SP, page-46

PFS was +/- 20%. That is better than most. GC has said he wants a +/-10% DFS, that will be better than most in sector.

I think the biggest challenge and opportunity will be producing a revised financial model that is honest yet far more impressive when compared to sector peers.

As it stands the EBITDA isn't any better than most of the smaller projects and is blown away by the revised AMN DFS. LD has the lowest NPV in the sector. We know some of the reasons why and GC has worked hard to get this message across. But how far do investors dig for detail? If for example they compare APC & RWD they must surely smell a rat and pick up the SOP pricing and exchange rates??

If it isn't bankable or potentially bankable are the professional analysts interested? GC has tried to sell the message that the PFS is less than 10% of the resource but if the other 90% isn't yet proven to be economic is anyone listening? Without bore data the other 90% is of no use in the DFS. And any discussion about re-negotiating the the exclusion zone is also off limits.
The LD financial model unlike some other projects doesn't involve bleeding the resource dry but this may not be obvious to everyone. I think we can at least hope for an increased mine life and/or increased output. This should bump up the numbers.

PKN in a post above talked about LD justifying the capital cost. As it stands the PFS is profitable but the profit doesn't reflect the quality of the resource. Partly because the operating costs are on the WA higher side and partly because the true potential of the resource isn't completely reflected in the models. If this ends looking significantly better than the 4 smaller peers and some way towards matching AMN I will be much happier.