I think we are splitting hairs at this point. Get that to better...

I think we are splitting hairs at this point. Get that to better match the company's updated BFS NPV10 and we will be talking much the same language.

imo you've rear loaded the cashflow too much and hence too heavily discounted much of the cashflow. So, while your initiative to match the BFS cashflow over the life of the project is a correct approach, unnecessarily back-end loading that will decrease the NPV. Yes, they ramp up but won't incrementally increase each year over the last 15-20 years. They will reach their production level within a few years. I think you can model fairly stable production and cashflow after three or four years and that will deal to much of the difference.

gearing makes little difference to the NPV but I agree the longer it takes to ramp up to full production and hence the longer the company is paying interest, then the more impactful borrowing will be on the NPV

Arrowsmith North in itself is a profitable project which will justify a very good rise in share price over time. And, as you have acknowledged, the other projects deliver four times that, or more, given their scale and the better Muchea sand grade. As a long-term investment and assuming approvals and the expected ongoing market, there is potential for a very large long-term upside. And assumptions and uncertainty on that and on management performance are always factors.

More upside is possible from improvement in sand prices above the conservative numbers in the BFS.