Afreximbank, page-262

It is an upfront cost and it hurts...Capex of the plant considerations is necessary for the design to optimise the project...Different resource different outcome higher revenue thru smaller footprint...Higher Revenue

The CAPEX cost is effected by thru-put where the lower the grade the larger the plant requirement...More tons thru plant for less material delivered...The larger the flake size the more amenable, mineral composition of host rock material, foliated where the layers separate easily along with possible vanadium contaminants that report to tailings in the gangue as opposed to vanadium forming and imbedded with the graphite at the metamorphic stage all aspects that affect the projects differently.

Quote: WKT needs to move twice (2x) the amount of host material than EcoGraf's Tanzania project, this is all due to the selective mining and high strip ratio. (Half the CAPEX half the ROM...)

(2x) the amount of host material than EcoGraf's Tanzania project, (No free cash margins)

Below have given an example of low strip ratio with lower 8% TGC grade...

The result of the project can no longer deliver 40,000 TPA from 300,000 TPA plant design where a much larger plant would be required to deliver less revenue...

At maximum capacity, only 24,000 TPA from 300,000 TPA can be delivered while revenue also reduced from potential US$61.2 million to $US36.7 million...Costs of mining activity also increased by over $US4.8 million...

ROM mining cost per ton unit US$3.14 x (2.2+1)=$10.05 per ton Rom /8% = US$125.6
Processing cost per ton unit US$27.56 / 8 % = US$344
ROM Ming cost US$125.6 + Processing cost US$344 = US$469

The immediate concern the plant is designed to produce 40,000 TPA 15% TGC 300,000 TPA thru put. If you do the calculations the plant can only produce 24,000 TPA per annum at 100% capacity maximising 300,000 design thru puts…The most sensible measure is to mitigate by having both reserve grade upside and also redundancy of plant which is what was achieved in the DFS and even went one step further after Pareto become involved.

Is this design problem or a grade problem...?

If you try an upgrade a weaker resource and maximise throughput not only do you reduce revenue you also increase ROM...Quote: WKT needs to move twice (2x) the amount of host material than EcoGraf's Tanzania project, this is all due to the selective mining and high strip ratio. (Half the CAPEX half the ROM...)

The design advantage of the Lindi project has 2 main advantages high grade and superior flake size combined with a known market constraint of 40,000 tons per annum while the most likely lagging performance will be recovery. Redundancy of plant and possible higher feed grade @23% TGC can mitigate the project in 2 areas by having both plant capacity and resource availability…As per calculations provided processing cost is stagnated to grade the offset would be slightly higher ROM of mining if this were to occur...IMO mining strip ratio was optimised at 4.4:1 to cutoff grade measured 10% TGC 17.9% TGC life of mine...

Regards Croc (Back of the envelope calculation's) Different markets higher revenue...