ASX RELEASE 30 November 2010

Perth: Level 2 Aquila Centre, 1 Preston Street, Como WA 6151 Telephone (61) 8 9423 0111Facsimile (61) 8 9423 0133 Brisbane: Level 11, 10 Market Street, Brisbane QLD 4000 Telephone (61) 7 3229 5630 Facsimile (61) 7 3229 5631 Thabazimbi: C/O Platina and Lood Avenue, Thabazimbi 0380, South Africa Telephone (27) 14 772 3337 Facsimile (27) 14 772 3337 Northern Cape: Stand 585 Opwag, Groblershoop, Northern Cape, South Africa Telephone (27) 798 816 459 Facsimile (27) 866 838 065 Indonesia: Level 2 Zone B Wisma Raharja, JI. TB Simatupang Kav 1, Jakarta 12560 Telephone (62) 21 7884 7214 Facsimile (62) 21 7884 7215

Thabazimbi Iron Ore Project Resource Increases to 47.6Mt

Highlights   Total JORC Iron Ore Resource at Meletse now totals 47.6Mt 

25.7Mt (117%) increase from the previous Resource statement  

33% of the Resource is now categorised as Indicated 

Significant expansion potential as the Deposit remains open at depth and along strike 

Project Resources may support up to 4Mtpa open pit operations 

Aquila Resources Limited (“Aquila” or the “Company”) is pleased to report an update to the JORC Resource estimate for the Thabazimbi Iron Ore Project (“the Project”) located in the Limpopo Province of South Africa. The Project is managed by the Company on behalf of the Thabazimbi Joint Venture, in which it holds a 74% interest. Thabazimbi Iron Ore Project

The Project is located 30km east of the town of Thabazimbi and 230km north of Johannesburg, in a traditional mining area where Kumba Iron Ore Limited (“Kumba”) has been operating for many years.

An extensive reverse circulation drilling program continues on the Meletse Deposit, which is evaluating six lenses of high grade hematite suitable for open pit mining of direct shipping ore (“DSO”) for domestic and/or international customers.

Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd was commissioned to construct a geological model and update the in-situ resource estimate. The resource estimation parameters are listed in Attachment A and the Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Estimate is shown in Attachment B.

The location of this deposit is shown in Figure 1 and Figure 2.

MELETSE IRON ORE RESOURCE

Resource Classifications

Tonnes Mt

Fe %

SiO2 %

Al2O3

% P %

S %

MnO %

MgO %

LOI %

Indicated 15.9 63.6 6.22 1.07 0.031 0.045 0.783 0.076 1.00

Inferred 31.7 62.5 8.89 0.82 0.044 0.041 1.078 0.054 1.19

Total 47.6 62.9 8.00 0.91 0.040 0.043 0.979 0.061 1.13

2

Figure 1 – Thabazimbi Project Location

Figure 2 – Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Location

The Meletse Iron Ore Deposit is composed of several irregular shaped, hard, lumpy high grade (+60% Fe) iron ore lodes outcropping along a lateral extent in excess of 600m. The iron ore lodes dip approximately 400 to the southwest near the outcrop and flatten to less than 200 at the dip extents of the lodes. The iron ore lodes bifurcate and coalesce in profile and are gently folded along strike. The lumpy hard ores consist mainly of martite-hematite assemblages and the basal and upper contacts with the proto Banded Iron Formation are gradational. It is considered that hydrothermal processes played an important role in the development of the iron ore lodes. The iron ore lode outcrops included in the resource estimate are shown in Figure 3.

Figure 3 – Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Lodes

3

Additional Exploration Potential

Meletse Deposit

The Meletse Iron Ore Deposit is open along strike to the north and down dip to the south west. Drilling is ongoing with a second track mounted RC drill rig mobilising to site in December and a diamond drill rig scheduled for the first quarter of 2011. The ongoing drilling will continue to test the strike and dip extents of the Deposit to increase both the size of the current resource and to upgrade the categories of the resource with an upgraded Resource Statement expected in mid 2011. Geotechnical and metallurgical diamond core drilling will provide data for a decision to commence a feasibility study also in 2011. Figure 4 shows the area of the current Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Resource and the exploration target area to be drill tested.

Figure 4 – Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Lodes, Resource extents and Exploration Target Area.

