RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:IVN value tied to KakulaWith the 2017 Prefeasibility you no longer have to refer to the PEA study. A PEA study is preliminary. In the same way a Feasibility study negates the need to refer to Prefeasibility. Each progressive study outlines a more accurate picture. Every table in the economic analysis examines a different aspect of the project. 22.14 shows the effect alternative mining methods will have on NPV. There isn't a dramatic difference, but yes, it will impact the bottom line. In practise, the company may have an option to be flexible. Copper feed grade is assumed at 3.86% in the model. The economic analysis isn't spitting out a single NPV number. Profitability may vary significantly depending on different factors. For my own use, I prefer to look at current market conditions over the past year, because this is what bankers are likely to be looking at. But they'll go one step further and try to project how their billion dollar loan will fare in the event of a market downturn. From their point of view, the company must have an ability to withstand adverse market conditions and still pay off the loan. They don't want to become the proud new owners of a copper mine in the Congo. Unless the company goes the equity route. You're then looking at substantial share dilution.
With discoveries at Kakula and Kakula West the January PFS is already outdated. The upcoming revised PFS will provide a far more accurate and profitable picture of what to expect going forward. Good luck!