Apart from terms, which you have cleared up in subsequent posts, the maths in this post stacks up too me and I get where you are coming from. I decided to see whether I could duplicate your production table and data to that table and basically got close enough - yes bored, late at night, VB in hand,posted now and felt like exercising the air cavity inside my head. For my own learning SF2TH have I understood the way you have done the calculations correctly???????:
1. The red cells are input cells and the rest is formula based.
2. Some minor rounding errors I suspect as when I sum some of the totals I get slightly higher sum outcomes - been totals at column 1, 5 and 6, albeit get identical numbers in terms of the rare earth conversions on each element. To get column 6, I simply used the red input cell of 374 instead of the sum total itself of 374.85 (making total liquor 374/90%), albeit I suspect I probably did some rounding error or not enterred a totally correct number in one of the cells in the decimal point stage (as get exact numbers in the other table below).
3. Presume your formulas are:
i. Column 2 outcomes is price at column 7/1000 * (column 1/1000)
ii. Column 5 outcomes is self explanatory been column 1 * column 4.
iii.) Column 6 outcomes appears to be column 5 item/374 *900
iv.) Column 8 outcomes is column 6/1000 * column 7/1000. The first green is a total and the second green * 75%.
v.) Is column 3 simply column 2 * 93.38%, as seem to get that result with this assumption, so interested how in the formula you derived the basket price or maybe I have outlined the wrong red vells as input cells?
vi.) Anyway, calcs seem to add up so in my own mind I think I now understand what you are doing, hopefully.
Also can see how you did the conversions:
Next post:Then came the latest post and I guess you are using the conversions in this Ann Post #:
47226461 to get to an oxide from head grade and the rest follows as above, except formula based, noting some input parameters have changed such as in column 1 and 4 and 7. Can see the first column slightly differs to the optimisation Ann of May 2020 which had 866 PPM - Post #:
44832646 - , so just wondering where that latest data is and I know not much difference to May Ann, if any. Just interested but there isn't much difference to state again.
I really appreciate all the posting you have done here btw and have learn't a bit as well. Pleasure to read even when not having a VB in hand, albeit did last night. Have learn't a bit here and just did these calcs so I can understand how you are converting data etc etc and seems good too me, and obviously not as good as yours as easier to try to understand calcs than research and form your own equations from scratch etc etc. I'll just go back into the background again and let you keep at it as you know REE far better than what I ever will btw. As I said appreciate all your efforts here.
Agree also that at this stage of the cycle your % of NPV as a SP would be less than 20%, given there in no SS at this stage. A PFS/DFS etc higher, especially if underpinned by binding offtakes. In time would also get a better understanding of tax regimes etc, as post tax cash flow is something best to look at in terms of %NPV as it flows through to SP and
in production EPS and P/E ratios which are based on nominal metrics etc etc, but even on a after tax basis profit can be significant, and the key element is the low capex cost here as well. Obviously with more exploration a detailed SS and PFS that price assumed % of NPV increases etc etc, but to reiterate in production SP moves to nominal metrics of EPS and P/E. Others may have a differing view of what that % may be, but better been conservative in approach and enjoy the benfit of upside and pleasant surprise if SP increases above the (NPV/shares on issue * 10% - 20% as a reflection) of current fair SP approach. Will be interesting what is in the SS and how close it is toyour numbers in due course as well as what discount rate is used, which I know we discussd a while ago too as well, but again appreciate all the work you have done here and have learnt quite a bit here.
Pretty sure I have not done things corectly but now getting the gist of how you are doing the calcs and the approach seems very very sound too me btw. Once again thanks for the efforts here and good to see the market is finally waking up here.
All IMO IMO