Executivesummary landi

WASTE TO POWER MARKET INVESTOR PROFILE BIG PICTURE:

BTU CONVERSION WITH POSITIVE ENERGY RETURN OVER ENERGY INVEST – EROEI CRITERIA The term BTU Conversion refers to the process of transforming the energy or British Thermal Units (BTU´S) in coal, biomass, Municipal Solid Waste - MSW and natural or synthetic gas into multiple high – demand energy forms.

Biomass, MSW and Coal versatility is a great advantage in an energy insecure world. Our Technologies allow the energy stored into these feedstock to be converted into electricity, chemicals, pipeline quality natural gas, liquid transportation fuels and hydrogen.

CORPORATE BACKGROUND WHO WE ARE?

WHAT WE DO?

HOW WE DO?

I+A / LANDI (WTE) is a joint venture between a project engineering developer company and a worldwide leader gasification technology provider. Our work specializes in developing Energy from Waste investment opportunities for private investors. I+A / LANDI (WTE) only develops projects that offer a lucrative return for investors, as all projects need to be a “win-win” for all major players involved.

LANDI provide the gasification experience of CARBOGAS and I+A provide the energy market knowledge and personnel team of qualified engineers supported by a project managing to implement and deliver the entirely of the scope of work.

We seek to expand our technological and project experience to transform them into a new business model in the waste to energy and biofuels market.

In order to assure the Offtakes and other project finance matrix items, I+A / LANDI (WTE) starts with research of the local conditions, and establishes local connections to assist in assembling the essential pieces required for a successful WTE project financing. Once I+A / LANDI WTE has collected the required information, then a comprehensive package is assembled for investor review.

Investors are then able to conduct comprehensive DD (Due Diligence) and turn that into a bankable, highly profitable long term utility investment. By preparing all the groundwork well, I+A / LANDI WTE has the ability to prepare a rock solid project for investor finance that will perform well for the long run.

1

Investors can be confident in the due diligence that I+A / LANDI WTE performs.

Initial project information is always available for a cursory review, and for an investor to determine their level of interest. A more detailed prepared Project Business Overview will always be the next step of review for investors who express interest in a project and will be their guideline for making sure that project is the right fit. The Investment Memorandum is the final step of initial investor project information, which will reveal all the information needed to make a well informed investment decision, prior to Investor Due Diligence. All the required documents are always assembled by I+A / LANDI WTE in an electronic data rooms for investor review.

Once an investor is satisfied with all the documents presented, then the final step is usually a site visit. Site visits are always well prepared by I+A / LANDI (WTE), and are the final step to fully satisfy any investor due diligence requirements.

FINANCIAL MARKET SUMMARY “B IO M A S S T O E N E R GY A N D L IQ U ID S S H O WS U N D O U B T E D L Y A U N IQ U E A N D GR O U N D B R E A K IN G G E O M E T R IC A L B U S IN E S S GR O W T H . T H E E C O N O M IC A N D E N V IR O N M E N T A L F U N D AM E N T A L S W I L L , WE B E L IE V E , B E A T T R AC T IV E T O IN V E S T O R S FR O M B O T H A D E B T AN D E Q U I T Y P E R S P E C T IV E . T H E B U S IN E S S

DEBT

STRUC TURE

FO R

E AC H

PROJECT

HAS

BEEN

USUALLY

ID E N T I F IE D W IT H P R E L I M IN AR Y A G R E E M E N T S I N P L A C E , F O R E X AM P L E , W IT H A N

E X P O R T C R E D IT A G E N C Y WH O IS N ’ T O N L Y P R O V ID IN G T H E W E AR E N O W F O C U S E D W IT H T H I S

G U AR A N T E E S B U T A L S O T H E F U N D IN G .

