T4P...in summary my assumptions, in no particular order. I realise these figures may be considered arbitrary, but they are the assumptions and data I have used.
I have only found an oversight in my calculations and it related to spread sheet calculation errors 9my doing). In rectifying this the value of the gold increased significantly but not a lot of diference to the final IGV sp due to the extensive discounting applied. Also the Cu value of Catabola increased due to T/lb conversion error. I am now certain I have alleviated all spreadsheet errors and the final figures are corrrect based on the data I have used.
I now have an sp of AUD$0.68 at 5%IGV and AUD$1.36 at 10%IGV.
Bankers, as we all know, will use the lowest possible denominator for BFS funding analysis to incorporate what they would term "acceptable" risk mitigation. This has no factual basis or bearing on what will actually be mined in reality unless there is a "black swan" event.
My assumptions:
Current sp of $0.16 Shares on Issue 534,584,298 Mkt Cap $85,533,487.68 40.5% ownership of Fortitude. Discounted resources according to percentage of ownership of each lease, as per last reports. I made no reference to the PWC assumptions in my calculations. Au price of USD$890 (source Kitco Gold) Cu price of 3.845 lb (source LME and Kitco base metals) Exchange rate of AUD/USD$0.90 Discounted rates of 10% and 5% to allow for all mine/process/operating costs to arrive at the IGV per/share.
I have sourced the following data for the calculations: Cachoeiras de Binga - 51,000,000Mt at 2.14% Cu for 1,091,400T Catabola - 20,000,000Mt at 2.00%Cu for 400,000T Zenza/Dondo - 10,000,000Mt at 2.00%Cu for 200,000T Benguela - 15,000,000Mt at 1.50%Cu for 225,000T Benguela SW - 10,000,000Mt 1.50%Cu 150,000 Bentiable - 10,000,000Mt 1.50%Cu 150,000
The following arbitrary data I have also included but I am yet to confirm (input appreciated to the contrary or otherwise). Remove this data and it reduces the sp by $0.04 at 5%IGV so not a huge difference.
