While I am still bullish on CLA, I have to say I, like manyhere, am disappointed in the SS for lack of financial information. I have personally been involved in the preparationof recent SS, PFS and FS economics. Whileit is possible that the ASX has acted to not allow CLA to provide the financialnumbers, I do not really buy that and based on what I know, I cannot place the blameon them without more information that I will not have. I believe it was more a case of CLA just not wanting to provide the numbers. There were sufficient resources here for an underground mine plan in the indicated category that they did not even need the inferred to make a mine. Most SS that Ihave been involved with and seen have also provided numbers. They have them and they clearly state that theopex and capex are plus or minus 40% so that is clear to investors. They have differentoptions they are looking at, so what? They can also provide a range of numbers for the options that they areconsidering. Investors know that these arehigh level numbers at this point. Yes,they are technically correct that basically the SS is to provide a go or no goto the next phase. They clearly statedthat this is a go to the PFS. Noproblem, I believe that and think this will ultimately be a winner. Inever really believed the low-end capex numbers that were presented in some of thesespreadsheets on HC. I think for aproject of this potential magnitude that the CAPEX will be higher than othershave talked about here. Some have claimedthat the leaching and autoclave will be less, but CLA has chosen the roasterfor the SS and says it is less. It probablyis, but together with everything else, the capex is also probably higher than the low-end numbers posted in HC. Also, mining capex and maybe opex will bemore here as they have chosen to go underground initially. The upper stuff is too oxidized for good recoveriesso best to go underground but the capex will be more for UG development. There are maybe opportunities for the West SideStory that things can get better. Maybesurface mining there, maybe different processing. All TBD over the next severalmonths. Allin all, IMO, this is a bit disappointing in the information provided. They state that the SS was “completed at agreater level of detail than a traditional scoping study …”. If this was the case, lessor prepared SS studiesprovide more financial numbers within a range and why could they not haveprovided these with a greater detail SS? Also,they state they have a schedule but they do not provide it. Most SS provide a schedule. The 3-year schedule for UG development isunderstandable, but now longer to the point of production than with surfacemining. A time line showing the projectto production would have been nice, but maybe they did not want to show thatand only make a reference to the UG development. The basic concept is OK and there is upsideno doubt coming. A waiting game. Not badnews, but little to make an impact on the SP right now, IMO and I expected morefrom a SS after 4 months waiting.
Expand
(20min delay)
