Comparison of BGS to peers extremely favourable, page-97

I want everyone to read what I have detailed below very carefully. Without knowing it, Thunder has demonstrated even after the PFS figures just how robust BGS is.

Lets look at a table THUNDER posted recently i.e. yesterday on TAW. Guess which stock Thunder owns lol:


Firstly let me say that this looks remarkably similar to the very analysis you are criticising me on.

Firstly you ASSUME TAW will have an upgrade whilst other companies do not.

You use a consistent price for all projects which I like.

But again let's look at your take on BGS. This I find hilarious. Predictably you have elected to go with BGS's lowest possible production plant, the 1mtpa.

And what do you know. You have said that a 1mtpa plant for BGS has a NPV of $339mil.

I will repeat that: after attacking me and accusing me of ramping BGS, your NPV comparison allocates an NPV figure for BGS that is 139million more than what I have stated. For a 1mtpa plant. I think it is quite clear that we have capacity to build 2mtpa easily and the resource to back it up.

So put in a 2mtpa plant for BGS and viola - NPV of $680million. Oh and our MC is currently ~60million, not 73million.

60/680 = 8.8% MC to NPV. All we need to do is build the 2mtpa plant and upgrade the resource to at least 50mt of indicated resource. Very achievable.

So 8.8% to 32% after both companies have upgraded their resource?

Thankyou for your advice Thunder, so let me share some with you:

Often those that criticise others reveal what he himself lacks.