On first impression I'm a bit underwhelmed by today's Reserves...

On first impression I'm a bit underwhelmed by today's Reserves and Mineral Resources update.

Nev Power says "today's report demonstrates that we have maintained our mine lives while sustainably lowering costs". But I just don't see the "sustainably lowering costs" bit.

The new magnetite ore, as I understand it, requires more handling to make (to concentrate) into a usable product, than does hematite. And that additional handling or processing has a cost. (And almost none of it is hooked up to rail infrastructure yet). So pointing at it and suggesting they have another 5.5billion tons of iron ore nearby, almost on standby as a ready reserve, seems a bit misleading.

In the section of the report headed Mine Scheduling it says -
"Mine scheduling is integrated across all FMG properties to maximise value...

(then)

"Scheduling aims to maintain the target blended ore quality and maximize NPV." (i.e. net present value). "In general terms this equates to deferring higher strip ratio, higher mining cost mineralisation until later in the collective scheduled mine life".

Okay to me this looks like selectively mining the better dirt. Exactly the criticism I've heard and read critics of FMG level at it. Mining your better dirt now makes the rest of your dirt more expensive to mine.

Now I don't really mind FMG doing a little of that selectively mining the good dirt, if they are up front about it.

What I do mind is that Nev Powers said (at top and on page 1) that this, "today's report demonstrates [blah, blah] ... while sustainably lowering costs" . It doesn't to my eye's, on my reading demonstrate any "sustainable lowered costs" at all. I am essentially left to take it on faith that costs will be sustainably lowered without a proof being provided in the report.

Where is my demonstration of "sustainably lowered costs" please Nevil?