K IN D O F P R O J E C T T E AM S O N GE T T IN G A L L A S P E C T S O F T H E F U N D IN G STR UC TURE COMPLETED . " SOLUTIONS AT

G A B R I E L B U C K , H E A D O F CAP EX F I N A N C I N G

BARCLAYS

GLOBAL WTE - FORECAST OVERVIEW

B

ased on in-depth analysis of population growth, urbanization trends, and waste generation rates across key regions, Pike Research estimates that, at minimum, 261 million tons per year of WTE capacity will come online worldwide by 2022. Under an optimistic forecast scenario, this number could rise to as much as 396 million tons per year. The global market for thermal and biological WTE technologies will reach at least $6.2 billion in 2012 and grow to $29.2 billion by 2022 under a conservative forecast. Market value could reach $80.6 billion by 2022 under the optimistic forecast. Accounting for 98% of the market today, mass burn, or as-received combustion, dominates the WTE market and will continue to do so through the forecast period. Advanced thermal treatment technologies and the biological treatment segment could reach at least $8 billion by 2022.

2

WTE - GLOBAL EMERGING TRENDS

●

Led by strong growth in China, the Asia Pacific region has emerged as ground zero for WTE activity. It is projected to capture half of the global market by 2018.

●

The EU market remains hot, but with portions of the market saturated, growth is confined to a handful of Member States.

●

After 15 years of dormancy, WTE activity is heating up in the United States, but growth is expected to trail Asia Pacific and the EU.

●

WTE facilities are benefitting from improved public acceptance with an increasing number of facilities being sited in urban centers.

●

Although tipping fees are on the rise, WTE is not yet financially competitive in a number of markets, which is likely to stifle more aggressive growth aspirations. If recent shale gas discoveries prove as prolific as estimates forecast, lower natural gas prices in the United States (and potentially Europe and China) are expected to choke off more widespread WTE expansion over the projection period.

WTE Market Value by Forecast Scenario, World Markets: 20102022

3

WTE - USA FORECAST OVERVIEW

Municipal Waste to Energy in the United States: 2012-2013 Yearbook and Directory

C

onversion of municipal solid waste (MSW) to energy (WTE) has been an important mode of waste management since the 1970s. During that time, the federal, state and local governments were confronting the dual realities of environmental damages caused by unregulated, sub-standard landfills and an energy crisis, caused by the Arab oil embargo. As a result, the federal and state governments enacted policies to both encourage the construction of wasteto-energy facilities and hasten the closure of sub-standard landfills. By the early 1990s, there were as many as 136 operating WTE plants. Due to economic and institutional issues, there are now 85 plants, which include one plant that is supplying pre-processed MSW to a dedicated boiler. These plants are processing about 30 million tons annually or about 7% of the post-recycled refuse being generated in the United States.

The 85 WTE plants are spread over 22 states. In 2010, they generated approximately 14.2 million megawatt hours of electricity and 14,840 Mlbs of steam for sale. This translates into nearly 1.3 million homes powered by energy generated from waste. In addition, at least 705,000 tons of ferrous metals and 25,000 tons of non-ferrous metals (mainly aluminum) are recycled either at the front end of a WTE plant prior to combustion or at the back end, sorted from the ash.

WTE - COST AND VALUE DRIVERS

E

nergy from waste projects is typically procured on a build-own-operate basis, with operational and commercial risks being taken by a waste consortium. The economics of energy from waste schemes are subject to many sources of risk and uncertainty, so although a scheme will usually be set up with a guaranteed feedstock source, overall viability will be subject to a wide range of pricing, deliverability and performance risks. Combined with the requirement to secure very large values of private finance, this level of risk exposure tends to favour the use of well-established technologies and solution providers.

The main variables affecting energy from waste viability are as follows: End user requirements: Project sponsors such as WDAs have been in competition for scarce waste management expertise and private finance. In practice, larger WDAs are in a stronger position to determine preferred solutions than smaller authorities who have in some cases struggled to attract operator interest. Other areas where end-user requirements might affect the project design include the consistency of the waste feedstock they can provide. Projects serving a consortium of WDAs will need to be designed to deal with a less consistent waste stream, with a consequent impact on efficiency.

