Mining Done Right

RBC Conference

June 2013

B D HBruce D. HansenChief Executive Officer

Cautionary StatementsThis presentation contains “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended, and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended that are intended to be covered by the safe harbor created by such sections. Such forward-looking statements include, without limitation, (i) estimates of future molybdenum prices, supply, demand and/or production; (ii) estimates of future cash costs, direct operating costs, costs applicable to sales (CAS), or royalty payments; (iii) estimates of future capital expenditures; (iv) estimates regarding timing of permitting, future development, construction or production activities; (v) statements regarding cost structure, project economics, or competitive position, and (vi) statements comparing Mt. Hope to other mines, projects, or metals. Where the Company expresses or implies an expectation or belief as to future events or results, such expectation or belief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis However forward looking statements are subject to risksbelief is expressed in good faith and believed to have a reasonable basis. However, forward-looking statements are subject to risks, uncertainties and other factors, which could cause actual results to differ materially from future results expressed, projected or implied by such forward-looking statements. These risks and uncertainties include, but are not limited to, metals price and production volatility, global economic conditions, currency fluctuations, increased production costs and variances in ore grade or recovery rates from those assumed in mining plans, exploration risks and results, political, operational and project development risks, including the Company’s ability to retain required permits to commence production and its ability to obtain suitable financing for development of the Mt. Hope project, adverse governmental regulation and judicial outcomes. For a more detailed discussion of such risks and other factors, see the Company’s Annual g g j p yReport on Form 10K, which is on file with the Securities and Exchange Commission, as well as the Company’s other SEC filings. The Company does not undertake any obligation to release publicly revisions to any “forward-looking statement,” to reflect events orcircumstances after the date of this presentation, or to reflect the occurrence of unanticipated events, except as may be required under applicable securities laws.

Cautionary Note to U.S. Investors Concerning Estimates of Reserves and ResourcesCalculations with respect to "proven reserves" and "probable reserves" referred to above have been made in accordance with, and using the definitions of National Instrument 43-101, as required by Canadian securities regulatory authorities. For United States reporting purposes, the U.S. SEC applies a different standard in order to classify mineralization as a "reserve". Under SEC standards, mineralization may not be classified as a "reserve" unless the determination has been made that the mineralization could be economically and legally extracted or produced at the time the reserve determination is made. No such determinations have been made with respect to any mineralization at the Liberty project, and it cannot be assured that such a determination will be made. This release also uses the terms “measured” “indicated” and “inferred” resources We caution U S investors that while such terms are recognized and required bymeasured , indicated and inferred resources. We caution U.S. investors that while such terms are recognized and required by Canadian Securities Administrators pursuant to the National Instrument 43-101, the SEC does not recognize them. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that any part or all of mineral deposits in these categories will ever be converted into reserves. “Inferred Resources”, in particular, have a great amount of uncertainty as to their existence, and great uncertainty as to their economic and legal feasibility. It cannot be assumed that all or any part of an Inferred Mineral Resource will ever be upgraded to a higher category. Under Canadian Securities Administration rules, estimates of Inferred Mineral Resources may not form the basis of feasibility or pre-feasibility studies. U.S. investors are cautioned not to assume that part or all of an inferred resource exists, or is economically or legally minable.

2

General Moly’s Significant AdvantagesThe onlyThe only

significant, viable, publicly

traded molycompany in an

advancedProduction

off-takeadvanced stage of

development

off-take agreements

provide price floor

protection and upside

Two world-class, high

grade projects in

Nevada

General Moly’sCompetitive

poptionality

F kp

AdvantagesFramework established

for full financing

Mt. Hope fully permitted

Long-term pricing

fundamentals

Management experienced in transitioning

3

fundamentals for moly are

strong

transitioning projects into production

Molybdenum – A Strategic Mineral

• Essential metal for modern industry• Strengthens steel, improves weldability, reduces brittleness, helps steel perform in very high

or very low temperatures provides corrosion resistanceor very low temperatures, provides corrosion resistance

• Key applications: energy infrastructure, pipeline development, power plants, desalination, refineries, motor vehicles, aircraft parts, specialty lubricants, catalyst for high sulphur fuelscatalyst for high sulphur fuels

• Powerful anti-corrosive alloy for stainless and alloy steels, especially important in cold water or deep water

• Molybdenum is vital in the products in which it is used with few economical substitutes and moly demand is relatively price inelastic

