Yo snow: Suppose for the moment that recovery rates based on the testing were inadvertently interpreted to be 90% and, should have been 85%. To the extent that the recovery rate of 85% were the rate incorporated into the NPV calcs, we all would be dancing in the street as the benchmark was met. As you no doubt are aware, the recovery rates are determined via testing in a laboratory using small samples in a controlled environment. Suggested recovery is 90%. Actual likely (now) 85%, resulting in a 94.44% success rate. In addition, there are mines that recover less that 85%. Heck some silver mines are in the 65ish% recovery. Whoops, a miscalculation. Material? Yep, many would have that opinion. So what. Press on. Mine that ore, run those machines. Under the circumstances, no doubt some capitalized expenditures are an ef fing sunk cost and will not be recovered. That said an impairment charge is in order. The bigger the better. Impaired assets that are written off will not result in future depreciation. As a result, ASIC will better reflect actual. TMAC has considerable value. However it is worth only as much as folks believe it is worth. Is the downdraft in price really the result of a 5% [90% minus 85%] shortfall in recovery? Really?