the BFS process is the issue. The issue is that they would have...

the BFS process is the issue. The issue is that they would have been advised that the input metrics are heading towards an unfeasible project. So it would be a waste of money to proceed to a bfs with that knowledge. So normally we get a ss, a pfs then dfs or bfs each reducing the variance of the numbers. Getting greater accuracy. The bfs is approximately 15 percent. The issue here is due to the post covid inflationary spike and the future uncertainty, the accuracy reverts to that of a scoping study as the variance is about 50 percent as he mentioned in the interview due to the the uncertainty of an unstable pricing. The group doing the feasibility will require greater degree of variance. This is the issue. This is the advise they would have received and hence it is counterproductive to do a bfs when one cannot get the high level of accuracy. That variance means it becomes impossible for funding to be obtained from banks as risk of unviablity has substantially increased. It will impact the loan facility. A cascading or domino impact then occurs which results in the oroject being to risky. So by default they have to wait and put the pause button. Investors will not like this and gence the response as hio is soley aligned eith this project.