March 2017
Modeling Nyrstar
Important notice

This presentation has been prepared by the management of Nyrstar NV (the "Company"). It does not constitute or form part of, and should not be construed as, an offer,
solicitation or invitation to subscribe for, underwrite or otherwise acquire, any securities of the Company or any member of its group nor should it or any part of it form the basis of,
or be relied on in connection with, any contract to purchase or subscribe for any securities of the Company or any member of its group, nor shall it or any part of it form the basis
of or be relied on in connection with any contract or commitment whatsoever.

The information included in this presentation has been provided to you solely for your information and background and is subject to updating, completion, revision and
amendment and such information may change materially. Unless required by applicable law or regulation, no person is under any obligation to update or keep current the
information contained in this presentation and any opinions expressed in relation thereto are subject to change without notice. No representation or warranty, express or implied,
is made as to the fairness, accuracy, reasonableness or completeness of the information contained herein. Neither the Company nor any other person accepts any liability for any
loss howsoever arising, directly or indirectly, from this presentation or its contents.

This presentation includes forward-looking statements that reflect the Company's intentions, beliefs or current expectations concerning, among other things, the Company’s
results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, performance, prospects, growth, strategies and the industry in which the Company operates. These forward-looking statements
are subject to risks, uncertainties and assumptions and other factors that could cause the Company's actual results of operations, financial condition, liquidity, performance,
prospects, growth or opportunities, as well as those of the markets it serves or intends to serve, to differ materially from those expressed in, or suggested by, these forwardlooking statements. The Company cautions you that forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and that its actual results of operations, financial
condition and liquidity and the development of the industry in which the Company operates may differ materially from those made in or suggested by the forward-looking
statements contained in this presentation. In addition, even if the Company's results of operations, financial condition, liquidity and growth and the development of the industry in
which the Company operates are consistent with the forward-looking statements contained in this presentation, those results or developments may not be indicative of results or
developments in future periods. The Company and each of its directors, officers and employees expressly disclaim any obligation or undertaking to review, update or release any
update of or revisions to any forward-looking statements in this presentation or any change in the Company's expectations or any change in events, conditions or circumstances
on which these forward-looking statements are based, except as required by applicable law or regulation.

This document and any materials distributed in connection with this document are not directed to, or intended for distribution to or use by, any person or entity that is a citizen or
resident or located in any locality, state, country or other jurisdiction where such distribution, publication, availability or use would be contrary to law or regulation or which would
require any registration or licensing within such jurisdiction.

The distribution of this document in certain jurisdictions may be restricted by law and persons into whose possession this document comes should inform themselves about, and
observe any such restrictions. The Company’s shares have not been and will not be registered under the US Securities Act of 1933 (the “Securities Act”) and may not be offered
or sold in the United States absent registration under the Securities Act or exemption from the registration requirement thereof.
2
Table of Contents
I.
Introduction
II.
Metals Processing
III.
Mining
IV.
Other and Eliminations
V.
Group
VI.
Port Pirie Redevelopment uplift modelling
3
Introduction
Nyrstar today
Global multi-metals business, with a market leading position in zinc and lead, and growing positions
in other base and precious metals
Geographically diverse smelters operating in OECD countries1
HOYANGER
Fumer
Norway
BALEN / OVERPELT
2016 Revenue
€2.8bn
LANGLOIS
Smelter & Oxide Washing Plant
Belgium
BUDEL
Operating Mine
Canada
Smelter
The Netherlands
2016 Underlying
EBITDA
€193m
AUBY
CLARKSVILLE
Smelter
France
Mines and Smelter Complex
Tennessee, USA
Operating Smelters
c. 4,300 employees
PORT PIRIE
Operating Mines
2016 production
1,015kt zinc metal
96kt zinc in conc.
HOBART
Multi-metals Processing Facility
Australia
Smelter
Australia
Non-operating Assets
Second largest zinc metal producer globally…
…with consistent long term production
Stable zinc processing
guidance (1.0 – 1.1 mt)
Metal (kt)
2016 provisional zinc smelter production2 (kt Zn)
1,247
1,015
610
Korea Zinc
Market
8.6%
2
Share
195
158
179
178
185
471
1,125
1,084
1,088
1,097
1,115
1,015
Boliden
2011
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
1,003
Nyrstar
Glencore
7.0%
6.9%
Hindustan Zinc
4.2%
187
609
Votorantim
4.2%
3.3%
Zinc
Lead
1
Excludes corporate offices and mining assets where sale has been agreed or completed
2 Wood Mackenzie figures for smelters other than Nyrstar
Source: Wood Mackenzie; Nyrstar company information
4
Introduction
Segmental reporting

Nyrstar’s two operating segments - Metals Processing and Mining - reflect the approach of the Company towards
evaluating the financial performance and allocating resources to the Group’s operations
Reported
Segments
Metals
Processing
Mining
Other &
Eliminations
6 smelters
Auby, France
Balen, Belgium
Budel, The Netherlands
Clarksville, USA
Hobart, Australia
Port Pirie, Australia
1 fumer
Hoyanger, Norway
5 mines
East Tennessee, USA
Middle Tennessee, USA
Langlois, Canada
Myra Falls, Canada
Campo Morado, Mexico
Corporate activities &
Eliminations*
Formal sale process
underway
* Eliminations of the intra-group transactions including any unrealised profits resulting from intercompany transactions
5
Introduction
Important Information

This presentation provides an overview of our metals processing and mining business

Data used in these calculations is based on industry benchmarks and historic data all of which is publicly available

Worked examples do not necessarily reflect the terms of any individual contract that Nyrstar has previously entered
into, currently trades on or is likely to enter into in the future

