Wrap Text
Material Update in Project Value via Updated PFS
Southern Palladium Limited
Incorporated in the Commonwealth of Australia
Australian Company Number 646 391 899
ASX share code: SPD
JSE share code: SDL
ISIN AU0000220808
Southern Palladium: Material Update in Project Value via Updated PFS
Post-tax NPV more than doubles to US$1.96 billion and IRR increases to 39.1% as DFS-level metallurgy and a stronger price outlook flow through to project economics
US$1.96bn 39.1% 2.8 yrs US$329m
Post-tax NPV (8% real) Post-tax IRR Payback from first production Peak funding requirement
up 129% vs OPFS US$857m up from 26.4% in OPFS 3.8 yrs in the OPFS OPFS US$279m (+18%)
Highlights
• Post-tax NPV of US$1,961 million (8% real discount rate, 100% project basis), up from US$857 million in the Optimised Prefeasibility Study (OPFS) – an increase of approximately US$1.1 billion, or 129%.
• IRR increases to 39.1% from 26.4%, with a payback period of 2.8 years from first plant production.
• Peak funding requirement of US$329 million, up from US$279 million in the OPFS due mainly to a stronger South African Rand forecast. The post-tax NPV is now almost six times more than the peak funding requirement.
• Chrome becomes a co-product: chromite recovery of 85.6% (previously 30%) lifts steady-state chrome concentrate production to approximately 1 Mtpa (previously ~350 ktpa), and life-of-mine output to 17.2 Mt of 42% Cr2O3 concentrate (OPFS: 6.0 Mt).
• More PGMs in a premium-grade concentrate: life-of-mine 6E recovery of 87.5% (OPFS: 85%), with 7.7 Moz 6E recovered over a 33-year mine life (OPFS: 7.5 Moz). A final concentrate grade of 505.9 g/t 6E (OPFS: 100 g/t 6E) is expected to enhance the pathway to a smelting and refining agreement.
• Higher margins: All-in Sustaining Cost (AISC) (including by-product costs) (“AISC incl.”) margin of 57% (OPFS: 48%). AISC incl. of US$943/6E oz, and a realised basket price (including by-products) of US$2,210/6E oz.
• Strong leverage to higher prices: every 15% increase in the 6E basket price adds approximately US$454 million to post-tax NPV.
Southern Palladium Limited (ASX:SPD, JSE:SDL) (‘Southern Palladium’ or ‘the Company’) is pleased to announce the results of the 2026 Modular Prefeasibility Study Update (‘Updated PFS’) for its 70%-owned Bengwenyama PGM-chrome Project (‘Bengwenyama’ or ‘the Project’), located on the Eastern Limb of South Africa’s Bushveld Complex.
The Updated PFS, prepared by Minxcon (Pty) Ltd, updates the staged development option adopted in the OPFS (released 10 July 2025): Stage 1 mines 100 ktpm from the South Decline, with Stage 2 ramping up to 200 ktpm through the North Decline and a second 100 ktpm processing module.
The life-of-mine plan of 41.9 Mt at 6.54 g/t 6E is the same as in the OPFS. The update incorporates the DFS-level metallurgical test work announced on 9 July 2026 and the resulting process plant design, updated capital and operating costs, and updated commodity price and exchange rate forecasts. The effective date of the economic analysis is 1 September 2026.
The Ore Reserve is unchanged. The Updated PFS life-of-mine plan includes Inferred Mineral Resources, which make up approximately 30% of the tonnes mined. Investors should read the Cautionary Statement on page [6] of this announcement.
“The Updated PFS confirms what our DFS metallurgical results signalled in July: Bengwenyama is no longer simply a PGM project with chrome credits, but a PGM-chrome co-product operation. The post-tax NPV more than doubles to US$1.96 billion and the IRR increases to 39.1%, which materially strengthens our investment case as we move towards financing and development.
With a breakeven basket price well below current forecasts, the Project is both more valuable and more robust.”
ROGER BAXTER, EXECUTIVE CHAIRMAN
Key financial outcomes
The Updated PFS delivers a step-change in value against the OPFS (Figure 1 and Table 1).
Figure 1: Key outcomes, OPFS compared with Updated PFS.
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metric OPFS (July 2025) Updated PFS Change
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Post-tax NPV, 8% real discount rate (US$m) 857 1,961 +129%
Post-tax IRR 26.4% 39.1% +12.7 pp
Peak funding requirement (US$m) 279 329 +18%
Payback from first production (years) 3.8 2.8 –1 year
AISC incl. (US$/6E oz) 729 943 +29% (note 1)
Realised 6E basket price (US$/6E oz) (note 2) 1,406 2,210 +57%
Life-of-mine 6E recovery 85% 87.5% +2.5 pp
6E ounces recovered (Moz) 7.50 7.72 +3%
Chrome concentrate, 42% Cr2O3, life of mine (Mt) 6.0 17.2 ~2.8x
----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 1: Updated PFS compared with the OPFS (Stage 1 and 2 case, ASX announcement 10 July 2025). NPV on a 100% project basis, in real terms.
Notes:
1. 13% increase is due to a stronger South Africa Rand forecast over the Life of Mine of ZAR17.91/US$ (OPFS: ZAR19.58/US$), and 16% is due to South African cost inflation and additional chrome logistics associated with the approx. 3x higher chrome production.
2. Includes payabilities and by-products.
Updated PFS life of mine
Life of mine 33 years Ore mined 41.9 Mt
6E grade delivered to plant 6.54 g/t Steady-state 6E production ~200 koz pa rising to ~420 koz pa
Payback from first plant production 2.8 years
Table 2: Updated PFS life-of-mine physical and cost outcomes.
The Project now generates six dollars of post-tax NPV for every dollar of peak funding (US$1,961 million against US$329 million), compared with about three dollars in the OPFS. A 39.1% IRR and a 2.8-year payback from first production mean capital is returned faster,
while an AISC incl. of US$943/6E oz gives a substantial buffer against weaker PGM prices. These outcomes are expected to make the Project more attractive to funders.
What has changed: DFS-level metallurgy and plant design
Chrome: from by-product credit to co-product
A coarser primary grind preserves chromite particles, allowing them to be recovered by gravity separation before flotation, with a fine chromite flotation circuit recovering additional chromite later in the process. Total chromite recovery rises from 30% in the OPFS to 85.6% at a saleable grade of 42.2% Cr2O3,
lifting chrome concentrate production to approximately 450 ktpa at Stage 1, and to approximately 1 Mtpa at Stage 2 steady state. Over the life of mine, chrome concentrate output rises from 6.0 Mt in the OPFS to 17.2 Mt.
PGMs: higher recovery, premium-grade concentrate
In DFS-level test work, overall PGM recovery improved from 85.3% to 87.6%, showing that the step-up in chrome recovery has been achieved without compromising precious metal recovery. The life-of-mine 6E recovery rises from 85% in the OPFS to 87.5%.
Locked-cycle test work produced a final PGM concentrate of 505.9 g/t 6E at a mass pull of 1.2% – a much smaller volume of higher-value concentrate.
A smaller, more efficient processing plant
Dense Media Separation (DMS) rejects approximately 26% of run-of-mine material as waste before milling, with losses of only 1.4% of PGMs and chromite, and less than half of the run-of-mine ore reports to primary flotation –
reducing the size of the milling and flotation circuits. The Updated PFS capital and operating costs are based on Jameson flotation cells in both the primary and secondary PGM flotation circuits. Jameson cells offer lower energy use, a smaller footprint and lower capital cost. Larger-scale confirmatory test work is planned.
Chrome and base metal credits reduce the Project’s AISC incl. from US$943/6E oz to US$496/6E oz, diversify earnings and improve resilience in periods of weaker PGM prices. Higher PGM recovery means more saleable ounces from the same orebody, and a premium-grade UG2 concentrate is expected to be more attractive to smelters and refiners.
Laboratory chromite content in the concentrate was 3.4%; Minxcon expects improved selectivity in the plant to reduce this to below the typical commercial specification of 2.5%. A smaller plant using conventional processes and flotation technology reduces technical and capital risk.
What has changed: price outlook
Commodity prices and exchange rates have been updated to September 2026 terms, based on a combination of Consensus Economics, Noah Capital, Minxcon and spot prices. The realised 6E basket price averages US$2,210/6E oz over the life of mine, compared with US$1,406/6E oz in the OPFS, which used the PFS price deck.
The Updated PFS also assumes a stronger rand than the OPFS (ZAR17.91/US$ long term, compared with ZAR19.58/US$), which partly offsets the higher prices. All other financial parameters are largely unchanged; the key assumptions are set out in Table 3.
The Project is most sensitive to the exchange rate, grade and PGM prices, and least sensitive to base metal prices, capital costs and processing costs (Figure 2).
Figure 2: Sensitivity of post-tax NPV (US$m, 8% real discount rate) to ±15% changes in key inputs, holding all other inputs constant. A higher ZAR/US$ rate represents a weaker rand.
LEVERAGE TO PRICES
The project demonstrates significant sensitivity to movements in PGM prices. A 15% increase in the 6E basket price increases post-tax NPV by approximately US$454 million, to US$2,415 million, while a corresponding 15% decrease reduces post-tax NPV by approximately US$453 million, to US$1,508 million.
This highlights both the potential upside from strengthening PGM prices and the downside exposure to weaker market conditions.
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Assumption (real terms) OPFS long term Updated PFS 2026 Updated PFS long term price
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Platinum (US$/oz) 1,200 1,572 1,738
Palladium (US$/oz) 1,100 1,302 1,196
Rhodium (US$/oz) 6,190 8,424 8,817
Ruthenium (US$/oz) 450 1,353 1,930
Iridium (US$/oz) 4,650 5,936 5,429
Gold (US$/oz) 1,950 4,581 3,500
Copper (US$/t) 8,708 12,929 10,850
Nickel (US$/t) 18,249 17,143 17,018
Chrome concentrate, 42% Cr2O3 (US$/t) 225 280 280
Exchange rate (ZAR/US$) 19.58 16.34 17.91
Realised 6E basket price, life-of-mine average (US$/6E oz) 1,406 – 2,210
-------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Table 3: Key price and exchange rate assumptions. Updated PFS chrome price is CIF China. Sources: Consensus Economics, Noah Capital, Minxcon; OPFS ASX announcement 10 July 2025.
