BMO Capital Markets 22nd Global Metals & Mining Conference John Borshoff – Managing Director and CEO Dustin Garrow – EGM Sales and Marketing Gill Swaby – EGM Corporate Services 24-27 February 2013, Hollywood, Florida

1

Disclaimer and Notes for JORC and NI 43-101 Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves

This presentation includes certain statements that may be deemed “forward-looking statements”. All statements in this presentation, other than statements of historical facts, that address future production, reserve or resource potential, exploration drilling, exploitation activities and events or developments that Paladin Energy Ltd (the “Company”) expects to occur, are forward-looking statements.

Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in such forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those in the forward-looking statements. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially from those in forward looking statements include market prices, exploitation and exploration successes, and continued availability of capital and financing and general economic, market or business conditions.

Investors are cautioned that any such statements are not guarantees of future performance and actual results or developments may differ materially from those projected in the forward-looking statements. The Company does not assume any obligation to update or revise its forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.

In the following presentation, for those deposits that are reported as conforming to the Joint Ore Reserves Committee (JORC) 2004 code, the terms Inferred Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources, Measured Mineral Resources, Ore Reserves, Proved Ore Reserves, Probable Ore Reserves and Competent Person are equivalent to the terms Inferred Mineral Resources, Indicated Mineral Resources, Measured Mineral Resources, Mineral Reserves, Proven Mineral Reserves, Probable Mineral Reserves and Qualified Person, respectively, used in Canadian National Instrument 43-101 (NI 43-101). The technical information in this presentation that relates to Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves is based on information compiled by David Princep B.Sc. and Simon Solomons M.Eng, both of whom are Fellows of the Australasian Institute of Mining and Metallurgy. Messrs Princep and Solomons each have sufficient experience that is relevant to the style of mineralisation and type of deposit under consideration and to the activity that they are undertaking to qualify as Competent Persons as defined in the 2004 Edition of the “Australasian Code for Reporting of Exploration Results, Mineral Resources and Ore Reserves”, and as Qualified Persons as defined in NI 43-101. Messrs Princep and Solomons are full-time employees of the Company and consent to the inclusion of the relevant information in this announcement in the form and context in which it appears. Previous tonnages, grades, assays and other technical data relating to the Oobagooma deposit are taken from historical records prior to the implementation of the current NI 43-101. While the data is believed to have been acquired, processed and disclosed by persons believed to be technically competent, they were estimated prior to the implementation of NI 43-101 and are therefore regarded as historical estimates for the purposes of NI 43-101 and as an exploration target for the purposes of JORC disclosure. A Qualified Person as defined in NI 43-101 has not done sufficient work to classify the historical estimate as current Mineral Resources. The Company is not treating the historical estimates as current Mineral Resources as defined in NI 43-101 and for this reason the historical estimates should not be relied upon. At present, the Company considers that these resources have no equivalent classification under NI 43-101 and should therefore be considered as unclassified. The historical information is presented on the basis that it may be of interest to investors.

Presentation Outline

2

Company status & highlights

Uranium outlook

Activities update

Paladin outlook

Annexures

3

• Two consecutive quarters of record production

• Production costs at record lows – trend to continue

• Additional optimization for improved production efficiencies

• Cash balance strengthened with balance of prepayment $150M

• Strategic initiatives progressing with results expected early during the June quarter

• Focus remains on sustainability and debt reduction via: - prepayment proceeds – March 2013 CB - strategic initiatives proceeds

Paladin On Track

Geographically Diverse Project Pipeline

4

5

0

100

200

300

400

500

600

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY20112005 portfolio Organic growth Valhalla uranium deposits at acquisitionSummit deposits at acquisition Angela deposit at acquisition FusionNGM Michelin

116168

216

285344

511 523

FY2005 FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011

Paladin – Achieving Nameplate Production & Developing the Pipeline in Parallel

- 5 -

Developing the mines

LHM construction LHM production (Mlb)

KM construction KM production (Mlb)

LHM nameplate achieved

Developing the pipeline

Clear commitment Steady growth, now at

8.0Mlb-8.5MIb pa capacity Applied new process

technology First new conventional

uranium mines in 20 years in the world

Paladin has invested $1.5bn in its project pipeline

Impressive track record of resource expansion

PDN is the worldwide leader in operating low to medium grade mines KM

nameplate to be achieved

Portfolio resources(1) (Mlb)

