Gmorbc conference june13


Published on

Published in: Business, Technology
  • Be the first to comment

  • Be the first to like this

No Downloads
Total views
On SlideShare
From Embeds
Number of Embeds
Embeds 0
No embeds

No notes for slide

Gmorbc conference june13

  1. 1. Mining Done Right RBC Conference June 2013 B D HBruce D. Hansen Chief Executive Officer
  2. 2. Cautionary Statements This presentation contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended that are intended to be covered by the safe harbor created by such sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, (i) estimates of future molybdenum prices, supply, demand and/or production; (ii) estimates of future cash costs, direct operating costs, costs applicable to sales (CAS), or royalty payments; (iii) estimates of future capital expenditures; (iv) estimates regarding timing of permitting, future development, construction or production activities; (v) statements regarding cost structure, project economics, or competitive position, and (vi) statements comparing Mt. Hope to other mines, projects, or metals. Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis However forward looking statements are subject to risksbelief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, metals price and production volatility, global economic conditions, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, exploration risks and results, political, operational and project development risks, including the Company’s ability to retain required permits to commence production and its ability to obtain suitable financing for development of the Mt. Hope project, adverse governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annualg g j p y Report on Form 10K, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the Company’s other SEC filings. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly revisions to any “forward-looking statement,” to reflect events or circumstances after the date of this presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws. Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Reserves and Resources Calculations with respect to "proven reserves" and "probable reserves" referred to above have been made in accordance with, and using the definitions of National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, the U.S. SEC applies a different standard in order to classify mineralization as a "reserve". Under SEC standards, mineralization may not be classified as a "reserve" unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time the reserve determination is made. No such determinations have been made with respect to any mineralization at the Liberty project, and it cannot be assured that such a determination will be made. This release also uses the terms “measured” “indicated” and “inferred” resources We caution U S investors that while such terms are recognized and required bymeasured , indicated and inferred resources. We caution U.S. investors that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian Securities Administrators pursuant to the National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize them. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred Resources”, in particular, have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian Securities Administration rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally minable. 2
  3. 3. General Moly’s Significant Advantages The onlyThe only significant, viable, publicly traded moly company in an advanced Production off-takeadvanced stage of development off-take agreements provide price floor protection and upside Two world- class, high grade projects in Nevada General Moly’s Competitive p optionality F k p Advantages Framework established for full financing Mt. Hope fully permitted Long-term pricing fundamentals Management experienced in transitioning 3 fundamentals for moly are strong transitioning projects into production
  4. 4. Molybdenum – A Strategic Mineral • Essential metal for modern industry • Strengthens steel, improves weldability, reduces brittleness, helps steel perform in very high or very low temperatures provides corrosion resistanceor very low temperatures, provides corrosion resistance • Key applications: energy infrastructure, pipeline development, power plants, desalination, refineries, motor vehicles, aircraft parts, specialty lubricants, catalyst for high sulphur fuelscatalyst for high sulphur fuels • Powerful anti-corrosive alloy for stainless and alloy steels, especially important in cold water or deep water • Molybdenum is vital in the products in which it is used with few economical substitutes and moly demand is relatively price inelastic 4
