If the capital costs forecast are QS based, they will be...

If the capital costs forecast are QS based, they will be conservative and there will be inbuilt contingency in their assumptions, excluding an explicit contingency in the budget build up. Currently all QS's and anyone else in their right mind, will be adding higher escalation costs to any feasibility work due to supply constraint issues and inherent likelihood of cost increases (whether they are actually realised is another matter). The latest explanation, or more appropriately clarification of the SS (should have been included in the original announcement) provides me with more confidence that they are investing for the long term. If not, the future capital costs would be escalated even more and everyone complains, probably with justification. Mining is speculative by nature, but NVA are continuing to prove up the quantity of gold, and probably, if we believe what we are seeing, there is a lot more to come. A sensible decision, but poorly communicated. I think they are just trying to meet the obligations they have made in getting the SS out in February! its a bit of a no win either way.
my suggestion to the nay sayers is simple, DYOR, If you don't like what you see sell, if not stay in for the ride. The stock market is a highly volatile place to invest. Day traders can make money (i know a few who have left the market due to the digitalization, major funds using data analytics and more sophisticated charting, and major funds mandates that need to meet overarching investor mandates that have made their life even more complex than before), but take the long view.
just thoughts.
BTW, stiil interested to see the long term holders and have not seen any evidence of their selling down? anyone provide any insights?