it had signed a binding term Emergent Emergent sheet to acquire the Iron Ridge project from Prometheus by issuing Prometheus Contingent payment not considered.

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 328 acquisition of Iron Ridge May-18 65.30 Resources 25 million shares of its post-consolidated stock, and will issue a Mining Pty Ltd Entirely share-based Iron Ridge Limited further 112.5 million shares of its post-consolidated stock subject to satisfaction of certain performance milestones. In March 2014, Ascot announced an agreement to acquire the Wonmunna project from Ochre for A$2 million in cash, 88 million Ascot Ascot Ochre Group shares and deferred payment of A$29.75 million after five years. In Deferred payment included without acquisition of Wonmunna Mar-14 111.83 Resources Holdings July 2014, Ascot and Ochre agreed to change the consideration to discounting. Wonmunna Limited Limited A$2 million in cash, 50 million shares and deferred payment of A$19.95 million after five years. In September 2013, IOH announced the sale of its North Marillana Maiden project to Maiden for an upfront payment of A$2.5 million in cash, acquisition of North Maiden Iron Iron Ore Contingent payments not Sep-13 133.96 with deferred contingent payments totalling up to A$5.25 million, as North Marillana Pty Ltd Holdings Ltd considered. well as a 2.5% FOB royalty for iron ore produced from the Marillana tenements.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 140

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 57: Comparative WA DSO iron ore transactions analysed Iron ore Date Resource Normalised Transaction Project price Asset details A$/t Fe Comment announced class to Jun 2018 (US$/t)

The Pilbara Iron Ore Project (PIOP) comprises two 100% Todd Flinders owned tenements located approximately 70 km Measured, Pilbara Iron acquisition of Mar-16 55.52 northwest of Tom Price. Flinders announced an Indicated, 0.13 0.15 Ore Flinders upgraded total Inferred and Indicated Resource of Inferred 1,042 Mt at 55.6% Fe for the PIOP. The Shine Project has hæmatite resources (Measured, Mount Indicated and Inferred) of 6.1 Mt at 59.8% Fe, with high Measured, Gibson silica (7.8%) and moderate phos (0.08%), low alumina Deal completed when iron ore price was Shine Dec-13 135.79 Indicated, 3.29 1.90 acquisition of (1.71%). The projects are located in the Yilgarn region very high. Inferred Shine 250 km east of Geraldton in WA and occupy three granted mining leases held by a third party. The PIOP comprises two 100% Flinders owned Todd option tenements located approximately 70 km northwest of Measured, Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 329 to purchase Pilbara Iron Mar-15 56.94 Tom Price. Flinders announced an upgraded total Indicated, 0.11 0.13 Pilbara Iron Ore Inferred and Indicated Resource of 1,042 Mt at 55.6% Fe Inferred Ore Project for the PIOP. The Wyloo Iron Ore Rights Joint Venture consists of a group of eight contiguous licences in the Pilbara region Wyloo Iron Cullen of WA. FMG had earned 51% interest in the package and Ore Rights divestment Aug-15 55.38 was earning up to 80% from joint venture partner, Cullen Inferred 0.01 0.01 Contingent payments not considered. Joint of Wyloo Resources. FMG announced an Inferred Resource of Venture 16.9 Mt at 57.1% Fe (JORC 2004) for the Wyloo South bedded iron deposit. Helix The Yalleen Iron Ore Project hosts Indicated and Inferred Indicated, divestment Yalleen Dec-17 71.28 0.07 0.07 Resources of 84.3 Mt at 57.2% Fe (JORC 2004). Inferred of Yalleen The Marillana Project hosts 1.63 Bt of hæmatite detrital Reserves, Todd farm-in and CID mineralisation, comprising beneficiation feed of Measured, Marillana Nov-17 63.21 0.03 0.03 to Marillana 1,528 Mt at 42.6% Fe and CID Mineral Resource of Indicated, 101.9 Mt at 55.6% Fe. Inferred WA Iron Pilbara Iron The Pilbara Iron Project - Rocklea had a total resource Indicated, acquisition of Project - Aug-17 75.06 0.002 0.001 base of 182.6 Mt at 52.68% Fe. Inferred Pilbara Rocklea

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 141

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Iron ore Date Resource Normalised Transaction Project price Asset details A$/t Fe Comment announced class to Jun 2018 (US$/t) Cullen Reserves, divestment Mount Mount Stuart had a total resource of 175.8 Mt at 54.4% Measured, Nov-16 72.03 0.03 0.03 of Mount Stuart Fe, including Reserves of 83 Mt at 55.1% Fe. Indicated, Stuart Inferred Emergent The Iron Ridge Project contained an Inferred Resource of Contingent payment not considered. acquisition of Iron Ridge May-18 65.30 Inferred 0.35 0.35 5 Mt at 64.1% Fe. Entirely share-based. Iron Ridge Ascot The Wonmunna Project had a total resource of 84.3 Mt Indicated, Deferred payment included without acquisition of Wonmunna Mar-14 111.83 0.62 0.45 at 56.5% Fe. Inferred discounting. Wonmunna Maiden acquisition of North The North Marillana Project had an Indicated Resource Sep-13 133.96 Indicated 0.30 0.18 Contingent payments not considered. North Marillana of 15.6 Mt at 54% Fe.