4

Moly Demand Growth Projected to be Robust• >500M lbs of moly consumed annually and demand expected to grow• >500M lbs of moly consumed annually and demand expected to grow

nearly 30M lbs per year through 2015 to over 600M lbs when Mt. Hope projected to commence production

• Supported by global steel demand growth ( 3 5% CAGR); Historically• Supported by global steel demand growth (~3.5% CAGR); Historically, moly demand exceeds crude steel demand by 1% to 2%

• Moly demand per capita growth illustrates increasing intensity of use

1,000

Moly Demand Per Capita (1999-2016p)World Moly Demand (2012p-2021p)

528612

793

600

800

,

200

400

0

5Source: CPM Group, IMOA, JP Morgan Research

China Use to Drive Global Demand• China consumes ~31% of moly and 45-50% of aluminum & copper todayy pp y

• China also produces and consumes 45-50% of global steel

• China is increasingly employing higher-grade steels and expanding its intensity of use, stoking additional demand for moly

I 2011 Chi ’ i t it f t d t 10 k f l 100 t f t l f• In 2011, China’s average intensity of use stood at 10 kg of moly per 100 mt of steel, up from 6.4 kg in 2005, but well below the 2011 global average of 15 kg

• If China’s intensity of use reached the global average, it would need 80M to 120M more lbs of moly per year120M more lbs of moly per year

• Chinese urbanization requires new industrial and electricity facilities, expanded oil & gas networks and a build out of intra-city high speed rail links

China’s Share of Global Moly DemandMoly Usage Per 100 Mt of Crude Steel, 2011

China37%

2001 2011 2021pChina s Share of Global Moly Demand

China8% China

30%

Moly Usage Per 100 Mt of Crude Steel, 2011

RoW63%

RoW92%

RoW70%

6Source: CPM Group, IMOA, World Steel Source: CPM Group

Industry Marginal Cost Limits Price Downside$40 Historic Moly Prices

$35

Historic Moly Prices(January 2008 – June 2013)

Strong global growth supports

$30+ /lb moly prices

Financial crisis$25

$30

Financial crisis causes prices to

collapse

Global uncertainty cause prices to drift

sideways

$20

Ex-China demand recovery

y

Softer macro environment in U.S., $10

$15

Marginal Cost of Chinese Production

Moly only dipped below $10/lb for 5 months during “Great

Recession”; Chinese buying & marginal production shuttered

support price recovery

ysupports prices further Europe and Japan weakens demand

offset by supply reductions in China

Note: CPM and Macquarie estimates 2012 Chinese production costs for 200M lbs/yr at between $7 and $13/lb

$5

7

support price recovery

Source: Ryan’s Notes, Company Estimates

$0

Jan-

08

Mar

-08

May

-08

Jul-0

8

Sep

-08

Nov

-08

Jan-

09

Mar

-09

May

-09

Jul-0

9

Sep

-09

Nov

-09

Jan-

10

Mar

-10

May

-10

Jul-1

0

Sep

-10

Nov

-10

Jan-

11

Mar

-11

May

-11

Jul-1

1

Sep

-11

Nov

-11

Jan-

12

Mar

-12

May

-12

Jul-1

2

Sep

-12

Nov

-12

Jan-

13

Mar

-13

May

-13

CPM Price Forecast• Molybdenum is a balanced market with price upside tied to supply &Molybdenum is a balanced market with price upside tied to supply &

demand fundamentals

• Price forecast in the $11-$16/lb range through 2017

• Price will typically range between $10 and $19/lb but with potential for prices to reach or exceed $30/lb at times

• Downside is limited and upside potential is strong when supply constrains or if demand exceeds expectations

8Source: CPM Group

Investment Thesis

N t d • Current focus on Mt Hope a large and high-Near-term producer of molybdenum with

two world-class projects

• Current focus on Mt. Hope, a large and high-grade moly project

• Liberty: a follow-on moly & copper project will position General Moly as the largest pure-playp j position General Moly as the largest pure-play primary moly producer in the world

C t d• Framework established for obtaining full

Company supported through significant

strategic partnerships

financing

• 20% Mt. Hope Joint Venture with POSCO

• Off take approximately 50% committed for first• Off-take approximately 50% committed for first five years

