RE: rns14 Feb 2021 10:13
Redknight you make a good point in NM's share holdings and influence, and I take that on board.
As Barry says the idea was that NM was always going to step down, as we transitioned to become a producer has been reported more than once, but completely ignored, because it doesn't support his argument. ( he never let's the facts get in the way of his postings )
We know in some detail, thanks to the MD&A the reasons for the changes in the PFS.
Just look back at the rubbish that has been talked about.
First we would never sign the Franco Nevada deal, as it was a bluff to get a bid from BHP. Even though we were told many times it was covid holding up things.
Then we were told that once BHP were released from standstill, that this would be over by Christmas.
We are still being told a bid is imminent, even though we have changed the BOD over time, to improve governance and bring in experience to build a block cave mine, and move to production.
We have more than one reference saying we are looking for the CEO to have experience of building a block cave operation in South America.
The way some of the armchair CEO's talk, you would think that no one in the world has that experience. I think it's a possibility that someone has already been found, and are coming on board, and are disengaging from their existing role.
I have always said that we need to get the HLD and LLD correct, and this is exactly why the PFS is changing.
How do I know that, because the MD&A lays it out in some detail.
We have the conspiracy theorists that say that it was too expensive to build.
They should read the MD&A slowly, it says no such thing, and lays out that significant cost savings can be achieved and why wouldn't you do this.
Remember we are expanding Alpala construction, I guess like me you are thinking that this is going to pull in more resource than we currently have, and that could lead to a significant increase in the PFS, possibly some of the higher figures that have been discussed on here.
All the best.