Thanks Amnisic. From that we can deduce a few things. Firstly,...

Thanks Amnisic.

From that we can deduce a few things. Firstly, they're down across the board - so the most likely assumption that would change this is the pricing.

Now the reduction in pricing is probably of the order of 35-40%, given that those are the smallest reduction from 2017 values. That'd imply a change in the assumed price from $2800 to about $1900.

However, especially for the 2011, that begs the question where the rest of the fall has come from.

I think the most likely explanation for this is that for the first 5 years of a plantation's life, they don't measure the trees for size, they just assume a 15.7kg yield per tree. It's only after 6 years that they measure the trees' diameters and compare that to their yield curve. So for the projects 2007-2010, the first number after they applied the model was 10.8kg/12/15.7/14.8 - only the 2009 vintage emerged unscathed in its first measured year, even if it was subsequently reduced to 13.3 the next year.

so if we assume the remainder of the reduction was due to yield, then that would imply that there had been a 30% reduction in yield assumption - so from 15.7kg to 11kg/tree.


If survival hasn't deteriorated (although yield and survival are basically two sides of same coin - total harvest = yield x survival) - then that would imply that the 2010 project has gone from 14.8kg yield to 13.4kg yield assumption.

Since the last project they've measured for yield is the 2011 project, they won't have changed the yield assumptions on the 2012 or 2013 projects. So that just leaves survival. 2012's reduction is explained by the pricing so that doesn't look to have deteriorated - so steady at 89%. However the 2013 project appears to have dropped another 7% - so that would imply a survival rate down from 90% to about 84%.

So the conclusions from all this? Quite apart from the pricing assumptions, QIN still have silvicultural issues as well, whilst plugging in these assumptions to the QIN corporate accounts would render it worthless.

Glaucus stand vindicated. Again.