Member Info for Pbow

Eloro Im not really sure what I have said that is negative.

I've replied to someone who said that the costs for Cascabel will explode and have explained why that is not the case. Keeping in mind that a large part of my job over the last 20+ years is doing cost estimates including Class 3 estimates which would be what a PFS is and Class 2 ones which is what a DFS would be (noting that the cost estimate is only part of either document). Yes of course costs will go up because we are hopefully adding in TAM as an obvious point but I also made clear that the cash flow raised from that will probably mean the net impact on everything is the company has to raise less funding than originally planned.

I've stated why I dont think that First Quantum will buy Cascabel and set out the rationale for that. Ive however said that I do think that JCC are a very likely buyer, most likely with CRCC. The only reasons given for a possible First Quantum bid on here were set out by Jack and I set out my reasoning for why I doubt it will happen - I think my rationale is more valid to be frank but I have no issue if people disagree with me. I dont see how a company with a poor cashflow, and significant issues with its biggest asset is going to take on something like Cascabel it just doesnt make sense to me at all. The concept that JCC would fund it whilst being a minority owner in the company also seems irrational to me - especially when there is nothing stopping them buying it themselves JCC buying with China Rail also makes sense to me as CRCC have the proven capability to build a project such as Cascabel.

As a complete aside I think I generally got on well with RK so I would be surprised if I had something to do with him not posting here anymore.

Yes Jack why would the largest Integrated copper producer in China which owns multiple mines want to own a mine in Ecuador that its already the largest shareholder of.

Should have said CRCC not CCC.

`very simply put. the most likely buyer for cascabel is jcc probably in conjunction with ccc who will then be the contractor to actually build the mine.

im of the opinion on the following

* first quantum will buy because it doesnt make sense given there current financial position and issues they have in panama. if their situation in panama changes then its possible they could become a candidate.

* anglo america absolutely no chance.

* bhp is possible i suppose, though i think unlikely,

* newmont dont think are interested at all.

* rio tinto would be blue sky thinking.

* in thought han**** prospecting would have been a suitor but with them taking the government to court i think less likely at the moment.

could keep going :-)

Jack I am not NMM.

Teh TSX secondary listing made absolutely zero difference to a Chinese company buying Solgold. I know why you think it did (because you are stupid and dont research things) but the reality is that the ICA did not apply to Solgold as it only applied to companies that met the following definition.

Canadian business means a business carried on in Canada that has;

(a) a place of business in Canada,

(b) an individual or individuals in Canada who are employed or self-employed in connection with the business, and

(c) assets in Canada used in carrying on the business; (entreprise canadienne)

Solgold did not meet that definition. Its also notable that Solaris Resources moved its business to Switzerland because of the ICA preventing Zijin Mining investing the company. It however maintained its primary listing in Canada - because being listed in Canada doesnt mean the ICA applies.

Jack the removal of the TSX listing makes no difference whatsoever. The Swiss tax shift just makes the project more attractive to everyone Chinese, American etc.

Rodney I was actually trying to stress that the costs have not gone up significantly - which is what Stack was suggesting and what I was replying to. I also made clear that any increased costs is more than covered by the possible inclusion of early cash flow from TAM meaning we potentially dont have to raise as much money as originally thought.

When I am replying to a post that is saying that the cost and money to be raised is significantly more than the PFS that was all I was addressing not the full business case of Cascabel which would require a much bigger answer.

Eloro im pretty sure if JCC want to buy it (which I think its pretty clear at some point they will do) then geopolitical issues arent going to be a factor. It would seem somewhat obscene that anyone could block the Chinese from buying a mine in Ecuador other than the Ecuadorian government. Are the Ecuadorian government likely to do this? I highly doubt it.

I mean there is absolutely no evidence to suggest First Quantum would be interested in Cascabel. It literally defies logic that they would be.

Next Jack will say that Anglo America are in pole position which would be even more absurd.

Strengthen balance sheet not assets sorry typo.

It neither absurd or misleading. First Quantum were only recently talking about divesting assets to strengthen assets. Them buying Cascabel is for the birds.