Surrounding Areas

Exploration is continuing on targets surrounding the Meletse Iron Ore Deposit. Figure 5 shows exploration targets currently being mapped and rock chip sampled. Figure 6 shows three zones of iron ore and ferruginous BIF mapped at Prospect C, approximately 2km south west and down slope from the Meletse Iron Ore Deposit. Table 1 shows significant high grade iron rock chip assays up to 65.5% Fe with very low contaminants which indicate strong potential for the discovery of satellite iron ore bodies proximal to the likely infrastructure corridor development at Meletse. These Prospect targets will be drill tested in the first half of 2011 following the completion of the geological mapping program.

4

Figure 5 – Exploration Targets in the Meletse Iron Ore Deposit Area

Figure 6 – Prospect C

Table 1 – Prospect C – Rock Chip Sampling

Sample ID

% % % % % % % % % % % % %

SiO2 Al2O3 Fe Fe2O3 TiO2 CaO MgO K2O MnO P S LOI *Total

Oxides

Zone 2

REW12 12.54 2.12 59.59 85.19 0.08 0.06 0.02 <0.1 0.05 0.04 <0.1 0.87 100.96

REW13 8.71 0.69 62.40 89.22 0.07 0.04 0.11 0.13 0.06 0.03 <0.1 0.66 99.71

REW18 15.59 1.39 57.47 82.16 0.04 0.06 <0.01 <0.1 0.20 0.04 <0.1 1.09 100.56

REW19 1.09 0.45 64.12 91.67 0.02 0.06 <0.01 <0.1 1.36 0.10 <0.1 4.07 98.82

REW20 1.01 0.80 64.50 92.22 0.11 0.09 <0.01 1.44 0.08 0.22 0.55 2.26 98.79

REW22 8.69 0.94 63.00 90.07 0.06 0.06 <0.01 <0.1 0.01 0.39 <0.1 0.16 100.38

REW29 5.85 0.37 64.72 92.53 0.02 0.10 <0.01 <0.1 0.04 0.01 <0.1 0.35 99.26

Zone 3

REW47 9.07 2.77 60.16 86.01 0.03 0.03 <0.01 0.18 0.07 0.19 <0.1 2.28 100.63

REW48 13.64 0.25 60.35 86.28 0.02 0.03 0.02 <0.1 0.03 0.05 0.12 0.54 100.98

REW49 5.56 0.30 65.27 93.32 0.02 0.03 0.11 <0.1 0.15 0.13 0.29 0.92 100.82

REW50 4.64 0.41 65.54 93.70 0.07 0.02 <0.01 <0.1 0.09 0.18 0.25 0.64 100.00

REW51 9.79 0.99 61.67 88.17 0.03 0.03 <0.01 <0.1 0.12 0.12 0.23 0.90 100.36

REW58 7.90 0.65 61.21 87.52 0.05 0.78 0.02 <0.1 1.39 0.02 <0.1 1.48 99.80

Development

A Scoping Study has been initiated to test the technical and economic viability of a development of the Meletse Deposit, for the supply of high grade DSO iron ore to domestic and international steel makers.

Mr Karel Meintjies has been appointed as Project Manager for the Meletse Iron Ore Project. The Scoping Study will investigate the mining and processing of the ore, as well as establish the environmental baseline in the Area.

A Social and Labour Plan will be developed in conjunction with the local community in preparation for a potential Mining Right application following completion of the Scoping Study.

5

Drill Site on Meletse

Overall, the Thabazimbi Project may support up to 4Mtpa open pit operations to supply high grade lumpy and fine iron ore to a rail head near Thabazimbi. It is anticipated that this Resource has the capacity to produce at least 60% of the product as high grade lump ore.

From that rail siding, ore can be supplied to domestic consumers and export markets via the existing rail network of Transnet Freight Rail, the logistics arm of the South African Government, through either of the ports of Maputo or Richards Bay, subject to available capacities.

