I read this analysis last night when I got an email...

I read this analysis last night when I got an email notification.

While it makes some good points in certain parts to say that the value of the company is much higher because the project has stockpiled ore doesn't make a lot of sense to me. It was always going to have a significant amount of stockpiled ore and it says so in the feasibility study. That amount might be slightly more than originally forecast.

Similarly to say that the capital expenditure has been 85% incurred and therefore the project is of a higher value doesn't make a lot of sense. If he said the project is more valuable because capex costs will be below the estimate used in the DFS then I would agree.

What I think he is trying to say is that the project has been derisked significantly and I agree with this. The value was always there and they don't appear to have strayed too much from the path in the DFS in terms of cost or timing.

The valuation methodology is convoluted also.