I'm talking about future outlooks. If you don't think majors...

I'm talking about future outlooks.

If you don't think majors make mistakes on picking the correct minerals to go with in terms of future outlooks, I give you Glencore which has had an extremely shaky time with Glassberg decimating Xstrata's holdings to cover up bad plays. Also Teck... it messed up so badly at one point with too much exposure to coal.

Or, I give you Rio, and the infamous example of backing coal in Africa, (a really bad call of itself) when permits weren't in the bag (really bad governance).

The bad calls are multiple within large companies and medium sized ones. It's nothing to do with data rooms.

Tony Albanese has gone from legend to dust. Why? Hubris? Overlooking the obvious? It's all there. Writ large.

But for some reason you're ignoring my substantive point, effectively saying:

oh look, companies have access to the data room, and we don't. They have better analysis of the economics at that time.​

​

So what would we know? Let's accept things will always be this way.​

In view of the fact that even majors get it spectacularly wrong, let's try having commonsense and perspective.

Small punters can make their own assessments and at least get the sector right!

The economics of a project can alter radically in the future depending on the demand.

What is so hard to understand about that?
Demand for Cu (and cobalt for that matter but we're talking about the economics of Promontorio in the future), are going to rise. Demand for Cu is going to rise 9 fold for electric cars alone. Read the links.

So I would not rule out Promontorio being taken up in the future, as the Cu supply side tightens. Please stick to the point. TIA.