Originally posted by rastus2
Would love to go, but not an option.
To be frank, my burning question is if the original, Underground mining figures were really that good... why abandon them until clearing with the ASX that other data could be used..
Having established (quite late) that that data could not be used... why not revert to the underground mining figures.
My best guess is that they (the paid experts) thought they could get it through the ASX, and by the time they realized it was not going to fly, they were caught with their pants down and unable to simply pull the old figures and put in the document.
The smartest thing to do was assume the worst, and hope for the best.. ie. make one version of the SS with the old data, while running the 2nd version in the hope the ASX would allow it... unless the ASX decided to hog tie CLA and not let them revise their SS, rather redacting it instead.. it would have given CLA some egg on it's face, but not the entire dozen eggs...
A fantastic SS was desirable, a mediocre one far less so... the redacted version we have, quite undesirable indeed.
Id say the initial resource wouldn't be large enough from a size and LOM perspective to be deemed economical, given the orebody and it involving underground mining. Hence they felt they could go for the West too as that would then give them size, LOM and better and shallower grades to then make the whole project economical.
In tandem with that you now have the issue of autoclave vs roasting. The economics of which will no doubt from capex and opex perspective again depend on size of resource and LOM.
(20min delay)