Ann: Mines and Money Conference Presentation, page-27

Hi JD & Frog

Yes I did have the wrong figure for the optimised case. $53 + $25 = $78 not $88.
And my expansion figure was $40 + $25 = $65
where in both cases the $25 is the premium that 69% would attract above 62%. I understand that the premium would differ when 62% is $40 Vs $53 but probably not by too much.

There is a note d) in Table 5. attached to the "all in breakeven price" of 62% that says it is the break even of post construction cash flows. This I believe suggests it is calculated using opex and no capex.

So in the optimised case if the 62% price is $53 then MGT will be receiving revenue at $78/t. If that is a break even position it then means that the costs must be $78/t. In the expansion case if the 62% price is $40 then MGT will be receiving revenue at $65/t. If that is a break even position it then means that the costs must be $65/t.

So costs per t would be $78 for the optimised case and $65 for the expansion.
All figures quoted are US$

Have I got that right?
Baz