Good morning everyone. I would like to sharewith you an analysis...

Good morning everyone. I would like to sharewith you an analysis of an article that recently appeared in the Polish media,made by Mr. Marcin Michałek. This article was probably the reason for the lastbig increase in the GreenX price on the Polish stock exchange. As you probablyalready know, Mr. Michałek is an expert in the field of mining as well as lawand is very well versed in the subject of arbitration between Poland andGreenX. This analysis sheds some light behind the scenes of the pendingarbitration, and it can be inferred that the Polish government was shocked bythe strength of the evidence presented by GreenX. I translated Mr. Michałek'sanalysis using google translator, I apologize in advance for translationerrors. Best regards and I wish you further increases in the value of thecompany.

Here's a link to Mr. Michałek post:

https://m.facebook.com/story.php/?story_fbid=pfbid02HfNEb2sQEW441X15tUb9BB67St6Vr6MVRBoqM4qm33KptiFBZXPfpcWeAWtNPBkbl&id=100010623280927

Translation:

Gazeta Polska published today a famous articleabout the arbitration dispute with the Polish government #PrairieMining for PLN4 billion for blocking the construction projects of two new mines: Jan Karskiand Dębieńsko. The revelation of the content of text messages that MirosławTaras and Artur Wasil were supposed to exchange was supposed to be a sensationhere - both men managed Bogdanka, moreover, Mr. Taras also managed anAustralian company. Apparently, the topic was also raised on TVP Info, but Ican't find the recording anywhere, and I wasn't able to watch it live in themorning while at work (if anyone has it, I'd be grateful for sending it). Idescribed the material as "loud", because it certainly contributed totoday's spectacular increases in the price of GreenX Metals shares. So I haveno choice but to traditionally comment on the media revelations on the topic ofPDZ.

Edit: I've already seen the footage from TVP,thank you to the sender! In general, the narrative is similar to the article inGazeta Polska, i.e. looking for the guilty and expressing hope that Poland willwin. It was funny to demand the intervention of the services by the authordisclosing classified evidence of secret proceedings, I laughed. xD

The article is available for a fee tosubscribers of Gazeta Polska on its website:

https://www.gazetapolska.pl/29373-polski-wegiel-o-czym-esemesowali-byli-szefowie-bogdanki-odbudowa-kotwowa-niemiecki-arbiter-i-niedoszly-europosel-po

It was entitled "Polish coal. What werethe former bosses of Bogdanka texting about? Reconstruction of anchors, Germanarbiter and would-be PO MEP", which is all too telling for peoplesensitive to a certain style of practicing - let it be - journalism. Unfortunately,I am not aware, not being a reader of this newspaper, what is the profile ofits recipient and what is its leading narrative, but it has the opinion of apro-PiS medium. This would be in line with the headline, emphasizing thePOLISHITY of coal, from which the sinister would-be MEP of the CITIZEN'SPLATFORM wants to rid us with the hands of an unfavorable GERMAN arbiter.Guilty needed "for yesterday"! Perhaps it is the former bosses ofBogdanka who are to blame, THEY WERE already, let us emphasize, the bosses -because they were dismissed from their positions by our nation's defendersbefore they even thought to text about anything. This is how the government ofLaw and Justice works efficiently...

Well, enough of this irony, let's get to themerits of the article. Unfortunately, I will only refer to theses, I will notquote it - after all, it is paid, it would be rude of me. I think that aftertoday's increases, every interested shareholder will be able to afford asubscription, we even owe it to the author.

Let me start by correcting obvious errors:

1. Arbitration takes place not in Stockholm butin The Hague, although sessions may be held at other agreed locations, such ashearings in London.

2. In response to the Polish position, Prairiereduced its claim from GBP 806 to 737 million, i.e. from PLN 4.2 to PLN 4.0billion.

3. Prairie is not yet "Australia'sexploration and production giant", although with current coal prices,starting mining today as planned, it could inevitably be a contender for such atitle. It is not, because, as it tries to prove in arbitration, it was deprivedof all its investments in our country by Poland.

4. Prairie bought Karbonia for EUR 2 million,not PLN 1.5 million. JSW, busy with its problems, missed the opportunity.

5. The term of the Dębieńsko concession did notexpire, there was no need to extend it - it was valid until 2048. It wasnecessary to change it in terms of the date of completion of the constructionof the mining plant and the commencement of mining. That's the difference.