4

Income: The main sources of income are the gate-price for the waste stream and the sale price of energy and by-products such as aggregates. The waste gate price has increased substantially with the support of landfill tax and typically contributes 70% of income.

Certainty with regards to the continuation of the landfill tax accelerator is an important consideration for operators and investors.

Depending on the technologies adopted, there may be additional income streams related to exported heat energy as well as income from incentives such as ROCs. Costs: In terms of operating costs, the main areas of risk involve throughput, energy prices, the operating and maintenance regime and the costs of disposal of waste products.

Replacement cost of plant also has to be factored into the model. The implication of lower than expected throughput is increased unit costs. Lower waste conversion rates will increase cost related to landfill tax liabilities.

Additional cost and value drivers: Most value drivers associated with energy from waste are related to scale of operation, which is difficult to optimise due to planning constraint. Many of the risks relate to the effective operation of plant, which makes innovation particularly difficult to deliver – especially in smaller schemes that have a limited range of treatment processes. There are a number of high-profile projects where timescales and quality standards have not been met, and where testing and commissioning has taken significantly longer than anticipated.

VALUE

RISK

Mitigation of long-term costs to the WDA Energy from waste projects eliminate risks of exposure to penalties from the Landfill Allowance Trading Scheme relating to landfill disposal in excess of allowances.

Certainty of availability End users need assurance that the proposed plant will deliver the expected waste throughput and waste bulk reduction within strict emissions levels and timescales.

Risk transfer through procurement Turnkey procurement via PFI or a treatment contract enables clients to secure large-scale investment and to outsource project delivery and operational risks.

Certainty of delivery Where the project delivers useable output such as a syngas or solid recovered fuel, assurance of product quality is critical.

Minimisation of social impacts including vehicle movements, where this can be achieved using existing infrastructure such as rail.

Economies of scale Energy from waste schemes are most cost effective with a throughput in excess of 350,000 tonnes a year. For larger projects it is claimed that doubling the throughput of a scheme only results in a cost increase of 50%. Other benefits of scale include reduced land-take and higher operational efficiencies.

Recovery of value From the waste stream including heat energy and recyclates such as aggregate or solid waste fuel.

Project delivery Risks include integration and co-ordination of complex and distinct technologies for pre-treatment, gasification, flue gas treatment and the grid connection.

Site constraints to the plan or building height may limit the proprietary technologies that can be used in a particular location.

Planning risks Planning challenges include health concerns, traffic movement and the visual impact of a development that can include a 90m high stack. Planning consents may involve restrictions on operations such as limits on where waste can be sourced from. Other risks include delays in the planning process for overhead power line connections.

5

In summary, the risk exposure on energy from waste projects is relatively high – particularly for emerging technologies.

Turnkey contracts are an important mechanism to enable these complex interrelated risks to be packaged in such a way as the main objective of optimising the use of waste as a resource is met.

This concentration of risk will inevitably result in a risk premium which can be mitigated to an extent by giving suppliers freedom over the application of technologies.

VALUE

RISK

Quality of the business case Including good quality information, use of wellestablished technologies and extensive scenario modelling.

Project delivery Guarantees that transfer risk related to the availability and quality of feedstock and the availability and performance of the technology will also improve viability – so long as the warranties are enforceable.

Accurate estimation Of the quality and volume of the waste stream, so that plant operates effectively.

Diversification of waste management processes to include waste reduction and recovery.

Materials recovery and composting are cheaper and more environmentally desirable than combustion.

Larger projects that enable a range of techniques to be cost effectively included in the treatment mix should deliver optimum outcomes.

Diversification of sources of waste – dealing with commercial and municipal waste streams together improves economies of scale and certainty of waste supply.