  5. 5. Moly Demand Growth Projected to be Robust • >500M lbs of moly consumed annually and demand expected to grow• >500M lbs of moly consumed annually and demand expected to grow nearly 30M lbs per year through 2015 to over 600M lbs when Mt. Hope projected to commence production • Supported by global steel demand growth ( 3 5% CAGR); Historically• Supported by global steel demand growth (~3.5% CAGR); Historically, moly demand exceeds crude steel demand by 1% to 2% • Moly demand per capita growth illustrates increasing intensity of use 1,000 Moly Demand Per Capita (1999-2016p)World Moly Demand (2012p-2021p) 528 612 793 600 800 , 200 400 0 5Source: CPM Group, IMOA, JP Morgan Research
  6. 6. China Use to Drive Global Demand • China consumes ~31% of moly and 45-50% of aluminum & copper todayy pp y • China also produces and consumes 45-50% of global steel • China is increasingly employing higher-grade steels and expanding its intensity of use, stoking additional demand for moly I 2011 Chi ’ i t it f t d t 10 k f l 100 t f t l f• In 2011, China’s average intensity of use stood at 10 kg of moly per 100 mt of steel, up from 6.4 kg in 2005, but well below the 2011 global average of 15 kg • If China’s intensity of use reached the global average, it would need 80M to 120M more lbs of moly per year120M more lbs of moly per year • Chinese urbanization requires new industrial and electricity facilities, expanded oil & gas networks and a build out of intra-city high speed rail links China’s Share of Global Moly DemandMoly Usage Per 100 Mt of Crude Steel, 2011 China 37% 2001 2011 2021p China s Share of Global Moly Demand China 8% China 30% Moly Usage Per 100 Mt of Crude Steel, 2011 RoW 63% RoW 92% RoW 70% 6Source: CPM Group, IMOA, World Steel Source: CPM Group
  7. 7. Industry Marginal Cost Limits Price Downside $40 Historic Moly Prices $35 Historic Moly Prices (January 2008 – June 2013) Strong global growth supports $30+ /lb moly prices Financial crisis $25 $30 Financial crisis causes prices to collapse Global uncertainty cause prices to drift sideways $20 Ex-China demand recovery y Softer macro environment in U.S., $10 $15 Marginal Cost of Chinese Production Moly only dipped below $10/lb for 5 months during “Great Recession”; Chinese buying & marginal production shuttered support price recovery y supports prices further Europe and Japan weakens demand offset by supply reductions in China Note: CPM and Macquarie estimates 2012 Chinese production costs for 200M lbs/yr at between $7 and $13/lb $5 7 support price recovery Source: Ryan’s Notes, Company Estimates $0 Jan-08 Mar-08 May-08 Jul-08 Sep-08 Nov-08 Jan-09 Mar-09 May-09 Jul-09 Sep-09 Nov-09 Jan-10 Mar-10 May-10 Jul-10 Sep-10 Nov-10 Jan-11 Mar-11 May-11 Jul-11 Sep-11 Nov-11 Jan-12 Mar-12 May-12 Jul-12 Sep-12 Nov-12 Jan-13 Mar-13 May-13
  8. 8. CPM Price Forecast • Molybdenum is a balanced market with price upside tied to supply &Molybdenum is a balanced market with price upside tied to supply & demand fundamentals • Price forecast in the $11-$16/lb range through 2017 • Price will typically range between $10 and $19/lb but with potential for prices to reach or exceed $30/lb at times • Downside is limited and upside potential is strong when supply constrains or if demand exceeds expectations 8Source: CPM Group
  9. 9. Investment Thesis N t d • Current focus on Mt Hope a large and high-Near-term producer of molybdenum with two world-class projects • Current focus on Mt. Hope, a large and high- grade moly project • Liberty: a follow-on moly & copper project will position General Moly as the largest pure-playp j position General Moly as the largest pure-play primary moly producer in the world C t d • Framework established for obtaining full Company supported through significant strategic partnerships financing • 20% Mt. Hope Joint Venture with POSCO • Off take approximately 50% committed for first• Off-take approximately 50% committed for first five years • Replace or augment Hanlong participation with Significant Catalysts Anticipated Replace or augment Hanlong participation with other partners • Close Chinese Bank Loan 9 • Initiate heavy construction