22005 portfolio Summit deposits at acquisition NGM

Valhalla uranium deposits at acquisition Fusion

Globally diversified project pipeline

Organic growth

Michelin

(1) Paladin’s attributable R&R

0.0 0.0

1.72.7

4.65.7

6.9

8.5

FY2006 FY2007 FY2008 FY2009 FY2010 FY2011 FY2012 FY2013E

8.0-8.5

2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012

Vision Achieved clear targets

6

Langer Heinrich Stage 1

Langer Heinrich Stage 2

Kayelekera

Langer Heinrich Stage 3

Pipeline Project

Langer Heinrich Stage 4

Establish the right skill and expertise base Provide sufficient capital to grow

BFS Construction

Construction Production 3.7Mlb p.a.

PFS Update BFS Construction

Production at 3.3Mlb p.a.

Construction Production at 5.2Mlb p.a.

BFS

Production 2.6Mlb

p.a.

BFS Construction

Ramp Up

Ramp Up BFS

BFS BFS Capability

BFS Capability

Production Optimization

Project Development Capability

Project Development Capability

Production Optimization

/staged growth

/prepared for growth

Paladin is prepared

Presentation Outline

7

Company status & highlights

Uranium outlook

Activities update

Paladin outlook

8 8

World Nuclear Capacity January 2013

Current Nuclear Capacity

Under Construction

Planned Proposed

Reactors / (Capacity)

435 (374.1GWe)

65 (65.1GWe)

167 (184.4GWe)

317 (359.7GWe)

Countries 30 13 28 37

China 16 (12.9GWe)

29 (30.0GWe)

51 (59.8GWe)

120 (123.0GWe)

Russia 33 (24.2GWe)

10 (9.2GWe)

24 (24.2GWe)

20 (20.0GWe)

India 20 (4.4GWe)

7 (5.3GWe)

18 (15.1GWe)

39 (45.0GWe)

South Korea

23 (20.8GWe)

4 (5.2GWe)

5 (7.0GWe)

-

Japan 50 (44.4GWe)

3 (3.0GWe)

10 (13.8GWe)

3 (4.0GWe)

United States

104 (102.2GWe)

1 (1.2GWe)

13 (15.7GWe)

13 (21.6GWe)

0255075

100125150175200225250275300325350

UnderConstruction

Planned Proposed

Num

ber o

f Rea

ctor

s

Jan-10 Mar-11 Jan-13

9 9

Japan - Reactor Restarts

Liberal Democratic Party (LDP) decisive victory in general election (16 Dec 2012) – reversal of previous Government’s commitment to phase-out nuclear

power by 2040

Nuclear Regulation Authority (NRA) safety rules to be finalised in July 2013 followed by progressive reactor restart approvals

Japanese utilities accepting increasing volumes of uranium under existing term contracts

Paladin’s detailed assessment of Japanese reactor restarts – 25% of nuclear capacity returned to service during 2HCY13 – increasing to 75-80% by end of CY15

10 10

China

Post-Fukushima commercial nuclear power programme – 2020 target installed nuclear capacity 58Gwe (currently operating and under construction reactors total 43Gwe) – 58Gwe is conservative (could easily grow to 70-75Gwe by 2020)

Ningde-1 reactor placed into service 2012

Post-Fukushima construction activities initiated at four reactors

Currently 29 reactors in “under construction” category

11 11

Russia aggressive re-positioning for supply

ARMZ (Russia) offer to acquire 48.6% of Uranium One not already owned

Provides complete Russian control over uranium production without minority approvals

ARMZ unable to satisfy forecast Russian uranium needs through domestic sources; Anticipate that all uncommitted future Uranium One production will be taken by ARMZ

12 12 12

Supply/Demand Dynamics Unbalanced natural constraints exist

A supply shortage is unavoidable post 2013-14 — only a handful of projects can bring some new production online rapidly

Long lead times to develop projects to full production will severely limit achieving supply targets by 2020

— average lead time approvals to full production 6 to 9 years

A herculean task ahead: To meet forecasted demand by 2020, circa 15 new mines are required within the next 7 years

Only prices in the range of $80/lb to $120/lb will give sufficient incentivisation bring significant new production by 2020/2022

— a production gap remains under all of Paladin’s pricing scenarios. This can only be filled using extreme measures which are costly and risky creating uncertainty and high volatility