Continuing incentivisation Of reduction and recovery strategies.

waste

Co-ordination of programme delivery Projects that involve a number of technologically distinct but closely related components need effective programme management.

Technology risk associated with complex processes each new feature incorporated to reduce emissions or increase energy recovery contributes to this risk.

Supply risk associated with the volume, quality and consistency of the waste stream.

Demand risk related to markets for recyclates such as solid recovered fuel as well as waste heat, and the prices that can be obtained for these products.

Political risk For end users of commitment to energy from waste if incentive to recycle is reduced.

SOURCE: AECOM / W2E

WTE – KEY PROJECT STRENGHTS  Primary Driver  EROEI > 15  Reducing Emissions

  

Ability to use negative cost feedstock and sell energy and fuel or chemicals at market prices.

Unique combination of bankable technology, engineering and project structuring knowledge.

Meets the EU requirements to Carbon Emission reduction (RSB and RED).

In most populous areas, our solution solves two important goals. o Avoiding Landfilling o Providing Renewable Energy

6

WTE BUS INESS MODEL AND COMPETITIVE POSITION Possible Investment Regimes

Build Operate & Transfer BOT Build Own & Opperate BOO

Build & Operate BO

Operation & Maintenance O&M

WTE CONTRACTUAL FRAMEWORK FUND

DEVELOPERS I+A /LANDI

Equity 1/3

LENDERS

Debt 2/3 SPE / Project Company

LOCAL

TECHNOLOGY PROVIDERS

Waste Supply & Treatment Agreement

Concession Agreement

Contract MSW Capacity Min MSW Supply Fee adjustment Mechanism

25 to 30 years Land and boundary conditions Construction, O&M details

ELECTRICAL POWER GRID COMPANY PPA Electrical Tariff 100% Guaranteed Offtake 7

KEY CHARACTER ISTICS OF BUS INESS MODEL 

PREDICTABILITY AND STABILITY o o

 

GUARANTEED MSW SUPPLY NATURAL TENDENCY TO EVOLVE INTO LOCAL MONOPOLY o

 

Long Term Contract (25-30) Stable income from waste handling fee and electricity tariff

Exclusivity of Contracts

BUILT IN ORGANIC GROWTH MOMENTUM SCALABILITY o

Replicable and adaptive business model

WTE - BUS INESS PROCESS OPPORTUNITY   

Our technology partners sell: Licensing, Engineering, Equipment and Recurring Parts.

Technology construction occur in conjunction with the project development cycle Benefits of work with Technology Partners: o Share the same project development risks for financing, regulatory o

Initial Engineering

approval, etc.

Recurring revenues with options to invest in licenses and royalties

Site License $1M to $3M

$350K to $500K

6 to 18 Months

3 to 6 Months

Detailed Engineering $2M to $4M 6 to 12 Months

Technology Construction and Site Plant $50M to $150M 12 to 18 Months

Commissioning $1M to $2M 3 to 12 Months

Timeline 8

WTE - TECHNOLOGY CONSORTIUM

TECHNOLOGY PARTNERS PROFILE CARBOGAS - With more than 40 years of continued evolution, our innovative and unique waste-2-energy thermochemical reactor with fluidized-bed gasification technology system, convert any waste into clean renewable energy, with a highest level of energy efficiency, zero emission of polluting gases and very low costs of installation, operation and maintenance.

Carbon Bridge Energy Group (CBEG) – is the owner and licensor of unique waste processing technology that converts MSW and other forms of waste into ultra-high energy solid fuel blocks that have greater energy content than coal with a fraction of the emissions.

American Combustion Technologies, Inc. (ACTI) – is the provider of commercially proven pyrolysis reactors that convert CBEG’s fuel blocks into renewable energy for sale to the company’s offtakers.

Capstone, Inc. – Although the project’s EPC provider will make final vendor selections, Capstone’s history and experience generating energy with micro turbines from biogas and synthesis gas make it a top choice as the project’s power generation solution.