Figure 3: Revenue contribution by commodity, OPFS compared with Updated PFS, highlighting the increase in chrome’s contribution as a co-product. Other PGMs comprise ruthenium, iridium and gold; base metals comprise nickel and copper.
Capital and funding
Allowing for cost inflation since the OPFS, and incorporating updated DFS process plant costs (capital base date July 2026), the peak funding requirement, including contingencies, is estimated at US$329 million (ZAR5,470 million), compared with US$279 million (ZAR5,460 million) in the OPFS.
While the funding requirement has increased in US dollar terms, the underlying capital requirement in South African rands has remained almost unchanged, with the increase in the US dollar equivalent largely attributable to the stronger South African rand forecast. The staged development strategy is unchanged:
Stage 1 establishes an operation producing approximately 200 koz 6E per annum, with expansion to approximately 420 koz 6E per annum in Stage 2, which is expected to be funded largely from Stage 1 cash flow. An 18% increase in peak funding, set against a 129% increase in NPV, materially improves the Project’s capital efficiency.
Next steps
• Completion of the DFS, expected at the end of Q1 2027, incorporating the optimised flowsheet.
• Larger-scale confirmatory Jameson cell test work and further flowsheet optimisation.
• Advancement of discussions with potential smelting and refining partners for the premium-grade UG2 PGM concentrate.
• Progressing early box-cut and decline development following the grant of the Mining Right, subject to completion of the relevant waste management and water use permitting processes.
This announcement has been approved for release by the Board of Southern Palladium Limited.
For further information, please contact:
Jessica Fertig Roger Baxter Johan Odendaal
Investor Relations Executive Chairman Managing Director
+61 408 855 855 +27 83 779 9277 +27 82 557 6088
ir@southernpalladium.com roger.baxter@southernpalladium.com johan.odendaal@southernpalladium.com
Cautionary statement
The production target and forecast financial information in this announcement are based on a life-of-mine plan of 41.9 Mt at 6.54 g/t 6E, of which approximately 19% is from Measured Mineral Resources, 51% from Indicated Mineral Resources and 30% from Inferred Mineral Resources.
There is a low level of geological confidence associated with Inferred Mineral Resources and there is no certainty that further exploration work will result in the determination of Indicated Mineral Resources or that the production target itself will be realised. The Ore Reserve is unchanged from the PFS (28 October 2024),
and the Updated PFS does not represent an updated Ore Reserve.
The Updated PFS has been prepared to a prefeasibility level of accuracy (±15–25%, consistent with the OPFS capital estimate), and there is no certainty that its conclusions will be realised. The DFS-level metallurgical results are based on laboratory test work and may differ in commercial operation.
Funding of approximately US$329 million will be required to develop the Project.
Material assumptions
Mining: hybrid mechanised development with conventional breast stoping at a 90 cm stoping width; Stage 1 at 100 ktpm from the South Decline, ramping to 200 ktpm with the North Decline in Stage 2. Processing: DMS pre-concentration, coarse primary grind, gravity and flotation chromite recovery,
and Jameson cell PGM flotation; life-of-mine 6E recovery of 87.5% and chromite recovery of 85.6%. Prices and exchange rate: as set out in Table 3, in real terms. Economics: discounted free cash flow for the project, in real US$ terms, using a Life of Mine average forecast exchange rate ZAR17.84/US$; 8.0% real discount rate;
corporate tax rate of 27%; royalties under the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act formula for unrefined metals; capital base date July 2026; valuation on a stand-alone, 100% project basis.
Forward-looking statements: This announcement contains forward-looking statements, including estimates of NPV, IRR, payback, funding requirements, costs and production. These are based on assumptions and are subject to risks and uncertainties, many of which are outside the Company’s control, including commodity prices, exchange rates,
cost inflation, permitting and funding. Actual results may differ materially. Investors should not place undue reliance on forward-looking statements.
Previous announcements: The information relating to the OPFS is extracted from the ASX announcement “Optimised Prefeasibility Study: Project NPV of US$857m with Improved Fundability Through Staged Development” dated 10 July 2025. The metallurgical test work results, including the PFS chromite recovery of 30% and chrome concentrate production of approximately 350 ktpa
referred to in this announcement, are extracted from the ASX announcement “DFS metallurgical studies deliver outstanding PGM and Chromite recoveries” dated 9 July 2026. The Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve are extracted from the ASX announcements dated 23 October 2024 and 28 October 2024 respectively. These announcements are available at www.southernpalladium.com.
The Company confirms that it is not aware of any new information or data that materially affects the information included in the original market announcements and, in the case of estimates of Mineral Resources or Ore Reserves, that all material assumptions and technical parameters underpinning the estimates continue to apply and have not materially changed.
Competent Persons’ statements
Uwe Engelmann: The information in this announcement that relates to Mineral Resources is based on information compiled by Mr Uwe Engelmann (BSc (Zoo. & Bot.), BSc Hons (Geol.), Pr.Sci.Nat. No. 400058/08, FGSSA). Mr Engelmann is a director of Minxcon (Pty) Ltd and a member of the South African Council for Natural Scientific Professions.
Minxcon provides geological consulting services to Southern Palladium Limited. Mr Engelmann has sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr Engelmann consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr Engelmann has a beneficial interest in Southern Palladium through a shareholding in Nicolas Daniel Resources Proprietary Limited.
Daan van Heerden: The scientific and technical information contained in this announcement has been reviewed, prepared and approved by Mr Daan van Heerden (B Eng (Min.), MCom (Bus.Admin.), MMC, Pr.Eng. No. 20050318, AMMSA, FSAIMM). Mr van Heerden is a director of Minxcon (Pty) Ltd and a Registered Professional Engineer with the Engineering Council of South Africa,
a Member of the Association of Mine Managers South Africa, and a Fellow of the South African Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Mr van Heerden has sufficient experience relevant to the styles of mineralisation and activities being undertaken to qualify as a Competent Person as defined in the 2012 Edition of the ‘Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results,
Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves’. Mr van Heerden consents to the inclusion in the report of the matters based on his information in the form and context in which it appears. Mr van Heerden has a beneficial interest in Southern Palladium through a shareholding in Nicolas Daniel Resources Proprietary Limited.
JSE Sponsor: Merchantec Capital
13 October 2026
Appendix 1: JORC Code, 2012 Edition – Table 1
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 1: SAMPLING TECHNIQUES AND DATA
REFER TO ASX ANNOUNCEMENT DATED 10 JULY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 2: REPORTING OF EXPLORATION RESULTS
REFER TO ASX ANNOUNCEMENT DATED 10 JULY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 3: ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF MINERAL RESOURCES
REFER TO ASX ANNOUNCEMENT DATED 10 JULY 2025
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
SECTION 4: ESTIMATION AND REPORTING OF ORE RESERVES
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Criteria | Explanation | Detail
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mineral Resource | Description of the Mineral | The 2024 Mineral Resource estimation for the Bengwenyama Project as at
estimate for | Resource estimate used as a basis | 23 October 2024 has been utilised for the conversion to Ore Reserves.
conversion to Ore | for the conversion to an Ore |
Reserves | Reserve. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Clear statement as to whether the | All Mineral Resources are stated as inclusive of the Ore Reserves.
| Mineral Resources are reported |
| additional to, or inclusive of, |
| the Ore Reserves. |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Site visits | Comment on any site visits | The Competent Person Mr van Heerden has conducted a number of site
| undertaken by the Competent Person | visits to the Bengwenyama properties held by MUM in the Limpopo Province
| and the outcome of those visits. | of South Africa. Mr van Heerden visited the Project Area throughout 2024
| | to become familiar with project location and state of the land. From the
| | site visits, an understanding of the potential layouts, as well as a
| | general understanding of the practical design considerations.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| If no site visits have been | Site visits have taken place, as described above.
| undertaken indicate why this is |
| the case. |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Study status | The type and level of study | These maiden Ore Reserves are supported by a prefeasibility study (PFS)
| undertaken to enable Mineral | including the estimation of a Mineral Resource and Ore Reserve for the
| Resources to be converted to Ore | Bengwenyama Project. These Ore Reserves have included all aspects of the
| Reserves. | PFS study which includes economic analyses based on a mine schedule
| | incorporating only the stated Ore Reserves and the relevant parameters
| | developed within that study.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The Code requires that a study to | A PFS was completed as required by the Code to convert Mineral Resources
| at least Prefeasibility Study | to Ore Reserves. This study has determined a mine plan that is both
| level has been undertaken to | technically achievable and economically viable, with all relevant
| convert Mineral Resources to Ore | Modifying Factors thoroughly considered.
| Reserves. Such studies will have |
| been carried out and will have |
| determined a mine plan that is |
| technically achievable and |
| economically viable, and that |
| material Modifying Factors have |
| been considered. |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Cut-off parameters | The basis of the cut-off grade(s) | A paylimit grade of 3.78 g/t was calculated and applied as the cut-off
| or quality parameters applied. | as the minimum grade required to make mining economically viable. The
| | entire Life of Mine (LoM) plan exceeded this cut-off, meaning all areas
| | had grades higher than 3.78 g/t, with no areas exclude in the LoM plan.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Mining factors or | The method and assumptions used as | Only Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been converted to
assumptions | reported in the Pre-Feasibility or | Probable Ore Reserves. No Inferred Mineral Resources have been included
| Feasibility Study to convert the | in the Ore Reserve estimation. The basis of the Ore Reserve estimation
| Mineral Resource to an Ore Reserve | is detailed LoM designs and schedules for the underground operations.
| (i.e. either by application of |
| appropriate factors by | The Mineral Resource to Ore Reserve conversion requires application of
| optimisation or by preliminary or | appropriate factors which would account for any changes to the Mineral
| detailed design). | Resources in the LoM plan as a result of mining the ore. As part of the
| | technical studies, the Ore Reserve conversion factors were determined
| | and applied to the Mineral Resources in the LoM plan available for
| | conversion to Ore Reserves.
