RE: World gold Forum Q&A15 Apr 2021 17:53
Just got around to watching this (my personal and professional lives are taking up a lot of my time and energy at the moment!)
I'm not going to take half-an-hour to respond to every one of rr's points, but just some thoughts of my own that you are naturally free to take on board or dismiss entirely!
The PFS and the Capex number within is now virtually irrelevent. It's old and I imagine was always a fairly rough guess in the grand scheme of things. I think MC said that a PFS is done to within 25% either way, so that's a lot of room for leeway. So not much value to be had trying to work backwards from that PFS number to establish how much CapEx is left.
It sounds to me like this is one of the items with the longest lead time. Wanting value for money is fair enough, but I think the priority has to be on getting to production as quickly as possible. Bringing forward production by, let's say for the sake of argument, 6 months, is probably not worth trying to save every single penny on the up-front cost.
A few weeks ago, someone was talking about wanting the next raise to be at above-market prices, which at the time I shot down as being unrealistic. Well, that's exactly what we had with the shares issues to First Majestic! To then complain that First Majestic are getting a great deal as the shares should be worth a lot more is a little unreasonable IMV.
I'm inclined to take MC's word on the land issue. It's right and proper to not fork out more of the company's (our) money than necessary. The government will be forced to get involved at some point if there's a stalemate, as the mine may not go ahead without it, and they want the mine up and running almost as much as we do.
Timelines are perhaps purposely and unavoidably hazy, but better to not commit than to commit and miss. It was never going to happen overnight.
Finance doesn't concern me. That's his field. He'll get the best deal that can be got.