• Replace or augment Hanlong participation withSignificant Catalysts

Anticipated

Replace or augment Hanlong participation with other partners

• Close Chinese Bank Loan

9

• Initiate heavy construction

Mt. Hope – A World-Class Moly Project

R

BattleMountain

Winnemucca

Carlin

Elko Wells

Mt. H

Tonopah

Reno

Austin Eureka ElyHope

• Annual production of 40M lbs1 Tonopah• Annual production of 40M lbs

• Process grades of 0.1% Mo1

• 1.3 billion pounds moly contained in Proven & Probable Reserves

Large scale project with high Mo grades

and low costs& Probable Reserves

• Cash costs of $5.29 / lb Mo1 – well positioned as one of the lowest cost primary producersAdvanced stage of

development • Bankable Feasibility Study updated in August 2012 with

Mining-friendly location in Nevada

development Bankable Feasibility Study updated in August 2012 with revised capital estimate of $1.27 billion

• Engineering approximately 64% complete

• $235M spent on permitting, long-lead equipment

101. Average over the first five full years of operations, based on 2010 study

location in Nevada USA

$ p p g, g q p

• Access to infrastructure, labor & support services

Liberty - A Second World-Class Moly Project

Reno

BattleMountain

Winnemucca

Carlin

Elko Wells

Tonopah

Austin Eureka Ely

Anaconda operated 1982 1985LibertyA previous

producing mine of moly and copper

• Anaconda operated 1982-1985

• Cyprus Minerals operated 1988-1991

• Maintains some key infrastructure

Pre feasibility study

• Containing 739M lbs Mo and 893M lbs Cu (43-101 report)

• Production of 20M lbs Mo and 17M lbs Cu over first 5 years at costs of $5.70/lb Mo1

Pre-feasibility study completed

November 2011

• 42 year mine life

• CapEx estimate of $550 million to build

• Will start Feasibility Study and permitting post Mt Hope

111. Costs estimated using $2.50/lb Cu byproduct credits. See November 2011 43-101 Report on SEDAR for more information

Will start Feasibility Study and permitting post Mt. Hope construction start

Financing Timeline

P i t Pl t f 8 3 illi h ith A l Mitt l th h l t• Private Placement of 8.3 million shares with ArcelorMittal; these shares were later spun off to APERAM (2007)

• POSCO capital contributions of $100M at Mt. Hope Project Level (2008)

• Hanlong Tranche 1 investment $40M (2010)• Hanlong Tranche 1 investment $40M (2010)

• Major terms agreed with China Development Bank (2012)

• POSCO capital contribution and catch-up payment of ~$100M at Mt. Hope Project Level (2012)(2012)

• Loan negotiations (facility agreement, security documentation) (Early 2013)

• Detainment of Hanlong Founder Liu Han results in China Development Bank suspending loan negotiations (March 2013) g

• Currently working with Hanlong and Cutfield Freeman & Co. (advisors) to secure another Chinese strategic partner to advance Chinese bank loan completion and the full financing of the Mt. Hope Project (June 2013)

• Evaluating other alternatives

12

Project / Financing Timeline

Final Permits Received (Record of Decision)

HanlongTranche 1 Investment

Preliminary Construction Start

Dec 2010 Nov 2012 Jan 2013Permitting, BFS Update 20-24 months construction

• Access $665M Chinese Bank Loan

• Heavy Construction Start

2015:Production Start

POSCO $100M payment

• Final permits received:

• Record of Decision Environmental Impact Statement

• NV State Air Permit, Reclamation Permit, Water Pollution Control Permit

• Nevada State Engineer granted Water Permit

• Ready for construction on receipt of Chinese bank loan and full project financing

13

China’s Rationale For Moly Investment• The world’s largest steel producer is expanding into higher value added steel• The world s largest steel producer is expanding into higher value added steel

products

• Has transitioned from a significant to a minor exporter of moly. As its need for molygrows and the country seeks to conserve its national moly resources, China is g y yexpected to become a significant importer

• Focused on conserving moly for its growing steel business and restricting mining and smelting projects in domestic moly industry to improve economics, safety and environmental protection of existing Chinese moly productionenvironmental protection of existing Chinese moly production

• Restrictive licensing, export quotas and tariffs discouraging moly exports from China

• Mt. Hope moly trioxide product significantly higher grade, lower in copper, lead than LME, Chinese moly producers:

Grade Copper Lead

Mt Hope 63% 0 02% 0 02%Mt. Hope 63% 0.02% 0.02%

LME min. 57% max. 0.5% max. 0.05%

China Moly 52%, 55%, 57% 0.24‐0.25% 0.10%

JDC 55%, 60% 0.24‐0.25% 0.10%

14• Scope to blend to upgrade low grade Chinese product

,

General Moly Partnerships• POSCO 5th largest global steel producerPOSCO, 5 largest global steel producer

• 20% Joint Venture Partner at Mt. Hope project; will receive 8M lbs of moly production annually

