Just to tack onto the back of this as well with some philosophical views regarding the S/P.
There's often 2 congruent discussion which I see occurring across commodity projects and often the 2 conversations get merged.
1) Project viability
2) The S/P performance
These are fairly mutually exclusive, meaning they don't often/always move in conjunction to each other or if at all.
In regards to project viability, there's usually not much within an investors control to impact this. (Unless your someone who works in the industry and can genuinely provide advice to the team). You can only research and decide for yourself. But generally, I hold the team to account on point 1.
In regards the S/P performance, you can't control it or influence it. But you can choose when. I've always said that timing in the market is more important than time in the market.
If you bought CYM 12months ago and done nothing you've made 0%.
If you bought CYM 12months ago and sold it all in March/April you made 50%.
If you bought CYM 6 months and done nothing you're down 30%.
In that aspect I hold myself more accountable than the team. If they're doing things that are impacting viability which is causing the S/P to crater different situation, but haven't read anything to date to suggest otherwise - perhaps guilty of some slipped timelines but the price was moving down long before then.
Haven't read all the comments but seems to be general confusion about the heap leach. I thought it was pretty clear heap leach was the strategy. It was called out in all the presentation back in Feb/March.
Haven't spoken with Barry or the team direct for quite sometime - didn't really have a need. Might touch base shortly and share whatever I can glean but as mentioned previously was really awaiting the restart study before putting anything massive behind this. I'd made that fairly clear on the MLX study that it was a great guide, but new team, different strategy to MLX, older plant etc etc so the underlying capex to get it back up and running along with the economics I was pretty keen to understand even if it meant paying slightly more.
Anytime I'm in a mid tier project with a larger MC, I generally want a little more current assurance on viability. Unlike a 10M MC where you can be more risk averse IMV and use first principles to ascertain profitability. At this end you're MC is a factor of those future earning and 10-20% increments start to make tangential changes. At 10M MC you can be remotely marginal and there's still upside.
The CYM strategy is only supported by producing copper plate - The market will appreciate some news which suggests they've taken strides towards that in the timeframes they suggested.
(20min delay)