the problem in general is that Australian exploration companies...

the problem in general is that Australian exploration companies have no standard for reporting a PFS.

But in general I would say the data provided are sufficient to get a 'head on' decision for Mt. Cattlin and this it what a PFS is about.

I get revenues of 70mln A$ with costs supposed to be 33mln A$. This will give us an operating cashflow of 37mln A$ for at least 12 years of operation. This is within my expectations.

40mln A$ capex is lower than I expected.

Let's further assume

- a project overhead of 3mln A$
- depreciation of 2mln A$ (50% debt / 50% equity financing)
- fincial costs 1.5mln A$
- 30% tax

Based on an operating cashflow of 37mln A$ I calculate as follows:

EBITDA 34m A$
EBIT 32m A$
EBT 30.5m A$
NPAT 21.35m A$

We currently have 55mln share FD and will get 35mln additional shares depending on share price for further exploration and 50% project financing (=90 mln shares).

Based on 21.35m A$ and 90mln shares I get 23.7c/share eps.

Even if you take the lowest case you still get 13c/share eps.

Let's assume for a second GXY won't have the Mt. Cattlin project. I bet the company would be valued at least at 10-12 mln A$ for rhe other Ravensthorpe project, the Fe-complex at Schoemaker and the other projects.

The best thing is the low capex in my view that allows an quick pay back of a potential debt finance within two years from initial production.

Will calculate a NPV later and get back to you.

Lenni