  10. 10. Mt. Hope – A World-Class Moly Project R Battle Mountain Winnemucca Carlin Elko Wells Mt. H Tonopah Reno Austin Eureka Ely Hope • Annual production of 40M lbs1 Tonopah• Annual production of 40M lbs • Process grades of 0.1% Mo1 • 1.3 billion pounds moly contained in Proven & Probable Reserves Large scale project with high Mo grades and low costs & Probable Reserves • Cash costs of $5.29 / lb Mo1 – well positioned as one of the lowest cost primary producers Advanced stage of development • Bankable Feasibility Study updated in August 2012 with Mining-friendly location in Nevada development Bankable Feasibility Study updated in August 2012 with revised capital estimate of $1.27 billion • Engineering approximately 64% complete • $235M spent on permitting, long-lead equipment 101. Average over the first five full years of operations, based on 2010 study location in Nevada USA $ p p g, g q p • Access to infrastructure, labor & support services
  11. 11. Liberty - A Second World-Class Moly Project Reno Battle Mountain Winnemucca Carlin Elko Wells Tonopah Austin Eureka Ely Anaconda operated 1982 1985 LibertyA previous producing mine of moly and copper • Anaconda operated 1982-1985 • Cyprus Minerals operated 1988-1991 • Maintains some key infrastructure Pre feasibility study • Containing 739M lbs Mo and 893M lbs Cu (43-101 report) • Production of 20M lbs Mo and 17M lbs Cu over first 5 years at costs of $5.70/lb Mo1 Pre-feasibility study completed November 2011 • 42 year mine life • CapEx estimate of $550 million to build • Will start Feasibility Study and permitting post Mt Hope 111. Costs estimated using $2.50/lb Cu byproduct credits. See November 2011 43-101 Report on SEDAR for more information Will start Feasibility Study and permitting post Mt. Hope construction start
  12. 12. Financing Timeline P i t Pl t f 8 3 illi h ith A l Mitt l th h l t• Private Placement of 8.3 million shares with ArcelorMittal; these shares were later spun off to APERAM (2007) • POSCO capital contributions of $100M at Mt. Hope Project Level (2008) • Hanlong Tranche 1 investment $40M (2010)• Hanlong Tranche 1 investment $40M (2010) • Major terms agreed with China Development Bank (2012) • POSCO capital contribution and catch-up payment of ~$100M at Mt. Hope Project Level (2012)(2012) • Loan negotiations (facility agreement, security documentation) (Early 2013) • Detainment of Hanlong Founder Liu Han results in China Development Bank suspending loan negotiations (March 2013)g • Currently working with Hanlong and Cutfield Freeman & Co. (advisors) to secure another Chinese strategic partner to advance Chinese bank loan completion and the full financing of the Mt. Hope Project (June 2013) • Evaluating other alternatives 12
  13. 13. Project / Financing Timeline Final Permits Received (Record of Decision) Hanlong Tranche 1 Investment Preliminary Construction Start Dec 2010 Nov 2012 Jan 2013Permitting, BFS Update 20-24 months construction • Access $665M Chinese Bank Loan • Heavy Construction Start 2015: Production Start POSCO $100M payment • Final permits received: • Record of Decision Environmental Impact Statement • NV State Air Permit, Reclamation Permit, Water Pollution Control Permit • Nevada State Engineer granted Water Permit • Ready for construction on receipt of Chinese bank loan and full project financing 13
  14. 14. China’s Rationale For Moly Investment • The world’s largest steel producer is expanding into higher value added steel• The world s largest steel producer is expanding into higher value added steel products • Has transitioned from a significant to a minor exporter of moly. As its need for moly grows and the country seeks to conserve its national moly resources, China isg y y expected to become a significant importer • Focused on conserving moly for its growing steel business and restricting mining and smelting projects in domestic moly industry to improve economics, safety and environmental protection of existing Chinese moly productionenvironmental protection of existing Chinese moly production • Restrictive licensing, export quotas and tariffs discouraging moly exports from China • Mt. Hope moly trioxide product significantly higher grade, lower in copper, lead than LME, Chinese moly producers: Grade Copper Lead Mt Hope 63% 0 02% 0 02%Mt. Hope 63% 0.02% 0.02% LME min. 57% max. 0.5% max. 0.05% China Moly 52%, 55%, 57% 0.24‐0.25% 0.10% JDC 55%, 60% 0.24‐0.25% 0.10% 14 • Scope to blend to upgrade low grade Chinese product ,
