That's not how feasibility studies work. Sure, they are only...

That's not how feasibility studies work. Sure, they are only preliminary but you can't just plug in numbers that you 'hope' to get, there should always be a discount factor applied. It's for the safety of the company to do so, as we all know how over excitement and over-bullishness gets people or business' into all sorts of trouble. Many mines have dropped to their knees in this fashion.

Would you commit to spend $115m hoping that a commodity price will be at or above a price you have budgeted on? Most lenders won't go near anyone that has done that. And guess where the money will most likely come from if they develop.... a lender. Now of course, by the time it gets to that stage, the commodity prices could be well above what they used here. Or they could be below too. Commodity prices are a strange beast that even the best economists have had trouble with predicting.

It's not rich. They have used commodity prices higher than what they are currently - so that makes it the truth. Just because it's from an independent source, it doesn't make it automatically right. The LOM operating cost has already been discussed as probably being a mistake in wording or a misunderstanding. If it is purely mining cost, it is a fair and reasonable cost assumption and pretty accurate imo.

And yes, as I have already said, a large resource upgrade can change everything. However, I'd still like to see some more conservative commodity prices used and let the deposit itself make it look attractive (once upgraded), not rely on it being more attractive by using forecast price assumptions- and I can assure you, I won't be the only one with that chain of thought. That's a dangerous game won and lost by many.