Another comparison..., page-4

Early1,
My understanding is that the $76m capex was what was required on top of the Mt Garnet mill acquisition. Please correct me if I'm wrong. In that case, you cannot ignore the acquisition and cannot use the number of shares as 250.6m

The comparison you are making, adjusted for the higher number of shares, would still be compelling, and of course the acquisition brings many other assets that complicate such a comparison that would give additional benefits.

For the benefit of those new to this thread, or less knowledgeable on the current/proposed structure, I think it would be wise to highlight any major drawbacks or omissions in your comparisons.
Cheers
Pecs

PS: I'm glad that everyone has been smoking the peace pipe!