| |
| | Ore Reserve Conversion Factors
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | Factors Unit Value
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | Geological Loss Measured % 19. 37
| | Indicated % 15. 25. 27
| | Inferred % 15. 25. 27. 36
| | Pillar Loss % ~9% to ~22%
| | Panel Stoping Width cm 100
| | Mine Call Factor % 95
| | ------------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The choice, nature and | The selected mining method for the Bengwenyama Project is a hybrid
| appropriateness of the selected | approach designed for narrow reef orebodies. combining mechanised
| mining method(s) and other mining | development with conventional stoping to optimise ore extraction and
| parameters including associated | minimise dilution. Mining begins with pre-development, including
| design issues such as pre-strip, | off-reef haulage drives and centre gulleys, followed by production
| access, etc. | drilling using hydro-powered handheld drills. Stoping is carried out in
| | a breast mining layout to maximise working faces and productivity. Ore
| | is scraped from the face to loading bays using scraper winches, then
| | transported by Load-Haul-Dump (“LHD”) vehicles to dump trucks. This
| | system enhances safety, efficiency, and overall ore extraction. The
| | table highlights the stoping criteria used.
| |
| | Stoping Mine Design Criteria
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | Description Mine Design Criteria
| | ------------------------------------------------
| | Face Advance rate 14 m/month
| | Panel Width 23.5 m
| | Advance Strike Gully 1.5 m width x 1.8 m height
| | Stope Height 100 cm
| | ------------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The assumptions made regarding | Geotechnical studies for the Bengwenyama Project have been completed by
| geotechnical parameters (e.g. pit | OHMS. The recommendations as per the geotechnical reports have been
| slopes, stope sizes, etc.), grade | applied to Mineral Resources in the LoM plan to account for pillar
| control and pre-production | losses and pillar dimensions. The design guidelines in the table below
| drilling. | are supported by the geotechnical study.
| |
| | Pillar Configuration
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Detail Description Unit Value
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| | Pillars In-stope pillars (w x l) m 4 x 6
| |
| | In-stope pillar holing m 5
| |
| | Crown pillar vertically below m 50
| | surface
| | ----------------------------------------------------
| |
| | Stoping Layout
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The major assumptions made and | Geological Losses applied to the underground operations various from 15
| Mineral Resource model used for | to 37 % for different blocks and areas. These geological loss factors
| pit and stope optimisation (if | were applied to the UG2 reef to account for the inherent uncertainties
| appropriate). | within the Mineral Resource categories
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The mining dilution factors used. | For the original Ore Reserve declaration: The dilution factor
| | incorporated was done within the minimum mining width of 100 cm. For
| | reef widths less than 90 cm, the stoping width is increased to the 100
| | cm minimum which allows for dilution and for reef widths greater than 90
| | cm, an additional 10 cm is added to account for dilution, ensuring
| | efficient ore extraction while maintaining operational standards.
| |
| | For the Option mentioned in this document: The dilution factor
| | incorporated was done within the minimum mining width of 90 cm. For reef
| | widths less than 80 cm, the stoping width is increased to the 90 cm
| | minimum which allows for dilution and for reef widths greater than 80
| | cm, an additional 10 cm is added to account for dilution, ensuring
| | efficient ore extraction while maintaining operational standards.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The mining recovery factors used. | For underground operations, a specific MCF of 95% has been applied,
| | drawing from insights and experiences gained in similar mining
| | operations.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Any minimum mining widths used. | For the original Ore Reserve declaration: A minimum stoping width of 100
| | cm was incorporated into the underground operation design. For reef
| | widths less than 90 cm, the width is increased to the 100 cm minimum.
| | For reef widths greater than 90 cm, an additional 10 cm is added to
| | account for dilution, ensuring efficient ore extraction while
| | maintaining operational standards.
| |
| | For the Option mentioned in this document: A minimum stoping width of 90
| | cm was incorporated into the underground operation design. For reef
| | widths less than 80 cm, the width is increased to the 90 cm minimum. For
| | reef widths greater than 80 cm, an additional 10 cm is added to account
| | for dilution, ensuring efficient ore extraction while maintaining
| | operational standards.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The manner in which Inferred | The total Mineral Resource in the Life of Mine (LoM) plan amounts to
| Mineral Resources are utilised in | 45.34 Mt, of which 13.62 Mt, or 30%, is classified as Inferred Mineral
| mining studies and the sensitivity | Resources. These Inferred Resources have been excluded from the Ore
| of the outcome to their inclusion. | Reserve estimate.
| |
| | The Inferred Mineral Resources was deliberately scheduled at the end of
| | the LoM plan.
| |
| | A separate mining schedule was also done excluding Inferred Resources to
| | demonstrate that the mine plan is economically viable without Inferred
| | Resources.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Ore Reserve Estimation | The Ore Reserve estimates for the underground operations are detailed in
| | the table below. The Ore Reserves exclude Inferred Mineral Resources in
| | the LoM plan.
| |
| | Ore Reserve Estimation as at 23 October 2024
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Ore Tonnes Pt Pd Rh Au lr Os Ru 4E 6E Cu Ni Cr203 Moz(4E) Moz(6E)
| | Reserve
| | Category
| | Mt (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (g/t) (%) (%) (%)
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Probable 31.72 2.34 2.33 0.48 0.07 0.16 - 0.78 5.22 6.17 0.02 0.12 19.03 5.32 6.29
| | Total 31.72 2.34 2.33 0.48 0.07 0.16 - 0.78 5.22 6.17 0.02 0.12 19.03 5.32 6.29
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The infrastructure requirements of | Infrastructure for the selected mining method includes:-
| the selected mining methods. | • Mining site – Trackless mining equipment and engineering workshops,
| | stores, offices, changing facilities, fuel storage facility, wash
| | bay, site power and water supply, surface water management, sewage
| | handling facilities etc;
| | • Administrative and other offices and facilities;
| | • Underground trackless mining fleet and ancillary fleet;
| | • Haul and service roads;
| | • Waste Rock Dump;
| | • Strategic ore stockpile;
| | • RoM stockpile;
| | • Topsoil stockpile;
| | • Surface water management infrastructure – Dirty and clean water
| | separation and storage of water from the underground dewatering
| | system.
| | • Underground water management infrastructure – Dewatering system and
| | water storage facilities.
| | • Water supply and distribution infrastructure;
| | • Power supply and distribution infrastructure;
| | • Underground ore transport (Conveyor systems and Trackless Fleet);
| | • Surface ore load out and storage facilities;
| | • Processing Plant; and
| | • Tailings Storage Facility.
| | • Site Layout illustrated below.
| |
| |
| |
| |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Metallurgical | The metallurgical process proposed | The PGM content of the UG2 reef is mined and treated for recovery of PGM
factors or | and the appropriateness of that | on an economic basis for multiple decades and by very many UG2 mining
assumptions | process to the style of | operations, on a very similar treatment process named as a MF2 process.
| mineralisation. | The PGM content in the UG2 reef is associated with various sulphide
| | minerals, which are recoverable by flotation processes. The MF2 process
| | requires sufficient fineness to ensure optimal liberation of the PGM
| | grains to facilitate optimal recovery by flotation.
| | The chromite associated with the UG2 reef is mined and treated for
| | recovery of chromite on an economic basis for multiple decades and by
| | very many UG2 mining operations, on a very similar treatment process by
| | a gravity separation process. The chromite content in the UG2 reef is
| | associated with chromite, which is recoverable by a gravity separation
| | process. The gravity process requires sufficient fineness to ensure
| | optimal liberation of the chromite to facilitate optimal recovery by
| | gravity separation.
| | The testwork conducted for the definitive feasibility study has provided
| | support to include a dense media separation circuit to reduce the mining
| | waste contained in the RoM. This has resulted in a reduction in the feed
| | capacity requirement of the primary mill. The testwork further supported
| | a coarser primary mill discharge size distribution which resulted in a
| | further reduction of the reduction of the primary mill size. This
| | further supported the inclusion of gravity recovery of chromite via a
| | spiral circuit upstream from the primary flotation circuit.
| | The coarser primary mill discharge size distribution also supported a
| | higher recovery of chromite which reduced the feed capacity requirement
| | of the primary flotation circuit, the secondary mill and the secondary
| | flotation circuit.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Whether the metallurgical process | The MF2 treatment process proposed during the pre-feasibility study is
| is well-tested technology or novel | described and illustrated below. It should be noted that the definitive
| in nature. | feasibility study is not yet complete and the definitive feasibility
| | testwork results obtained with coarser primary flotation feed size
| | distribution and also the testwork with heavy media separation, where
| | the RoM waste contained in the primary ball mill feed is reduced, have
| | provided indication of a conventional MF2 treatment process that is
| | optimized by employing a dense media separation circuit ahead of the
| | primary mill and a coarser primary mill discharge size distribution.
| | Dense media separation is well tested and not novel in any respect as
| | demonstrated by various UG2 sulphide operations.
| |
| | The MF2 treatment process for recovery of PGM content associated with
| | UG2 sulphide minerals is very well tested and not novel in any respect
| | as demonstrated by the many UG2 sulphide operations proximate to the
| | Bengwenyama orebody, such as the Two Rivers and Modikwa operations
| | amongst many others located on both the Eastern and Western limbs of the
| | Bushveld Igneous Complex.
| |
| | The gravity separation treatment process for recovery of chromite
| | associated with chromitite is very well tested and not novel in any
| | respect as demonstrated by the many chromite operations proximate to the
| | Bengwenyama orebody, such as the Two Rivers and Modikwa operations
| | amongst many others located on both the Eastern and Western limbs of the
| | Bushveld Igneous Complex.
| |
| | The process plant will be built in two stages, with the first stage that
| | has a capacity to treat 100 ktpm. The crushing circuit will consist of a
| | primary jaw crusher, a secondary cone crusher and a tertiary cone
| | crusher. The secondary cone crusher discharge will be classified by a
| | vibrating screen to remove all material smaller than 2 mm to allow the
| | remainder to be fed to a 100 ktpm dense media separation circuit. The
| | DMS sinking fraction will be fed to the tertiary crusher, while the DMS
| | floating fraction will be discarded to the tailing storage facility. The
| | tertiary crusher will be operated in a closed circuit with a separate
| | return feed of the closed-circuit vibrating screen overflow discharge.