• Has already contributed $200M to Mt. Hope development including $100M payment in December 2012 after receipt of all permits

• $156M buy-in values Mt. Hope at $780M

• APERAM, former stainless division of ArcelorMittal• General Moly’s 2nd largest customer

• Bought shares at $8.50 in late 2007 and owns a 9% stake in General Molyg y

• Other CustomersS AH B t l & S jit h ff t k t• SeAH Besteel & Sojitz have off-take agreements

• Off-take approximately 50% committed for first five years• Up to half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14 $15/lb with ~80% upside participation• Up to half of sales contain hard floor prices between $14-$15/lb with ~80% upside participation

above floor

15

Off-Take – First 5 Years1 APERAM1 (Nov 2007)1. APERAM (Nov 2007)

• 6.5M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection3

• 3 0M lb off-take option for years 6-15• 3.0M lb off-take option for years 6-15, requires 10% FD ownership of General Moly

2. SeAH Besteel (May 2008)

• 4.0M lb (+/- 10%) off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection2

3. Sojitz Corporation (Aug 2008)

• 1.0M lb off-take agreement for five years with floor price protection2,3

• 4.0M lb off-take agreement for five years near spot2,3 11.5M annual pounds committed with price protection

that includes:4. New Partner

• 16.5M lb off-take available over first five years, additional rights LOM

that includes:

• A hard floor price between $14-$15 per pound on average;

• PPI escalation annually;

16

• A modest discount to customer above floor price1. APERAM was the stainless steel division of ArcelorMittal and was spun off as a separate public company as of January 25, 20112. Off-take agreements begin only when Mt. Hope reaches certain levels of commercial production and do not require General Moly to deliver product other than its own 3. Sojitz has the option of continuing the contract until the commencement of commercial production

General Moly Capital StructureStock on IssueShares Outstanding 91.5 MWarrants1 1.0 MEquity Compensation1 3.3 MDiluted Shares 95.8 M

Balance Sheet (3/31/2013)2.5$5

General Moly Share Price, Volume (Rolling One Year)

Balance Sheet (3/31/2013)Cash on Hand $ 93M2

Debt $11M

Top Owners1. Hanlong 11.88M shares 13.0% FD2. APERAM 8.26M shares 9.1% FD

2$4

sh)

3. Coghill Capital Mgmt 8.10M shares 8.9% FD4. BlackRock Trust Co. 3.85M shares 4.2% FD5. Vanguard Group 2.58M shares 2.8% FD 6. Van Eck Associates 1.64M shares 1.8% FD7. Dimensional Fund 1.59M shares 1.7% FD8. David Russell 1.30M shares 1.4% FD 9 Bruce Hansen 1 20M shares 1 3% FD

1.5$3

me,

Mill

ions

y Sh

are

Pric

e ($

/s

9. Bruce Hansen 1.20M shares 1.3% FD10. State Street Global 1.19M shares 1.3% FD

Analyst CoverageBank of America Merrill Lynch Dave Forster CIBC Matt GibsonJohn Tumazos VIR John Tumazos 0 5

1

$1

$2

Volu

m

Gen

eral

Mol

y

RBC Fraser PhillipsStifel Nicolaus Paul Massoud

Insider OwnershipDirectors & Mgmt 16.84M shares3 17.6% FD

0

0.5

$0

$1

171. Includes warrants and equity compensation that are “out of the money”2. Includes $36M in cash held at Eureka Moly to be released with bank financing3. Actual ownership including Hanlong’s shares

Why General Moly?

Two world-class molybdenum assetsGeneral Moly

Only Near-term Producer Mt. Hope – One of the largest and highest-grade moly assets currently under development

Fully Permitted

Properties in Mining Friendly Jurisdictions

Mt. Hope fully permitted

Both assets located in Nevada, USA

Significant Strategic Partnerships

Substantial Off-take

Partnerships with Hanlong, POSCO, APERAM, SeAH Besteeland Sojitz Corporation support financing and off-take

50% itt d fi t fiSubstantial Off take Agreements

Meaningful Follow-on Project

~50% committed first five years

Liberty – a solid follow-on project to make General Moly the largest pure play primary moly producer in the world

Compelling Valuation Trading at 20-25% of NPV @ $15/lb moly

18General Moly is the “Go To” Moly Story

Appendix

19

Experienced Management Team•CEO at General Moly since 2007Bruce Hansen •Previously served in multiple executive roles at Newmont Mining including Chief Financial Officer and Senior VP, Operations Services & Development. Prior to that, was Senior VP of Corporate Development for Santa Fe Pacific Gold