— industry players will need a high degree of incentivisation to overcome increasing constraints for supply growth - technical, political, regulatory, financing

Paladin’s supply/demand analysis sees the supply shortfall continuing to widen

Production from Mines Existing as of 2004

Estimated Production from Mines Existing as of 2011

Kazakhstan Growth After 2004

Growth Elsewhere After 2004

Required Primary Production to Satisfy

Demand

0

50

100

150

200

250

2003 2004 2005 2006 2007 2008 2009 2010 2011 2012 2013 2014 2015 2016 2017 2018 2019 2020

Mlb

U3O

8

The HERCULEAN challenge :

Primary supply will have to increase by circa 90Mlb U3O8/year to meet demand requirements by 2020 (in 8 years) In previous 8-year period (2003 – 2011), production increased by 46Mlb, but Kazakhstan accounted for 42Mlb.

(GOING FORWARD THERE IS NOT ANOTHER KAZATOMPROM TO CONTRIBUTE SUCH GROWTH)

13

Supply Growth Uncertain

Industry outside Kazakhstan has achieved THIS small amount in past 8 years (95% Paladin)

6

90 But must achieve THIS in next 8 years with no Kazakhstan-like sources or desire available

7.75 years

Current industry actors ill-prepared to deal with the challenge:

Government (Vertically Integrated) Agencies: (2) — ARMZ (UUU included) ] battling growth — Areva ] have stumbled with short/mid term consequences

Diversified Mining Houses: (2) — Rio Tinto (ERA included) ] strategically irrelevant for uranium growth — BHP ] no uranium strategy nothing extra until 2025-2030 (?)

Pure Uranium Producers: (4) — KazatomProm (State organisation) ] at capacity, costs increasing — Navoi (State organisation) ] at capacity — Cameco ] has scaled back on growth, no new projects — Paladin ] no expansion, unless $80/lb threshold surpassed

Overall 10 producers operating under 8 controlling entities

Together represent 90% of global uranium production

Universally declaring slashing of investments, no new projects or growth

14

Strategically Positioned

Presentation Outline

15

Company status & highlights

Uranium outlook

Activities update

Paladin outlook

16

December 2012 Half Year Highlights

16

LHM Half year production of 2.709Mlb (104% of nameplate) Demonstrated ability to produce at nameplate with feed grades below design

Safety Maintained low Lost Time Injury Frequency Rate of 1.1

Continuous Improvement

KM - grid power forecasted by September 2013 quarter KM - advancements of nano-filtration project LHM & KM - other initiatives gaining traction

KM Record half year production of 1.411Mlb C1 cost of production for December 2012 quarter of US$43.5/lb and declining

Combined Production

Record half year production of 4.120Mlb (97% of nameplate) December 2012 quarterly production of 2.191Mlb (103.1% of nameplate)

Langer Heinrich Project Overview

Three successful production capacity expansions completed:

— 2.6Mlb (Stage 1) - 2008 — 3.7Mlb (Stage 2) - late 2009 — 5.2Mlb (Stage 3) - early 2012

Lower quartile cost producer — targeting US$28/lb or lower

Further expansion potential — Stage 4 expansion will only be considered if

price incentive is sufficient (>$80/lb) — various options for future production

optimization and efficiencies are either being implemented or under review

+20 years project life at current production rate

17

Design Criteria Stage 2 Stage 3

Ore Throughput 2.5Mtpa 3.5Mtpa

Leach Throughput

1.5Mtpa 2.1Mtpa

Ore Feed Grade 850ppm 800ppm

Recovery 82% 85%

U3O8 Production 3.7Mlbpa 5.2Mlbpa

Langer Heinrich: Operational Update

18

0

200,000

400,000

600,000

800,000

1,000,000

1,200,000

1,400,000

1,600,000

$28

$29

$30

$31

$32

$33

Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12

US$/lb

Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12Uranium produced - lbs 1,052,364 1,322,480 1,290,462 1,418,570C1 cost of production - US$/lb 32.4 32.2 31.8 29.6

lbs

8.6% decrease over the last four quarters

Consistently producing at or above Stage 3 nameplate rate — three full quarters now at Stage 3 — quarterly production is 109% of Nameplate — feed grades of 805ppm for December quarter which is consistent with design — recoveries increased to 87.4% which is above design of 85%