| |
| | The tertiary crusher closed-circuit vibrating screen underflow will be
| | combined the smaller than 2 mm material and fed to two primary ball
| | mills operating in parallel, each with a capacity of 45 ktpm. The
| | primary mill discharge size distribution is 30% smaller than 75 µm. The
| | primary mill discharge from both primary mills will be fed to a size
| | classification hydro cyclone which is operated in closed-circuit with
| | the primary mills. The overflow (fine) material will be fed to a surface
| | polishing reactor and the underflow (coarse) material will be returned
| | to the primary mills.
| |
| | The surface polishing reactor liberates material sized smaller than 75
| | µm from adherence to the surfaces of material sized larger than 75 µm.
| | The smaller than 75 µm fraction will separated from the fraction larger
| | than 75 µm by a size classification hydro cyclone circuit which is
| | operated in open-circuit with the overflow (fine material) being fed to
| | the primary flotation rougher bank for recovery of fast floating
| | platinum group metal containing minerals. The underflow (coarse)
| | material is fed to the spiral gravity circuit for recovery of coarse
| | chromite.
| |
| | The primary flotation rougher bank concentrate will be fed to the
| | primary flotation cleaning circuit that consists of a cleaner bank, a
| | recleaner bank and a re-recleaner bank. The primary rougher flotation
| | concentrate is fed to the primary flotation cleaner bank. The primary
| | rougher tailings is fed to the secondary ball mill, that has a capacity
| | of 76 ktpm.
| |
| | The primary flotation cleaner concentrate is fed to the primary
| | flotation recleaner bank and the primary flotation cleaner bank tailing
| | is returned to the primary flotation rougher bank. The primary flotation
| | recleaner bank concentrate is fed to the primary flotation re-recleaner
| | bank and the primary flotation recleaner tailing is returned to the
| | primary flotation cleaner bank.
| |
| | The primary flotation re-recleaner bank concentrate is fed to the high
| | grade PGM concentrate thickener and the primary flotation re-recleaner
| | tailing is returned to the primary flotation re-cleaner bank. The high
| | grade PGM concentrate thickener will have a capacity of 13 ktpm.
| |
| | The spiral gravity circuit is concentrate is fed to the coarse chromite
| | dewatering pad and the spiral gravity circuit tailing is fed to the
| | secondary mill. The coarse chromite dewatering pad will have a capacity
| | of 26 ktpm.
| |
| | The secondary mill discharge size distribution is 80% smaller than 75
| | µm. The secondary mill discharge will be fed to a size classification
| | hydro cyclone which is operated in closed-circuit with the secondary
| | mill. The overflow (fine) material will be fed to the secondary
| | flotation rougher bank for recovery of slow floating platinum group
| | metals containing minerals. The underflow (coarse) material will be
| | returned to the secondary mill.
| |
| | The secondary flotation rougher bank concentrate will be fed to the
| | secondary flotation cleaning circuit that consists of a cleaner bank, a
| | recleaner bank and a re-recleaner bank. The secondary rougher flotation
| | concentrate is fed to the secondary flotation cleaner bank. The
| | secondary rougher tailings is fed to the fine chromite recovery
| | flotation circuit desliming flotation bank.
| |
| | The secondary flotation cleaner concentrate is fed to the secondary
| | flotation recleaner bank and the secondary flotation cleaner bank
| | tailing is returned to the secondary flotation rougher bank. The
| | secondary flotation recleaner bank concentrate is fed to the secondary
| | flotation re-recleaner bank and the secondary flotation recleaner
| | tailing is returned to the secondary flotation cleaner bank.
| |
| | The secondary flotation re-recleaner bank concentrate is fed to the low
| | grade PGM concentrate thickener and the secondary flotation re-recleaner
| | tailing is returned to the secondary flotation re-cleaner bank. The low
| | grade PGM concentrate thickener will have a capacity of 3 ktpm.
| |
| | The fine chromite recovery flotation circuit desliming flotation tailing
| | is fed to the fine chromite flotation rougher bank and the desliming
| | flotation concentrate is discarded to the tailing storage facility. The
| | fine chromite flotation bank concentrate is fed to the fine chromite
| | flotation cleaner bank. The fine chromite flotation cleaner concentrate
| | is fed to the fine chromite dewatering pad and the tailing is discarded
| | to the tailing storage facility. The fine chromite dewatering pad will
| | have a capacity of 23 ktpm.
| |
| | Run of mine material will be treated through a UG2 concentrator plant
| | optimised for the recovery of PGM containing minerals and chromite,
| | where a high and low grade PGM concentrate and a coarse and fine
| | chromite concentrate will be produced.
| |
| | An estimate design has been completed for a single processing plant for
| | processing the UG2 ore with a steady state RoM feed of 200 ktpm that
| | will be reached in two stages. Stage 1 will provide RoM feed to the
| | process plant at a rate of 100 ktpm and Stage 2 will increase the plant
| | RoM feed rate to 200 ktpm. All capacities indicated only apply to solid
| | ore, no liquid capacities are indicated.
| |
| | The equipment installed during the Stage 1, to facilitate a RoM feed of
| | 100 ktpm are listed below:-
| | • one 200 ktpm primary and one 200 ktpm secondary crusher;
| | • one 135 ktpm tertiary crusher;
| | • one 100 ktpm dense media circuit;
| | • two primary mills each with a capacity of 50 ktpm;
| | • two gravity spiral circuits each with a capacity of 24 ktpm;
| | • two coarse chromite dewatering pads each with a capacity of 13 ktpm;
| | • two Jameson PGM primary flotation circuits consisting of rougher,
| | cleaner, recleaner and re-recleaner banks each with a capacity of 20
| | ktpm;
| | • one 2 ktpm high-grade PGM concentrate thickener;
| | • one 2 ktpm high-grade PGM concentrate loading facility;
| | • one secondary mill with a capacity of 60 ktpm;
| | • two Jameson PGM secondary flotation circuits consisting of rougher,
| | cleaner, recleaner and re-recleaner banks each with a capacity of 30
| | ktpm; and
| | • one 1 ktpm low grade PGM concentrate thickener;
| | • one 1 ktpm low grade PGM concentrate loading facility;
| | • two fine chromite flotation circuits each consisting of a desliming
| | screen each with a capacity of 30 ktpm, a pre-float bank with a
| | capacity of 24 ktpm and a rougher bank with a capacity of 24 ktpm.
| | • two fine chromite dewatering pads each with a capacity of 13 ktpm;
| | and
| | • 67 ktpm final tailings thickener;
| | • two final tailings filter presses each with a capacity of 17 ktpm.
| |
| | The additional equipment required to expand the process plant capacity
| | to accommodate the Stage 2 RoM feed of 200 ktpm are listed below:-
| | • two primary mills each with a capacity of 50 ktpm;
| | • two gravity spiral circuits each with a capacity of 24 ktpm;
| | • two coarse chromite dewatering pads each with a capacity of 13 ktpm;
| | • two Jameson PGM primary flotation circuits consisting of rougher,
| | cleaner, recleaner and re-recleaner banks each with a capacity of 20
| | ktpm;
| | • one secondary mill with a capacity of 60 ktpm;
| | • two Jameson PGM secondary flotation circuits consisting of rougher,
| | cleaner, recleaner and re-recleaner banks each with a capacity of 30
| | ktpm; and
| | • two fine chromite flotation circuits each consisting of a desliming
| | screen each with a capacity of 30 ktpm, a pre-float bank with a
| | capacity of 24 ktpm and a rougher bank with a capacity of 24 ktpm;
| | and
| | • two fine chromite dewatering pads each with a capacity of 13 ktpm.
| |
| | It should be noted that the following equipment that is required for
| | Stage 1 and not replicated again for Stage 2 is due to already designed
| | with sufficient capacity as required by Stage 2 where the RoM feed rate
| | is 200 ktpm. The implicated equipment is listed below:-
| | • primary jaw crusher;
| | • secondary cone crusher;
| | • tertiary cone crusher;
| | • high-grade PGM concentrate thickener;
| | • high-grade PGM concentrate loading facility
| | • low grade PGM concentrate thickener;
| | • low grade PGM concentrate loading facility and;
| | • final tailings thickener.
| |
| | The figure below illustrates the simplified process flow diagram.
| | Block Flow Diagram for UG2 Processing Plant
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | The figure below illustrates the spiral circuit configuration used for
| | modelling using the shaking table testwork data.
| | Spiral Circuit for Coarse Chromite Recovery
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The nature, amount and | The definitive feasibility testwork has indicated positive results that
| representativeness of | have led to a material increase of chromite recovery, where the chromite
| metallurgical test work | concentrate grade reached the required grade similar to that previously
| undertaken, the nature of the | obtained with the pre-feasibility study testwork.
| metallurgical domaining applied |
| and the corresponding | The following figure illustrates the process plant flow diagram,
| metallurgical recovery factors | illustrating the MF2 Process Plant for Recovery of High and Low Grade
| applied. | PGM Flotation Concentrate and Coarse and Fine Chromite Concentrate.
| |
| | Bengwenyama MF2 Process Plant for Recovery of High and Low Grade PGM
| | Flotation Concentrate and Coarse and Fine Chromite Concentrate
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | Dense Media Separation (DMS) test work was performed on a
| | non-mineralised footwall composite and on a disseminated footwall
| | composite.
| |
| | The two composites were made up using material obtained from
| | Metallurgical Sample 4, where one composite consisted of non-
| | mineralised footwall only and the other composite consisted of
| | disseminated footwall only. The composites did not contain any UG2 reef.
| |
| | The non-mineralised footwall sample was tested at a DMS density of 3.4
| | and the waste reject was 99.6% with a3E PGM grade of 0.10 g/t. The
| | concentrate recovered was 0.4% with a 3E PGM grade of 0.30 g/t. The
| | table below indicates the test data.
| |
| | DMS Test Result for Non-Mineralised Footwall Sample
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The disseminated footwall was tested at three DMS densities namely 3.0,
| | 3.2 and 3.4. The optimal DMS density to recover the most PGM’s was 3.2.
