Sorry but your cost interpretation makes no sense. I have read the Copler costs section of the feasibility study in detail as I used to hold Alacer shares. If you're saying that they amortise the capex over life of mine ounces that is the All-In-Cost (AIC) not the All-in-Sustaining-Cost (AISC).
View attachment 2307705View attachment 2307708A 5% discount rate for a project without reserves, without even the scale of resources and with refractory ore is not justified in my view.
Chipshuffler, this refers to the treatment of a concentrate rather than the whole of ore. They're saying that instead of a 2.2Mtpa plant that Copler had for POX they might be able to get away with say 500-750ktpa because it is only 10% of the mass after concentration. I had a different guess of the process plant size so thought ~4Mtpa was more likely, and a ~400ktpa POX plant.
As
@Blythefan pointed out the capex costs for a plant 10-20% size plant do not scale linearly, far from it. Check out the below link from a company that has built a POX plant for concentrate treatment of similar scale to what might be possible for De Grey (if they find a lot more ore). I consider this to be the best recent example of a comparison project rather than using Copler. Separating out the overall cost of the POX plant only at Copler is a bit unclear but I think you're looking at around US$400M. So the Petropavlovsk plant was 20% of the size but still cost 75% of Copler.
That Argoanut report is really poor the more I think about it.
View attachment 2307675https://www.petropavlovsk.net/wp-content/uploads/2019/09/POX-CMD-and-H1-2019-results.pdf
