kzl risk reward, page-2

Hi gself, always appreciate your balanced comments.
Regarding below comment you made-

"Remember it will be approx $150m just to sink a decline then they can carry on drilling from underground as it was to expensive to do it from the surface, so they abandoned it until the decline goes in, i think from memory they told us it was costing one million dollars a hole to drill from the surface, so if you are infill drilling it would cost heaps, might as well sink a decline that can be used to access the ore body for less money than infill drilling from surface."

I have serious doubts that the decline would be going in for the sole purpose of further exploratory drilling too.

Considering estimates of costs are nearly always less than the reality(ie. $150m for the decline), at $1m a hole- that's "at least" another 150 surface holes that would go a long way to proving definitely whether or not the deposit is economically mineable - BEFORE they start an expensive decline that may later prove to have no use?

Putting in the decline for drilling will be only the start, and then they still have to drill AND extend the decline to keep on drilling further along the resource?

What I mean is, if the PFS leads them to put in a decline, it won't be just to drill exploratory holes - it will be in order so they can commence production when they determine from further underground drilling the best way forward.

That is, if a decision is made for the decline to go in, it means they are reasonably sure the deposit is economically viable, otherwise, that's a lot of money, work AND importantly, time, just to allow them to drill further exploratory holes that could have been done far more easily from the surface and in a fraction of the time?

The decline will be the signal needed by the market that AB will go ahead, and that signal could come in the next couple of months. That's how I look at it- so far anyway!