| | At this density the waste reject was 51.3% with a 3E PGM grade of 0.51
| | g/t. Moreover, the concentrate recovered was 48.7% with a 3E PGM grade
| | of 2.26 g/t. The table below indicates the test data.
| |
| | DMS Test Result for Disseminated Mineralised Footwall Sample
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The DMS testwork was completed by MAK Analytical at the Johannesburg
| | laboratory.
| |
| | Surface modification testwork was also conducted to verify the effect of
| | surface cleaning to enhance the flotation efficiency of minerals
| | associated with PGM. The test results indicated increased PGM deportment
| | sized 75 µm and smaller, increased from 45.6% by mass (as contained in
| | the primary mill discharge) to 73.4% by mass after 20 stages of pumping.
| | The mill discharge PGM grade was 20.5 g/t 3E and after 20 stages of
| | pumping the PGM grade increased to 21 g/t 3E.
| |
| | This enhanced PGM deportment allows for interstage recovery of coarse
| | chromite crystals in the fraction sized 75 µm and larger, which
| | significantly enhances the chromite recovery by gravity in a spiral
| | circuit. The table below indicates the test data.
| |
| | Surface Cleaning Test Result of the Classified Undersize Fraction (100%
| | Smaller than 75 µm) Derived from the Sample Sized 20% by Mass Smaller
| | than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The surface modification testwork was completed by Maelgwyn South Africa
| | at the Johannesburg laboratory.
| |
| | Shaking table (gravity) test work was performed on a composite
| | representative of UG2 reef.
| | The expected performance from a spiral circuit and utilised a
| | proprietary simulation model, utilising operating and testwork data
| | obtained from various chrome operating plants, including UG2 spiral
| | circuits where significant spiral-specific testwork was performed. The
| | circuit layout derived from the model is illustrated in the figure
| | below.
| |
| | Spiral Circuit for Coarse Chromite Recovery
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the test results for the chromite gravity
| | recovery testwork. The 20% - 75 µm feed size distribution delivered a
| | chromite recovery of 71.3% with an associated grade of 40.4% chromite.
| | The associated 3E PGM grade of the chromite concentrate was 1.4% by
| | mass.
| |
| | The 30% -75 µm feed size distribution delivered a chromite recovery of
| | 65.0% with an associated grade of 40.8% chromite. The associated 3E PGM
| | grade of the chromite concentrate was 1.4% by mass. The table below
| | indicates the shaking table results.
| | Shaking Table Test Results
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | A composite was made up using material obtained from Metallurgical
| | Sample 3 and divided into two batches. Batch 1 was milled to 20% -75 µm
| | and Batch 2 was milled to 40% -75µm. Both batches consisted of UG2 reef
| | only. The batches did not contain any footwall waste. Both batches had
| | the same composition with a chromite grade of 21.7%.
| |
| | The results from the Batch 1 test were that the coarse or primary
| | chromite recovery was 65.7% with a chromite grade of 39.6%. The table
| | below indicates the Batch 1 test data. The following table indicates
| | that UG2 waste reports to the DMS floating fraction at 26.2%. The table
| | below indicates the shaking table testwork results for a feed size
| | distribution 20% by mass smaller than 75 µm.
| |
| | Shaking Table Testwork Results for a Feed Size Distribution 20% by Mass
| | Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The results from the Batch 2 test were that the coarse or primary
| | chromite recovery was 46.4% with a chromite grade of 39.5%. The table
| | below indicates the shaking table testwork results for a feed size
| | distribution 40% by mass smaller than 75 µm.
| |
| | Shaking Table Testwork Results for a Feed Size Distribution 40% by Mass
| | Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The primary rougher flotation testwork results are indicated in the
| | following table. It is shown that for a feed size distribution not less
| | than 20% by mass smaller than 75 µm, the concentrate mass pull is 12.3%
| | with an associated 3E PGM grade of 145.2 g/t. The 3E PGM recovery was
| | 92.2%. The table below indicates the primary PGM flotation rougher
| | testwork result for each of the feed size distributions tested which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by mass smaller than 75 µm respectively.
| |
| | Primary PGM Flotation Rougher Testwork Result for Each of the Feed Size
| | Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than
| | 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following figure illustrates the primary rougher test results
| | indicating the recovery by residence time trends. The feed size
| | distribution with 30% by mass smaller than 75 µm delivered the best
| | recovery result. The figure below illustrates the recovery plateau after
| | a residence time of 15 minutes. The figure below illustrates the
| | testwork results of the primary PGM flotation rougher testwork for each
| | of the feed size distributions tested which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by
| | mass smaller than 75 µm respectively.
| |
| | Primary PGM Flotation Rougher Testwork Result (3E PGM Recovery by
| | Residence Time) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The figure below illustrates the same primary rougher flotation test
| | results, however indicating the grade by recovery trends, where again
| | the 30% -75 µm size distribution providing the best result for grade by
| | recovery.
| |
| | Primary PGM Flotation Rougher Testwork Result (3E PGM Recovery by 3E PGM
| | Grade) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%,
| | 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The cleaning flotation concentrate results are illustrated in the
| | following figure, where the trends for grade by recovery are indicated.
| | Also indicated are the associated chromite entrainment assay for the
| | concentrate. The two coarser feed size distributions delivered the best
| | result for both grade by recovery and associated chromite entrainment
| | and is illustrated in the figure below.
| |
| | Primary PGM Flotation Primary Cleaner Testwork Result (3E PGM Recovery
| | by 3E PGM Grade) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the cleaning test results for the four
| | different feed size distributions tested on a 3E assay basis. The best
| | results again were obtained with the two coarsest size distributions.
| | The distribution with 20% -75 µm resulted in a 3E PGM recovery of 81.9%
| | associated with a final 3E concentrate grade of 706.1 g/t. The 30% -75
| | µm distribution resulted in a 3E PGM recovery of 83.3% associated with a
| | final 3E concentrate grade of 544.1 g/t. The table below indicates the
| | PGM flotation closed circuit primary cleaning testwork result (3E PGM
| | Recovery by 3E PGM Grade) for each of the feed size distributions tested
| | Which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by mass smaller than 75 µm.
| |
| | PGM Flotation Closed Circuit Primary Flotation Cleaning Testwork Result
| | (3E PGM Recovery by 3E PGM Grade) for Each of the Feed Size
| | Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than
| | 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the assay results of the primary cleaning
| | circuit on a 6E basis, again for the four different feed size
| | distributions. The 6E assay on the left indicating Au, Pd, Pt, Rh, Ru
| | and Ir is a breakdown by each of the 6E elements. The 3E, 4E and 6E
| | assays under the column titled SGS is a summary of the totals from the
| | 6E assay from the SGS independent laboratory. The 3E assay represents
| | Pt, Pd and Rh. The 4E assay adds Au. The 3E assay indicated in the
| | column titled MAK, represents the assay completed by the Mak Analytical,
| | an independent assay laboratory. Cu and Ni grade of the concentrates are
| | also indicated. The 6E assay of the primary cleaning circuit concentrate
| | had a grade of 985 g/t and was associated with a chromite grade of 2.5%.
| |
| | Primary PGM Concentrate 6E PGM Assay Results of the Primary Flotation
| | Cleaning Circuit for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the prill split of the cleaner
| | concentrates of the primary cleaning circuit on a 6E basis, again for
| | the four different feed size distributions. The prill split is the
| | relative proportions of the individual platinum-group metals in the
| | primary cleaner concentrates. The split indicates that the bulk
| | contribution consists of Pt and Pd at 44% and 35% respectively. Ru and
| | Rh contributed 9.5% and 7.4% to the prill split with minor amounts of Ir
| | and Au at 2.4% and 1.4% respectively.
| |
| | Primary PGM 6E PGM Prill Split of the Primary Flotation Cleaning Circuit
| | for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%, 40%
| | and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following figure illustrates the representation of the 6E elements
| | in the prill split of the primary re-recleaner concentrate, which is the
| | final concentrate.
| |
| | 6E PGM Prill Split of the Primary Cleaning Circuit Final High Grade
| | Concentrate of the Size Distributions 20% by Mass Smaller Than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the PGM:Cr2O3 ratio, where a ratio greater
| | than 80 indicates low entrainment of chromite into the 3E PGM final
| | concentrate. Again, the best results were obtained with the two coarsest
| | feed size distributions (20% and 30% smaller than 75 µm).
| |
| | 3E PGM Final Concentrate PGM:Cr2O3 Ratio for each of the Feed Size
| | Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than
| | 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The secondary rougher flotation testwork results are indicated in the
| | following table. It is shown that for a feed size distribution not less
| | than 20% by mass smaller than 75 µm, the concentrate mass pull is 6.0%
| | with an associated 3E PGM grade of 58.9 g/t. The 3E PGM recovery was
| | 80.3%.
| |
| | Secondary Rougher Flotation Testwork Results for each of the Feed Size
| | Distributions Tested Which is 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than
| | 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following figure illustrates the secondary rougher test results
| | indicating the recovery by residence time trends. The feed size
| | distribution with 30% by mass smaller than 75 µm delivered the best
| | recovery result.
| |
| | Secondary PGM Flotation Rougher Testwork Result (3E PGM Recovery by
| | Residence Time) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The figure below illustrates the same secondary rougher flotation test
| | results, however indicating the grade by recovery trends, where again
| | the 30% -75 µm size distribution providing the best result for grade by
| | recovery.
| |
| | Secondary PGM Flotation Primary Cleaner Testwork Result (3E PGM Recovery
| | by 3E PGM Grade) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The chromite gravity recovery test results are illustrated in the
| | following figure, where the trends for chromite concentrate grade by
| | recovery is indicated. The two coarsest feed size distributions
| | delivered the best results.
| |
| | Coarse Chromite Shaking Table Testwork Result (Chromite Recovery by
| | Chromite Grade) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the test results for the fine chromite
| | flotation recovery testwork. The 20% -75 µm feed size distribution
| | delivered a fine chromite recovery of 83.4% with an associated grade of
| | 42.3% chromite. The associated 3E PGM grade of the chromite concentrate
| | was 0.3 g/t by mass.
