Share
1,517 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 116
clock Created with Sketch.
17/10/18
18:14
Share
Originally posted by BkrDzn
↑
It is a slide they have put in presos since June when their peers flagged in their own feasibility updates higher production rates than what ATC initially flagged. ATC management again tailoring their presos/whinges to what others are doing rather than focusing on what they need to do. It seems silly that for them to clarify what conservative assumptions are in their own DFS only when peer companies state they will do higher tonnes from the get go.
Question is, was the DFS based on the testwork metrics then scaled down for "conservatism" (i.e. just a change in the EXCEL model INPUTS) thus the plant CAN actually operate at those levels and output of 6ktpa. The cynic in me says that given use of the word possibility, it may not be so clear cut if this is the case. At least the peers have built studies based on the actual met work leaving it up to the investors to work out if the met results are sound and work back from there. ATC took the opposite route of calming one "nameplate" production level to then go and promise it should run up to 33% over "nameplate" in what is most likely some vain attempt to not be outdone by peers.
A big part of investing is assessing management, something I have questioned before on ATC long before I invested elsewhere in the HPA space, and they are not proving to be emotionally intelligent or forth-straight with investors as they appeared.
Expand
Bakers, you’re becoming quite a regular here now. Always good to hear contrarian views and analysis, albeit laced with a sprinkling of bias. If you wouldn’t mind, tell me, what is the estimated CAPEX to fund FYI to production, what discussions have currently been undertaken with financiers, and who are said financiers?
Cheers.