This document discusses challenges with exploration in South Australia and calls for reforms. It summarizes that according to the Fraser Institute's Policy Potential Index, South Australia's ranking as an attractive mining jurisdiction has declined from 5th globally in 2006/07 to 20th currently. The document uses two case studies to illustrate problems with the native title process in South Australia, including that the government's new policy requiring full native title agreements before drilling approvals overrides existing agreements and is too restrictive. It calls on the government to resolve issues and stop shifting goal posts to make South Australia more competitive and reduce costs for explorers.

1. Shifting Goal Posts:
Why exploration in SA is getting harder, and
What needs to be done
Andrew Woskett Managing Director
SAREIC 30 April 2013
Minotaur Exploration Ltd | ASX: MEP
www.minotaurexploration.com.au

2. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 2
Minotaur has experience in SA
MEP tenements in SA total 8,660km2
or 56% of MEP’s total tenure

3. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 3
Fraser Institute PPI rankings

4. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 4
n Fraser Institute is a Canadian based, public policy ‘think tank’
« Fraser Institute’s 2012/13 global survey of mining company executives
« 742 respondents (Jan 2013) considered 17 policy factors
« Responders reported exploration spend of US$6.2 billion in 2012
n PPI – Policy Potential Index
z “a comprehensive assessment of the attractiveness of mining policies”
z a composite index that captures opinions on the effects of policies within
jurisdictions
z a jurisdiction that “encourages investment” is ranked higher in the tables
(ie: the ‘best’ is ranked #1)
n so, how does SA rank?
Fraser Institute PPI rankings
Source: www.fraserinstitute.org

5. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 5
Fraser Institute PPI rankings for SA
0 5 10 15 20 25
2006/07
2007/08
2008/09
2009/10
2010/11
2011/12
2012/13
SA’s global comparative PPI has decayed from 5th to 20th
Source: www.fraserinstitute.org Policy Potential Index - PPI

6. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 6
The SA malaise
n The trend, as measured by Fraser Institute’s PPI, is adverse
q against a backdrop of increasing global competition for a diminishing pool of
exploration funding
q Minotaur’s recent experiences in SA suggest we are continuing to lose pace
q satisfying Land access regimes is increasingly complicated, time consuming,
frustrating and expensive
q will we reach a ‘tipping point’ where preparatory (non productive) expenses
start to approach actual ‘in the ground’ investment?
q as that happens capital will escape to more attractive destinations
q potentially causing further reduction in exploration investment into SA
q which delivers a lose-lose outcome
n SA needs to act to re-establish its competitive edge

7. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 7
What's the Problem in SA: Case Study 1
n Part 9B Native Title process has not changed
n Original intent of Part 9B put onus on the explorer for complying with NT Act
n the explorer could assess whether NT would be disturbed and,
n in practice, a heritage agreement & clearance allowed exploratory drilling
n DMITRE’s new policy now requires registration of a full Part 9B NT agreement
before any drilling approvals will be given
¤ which overrides the agreement with the NT group and the explorer
n DMITRE’s new policy was enacted without genuine prior industry consultation

8. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 8
What's the Problem in SA: Case Study 1
n DMITRE’s new policy is unnecessarily restrictive
n a formal Part 9B Agreement can typically take 6-12 months and incur
signicant expense (circa $80k - $100k)
¤ Limiting available exploration ‘time on the ground’
¤ while the tenement clock keeps ticking to expiry
¤ and tenement expenditure requirements remain in place
n DMITRE may argue it is protecting the integrity of the SA Mining Act 1971
¤ we assume - so as to discourage Federal intervention in NT determinations
n DMITRE needs to resolve this issue as a matter of priority, eg:
­ A standardised ILUA attached to each new tenement will bring certainty

9. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 9
There is a Problem in SA: Case Study 2
n A Part 9B - Heritage agreement was negotiated through SANTS
n followed by site clearances and experts’ reports, allowing work to proceed
n now challenged by SANTS on the basis that the tenements were renewed:
¤ but exactly as the agreement envisaged they would be
¤ and with the land area being unaltered
q with the objectors requiring a repeat of the full Part 9B process to be
completed for the new licence numbers
¤ and a new Heritage Agreement to be negotiated
¤ all on the basis that the tenement numbers have changed !!!
n How can such trivial technicalities be allowed to hinder exploration investment?
n DMITRE needs to urgently amend the Act to avoid similar predicaments arising

10. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 10
Solving the Problem
n Stop moving the Goal Posts please DMITRE
n reform the Act to resolve this trivial incongruity:
¤ level the playing eld
¤ respect agreements made between NT groups and explorers
¤ deliver timing certainty to work plans
¤ reduce bureaucratic interference
¤ turn down the ramp-up cost trend
n Re-establish SA as an attractive exploration investment destination

11. SAREIC 30 April 2013 Slide 11
See us at Booth 34
Thankyou