General Discussions, page-12030

Evening FreeFlyer,

Not sure I buy that your statement was simply a "Throwaway Comment" as you put it. A throwaway comment is something you might say without really thinking about it in a casual setting. Coming onto a stock forum and typing a particular viewpoint and then repeating (Doubling Down) that same viewpoint via a 2nd posting 16 hours later, does not constitute a "Throwaway Comment", in my view that constitutes somebody taking a particular viewpoint.

A Viewpoint that given the Size, Scale, Environmental Factors & Locations of each project would lead to Siviour's Current Stage 1 PEPR (Under Assessment) having a Closure Liability that is Significantly Less than the +$50m that you quoted on 2 occasions.

Not only that 60mtpa (rex over 13 years) compared to RNU 6.5mtpa over 40 years. Puts Rex roughly only 65% more material moved. Not 1/10th or 10% as you say.

Your comment regarding RNU having a TMM Average of 6.5Mtpa over a 40 year period was interesting. I would refer you to the Definitive Feasibility Study and BAM Studies completed by Renascor (Which I would hope you have read being a holder in the company). You will find that although the Project Life at Siviour is 40 years, Mining only takes place in years 1-27, from years 28 onwards the project is processing only. This would make your assumption above incorrect




"While Rex is moving a lot more material, the deepness of the pit is somewhat irrelevant. Apart from the increased material and waste which I agree with you on that"

The deepness of the mining pit and location of the waste dumps has a direct impact on the closure liability. Particularly for a mining pit that is over 400m in depth presents a number of challenges and safety issues onsite that limit or in most circumstances prevent bulk pushing of dozers over water at closure.

Having worked in multiple projects both in operations of completing progressive rehab and post mining closure, the bulk of the waste rehandle (Backfill) at Rex would be completed by load & haul (Until such time that bulk push could safely operate), depth of pit directly impacts your closure liability given that haulage distances are calculated and a rate assigned based on haulage distance.

I'd refer you to the closure liability calculator available on DEM's website. For reference an additional 1km roundtrip haul would add a 30-40% increase to the haulage costs within your liability. To state that it is irrelevant would be incorrect



I take it you agree that we are unlikely to see full approval subject only to funding this year ?

That depends on what your perception of "Full Approval" is. Full approval in my opinion is the ability for a company to clear vegetation, commence construction of infrastructure and begin mining as scheduled. I see no reason why Renascor will not obtain approval to complete the above this year.

Every Mining Approval Document requires a proponent to complete additional and/or ongoing work throughout the life of the project to continue to minimise and reduce its potential impacts. Conditions are placed on proponents within the approval document that specifies what needs to be completed, on what timeframe and who to report such results to.

There is no doubt that conditions will be placed on the PEPR which is standard practice for a mining operation. However, I believe that RNU will have the ability and green tick to clear of vegetation, build the required infrastructure and commence mining this year, all whilst continuing to meet the conditions of approval over the coming decades.

Approvals are a non-stop process in mining, in fact my experience tells me that a mining project requires more approval and compliance personnel when a project is in operation, as opposed to prior to obtaining the initial approval