thoughts/questions, page-40

FY24 cost estimates are based on 7900 t Ni produced. LOM average of over 9400 tells us that FY24 is not the best it gets whether the mill is at nameplate or not. It also forms part of the basis for further very substantial unit cost drops, a further A$4.40/lb or so vs the $0.80 or so increase that you are currently in hysterics over.

I could not even get concerned if the LOM cost estimate had to be lifted to A$9.4 from 8.57 with the nickel price currently around $14.6. It does however demonstrate the longer term upside potential.

The issue is clearly FY24, when if AIC is around 14 for the next year and the nickel price was to drop further or to stay around 14.5, in which case the company may require a little more capital to get it through to the lower costs of FY25. I however expect the company to struggle through without a CR, probably extending the revolving credit facility in time if not size.

With your shrill noises you appear to me to be presenting exaggerations of negative “possibilities” as established facts. There is no doubt that PAN is currently high risk, but there is a lot of upside risk if commodity prices lift a little, the leverage to the nickel price is high.

It would be more professional if you made more effort to support your shrill noises.

Still awaiting your next flip, but will not be holding my breath for you to sort your $62 mm calculation hole.

EL