That's a good start but it isn't risked and it isn't broadly how...

That's a good start but it isn't risked and it isn't broadly how the market works on pre cashflows

most aren't even valued on an npv basis at bfs stage bc the uncertainties are so great esp the owners cost capex

as a result it's an ivory tower = misleading

yes adt was self evidently a superior project to all the others - it was the 1 in 100 projects I mentioned in my last posts in early Jan

the pm/base relativity I mentioned was from some months ago. During which time PM soared and base have based. The point remains bc it was true then and remains so today.

I'm not at a pc so I'll try to be brief

- agree. At point bml ag oz is valued in line with peers then the obvious short term value gap is closed
- volatility of income. Silver primaries are widowmakers and ours are low grade. If you assume usd100+ silver for 10+ years your conclusions would have force.

but between now and if that time ever arises - anyone who thinks bml's project will be less viable than say Ivr's is operating in an alternative reality

I will also point out yet again what I've said prior - any of the proposed aussie silver primaries would need to hedge a large fraction of silver bc of silver's wild volatility

bml could - if they choose - hedge a portion of the low vol lead to meet finance risk and leave its silver 100% unhedged. Thats what I would be looking at personally. Though it's not how some of my mining colleagues would approach it.

so it could get 100% revenue optionality from Ag price delta - when others would only get possibky less than 60%

You also need to consider metallurgy. Lead silvers are generally highly dependable in their silver recoveries. Silver primaries are not. And even where they are the recovery fraction is typically much lower

there's more.

but it's Saturday