Competent Person Statements The information in this release that relates to the Meletse Iron Ore Resource was prepared under the supervision of Mr Brent E Green who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists and Mr Bernhard Siebrits who is a member of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr Green is full-time employee of Aquila Resources Ltd and Mr Siebrits is a full-time employee of Golder Associates Africa Ltd. Mr Green and Mr Siebrits have sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which they are undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2004 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. The information in this presentation, insofar as it relates to exploration results is based on information compiled by Brent E Green who is a member of the Australian Institute of Geoscientists, and who has more than five years experience in the field of activity being reported on. Mr Green is a full-time employee of Aquila Resources Limited. Mr Green has sufficient experience which is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity which he is undertaking to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2004 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code of Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Green consents to the inclusion in the presentation of the matters based on the information in the form and context in which it appears. Tony Poli Executive Chairman For further information regarding this announcement, please contact Tony Poli.

Telephone: (08) 9423 0111 Facsimile: (08) 9423 0133 Email address: mail@aquilaresources.com.au Visit us at: www.aquilaresources.com.au

6

Attachment A – Estimation Process The resource estimate stated in this document was based on the criteria set out in Table 1 of the JORC Code (JORC, 2004). These criteria are discussed as follows: Drilling Technique Reverse Circulation (RC) drilling utilizing a 5.5” face sampling hammer. Angled and vertical holes drilled to achieve the optimal intersection normal to the BIF and mineralized BIF zones. Sampling Technique Industry standard sampling techniques were used for all drill methods and ground conditions encountered. On average 5 kg samples were collected directly from a riffle splitter under the cyclone. At the core shed these samples were further passed through a single stage splitter before spear samples were collected for analytical purposes. Representative samples were stored in plastic containers for future reference. Drill Sample Recovery Based on data recorded for all sample intervals the average RC sample recovery is 90%. Geological Logging Geological logging has been completed on all drilling completed within the resource area. All information from drilling has been recorded using an appropriate logging and recording system. The level of detail (stratigraphy, lithology, mineral content) is appropriate for mineral resource estimation. Geological logging data has been used to develop the geological interpretation and checked, where possible, against geochemical data. Quality of Assay Data / QAQC Two independent accredited commercial laboratories have been used for all analytical testwork. Appropriate sample preparation and assaying procedures have been used. Both laboratories have a systematic QA/QC procedure for all sampling programmes. Duplicate samples and industry certified standards are inserted within the sample sequence. The QAQC procedures are designed to monitor all aspects of sampling techniques and analytical reliability. A sampling quality check to determine the reliability of the sample mixing process was done and the results obtained indicate that the sample mixing process is sufficient. Surveying All collar locations for the deposits were surveyed in three dimensions by a surveyor. Down hole surveys using Flexit HTGS instrumentation have been completed where holes remained open at completion of drilling. Data is recorded in the Aquila database. Data spacing Drill holes are positioned on a regular 50 meter spaced drill lines. Drill density provides good geological control and grade continuity. The grade continuity has been established by variography and the data density is sufficient for reasonable variograms in most ore Lodes. Auditing The geological and assay date is internally audited. Data integrity is checked on upload of all recorder drill, survey, geological and assay data. Database Integrity The Meletse database used for the resource classification was validated for integrity and completeness by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd. Geological Interpretation Geological and mineralisation interpretations were completed by Aquila personnel. A three dimensional model was completed for the Meletse Iron Ore Deposit. The interpretations are based on geological and geochemical information from drill holes and surface mapping. The data density and regularity are considered adequate for the definitions of the geological boundaries which were used to define both geological and mineralised zones for resource estimation purposes. Dimensions Meletse Orebody:

Lode A mineralised envelope – 500 x 20 x 450 meters

Lode B mineralised envelope – 600 x 30 x 450 meters

Lode C mineralised envelope – 200 x 25 x 200 meters

Lode D mineralised envelope – 250 x 20 x 200 meters

Lode F mineralised envelope – 100 x 20 x 150 meters

Lode G mineralised envelope – 360 x 12 x 140 meters Modelling and Estimation Technique GEMCOM’s Surpac Vision® (Surpac) was used for the modelling of the Meletse Iron Ore mineral resources. The interpretations of the ore lodes of the profile sections were imported into Surpac in a digital form. The estimation techniques used for the iron ore Lodes are based on the geostatistical method of Ordinary Kriging with hard boundary conditions by ore lode. Block model cell size used – 20 x 20 x 10 metres, sub-cell size- 5 x 5 x 2.5 metres. Variables Interpolated Fe, SiO2, Al2O3, K2O, P, S, MnO, CaO, MgO and LOI (1000ºC) for all the 1m composite data of the ore Moisture Tonnage based on an as dry basis. Cut-off Parameters The resource models are not constrained by assumptions about economic cut-off grades. The reported resource is based on applying lower cut-off grade of 50% for Fe.

