Pre Scoping Study and General Thoughts, page-29

I think there's no need to be already too concrete at this time regarding the size of operation.

Show the different scenarios and ask afterwards customers, financial backers, Namibian administration and the local community which scenario they'll support would be the better approach imo.

Even more our management have give sooner or later an answer if we march alone or if we strive for a common operation with Namibian Critical Metals. I guess our top shareholder Gecko will prefer the second scenario. But i'm not sure if the time has already come to fix the future approach.

In relation to communication it's important not to mix base case and expansion steps in one NPR result. The result of such a growing strategy expressed in one figures will for sure look bad, cause the "harvest" of the expansion step is too far away from discounting starting point and in consequence it will only have a minor NPV impact 

The better approach is to show a base case NPV and an expansion step NPV in two different calculations. You have the same problem if you show the switch from open pit mining to underground mining in one NPV calculation.

So as a result with our expansion potential and the mix between open-pit & underground mining, it's a bit tricky to show the financial potential of Opuwo in a SS or Feas Study. Too much figures and scenarios could confuse the market, too little figures/scenarios also.

But i have trust into Brendan that he'll find a good middle way.

Interesting days ahead.of us....