I'm also only talking about ASN. A misuse of "revenue" though, I...

I'm also only talking about ASN. A misuse of "revenue" though, I agree. But to be fair, in the interview, when asked about revenue, Bruce specifically said $20M for the first two years. But you're correct it's actually $20M of operating income from ASN for the first couple of years. That doesn't change the math though. $20M of operating income at the project level for ASN minus corporate overhead (not factored into a project level BFS). So what does that equate to on EBITDA for 2024 and 2025? $15M, $16M, maybe $17M?

And what valuation do you put on 2024 EBITDA of $15M-$17M? When I looked at producers they typically trade in the mid-to-high single digits on valuation.

What I'm looking for here is someone to show me where I'm wrong with this analysis. I'd love nothing more than to get back into VRX. I get it, the semantics were off. There's a POSSIBILITY VRX could demand a higher valuation than it's industry, but I've yet to see examples of this. And I personally can't base a thesis on the hope VRX will command an above industry valuation.

Again, you can look back, I've been consistently bullish on VRX for the last 1-2 years, and have periodically provided this type of analysis to the positive side. Many of us here thought that ASN would go straight to 2mtpa, for a variety of reasons. And under those conditions the near-term upside was very large. However, now we have confirmation that Bruce still plans to run ASN at 1mtpa for the first few years. We also know he doesn't expect Muchea to come online until year 3 of production at ASN (i.e. 2026). At the rate and pacing the upside over the near term is far more limited, based on the numbers I've taken from both Bruce and the BFS.