| |
| | The 30% -75 µm feed size distribution delivered a chromite recovery of
| | 80.5% with an associated grade of 43.3% chromite. The associated 3E PGM
| | grade of the chromite concentrate was 0.5 g/t by mass.
| |
| | Fine Chromite Shaking Table Testwork Result (Chromite Recovery by
| | Chromite Grade) for Each of the Feed Size Distributions Tested Which is
| | 20%, 30%, 40% and 60% by Mass Smaller than 75 µm
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | The following table indicates the overall mass balance where the best
| | overall results for 3E PGM and chromite recovery were obtained with the
| | 30% -75 µm coarse feed size distribution.
| |
| | The 30% -75 µm results achieved an overall chromite grade of 42.2% with
| | an associated recovery of 85.6% and the final overall 3E PGM rougher
| | concentrate with a grade of 404 g/t and at a recovery of 87.6%.
| |
| | 30% -75 µm Testwork Results Indicating Overall Grade and Recovery of
| | Chromite and 3E PGM Concentrate
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | Source: RM Process Report 2513-BENG-TN-Testwork Report Rev 2 dated 21
| | August 2026
| |
| | Metallurgical Sample 3 consisted of a composite of material from drill
| | cores and consisted of only the chromitite seam from the UG2 reef with a
| | minimal allowance of hanging and footwall.
| | Metallurgical Sample 3 was a composite sample with material derived from
| | drill cores with a total mass of 160.6 kilograms from 12 drillholes.
| |
| | Metallurgical Sample 4 consisted of a composite of material from drill
| | cores and consisted of only footwall from the UG2 reef with a minimal
| | allowance for chromitite seam. Metallurgical Sample 4 was a composite
| | sample with material derived from drill cores with a total mass of 21.6
| | kilograms from 9 drillholes.
| |
| | The samples were focused on the production area for the first 10 years
| | of the PFS. The samples were analysed for 2PGE+Au (3E) and Cr2O3 for the
| | metallurgical testwork.
| | The composite UG2 metallurgical sample returned a 2PGE+Au (3E) grade of
| | 7.36 g/t, with a prill split for Pt:Pd:Au of 47.8%:50.3%:1.9% and a
| | Cr2O3 grade of 28.92%. This metallurgical sample has once again
| | confirmed the grade and robust nature of the UG2 Mineral Resource which
| | has an average 2PGE+Au (3E) grade of 7.35 g/t with a prill split for
| | Pt:Pd:Au of 49.9%:48.6%:1.5% with a Cr2O3 grade of 29.71%.
| |
| | This good correlation between the metallurgical sample grades and the
| | Mineral Resource grades confirms that the metallurgical sample is
| | representative. The drillholes of Metallurgical Sample 3 are illustrated
| | in the figure below.
| |
| | Metallurgical Sample 3 Drillholes
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | The drillholes of Metallurgical Sample 4 are illustrated in the figure
| | below.
| |
| | Metallurgical Sample 4 Drillholes
| |
| |
| |
| |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Any assumptions or allowances made | No assumptions were made for deleterious elements testwork was performed
| for deleterious elements. | on the chromitite seam with only a minimal allowance for the presence of
| | hanging and footwall to ensure no part of the chromitite seam was
| | omitted from the metallurgical sample material.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The existence of any bulk sample | No pilot scale testwork was performed, or bulk sample was obtained due
| or pilot scale test work and the | to the nature of the orebody and the location, making it practically
| degree to which such samples are | challenging to obtain a bulk sample. The confidence level required by
| considered representative of the | PFS study has been achieved with the 2-off composites tested being
| orebody as a whole. | sufficiently representative of the orebody in the payback area.
| |
| | The confidence level required by PFS study has been achieved with the
| | 2-off composites tested being sufficiently representative of the orebody
| | in the payback area. The composite sample was no less than 140 kg from
| | 10 drillholes, each providing about 14 kg. The final accurate total
| | sample mass was 160 kg and the full mass was used to produce one
| | representative composite. Each unique sample was bagged separately to
| | facilitate compositing. The orebody is being mined by other proximate
| | operations and is well understood in relation to non-novel MF2 recovery
| | methods and associated performance.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| For minerals that are defined by a | The PGM process plant could produce a PGM concentrate with a 6E grade of
| specification, has the ore reserve | 100 g/t. The chromite spiral circuit, which forms part of the PGM
| estimation been based on the | process plant and is utilised for chromite recovery could produce a
| appropriate mineralogy to meet the | chromite concentrate with a grade of 40% Cr2O3. The testwork performed
| specifications? | provides the required support for this statement.
| |
| | The Metallurgical Sample 3 is representative of the appropriate
| | mineralogy that will be mined and processed, and Metallurgical Sample 4
| | is representative of the appropriate mineralogy of the non-mineralised
| | footwall and the disseminated footwall that will be efficiently removed
| | in the dense media separation circuit and subsequently fed to the
| | tailings storage facility as waste.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Environmental | The status of studies of potential | The following specialist assessments, inter alia, were considered as
| environmental impacts of the | part of the S&EIA authorisation process to ensure legal compliance and
| mining and processing operation. | best practice: geohydrological, waste, hydrological, watercourse and
| Details of waste rock | hydropedological, aquatic, terrestrial biodiversity, soils and
| characterisation and the | agricultural agro-ecosystem, noise, blasting, traffic air quality,
| consideration of potential sites, | socio-economic assessment, heritage (phase 1), paleontological (phase 1)
| status of design options | and visual impact. Preliminary potential impacts were rated and include
| considered and, where applicable, | but limited to water quality deterioration, habitat (floral and faunal)
| the status of approvals for | loss, decline of functionality of the critical biodiversity areas
| process residue storage and waste | (“CBA”) and ecological sensitive areas (“ESA”) sites, reduced floral
| dumps should be reported. | diversity and loss of threatened and protected floral species, spreading
| | and encroachment of alien invasive species, fragmentation of existing
| | ecological corridors, loss of ephemeral watercourses, soil erosion,
| | compaction and sedimentation of watercourses, contamination of surface
| | water and groundwater, potential decline of surface water and
| | groundwater quantity, loss of land capability, change to the sense of
| | place, air quality and noise impacts, change of social fabric,
| | relocation of people, loss of heritage resources. The positive impacts
| | noted were the creation of employment opportunities, skills development
| | and work experience. Potential infrastructure sites, with alternative
| | sites, have been identified based on social, environmental and
| | production-proximity factors. Additional permit applications are in
| | progress and will be completed at a later stage and include a Waste
| | Management License and a Water Use License.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Infrastructure | The existence of appropriate | The Bengwenyama project is a green fields project with no existing
| infrastructure: availability of | project infrastructure in place. As the general area surrounding the
| land for plant development, power, | project is a well-established mining area, it is well serviced with
| water, transportation | infrastructure such as road networks, bulk power supply, bulk water
| (particularly for bulk | supply and services.
| commodities), labour, | The availability of land for the project's establishment and
| accommodation; or the ease with | construction has been thoroughly assessed. This includes key facilities
| which the infrastructure can be | that require significant land areas, such as the TSF, process plant,
| provided, or accessed. | mining infrastructure, box-cuts, and portals. Sufficient land is
| | available within the proposed mining lease area, and the locations for
| | the necessary infrastructure and facilities have been carefully chosen
| | to minimize the impact on the local community within the project zone.
| | Bulk power for the project will be sourced from the local grid at 132 kV
| | and supplied to an 80 MVA consumer substation that will be constructed
| | as part of the project. Power will be distributed from the consumer
| | sub-station to the various project substations, motor control centres
| | and underground workings. The estimated installed power for the project
| | is 64.5 MVA with an estimated draw of 43.3 MVA. Application
| | documentation has been submitted to Eskom (Local power utility) on the
| | 29th of August 2024, for the supply of power as well as the required
| | cost estimate letter (“CEL”) to determine the detailed requirements to
| | establish the access to the grid.
| | Bulk water supply will mainly consist of water sourced from the
| | Badirammogo Water User Association (“BWUA”), a local water supply
| | authority in the area that mainly supply local communities, neighboring
| | mining operations and agricultural activities. In addition to the
| | Badirammogo water supply, water will be sourced from dewatering the
| | underground workings and collected dirty run-off water. Water
| | requirements have been estimated for the individual water usage areas
| | including the underground mining operations, process plant, offices and
| | admin areas as well as the tailings storage facilities. A water balance
| | has been completed for each of the project operational areas.
| | Estimations indicate that the operation will be water-positive at peak
| | inflow of water into the underground operations. Water from the
| | underground operations will also be utilised for the supply of service
| | and process make-up water while potable water will only be sourced from
| | the Badirammogo supply to the Project.
| | Well established roads are in place in the project areas that allows for
| | easy access and transport of product (Concentrate), material and
| | equipment to and from the projects.
| |
| | The Bengwenyama project is located in the Limpopo province on the
| | eastern limb of the bushveld complex. This has long been associated with
| | mining and well established in terms of infrastructure and services to
| | support the mining industry. Skilled labour can be sourced from nearby
| | towns such as Steelpoort, Burgersfort, Lydenburg and Nelspruit.
| | Towns such as Steelpoort, Burgersfort and Lydenburg are well developed
| | with facilities such as hospitals, police stations, schools and
| | churches. These towns are located such that it can provide accommodation
| | to employees of the project.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Costs | The derivation of, or assumptions | A capital base date of July 2026 was utilised in the capital estimation.
| made, regarding projected capital |
| costs in the study. | The 2026 PFS update took place during the completion of project DFS.
| | This allowed for the utilisation of updated costs, specifically on the
| | process plant to be utilised for the PFS update.
| |
| | The balance of the capital estimate is based on the 2024 PFS. Where new
| | costs were not available from the DFS, PFS costs where utilised and
| | brought to current terms with the relevant PPI indices.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The methodology used to estimate | Operating cost for the mining, supporting service, processing and
| operating costs. | infrastructure was estimated from first principles as well as utilizing
| | operating costs provided by OEM’s for the selected equipment.