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 330 Marillana

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 142

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 58: Comparative Australian magnetite iron ore transactions Iron ore Date Transaction Project price Buyer Seller Transaction details Comment announced (US$/t) In December 2013, Midas was offered A$1.5 million in cash in Transaction abandoned prior to finalisation of two payments and a 0.5% royalty. An initial A$500,000 deal. Deal for iron ore rights only and included Developed Developed Midas payment due 60 days after due diligence is completed and a 0.5% royalty on gross proceeds of the sale of acquisition Mount Dec-13 135.79 Iron Ore Pty Resources A$1 million six months after the initial transfer. The deal was iron extracted from the Mount Phillip asset. of Mount Phillips Ltd Limited for iron ore rights only Midas retained the other mineral rights Midas acquired Mount Phillips in September Phillips on the tenement. The deal was not finalised and appears to 2013 as it was included in an acquisition of the have been abandoned in August 2014. Kalman Copper-Moly Project. GIM GIM Macarthur In October 2013, Macarthur announced an agreement to sell its Transaction terminated. Resource of similar acquisition Ularring Oct-15 52.74 Australia Minerals WA iron ore projects to GIM for A$6 million. The transaction size and grade to Ridley. of Ularring Pty Ltd Limited was not finalised. Padbury Padbury In December 2014, Padbury agreed to acquire the Yogi Project Ferrowest acquisition Yogi Dec-14 68.92 Mining from Ferrowest for A$750,000. The transaction was terminated Transaction terminated. Limited of Yogi Limited prior to closing. Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 331 IMX Cu-River In September 2014, Cu-River agreed to purchase the Mount divestment Mount Mining IMX Appears to have been valued as exploration Sep-14 82.04 Woods tenements in South Australia from IMX Resources for of Mount Woods Australia Resources ground – seven licences cover 3,200 km2. A$3.68 million cash. Woods Pty Limited Cliffs Natural In April 2014, Radar announced the acquisition of a large iron Radar Resources, Radar Iron ore tenement holding in the south west region of WA, including acquisition Yerecoin Apr-14 114.58 Nippon Steel, Limited the Yerecoin deposit, for A$3.74 million, with a A$1/t of Yerecoin Sojitz Mineral production royalty. Development Fortescue Metals Formosa Formosa In August 2013, Formosa agreed to acquire 31% of the project Group, Very large resource base in the Pilbara region earn-in to Ironbridge Aug-13 136.70 Plastics for US$123 million. In addition, Formosa agreed to fund the Baosteel of WA. Ironbridge Group first US$527 million of capital expenditure. Group Corporation

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 143

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 59: Comparative Australian magnetite iron ore transactions analysed Iron ore Date Resource Normalised Transaction Project price Asset details A$/t Fe Comment announced class to Jun 2018 (US$/t)

Transaction abandoned prior to finalisation of deal. Midas Resources was 100% owner of MDL471, Deal for iron ore rights only and included a 0.5% Developed 54 km southeast of Mount Isa in Queensland. royalty on gross proceeds of the sale of iron acquisition Mount The tenement contained known iron ore Indicated, Dec-13 135.79 0.13 0.07 extracted from the Mount Phillip asset. Midas of Mount Phillips resources an Indicated Resource of 19.1 Mt Inferred acquired Mount Phillips in September 2013 as it was Phillips grading 41.42% Fe and Inferred Resources of included in an acquisition of the Kalman Copper-Moly 11.4 Mt at 33.82% Fe Project. GIM Probable, The Ularring deposit had a total resource of Transaction terminated. Resource of similar size and acquisition Ularring Oct-15 52.74 Indicated, 0.01 0.02 1.4 Bt at 31% Fe. grade to Ridley. of Ularring Inferred Padbury The Yogi deposit had an Inferred resource of acquisition Yogi Dec-14 68.92 Inferred 0.00 0.00 Transaction terminated. 572.5Mt at 27.5% Fe. of Yogi Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 332 IMX divestment Mount The Mount Woods Project had an Inferred Appears to have been valued as exploration ground – Sep-14 82.04 Inferred 0.02 0.02 of Mount Woods Resource of 568.9 Mt at 27.11% Fe. seven licences cover 3,200 km2. Woods Radar The Yerecoin deposit had an Inferred Resource acquisition Yerecoin Apr-14 114.58 Inferred 0.03 0.02 of 404 Mt at 28.3% Fe. of Yerecoin The Iron Bridge Project consisted of the North Formosa Star and Glacier Valley deposits, with a Indicated, earn-in to Ironbridge Aug-13 136.70 combined resource base of 5.2 Bt at 30% Fe. It 0.28 0.16 Very large resource base in the Pilbara region of WA. Inferred Ironbridge is located about 100 km south of Port Hedland in WA.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 144

