NAV vs NPVI take back what I said that NAV is invalid in the case of mining projects. I'm sure the analysts at BMO and TD followed what they believed to be best practises when they designed their models.
However, a 6+6+6 model may not be justified at this time. There are only a few drillholes that have been released up till now from Kakula West which exceed 5% copper. It's a big jump from such thin data to a dedicated 6 Mtpa mine. By using a 6+6+6 model instead of 6+6, throughput, at least on paper, increases by 50% beyond the upcoming Nov resource update 12 Mtpa mining scenario. This has the effect of raising NPV or NAV significantly, yet there are no guarantees Kukula West will live up to such high expectations. Perhaps the resource update will shed more light on progress in drilling at KW. It may even provide separate resource tables for Kamoa, Kakula, and Kakula West with cutoffs at various grades. If not, it would be hard to claim with any confidence that a separate mine at KW is plausible at this time.