FEED Study, page-10

Hi Guys,
Hi Andres/Serena - good to hear from you again - Trust you enjoyed the break.
Andres, particularly interested on your take - TA and FA wise when looking at current trading and SP. Can't remember who mentioned the day before the week of Christmas that that Friday was the last day for shorters. Indeed, after that day the SP climbed gradually up until last week Friday and then, on Monday (probably the day when most returned to the office), it was almost clear as daylight that the shites were back with new vigor to run this company to the ground. We've now seen what these shites did in 2 days. Thus, what's your view for near/mid term?? Thanks.

Bthotcop, Very interesting what you've posted above re FEED. This section then struck me: "The FEED package is used as the basis for bidding the Execution Phase Contracts (EPC, EPCI, etc) and is used as the design basis".
Let me say, that I think that the FEED is a "phurfy" . Yes, it has been outsourced to FLOUR and is supposedly being undertaken. I'm not even sure that it is still in the process of being conducted as we speak - where would the money come from to pay these guys. The FEED will not be cheap and SDL hasn't got money for this by my reckoning. may there is a need to make enquiry to see if this is still in progress as we speak. I can not envisage that the"pegging" of the rail line is for purposes of FEED or vice versa. So both activities is suppose to be underway as we speak. Who's paying. Someone mentioned a day or 2 ago that the pegging is being undertaken by a WA firm. (I started thinking in the line of CARDNO but not sure - any confirmation??) We know that Fluor is suppose to do the FEED (who also has offices in Perth. How can you undertake FEED unless you know the exact route of the railroad?? River crossings, bridges etc etc. I know GC has bragged about the terrain and only 600M of bridges - but that too is all windowdressing and of no value until the exact route has been established. ??

On the other hand, now that Bthotcop brought this up, I'm starting to think whether the absence/lack of FEED was the reason why China did not want to commit anything more than just an MOU??? Was this the reason why China was supposedly "shown" the door because they only lodged a MOU. (Shite, thinking back - how many lies were told. You guys remember GC advocating over and over that they were in advanced negotiation with both Chinese on the one hand and Western on the other hand, to extract the best offer. What an utter load of shite if we now look back. How could they/ and why would they even have entertained the Chinese, well knowing that there was never gonna be anything more than an MOU on the table. OR was the whole MOU "story" the actual phurfy/ That Chinese was not prepared to make a proper bid/or any bid at all, until they have had chance to study the FEED. Thus triggering the need for a FEED because at no stage in all these years of "progressing" the project, had FEED been mentioned - only at a late stage last year which, I think, sort of coincided with the timeline when a "decision" was to be made as to who won the bid.???


Thoughts are welcome. Maybe there is reason to believe that a lot of lies were told, a lot being hidden from SHs and that they need to start coming clean.