Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-25

You apparently don’t read the footnotes. And anyway as I said in the previous post it is not about what the spot prices were in July vs now, it is about what they are budgeting on them being now vs what they were budgeting them to be back in July.

“ Updated FY23 cost guidance for payable nickel production is as follows: UnitsTotal Original FY23 Updated FY23 H1 FY23 Cost Guidance Cost Guidance 11.86$7.30 – $8.30$11.00 – $11.50 13.75$20 – $28 million$16 – $20 million 16.91$14 – $18 million$23 – $27 million Unit CostsC11 A$/lb AISC A$/lb AIC A$/lb 1 By-product pricing based on Cu US$9,000/t, Co US$39,000/t, AUD:USD 0.70 exchange rate vs previous estimate of Cu US$9,500/t, Co US$70,000/t, AUD:USD 0.72 exchange ratePanoramic Managing Director and CEO “

You are clearly giving mere lip service to understanding how the costs and by product credits work, but are clearly not delving into numbers. Cobalt is significant, but there are a number of things that all feed into the cost increase.

Despite what you apparently believe, you can bet diesel is costing much more than was budgeted in July. It’s not just the price of oil, it’s the refinery margins and diesel shipping costs (most have perhaps noticed when filling up that it is not just the oil price).

Consider one (so obvious) that it was not even mentioned by Victor, royalties, which are directly linked directly to the nickel price, which will be way above budget.

I am certainly not saying that PAN was not unduly optimistic in their original guidance, you may even recall that I was much less confident of it at the time than you were. The various problems they were already encountering seemed to me likely to be more persistent than the optimists believed.

I suggest you could write to management and tell them of your concern about their numbers.

Or perhaps you could reread some of your earlier posts and bathe in the optimism and naivety, not uncommon in ones first mining investment. And reflect.

EL