7

Mining Factors Mining factors were not determined Metallurgical Considerations It has been assumed that the metallurgical domains are primary governed by the position of the ore and waste boundaries. Bulk Density The relative density data with its derived formula and the resource reporting within this formula were grouped together into the %Fe classes and derived at the following average RD’s: 4.28 (50-55% Fe), 4.50 (55-60% Fe), 4.70 (60-65% Fe) and 4.84 (65-70% Fe). An average density of 4.68 for the total resource is considered appropriate for the type and style of mineralization. Accuracy and confidence Golder Associates (Pty) Ltd validated the block model for all the ore lodes to assess the conformance of the model to the input data. This entails:

Comparison of global average input data and ore lodes and block grades of all the ore and by ore lodes.

Swath plots comparing data and model (by Easting, Northing and RL) for combined ore lodes. Classification The Mineral Resource estimates were classified by Golder Associates Africa (Pty) Ltd in accordance with the JORC Code, 2004. Resource classification was primary based on drill hole spacing, data density criteria, representativeness of assay data and geological confidence. The level of continuity was sufficient to define Indicated Resource and Inferred Resource categories. Reporting The Mineral Resource estimates have been compiled in accordance with the guidelines defined in the Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (The JORC Code, 2004 Edition).

8

Attachment B – Aquila Resources Thabazimbi Project – Meletse Iron Ore Resource Estimates*

Lode   % Fe   Tonnes   % Fe  % SiO₂  

% Al₂O₃ 

% K₂O  % P   % S  

% MnO  

% CaO   % MgO   LOI  RD 

A 

50.0 ‐> 55.0            32,100   53.49  5.00  1.05  0.313  0.130  0.029  9.704  0.050  0.029  2.76  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          920,813   58.27  11.73  0.98  0.151  0.038  0.047  1.916  0.080  0.040  0.92  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      2,342,950   62.55  7.34  1.04  0.104  0.033  0.048  0.354  0.117  0.058  0.75  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0      3,808,175   66.94  2.77  0.83  0.062  0.026  0.048  0.270  0.092  0.082  0.62  4.84 

Indicated Sub Total A    

     7,104,037   64.34  5.41  0.92  0.088  0.030  0.048  0.549  0.098  0.069  0.71  4.74 

B 

50.0 ‐> 55.0          485,515   53.70  18.16  1.79  0.091  0.042  0.029  1.043  0.055  0.032  1.76  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          991,125   57.63  14.16  1.20  0.096  0.032  0.039  0.626  0.187  0.049  1.24  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      2,098,259   62.75  6.72  0.95  0.072  0.026  0.052  0.562  0.799  0.118  1.42  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0      3,884,705   67.07  3.60  0.77  0.077  0.033  0.051  0.338  0.231  0.088  0.68  4.84 

Indicated Sub Total B    

     7,459,603   63.79  6.77  0.94  0.079  0.031  0.048  0.483  0.372  0.088  1.03  4.71 

C 

50.0 ‐> 55.0          114,225   53.12  10.90  5.10  0.289  0.049  0.012  3.811  0.091  0.055  3.67  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          916,034   58.53  7.74  2.70  0.180  0.043  0.009  4.214  0.065  0.046  2.47  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0          276,421   61.57  5.32  1.64  0.162  0.026  0.005  2.490  0.060  0.041  1.70  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0               7,260   66.00  9.49  0.18  0.046  0.019  0.008  0.033  0.028  0.013  0.29  4.84 

Indicated Sub Total C    

     1,313,939   58.74  7.52  2.67  0.185  0.040  0.009  3.795  0.066  0.045  2.40  4.52 

 Indicated Total    

   15,877,580   63.63  6.22  1.07  0.092  0.031  0.045  0.783  0.225  0.076  1.00  4.71 