Historical operational and financial data can be found on the Nyrstar website -> Investors & Media / Interactive Analyst
Centre
http://www.nyrstar.com/investors/en/Pages/Interactive%20Analyst%20Centre.aspx
6
II.
Metals Processing
7
Metals Processing
Zinc smelting process
Main /
By-products
Zinc
Concentrate
Roasting
Oxides & Other
Secondary Materials
Sulphuric Acid
Direct
Leach Oxide
Calcine
Zinc Dust
Impure Solution
Leach Product
Germanium conc.
Gypsum
Leaching
Copper Sulphate
Co/Ni Residue
Cadmium
Purification
Purified Solution
Electrolysis
Spent Electrolyte
(Recycled)
Cathode
Casting
Dross and Zinc Dust
(Recycled)
Alloy
Material
Zinc / Alloy Market Metal
Indium metal
Input
Intermediate
Primary
Output
8
Metals Processing
Multi-metal smelting process at Port Pirie
Sinter*
Lead
Concentrate
Secondary Materials
Main /
By-products
Sulphuric Acid
Sinter*
Blast Furnace
Granulated Slag
Bullion
Slag Fumer
Copper Processing
Zinc Fume
Copper
Desilvering
High
Grade
Liquation
Precious Metal Refining
Lead Refining
Alloy
Material
Dore
Lead / Alloy Market Metal
* With Port Pirie Redevelopment , the Sinter plant will be replaced by a TSL Furnace and the
output will change from sinter to combination of slag, lead bullion and copper matte (see Port Pirie
Redevelopment flowsheet in appendix for further details)
Input
Intermediate
Primary
Output
9
Metals Processing
Zinc and lead concentrate - typical pricing terms
Zinc Concentrate
Zn Metal Paid
85%
 Zinc Smelters typically pay for 85% of the zinc
contained in zinc concentrates (typically 56% Zn)
valued at LME price averaged over the Quotation
Period (QP)1
Lead Concentrate
Pb Metal Paid
95%
‒
Lead Smelters typically pay for 95% of the lead
contained in the lead concentrate (typically 60% Pb)
valued at LME price averaged over the QP1
‒
In addition, the lead smelter will pay for Ag, Au, Cu
and Zn content in concentrate if it exceeds certain
thresholds
 In addition, the zinc smelter will pay for Ag and other
minor metals content in concentrate if it exceeds
certain threshold
Deductions
Deductions
 Treatment Charges
‒
Treatment Charges
‒
Penalties2 and/or Allowances
 Penalties2 and/or Allowances
1 The
typical quotation period for zinc and lead concentrates purchased by Nyrstar is 3 months after the month of arrival (i.e. 3 MAMA)
depend on quality of concentrate e.g. where the material contains impurities above the set thresholds the smelter is compensated
2 Penalties
10
Metals Processing
Profit share concept
Treatment charge
‒ The metal value contained in zinc
concentrates is shared between miners
and smelters through payable metal
and Treatment Charges (TCs), as zinc
smelters only pay for 85% of contained
metal, minus a treatment charge
‒ Industry players often refer to the
concept of profit sharing, which refers
to the proportion of the LME metal price
attributed to smelters and miners
● Surplus metal and concentrates
● Concentrate surplus
● LME price falls
● Power shifts to smelters
● Mines cut production
● TCs increase
● Smelters increase production
Metal price
● Concentrates draw down
● Metals draw down
● Power shifts to miners
● LME price increases
● TCs fall
● Miners increase production
‒ Smelters’ share of LME price between
1994 – 2016
‒
Profit sharing between smelters & miners
Average 42%
USD
%
100
‒
Maximum 49% (1996; 1998)
90
80
‒
Minimum 31% (2007)
70
60
3,500
33% 3,000
Smelter: Average 42%
2,095
2,000
50
40
1,500
67%
30
20
Source : Wood Mackenzie / Nyrstar
1,000
500
Mine: Average 58%
10
0
Zinc price
Smelter Share, %
Mine share, %
2016
2015
2014
2013
2012
2011
2010
2009
2008
2007
2006
2005
2004
2003
2002
2001
2000
1999
1998
1997
1996
0
1995
Zinc smelters capture approximately 40%
of price through Treatment Charges and
Free Metal
2,500
11
Metals Processing
Elements of Metals Processing gross profit
‒
The table below maps revenue and COGS to the
“elements” of gross profit
The five main elements of gross profit are:
Revenue and Costs
Gross Profit
Metal Revenue
Free Metal 2
Premium
By Products
1.
Zinc and lead Treatment Charges (TCs)
comprising the base TC and any price participation
through escalators and de-escalators, paid to the
smelters by miners in the form of concessions
2.
The value of free zinc and lead metal (i.e., refined
zinc and lead produced by the smelter over and
above the metal content the smelter has paid for in
concentrates purchased from the miner)
3.
Metal premiums (i.e., sales of refined metal made
by the smelter at prices above the LME zinc and
lead reference prices)
4.
Sale of by-products can provide valuable earnings
contributions
5.
Metals Processing Other Gross Profit (or loss),
which consists of realization expenses, location
allowances, penalties and the costs and revenues
associated with producing alloys
Premium 3
By Products 4
(Realisation Expenses)
Net Revenue
(Payable Metal)
Treatment Charge
(Other)
Treatment Charge 1
(Other) 5
(Net COGS)
Gross Profit
Gross Profit
12
Metals Processing
1. Treatment charges

For zinc and lead concentrates, treatment charges are payable per tonne of concentrate (not per tonne of market metal)

Zinc treatment charges generally include price participation, and an annual benchmark is typically negotiated between
major producers with the following components:
Base TC
TC prior to application of escalator/de-escalator
Basis Price
LME Zinc price at which Base TC is set (typically LME price at negotiation)
Escalator
% increase to Base TC for each USD LME price increase above Basis Price
De-escalator
% decrease to Base TC for each USD LME price decrease below Basis Price

In some years there may be a more complex structure with non participation windows, or multiple escalators/deescalators

Most concentrate contracts are for an annual delivered quantity (ADQ), but not all concentrate may be received in that
contract period. Therefore TC terms can carry over into the following year under prior period TC terms and opening
inventory will also apply these terms

A spot treatment charge market exists; however, this is relatively illiquid (constituting approximately 10% of all
concentrates)

Nyrstar generally purchases the bulk of its concentrates on benchmark terms and/or benchmark terms with
discounts applied

Lead Treatment Charges can be either flat or have escalators / de-escalators like zinc