And that's it for minor factual errors, which,having noticed in the article, I could correct with one or two sentences. As Iwrote to you in my study of the dispute: some threads of the conflict aredescribed too superficially, which means they lose subtle nuances, seeminglyinsignificant, but ultimately of great importance for the outcome of the wholecase and for us investors. But as they say - no matter how, it's important thatthey say it - and let's stick to it, forgiving journalists minor inaccuracies,because who wants to know where to look for the essence. Let's move on todiscussing the thicker threads of the material.

First of all, I am appalled by the statementthat Prairie, considering itself discriminated against by the Polish side,abandoned the implementation of both of its projects over time. It is simply alie! Prairie has never abandoned its designs. I really don't want to reinventthe wheel and repeat myself again - I systematized all the events around theseprojects in a hundred-page study pinned on my FB profile. As for the Jan Karskimine, after the Ministry did not conclude a mining usufruct agreement with theCompany, which it was obliged to do by the priority right resulting from thedocumentation of the deposit by the Australians, it awarded the concession toBogdanka. So in a nutshell - how did Prairie resign from the Jan Karskiproject, since it became pointless with the award of the deposit to thecompetition? As for Dębieńsko, Prairie immediately after taking over Karboniaapplied in 2016 for a change in the concession to postpone the start of miningfrom 2018 to 2025. There was no need to extend the concession, because it wasvalid until 2058, if I remember correctly. The Ministry thought about thesimple YES/NO answer for so long that the deadline for starting mining haspassed. The court found a number of irregularities in this refusal, and yet theMinistry appealed against the unfavorable verdict. As a result, Prairie finallyresigned from the concession (we know this from statements, not hard documents)- because what was it supposed to implement the project for, being financiallydevastated by six years of scuffles? Finally, after withdrawing from theapplication for a change in the concession, the Ministry had to initiate theprocedure of its withdrawal, and thus set a new realistic date for removing theviolations, which is the first stage of the procedure - and so the Ministryitself postponed the deadline to 2029, i.e. later than the PDZ wanted , but alreadywhen the Company lost the ability to implement the project.

However, I am amused by some seeminglyinsignificant insertions through which a certain narrative is built, the groundis prepared for a possible defeat. Because if we lose, remember today: the Tribunalis chaired by GERMANY, which was even underlined in the headline of theparagraph. The article further informs the reader that this "Australianexploration and production giant", i.e. bloodthirsty foreign capital,entered Poland during the PO-PSL government. It was THEY who let them in,creating a dangerous breach through which we are facing arbitration today andthe real threat of multi-billion penalties! Fortunately, our beloved currentgovernment is doing everything to defend POLISH - as emphasized in the title -coal, against the temptations of rotten capitalists! In order not to stop atscaring the reader with the impersonal PO-PSL opposition, we went a littlefurther here, personifying it, giving it the face of Mirosław Taras. Mr.Mirosław Taras should be known to Prairie's shareholders - he once managed thePolish projects of the Australian company, having previously been the presidentof both Bogdanka and Kompania Węglowa. His greatest sin, however, was hisrelationship with the Civic Platform, from which he ran for the EuropeanParliament, unsuccessfully - which the author of the article emphasizes withclear satisfaction. Indeed, given the current trends in filling key positions,it may not fit in the head that Prairie Mining in such a high stool exposed aperson with unquestionable experience and unquestionable success in the miningindustry, called the "Lord of Miracles" of his time, instead ofentrusting it to some brother-in-law's sister's cousin. You can also see foryourself - if God forbid we lose, it will not be because of our belovedgovernment, but because of a German arbitrator and a candidate for MEP from theopposition list...

The next headline of the paragraph leaves noillusions - the Prairie projects were "investments with negligible chanceof success". We are assured that for the Attorney General's heroicallyrepresenting the State Treasury in this dispute, the allegations made byPrairie are COMPLETELY unfounded. Our (as Polish) line of defense, as can bededuced from the article, is based on three "solid" pillars. Well,Prairie even took a hoe to the Sun, intended to carry out almost breaknecklyalmost impossible projects with negligible chances of success due to thefollowing conditions: a) legal, b) financial and c) technical. And after all,Poland had absolutely no influence on it!