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 60: Comparative Australian copper exploration asset transactions analysed Transaction Project Date announced Copper price Equity Price 100% Area $/km2 Normalised Comment price Intrepid acquisition of Doolgunna Station Jun-18 8,761 80% 2,150,000 2,687,500 176 15,270 14,795 Doolgunna Station Magmatic acquisition of Mt Venn Mar-18 8,619 100% 1,175,000 59.63 19,705 19,407 Mt Venn 1,175,000 Independence earn-in to Fraser Range Projects Oct-17 8,859 70% 1,585,000 2,264,286 529 4,279 4,099 Fraser Range projects Auris acquisition of Doolgunna Feb-16 6,642 100% 1,600,000 1,600,000 21.68 73,801 94,321 Numerous well-defined Doolgunna drill-ready targets, next to DeGrussa mine MRDC acquisition of Ashburton Downs Sep-15 7,356 75% 500,000 666,667 800 833 962 Ashburton Downs Cassini acquisition of West Arunta Jul-15 6,812 75% 75,000 100,000 899.47 111 139 West Arunta

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 333 Hamilton Hill earn-in to Millenium Apr-15 8,353 25% 2,000,000 8,000,000 137.084 58,358 59,302 Well-defined target Millenium Australian Mines Marymia Apr-14 7,203 51% 1,300,000 2,549,020 425 5,998 7,068 Numerous well-defined acquisition of Marymia drill-ready targets, along strike of DeGrussa mine Analysis: There are only limited transactions available with a wide range of normalised implied values, ranging from A$139/km2 to A$94,321/km2. The range reflects the maturity and prospectivity of the assets transacted. The area weighted average (normalised) implied value is A$6,562/km, and the average is A$25,012. The Copper Range Project is more advanced than Walker, so higher value factors were selected: Based on the technical assessment of the projects, CSA Global relied in professional judgement and experience to select appropriate valuation factors from the compiled transactions as discussed below; factors have been rounded to reflect the uncertainty of the process. Copper Range: Low A$5,000 (selected to be less than the weighted average but well above the minimum); High A$50,000/km2 (selected to be about halfway between the weighted average and the maximum, and reflecting the maturity of the project and the interpreted remaining prospectivity); Preferred A$35,000/km2 chosen to be approximately two-thirds of the range, and reflected the geology and identified mineralisation at the project. Walker is still a very early stage project, with a limited number of holes encountering copper mineralisation of interest. The implied value factors for this project were chosen to recognise the identified positive exploration components of the project but also the very early stage of the project; hence a low factor of A$1,000/km2 was chosen near the bottom of the range; the maximum was A$10,000/km2 selected to be somewhat greater than the weighted average, and the preferred value A$7,500 /km2 was chosen at the near 75% percentile of the low-high range.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 145

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 61: Comparative Western Australian lithium exploration asset transactions analysed Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Mt Cattlin Jun-18 22,013 In Jun 2018, Kingston announced the sale of its The 3 granted exploration licences covered 85.7 7,001 7,001 Mt Cattlin lithium tenements to Galaxy for approximately 85.7km2. A$600,000, paid 50% in cash and 50% in shares. Moolyella Apr-18 24,383 In April 2018, Lithium Australia announced the EL45/4766 is a granted tenement located 3.193 15,659 14,590 Very small tenement. acquisition of a 100% interest in the Moolyella within the Moolyella tin field in the Pilbara tenement from Anova for A$25,000 in cash and region. It covers targets in the Gig Tree A$25,000 in shares. Gneiss, with outcropping pegmatites noted, locally containing abundant lithium micas. Kathleen Valley Nov-17 20,890 In November 2017, Draig announced the The seven granted mining licences covered a 21.97 12,289 12,950 Acquired by Draig for acquisition of seven granted mining licences from total of approximately 22 km2. LTR gold potential. Liontown for A$25,000 in cash and 1 million considered this ground non-core, and of low Strategic to Draig, as it shares prospectivity for lithium. is adjacent to Draig’s gold exploration project.

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 334 Kathleen Valley Aug-16 15,213 In August 2016, Liontown announced an The Kathleen Valley Project consisted of 15 75 6,000 8,682 Covers “rare metals” agreement to acquire 100% of the rare mineral granted mining leases and one exploration rights only. Exclude rights (including lithium, tantalum and associated licence application, covering a total area of gold and base metals elements) for the Kathleen Valley Project from 75 km2. The property contains a rights. Tenure held in Ramelius. Consideration was 25 million Liontown spodumene-bearing pegmatite swarm and name of Ramelius. shares, and an agreement to pay Ramelius 1% of includes several walk-up drill targets. gross sales of resulting concentrate produced from pegmatite-hosted ores processed and A$0.50/t of rare metal pegmatite-hosted ore mined and milled. Ramelius will retain exclusive gold rights and uninhibited access for gold- mining related activities. Lake Cowan Oct-17 20,479 In October 2017, Tawana announced the The Lake Cowan Project comprises two 563 581 624 Tawana considers the acquisition of the Lake Cowan lithium project approved exploration licences and one acquisition to be highly from Metalicity for A$50,000 and 769,230 Application. The licences border to the south strategic as the Mount Tawana shares. of Tawana’s 100% owned Cowan Lithium Belches-Bald Hill Project and 50% owned Bald Hill Lithium and pegmatite belt may Tantalum Project. extend into the tenements.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 146