Bruce HansenChief Executive Officer

•CFO at General Moly since 2007•More than 30 years of financial and operational experience in the metals and mining

Dave Chaputy p p g

industry, previously serving as CFO of The Doe Run Resources CorporationChief Financial Officer

•25 years experience in plant operations and 6 years in design engineering firm •Previously served as general manager of one of the largest open-pit/concentrator operations in the world, the Phelps Dodge Morenci mine in Arizona

Bob PenningtonChief Operating Officer

•Joined General Moly in 2007; has served as Controller and Treasurer since 2009 •Formerly the Director of Supply Chain - Nevada Operations for Newmont Mining; prior roles with Santa Fe Pacific Gold and Price Waterhouse

Lee ShumwayController & Treasurer

•25 years industry experience, including extensive work within the state of Nevada •Previously served as Operations Environmental Permitting Manager with Newmont Mining

•30 years of mining experience, predominately in Nevada•Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp’s Marigold Mine andMike Iannacchione

Pat RogersVP Permit. & Env. Compliance

•Previous positions include Operations Manager at Goldcorp s Marigold Mine and General Manager at Round Mountain Mine, a Barrick Gold and Kinross Gold Joint Venture

•25 years mining experience, primarily with Phelps Dodge and Freeport McMoRan•Previously served as Assistant General Manager of Concentrator Operations at Cerro

Fred Zumwalt

VP & GM Mt. Hope

20

y g pVerde, a large copper and molybdenum mine in PeruMt. Hope Mill Manager

•38 years mining experience with Santa Fe Pacific Gold, North American Coal Co., TXU/Luminant Mining and Westmoreland Coal Co.

•Previously served as General Manager of the Kemmerer Mine in Wyoming

Randy JohnsonMt. Hope Mine Manager

Mt. Hope Financing Plan – Funding Sources & UsesE k M lEureka Moly:

Sources $M Uses $MEquipment Lease 95 Capital Cost 1269Shareholder funding: 1174

POSCO (20%) 235GMI (80%) 939

Total Sources 1269 Total Uses 1269

GMI (80% share):( )Sources $M Uses $MChinese Bank Debt 665 Share of EM funding 939Equity funded by: 371 of which:Cash1: Cash spent (2007-Q1’13) 188Cash : Cash spent (2007-Q1 13) 188

Spent 188 Future spending 751On hand 93 Interest during constr. & financing fees 67

281 Working Capital 30

New equity or sub debt 90

Total Sources 1036 Total Uses 1036

211. As of March 31, 2013

Water Rights HistoryMt. Hope Water Well MapMt. Hope water right historyp g y

• Project requires ~7,000 gpm fresh water for milling operations

• Company purchased from existing water holders• Company purchased from existing water holders in Kobeh Valley, essentially all available water rights, sufficient for project water requirements

• Nevada State Engineer granted General Moly

Mt. Hope Water Impact Map

water permits in March 2009. That ruling was successfully appealed in a Nevada District Court in April 2010

• Company re-applied for water rights andCompany re applied for water rights and Nevada State Engineer granted the applications in a second ruling in July 2011

• That ruling was appealed and the Nevada State Di t i t C t ffi d th St t E i ’District Court affirmed the State Engineer’s ruling in all respects June 14, 2012

• Two parties appealed to NV Supreme Court; General Moly considers appeals without merit

22

y pp

• Water permits remain in effect

Equipment Procurement Status• Approximately $71M paid on commitments forApproximately $71M paid on commitments for

$178M in equipment orders

• Major milling equipment secured: Own or have orders in place for Mt. Hope crusher, SAG mill & ball mill mill drives and roaster equipmentball mill, mill drives, and roaster equipment

• Made $75M commitment to Caterpillar for haul fleet and support equipment, including 18 CAT 793F haul trucks

• Significant progress negotiating leasing terms for $95M in mining equipment at Mt. Hope Project level (representing $76M to General Moly)

• Have letter of intent in place for large electric mining shovels

• 4 Atlas Copco mine drills ordered

• As progress on permitting and financing continues, will place orders for remainder of equipment

23

Moly Consumption & SupplyMoly Consumption by Region, 2011• With industrial growth concentrated in emerging

Europe25%

CIS5%China

Other14%

With industrial growth concentrated in emerging economies, molybdenum market share will continue to shift to the developing world

• However, the moly demand picture in mature economies remains healthy, supported by the need for maintenance, repairs or replacement of aging infrastructure