  15. 15. General Moly Partnerships • POSCO 5th largest global steel producerPOSCO, 5 largest global steel producer • 20% Joint Venture Partner at Mt. Hope project; will receive 8M lbs of moly production annually • Has already contributed $200M to Mt. Hope development including $100M payment in December 2012 after receipt of all permits • $156M buy-in values Mt. Hope at $780M • APERAM, former stainless division of ArcelorMittal • General Moly’s 2nd largest customer • Bought shares at $8.50 in late 2007 and owns a 9% stake in General Molyg y • Other Customers S AH B t l & S jit h ff t k t• SeAH Besteel & Sojitz have off-take agreements • Off-take approximately 50% committed for first five years • Up to half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14 $15/lb with ~80% upside participation• Up to half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14-$15/lb with ~80% upside participation above floor 15
  16. 16. Off-Take – First 5 Years 1 APERAM1 (Nov 2007)1. APERAM (Nov 2007) • 6.5M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection3 • 3 0M lb off-take option for years 6-15• 3.0M lb off-take option for years 6-15, requires 10% FD ownership of General Moly 2. SeAH Besteel (May 2008) • 4.0M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection2 3. Sojitz Corporation (Aug 2008) • 1.0M lb off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection2,3 • 4.0M lb off-take agreement for five years near spot2,3 11.5M annual pounds committed with price protection that includes: 4. New Partner • 16.5M lb off-take available over first five years, additional rights LOM that includes: • A hard floor price between $14-$15 per pound on average; • PPI escalation annually; 16 • A modest discount to customer above floor price 1. APERAM was the stainless steel division of ArcelorMittal and was spun off as a separate public company as of January 25, 2011 2. Off-take agreements begin only when Mt. Hope reaches certain levels of commercial production and do not require General Moly to deliver product other than its own 3. Sojitz has the option of continuing the contract until the commencement of commercial production
  17. 17. General Moly Capital Structure Stock on Issue Shares Outstanding 91.5 M Warrants1 1.0 M Equity Compensation1 3.3 M Diluted Shares 95.8 M Balance Sheet (3/31/2013) 2.5$5 General Moly Share Price, Volume (Rolling One Year) Balance Sheet (3/31/2013) Cash on Hand $ 93M2 Debt $11M Top Owners 1. Hanlong 11.88M shares 13.0% FD 2. APERAM 8.26M shares 9.1% FD 2$4 sh) 3. Coghill Capital Mgmt 8.10M shares 8.9% FD 4. BlackRock Trust Co. 3.85M shares 4.2% FD 5. Vanguard Group 2.58M shares 2.8% FD 6. Van Eck Associates 1.64M shares 1.8% FD 7. Dimensional Fund 1.59M shares 1.7% FD 8. David Russell 1.30M shares 1.4% FD 9 Bruce Hansen 1 20M shares 1 3% FD 1.5$3 me,Millions ySharePrice($/s 9. Bruce Hansen 1.20M shares 1.3% FD 10. State Street Global 1.19M shares 1.3% FD Analyst Coverage Bank of America Merrill Lynch Dave Forster CIBC Matt Gibson John Tumazos VIR John Tumazos 0 5 1 $1 $2 Volum GeneralMoly RBC Fraser Phillips Stifel Nicolaus Paul Massoud Insider Ownership Directors & Mgmt 16.84M shares3 17.6% FD 0 0.5 $0 $1 17 1. Includes warrants and equity compensation that are “out of the money” 2. Includes $36M in cash held at Eureka Moly to be released with bank financing 3. Actual ownership including Hanlong’s shares
  18. 18. Why General Moly?  Two world-class molybdenum assetsGeneral Moly Only Near-term Producer  Mt. Hope – One of the largest and highest-grade moly assets currently under development Fully Permitted Properties in Mining Friendly Jurisdictions  Mt. Hope fully permitted  Both assets located in Nevada, USA Significant Strategic Partnerships Substantial Off-take  Partnerships with Hanlong, POSCO, APERAM, SeAH Besteel and Sojitz Corporation support financing and off-take  50% itt d fi t fiSubstantial Off take Agreements Meaningful Follow-on Project  ~50% committed first five years  Liberty – a solid follow-on project to make General Moly the largest pure play primary moly producer in the world Compelling Valuation  Trading at 20-25% of NPV @ $15/lb moly 18 General Moly is the “Go To” Moly Story
  19. 19. Appendix 19
