The ounces position profile in this PFS is a bit disappointing...

The ounces position profile in this PFS is a bit disappointing in that the bumper years are Y5 and Y6 (include Y7 in the Ext case) then they promptly fall off a cliff thereafter before the crown is mined in the final year (the goodbye-cut). For me, this mightn't have been an issue if the company had actually undertaken a proper Scoping Study and we knew they were going to focus on ways to bring ounces forward, and if they couldn't, then fair enough.
That said, I'm not convinced 5.5mtpa is the right answer. The reality is that you can likely knock off the two years of low output if the margins don't look like materialising in these two years - they are skinny at $1800). The mine life is then down to 10 years or lower. I'd love to know, via the never provided scoping study, the capital cost and o/p and u/g transition trade offs for 4.0mtpa versus 5.5mtpa. If the company had released a scoping study then I'd have a lot more confidence in this PFS (I acknowledge that the MRE was different at the time).
IMO, the sizing at 5.5mtpa just inserted a massive burning platform under the exploration success requirement to get this project to sustainably produce good margins beyond year 6 or 7.
DYOR