Note: Lead smelters do not receive a Zinc Treatment Charge for zinc contained in lead concentrates
Benchmark Zinc and Lead TC terms can be found in Metals Bulletin, Wood Mackenzie, CRU and other industry
publications
13
Metals Processing
Nyrstar’s zinc concentrate feed mix is predominantly based on
benchmark terms with price participation
Typical mix of zinc treatment charge terms
Treatment charge terms
Approx. %
Price participation
(Escalator/De-escalator)
Benchmark frame contracts with mining companies
30-40%
Full
Benchmark with discount and frame contracts*
50-60%
Predominantly
Spot
5-10%
Generally not
 Nyrstar predominantly purchases concentrate on annually agreed benchmark terms or on frame contracts that apply
discounts to the benchmark treatment charge terms. A small portion of Nyrstar’s zinc concentrate purchases are on spot
treatment charge terms with no price participation through a treatment charge escalator/de-escalator
 During the past several years, the realised treatment charge achieved by Nyrstar’s Metal Processing segment has been on average
USD 10 to 30 per dry metric tonne less than what would have been achieved if the feedmix was completely on annual benchmark
terms
 Discounts agreed against the annual zinc benchmark terms is a function of the supply and demand dynamics for individual
concentrates
14
*
Primarily with traders as well as mining companies on either a long or short term basis
Metals Processing
1. Treatment charges – example

Benchmark zinc treatment charge at
average zinc price
Zinc price
Zinc concentrates benchmark treatment charge for 2016 was settled as:



USD/t
Base TC USD 203 per dmt (dry metric tonne) at basis zinc price of
USD 2,000/t
250
Escalators of 9% from zinc price of USD 2,000 to 2,500 per ton
150
8% from USD 2,500 to 3,000 per ton; 5% from 3,000 to 3,750 and
zero above 3,750
100
200
Benchmark TC at av zinc price
2,164
2,200
2,095
1,946
1,928
1,909
2,000
1,800
190
243
237
209
1,600
212
1,400
50
De-escalator of 3% from zinc price of 2,000 to 1,500 and zero below
USD 1,500
1,200
0
1,000
2012
2013
2014
2015
2016
Actual
2016
LME price (USD/t)
A
1,400
1,500
1,700
2,000
2,095
2,200
Base TC (USD/t)
B
203
203
203
203
203
203
Basis price (USD/t)
C
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
2,000
Escalator
E
-
-
-
9.00%
9.00%
9.00%
De-escalator
F
-
-3.00%
-3.00%
-
-
-
185
188
194
203
212
221
13.2%
12.5%
11.4%
10.2%
10.1%
10.1%
Realised TC (USD/t)
Realised TC as % of zinc price
If LME price < Basis price
B + (A – C) * F
If LME price > Basis
priceB + (A – C) * E
Lead benchmark TC for 2016 were approximately USD 178/t flat (i.e. no escalator or de-escalator). In recent years
lead TCs have been agreed at a flat rate with no adjustment for prevailing lead price movements.
15
Metals Processing
2. Free metal contribution
Zinc smelters

The volume of zinc free metal produced is determined by concentrate Zn grade, amount of zinc paid for and amount
of zinc recovered

Working from input to output (assuming 56% Zn grade, 85% Zn metal paid and 96.5% recovery rate):

‒
1,000 dmt
amount of zinc concentrate we buy
‒
1,000 t x 54% = 540 t
amount of contained zinc metal
‒
540 t x 85% = 459 t
amount we pay for
‒
540 t x 96.5% = 521 t
amount we recover i.e. production volume
‒
521 t – 459 t = 62 t
therefore amount of free metal
The contribution to gross profit from zinc free metal is determined by the recovery rate, the LME zinc price and
exchange rates
 Recovery  Payable

LME
Free Metal(EUR)  Production 


Recovery
ExchangeRate 

EUR:USD Rate

The free metal contribution has to be grossed up by the recovery rate as zinc lost in the production process has a
free metal component

Using the example above production 521t x (96.5% recovery - 85% payable) / recovery 96.5% = 62 t free metal
16
Metals Processing
2. Free metal contribution - example
Zinc smelters
 Nyrstar’s average zinc recovery in 2016 was approximately 96.5% (zinc smelters only)
 Example (for zinc smelters only, based on FY 2016 figures):
‒ 1,015,000 t zinc production
‒ Recovery rate: 96.5%
‒ Avg Zinc LME price FY 2015: USD 2,095 /t
‒ Avg Exchange Rate EUR:USD: 1.107
Free Metal (EUR)  1,105,000 
 96.5%  85%  USD 2,095  EUR 260m
96.5%
1.107
Port Pirie Multi-metal smelter

The zinc plant at Port Pirie was the highest cost zinc plant in Nyrstar’s smelter portfolio and ceased operations in
July 2014. Port Pirie produces zinc oxide which is further processed into zinc market metal at other smelter assets
(typically Hobart)

Port Pirie recovers approximately 90% of zinc into zinc oxide and only pays for approximately 10% of zinc in
concentrates. Therefore it is recommended that the zinc free metal contribution from Pirie’s zinc oxide is to be
calculated separately

Lead Free Metal is calculated using the same approach but is not as significant as for zinc due to higher payable
component. Payable lead 95%, lead recovery at Port Pirie 99%
17
Metals Processing
3. Premiums
Zinc products



Premiums relate to the type of metal or alloy produced as well
as the regional supply-demand balance
Galvanising
alloys
Nyrstar produces zinc commodity grade products such as
Special High Grade (SHG) and galvanising alloys e.g.
Continuous Galvanising Grade (CGG)
Nyrstar also produces significant volumes of zinc specialty
alloys (such as ZAMAK die-casting alloys in Europe and
EZDA in Asia) which have historically had higher premiums
Product premium

ZAMAK #5 - 8.3 kg slabs
EZDA 3 SLAB –
Die cast alloy
SHG
SHG (LME grade) –
25 kg slabs
Under its commodity grade off-take agreements with Glencore
and Trafigura, Nyrstar receives a metal premium for zinc and
lead
Value add
Zinc premium per location



