thoughts/questions, page-25

Sure, let me breakdown your comments.

You say “Furthermore that marginality will be greatly improved as the mine moves to higher production.”
As highlighted last week, even the companies own recent updated mine plan has unit cost at about average AU$13.00/lb in FY24 which uses nameplate production and way higher assumed by-credits to get to their unit cost number. When you say ‘greatly improved’ then you are speaking gobble talk which contradicts the information made available to the market.

You say ”For instance did you know that at current commodity prices copper credits are slightly above the recent guidance in AUD?”
Only by about AU$400/t difference to the assumed number used by the company for copper, such an insignificant difference to the bottom line but then you fail to highlight that cobalt is off by about AU$33,000/t to the assumed number used by the company for cobalt. This I think makes for a better case.

You say “Or that total byproduct credits are currently down about 80 c per payable pound AUD on that guidance? Or about 40 c AUD worse than they were in the Mar Q?”
Again, nonsense talk based on anecdotal evidence.

You say “Yes moves in byproduct credits are important, but the two most important things atm are the production numbers and the price of nickel.”
Exactly, consideration also that the company may not meet its proposed production numbers adding further risk to costs and the current nickel price is sitting at about US$21,000/t, this may most likely create concerns for the business if the price of nickel does not recover. Currently nickel is about AU$14.42/lb which is now below the unit AIC reported for the March quarter of AU$15.55/lb.