  20. 20. Experienced Management Team •CEO at General Moly since 2007 Bruce Hansen •Previously served in multiple executive roles at Newmont Mining including Chief Financial Officer and Senior VP, Operations Services & Development. Prior to that, was Senior VP of Corporate Development for Santa Fe Pacific Gold Bruce Hansen Chief Executive Officer •CFO at General Moly since 2007 •More than 30 years of financial and operational experience in the metals and mining Dave Chaput y p p g industry, previously serving as CFO of The Doe Run Resources CorporationChief Financial Officer •25 years experience in plant operations and 6 years in design engineering firm •Previously served as general manager of one of the largest open-pit/concentrator operations in the world, the Phelps Dodge Morenci mine in Arizona Bob Pennington Chief Operating Officer •Joined General Moly in 2007; has served as Controller and Treasurer since 2009 •Formerly the Director of Supply Chain - Nevada Operations for Newmont Mining; prior roles with Santa Fe Pacific Gold and Price Waterhouse Lee Shumway Controller & Treasurer •25 years industry experience, including extensive work within the state of Nevada •Previously served as Operations Environmental Permitting Manager with Newmont Mining •30 years of mining experience, predominately in Nevada •Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp’s Marigold Mine and Mike Iannacchione Pat Rogers VP Permit. & Env. Compliance •Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp s Marigold Mine and General Manager at Round Mountain Mine, a Barrick Gold and Kinross Gold Joint Venture •25 years mining experience, primarily with Phelps Dodge and Freeport McMoRan •Previously served as Assistant General Manager of Concentrator Operations at Cerro Fred Zumwalt VP & GM Mt. Hope 20 y g p Verde, a large copper and molybdenum mine in PeruMt. Hope Mill Manager •38 years mining experience with Santa Fe Pacific Gold, North American Coal Co., TXU/Luminant Mining and Westmoreland Coal Co. •Previously served as General Manager of the Kemmerer Mine in Wyoming Randy Johnson Mt. Hope Mine Manager
  21. 21. Mt. Hope Financing Plan – Funding Sources & Uses E k M lEureka Moly: Sources $M Uses $M Equipment Lease 95 Capital Cost 1269 Shareholder funding: 1174 POSCO (20%) 235 GMI (80%) 939 Total Sources 1269 Total Uses 1269 GMI (80% share):( ) Sources $M Uses $M Chinese Bank Debt 665 Share of EM funding 939 Equity funded by: 371 of which: Cash1: Cash spent (2007-Q1’13) 188Cash : Cash spent (2007-Q1 13) 188 Spent 188 Future spending 751 On hand 93 Interest during constr. & financing fees 67 281 Working Capital 30 New equity or sub debt 90 Total Sources 1036 Total Uses 1036 211. As of March 31, 2013
  22. 22. Water Rights History Mt. Hope Water Well MapMt. Hope water right historyp g y • Project requires ~7,000 gpm fresh water for milling operations • Company purchased from existing water holders• Company purchased from existing water holders in Kobeh Valley, essentially all available water rights, sufficient for project water requirements • Nevada State Engineer granted General Moly Mt. Hope Water Impact Map water permits in March 2009. That ruling was successfully appealed in a Nevada District Court in April 2010 • Company re-applied for water rights andCompany re applied for water rights and Nevada State Engineer granted the applications in a second ruling in July 2011 • That ruling was appealed and the Nevada State Di t i t C t ffi d th St t E i ’District Court affirmed the State Engineer’s ruling in all respects June 14, 2012 • Two parties appealed to NV Supreme Court; General Moly considers appeals without merit 22 y pp • Water permits remain in effect
  23. 23. Equipment Procurement Status • Approximately $71M paid on commitments forApproximately $71M paid on commitments for $178M in equipment orders • Major milling equipment secured: Own or have orders in place for Mt. Hope crusher, SAG mill & ball mill mill drives and roaster equipmentball mill, mill drives, and roaster equipment • Made $75M commitment to Caterpillar for haul fleet and support equipment, including 18 CAT 793F haul trucks • Significant progress negotiating leasing terms for $95M in mining equipment at Mt. Hope Project level (representing $76M to General Moly) • Have letter of intent in place for large electric mining shovels • 4 Atlas Copco mine drills ordered • As progress on permitting and financing continues, will place orders for remainder of equipment 23