Under the commercial agreements with Trafigura for sale of
certain available quantities of commodity grade zinc and lead
metal, Nyrstar receives annually agreed premiums
A combination of annually negotiated contracts and shorter
term contracts with Nyrstar’s customers determine premiums
for specialty alloys
Spot premiums can be found in CRU Monitor, Metal Bulletin
and Fast Markets and are indicative of the trend in premiums
USD/t
300
250
200
150
100
50
0
2000
2002
2004
Asia
2006
2008
Europe
2010
2012
2014
2016
North America
Source: CRU, Wood Mackenzie / Nyrstar
18
Metals Processing
4. By-products - acid

Sulphuric acid is the main by-product for zinc
smelters

It is produced during the roasting stage for zinc
smelters, and during the sinter stage for lead
smelters

Sulphuric acid is predominantly used by the
chemicals, mining and fertiliser industries

Indicative movements in acid prices by region
can be found in industry reports (such as the
Argus FMB report and Fertercon report) and
sulphur price indexes

There are several factors which impact acid
earnings:

Regional variation in acid quality,
usage and markets

Mix of domestic sales and exports

Regional differences in contract terms:
in some regions and with some
customers annual contract terms are
negotiated, for others shorter terms are
used
Roasting
Leaching
Purification
Electrolysis Melting & Casting
Gas
Cleaning
Sulphuric
Acid Plant
Sulphuric
Acid

Production volumes can be estimated based on
historic data:

For zinc smelters, for every 1 unit of Zinc
Market Metal produced, 1.3 units of acid is
produced

For lead smelters, for every 1 unit of Lead
Market Metal produced, 0.3 units of acid is
produced
19
Metals Processing
4. By-products - other
‒
‒
‒
Leach Product
‒
This is the saleable product of the leaching process typically containing silver and lead
‒
The value of leach product varies depending on contract conditions and leach product quality
Other
‒
This includes products such as indium, cadmium, copper sulphate and other zinc products
‒
Production and earnings vary year on year due to changes in concentrate mix and pricing conditions
Port Pirie Multi-metal smelter
‒
By-products at Port Pirie are anything other than zinc and lead market metal
‒
The Port Pirie multi-metal smelter has the flexibility to efficiently process a wide range of raw materials to
produce refined copper and silver and gold dore. Post the Port Pirie Redevelopment, the smelter will be treating
a greater volume of by-product rich residue material sourced from the zinc smelting segment
‒
Various factors determine the earnings contribution of the major by-products; silver, copper and gold, including
‒
Market prices, recovery rates
‒
The Ag, Cu and/or Au content contained in the concentrate (assays)
‒
Payable components for Ag, Cu and Au which depends on concentrate assay
‒
Silver Refining Charge (RC) for lead concentrates with high levels of payable silver
‒
Silver Premiums
20
Metals Processing
5. Other Metals Processing gross profit
The key components of Other Metals Processing Gross Profit include:


Realisation expenses

Includes all external selling freight costs incurred in delivering refined zinc, lead and by-products

Nyrstar relies on a variety of transport methods for delivery of its products, including ship, road and rail

In general, Nyrstar’s transport costs are higher in Europe than in the United States, Asia or Australia

Generally the smelter pays for transportation of its finished product to the customer
Inbound Freight


Location allowances


Concentrates contain impurities, such as iron, that cause difficulties in the refining process. In these
circumstances there may be a deduction from the price of the concentrate
Costs and revenues of alloying materials


Smelters that are located close to mines are well-placed to negotiate advantageous commercial terms
Penalties


Includes all freight and handling costs for inbound concentrates
Costs and revenues of alloying materials (aluminium, nickel, copper, tin, etc.) which are required to produce
the value-added alloys
Hedging Gains and Losses

Gains and losses from Nyrstar’s metal at risk hedging programme
21
Metals Processing
Gross profit by metal
2015 Metals Processing gross profit by metal1
2016 Metals Processing gross profit by metal1
€843m
€1,003m
Zinc (€685m, 73%)
Zinc (€811m,73%)
Lead (€83m, 9%)
Lead (€ 81m, 7%)
Sulphuric Acid (€45m, 5%)
Sulphuric Acid (€56m, 5%)
Leach product (€38, 4%)
Leach product (€ 59m, 5%)
Copper (€20m, 2%)
Copper (€ 18m, 2%)
Silver (€38m, 4%)
Silver (€ 24m, 2%)
Zinc
73%
Gold (€ 16m, 1%)
Other metals (€43m, 4%)
Zinc
73%
Gold (€12m, 1%)
Other metals (€13m, 2%)
Weaker year-over-year gross profit (down 16%) at EUR 843 million in 2016 was mainly driven by lower zinc metal production
volumes (down 9%) and a 17% decrease in the annual zinc benchmark treatment charge.
The total Premium gross profit contributions decreased by 9% compared to 2016, largely driven by lower volumes and
relatively flat average realised premia rates.
By-product gross profit contributions were positively impacted by higher production volumes of copper and silver, offset by
lower production volumes of gold and sulphuric acid compared to 2015. There was no indium production included in Metals
Processing By-Products gross profit in 2016 due to the fire at the indium cement plant that occurred in Q4 2015. The indium
plant is currently being re-built and is expected to resume production by the end of Q1 2017.
1 Does
not include Other Gross Profit which consists of realisation expenses and costs of alloying materials: €(89)m and €(105)m for 2016 and 2015, respectively
22
Metals Processing
Metals Processing operating costs


Direct Operating Costs consist of

People (employee costs)

Energy (primarily electricity for zinc smelters, and coke/coal for lead smelters)

Other (including Stores and External Services)
Nyrstar reports direct operating cost per tonne of zinc and lead market metal production on an asset by asset basis:
SmeltingDOC per tonne 
TotalSmeltingDirect OperatingCosts
Total Zinc Market MetalProduction Port PirieLeadMarket MetalProduction
MP DOC per tonne
687
2014
484 499
442
2015
2016
656
681
502 501
478 483
443
420
340
421 426
496
People
38%
Energy
36%

