I can see where you are coming from on the basis that CZL were aiming to do nothing else and just mine the resource they have (which actually is predominantly inferred as I said), pay tax and distribute profits. But that is not what they are doing:
1. The 1,178,000 tonne figure is predominantly an inferred resource, as per a previous post of mine, hence IMO will not be mined unless further exploration moves the resource into the Indicated and Measured category. The same goes with the estimate of 445,518 tonnes IMO. They essentially only have one to two years Indicated resource to mine and the rest will not be mined without additional exploration spend, as I inferred in an earlier post.
2. The key is your first column. That A$ profit you have calculated of $26.8 million I suspect will be used for further exploration and that means there will not be any tax paid.
3. If that exploration is successful then that will open up a new ball game. If it is not successful then the SP outcomes will not eventuate. So the SP here is actually going to move as typical exploration companies see their SP move IMO - the drill bit and subsequent PFS/upgrades in mining output.
I view CZL as an exploration company, not as a production company just yet, because your investing here on potential growth not what they are saying they will currently mine based on the Indicated resource they have, and they have said they intend further exploration because you don't mine an Indicated resource without a lot more work to move it to the Indicated bucket.
4. Or another way to put it, if all CZL would do is have an ore feed of 1 million tonnes of ore in totality for 10 years this stock is
not worth investing in IMO - what you would be wanting is a successful exploration program that allows the company to have an ore feed per year of minimum 0.25 million tonnes to 0.5 million of ore feed grading 15% year on year. Based on your calcs, CZL will be producing roughly 16,200 tonnes of contained zinc metal, hence the aim of CZL I suspect (and other emerging zinc producers) is to produce in excess of that per year - as an illustration here is a list of the world's largest zinc mines (so what CZL is producing is a dwarf in comparison).
http://www.mining.com/top-10-mines-riding-zinc-price-wave/
To illustrate the number 10 mine above has an ore feed of some 700,000 tonnes of ore per year to produce around 84,000 tonnes of contained zinc per year, with significant byproduct credits (and interestingly this mine is slated to shut down in 2024).
http://mininglink.com.au/site/rosebery
5. As I said in the interim it is essentially a guessing game of high risk reward.
6. The positive is the current mining of 120,000 ore feed will generate profit for re-investment in exploration, meaning no tax is paid.
7. The negative is if exploration fails the SP will suffer greatly as well and time will tell.
Finally, in terms of your EPS calc for 120,000 tonnes mines you get A$0.021 after tax, whereas I get A$0.029 (before tax) - refer the June number in my Table of 10,000 tonnes ore feed (which is the annual 120,000 ore feed example as per your post). After tax, I would get close enough to your number (A$1.9 cents which would rise slightly for the loss offset in your table) but as I said I suspect all profits will be reinvested.
Given the company comments of late, I see this money reinvested into exploration so anything beyond one year becomes meaningless production wise IMO if exploration is successful hence the risk reward equation but people need to invest wisely and take profit where available to free carry IMO. Ultimately, SP is also driven by the P/E ratio. Even in your example, the company would not be trading at a P/E ratio of 1:1, which seems to be implied in your model. A P/E of 3 to 5 for successful companies would likely be conservative by the way (but this is an exploration company which in part will be driven by exploration results and I dare say some hype as well along the way).
In terms of the cumulative scenarios, I prefer to focus on year on year as P/E doesn't apply to cumulative totals (so essentially looking at the first column of your table P/E wise but in that year would be expecting exploration updates which may aid SP or detract from SP depending on what is in there). I guess the risk of investing in exploration plays, albeit this one has a slight advantage in that it can use its cash margins to reinvest in exploration.
As a final point, whilst your numbers are correct for the cumulative scenarios should they happen to prevail, this financial modelling I think is essentially irrelevant beyond the first year as I posted previously given at this stage they don't have the Indicated and Measured resources for that level of mining (they are Inferred) beyond the Indicated resource they have stipulated of 240,000 tonnes. What exploration brings to the party will allow the more appropriate assessment beyond the first year to be subsequently made.
Risk reward, free carry is the preferred strategy and should you reenter all the best. Its a risky play but time will tell.
Anyway for others DYOR carefully and don't use HC to make investment decisions btw - it is always good to read positive and negative comments on HC as it makes you think around your own research hence this response but it is just opinion only. I am happy to post on HC but given I don't take myself seriously noone else should btw. Time for another VB.
All IMO IMO IMO
