Ann: First Lithium Shipment Boosts NAL Revenues, page-211

O.K ....so firstly it simply based on the Movement between CASH at 30th June and 31st August based on what we know and what we can interpret or assume from previous quarterlies as well as the information given in the announcement.

And remember that my estimates were given BEFORE the announcement was even released and not hours later where some calc's had been thrown up which still left out the KNOWN receipts from tranche 2 in July and Director's option conversion which were also in July.

Heck even my rough and approximate number crunch had left out the $6 million Directors options conversion , and which in the end just allows for another $6 million of operating expenses to be incurred before having an effect on the ' movement ' result anyway.

So to Splits point , I doubt that there will be any ' Wild ' fluctuations in the result due his claim that the expenses are substantially more in July & August , and since the expenses to produce the over 30 thousand tonnes of product were largely incurred in the June quarter.

So sticking with my FIRST estimates and how I calculated it. We can start with the opening balance of cash and work through it as follows :-

So I then took the A$58 million 90% payment and divided it by the 20,500 tonnes shipped to arrive at the NET A$2,868. I was then quickly applied a US dollar exchange rate which was meant to be .65 so the USD $1,721 is obviously wrong and should have been US$1,864 per tonne ' implied ' NET figure. So that was a mistake as a result of firing off the quick response.

So then almost immediately following my post , Megafauna focused on the very obvious point of my ' NET ' comment in highlighting the difference of FREIGHT and Brokerage costs in working back the figure to arrive at a theoretical figure representing the ' Spot ' price. Which in this case looks to be at least 40% ( I said 30% in one of my very early post when they said the shipment would be handled by an International metals broker )

So it would seem that the figure is not that far off , and even if Split's assertion of much higher expenditures are correct , there may also be receipts from Piedmont and SOQUEM which might offset the effect of those increases anyway.

So as we've seen and even reflecting on it now , my quick calculation which also assumes NO further receipts from our JV partners Piedmont and SOQUEM. And i assumed this because if you have MORE receipts , the payment amount will simply be reduced further. Similarly if you have MORE expenditures like Split is suggesting , your receipt from first shipment would go UP from there.

So given my calc actually omitted the $6 million in Directors options and perhaps was even a $1 million under the second tranche capital raise amount , the expenditures would have to be another $7 million just to neutralize that effect.

So I don't reckon that expenditures would be that much more than the prorated amount from the June quarter , and definitely NOT ' Wildly ' as suggested.

Irrespective of this , the whole point of doing approximate calculations is to get a feel for whats going on and therefore I don't apologize for getting this information and analysis done as quick as possible for my own comfort in the announcement.

And like I said , there were others who were still putting out figures which omitted the entire $37 - 38 million from the second trance of the raise and weren't being questioned on their posts.