Balen/Overpelt
35% 35%
448
370 361
Other
Auby
513 515
Budel
Clarksville
Hobart
Port Pirie
35% 32%
33%
26% 30%
Metals Processing
Average
In 2016 DOC per tonne was €515/t compared to EUR 513/t in 2015 (up 0.5%)
23
Metals Processing
Metals Processing underlying EBITDA – high level model
Nyrstar uses a model similar to this to validate the output of more detailed models
Example is based on 2016 macroeconomic parameters and production volume
INPUTS 2016
CALCULATION - FY EBITDA
Zinc MM Production (zinc smelter)
incl. Zinc MM Production from Port Pirie's fume
Lead Production (Port Pirie)
Acid Production
A
B
C
D
1,015,000
35,000
187,000
1,367,000
Zinc Recovery (zinc smelters)
Zinc Recovery (Port Pirie)
Lead Recovery (Port Pirie)
E
F
G
96.5%
90%
99%
Paid Zinc (zinc smelters)
Paid Zinc (Port Pirie)
Paid Lead (Port Pirie)
H
J
K
85%
30%
95%
Zinc Concentrate Grade
Lead Concentrate Grade
L
M
54%
60%
LME Zinc Price (USD/t)
LME Lead Price (USD/t)
Realised Acid Price (USD/t)
N
P
Q
2,095
1,872
38
R.1
R.2
212
100
Realised TC (Pb) USD/t
S
178
Avg Zinc Premium (USD/t)
Avg Lead Premium (USD/t)
T
U
135
55
Benchmark TC at average price(Zn) USD/t
Spot TC
Zinc TC (€ m)
Lead TC (€ m)
1
2
€m
346
50
Free Zinc - ex Pirie (€ m)
Free Zinc - Pirie (€ m)
Free Lead (€ m)
3
4
5
220
44
13
29
Zinc Premium (€ m)
Lead Premium (€ m)
6
7
128
9
14
By-products (€ m)
Acid
Other
8
9
47
96
15
Other (€m)
10
(89)
Gross Profit
865
Direct Operating Costs
11
(619)
Non-operating and other
12
(2)
Underlying EBITDA
1
EUR :USD
Direct Operating Cost per tonne (€/t)
R = LME Zinc Price * 11.0% (see page 15)
V
W
1.11
515
( ( (A - B) / E / L ) * R ) / V
%
42
244
7
*
(C*U)/V
with R.1 for 93% and R2 for 7% (middle point of 5-10%)
2
((B/G/M)*S)/V
8
(D*Q)/V
3
(A -B)*( ( E - H ) / E ) *N / V
9
H1 2016 actual
4
B*((F-J)/F)*N/V
10
H1 2016 actual
5
6
C*((G-K)/G)*P/V
((A+B)*T)/V
11
12
(A +C)*W
2016 actual
* Actual Metals Processing
2016 EBITDA was €222m.
The difference of €22m is due
to application of average
exchange rate and commodity
prices and the impact of
benchmark TC roll over
between years.
24
III. Mining
25
Mining
Zinc Mining and Milling Process
Simplified illustration of process at
Nyrstar Tennessee Mines
Drill &
Blast
Primary
Crushing
MINE
Secondary
Crushing
Heavy Media
Separator
Rod/Ball
Mill
Flotation
Thickener/
Filter
Agricultural Lime
Zinc
Concentrate
Tailings
MILL
Crushed Rock
Aggregate
PRODUCTS
26
Mining
Reserves and resources


Nyrstar has notionally adopted the following standards for all public reporting of Mineral Resources, Ore Reserves
and Exploration Results:

Australasian Code for Reporting Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves (the JORC
Code), and

Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM or National Instrument 43- 101, “NI 43-101”)
Definition Standards on Mineral Resources and Mineral Reserves and the CIM Estimation of Mineral
Resources and Mineral Reserves Best Practice Guidelines.
Nyrstar typically publish updated Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves statements for all mine operations at the
time of its first Interim Management Statement (based on either JORC or NI 43-101).
27
Mining
Elements of mining gross profit
‒
Certain terminology used below reflects the fact that Nyrstar has historically been a Metals Processing company and as
such has applied certain terminology traditionally used in the Metals Processing industry to its Mining segment
‒
The table below maps revenue and COGS to the
“elements” of gross profit
Revenue and Costs
Metal Revenue
By Products
Gross Profit
Payable Metal 1
By Products 2
Gross Revenue
(Treatment Charge)
(Treatment Charge) 3
(Realisation Expenses)
(Other)
(Other) 4
Net Revenue
(Net COGS)
Gross Profit
The four main elements of gross profit are:
1.The value of ‘‘payable’’ primary metal (i.e. the
payable amount of the primary metal produced by
the miner at the market defined price)
2.Sale of By-products can provide valuable
earnings contributions (net of treatment or refining
charges)
3.Primary concentrate Treatment Charge (TC)
compromising the base TC and any price
participation through escalators and deescalators, which the mine pays to a smelter
through concessions, thereby reducing the mine’s
revenue
4.Mining Other Gross Profit, typically a deduction,
including realization expenses, penalties paid by
the miner to the smelter, location advantage
concessions or allowances
Gross Profit
28
Mining
Mining gross profit by metal
2015 Mining gross profit by metal
2016 Mining gross profit by metal
€137m
€220m1
Zinc (€190m, 86%)
Zinc (€120m, 88%)
Copper (€6m, 3%)
Copper (€7m, 5%)
Silver (€9m, 4%)
Silver (€5m, 4%)
Gold (€3m, 1%)
Gold (€1m, 1%)
Other (€12m, 6%)
Other (€3m, 2%)
Zinc
86%
Zinc
88%
Mining gross profit at €137m in 2016 down 38% on
2015 following suspension of operations at Middle
Tennessee Mines
Zinc in concentrate production (kt)
-40%
161
Langlois
40
Myra Falls
9
East Tennessee
64
Middle Tennessee
47
96
34
0
62
0
2015
1
2016
Mining Gross Profit for 2016 and 2015 excludes discontinued operations at El Toqui, El Mochito, Contonga and Coricancha
29
Mining
Mining operating costs

