Ann: Little Eva Definitive Feasibility Study Cost, page-9

re: Ann: Little Eva Definitive Feasibility St... It comes back to grade again. Finland has always been the more profitable deposit, even going all the way back to the time of the merger, despite it being much smaller. Even though the costs associated with underground mining are going to be higher than a shallow open-cut mine, the Cu grade is 2.5 times higher in Finland, and the gold credits are much higher too.

The end result is that the IRR of Finland is much better (at least on paper), because even though the capital cost per tonne of contained copper is high, you more than make it back by the fact you get 2.5 times more copper per tonne of ore mined.

It also means Finland is less sensitive to copper price fluctuations, because its margins are higher. At Roseby the margin is smaller and the cash flow is achieved by large volumes at a small margin, rather than smaller volumes at a larger margin.

So if your margin shrinks, a large volume times zero margin is still zero profit.

think we need to see the CYU resource exploration as part of the projects economics. Drilling should start next Qtr at Roseby Sth.

I'm not sure Roseby South will really add to the economics of Little Eva. It's a long way away and Little Eva will be a standalone project. Unless Roseby South can find a small but high grade deposit (Ivy Ann style) it probably won't be worth trucking it to Little Eva. I guess we will have to wait and see.

I hope we drill Turkey Creek soon. I don't know why AC said he could make a resource calculation from the limited drilling that was done.

Me too. I don't like to see Finland's meagre profits frittered away on Roseby as a rule, but I'll make an exception for Turkey Creek.

Of course, that will require ANOTHER revision to the DFS - a proper one this time, not just a cost revision. So that will be more money down the drain.