| |
| | The mining operating cost estimations were completed utilising the
| | Minxcon first-principles activity-based cost model. The cost model
| | utilises the mine and engineering design criteria as well as production
| | schedule inputs to derive cost rates for the mining and engineering
| | activities. The PFS cost has been brought to current terms with the
| | utilisation of the relevant PPI indices.
| | The underground mining costs for labour, equipment, consumables,
| | services and utilities have been sourced from quotations, actual
| | industry stores costs, industry rates and utility rates. Where costs
| | could not be obtained from these sources, benchmarking with
| | similar-sized projects and operations was conducted and historical costs
| | escalated.
| |
| | Labour compliment has been estimated and assessed in detail to ensure
| | alignment with the mine plan. Labour compliment and cost have been
| | benchmark against actual operations.
| |
| | Major equipment, spares and consumables cost was provided by OEM’s.
| | Simulations have been completed on the mining fleet to ensure adequate
| | fleet compliment.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Allowances made for the content of | No deleterious elements have been identified or are expected.
| deleterious elements. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The derivation of assumptions made | The price forecasts were workshopped with the Project management team.
| of metal or commodity price(s), | The price forecasts for the PGMs are based on forecasts from independent
| for the principal minerals and | consultants (Noah Capital) with discounts applied where deemed too
| co-products. | optimistic. Gold, Copper and Nickel price forecast are based on
| | consensus pricing from Consensus Economics which considers various
| | brokers and analyst forecasts. The chromite price utilized over the LoM
| | is a Spot price (September 2026), which was more conservative compared
| | to third-party forecasts.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The source of exchange rates used | The short to medium-term exchange rate forecasts are based on forecasts
| in the study. | sourced from various South African banks (Investec, First National Bank,
| | Nedbank and Standard Bank) with the medium to long-term exchange rate
| | calculated using an in-house model based on the historic purchasing
| | price parity of the Rand to the Dollar.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Derivation of transportation | Transport costs were benchmarked based on transport costs of similar PGM
| charges. | projects.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The basis for forecasting or | Payabilities have been benchmarked based on numerous offtake agreements
| source of treatment and refining | for PGM concentrates on the Bushveld Complex. No penalties were
| charges, penalties for failure to | considered or are expected.
| meet specification, etc. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The allowances made for royalties | The unrefined Mineral and Petroleum Resources Royalty Act formula was
| payable, both Government and | used for this Project.
| private. |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Revenue factors | The derivation of, or assumptions | The head-grade is based on a monthly LoM plan.
| made regarding revenue factors |
| including head grade, metal or | Saleable Product - Annual PGMs
| commodity price(s) exchange rates, |
| transportation and treatment |
| charges, penalties, net smelter |
| returns, etc. |
| | Annual Saleable Product – Chromite and Base Metals
| |
| |
| |
| |
| | The price forecasts were workshopped with the Project management team.
| | The price forecasts for the PGMs are based on forecasts from independent
| | consultants (Noah Capital) with discounts applied where deemed too
| | optimistic. Gold, Copper and Nickel price forecast are based on
| | consensus pricing from Consensus Economics which considers various
| | brokers and analyst forecasts. The chromite price utilized over the LoM
| | is a Spot price (September 2026), which was more conservative compared
| | to third-party forecasts.
| |
| | Macro-economic Forecasts and Commodity Prices over the Life of Project –
| | Principal Metals
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Commodity Unit Basis 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Long-term
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Platinum USD/oz Real 1,572 1,587 1,594 1,583 1,580 1,581 1,608 1,650 1,738
| | Palladium USD/oz Real 1,302 1,261 1,234 1,225 1,275 1,298 1,296 1,271 1,196
| | Rhodium USD/oz Real 8,424 8,127 8,110 7,779 8,068 8,294 8,496 8,654 8,817
| | Gold USD/oz Real 4,581 4,285 3,726 3,574 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500 3,500
| | Ruthenium USD/oz Real 1,353 1,407 1,438 1,514 1,574 1,652 1,754 1,838 1,930
| | Iridium USD/oz Real 5,936 6,019 6,012 5,962 5,889 5,761 5,639 5,527 5,429
| | Chromite (42%) FOT USD/t Real 187 187 187 187 187 187 187 187 187
| | Exchange Rate ZAR/USD Real 16.34 16.38 17.72 17.91 17.91 17.91 17.91 17.91 17.91
| | -----------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Note: Chromite FOT Price calculated using a CIF China Price of USD280/t
| | Sources: Consensus Economics, Noah Capital, Minxcon
| |
| | Transport costs were benchmarked based on transport costs of similar PGM
| | projects.
| | Payabilities have been benchmarked based on numerous offtake agreements
| | for PGM concentrates on the Bushveld Complex.
| |
| | Payabilities – Principal Metals
| | --------------------------------
| | Commodity Unit Payability
| | --------------------------------
| | Platinum % 85%
| | Palladium % 85%
| | Rhodium % 84%
| | Gold % 84%
| | Ruthenium % 56%
| | Iridium % 54%
| | Chromite (425) % 100%
| | --------------------------------
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The derivation of assumptions made | As described above. The Co-product metal prices and payabilities are
| of metal or commodity price(s), | shown in the tables below.
| for the principal metals, minerals |
| and co-products. | Macro-economic Forecasts and Commodity Prices over the Life of Project –
| | Co-product metals
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Commodity Unit Basis 2027 2028 2029 2030 2031 2032 2033 2034 Long-term
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Copper USD/t Real 12,929 12,059 12,302 11,798 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850 10,850
| | Nickel USD/t Real 17,143 16,839 16,770 16,445 17,018 17,018 17,018 17,018 17,018
| | --------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
| | Sources: Consensus Economics, Noah Capital, Minxcon
| |
| | Payabilities – Co-product metals
| | ---------------------------
| | Commodity Unit Payability
| | ---------------------------
| | Copper % 70%
| | Nickel % 72%
| | ---------------------------
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Market assessment | The demand, supply and stock | The following market situation and outlook is summarised from the
| situation for the particular | Johnson Matthey PGM market report (2024):
| commodity, consumption trends and | Demand
| factors likely to affect supply | • Platinum: Demand in 2023 rose due to automotive recovery (8%
| and demand into the future. | increase in global vehicle output) and strong industrial use,
| | particularly in the glass sector. However, jewellery demand slightly
| | declined, especially in China.
| | • Palladium: Automotive demand increased due to a surge in gasoline
| | vehicle production. Industrial demand continued its downward trend
| | on the back of price-stimulated substitution.
| | • Rhodium: Automotive demand grew but was offset by weak demand in the
| | glass industry, which saw continued sales of surplus rhodium from
| | Chinese glassmakers.
| |
| | Supply
| | • Platinum: Primary supply in South Africa remained constrained, with
| | maintenance and electricity disruption issues in smelters. Russian
| | platinum sales to China surged.
| | Secondary supply contracted with a drop in recycling due to fewer
| | end-of-life vehicles entering scrapyards.
| | • Palladium: Russian palladium supply increased sharply (up by 17%)
| | due to heavy sales to Hong Kong and China. South African palladium
| | supply increased slightly (~3%). Secondary supply dropped to a
| | seven-year low, particularly from automotive recycling.
| | • Rhodium: Primary supply fell in South Africa, particularly due to
| | refinery issues, but was partially offset by an increase in supply
| | from Russia. Secondary supply of rhodium also fell due to lower
| | recycling from the automotive industry.
| |
| | Outlook (2024)
| | • The market balance of Platinum, Palladium and Rhodium are expected
| | to remain in deficit.
| | • Platinum: Deficit is expected to continue due to lower primary
| | supplies and strong industrial demand. Automotive and jewellery use
| | will decline slightly but remain high. Investment demand is expected
| | to rise. Overall demand is expected to remain stable.
| | • Palladium: Demand is predicted to fall by 6%, while supply
| | shortfalls will shrink as vehicle production slows and recycling
| | slightly improves. The deficit in palladium will reduce slightly,
| | though the market remains sensitive to auto sector changes.
| | • Rhodium: Industrial demand is forecast to increase by 9%, but
| | automotive demand will decline by 6%. Overall demand is expected to
| | decrease 4%. A modest rebound in South African supplies and a slight
| | recovery in recycling is expected but will not be sufficient to
| | erase the deficit.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| A customer and competitor analysis | No customer and competitor analysis has been undertaken. Indicative
| along with the identification of | talks have been held with smelters that have expressed interest in the
| likely market windows for the | offtake of all metals produced. The project is in the bottom quartile of
| product. | the cost curve on a cost per recovered ounce basis.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Price and volume forecasts and the | Volume forecasts based on monthly LoM plan. The price forecasts are
| basis for these forecasts. | based on forecasts from Noah Capital, Consensus Economics which
| | considers various brokers and analyst forecasts, and spot prices.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| For industrial minerals the | N/A
| customer specification, testing |
| and acceptance requirements prior |
| to a supply contract. |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Economic | The inputs to the economic | In generating the financial model and deriving the valuations, the
| analysis to produce the net | following were considered:
| present value (NPV) in the study, | • The cash flow model is in real money terms and completed in ZAR.
| the source and confidence of these | • The DCF evaluation was set up in calendar years.
| economic inputs including | • The LoM includes 30% Inferred Mineral Resources.
| estimated inflation, discount | • The Reserve plan and the Reserve financial results were not updated
| rate, etc. | since the 2024 PFS.
| | • The annual ZAR cash flow used real term forecast exchange rates for
| | the LoM period.
| | • The financial results have been converted to USD terms using the
| | forecast exchange rate in each relevant period.
| | • A company hurdle rate of 8.0% (in real terms) was utilised for the
| | discount factor.
| | • The impact of the Mineral Royalties Act using the formula for
| | unrefined metals was included.
| | • Sensitivity analyses were performed to ascertain the impact of
| | discount factors, commodity prices, exchange rate, grade, operating
| | costs and capital expenditures.
| | • Valuation of the tax entity was performed on a stand-alone basis –
| | Corporate tax rate of 27%.
| | • The full NPV of the operation was reported for the Bengwenyama
| | Project.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| NPV ranges and sensitivity to | The Project NPV ranges for the LoM plan (including 30% Inferred Mineral
| variations in the significant | Resources) are detailed in the following table.