Direct Operating Costs consist of people (employee costs), energy and other

Nyrstar reports mining DOC per tonne of ore milled on an asset by asset basis and denominated in U.S. dollars:
Mining DOC per tonne 
Total Mining Direct Operating Costs
Total Production of ore milled
Mining direct operating costs per tonne of ore milled (USD/t)
2014
2015
163
2016
71
People
40%
110
87
83
73 73
70
48
88
49
93
Energy
76
14% 47% 46%
63
12% 11%
43 42 38
Other
46%
41% 43%
n/a n/a
Campo Morado
n/a
n/a
Contonga
El Mochito
n/a
El Toqui
n/a n/a
Langlois
Myra Falls
East
Tennessee
Mines
Mining
Average
 In 2016 DOC per tonne of ore milled was USD 49/tonne compared to USD 48/tonne in 2015 on restated basis
30
Mining
Mining underlying EBITDA – high level model
Example is based on H1 2016 macroeconomic parameters and production volume
INPUTS 2016
Ore milled production (t)
CALCULATION
A
2,253,000
1
€USD
(37)
m€
(34)
Payable metal contribution
Zinc
2
171
154
By-Products
Lead
Copper
Silver
Gold
Lead concentrate TC
Copper concentrate TC
RC
Total by-products
3
4
5
6
7
8
9
∑
0
8
9
2
0
(1)
(2)
16
0
7
8
2
0
(1)
(2)
14
Frieght
10
(10)
(9)
Gross Profit
∑
139
126
Direct operating costs
11
(148)
(134)
Non-operating and other
12
11
10
Underlying EBITDA
∑
2
2
TCs
Zinc concentrate
Contained production
Zinc (t)
Lead (t)
Copper (t)
Silver (oz)
Gold (oz)
B
C
D
E
F
96,000
0
2,100
554,000
1,800
Concentrate grade
Zinc concenrate
Lead concentrate
Copper concentrate
G
H
I
55%
58%
19%
Average payable metal
Zinc
Lead
Copper
Silver
Gold
J
K
L
M
N
85%
95%
80%
95%
95%
Metal prices
Zinc (US$/t)
Lead (US$/t)
Copper (US$/t)
Silver (US$/oz)
Gold (US$/oz)
O
P
Q
R
S
2,095
1,872
4,863
17.14
1,250
Zinc concenrate (% of price)
Lead concentrate (% of price)
Copper concentrate (% of price)
T
U
V
10.1%
9%
2%
1
2
3
( (B / G) * (T * O )
B*J*O
C*K*P
7
8
9
-(C / H) * (P *U)
-(D / I) * (Q *V)
-W * E
Silver RC ($/tOz of Ag)
W
-4
Frieght cost/t of concentrate
X
55
4
5
6
D*L*Q
E*M*R
F*N*S
10
11
12
-X * (B/G + C/H +D/I)
-A * Z
H1 2016 actual
EUR :USD
Y
1.11
DOC per tonne of ore milled ($/t)
Z
49
Other
*
TCs
* Actual Mining 2016 EBITDA
was EUR 6 million. The
difference of EUR 4 million is
due to application of average
exchange rate and
commodity prices and the
impact of benchmark TC roll
over between years.
31
IV. Other and Eliminations
32
Other and eliminations
Other and eliminations segment
The key components of the Other & Eliminations segment include:

Corporate activities / costs (that are not allocated to the Mining or Metals Processing segments)

Eliminations of intra-group transactions, including any unrealized profits resulting from intercompany transactions

In 2016 this segment made an underlying EBITDA loss of €35m (€38m in FY 2015). The reduction in this loss over
recent years includes corporate costs saving year-over-year
Eliminations of intra-group transactions:

When concentrate is sold within the Nyrstar group, from the Mining to the Metals Processing segment, the Mining
segment immediately recognises the financial benefit

However, this financial result is eliminated within the Other & Eliminations segment result until the material has
been converted into finished product and sold externally (time to process internally is approximately 2 months for
zinc)
33
V.
Group
34
Group
Group underlying EBITDA: 2016 results

Group Underlying EBITDA is an aggregation of separately estimated segments EBITDA: Metals Processing,
Mining and Other & Eliminations

Segments EBITDA can be estimated based on:




forecasting production levels (see regularly published Company production guidance)
calculating Metals Processing gross profit per element / Mining gross profit per element
taking assumption on development of operating costs per unit and estimating total direct operating costs
forecasting an Other & Eliminations result
Underlying EBITDA (EURm)
Segment
Modelled
Actual
Metals Processing
Slide 24
244
222
Mining
Slide 31
2
6
Other & Eliminations
Slide 33
Group
(35)
193
35
Group
Reconciling group underlying EBITDA to Net Loss
€m
2015
2016
∆
267
193
(74)
Embedded derivatives
13
(5)
(19)
Restructuring expense
(12)
(9)
3
M&A related transaction expense
-
(5)
(5)
Underlying adjustments
2
(19)
(21)
268
174
(95)
Depreciation, depletion and amortisation
(196)
(179)
17
Impairment loss (net)
(442)
(133)
310
Result from operating activities
(370)
(139)
231
2
2
-
(112)
(119)
(6)
1
(5)
(6)
Net finance expense
(111)
(123)
(12)
Loss before income tax
(480)
(261)
219
215
(16)
(230)
Loss for the year from continuing operations
(265)
(277)
(12)
Loss from discontinued operations, net of taxes
(166)
(137)
29
Loss for the year
(432)
(414)
18
Underlying EBITDA
Unadjusted EBITDA
Finance income
Finance expense
Net foreign exchange (loss)/gain
Income tax expense
‒
Various factors determine the
value of the items between
underlying EBITDA and profit
after tax
‒
Further information on these line
items is available in the:
‒ Annual and Interim Financial
Statements and Notes to
them
‒ HY and FY releases
36
Group
Working capital average turnover

The information provided below is historic working capital data which may be helpful when considering working capital
requirements
Note movements in WC depend on period-end prices, not average prices for the period

