Ann: Quarterly Activities and Cashflow Report 30 June 2018, page-3

Don't know if this will make any explanation, but example could be TAW.

Mark Calderwood decided to go with mining when official LOM was only 2 years and the same question was raised.
TAW now extend LOM to 9 years and frankly speaking we do not know what BP 33 and the rest will deliver in the future. Perhaps additional 10 years or less.

The bottom line is payback time, getting prepayment from off takers ( as getting loans is almost impossible) and get quickly profit from operation.

The managers of mining companies have 2 choices.
Spend millions over few years on drilling to get 10 + years LOM which is associated with dozens of CR's ( creating huge dilution ) and get on with mining not knowing when market will become saturated with number of incoming producers or increase production from current supplies
OR
Secure off take with prepayments, get on with mining ASAP and get what is the king in any business - regular cashflow and profit.

I rather see CXO getting with mining in 2019 (with 12 months payback) even with 5 years LOM creating healthy bank balance and (if lithium crush ) have nice funds to progress to uranium or go into different metals than doing CR's for the next couple of years until we get to at 10 years LOM. If you remember IO boom then you understand what I am talking about.

Decision by management to start mining in 16 months, securing 1 large off taker and perhaps second with prepayment, possibility of increasing lithium tonnage are the main reasons why I pump funds into CXO rather than chasing other promising explorer.
But this is IMO and I have no intention of convincing anyone just sharing my view.

Two years ago I invested inTAW and was over the moon when they decided to go mining and now (right or wrong) can see similar pathway by CXO.

TAW is delivering me handsome return so far and hope that in 2 years CXO will do the same.