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Marble Bar, May-17 16,591 In May 2017, Macarthur announced a conditional The Marble Bar lithium project consists of 549 1,421 1,885 Terminated prior to Pippingarra agreement, in partnership with Southern four granted exploration licences covering completion. Hemisphere, to acquire the Marble Bar and 368 km2, and the Pippingarra lithium Pippingarra projects from Great Sandy. In August tantalite project consists of two exploration 2017, Macarthur announced that following due licence applications covering 181 km2. diligence, the partners decided not to acquire Pegmatites with spodumene and lepidolite these projects. have been identified on the Marble Bar tenements. Mount Edwards Nov-16 15,420 In September 2016, Estrella announced the The project consists of a 75% interest in the 129 46,870 66,909 All-scrip transaction acquisition of Mount Edwards Lithium Pty Ltd, rights to lithium and associated minerals which held a 75% of the lithium (and associated over 17 tenements covering 129 km2. minerals) rights to a group of 17 licences. Numerous outcropping pegmatites have Consideration was 106 million Estrella shares to been identified, with grab sampling be issued to the vendors, with an additional confirming lithium mineralisation in some facilitator transaction fee of 13,333,333 shares to pegmatites. the facilitator. Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 335 Cowan, Yallari Mar-17 16,081 In March 2017, Tawana announced that it would The Cowan Project comprises three 200.2 9,990 13,675 Strategic acquisition of exercise its option to acquire a 100% interest in tenements totalling 159 km2, adjacent to the ground adjacent to four tenements, comprising the Cowan and Tawana’s Bald Hill Mine. It contains a large Tawana’s Bald Hill Yallari projects, and would pay A$2 million in number of LCT pegmatites, some of which Mine, which Tawana either cash or shares to the unnamed vendors. contain spodumene. The Yallari Project was developing at the consists of one licence application covering time. 41.2 km2. It contains numerous pegmatites, with no exploration for lithium having been conducted. Cisco Mar-17 16,081 PLS to acquire 51% in e45/4270 for A$2.3M E45/4270 sits in zone of known Li deposits; 70 64,426 88,192 Likely strategic PLS may then then spend a further $1M on the area has past Ta & Sn workings; component led to this exploration in the first year to increase interest historical RCP drilling intersected significant very high implied value to 70% Li2) PLS to free carry AGO to completion of DFS and progress to a decision to mine to increase interest to 80% Greenbushes Nov-16 15,420 In November 2016, Lithium Australia acquired The Greenbushes Project comprises four 403.18 1,252 1,787 Strategic acquisition – the remaining 20% interest in the Greenbushes granted exploration licences covering consolidating Project by paying A$50,000 and 283,039 shares. 403.18 km2, adjacent to the Talison-owned ownership. Greenbushes lithium pegmatite mine.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 147

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Mortimer Hills Apr-16 12,856 In April 2016, Segue announced a joint venture E09/1618 covers an area of approximately 115.5 3,834 6,565 with Zeus Resources, whereby Segue could earn 115.5 km2 and contains both the Mortimer in to a 50% interest in granted exploration Hills and Camel Hill pegmatite fields. licence E09/1618. Segue agreed to an initial exploration expenditure of A$30,000 prior to 15 May 2016, with the ability to earn an initial 35% interest through exploration expenditure of a further A$125,000 within 12 months. A further 15% interest could then be earned by spending a further A$125,000 within 12 months. Moriarty Aug-17 19,566 In August 2017, Lepidico announced an The Moriarty project covers 70 km2 of 70 6,667 7,500 agreement whereby it could earn a 75% interest lithium prospective ground, including the in the Moriarty Lithium Project, by paying Lefroy, Landor and Larkinville lithium Maximus A$80,000 in Lepidico shares on prospects. execution of the Term Sheet, A$120,000 in cash or shares six months after execution, and Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 336 A$150,000 in cash or shares 12 months after execution. Mallina, Dec-16 16,208 In December 2016, Sayona announced an option The portfolio consisted of two granted and 871 904 1,228 Dorringtons, to acquire an 80% interest in a Pilbara lithium six pending licences covering a total of White Springs, portfolio from Great Sandy. Consideration 871 km2. The most advanced project was the Mount Edgar includes a A$30,000 non-refundable deposit, Mallina project, where spodumene-bearing with a 24-month Option granted for payments of lithium pegmatite had been identified in A$300,000 after 12 months and A$300,000 after outcrop. 24 months, with the option to acquire the 80% at any time for A$500,000 within the first 18 months. Sayona must incur a minimum expenditure of A$100,000 within the first 12 months and may withdraw from the agreement at any time after meeting the A$100,000 expenditure requirement.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 148