  24. 24. Moly Consumption & Supply Moly Consumption by Region, 2011• With industrial growth concentrated in emerging Europe 25% CIS 5%China Other 14% With industrial growth concentrated in emerging economies, molybdenum market share will continue to shift to the developing world • However, the moly demand picture in mature economies remains healthy, supported by the need for maintenance, repairs or replacement of aging infrastructure Moly Consumption by Region 2016p 5% USA 14%Japan 12% China 30% repairs, or replacement of aging infrastructure • As a higher cost producer with strict government policies, China’s share of moly production is expected to decline over the next ten years Moly Consumption by Region, 2016p Europe 20% CIS 5% Other 17% Moly End-Uses 2011 5% USA 13% Japan 11% China 34% Carbon 8% Cast Iron 8% Catalysts 7% Lubricant/Tool Mo Metal/ Alloy 7% HSLA 11% Moly End-Uses, 2011 24Source: CPM Group, IMOA Pigment 3% Other Chemical 1% Stainless 20% Super- alloys 4% Full Alloy 21% 10%
  25. 25. Moly Market End Uses Moly End Use, 2011 Oil & Gas Oil & Gas 17% Electronics & Medical 2% Other Top 5 Categories Account for 67% of Mo Use •Refinery catalysts, LNG development, shale gas installations, off-shore / deep ocean oil production Chemical / Petrochemical •Corrosion inhibitors, chemical catalysts, smoke suppressants, fertilizers, waste water treatment Automotive Other Transportation Building / Construction 6% Aerospace & Defense 3% % Applications 6% Automotive •Engines, pistons, crankshafts, axle shafts, steering components Mechanical Engineering •Heavy machinery, mining equipment, cutting tools Chemical / Petrochemical 15% Power Generation p 8% Process Industry •Food processing equipment and storage, metal / steel processing, desalination Power Generation •Coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants, wind turbines hydro and solar energy Automotive 13% Mechanical Process Industry 9% Generation 8% turbines, hydro and solar energy Other Transportation •Locomotive shafts, train wheels, brake pads, shipbuilding (bulkheads and hulls) Building / Construction •Major infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels,Mechanical Engineering 13% Major infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels, anchors, rebars, heating and ventilation systems Aerospace & Defense •Turbine parts, jet engines, landing gear, piping systems, armored vehicles Electronics & Medical • More sophisticated energy production and transportation driving moly use 25Source: SMR Research, JP Morgan Research •Semiconductors, pharmaceutical and biotechnology processing equipment, x-ray tubes Other Applications •Pigments, coatings, lubricants transportation driving moly use • JP Morgan forecasts $30 trillion to be spent on global energy-supply infrastructure by 2035
  26. 26. Top 10 Moly Producing Companies Top 10 Moly Producing Companies, 2011 Th Top 10 Moly Producing Companies, 2021 68% of total mine production, Equity Share 63% of total mine production, Equity Share Xstrata 2% Codelco 9% Jinduicheng Molybdenum 6% Thompson Creek 5% Thompson Creek 3% Codelco 9% General Moly 5% Jinduicheng Molybdenum Grupo Mexico, Southern Copper 7% China Moly 7% 6% Rio Tinto 4% Freeport McMoran China Moly 5% y 4% Freeport McMoRan 7% Rio Tinto 6%Teck 7% Freeport McMoran 7% Grupo Mexico, Southern Copper 8% Freeport Xstrata 4% McMoran 7% Antofogasta 4% Teck 7% McMoRan 6% Teck 8% C P d / M B P d t 26Source: CPM Group Cu Producer w/ Mo By-Product Primary Mo Producer
  27. 27. Capacity vs. Bottlenecks Scarce Financing Rising Capital Costs Low Process Grades Permitting and Labor Challenges Power and Water Shortages Social License and Geopolitical Risk • While sizable moly capacity is forecasted to come online over the next decade, many projects face significant financial, infrastructural and geopolitical challenges • Bottleneck issues are most acute amongst by-product copper/moly projects in Latin America • Approximately $57B of mining investment is now delayed or deferred in Chile and Peru • Affected projects include: Xstrata’s Collahausi, Southern Copper’s Los Chancas, Codelco’s Salvador, Teck’s Relincho and Antofogasta’s Esperanza • Revisions in Chile to the SEIA process and implementation in Peru of the Prior Consultation Law have added complexity and extended the timeline in permitting projects 27 • Slow pace of power infrastructure development in Chile has placed a number of projects at risk • Production prospects declining at some aging moly mines • Stripping activity suspended at Thompson Creek Mine and mining ceased at Endako Source: Scotia Bank Research
  28. 28. High Levels of Energy Investment 28Source: JP Morgan Research