Moly Consumption by Region 2016p

5%USA14%Japan

12%

China30%

repairs, or replacement of aging infrastructure

• As a higher cost producer with strict government policies, China’s share of moly production is expected to decline over the next ten years Moly Consumption by Region, 2016p

Europe20%

CIS5%

Other17%

Moly End-Uses 2011

5%USA13%Japan

11%

China34%

Carbon8% Cast Iron

8%Catalysts

7%Lubricant/Tool

Mo Metal/ Alloy7%

HSLA11%

Moly End-Uses, 2011

24Source: CPM Group, IMOA

Pigment3%

Other Chemical

1%Stainless

20%Super-alloys

4%

Full Alloy21%

10%

Moly Market End UsesMoly End Use, 2011 Oil & Gas

Oil & Gas17%

Electronics & Medical

2% Other

Top 5 Categories Account for 67% of Mo Use • Refinery catalysts, LNG development, shale gas installations, off-shore / deep ocean oil production

Chemical / Petrochemical• Corrosion inhibitors, chemical catalysts, smoke suppressants, fertilizers, waste water treatment

Automotive

Other Transportation

Building / Construction

6% Aerospace & Defense

3%

%Applications

6%

Automotive• Engines, pistons, crankshafts, axle shafts, steering components

Mechanical Engineering• Heavy machinery, mining equipment, cutting tools

Chemical / Petrochemical

15%Power

Generation

p8% Process Industry

• Food processing equipment and storage, metal / steel processing, desalination

Power Generation• Coal, oil, gas and nuclear power plants, wind turbines hydro and solar energy

Automotive13%Mechanical

Process Industry

9%

Generation8%

turbines, hydro and solar energyOther Transportation• Locomotive shafts, train wheels, brake pads, shipbuilding (bulkheads and hulls)

Building / Construction• Major infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels, Mechanical

Engineering13%

Major infrastructure such as bridges and tunnels, anchors, rebars, heating and ventilation systems

Aerospace & Defense• Turbine parts, jet engines, landing gear, piping systems, armored vehicles

Electronics & Medical• More sophisticated energy production and

transportation driving moly use

25Source: SMR Research, JP Morgan Research

• Semiconductors, pharmaceutical and biotechnology processing equipment, x-ray tubes

Other Applications• Pigments, coatings, lubricants

transportation driving moly use

• JP Morgan forecasts $30 trillion to be spent on global energy-supply infrastructure by 2035

Top 10 Moly Producing Companies

Top 10 Moly Producing Companies, 2011

Th

Top 10 Moly Producing Companies, 202168% of total mine production, Equity Share 63% of total mine production, Equity Share

Xstrata 2%

Codelco 9%JinduichengMolybdenum

6%

Thompson Creek 5%

Thompson Creek

3%Codelco

9%

General Moly5% Jinduicheng

Molybdenum

Grupo Mexico, Southern

Copper 7%China Moly 7%

6%

Rio Tinto4%

Freeport McMoran

China Moly5%

y4%

Freeport McMoRan 7%

Rio Tinto 6%Teck 7%

Freeport McMoran 7%

Grupo Mexico, Southern Copper

8%

Freeport Xstrata

4%

McMoran7%

Antofogasta4%

Teck 7% McMoRan6%Teck

8%

C P d / M B P d t

26Source: CPM Group

Cu Producer w/ Mo By-Product

Primary Mo Producer

Capacity vs. Bottlenecks

Scarce Financing

Rising Capital Costs

Low Process Grades

Permitting and Labor Challenges

Power and Water

Shortages

Social License and Geopolitical

Risk

• While sizable moly capacity is forecasted to come online over the next decade, many projects face significant financial, infrastructural and geopolitical challenges

• Bottleneck issues are most acute amongst by-product copper/moly projects in Latin America

• Approximately $57B of mining investment is now delayed or deferred in Chile and Peru• Affected projects include: Xstrata’s Collahausi, Southern Copper’s Los Chancas, Codelco’s

Salvador, Teck’s Relincho and Antofogasta’s Esperanza• Revisions in Chile to the SEIA process and implementation in Peru of the Prior Consultation Law

have added complexity and extended the timeline in permitting projects

27

• Slow pace of power infrastructure development in Chile has placed a number of projects at risk• Production prospects declining at some aging moly mines

• Stripping activity suspended at Thompson Creek Mine and mining ceased at Endako

Source: Scotia Bank Research

High Levels of Energy Investment

28Source: JP Morgan Research