Thanks for your feedback. I think you've found something worth...

Thanks for your feedback. I think you've found something worth updating for. I will update in a below post, but just some notes/comments.

• Depreciation like I mentioned I wasn't sure on how it's treated, at the end of the day though, the only number key to me is FCF. One thing to note is, for the company, it is best to depreciate rapidly for tax gains earlier, as cashflows in years earlier are worth more than later. Of course this has an unfavorable impact on NPAT in earlier years.

• Depreciation is just accounting term after all, and also what isn't considered in this simple model is the sustaining Capex will also feed into depreciation in years later (as part of DA). It's already considered in the FCF on the bottom though.

As for Opex:

• Part of the reason OPEX is higher though is due to the 10% i've added. The opex cost I'm using is from the 120ktpa study, which would have efficiencies driven by the larger scale and debottlenecked nature of the plant, so i've added 10% on that for the base case.

• Thanks for the note on Corporate Costs, I used their guidance note from the BFS...

• But, you're right in noting they seemed to have varied their definition in their 120ktpa study.

Note on EBITDA:

• The study gives a misleading number for EBITDA. It uses the average LOM Nominal EBITDA. People often make the mistake of thinking this is the number from the day the mine starts. This is not the case. Consider the below example.

A company in 2020 did 30M EBITDA.

A company in 2070 (assuming costs and prices received inflate at same rate of 2%) will have a nominal EBITDA in 2070 of 30M x 1.02^50 = 80M.

Giving a LOM average EBITDA in such a case would give ~55M, but the more realistic EBITDA at mine completion is 30M AUD. Nominal values are always calculated to current year, and not adjusted for inflation.

Likewise the same thing is happening with KLL's Nominal EBITDA average of 70M. This isn't anything nefarious by KLL, but just something which can be confusing when using nominal and real values.