Hi @Fumbleball,Thanks for your response. My only issues with...

Hi @Fumbleball,

Thanks for your response. My only issues with that is the 49.9/t EBITDA figure used. I should have highlighted its the 2H19
figures that cause the total FY19 to look unusual.

Looking at the 2H19 figures:

Revenue
1,216t x 127.1 = 154,554
1,648t x 97.9 = 161,339
Total revenue = 315,893
Revenue / tonnes = 315,893 / 2,864 = $110.3 (vs the 120.4 stated?)

Costs
2,864t x 74.6 = 213,654

EBITDA
315,893 - 213,654 = 102,239
EBITDA / tonnes = 102,239 / 2,864 = ~$35.7 (vs the 49.9 stated?)

If you use the above math on 1H19 it matches the -2.4/t EBITDA given and if you go do the same for Iron Valley you get the same EBITDA/t figures as those stated so I'm confused as to where I am going wrong or what I'm missing with the above? Or is it simply we cant reconcile the figures given the information? Just odd the math works for 1H19 and Iron Valley and a difference of 14.2/t EBITDA (49.9 - 35.7) is significant when your talking millions of tonnes.

Appreciate any and all help here!