First retort that I would like to make is that the capital...

First retort that I would like to make is that the capital structure has radically changed in this Update. The DFS was based on the process plant being constructed under an EPCM model. This has been replaced with the EPM model with a guaranteed maximum price. And the ore mining and transport in the DFS was owner operated. This has been replaced with a contractor based system for the per strip and first three years of mining. I consider these significant risk mitigation plays and worthy of increased capital costs.
The second retort has to do with your comment on risk. There are many de-risking strategies, both new and updated, woven into this Update. The risk issue you quote (PNG), in my opinion, has been considerably down graded with the restructuring of the board and management team. Bringing on board the Simberi experience of Tim Richards as CEO (and now key personal such as Susan Scheepers and Basil Bulkua) is a master stroke. And adding Sir Charles Lepani to the board as a non- executive director just adds another layer of political risk mitigation.
Mitigating risk comes with a price. Would expect that there’s not much more risk that can be mitigated out of this project so I think this is a pretty comprehensive and accurate document on costs. Taking into account the de-risking strategies, the incredibly low strip ratio (especially in the first two years), the basement low ASIC (especially in the first two years), the 600k inferred resource sitting just below the pit shells just waiting to be upgraded to reserve with extra drilling, the unusually shallow pit depths (half the depth of comparable million oz reserve pits), the highly prospective near pit extensions and discoveries as well as proven regional prospects, the A$86 mil market cap, in my opinion the risk/reward ratio is solidly skewed to the reward side.