Cultural difffeences? We’re talking comparative peers- in other words peers that operate in a comparative environment so that is an unecessary consideration.
Optimised BFS? What if that one’s not good enough? Will there be an optimal optimised BFS? I thought binding meant binding, but won’t hassle them on that- I’ll just note that they thought that one wasn’t good enough & have basically declared it to be of no relevance now.
( fair enough- things change so let’s hope it’s being cast aside for good reasons ).
Why wasn’t the first one good enough? Did management pull the trigger on getting it done too early? That wouldn’t be a shock as they seem to have jumped the gun regarding giving away any future production to SK, it would just give evidence of a culture of over exhuberance from the BOD.
Seeing as though there is another BFS coming it says to me that in some sense at least this is back to pre BFS stage.
As we are talking comparative peers in a similar environment ( Australia ), I’d say that most companies engaged to do the PFS’s etc are operating to a similar standard & so I think that projections of less than $5 are better than projections of over $5.
Using a 0.45% cut off when measuring the resource while others use 0.5% is also not something I like. If the others dropped their cut off like that? They’d jump up in resource size as well. Perhaps measuring lower grades as being acceptable is what has caused projected costs to blow out a bit here- they’re projecting a greater processing throughout for a similar return.
Basically more work for the same mineral return.
We must note that whilst AUZ is seeking to present better numbers other companies are too.
Ura we’re talking extraction cost projections, not EV growth rate projections- what you mention will benefit any mine that gets off the ground.
(20min delay)
