independent valuation of luapula plant, page-53

@Mutley8 ......"Processing costs are reasonable"

Yes they seem to be according to Mr Connelly. But why comment on only one aspect of profitability?
Why not mention metal prices used in the model??
Why not mention feed costs??
I read so many of these reports that I find they say as much by ommission as they do by what they include. Commenting on just one aspect as reasonable is also commenting on aspects that are left out.

Have a good long look at the graph on P45. You have highlighted the parts on the far right as offering upside potential on a NPV case, however one can also look just as far to the left and come up with a much poorer NPV.

The reality is the companies own 'cash flow model' has taken the mid point, and clearly shows that at this midpoint the 'fully diluted Mcap' is already above the midpoint NPV.

Why attack the poster/messenger on a forum instead of asking some serious questions of the BOD?? If I held, I would certainly be on the phone to the company asking what gives ASAP, and asking about some real numbers to be released also ASAP. (Do you really think an independent experts numbers will be better than the companies own model??)

Also I'd be asking how they intend to raise capital at a price that shows the Mcap ABOVE the NPV of the companies OWN cash flow model??

You all need to seriously look at your investments, not just defend them when it is clearly indefensible to anyone looking objectively...

Mr Connelly in the report looks at someone buying the entire operation at a $US38M discount to NPV (again P44). Whether a part buyer (shareholder buyer of propectus shares), or an outside company buying, you look at the same metrics NPV being very important.

Who in their right mind would buy for $A80M+ when the discounted price for purchase is around $US70M (entire project) or $US35M for WFE's 50% ie ~$A49M???

How does the company play this?? Do they claim they didn't give Mr Connelly an accurate 'cash flow model'? Do they claim changed circumstances? I simply don't know.

The model they have used for cash flow should be based on fairly solid metrics, so it can withstand time, so changing aspects now will not look good. Yes the NPV could be higher, but it could also be lower, which is why the midpoint is used.