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Lynas Find, Dec-16 16,208 In December 2016, Metalicity announced the The portfolio consists of four individual 579 1,036 1,407 Farrell Well, acquisition of a Pilbara portfolio of lithium projects, covering a total of 579 km2. The Murphies Gap, tenements from FMG. Terms of the agreement most advanced project was the Lynas Find Cookes Creek included a A$250,000 cash payment, 5 million North project, covering 51 km2 over the fully paid ordinary shares and 5 million unlisted northern extension of the highly prospective Options at 8c, issued to FMG on settlement. In Pilgangoora Greenstone Belt. addition, 10 million fully paid ordinary shares are to be issued to FMG upon the definition of a total JORC Inferred Resource estimate of a minimum 20 Mt @ 1% Li2O across any of the tenements. Yalgoo Aug-16 15,213 In August 2016, Macarthur agreed to purchase The project encompassed two granted 191 419 606 Contingent payment two tenements. Consideration was to be exploration licences (E59/2140 and not considered. A$30,000 upon satisfaction of conditions E59/2077) covering an area of 191 km2. precedent and A$50,000 on the first anniversary Previous drilling by other companies has of the commencement date. Additional resulted in the identification of buried contingent consideration of A$250,000 upon pegmatites on the property. Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 337 defining a 5 million tonne JORC resource of >1.2% LiO2 and A$500,000 upon defining a 15 Mt JORC resource of >1.2%Li2O, was also agreed. In addition, the agreement called for a 2.5% NSR for lithium concentrate produced on the Yalgoo Acreage, and 50% of the Western Australian Department of Minerals and Petroleum royalty rate for other rare earth minerals produced on the Yalgoo Acreage. Pyramid Lake, Jul-16 14,945 In July 2016, Cohiba announced the acquisition of The portfolio included five lithium projects, 368.7 1,541 2,269 Mount Cattlin five lithium projects from Charge Lithium. consisting of five exploration licence Central, Big Consideration included an upfront payment of applications and one granted exploration Galaxy, A$78,000 cash and a share payment of licence. The granted explration licence was Greenbushes 17.5 million Cohiba shares. Further share for the Pyramid Lake Lithium Brine project, North, payments totalling 17.5 million Cohiba shares with the five licence applications covering Pilgangoora would be paid as the ungranted licence four areas prospective for hard rock Central applications were granted, which was expected (pegmatite-hosted) lithium. to occur within three months. Share payments for the grant of each individual licence would be 3.5 million Cohiba shares. Widgiemooltha Jul-16 14,945 In July 2016, Cazaly, along with Lithium Australia The Widgiemooltha Project consists of the 81 2,920 4,301 NL, entered into a Sale Agreement with Buckland “Pegmatite Minerals” rights over an 81 km2

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 149

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Capital Pty Ltd for the purchase of a 100% area in the Goldfields region of WA, with interest in the Pegmatite minerals in Exploration known outcropping pegmatite mapped on Licence 15/1410 (‘Widgiemooltha Project’). the licences by the GSWA. Cazaly and Lithium Australia NL would each hold a 50% interest in the Widgiemooltha Project. The total consideration for Cazaly’s 50% interest in the Widgiemooltha Project was A$7,500 cash plus the issue of 1,538,462 shares. Lake Johnston Jun-16 14,748 In June 2016, Lithium Australia announced an The two tenements are adjacent to Lithium 291.59 7,624 11,379 agreement to acquire 100% of the lithium rights Australia’s 100% owned tenement, with a to two granted exploration licences from Lefroy. swarm of pegmatites identified on the Consideration for the lithium rights was 9 million tenements. Drill testing of pegmatites in the Lithium Australia shares, half of which would be swarm just off the tenement package escrowed for three months. As part of the deal, confirmed lithium mineralisation. Lithium Australia granted Lefroy the nickel and gold rights to an adjoining licence held by Lithium Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 338 Australia, for 3 million Lefroy shares. The partiese were granted reciprocal first right of refusal for sale of the underlying tenure. Wodgina East Mar-16 13,148 In March 2016, Kairos (then MPJ) announced an The project consisted of one licence 25.55 11,742 19,659 agreement to acquire the Wodgina East lithium application, covering an area of known project from an undisclosed seller for 60 million pegmatite outcrop, with demonstrated shares, with 40 million shares to be issued on lithium mineralisation from rock chip signing, and 20 million shares to be issued when sampling. Situated adjacent to Wodgina the tenements area is granted and completion Tantalum Mine. takes place.In addition, Kairos will issue 15 million shares upon delineation of a Mineral Resource of no less than 1.2% contained lithium within the tenement area, and a further 15 million shares upon delineation of a resource of no less than 10 Mt of lithium oxide at a minimum grade of no less than 1.2% contained lithium.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 150

