It’sinteresting to do a little more arithmetic with those...

It’sinteresting to do a little more arithmetic with those numbers to determine therelative values that should reflect the comparative grades (whether higher orlower).

	Country	Imports (mt)	Value (USD?)	Ave price (USD/mt)	Proportion tonnes %	Proportion Value %	Implied Grade Higher or Lower
1	Australia	349,471	352,023,664	1,007	66.9%	73.6%	Higher
2	Zimbabwe	97,896	66,949,113	684	18.7%	14.0%	Lower
3	Nigeria	33,060	14,977,416	453	6.3%	3.1%	Lower
4	Brazil	22,914	24,521,864	1,070	4.4%	5.1%	Higher
5	Canada	18,584	19,933,139	1,073	3.6%	4.2%	Higher
6	Rwanda	504	204,146	405	0.1%	0.04%	Lower
7
8	Total	522,429	478,609,342		100%	100%

If oneassumes the Australian tonnes have an average grade equivalent to PLS grade of5.3%, then the price implies a SC6 price of USD1,140 which looks perfectlyreasonable.

I havelabelled the respective implied grades of the product Higher or Lower basedupon the value versus tonnes. If the assumedgrade (5.3%) of the Australian productIS the actual grade then one can calculate the implied gradesrelative to SC6 as follows:

Australia –5.3%

Zimbabwe –3.6%

Nigeria –2.4%

Brazil – 5.6%

Canada – 5.6%

Rwanda – 2.1%

Then onehas to consider the significant additional cost to refine the lower gradeimports, and you have question the sustainability of those imports. One wouldhave to expect that there would be substitution for higher grade material if itwas available. They will be out of business unless subsidised by refiners imo.

Regards

DF