Questions submitted to BRB for response at AGM on 24.11.2022, page-3

Hi Token83,

No, its not Tom here... he's much more jovial than me

I will explore your point of 'GL1 is done'.... My point is not to debate whether BRB should have remained in Lithium or not, but having made the decision to exit Lithium, BRB should have extracted higher value for this (known) quality asset, and had three opportunities to achieve this. The initial transaction (A) conducted in December 2021 was unfavourable to BRB (the market reaction provides the evidence). No organisational learning took place, therefore the hubris continued through transactions B and C.

Extract from Argonaut Securities 'Best Undeveloped Projects' November 2022 Report, pp 102-103 states: -
'Our discounted cashflow model for the Manna Project generates a build date NPV7 of A$1,002M and present day NPV7 of A$843 (sic)' [should read $843M].

Even discounting a 'conflict of interest' factor Argonaut has in acting for GL1 in presenting their numbers, it would indicate compensation BRB has received in comparison with 'present day NPV' of $843M, in anyone's language, is low. BRB might have 'de-risked' by undertaking this transaction, and I agree that it has, but there was value left on the table and its not BRB shareholders' now. Anyone can sell an asset for substantially less than its 'value', and yet where is the accountability for BRB Board actions here?

Ularring is still to come (and who knows, Lake Roe too?) and if this is a pre-cursor shareholders should be very concerned. Will there be a learning by transaction 'D', 'E'... 'Z', or never? It needs to be called out now, to save angst in future.

Lets see a BRB business plan for 2023, and get serious about revenue generation asap!

Cheers,
Grumpy