RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:PGM Market FundamentalsWhen you say capital cost goes down with economies of scale, you mean UNIT capital costs, i.e., economies of scale partially offset increased size. But not by much. And there is no way you can finance a 4.5 billion dollar greenfield mine, no matter what the economics, anywhere today. It is way too much risk for anyone. It would take a syndication of 50 banks. So you agree with me that the 4Mtpa mine does not make sense. It only makes sense to scale up to full capaicity, but over time, funded from internal cash flow, which means the extra ounces come later, at lower grades (because best ore is always mined first), and the NPV would be higher, but not by a factor of 3 or even close. And the market has a questionable ability to absorb production which would be 10-15% of global PGM production. Also, the market would not recognise value and reflect the NPV just because you make a production decision. If it goes into production, and runs smoothly, then it is in play. It could be in play at a development stage, but it may not be. What I am getting at is the strength of the company has always been having a smorgasbord of Tier 1 turnkey projects available for sale, but now two of them have clouds over them, and the other one is not ripe yet. So the company needs to circle the wagons, and live to fight another day. By the way, I am not saying this tax issue is a game changer, but for one thing, the tenor of discussions is very negative, scaring away investors, including those at the table. For another, with an escalating humanitarian crisis, and the president losing his grip on military security, the integrity of the DRC state is very much in question, as is its fledgling democracy, as the situation deteriorates to such extent as no election may be able to be held, regardless of the regime's intent to hold it.