Ann: Results of Annual General Meeting, page-5

Thanks, Bene for the information.

In relation to “The plan right now is to raise 15% of the capital and build a much smaller facility”, did you gain the impression that the “capital” refers to the US250M in the Feasibility Study albeit presumably lowered by the savings identified?

With regard to “There will be a capital raising of some sort to take them through the next 6 months or so but not for a significant sum”, has anyone any clues as to what this might be?

I’m having some difficulty in understanding the effect on capital costs by having a staged development.

As mining was intended to involve the extraction of ore from several open pits I can readily see how there will be an initial saving in wages and equipment. Will the crusher and milling be smaller in size than would otherwise have been the case with the intent of replicating them at a later stage? If so, surely in the long run having 2 smaller crushers would be more expensive than acquiring a larger crusher though some of the capital costs are deferred. If not, there is no saving for this part of the capital costs.

A similar situation would apply to the refining process.

If a reduction in activity results in no necessity to resurface the gravel road for transporting the product until a later stage then there is an initial saving.

Regarding water, if the diversion and dam can be deferred there is an initial saving.

Consequently, although capital costs may belower, some of the savings will be lost as a result of the staging process. Inany event, in view of the situation with power it doesn’t look as if Managementhas much alternative.