Ann: 2Q FY24 Quarterly Report & Appendix 5B, page-78

I was listening to the Money of Mines discussion on IGO the other day and they raised a good point about having (or not having) operatorship. The operational saga being suffered by IGO at Greenbushes shows the critical and strategic importance of holding the operatorship. If PLS and MIN are able to continue pumping Lithium at full bore into the current market, why would the Greenbushes JV, which is one of the world's largest and most cost competitive mine, choose to scale back? If one reads between the lines based on IGO's recent commentary, it is the operator's chosen path and one that they don't seem to agree with.

Not that it's anything new as it's been discussed before but the same can be said of all our landholdings. Imagine what the operatorship across all that land and gas reserve is worth to another party like MIN, Hancock or Beach, especially if the domgas policy is changed

It is worth keeping a close eye on any future update by AEMO on the forward looking supply demand curve. With so many mines being mothballed or scaled back, we may see the WA gas market in a balanced position or maybe even a small surplus in the next year or two. Mind you, if you have a long term positive view on Lithium (less on Nickel as we simply can't compete with Indonesia on the cost curve) like myself, then the longer term WA gas outlook is still very much positive in terms of price points.

618