| assumptions and inputs. | Project NPVs at Various Discount Rates (Real Terms)
| | ----------------------------
| | Project Value Unit LoM
| | ----------------------------
| | NPV @ 0% ZARm 120,574
| | NPV @ 5% ZARm 54,590
| | NPV @ 8% ZARm 35,501
| | NPV @ 10% ZARm 27,047
| | NPV @ 15% ZARm 14,228
| | NPV @ 20% ZARm 7,690
| | IRR % 39.1%
| |
| | NPV @ 0% USDm 6,709
| | NPV @ 5% USDm 3,026
| | NPV @ 8% USDm 1,961
| | NPV @ 10% USDm 1,489
| | NPV @ 15% USDm 775
| | NPV @ 20% USDm 411
| | ----------------------------
| |
| | The Reserve financial results are unchanged from the 2024 PFS numbers,
| | i.e. have not been updated. The sensitivity to the inclusion of Inferred
| | Mineral Resources in the LoM plan is demonstrated in the second set of
| | results (2024 PFS basis) illustrating the Ore Reserve is economically
| | viable.
| | Project NPVs at Various Discount Rates (Real Terms) – 2024 Results
| | -----------------------------------
| | Project Value Unit Reserve (2024)
| | -----------------------------------
| | NPV @ 0% ZARm 41,499
| | NPV @ 5% ZARm 21,519
| | NPV @ 8% ZARm 14,595
| | NPV @ 10% ZARm 11,228
| | NPV @ 15% ZARm 5,581
| | NPV @ 20% ZARm 2,323
| | IRR % 26.3%
| |
| | NPV @ 0% USDm 2,120
| | NPV @ 5% USDm 1,100
| | NPV @ 8% USDm 746
| | NPV @ 10% USDm 574
| | NPV @ 15% USDm 285
| | NPV @ 20% USDm 119
| | -----------------------------------
| |
| | For the DCF, the grade PGM prices and exchange rate have the biggest
| | impact on the sensitivity of the Project followed by the mining
| | operating costs. The Project is least sensitive to the base metal
| | prices, capital and processing operating costs.
| | LoM Project Sensitivity USD (NPV8.0%)
| |
| |
| |
| |
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Social | The status of agreements with key | Through the proposed Project, the Company is committed to delivering
| stakeholders and matters leading | improvements in the social and human capacities of the people who
| to social license to operate. | surround this operation. To maintain the social licence to operate, a
| | social labour plan has been reviewed by the competent authority and is
| | awaiting approval from the local Municipality. The social labour plan
| | entails a local economy development action plan that is continually
| | assessed within the local municipality every five years. Currently a
| | signed Framework and Cooperation Agreement is in place between MUM and
| | the Bengwenyama Community that includes surface rights usage and access
| | agreements, compensation, moratorium on the mining right footprint,
| | identification of culturally important areas, and subject to a pending
| | restitution land claims by the Bengwenyama-ya-Maswazi tribal authority
| | who are shareholders in the proposed Project. The local economic
| | development programmes include sustainable projects that will be
| | initiated, implemented and supported financially, which should be
| | detailed in the SLP.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Other | To the extent relevant, the impact of the following on the project and/or on the estimation and
| classification of the Ore Reserves:
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Any identified material naturally | A risk assessment has been conducted as part of the PFS. No material
| occurring risks. | risks have been identified.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The status of material legal | There are no legal or marketing agreements in place for the Project.
| agreements and marketing | Indicative talks have been held with smelters with expression of
| arrangements. | interest indicated for offtake of concentrates.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The status of governmental | The Company has submitted a Mining Right Application to the Competent
| agreements and approvals critical | Authority. Department of Mineral Resources and Energy for the proposed
| to the viability of the project, | Bengwenyama Mine Underground Project. To date, the following
| such as mineral tenement status, | environmental milestones have been achieved. The granting of the
| and government and statutory | Preferent Prospecting Right number LP30/5/1/1/3/2/1/002PPR under Section
| approvals. There must be | 104 of the Mineral and Petroleum Resources Development Act, 2002 as
| reasonable grounds to expect that | amended was issued June 2015 and execution and completion of exploration
| all necessary Government approvals | activities with respective environmental compliance monitoring was
| will be received within the | February 2024. Submission of the Mining Right application, reference
| timeframes anticipated in the | LP30/5/1/2/2/10252MR by the Company was accepted on 17 October 2023.
| Pre-Feasibility or Feasibility | Parallel to the mining right application submission, an environmental
| study. Highlight and discuss the | authorisation application was triggered through a scoping and
| materiality of any unresolved | environmental impact assessment in terms of National Environmental
| matter that is dependent on a | Management Act, No. 107 of 1998 and Environmental Impact Assessment
| third party on which extraction of | Regulations (Government Notice Regulations 982 of 2014, as amended), was
| the reserve is contingent. | submitted to the DMRE on 29 September 2023 and acknowledgement letter
| | received on 20 December 2023. Subsequently the environmental impact
| | assessment phase was triggered and completed on 11 July 2024, and the
| | DMRE acknowledgement letter was issued on 17 July 2024. The DMRE will
| | make the final decision within the legislated timeframes during the last
| | quarter of 2024. Additional permit applications are in progress and will
| | be completed at a later stage and include a Waste Management Licence in
| | terms of the National Environmental Management: Waste Act, 2008 and a
| | Water Use Licence in terms of section 21 of the National Water Act.
| | 1998. Additionally, agreements will be entered into between the Company
| | and Eskom for overhead transmission lines and consumer substations as
| | well as with Lebalelo Water User Association pipeline for bulk water
| | supply.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Classification | The basis for the classification | The Ore Reserve estimation for the Bengwenyama Project has been
| of the Ore Reserves into varying | conducted in accordance with the guidelines as set out in the JORC Code
| confidence categories. | (2012). Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been converted to
| | Probable Ore Reserves by applying the applicable modifying factors.
| | There is sufficient confidence in the modifying factors that have been
| | applied in the Mineral Resource to Ore Reserve conversion which enabled
| | the conversion of Measured and Indicted Mineral Resources to Probable
| | Ore Reserves.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Whether the result appropriately | The results as presented appropriately reflect the CP’s view of the
| reflects the Competent Person’s | deposit.
| view of the deposit. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The proportion of Probable Ore | The Measured Mineral Resources in the LoM plan have been converted to
| Reserves that have been derived | Probable Ore Reserves. No portion of Measured Mineral Resources were
| from Measured Mineral Resources | converted to Proved Ore Reserves. The portion of Measured Resources that
| (if any). | was converted to Probable Ore Reserves is 19% of the total Probable Ore
| | Reserve. The other 81% Probable Ore Reserve was converted from Indicated
| | Mineral Resources.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Audits or reviews | The results of any audits or | SRK are in progress of reviewing the PFS. No fatal flaws have been
| reviews of Ore Reserve estimates. | identified to date
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Discussion of | Where appropriate a statement of | A detailed mine design and monthly schedule has been completed for the
relative accuracy/ | the relative accuracy and | Project.
confidence | confidence level in the Ore |
| Reserve estimate using an approach | The modifying factors applied in the Mineral Resource to Ore Reserve
| or procedure deemed appropriate by | conversion have been derived from technical studies completed for the
| the Competent Person. For example, | Project. The Ore Reserve conversion factors applied correlate well with
| the application of statistical or | operational values at similar operations.
| geostatistical procedures to |
| quantify the relative accuracy of | Diluted Measured and Indicated Mineral Resources have been converted to
| the reserve within stated | Probable Ore Reserves.
| confidence limits, or, if such an |
| approach is not deemed | There is sufficient confidence in the modifying factors applied in the
| appropriate, a qualitative | Mineral Resource to Ore Reserve conversion to convert diluted Measured
| discussion of the factors which | Mineral Resources to Probable Ore Reserves.
| could affect the relative accuracy |
| and confidence of the estimate. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| The statement should specify | A local Mineral Resource estimate was completed in the Project area. The
| whether it relates to global or | Mineral Resource estimate completed by Minxcon as at 23 October 2024
| local estimates, and, if local, | formed the basis of the Ore Reserve estimation of 31.72 Mt. All
| state the relevant tonnages, which | assumptions made and the procedures used have been stated as part of the
| should be relevant to technical | CPR.
| and economic evaluation. |
| Documentation should include |
| assumptions made and the |
| procedures used. |
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| Accuracy and confidence | The modifying factors applied were determined by technical studies at
| discussions should extend to | the appropriate level of confidence producing a mine plan and monthly
| specific discussions of any | production schedule that is technically achievable and economically
| applied Modifying Factors that may | viable.
| have a material impact on Ore |
| Reserve viability, or for which | It is Minxcon’s view that the information provided to Minxcon is sound
| there are remaining areas of | and no other undue material risks pertaining to mining, metallurgical,
| uncertainty at the current study | environmental, permitting, legal, title, taxation, socio-economic,
| stage. | marketing, political. and other relevant issues pose a material risk to
| | the Ore Reserve estimates.
+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
| It is recognised that this may not | This is a maiden Ore Reserve statement. However, the modifying factors
| be possible or appropriate in all | were determined by technical studies and based on current operations
| circumstances. These statements of | utilising the selected mining method and are at the appropriate level of
| relative accuracy and confidence | confidence to produce a mine plan and production schedule that is
| of the estimate should be compared | technically achievable and economically viable.
| with production data, where |
| available. | No production data available but compared to neighbouring operations.
---------------------+------------------------------------+-------------------------------------------------------------------------
Date: 13/10/2026 10:00:00
Produced by the JSE SENS Department. The SENS service is an information dissemination service administered by the JSE Limited ('JSE').
The JSE does not, whether expressly, tacitly or implicitly, represent, warrant or in any way guarantee the truth, accuracy or completeness of
the information published on SENS. The JSE, their officers, employees and agents accept no liability for (or in respect of) any direct,
indirect, incidental or consequential loss or damage of any kind or nature, howsoever arising, from the use of SENS or the use of, or reliance on,
information disseminated through SENS.
Sharenet Sites 
