Ann: Bankable Feasibility Study Activity Slowed, page-339

I feel there may be other issues with the 20mt option that aren’t exactly being communicated that have recently surfaced.

Things like the obstacles relating to tailing dam that’s previously been raised by consultants in the report as a risk. Or perhaps the pipeline.

What I can say is, cost of materials and construction have not gone up x2 or x3 in 12 months (rates).

I’m in the industry and we often split cost blow-outs by “scope” and “rates”. We do sensitivities to understand movements in rates and what the metrics would look like under different rate scenarios.

Scope movements on the other hand, you cannot budge on. They are often mandatory. If the scope needs to shift from an engineering perspective, that’s a direct hit to the feaso.

We offer further split scope movements between discretionary and non-discretionary. eg a discretionary item mgmt would have to reduce costs really would be its position on the added costs associated with its sustainability initiatives. This isn’t inline with where they want to be or offtaker preferences.

What’s clear is, management have intentionally and deliberately put out an announcement to cause such a panicked market reaction. They could’ve quite easily put out an announcement that talks to the 10mt option being back on the table and that a dual optioned BFS would be completed by the following qtr. The same way they removed it as an option earlier in the year, It could’ve just brought it back in

imo
sache