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Li Area Implied Project Date Synopsis Asset description Normalised Comments price (km2) A$/km2 Wodgina East Nov-16 15,420 In November 2016, Altura announced an The project consisted of two licence 73.4 24,523 35,008 agreement to earn in to a 75% interest in Kairos’ applications, covering an area of known Wodgina East lithium project. Consideration was pegmatite outcrop, with demonstrated an upfront cash payment of A$100,000, and lithium mineralisation. exploration expenditure of A$1.25 million over five years, or cash payment of A$1.25 million less exploration expenditure already incurred at any time within the five years. Gem Sep-16 15,155 In September 2016, Marindi announced that an Contains two known LCT pegmatites, which 0.7353 1,333,323 1,936,694 Exclude – small, highly Pegmatite, option to acquire up to a 70% interest in Mining have been previously mined, the Giant focused tenure (mining Giant Lease 77/549, with the ability to purchase 100%. pegmatite and the Gem Pegmatite. lease) containing two Pegmatite Consideration included cash payment of known large LCT A$50,000 for a six-month option; A$50,000 in pegmatites. cash, A$100,000 in shares and A$300,000 in exploration over 24 months to earn a 51% interest. Marindi had the right, but not the Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 339 obligation, to earn up to a 70% interest by issuing a further A$40,000 in shares and spending a further A$150,000 on exploration within 30 months of exercising the option. Once Marindi has earned a 70% interest, it can purchase the remaining 30% on terms to be mutually agreed. Analysis: There are a wide range of normalised implied values from the compiled transactions, ranging from A$606/km2 to A$88,192/km2. The range reflects the maturity and prospectivity of the assets transacted, as well as likely strategic influences on prices paid. The area weighted average (normalised) implied value is A$6,732/km2, and the average is A$15,311/km2. Both projects are close geographically, have known lithium pegmatites and other positive exploration and geological aspects, so the same valuation factors are suitable for these projects. Based on the technical assessment of the projects, CSA Global relied on professional judgement and experience to select appropriate valuation factors from the compiled transactions as discussed below; factors have been rounded to reflect the uncertainty of the process. The Cisco Project was involved in a transaction less than 12 months ago, so this value, despite being the highest implied value, and an outlier, was considered highly significant. The low end of the values was chosen to be A$7,000/km2 (selected to be near the weighted average); High A$35,000/km2 (selected to be well above the average values given the positive exploration factors, but still well below the high of the transactions, due the relatively early stage of the exploration on the projects, and CSA Global’s view that the market appetite for Li projects has receded to a degree); Preferred A$25,000/km2 chosen to be approximately the average of the high and low factors, and reflected the geology and identified mineralisation at the project.

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 151

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 62: Comparative transactions of exploration ground prospective for gold in Australia Transaction Implied Normalised Prospective Area Date Project Buyer Seller Transaction type value (100%) value value# commodities (km2) A$k A$/km2 A$/km2 18-Jun-18 Ruby Plains Dampier Gold Private Seller Au Acquisition – 100% 821 577 570 7-Jun-18 Lefroy St Ives Gold Mining Lefroy Exploration Au Joint Venture – 51% 372 45,688 45,783 25-May-18 South Darlot Kingswest Resources Central Iron Au Acquisition – 100% 289 2,007 1,980 22-May-18 Drummond East Pacton Gold Impact Minerals Au Acquisition – 100% 1,126 1,694,196 1,505 1,505 Rare Earth Contracting Pty Au 3,201 18-Apr-18 Slate Dam Aruma Resources Ltd Acquisition – 100% 19 62 3,263 Ltd 16-Apr-18 Ockerby Hill Red 5 Ltd AngloGold Ashanti Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 73 45 617 606 26-Feb-18 Queen Lapage Riversgold Ltd Alloy Resources Ltd Au Joint Venture – 70% 322 448 1,392 1,395 31-Jan-18 Mary River Pantoro Ltd Private Seller Au Acquisition – 100% 64 80 1,246 1,277 22-Dec-17 Hacks Well Matsa Resources Ltd Australian Potash Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 90 55 611 630 22-Dec-17 Mt Roe NXGold Ltd Roe Gold Ltd Au Acquisition – 80% 12 8,421 701,708 723,759 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 340 22-Dec-17 Omni Projects Gateway Mining Ltd OMNI GeoX Pty Ltd Au-BM Acquisition – 100% 1,339 1,500 1,120 1,155 Option to Acquire – 10,325 13-Dec-17 Pilbara Region Tando Resources Ltd Geko-Co Pty Ltd Au 22 223 9,935 100% 12-Dec-17 Dalgaranga Gascoyne Resources Ltd Private Seller Au Acquisition – 100% 129 499 3,868 4,019 22-Nov-17 Eastman Peako Ltd Sandrib Pty Ltd Au-BM Joint Venture -60 221 920 4,160 4,166 Croydon Top 5,864 8-Nov-17 Coziron Resources Ltd Creasy Group Companies Au Joint Venture – 70% 317 1,829 5,768 Camp Option to acquire - 3,216 5-Sep-17 Yandal East Overland Resources Ltd Zabina Minerals Pty Ltd Au 327 1,030 3,146 75% 21-Aug-17 Pilbara De Grey Mining Ltd Private Seller Au Joint Venture - 30 226 3,081 13,633 14,273 6-Jun-17 Dumbleyung Ausgold Ltd Chalice Gold Mines Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 461 330 716 708 Monument Exploration Pty 1,139 27-Jul-16 Monument Syndicated Metals Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 210 250 1,190 Ltd Mt Gill & Mt 230 31-May-16 Gold Road Resources Ltd Breaker Resources Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 221 50 226 Howe Tasex Geological Services 2,555 11-Mar-16 Doolgunna DGO Gold Ltd Au-Cu Joint Venture – 51% 68 170 2,499 Pty Ltd 4-Nov-15 Duffy Well Doray Minerals Ltd Mithril Resources Ltd Au Joint Venture – 51% 98 579 5,910 6,459