9

Technip USA, Inc. – Technip houses the renewable energy division of Technip, S.A., one of the largest and most prestigious engineering and construction firms in the world. Technip will serve as the project’s EPC provider.

PROJECT DEVELOPERS PROFILE LANDI – Carbogas partner is a Brazilian-based developer of Advanced Waste Recycling and Energy Conversion Plants. Our mission is to be a leader in the conversion of the waste to a cleaner, healthier energy economy – solving today’s energy challenges and solid waste.

Ingeniería Aplicada I+A - is a second generation family owned energy engineering firm that has been providing design engineering and consulting work for energy projects in Colombia. Shareholders have over 35 years of experience in petrochemical project process, structuring & development.

Emplus+ is a well-established power marketing firm serving all facets of the supply and purchase of wholesale and retail energy in the Colombia energy markets.

PROJECT DEVELOPERS REFERENCE

E

ach typical project involves the construction of a gasification waste treatment plant for the processing and treatment of waste from the urban towns. The plants can use any type of municipal solid waste to generate green electricity.

With Gasification Technologies CARBOGAS have been operating plants in China, Peru and Brazil, a pilot plant in Sao Paulo, and two other plants under construction in Brazil: Operative Plants: ● ● ● ● ● ●

Cia Cimento Itambé – PR – 6 MW – 1978 Cia Vale do Rio Doce – MG – 9 MW – 1980 Cerâmica Decorite – RG – 6 MW – 1981 Azulejos Eliane – SC – 64 MW – 1982/1986 Tong Cheng – China – 6 MW – 1986 Cerâmica Rex – Peru – 9 MW - 1987 10

● ● ● ●

Cerâmica Urussanga – SC – 9 MW - 1990 Liun Gang – China – 6 MW – 1991 Cecrisa – SC – 6 MW – 1992 – biomassa Cecrisa – SC – 6 MW – 2004 – carvão mineral Under Construction Plants:

● ●

Bahia, Brasil: Usina Entre Rios / 10MWh, 2013 - RSU São Paulo, Brasil: Usina Asis / 5MWh, 2013 - RSU Pilot Plant:

●

São Paulo, Brasil: Planta Piloto Carbogás / 1MWh

With Pyrolysis Technologies we have been operating plants in Aruba, USA, and a pilot plant in Los Angeles, and two other plants under construction in Europe.

HOW TECHNOLOGY WORKS PHASE I: MSW Reception and RDF Production 

It is the unit composed by equipment that act on the incoming material, promoting its mechanic selection with or without the aid of pickers, and where metallic elements (ferrous and non ferreous), inert material such as glass, rocks and clayish matter are segregated producing RDF (Refuse Derive Fuel).

11

A

C O M P

B C O M P

C RDF CREATION PROCES

12

Gasification is a process that converts organic or fossil fuel based carbonaceous materials into carbon monoxide, hydrogen and carbon dioxide.

PHASE II: GASIFICATION PROCESS 

Gasification employs fluidized bed, which consist of a sand bed heated at 850ºC (1562 F). The bed, fluidized by abrasion, boots the destruction efficiency of countless types and classes of solid waste.

This is achieved by reacting the material at high temperatures (>700 °C), without combustion, with a controlled amount of oxygen and/or steam.

The resulting gas mixture is called syngas (from synthesis gas or synthetic gas) or producer gas and is itself a fuel.

The power derived from gasification and combustion of the resultant gas is considered to be a source of renewable energy if the gasified compounds were obtained from biomass.

C O M P E T I T I V E P O

GASIFICATION IS NOT

COMBUSTION 13

PHASE III: MSW GENERATION UNIT The gas streams from the gasifier are directed to the boiler, which immediately heats the water inside and changes it into water steam, which in turn can be used for generation of electric power and or steam for industrial use.

