RE:RE:RE:Looking for High GradeThis may not be obvious to some, but there is a very strong positve correlation between mineral resource tonnage and contained copper, in these deposits at least. I assume for clarity that your term "payable metal" applies to contained copper.
Comparing the numbers in Table 1.1 between the 2016 and 2017 PEA shows that:
1) Kamoa combined Indicated and Inferred resource stays the same at 52.8 Billion lbs of contained copper.
2) Kamoa combined Indicated and Inferred resource increased 43% in that 5 months from 20.7 Billion lbs to 27.9 Billion lbs of contained copper. That is an amazing increase in a short period of time.
bloomfield18 wrote: Going Deeper,
What I'm really looking for in the 6+6 model is the entry in billions of lbs "Payable Metal". My reasoning being in the end it all comes down to getting paid. In the 4+4 scenario, this was just over 16 billion lbs, if you multiply the average over 30 years. So, to me an increase of 4 billion lbs of "Payable Metal" is the equivalent of a 25% increase in high grade ore.
4+4, 6+6, or 6+6+6 are all mathematical constructs, which can be mixed and matched to suit the occasion. Each of these scenarios have progressively higher NPV, even when "Payable Metal" remains the same. Any scenario may be valid, provided you actually intend to carry it out. I'm starting to understand why RF says NPV doesn't matter. It depends on the context. Are you actually going to build the mine according to the proposed scenario, or is it simply a PR stunt to inflate NPV and then go with something more modest? A mine is scalable up or down. You can change your mind and instead of a 6 Mtpa mine, it could scale back to 3 Mtpa.
Payable Metal is the only factor you can't dream up in your head.
To be fair I said NPV was the bottom line. And now RF is about to deliver more bottom line. But I should have requested more "Payable Metal".