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 152

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Transaction Implied Normalised Prospective Area Date Project Buyer Seller Transaction type value (100%) value value# commodities (km2) A$k A$/km2 A$/km2 8-Sep-15 Jillewarra Timpetra Resources Ltd Zebina Minerals Pty Ltd Au Joint Venture – 80% 223 731 3,275 3,478 Combaning, 384 1-Sep-15 Faraday Resources Pty Ltd Carpentaria Exploration Ltd Au Joint Venture – 90% 579 212 366 Barellan 20-Jul-15 Prospect Creek Cape Clear Minerals Pty Ltd ActiveEX Ltd Au Joint Venture – 50% 81 372 4,598 5,200 14-Jul-15 Duketon Regis Resources Ltd Duketon Mining Ltd Au Joint Venture – 75% 373 1,345 3,607 3,958 22-May-15 Lyndon Shine Resources Pty Ltd Latitude Consolidated Ltd Au-BM Acquisition – 45% 57 50 877 1,893 28-Apr-15 Mt Windsor Red River Resources Ltd NRE Exploration Pty Ltd Au-Cu Joint Venture – 51% 154 505 3,278 968 Option to Joint 3,685 29-Sep-14 Supplejack ABM Resources NL Ord River Resources Au 304 747 2,461 Venture – 70% 22-Sep-14 Cape Clear Cape Clear Minerals Pty Ltd Predictive Discovery Ltd Au Joint Venture – 51% 161 467 2,912 3,002 Archean Star Resources 3,625 16-Jul-14 Gnaweeda Doray Minerals Ltd Au Acquisition – 88% 178 568 3,190 Australia Pty Ltd

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 341 Fraser Range Tasex Geological Option to Acquire – 3,907 23-Jun-14 MRG Metals Ltd Ni-Au 149 153 1,027 South Services Pty Ltd 100% 27-May-14 Highland Rocks Ramelius Resources Ltd Tychean Resources Ltd Au Joint Venture – 85% 1,700 569 335 1,251 (Near Twin 415 14-May-14 ABM Resources NL Toro Energy Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 567 100 176 Bonanza) 30-Apr-14 Marymia Riedel Resources Ltd Australian Mines Ltd Cu-Au Joint Venture – 51% 425 2,628 6,182 216 Fraser Range Metals Group 7,541 26-Mar-14 Plumridge Segue Resources Ltd Ni-Cu-Au Joint Venture – 51% 641 2,176 3,395 Ltd 10-Mar-14 Telfer Area Newcrest Operations Ltd Ram Resources Ltd Au-Cu Acquisition – 100% 77 646 8,418 4,088 Black Fire Minerals Ltd & 9,642 7-Mar-14 Mystique Gold Parmelia Resoures Ltd Au Acquisition – 100% 205 306 1,494 Entree Gold Inc. 13-Feb-14 Zanthus Rumble Resources Ltd Blackham Resources Ltd Ni-Cu-Au Joint Venture – 20% 370 300 811 1,728 16-Jan-14 Charteris Creek Riedel Resources Ltd Au-BM-Fe Joint Venture – 51% 131 340 2,595 956 Notes: Transaction highlighted in orange are Pilbara ? conglomerate transactions # Normalised to 2 July 2018 gold price os US$1,246.32/oz (A$1,702.72/oz) Analysis

CSA Global identified 39 transactions of projects comprising of exploration licences prospective for gold in Australia, these support CSA Global’s valuation experience of gold projects in Australia, where, early exploration projects were found to range from A$100/km2 to A$1,000/km2, average or mature exploration projects ranged from A$1,000/km2 to A$5,000/km2,

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 153

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

advanced projects with good prospectivity ranged from A$5,000/km2 to A$10,000/km2, with projects with excellent prospectivity or having a strategic significance to the buyer having values >A$10,000/km2. In general, as the area transacted gets larger the lower the price paid per square kilometre.

Four transactions for Pilbara conglomerate gold range from 1,500/km2 to $724,000/km2 CSA Global identified 1,569km2 of AGO tenure prospective for gold; 1,117km2 of this potentially was of interest for conglomerate gold

Implied value factors for conventional gold valuation of 500, 3,000, and 2,000($/km2, low, high, preferred) were selected based on CSA Global’s professional judgment. The low end being on the middle of the range for early stage tenure, the top end chosen from the middle of the more mature exploration project range, and the preferred value closer to the top end due the heightened interest in Pilbara gold at present. Implied values were then estimated by multiplying the area of gold ground (1,569km2) by these factors.

Implied value factors for Pilbara conglomerate gold valuation of 1,500, 15,000, and 5,000 ($/km2, low, high, preferred) were selected based on CSA Global’s professional judgment. Only four relevant transactions have been identified. A highly relevant transaction is the Pacton deal. This covers a similar area at similar state of maturity to the Atlas ground, and was chosen as the lower end of the range. The highest value in the dataset is clearly an outlier and skewed by a very small area, but nonetheless is considered symptomatic of the interest in Pilbara conglomerate gold ground at the time. Because of this value a high end factor of 15,000 – slightly above the two other transactions – was chosen despite the early stage of the exploration being a number higher than the normal advanced project value reflecting the the three highest conglomerate transactions. The preferred value for the conglomerate ground was chosen to be somewhat less than the average of the high and low to recognise the limited work completed for gold on the Atlas ground thus far, but still recognising the high level of interest in Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 342 the conglomerate model.

