1. Mining Done Right
RBC Conference
June 2013
B D HBruce D. Hansen
Chief Executive Officer

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. Appendix
19

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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. 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. High Levels of Energy Investment
28Source: JP Morgan Research