Pertinent market/industry news/articles, page-31

OK the whole price assumption use for the PFS discussion is getting a bit old (noted that it comments from CEO.ca) - reading CLQ's PFS it says the following re a 1.5Mtpa option. I.e CLQ decided not to use a lower ("conservative") throughput however used lower price assumptions.

7.3 1.5Mtpa Operation A smaller Project processing 1.5Mtpa of ore was considered to determine the impact on Project economics. An internal study was completed to estimate the capital and operating cost, as well as the Project metrics. Although the smaller scale project did provide for a somewhat lower up front capital development cost, the impact of economies of scale and the mostly fixed cost infrastructure requirements of the Project means that the NPV and IRR impact of those capital savings were more than offset by the negative revenue and operating cost impacts. As such, it was determined that a larger operation of 2.5Mtpa provides the best overall economic result and the 2.5Mtpa operation will be progressed into the Bankable Feasibility Study stage.

http://clients3.weblink.com.au/pdf/CLQ/01786208.pdf

Net/net I think that if the throughput and price assumptions were similar for both they would yield similar NPV/IRR results. I don't think we will have to wait too long till the 2.25Mtpa scoping study for the market to realise this.