The low end being on the middle of the range for early stage tenure, the top end chosen from the middle of the more mature exploration project range, and the preferred value closer to the top end due the heightened interest in Pilbara gold at present. Implied values were then estimated by multiplying the area of gold ground (1,569km2) by these factors.

The final values were an average of the conventional and conglomerate gold values

Area LO Hi Pref LO Hi Pref AGO Pilbara Au tenements 1,569 500 3,000 2,000 0.8 4.7 3.1 AGO Congl maybe areas 1,117 1500 15,000 5,000 1.7 16.8 5.6 Average 1.2 10.7 4.4

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 154

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Appendix 4: Detailed Yardstick Valuation

Table 63: Yardstick crosscheck on total Resources Contained Fe (Mt) Measured Indicated Inferred TOTAL Project Measured Indicated Inferred Low High Preferred Low High Preferred Low High Preferred Low High Preferred (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) (A$M) Pardoo ------0.4 0.7 0.6 0.4 0.7 0.6 - - - Abydos ------0.1 0.2 0.1 0.1 0.2 0.1 - - - Mount 4.7 9.4 7.1 1.2 3.1 2.2 0.0 0.1 0.1 6.0 12.6 9.3 4.7 9.4 7.1 Webber McPhee Creek 6.9 13.9 10.4 16.9 42.3 29.6 0.4 0.7 0.5 24.2 56.9 40.6 6.9 13.9 10.4 Miralga Creek ------0.2 0.3 0.3 0.2 0.3 0.3 - - - Corunna - - - 4.3 10.7 7.5 0.5 1.1 0.8 4.8 11.8 8.3 - - - Downs Mid West ------0.3 0.6 0.4 0.3 0.6 0.4 - - - Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 343 Hickman ------2.8 5.7 4.3 2.8 5.7 4.3 - - - Western Creek ------3.2 6.5 4.9 3.2 6.5 4.9 - - - Jimblebar - - - 3.5 8.8 6.1 1.1 2.3 1.7 4.7 11.1 7.9 - - - Warrawanda ------1.0 2.0 1.5 1.0 2.0 1.5 - - - Davidson ------6.9 13.8 10.3 6.9 13.8 10.3 - - - Creek Hub# West Pilbara ------1.5 3.0 2.2 1.5 3.0 2.2 - - - Ridley - - - 5.9 14.8 10.3 2.4 4.9 3.6 8.3 19.7 14.0 - - - # Davidson Creek contained Fe based on high-grade portion only Table 64: Yardstick crosscheck for remaining Resources outside of current mine plans Contained Fe (Mt) Measured Indicated Inferred TOTAL Project Measured Indicated Inferred Low High Measured Indicated Inferred Low Preferred Measured Indicated Inferred Preferred High (A$M) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (A$M) (A$M) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (A$M) (A$M) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) (Mt Fe) Mount Webber - - - 0.4 1.0 0.7 0.0 0.1 0.1 0.4 1.1 0.8 - - - Corunna Downs - - - 2.5 6.3 4.4 0.5 1.1 0.8 3.1 7.4 5.2 - - -

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 155

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Appendix 5: Geoscientific Factor Method data for Other Projects

Table 65: Weightings for Key Copper and Lithium Projects Value (A$M) Area Off-property On-property Anomaly Geology Project Licence Status BAC Market 100% basis (km2) Low High Low High Low High Low High Low High Preferred Pancho e45/4270 Live 9.6 20,832 1.5 3.5 1.5 2 1 1.5 2 3 1 0.1 0.7 0.4 Cisco e45/4517 Live 70.2 152,334 1 1.5 2 2.5 1.5 2.5 2 3 1 0.9 4.2 2.6 Copper Range e52/1772 Live 5.6 12,152 1 1.5 2 3 2 3 2.5 3.2 1 0.1 0.5 0.3 Walker e45/3511 Live 22.4 48,608 1 2 1 2 1.5 2 1.5 2 1 0.1 0.8 0.4

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 344

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 156

ATLAS IRON LIMITED Independent Technical Assessment, review of inputs to DCF models, and Valuation of Mineral Assets

Table 66: BAC for WA, April 2018 Exploration licence (graticular) Average area (blocks) 23.43 30/04/2018 Initial term (years) 5 Average age (years) 5.79 30/04/2018 Application fee $1,362 Rent Year 1–3 (A$/block/year) $134 $44.67 Rent Year 4–5 (A$/block/year) $208 $69.33 Rent Year 6 (A$/block/year) $283 $94.33 Minimum annual expenditure Y1–3 per block $1,000 $333.33 Minimum annual expenditure Y4–5 per block $1,500 $500.00 Minimum annual expenditure Y6 per block $2,000 $666.67 Cost to identify $10,000 Costs of landowner notices, negotiations, legal costs and compensation $20,000 Costs of Local Government rates per year $8,000 Total cost in blocks (excluding application) $291,236 Total cost in km2 + application $875,071 Average area (km2) 70.29 30/04/2018 BAC/km2 $12,449 BAC/year $2,150

CSA Global Report Nº R343.2018 Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 345157

Atlas Iron Limited TARGET'S STATEMENT Page | 346