Ann: Cleansing Statement, page-29

I think that’s where you show the limits of your understanding how mining actually works. You can’t just say because of the terrain and location comparatives can not be made. They adapt to the in country conditions, and machinery/equipment is also adaptive. For example operating at different temperatures doesn’t preclude people from making comparatives. They just use different oils and hydraulic fluids to get around the changed environment.

The points you make whilst exist, become irrelevant because that’s the point of a PFS and DFS. All of these challenges are factored in and you arrive at a AISC and upfront CAPEX, which means you can now make comparatives. There’s 1 main difference I see between DEG and NVA. That’s grade of resource, which will all change once RPM results are released and a revised MRE is done. They have a similar upfront CAPEX, once the revised SS is released I’m expecting a fairly close IRR to DEG, probably slightly less, but much closer all the same.

As a general rule you could make a comparative about mining jurisdictions, sovereign risks etc but both countries are in a tier 1 location. You seem to just ignore the fact they’ve been mining in Alaska for a very long time. These types of challenges have been overcome before - and are factored into the AISC so investors can make comparatives between peers.