Inventory – average holding period
Trade Payables
Raw
Materials
Work in
Progress
Finished
Goods
Total
Inventory
Zn
1
1
0.25
2 - 2.5
Pb
1
1.5
0.25
2.5 – 3
Ag
1
3–4
0.5
4-6
Months
Notes
Concentrate
= Production
/ Grade /
Recovery
Completion
Rate and
Conversion
Cost
assumed
Reflect
conditions of
Off-take
Agreements
Category
Average
Period
(Months)
People Cost
-
Notes
Paid in same month
All other Opex
costs
1-2
Paid in following month
Capex
1-2
Paid in following month
0-1
90% paid in the same month of
purchase
Raw Materials
(COGS)
10% paid in the following month
Trade Receivables
Category
Debtors
Average
Period
(Months)
0.75 - 1
Notes
Average outstanding receivables as
proportion of revenues
Note that working capital requirements at mines are significantly less than at smelters as:
 There are no raw materials (and so no associated costs)
 Therefore inventory is valued on operating costs only (cost to convert ore into concentrate)
 The average holding period of WIP is lower
37
Group
Working capital
 Nyrstar’s working capital position is correlated to the wider commodity price environment
 Nyrstar’s inventory valuation increases as metal prices rise
 Weaker metal price environments provide additional liquidity through the declining replacement cost of
inventory
 Nyrstar’s EUR 400m Structured Commodity Trade Facility (SCTF) allows the Company to absorb working capital
outflows in a rising price environment
Attractive working capital dynamics1
Change
in inventory
(mEUR)
Change in inventory
H2’15
falling
price
environ
ment
Zinc Price (USD/t)
Silver price (USD/Oz)
200
150
2016
rising price
environment
Zn
price
($/t)
2,500
2,000
100
50
1,500
0
1,000
-50
-100
500
-150
-200
0
H1-10
H2-10
H1-11
H2-11
H1-12
H2-12
H1-13
1,725
Zinc price ($/t)
18.0
Silver price ($/Oz)
66
OCF before NWC (€m) 2
9
Change NWC (€m) 3
(68)
Other move-t in OCF 4
8
CF from operation
2,281
29.0
107
86
31
224
2,030
36.0
123
(111)
(24)
(12)
1,916
30.0
106
122
(95)
134
1,856
28.0
58
203
(20)
242
2,038
32.0
95
23
2
120
1,839
21.0
(3)
98
0
94
‒
‒
‒
H2-13
H1-14
1,974
20.0
96
71
37
205
1 Unaudited, illustrative figures based on Nyrstar internal management accounts.
2 Cash flow from operating activities before working capital changes as per Cash Flow Statement
3 Change in NWC does not include changes in other assets and liabilities and provisions and employee
2,051
20.1
88
60
19
167
H2-14
2,273
18.1
120
121
(97)
144
H1-15
2,113
16.6
124
(53)
(86)
(14)
H2-15
1,731
14.8
98
(94)
4
7
H1-16
1,799
15.8
54
(66)
(3)
(15)
H2-16
2,384
18.4
115
(61)
(65)
(11)
38
benefits
Group
Capital Expenditure

Nyrstar segregates Metals Processing segment capital expenditure into the following categories
o
Sustaining / Non-growth, including
o sustaining spend to continue existing production facilities, including periodic maintenance shuts
o compliance: environmental, legal and safety spend to comply with internal and external standards

o
Port Pirie Redevelopment: spend on the redevelopment of the Port Pirie lead smelter into a poly-metallic
processing & recovery centre
o
Growth: spend on Metals Processing Growth Investment Pipeline projects – a transformative investment program
allowing the capture of benefits from Nyrstar’s integrated lead/zinc network and development of new multi-metals
recovery capabilities
Nyrstar segregates Mining segment capital expenditure into the following categories
o
Exploration: exploration and evaluation of potential mineral reserves and resources
o
Development: activities to define, block out and gain access to the ore and prepare it for production
o
Sustaining: sustaining spend to continue existing production facilities; environmental, legal and safety spend to
comply with internal and external standards
o
Growth: spend on expansion of current production capacities
39
Group
2017 guidance
Production
Metals Processing
Zinc (kt)
Mining - metal in concentrate
Zinc (kt)
Capex
2016
Actual
2017
Guidance
1,015
1,000 – 1,100
96
115 – 135
€’m
2016
Actual
2017
Guidance
236
97
44
95
205 – 255
100 – 135
25 – 35
80 - 85
21
35 – 50
261
240 – 305
Metals Processing
Sustaining
Growth
Port Pirie Redevelopment
Mining
Group capex
• Mining production guidance will be impacted by any
further divestments
• Estimated impact of maintenance shuts on 2017
production have been taken into account when
determining zinc metal guidance for 2017
Planned maintenance shuts
Smelter & production step
impacted
Auby – roaster, acid plant
Timing and duration
Estimated
impact
Q3:
2 weeks
Nil
Balen – cellhouse
Q2:
3 weeks
11,000 tonnes
Balen – roaster F5
Q3:
4 weeks
Nil
Budel – roaster N1, roaster N2,
acid plant
Q2:
4 weeks
4,000 tonnes
Budel – HV Transformer 1 & 2
Q2 & Q4:
1 week
(each)
2,500 tonnes
(each)
Clarksville – roaster, acid plant,
cellhouse
Q3:
1 week
3,000 tonnes
Hobart – roaster, acid plant
Q2:
5 weeks
5,500 tonnes
Port Pirie – blast furnace, lead
refinary
Q2:
6 weeks
22,000 tonnes
40
Group
Managing metal price risk

During the working capital cycle, both smelters and mines are exposed to changes in metal prices

Nyrstar does not hedge price risk at the mines but hedges transactional price risk at the smelters

