2021 - The Year for EMH, page-257

@tsibis is correct to make the point regarding the PFS - it would be exceptional for a PFS to consider 'shifts' the way you suggest it does and include them in the calculations as a fundamental assumption without ever mentioning it. The company did not clarify this in the updated PFS or any official communication in the past few years, including even interviews (to my knowledge).

Given that the market primarily values us based on the standard, common interpretation of the PFS, it would be a capital mistake to not be very clear about this fact (and to do the PFS the way you suggest it was done in the first place). I can't believe this would happen.

I don't doubt that what you say is true in every detail, but it's also not substantial enough to not dismiss it. People can misspoke and misunderstand things, and it gets more distorted every time it is repeated.

Now, if you're factually correct, at this point that's practically gross misconduct by the BOD as a whole.