Poor investor relations performance?, page-214

AJM are going to have a head grade for the first 12 years of 1.14% and PLS will be 1.31% so about 13-14% lower grade for AJM. Per the feasibility studies AJM has a 14 year LOM and PLS a 15 year LOM, allowing for NPV calcs 1 extra year 15 year out is hardly going to make significant differneces when adding deferred CAPEX spending to cash costs for OPEX. AJM has a LOM strip ratio of 2.7:1 and PLS is 2.87:1 for year 1-5 and 3.47 LOM so AJM does not have a higher strip ratio. Add to this that AJM expect to have 83% recovery vs 76% recovery for PLS and that nullifies the majority of the grade difference. Now from here we have OPEX costs estimated a $300/t for AJM and $340/t for PLS. Last time I checked that makes AJM's estimate about 11% less than PLS not 30%. But if you read both FS's properly AJM's OPEX costs are net of tantalite credits, so the actual like comparison is $276/t for PLS vs $298/t for AJM, i.e AJM's costs are higher as expected and about the only thing in your post that wasn't bs or misinformation. And I am the one misleading people?