Ann: Carnallite Scoping Study Completed & ENAMCO , page-29

re: Ann: Carnallite Scoping Study Completed &...
Oh dear....

The apples are screaming "but we are not the same!!"....

ELM and STB used the same revenue and disc rate assumptions? Nope....May want to compare both at the same figures.

STB has costed for a BFS, ELM has costed at PFS stage, very different.

What is the ELM cash cost after they move $0.5B....off the balance sheet? What is the risk and why are they doing this? How many multi billion dollar mining projects have used the current tax assumptions in the ROC? Eritrea has one major mining operation, unfortunately some goal posts may have changed on STB, if its not ratified STB is likely to drift lower still.

STB has an IRR of 40% yet their cash costs and capex are apparantly too high and revenue assumptions lower than ELM, this does not work. What is their cash costs in the first 3-5 years? STB have only quoted LOM opex. It looks like they have an issue during or after 3-5 years with increasing strip ratio, probably a cross over point to expand into Carnallite but on their figures this would be after the initial capital is paid off. Not sure why STB have not explained this further, it looks strange.

Could be wrong on a few things, but need to take a better look at assumptions, its not that easy to compare apples, and unfortunately not everything is public.

ELM have a better location atm but STB is much more advanced than people are giving them credit for on the thread. Talking up the price of potash on both threads well above the current price and any opex assumption and then saying the other project is uneconomic looks rather silly, gov crap aside.