My point about the cost per km relates to the Capex cost for...

My point about the cost per km relates to the Capex cost for the Ovoot – Arts Suuri extension coming in at $32.1M over the upper range estimate for that particular stretch of track in the 2015 study. The cost per km range of the 2015 study was based on both Ovoot - Arts Suuri - Kyzyl sets of track, as opposed to the sole stretch of Ovoot – Arts Suuri track. If they were within the per km range for the Ovoot - Arts Suur track as per the 2015 study, they would not exceed their Capex estimates for Ovoot – Arts Suuri by ~$32M.

I know its chump change in the grand scheme, I just thought the guys at AKM would be a bit more upfront and transparent about the marginal increase in Capex for that stretch of track - especially given they are not in a position to provide confirmation on the PEA for Arts Suuri - Kyzyl stretch of rail just yet. They must be very confident.

My point about toning it down is because the 2016 report being used to support this claim is out of date and provides no evidence. In fact, all evidence suggests the quickest most cost effective way to link Northern China to Europe, will be to send it to Urumqi over 200km/h of deomestic track, then onto Almaty and Tehran at over 120km/h without any gauge switch. I'm only being fussy about the spurious European fastest and most cost effective claims.

You make a great point about the debt. Which is why I'm more than a bit curious why the Chinese and Russian governments haven't already committed funds form the RCIF already. The whole rail extension from Ovoot – Arts Suuri seems a no-brainer for Russia / China, and they have all but completed the Amur bridge link. I suspect they want private banks to stump up...and private banks will need more than a Capex cost as the basis of economic viability.

All good discussion.