feasibility study in context ...

I thought I'd have a look at the March quarterly released on 30th. April to get a better context for the feasibility released last week.

So here goes:

"Integra’s two primary objectives for the Feasibility Study are to:

1. Minimise the up-front capital cost of the project; and

2. Ensure that operational performance predicted by the Feasibility Study is ultimately achievable, such that actual performance will meet expectation."

Comment:
That is why the two gold deposits thoroughly drilled by IGR have been used. It is also why a lower initial production has been used - to minimise up front capital costs. There is currently a AUD560 difference between the cash costs and the AUD gold price.

"By keeping the up-front capital cost low, the Company aims to retire project debt rapidly and then, using
the strong revenue position, bring a series of other deposits into the production profile and extend debt free
mine life.

As additional deposits from Integra’s existing resources inventory are brought into the production schedule, mine-life is anticipated to extend to a point where it would be prudent to increase the processing capacity of the mill by installing the second ball mill. This expansion would be funded from cash flow and would take the production profile from 80,000 ounces per annum to over 110,000 ounces
per annum.

Fundamentally, the Feasibility Study is based on the “KISS” principle and, once the project is generating
strong cash flows on a debt free basis, the growth opportunities for the Company will be excellent.."

Comment:
The feasibility study and practise are two different entities. The feasibility study document is a document showing the financial viability of IGR's gold project based on just a couple of IGR's gold deposits.

IGR in practise definitely DOES NOT envisage having 10 years of gold production at the same level as indicated in the feasibility study as some people posting here seem to think!!