Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-20

While this is an AGR forum, peer comparisons are useful to determine relative value. Btw I wasn’t aware of CXM so if my comments are inaccurate that’s because I have only just had a quick look.

When I think of AGR the attractiveness is that it’s fully funded from an equity point of view and that production and ramp up is close. There is $4m left for the project but this should be debt funded. This means there should be no further dilution - hopefully. If there is need for a raise it should be relatively small for overruns or working capital but I think that is unlikely.

In contrast CXM has to find $70m to fund the project vs their current $20m market cap. The project looks great from a NPV and IRR perspective and there might be upside as they optimise the study but there is a long way to go before it’s de-risked and there is substantial more dilution to come. They are also a long way away from production.

So while that Project has a higher NPV and AGR has a slightly higher market cap you need to account for future dilution. Also when you add in copper AGR steps well ahead, is further along the journey and lower risk. The other CXM plays seem to be prospective and hard to value at this stage. So for me, AGR looks the better play objectively but for your perspective CXM does look attractive at present prices.