lynas presentation to analysts, page-22

My guess why the numbers/report isn't on the Lynas website is because the mining numbers are not correct.

This won't be LYC's fault - it'll be a miscomprehension or transposition error by the analyst. This is why you have to take analyst's reports with a grain of salt.

Let's do the maths people.

The stated head grade of Mt Weld is about 10% REO (For the sake of easy maths). From that LYC looks to produce an REO con at around, let’s say 35% REO, at about 70% recovery. It needs 11000TPA REO to feed Stage 1 and 22000T REO to feed Stage 2 LAMP.

To get 11000KTPA REO to LAMP we need to produce the following amount of concentrate;

11000 x (100/35) = 31428T of concentrate

This concentrate contains 70% (Recovery at Mt Weld concentrator) of the available REO reporting to the concentrator, therefore

(31428 x (100/70))= 44897 tonnes of REO were mined to produce that 31.4kT of con.

If we say that the Mt Weld orebody is 10% REO then we need 10 times the 44897T to be mined to supply the correct amount of ore to the concentrator to get what we want out the other end, i.e. 448970kTPA of ore mined PA. And this doesn't account for waste/strip mining in the open cut.

Double that to supply Stage 2.

I remain very positive on the company, but I really do despair at the analysts who throw this crap up without at least checking their maths. And people just take it as gospel. I reckon they're close with how much con Stage 2 LAMP needs at around 35% REO contained but unless there's been a major change to the recovery at MT Weld or, alternatively, a major change to the mined grade of the ore then their mined figure is miles out.

More recovery from Mt Weld concentrator will clearly mean less ore mined per unit concentrate produced. Higher mined grade clearly has the same effect. Neither has been reported to my knowledge