I think that everyone who has read my study ofthe conflict, at least a little carefully, sees how weak these pillars are, howfragile are the foundations for building a line of defense in this dispute.I'll only cover them briefly because I really don't want to repeat myself.

a) "legalconditions that are difficult to meet" - yes, no one has ever said that itis easy to comply with all the restrictions imposed by Polish legislation onaspiring mining entrepreneurs. Building a mine is a daunting task, but notimpossible - unless the state itself makes it difficult. After a deeperreflection, however, I am able to admit that the Prosecutor's Office is righthere - indeed, we have such difficult legal conditions for the construction ofmines that even ministerial officials deciding on Prairie were lost in them,which was proven by 9 court judgments favorable to Prairie Mining, in which theJudges instructed them on how to correctly interpret Polish law. This isprobably the best response on the subject.

b) "financialconditions difficult to meet" - also here no one claims that theconstruction of a mine is a cheap undertaking. Prairie had secured financingfrom Chinese banks, for which it can certainly submit relevant agreements tothe Court. However, I do not intend to argue here and to refute this argument Iwill only cite an excerpt from the judgment of the Provincial AdministrativeCourt in Warsaw, ref. VI SA/Wa 556/19: "However, it needs to be indicatedhere that failure to start access to the deposit within the time limitspecified in the concession, lack of credibility, or doubts regarding thefinancing model of the project covered by the concession are not normativegrounds for refusing to change the concession, because the provisions of theP.g.g. provide no such conditions.

c) "technicalconditions that are difficult to meet" - according to the article, theybreak down with the technology that Prairie intended to use in theimplementation of its projects, namely the independent anchor support. Our (asPoland) "strong" argument is that when planning - and I emphasize:when planning - exploitation from the K-6-7 deposit, Bogdanka rejected thepossibility of using such support as risky and ineffective, while Prairieinsisted on such a technology. The refutation of this argument is literally a"river topic" for me as a miner. And not because it would cause meany difficulties, on the contrary - it is child's play and possible to refuteon many levels. Let me start by saying that the bone of contention around theJan Karski project is centered around the failure to conclude a mining usufructagreement with Prairie under the pre-emptive right that it could claim due todocumenting the deposit. In order to obtain such mining usufruct, threeconditions must be met in accordance with Art. 15 PGiG: approve the geologicaldocumentation of the mineral deposit, prepare a deposit development plan andsubmit a claim on time. Neither the geological documentation of the mineraldeposit nor the project of its development are documents in which the supportis selected! Yes, the deposit development project includes the technology ofits exploitation, i.e. whether it will be mining by caving or with backfilling,because it is of fundamental importance. However, every mining practitionerknows that the support as such is selected by the Mining Department Manager ofthe mine (sometimes with the help of an expert) on the basis of the Support Bookattached to the Mining Plant Operation Plan. It is therefore a process offormalizing the elements of the mine operation, which is much more postponed intime, than the acquisition of mining usufruct, which is what is really at stakehere. Well, unless the deposit is to be mined in a system other than a longwallsystem, e.g. a room and pillar system with the use of an independent boltingsupport - then such a system would have to be included in the depositdevelopment project. The Prairie projects, as far as I know, assumed the use ofbolting support in roadway excavations drilled by Continuous Miners, so not inmining excavations! In the Polish mining industry, there have been manyattempts to use an independent anchor support (because anchors as an element ofa combined support are commonly used as a supplement and reinforcement of thesupport support) with various results. It seems to me that we are stillreluctant and distrustful of this solution, preferring to choose a provenarc-compliant housing. However, in order not to look far, it was quiterecently, at the end of November 2019, in the Budryk mine owned by JSW,drilling of a roadway in an independent anchoring support was started using theBolter Miner, specially imported for this purpose from the United States. Thisdrilling has been completed, and this year the shearer was prepared fordrilling another excavation in such a casing. It is worth emphasizing that KWKBudryk is adjacent to Dębieński - then how can one say that this technology isfantastic? If someone does not believe me that such excavations exist inPoland, then please see:

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=SUOnVjSM0RU

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=xxKJ6pLSOuQ

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=UAxOe3wxHbc

https://www.youtube.com/watch?v=DNk56KhpjUs

And these are just the first recordings!

