They explain their rationale as to how they arrive at their SP...

They explain their rationale as to how they arrive at their SP valuation. Unlike the down rampers who simply use phrases like paid for fluff piece. Sorry...desperate fluff piece!
So far all we hear from the down rampers is Political Risk! Bad finance arrangement! We don't hold but can have an opinion (which if fair enough). It would be nice to see that opinion supported with your own 'fluff pieces' with I don't no...some numbers and facts maybe? Sure it is still high risk but as we can see by the conservative numbers the rewards are substantial. The Brewer haters and agenda driven down rampers need to substantiate their posts with a little more than "It's a high risk spec, It's a crap finance deal " etc. Swami at least attempted to have some research to back up his vitriol. Of course it then made it easier for Brewer to dismantle his ranting so I guess that is also why the down rampers don't want to put any "fact's" up to support their arguments. Far easier to call research 'fluff pieces'.

Option 4 26c rationale.
4) which attempts to take into account the reserve, exploration target and what we think would be a reasonable development option (i.e. an underground mine to start operations at 1Mtpa followed by an open pit operation at 5Mtpa). Operating costs and capital expenditure are broadly based on Barrick/AngloGold Ashanti’s Kibali operation, which is 3.6Mtpa open pit and 3.6Mtpa underground and had a capital cost budget of US$371m. Our capex assumptions appear to be relatively conservative and operating costs have been increased to reflect the current level of certainty.