The only problem here with research, Hong Fang, is that the risk...

The only problem here with research, Hong Fang, is that the risk assessment that you and chuk share has been based on static information, while risk is a dynamic concept that evolves through time and becomes clearer as events keep happening.

Take this as an example: "simple/ straightforward plant design and operation". In September, the smiley man was still assertive that the plant would still be completed in November, when there were increasing doubts from SHs (myself included) that it wouldn't be. The previous contractor was terminated due to breach of contract, and it's very likely that the breach occurred very close to when he said the plant would be completed in November (because the contractor was terminated in November!). If the plant design is simple, does that mean the fact that they couldn't choose an contractor that could finish the work on time mean only 1 of those two things: they sucked at managing the plant design and construction, and/or the plant design and constructionn is NOT straightforward/simple as previously thought? Come on, at least one of these two, if not both, must be correct. You cannot be this late when trying to deliver something that you made everyone believe simple/straightforward. You just can't make your case convincing.

Second, small cap ex compared to NPV. Sure, then how on earth has finance been such a mess and not been a smooth and clinical finish? Terms keep changing from one to another, 25m originally agreed funding scrapped for a small piece of 14m (not even the full amount) from idc? Why all the ifdc world bank didn't throw out a "small change" to this poor little MNB that has been trying to save the whole country of Angola?

This is what static information (i.e. info that has been spoon fed to us a while ago) fails to explain. You then try to explain with a dynamic risk assessment hat on by reading what has actually happened, not what has been said.