I also recommend a scientific article by Dr.Małkowski from the AGH University of Science and Technology regarding this typeof housing:

https://docplayer.pl/60418329-Obudowa-kotwowa-wczoraj-i-dzis-w-aspekcie-obowia_zuja_cych-przepisow.html?fbclid=IwAR1ZaboEbfwfHc5YOp7pECcbq028QHLQNCKVOIAto6zjaFkDH0iHlBQ0LzU

You will find out from it what wasthe total length of excavations made in Polish mines with the use of anindependent rockbolt support in individual years (in the years 1991-2008, sothis is not the latest fashion statement, but the technology improved on thebasis of experience).

I do not want to write about the technologyof the self-contained anchor support, because for me as a miner it would beproving that black is black and white is white - some people will not be ableto "persuade" it anyway, so it's a waste of time.

Edit: I have just received reliableinformation from a colleague that a few hundred meters long section of theexcavation was made in the anchoring support in the Stefanów field on Bogdanka,however, it is currently blocked and the topic has died.

And it was the text messages from2020-2021 regarding the use in the conditions of the Lublin Coal Basin that Mr.Taras and Mr. Wasil exchanged with each other were the main punchline of thearticle of Gazeta Polska. Prairie allegedly referred to them as evidenceagainst the arguments of the Prosecutor's Office, which tried to prove that theuse of such housing is fantastic in Lublin's conditions. Mr. Wasil, the formerpresident of Bogdanka, boasted to Mr. Taras that foreign experts confirmed thepossibility of using this technology at Bogdanka and that he intends toimplement it this year, unless they cancel him earlier. And they dismissed thePresident on September 16 this year on the personal order of Jacek Sasin, whoannounced it earlier on his Twitter - such a thing is possible only in thiscountry when it comes to dismissing the bosses of listed companies. So far, Ihave not connected this event in any way with the Prairie case, because therewas not the slightest indication of it. However, from the point of view oftoday's revelations, it may be highly probable that Mr. Wasil's text messageswere included in the Prairie reply filed on September 7 this year as a responseto the argument, probably raised in Poland's response to the lawsuit, that itwas impossible to use an independent roof bolting in the conditions of the K-6-7. This would form a cause-and-effect sequence, and the unpleasant mode inwhich this appeal took place would suggest how destructive these text messageswere for the defense line of the Prosecutor's Office.

Another thread that was raised atthe very end of the article is the case of Sławomir Nowak (if anyone does notknow, also from the ominous PO). Prairie Mining was to use the advice of itssubsidiary Europe Partners, which was documented by an invoice for exactly PLN14,760. Well, who saw that a foreign company uses advisors issuing invoices?Scandalous indeed... Let me just remind you that once the former ChiefGeologist of the Country, prof. Jędrysek filed a notification to theprosecutor's office about irregularities surrounding the issuance ofconcessions in the Lublin region and insinuated illegal activities on the partof Prairie. The PDZ quickly denied these revelations that it was in anycapacity a party to any proceedings. It is a scandal that Polish officials talkso lightly about public companies and get away with it. Of course, nothing cameof these notifications, we do not even know whether the prosecutor's office haslaunched an investigation at all. And the company has not even apologized...

The very article making public theevidence invoked in a secret international arbitration is highly controversial.Honestly, I don't know what will come of it and if there will be anyrepercussions. So far, no confidential information has leaked out. Everything Iknew about the Company was available on the Internet, it was enough to make aneffort, sometimes quite a lot, I admit. Nevertheless, I've never broughtanything to light that wasn't already covered somewhere on the web.

To sum it up briefly: it seems thatthe chosen line of defense is collapsing like a house of cards and desperatelytrying to blame someone for the state of affairs. In my opinion, this ispositive information for the shareholders.

Finally, I would like to add that todate, I have not sold any of the Prairie Mining (GreenX Metals) shares Ipurchased. Yes, I signaled the desire to withdraw the deposit in the range ofPLN 2-3, I even had an order slightly above PLN 2, but after the rate increasedto 1.8 I withdrew it. Currently, my strategy is dynamic, although I have anorder to sell 2/3 of my package above PLN 10. We'll see how the situationdevelops.

I greet LivermoreGPW from thebanker's forum for substantive entries in recent days, I keep my fingerscrossed for the study on Greenland - I will be happy to read it, although I amnot interested in this project as a player focused on arbitration.

Here is another post by the authorwith a photo of the first page of the article:

https://twitter.com/PNisztor/status/1609815238693502978