What gbbs analysis fails to include or got wrong is the...

What gbbs analysis fails to include or got wrong is the following:
Greenland has 5 hydro power plants for the countries use.
Efforts were undertaken by a company EFLA Consulting Engineers for North American Nickel Receives in 2018 (not 2016) to look at hydrpower generation at their project in Maniitsoq
It added another 100million in CAPEX
I understand the Capex demand was too high. As you can see this would add 25% to GGGs capital that would be required to raise at financing.
This places undue stress on the financial cost to the operations establishment.
Much more efficient to construct the mine and pay down finance (in 2 years)and once in a more favourable economic position pursue further investment into a hydro-plant and therein reap further cost reduction for the longer term to produce even further under $4/kg. While simply paying off the plant from profit in another 6 months.
I think this was a brilliant move if you think through what matters and what matters is getting the project operating at first before adding the bells and whistles..
This is why I am confident with less than $4/kg production cost being attainable. Because in time GGG has further tricks up its sleeve to drop that low cost even more.... for the entire lifetime of the project.