Regarding CE response concerning timeframes (see point 4) - how...

Regarding CE response concerning timeframes (see point 4) - how far back do we want to go to see how reliable CE statements have been?

For example: 13 January 2022 (see Copper News with quotes attributed to CE) available on HOT CHILI WEBSITE at:
https://www.hotchili.net.au/hot-chili-targets-costa-fuego-resource-and-pfs-in-2022/

“We’re aiming for a multi decade project that’s going to put out 100,000 tonnes per year of copper and 70,000-80,000 ounces of gold. If we can add another asset of the scale into it, it’s not inconceivable that this year we’ll answer the question of whether is this a 150,000tpy copper project over 20 to 30 years? That’s what Glencoe wants us to answer quite quickly, before we move into feasibility so we have given our exploration team 22,000m to drill 12 large-scale targets in a short period of time,” said Easterday.

Question for CE - were those drill targets also considered 'low-hanging fruit' at the time???The EIA is about 85% on Cortadera and will now tie-in Productura into Costa Fuego, which are expected to be complete by year end for submission in early 2023. “We’re looking to be at the development decision at the end of 2024,” he said.

Question for CE - in barely two years your decision to mine has increased by two years - is that not considered a change in timeframe?