TECHNOLOGY OVERVIEW

14

HOW BUSINESS PROCESS PIPELINE WORKS

We follow Business Development and Initiative (BD&I) Model in order to follow the industry standards, fulfill the project risk and to create value even in the project phase.

W

e will secure land and a guarantee of waste supply from the landfill, and will work with local engineers to obtain the environmental and construction permits. CWTE will sell 80% (X MW) of the energy under a long-term power purchase agreement (“PPA”) with the regional utility and the balance (Z MW) on the spot market in Colombia. Wholesale power prices are approximately $80 per MWh. We will produce approximately Y MWh per year. Other potential revenue sources include sales of biochar, carbon credits and recyclables, and tipping fees, but the major financial driver is power sales.

COMPETITIVE POSITION 

TECHNOLOGICAL STRENGHT Low-cost adaptive technology  Modified technology for MSW characteristics in Latin America o Technology to enlarge electricity generation capability o Technology to minimize fly ash production to 2% ABILITY TO SECURE BOT / BOOT / O&M IN LATIN AMERICA o Top 4 market share in terms of total daily handling tonnage upon full operation o Strong pipelines and relationship with local government FINANCING CAPABILITY o





15

In order to finance our own projects and business for been competitive, the Project Finance Matrix is a pathway to show our comprehension of the whole project and business.



o All projects fully funded with equity and Multilateral / OPIC loans STRONG MANAGEMENT TEAM o Experienced management team with expertise in technological development, o O&M, corporate governance & management, marketing, finance, investor relations etc.

INVESTMENT CR ITERIA FOR OVERSEAS ACQUIS ITION 

POLITICAL & FINANCIAL STABILITY o o

 

EXPLICIT POLICIES ON RENEWABLE ENERGY PROJECTS QUALITY AND QUANTITY OF MSW o

 

Minimum guaranteed MSW capacity and calorific value

FAVOURABLE WASTE HANDLING FEE WITH ADJUSTMENT BOUNDARY CONDITIONS o



Immune to terrorism and political instability Adequate risk support from National Power Grid

Cleared project site, road access, electricity connection to grid, water pipelines and drainage network, etc.

PREFERENTIAL TAXATION POLICIES

16

WASTE TO POWER - ECONOMICS

Tipping fees* and long-term power prices set the stage for understanding the impact of our value proposition.

Projects are economic for different reasons •Emerging countries often have low tipping fees but high power prices

A

nother key issue concerns the management of construction delivery risk within the special purpose vehicle. SPV projects are typically delivered to the service operator via an engineering, procurement and construction (EPC) contract. The operator’s risk can be minimised by wrapping all aspects of the capital works – pre-treatment, main plant and grid connection infrastructure – into a single EPC deal. An “unwrapped” approach where the SPV takes a more direct role in managing risk, may increase returns and reduce overall cost to the public sector, but could be more difficult to finance.

Effect of Power price and tipping fees on pre-tax ROE

•Industrialized countries often have higher tipping fees due to improved waste management policies but lower power prices

Assumptions: 1000 tpd @ 13.79 MJ/kg, combined cycle. 50% Debt @ 7%. Installation Location is USA – USGC $248M USD Installed Capital @ 20% contingency. Discount rate = 10%. Oxygen Purchased @ $61/tonne. Plant Availability = 85% (year 1), 90% (year2), 90% (year 3). Metallurgical Coke as carbon bed material @ $300/tonne.

17

WTE – TYPICAL COST BREAKDOWN STRUCTURE The cost model provides outline costs of the building facilities associated with a 600,000 tonne a year combustion plant based on a three-line moving grate technology. The analysis also provides indicative costs of the combustion system and the grid connection.

Details of the scope of external works are included as these are a critical element of the operation of the facility.

Site preparation costs, client-side professional fees and VAT are excluded.