Bankers’ Completion Test successfully completed — easy pass with strong production and robustness of process

Optimization Focus — teeter bed planned for July 2013 — substantial progress being made in many areas

Cost Reductions — cost savings to continue with improved

efficiencies and innovation — trend to continue

19 19

Langer Heinrich Quarterly Production

650

674

686

693

655

842

928

927

900

933

796

896

849

1193

1052

1322

1290

1419

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

0

200

400

600

800

1000

1200

1400

1600

Jul-S

ep

Oct

-Dec

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-S

ep

Oct

-Dec

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-S

ep

Oct

-Dec

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-S

ep

Oct

-Dec

Jan-

Mar

Apr

-Jun

Jul-S

ep

Oct

-Dec

2008 2008 2009 2009 2009 2009 2010 2010 2010 2010 2011 2011 2011 2011 2012 2012 2012 2012

Gra

de (p

pm)

U₃O₈ P

rodu

ctio

n (0

00)

LHM Quarterly Production & Feed Grade

Stage 1 Design Stage 2 Ramp Up Stage 2 DesignStage 3 Ramp Up Stage 3 Design Grade ppm

Kayelekera Project Overview

Design capacity of 3.3Mlb pa U3O8

Project ramp-up complete and running at or near nameplate

First modern resin-in-pulp uranium processing facility

C1 cost US$43.5/lb produced for Dec 12 quarter aiming for US$40 by end of FY13 and a further reduction in FY14

— results proving that cost initiatives are coming through and being realised

— final implementation of power from local grid and nano-filtration are the most significant drivers of further cost reduction

— high confidence that C1 costs of US$35–US$38/lb are achievable by early FY14

20

Design Criteria

Ore Throughput 1.5Mtpa

Leach Throughput 1.5Mtpa

Ore Feed Grade 1100ppm

Recovery 87%

U3O8 Production 3.3Mlbpa

Kayelekera: Operational Update

21

17.5% decrease over the last four quarters

0

100,000

200,000

300,000

400,000

500,000

600,000

700,000

800,000

900,000

$42

$44

$46

$48

$50

$52

$54

Mar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12

lbsUS$/lb

Record production in December 2012 quarter — production of 772,280lb, up 22% on the September quarter — plant running steady at 95% of nameplate — recoveries 83.8% and improving

Acid independence largely established — increased acid plant production post August shutdown — ore blending reducing acid consumption successful — trucked acid now less than 5% of need, target 0%

Redundancies — the workforce was reduced by approximately 130 positions

Cost Reductions — cost savings to continue with improved efficiencies and

production innovation — trend to continue

a Ju Sep ecMar-12 Jun-12 Sep-12 Dec-12

Uranium produced - lbs 724,552 726,299 638,950 772,281C1 cost of production - US$/lb 52.7 52.2 49.0 43.5

22

Kayelekera Quarterly Production

Plant shutdown for 6 weeks¹

¹ Plant offline for 3 weeks planned maintenance and 3 weeks remedial repairs to acid plant and drying and packaging plant ² 7 days industrial action resulting in a production loss of ~35,000 to 45,000lb 3 Equates to 135,000lb reduced production

7 day industrial action²

16 days planned maintenance3

KM Quarterly Production and Grade Profile

23

Key Pipeline Projects

Drilling commenced August 2012 Low-cost ISR project targeting 2Mlb pa U3O8 production

– existing mining lease

– PDN has the expertise to develop

2016 - 2017 development target – cultural heritage surveys underway

– field leach testing planned for early 2014

– significant room for resource expansion

Targeting 40Mlb of resources in region

Drilling commenced August 2012

3 year uranium mining moratorium lifted in Dec 2011

2018 - 2020 development target – PDN believes the project has the potential to be placed

amongst the world’s largest economically viable uranium projects

Targeting 200Mlb of resources within tenements

MANYINGEE WA

MICHELIN Canada

Resource = 24Mlb

Resource = 137Mlb

24

Update on Other Projects

Resource: 147Mlb at 700ppm Exploration targeted on resource expansion Metallurgical studies underway Opportunity for joint-venture partnership Further regional consolidation opportunities

MOUNT ISA Qld

(part JV with Summit)

Large upscale potential, future flagship project ISR potential

OOBAGOOMA WA

PDN has assumed operator status PDN in negotiations to increase ownership to 100%

ANGELA NT

(50% JV with Cameco)