Why would the Peoples republic of China want First Quantum to buy it? It makes no sense. Far more sensible would be China rail and JCC buying it - similar to what happened at Mirador. Just switching out Tongguan Investment Co for JCC then the Chinese have 100% of the asset.

Absolutely no chance that First Quantum will buy us.

As per RBC they had 745 million USD and 6.2 billion in debt at the end of Q2 of this year.

Cobre Panama was 90% of their output last year - this year its shuttered and costing them 15 million a month in care and maintenance.

How on earth are they going to finance the purchase and building of Cascabel. How are they going to persuade their shareholders its a good idea to take a punt on a mega mine in Ecuador (not the best jurisdiction) after its disaster in Panama?

I mean to be fair if they were to change the mine plan to increase that 18% it would have an impact on costing. You can read the first PFS and get a feel of it. But the reason they changed the PFS was seemingly because of the issues with financing the original PFS. Saying that maybe TAM would change the mathematics of funding and make it more possible. I doubt they will do it though - but im not sat in the room making the decisions.

I was addressing a point about the cost of the mine so the % of the mineral reserves used or the metal price isn't relevant to that topic. Well except in so much as the increase in the price of copper will impact on the cost of equipment that contains it.

Aside from the above I think everyone knows that the spot price for copper, gold and silver are all higher than the rates used in the PFS. In the DFS they will likely use different, higher rates - though I dont think for a second they will use spot prices.

Whilst the 18% fact is often stated are they likely to change the mine design window at this stage to capture more of the resource? Personally, I doubt it as if they were they would likely be drilling to convert more of the resource from inferred.

That aside im pretty sure the likes of BHP will have their own team who would be modelling a value for the asset. I think one of the reasons BHP paid what they did for FIlo is because of the optional future expansion which that assigned a value too. Cascabel has that too.

Jack I am certain I have more shares than you, so wont be leaving anytime soon. Im not an idiot nor am I a fantasist. You are both.

Affrm what are the materials...

Electrical equipment - will have copper in it so will have gone up.

Other equipment - inputs to that would be steel which has gone down. id say non electrical equipment static.

Shipping will have gone up - most stuff will be coming from abroad and need shipping.

Concrete pretty much unchanged (at least where I am so I assume same in Ecuador).

Labour stable in Ecuador.

I assume they will need a lot of steel in the construction - again thats down.

Then its just tweaks to the plan - what will the impact be on the change in the TSF from coastal plains to on site - need to keep in mind the impact that TAM has on that.

Change in infrastructure

Change in in mining TAM

But the key thing is early cash flow so less need to raise moeny.

Glad you finally acknowledge you are mad Jack.

Given you have been saying a deal is being done in the background for years ill stick with the view that you are yet again wrong. They say even a broken clock is right twice a day - would be nice if you could be right once in your life.

Affrm if TAM is in play we will need less funding not more.

As per the PFS its 1.554 billion. I think it will potentially be higher in terms of infrastructure as based on the recent corporate presentations the plan has clearly changed and moved to something bigger. Its not clear if the new plan with the TSF will increase or decrease initial costing but my guess would be that it would be less if they do one of the two sites, and more if they do both (my gut is telling me they will have to do both). The decline cost shouldn't really change as one would hope they know how many meters they have to tunnel and the cost per meter. Clearly the initial cost will also increase if they are mining TAM now as that will of course cost money. That being said mining TAM should provide access to cash which means less money needs to be raised to fund the overall construction. Inflation isnt an issue to be frank as its incredibly low in Ecuador, there may (most likely will be) an impact from escalation but what can it be. Obviously, we know copper has gone up so the electrical equipment for the mine will have gone up, steel and concrete have probably gone down. Shipping costs will be up, labour costs static. Im not massively worried about escalation to be honest. The only outlier in the estimate is the electricity provision. In the PFS they have allowed 4 million for it - that works if they can get someone else to build it - but is that likely with the accelerated timescale - I have no idea.

Interesting you seem to think its going to cost less than the PFS says to build Stack. PFs says 4.2 billion (with a plus or minus 25%)