WAF V GRY, page-66

WAF resource numbers are in indicated and very low grade. Cant convert Indicated to proven for feasibility study or finance.
Also cost of production looks way to low. Numbers look very shaky when you take into account the statement Strongly Oxidised Material is expected to be free dig. Pffft How many times has that been stated and turn around and bite miners.
Also the 50 month mine life time frame wont take into account problems to be sorted that pop up while mining, These usually include unexpected water, drill and blast issues (problems with bulk explosives, training the local workforce, higher powder factors needed than predicted, contractor claiming $ variations for ground conditions when what that actually means is they are shit at DB and blame everything on the mine) The schedule will most likely be based on starting the mine on time and achieving the predicted production schedule, Pffft highly unlikely in Africa. Expect cost blow out there.
Also stated that numbers are worked out on expected paddock blasting, big alarm bells ringing, expected big risk to production costs.

The WAF PFS has only got very shaking input numbers and very broad best case assumptions on mining for their massively positive claim of production costs. I'm calling it - FLUFF CITY

To WAF shareholders, please don't take the above opinions as fact, just my opinion and subject to many flaws.

71