Scoping study to investigate development concepts Potential synergies with Angela

BIGRLYI JV NT

(42% JV with Energy Metals)

Foothold in key uranium province Initiated regional exploration March 2011

NIGER Africa

25 25

Strategic Initiatives

25

As time passes and uranium supply landscape changes the Paladin platform becomes increasingly more attractive

Key Objectives from the Strategic Initiatives: - unlock value from Paladin’s extensive uranium asset base and

accomplishments - utilise current platform for future growth leverage with the assistance of a

strategic partner - reduce debt and strengthen the balance sheet - already benefited with the result of the LTC with EdF and $200M payment

Results expected early during the June quarter

“On completion of the strategic initiatives, Paladin is confident this will address market concerns regarding sustainability and Paladin’s ability to service or repay its debt”

Presentation Outline

26

Company status & highlights

Uranium outlook

Activities update

Paladin outlook

Annexure

Paladin’s premium for strategic value is based on four key drivers:

A Solid Platform

27

Unique industry position as the only significant non-aligned pure play producer

A geographically diversified, high-quality project pipeline

A portfolio of early-life cycle, technologically advanced, mining operations

Proven technical and management team: strong IP with ability to advance projects from development through to production

Industry Position

Producing Mines

Quality Pipeline

Proven Team

Pivotal Point in Corporate Development - Entering the Next Phase

28

Rapid growth phase complete LHM and KM both at or near nameplate Projects and new technology de-risked

500% increase in resources New mine production available on uranium price increase Poised to become a Tier 1 producer through key projects

Producing Assets De-risked

Established Pipeline

Strategic Partnerships

Established In-house Technical Strength

Build experienced and proven technical teams Track record in mining innovation

Considering strategic partnerships Recognised partner of choice

Achieved

Next Phase Optimization and cost

reduction Cost and production optimization of producing assets Rationalization of corporate and exploration costs

Conclusion

Paladin on track to continue solid production results – stated guidance FY13 on track 8.0-8.5Mlb

Focused on further cost rationalization Production optimization through innovation to improve efficiency Strategic initiatives to strengthen the balance sheet and leverage growth Benefit from the diminishing uranium supplier base (e.g. Uranium One privatisation) Paladin’s pipeline projects: – ready for expansion when incentive prices are sufficient – ability to leverage growth via strategic partner

29

2015

2016 - 2017

2018 - 2020

+2021

Stage 4 Expansion

Manyingee

Michelin Project

Pipeline

Tier 1 Producer

Financial years

Uranium Price Dependent

30 30

Paladin Energy Ltd Contact Details

30

Head Office Level 4, 502 Hay Street Subiaco Western Australia 6008 PO Box 201, Subiaco Western Australia 6904 Telephone: +61 (0) 8 9381 4366 Facsimile: +61 (0) 8 9381 4978 Email: paladin@paladinenergy.com.au Website: www.paladinenergy.com.au

Investor Relations Team Australasia: Andrew Mirco or Kerry Smart +61 (0) 8 9381 4366 North America: Greg Taylor +1 (905) 337 7673

31 31

Annexures

31

Uranium specialist company with demonstrated achievements

Head Office in Perth, Western Australia

Mining operations in Namibia and Malawi

Geographically diverse development projects

ASX, TSX and NSX (Namibian) listed

Unique platform for consolidation & growth

Paladin Overview

32

Paladin Energy – Current Attributable Resources and Reserves (January 2013)

Project Total Resources Attributable to Paladin Total Reserves 100% project basis

JORC

t U3O8 Mlb U3O8 % U3O8

Cut-off U3O8 ppm t U3O8 Mlb U3O8 % U3O8

Cut-off U3O8 ppm

Langer Heinrich (100%) 77,981 171.9 0.054 250 59,184 130.5 0.053 250

Kayelekera (85%) 17,175 37.9 0.075 300 9,071 20.0 0.095 400

Mount Isa (82/91/100%) 60,454 133.3 0.070 Various

Manyingee (100%) 10,890 24.0 0.080 200

Bigrlyi (42%) 4,004 8.8 0.13 500

Niger (100%) 4,943 10.9 0.02 120

Aurora (100%) 62,059 136.8 0.09 Various

Angela (50%) 6,990 15.4 0.13 300

Sub Total (JORC) 244,496 539.1 0.07 68,255 150.5 0.06

Historical Oobagooma (100%) 9,950 21.9 0.12 200

Total (all) 254,446 561.0 0.07 68,255 150.5 0.06

33

Intellectual Property

Ability to advance projects through to production using technology and innovation

Unique mine development capability:

— Only company to bring new conventional mines into production in the last 20 years.

