Plus also the following:Load studies for power supply, and...

Plus also the following:

• Load studies for power supply, and suitability studies of the HV infrastructure (switchyards/substations/protection/earthing/transformers),
• Waste management studies (for both process waste, process chemicals, as well as backfill handling),
• Life of mine and mine closure studies,
• Restart of the EIA process concerning the new location AND the new transport corridor impacts,
• Material handling studies and laydown/staging areas planning,
• Rail infrastructure condition assessments and suitability/upgrade path to support the project,
• Logistics / transportation studies around increased usage/demand on the network and associated impacts,
• Labour / Resourcing studies.

Development of late-stage feasibility studies (BFS/DFS) ain't no 'high-level' work. All the existing DFS packages of the already developed study will need to be reconsidered as well as the new packages/studies mentioned above. EMH already stated that the DFS study comprised of two studies: processing facilities & mine design, together amounting to more than 10,000 pages.

Can you imagine revisiting 10,000 pages worth of technical text to redevelope/revise all the interactions, scope packaging, scope dependencies, reevaluating risk in workshops and construction sequencing - that is no simple feat. EMH will either result with producing an undercooked DFS or will end up with major delays, pick one.

@Fingers xed I think any position of optimism should be reconsidered, it is great that the Prunerov has been chosen, it is great that CRMA is becoming more mature, however both of these developments introduce delays as EMH wants to 'make the cake and eat it too'. If they Cinovec would have been producing by now.