W T E – E C O N O M I C S WTE – TYPICAL FINANCIAL INFORMATION

Incomes from the plant were divided into three groups. The first relates to the sale of electricity to the grid. Then there is an income from the sale of bonds or carbon credits from the reduction of emissions of greenhouse gases and finally tipping-fee revenue or fee for waste management (disposal costs).

Estimated Investment in a day type 1000T / plant Installed Power Operating hours per year Annual generation capacity Rate sale of electricity Gate-fee per ton / MSW Income from electricity sales Proceeds from sale of Carbon Credits Gate-fee revenue Gross annual income Operating Costs Annual Net Income Estimated total investment cost Repayment period (linear)

18

WTE - ECONOMICS ALL OVER THE WORLD

WTE – CLEAR PLANS FOR GROWTH

↑Heat Content

ORGANIC ↑MSW Quantity

GROWTH STRATEGIES

EXPANSION

Phase II of existing Projects New WTE Projects Sludge Treatment

NEW BUSINESS

ESCO Model Energy Savings Projects

19

EXECUTIVE DIRECTORS & CORE MANAGEMENT TEAM

Luciano Reis Infiesta Chief Executive Officer CARBOGAS LTDA

Hugo Pemberthy Chief Executive Officer INGENIERÍA APLICADA I+A CWTE Chairman

Danilo Bertagnon

Adolfo Pérez

Chief Technical Officer LANDI SOLUTIONS

Chief Technical Officer INGENIERÍA APLICADA I+A CWTE Engineering Leader

Bonny Nunez Chief Executive Officer LANDI SOLUTIONS

Luis Mofino Chief Corporate Officer LANDI SOLUTIONS

Sebastían Pérez Corporate VP INGENIERÍA APLICADA I+A CWTE Corporate Leader

CONFIDENT IALIT Y AND FORWARD LOOKING STATEMENTS This presentation is confidential and for authorized use only. Under no circumstances are its contents to be reproduced or distributed to the public, media or potential investors without written authorization.

The information contained herein, while obtained from sources believed to be reliable, is not guaranteed as to its accuracy or completeness.

Certain statements in this disclosure may constitute “forward-looking” statements which involve known and unknown risks, uncertainties and other factors which may cause the actual results, performance or achievements of the Corporation, or industry results, to be materially different from any future results, performance or achievements expressed or implied by such forward-looking statements. When used in this disclosure, such statements use such words as “may”, “would”, “could”, “will”, “intend”, “expect”, “believe”, “plan”, “anticipate”, “estimate”, and other similar terminology. These statements reflect the Corporation’s current expectations regarding future events and operating performance and speak only as of the date of this disclosure.

Forward-looking statements involve significant risks and uncertainties, should not be read as guarantees of future performance or results, and will not necessarily be accurate indications of whether or not such results will be achieved. A number of factors could cause actual results to differ materially from the results discussed in the

20

forward-looking statements, including, but not limited to, the factors discussed below and under “Risk and Value Factors�

Although the forward-looking statements contained in this disclosure are based upon what Management believes are reasonable assumptions, the Corporation cannot assure investors that actual results will be consistent with these forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements are made as of the date of this disclosure, and, subject to applicable securities laws, the Corporation assumes no obligation to update or revise them to reflect new events or circumstances.

This disclosure may contain forward-looking statements pertaining to the following: capital expenditure programs; supply and demand for the Corporation’s services and industry activity levels; commodity prices; income tax considerations; treatments under governmental regulatory regimes. The Corporation has provided cost estimates and resource conversion ratios for projects that are still in the early stages of development and are preliminary estimates only.

No securities commission or other similar regulatory authority has passed on the merits of the securities described herein nor has any securities commission or similar regulatory authority reviewed this presentation and any representation to the contrary is an offense.

CONTACT US Hugo.Pemberthy@ingaplicada.com Adolfo.perez@ingaplicada.com Sebastian.perez@ingaplicada.com danilo@landisolutions.com.br molfino@landisolutions.co m.br bonny@landisolutions.com.br

21

NOTES

22