Track record of innovation: — Langer Heinrich: first conventional

uranium mine to use alkaline leach process on calcrete ore

— Kayelekera: first uranium mine to use resin-in-pulp (RIP) processing

34

35 35

LHM Process Flowsheet

35

MINING CLASSIFICATION

COMMINUTION

HEATING

LEACHING

CCD

TAILINGS

NIMCIX

PRECIPITATION

DRYING &

PACKAGING

36 36 36

KM Process Flowsheet

Process improvements have lifted efficiency in seven key areas in the plant. Drying and packaging plant relocated.

ROM Mineral Sizer Jaw Crusher SAG Mill Cyclone Trash

Screen Pre-leach Thickener

Leach

RIP

Tailings Thickener Neutralization TSF Decant

Process Water

Resin Cleaning

Elution Magnesia Precipitation Filter

Washing

Uranium Precipitation

Drying Packaging

37 37

December Half Year – Financial Results

37

Cash Flow

Sales Record sales – 4.008Mlb at $48.63/lb for $194.9M Two mid term off-take agreements for 6.3Mlb

C1 Costs Overall average C1 cash costs of US$34.50/lb Dec quarter - LHM US$29.60/lb & KM US$43.50/lb

Positive cash flow from mines of US$47.5M before US$26.8M reduction in inventory

Overheads Admin, marketing and non-production costs down US$2.7M Share-based costs down US$0.8M

38 38

Revenue and Gross Profit Highlights December 2012 Half Year

% Change 2012 US$M

2011 US$M

Revenue from sales Up 13% 194.9 172.7

Gross profit Down 54% 12.5 27.0

Realised uranium sales price US$48.6/lb US$52.0/lb

% Change

Mlb U3O8

Mlb U3O8

LHM production Up 33% 2.709 2.042

KM production Up 37% 1.411 1.027

Total production Up 34% 4.120 3.069

LHM sales volume Up 17% 2.833 (1) 2.420 (2)

KM sales volume Up 31% 1.175 0.900

Total sales volume Up 21% 4.008 3.320

(1) Includes 0.491Mlb of LHM material sold through Paladin Nuclear Ltd. (2) Includes 0.650Mlb of LHM material sold through Paladin Energy Ltd.

Six months ended 31 December

39 39

Revenue of US$191.5M — 4.008Mlb sold at average realised price of US$48.63/lb — record sales of 2.783Mlb in December 2012 quarter

Gross margin from operations of US$12.5M — average cost of sales of US$43/lb before KM inventory impairment — KM inventory impairment of U$10.4M

Administration, marketing and non production costs of US$11.8M

KM impairment costs of US$96.0M pre-tax

De-recognition of KM deferred tax asset of US$98.2M

Loss attributable to members of the parent of US$193.5M

Profit & Loss December 2012 Half Year

“Key indicators moving in the right direction despite uranium prices”

Secured bank loans (as at 28 Feb 13) — US$141M project finance facility for LHM Stage 3 expansion

currently US$101.5M outstanding

— US$167M for construction of KM currently US$78M outstanding

Convertible bonds — US$134M CB, will be paid out on expiry March 13 — US$300M CB, maturing Nov 15 (conversion price of US$5.61) — US$274M CB, maturing May 2017 (conversion price of US$2.19)

Repayments per annum — CB’s (post March 13) int. US$27.3M — LHM princ. US$22.5M int. US$3.5M — KM princ. US$30M int. US$2.1M

Paladin’s Debt Status

40

41 41

Balance Sheet & Cash Flow December 2012 Half Year

Cash and cash equivalents of US$104.7M

Cash inflow from operating activities of US$49.3M — receipt of proceeds of US$52M in July from June 2012 sale — proceeds from long-term contract of US$50M

Cash outflow from investing activities of US$25.6M — US$10.2M exploration expenditure — US$15.5M capex

Cash outflow from financing activities of US$31.7M — project finance facilities repayment of US$31.2M

“Balance sheet will continue to strengthen post repayment of March 2013 convertible bond and closing of strategic initiatives”