Ann: Makuutu Scoping Study Webinar, page-83

I've made comments in previous post regarding their presentations. But also found discrepancies. i'm more inclined to assume the cash costs presented in the Biol presentations are a mined/t cash cost as opposed to processed tonne.


They do have a much better recovery rate which means they capture more materially through the flowsheet, which means to produce the 1000tpa out the backend they can design a smaller front end. Thus process less tonnes/mine less tonnes.

I'm also assuming that their initial capital of 40M USD was therefore a similar strategy to IXR. Funding the remaining capital for expansion through operation. But it does seem a lot less. Irrespective., hothschild is currently finalised a PFS for the biolantanidos project which i recall is due next quarter if memory serves right.

Without going over too much old ground i think i answer this question here. Post #:48562067.
"I explain my thought regarding NPV in Post #:47711645 specifically comparing to Biolantanidos in Post #:46047146 and then clarifying why i had applied higher opex cost in Post #:47922593.

^note some of these figure won't be that relevant but should link back to sources for info as well.

Post #:50037319 relates to economics. I landed pretty close in terms of margin on the SS, but admittedly underestimate the AISC verse opex cost. I also was low on the revenue so it balanced out.
Post #:47868809 here is the detailed breakdown to determine cost per mined/t.

Take all with grains of salt as is just my opinions and calculations which were attempted in the months/years prior to the SS. Some of this may no longer be applicable.

SF2TH