The simplified process below is an example of price risk and expsoure within zinc Mining and Metals Processing
Time
Month 0
Mine
Month 2
Zinc concetrate transported between
mine and smelter
Month 3
Month 4
Zinc metal transported between
smelter and end user
Smelter
End User
Physical
flow
Commercial flow
Zinc Price (USD/t)
Financial
flow
Risk or
Exposure
Mine sells payable zinc contained in concentrate to smelter on a
3 month quotational period (QP) 1
Smelter sells zinc metal to end user
on a 1 month QP
USD 2,400
Provisional price
USD 2,200
QP [final] price
USD 2,100
QP [final] price
Mine invoices smelter at
provisional price
Mine re-invoices smelter
at final (QP) price
[less payment to date]
Smelter recognises sales
invoice value (USD 2,100) and
final purchase invoice value
(USD2,200)
Mine exposed to USD 200 change in price
Smelter pays USD 2,200 and sells at
USD 2,100; a USD 100 risk
free metal carries no risk but exposure
Managing risk
Smelters’ achieve ‘natural hedge’ with 3 month QP
(USD 200 price decline offset by setting QP price at month 3
price)
Smelters’ hedge risk by ensuring
purchase price = sales price ) USD
2,200)
1 Quotational Period (QP) is the contractually agreed timeframe which determines the metal price the smelter pays to the mine (usually the average price of the QP).
Duration of QP can vary and is independent of physical flows
41
Group
2016 Underlying EBITDA sensitivity
Parameter
2016
average
price/rate
Estimated annual 2016 Underlying EBITDA impact (€’m)
Change
+/-10%
Metals
Processing
Mining
+97
(79)
EUR:USD*
1.11
-/+ 10%
Zinc price
$2,095/t
-/+ 10%
Zinc Base
TC
$203/dmt
-/+ 10%
(28)
EUR:AUD*
1.49
-/+ 10%
(28)
(39)
+53
+28
+23
+5
(4)
(15)
+15
+3
(3)
- -
Group
+102
(83)
(54)
+68
(25)
+25
(28)
+23
$17.14/oz
-/+ 10%
(4)
+4
(1) +1
(5)
+5
$4,863/t
-/+ 10%
(2) +2
(1) +1
(3)
+3
Gold price
$1,250/oz
-/+ 10%
(1) +1
- -
(1) +1
Lead price
$1,872/t
-/+ 10%
(1) +1
- -
(1) +1
Lead TC
$165/dmt
-/+ 10%
(4)
- -
(4)
+4
1.09
-/+ 10%
- -
(5)
+4
Silver price
Copper price
EUR:CHF
+4
- -
* In 2016, Nyrstar has implemented a strategic foreign exchange hedging program to reduce the transactional impact of foreign exchange rate movements
(transactional impact defined as cash outflows due to expenses in non-USD currencies). Nyrstar has executed strategic foreign exchange hedges utilizing
put and call collar structures. For the EUR/USD transactional exposure, various collars have been executed resulting in a weighted average collar of 1.08
to 1.15 for approximately 75% of the total transactional expenses for 2016. For the AUD/USD transactional exposure, various collars have been executed
resulting in a weighted average collar of 0.68 to 0.83 for approximately 100% of the total transactional expenses for 2016 and 25% of H1 2017.
The sensitivities give the estimated effect on Underlying EBITDA assuming that each individual price or exchange rate moved in isolation. The relationship between currencies and
commodity prices is a complex one and movements in exchange rates can affect movements in commodity prices and vice versa. The exchange rate sensitivities include the effect on
operating costs but exclude the effect on the revaluation of foreign currency working capital. They should therefore be used with care.
42
VI. Port Pirie Redevelopment uplift modelling
43
Transformation EBITDA uplift driven by substantially increased
throughput and margin on internal zinc smelter residues
Port Pirie throughput
Indicative Port Pirie
feed content *
Indicative Margin per metal **
k dmt
Internal Residues
Pb Concentrates
620
260
360
Int.
Res.
Lead
(kt)
Silver
(Moz)
Gold
(koz)
Copper
(kt)
Zinc
(kt)
2016
2020
Int.
Res.
2016-20
3
30
Lead
~99%
0.4
3.8
Silver
75-85%
5
25
Gold
80-90%
1
3
Copper
90-95%
10
25
Zinc
~15%
2016
2020
Pb
Conc’s
180
220
15.0
Blended
Margin
2016-20
Lead
12-21%
Silver
8-17%
2016
Gold
15-16%
Lead
~10%
Copper
90-95%
20.0
Silver
5-7%
Zinc Uplift ***
0.5-1.0%
40
160
Gold
6-9%
5
6
Copper
90-95%
15
18
Zinc
~90%
60
360
300
2016
2020
Pb
Conc’s
Lead
(kt)
Silver
(Moz)
Gold
(koz)
Copper
(kt)
Zinc
(kt)
* Content values presented on rounded basis
** Indicative margin represents approx. net value capture i.e. (Payable out – Payable in / Recoveries)
*** Blended Zinc margin uplift represents increase in average zinc free metal capture at segment level attributable to Port Pire
Transformation
44
Increased throughput and increased margins provide a substantial
segment earnings uplift once ramped-up
1
2
Indicative Production and consumption
3
Indicative Margin % *
Prices **
Production
2016
2018
2019
2020
Margin
2016
2018
2019
2020
2016 Average
Prices
Lead (kt)
182
185
230
250
Lead
12%
19%
20%
21%
Lead $1,872/t
Silver (Moz)
15
16
21
23
Silver
8%
12%
17%
17%
Silver $17/oz
Gold (koz)
46
125
165
180
Gold
16%
16%
16%
16%
Gold $1,250/oz
Copper (kt)
5
6
7
8
Copper
95%
90%
90%
90%
Zinc (kt, segment)
1016
1060
1060
1060
Zinc
0.50%
1.0%
1.0%
1.0%
Acid (kt)
1357
1600
1725
1725
Acid
n/a
n/a
n/a
n/a
Consumption
2016
2018
2019
2020
2016 Avg
Realised Pb TC
Pb concs (k dmt)
300
280
340
360
$190/dmt
Int Res (k dmt)
60
150
210
260
n/a
X
4
X
Copper $4,863/t
Zinc $2,095/t
=
Acid $40/t
Indicative Gross Profit Uplift less DOC = EBITDA uplift
Indicative U.EBITDA Uplift
Uplift in Gross Profit
Change in Port Pirie DOC ***
Uplift in EBITDA
2018
2019
2020
€66m
€138m
€164m
(€24m)
(€34m)
(€34m)
€42m
€104m
€130m
* Margin represents increase in net value capture i.e. (Payable out – Payable in / Recoveries)
** Uplift based on applying 2016 annual average metal prices, FX rates and 2016 commercial terms
*** Increase in Port Pirie DOC converted to EURm applying 2016 annual average EUR:AUD FX rate
45
For further information:
Anthony Simms
Head of Investor Relations
D: +41 (0)44 745 8157
M: +41 (0)79 722 2152
E: [email protected]
www.nyrstar.com
46