A 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          180,563   57.71  13.25  1.35  0.230  0.021  0.041  0.733  0.052  0.024  1.11  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      1,053,684   62.83  7.58  1.39  0.078  0.039  0.044  0.146  0.103  0.040  0.85  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0      2,718,265   66.60  2.34  0.83  0.041  0.055  0.035  0.107  0.190  0.068  0.47  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total A    

     3,952,511   65.21  4.21  1.00  0.059  0.049  0.038  0.145  0.161  0.058  0.60  4.79 

B 

50.0 ‐> 55.0          807,050   53.49  16.91  1.90  0.080  0.037  0.050  1.663  0.059  0.046  2.17  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0      6,902,159   57.76  16.63  0.74  0.093  0.044  0.032  1.559  0.084  0.084  1.87  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      4,354,259   62.57  9.86  0.76  0.078  0.031  0.032  0.807  0.094  0.070  1.02  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0      6,161,320   67.45  2.61  0.54  0.073  0.041  0.050  0.473  0.159  0.049  0.55  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total B    

   18,224,787   62.07  10.18  0.73  0.082  0.040  0.039  1.009  0.111  0.067  1.23  4.65 

9

Lode   % Fe   Tonnes   % Fe  % SiO₂  

% Al₂O₃ 

% K₂O  % P   % S  

% MnO  

% CaO   % MgO   LOI  RD 

C 

50.0 ‐> 55.0          129,740   53.44  16.18  3.05  0.224  0.060  0.064  4.957  0.050  0.041  2.28  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          752,346   58.35  7.10  2.20  0.152  0.054  0.124  4.929  0.057  0.037  2.27  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0          305,500   62.07  7.66  1.54  0.120  0.035  0.053  2.044  0.043  0.034  1.28  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0            19,360   65.66  10.26  0.17  0.051  0.026  0.008  0.029  0.034  0.017  0.27  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total C    

     1,206,946   58.88  8.26  2.09  0.150  0.050  0.098  4.122  0.052  0.036  1.99  4.53 

D 

50.0 ‐> 55.0            89,615   52.84  13.98  0.59  0.239  0.095  0.103  7.545  0.038  0.039  2.67  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          718,875   58.37  11.06  0.92  0.101  0.070  0.086  3.838  0.068  0.024  2.07  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      2,527,134   62.28  10.71  0.73  0.059  0.074  0.064  0.750  0.073  0.013  1.56  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0            40,535   65.51  8.34  0.28  0.028  0.026  0.101  0.236  0.032  0.014  0.62  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total D    

     3,376,158   61.24  10.84  0.76  0.072  0.073  0.070  1.578  0.070  0.016  1.69  4.65 

F 

50.0 ‐> 55.0            95,765   51.32  20.46  0.24  0.058  0.026  0.012  0.832  0.250  0.032  1.15  4.28 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          147,375   58.54  13.75  0.36  0.055  0.022  0.015  0.423  0.203  0.036  0.96  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0          490,271   62.91  10.09  0.37  0.062  0.036  0.019  0.470  0.168  0.035  0.96  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0      2,016,465   66.98  3.38  0.40  0.083  0.030  0.009  0.668  0.116  0.016  0.64  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total F    

     2,749,876   65.30  5.67  0.39  0.077  0.031  0.011  0.625  0.134  0.021  0.73  4.77 

G 

55.0 ‐> 60.0          237,938   58.98  12.70  1.04  0.073  0.051  0.045  1.732  0.143  0.048  1.50  4.50 

60.0 ‐> 65.0      1,987,221   62.24  7.52  1.27  0.105  0.040  0.031  1.466  0.122  0.046  1.32  4.70 

65.0 ‐> 70.0            10,890   65.02  4.33  1.50  0.111  0.028  0.028  0.774  0.005  0.021  1.51  4.84 

Inferred Sub Total G    

     2,236,049   61.90  8.06  1.25  0.101  0.041  0.032  1.491  0.123  0.046  1.34  4.68 

Inferred Total    

   31,746,326   62.53  8.89  0.82  0.081  0.044  0.041  1.078  0.114  0.054  1.19  4.67 

Grand Total Indicated and Inferred    

   47,623,906   62.89  8.00  0.91  0.085  0.040  0.043  0.979  0.151  0.061  1.13  4.68 

* All Mineral Resource estimates are reported at a 50% Fe cut-off