PEA thoughts- Contingency costsAgain, just passing on something a contact sent through ... very positive ...
---------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------
PEA thoughts- Contingency costs The more you look at Marimaca's PEA the better it gets. I've just been looking at the contingency costs, so to try and put them into some context. The table below shows Marimaca's PEA against a cross section of other copper asset PEAs published in the last 18 months. It shows clearly that Marimaca's PEA contingency number is very conservative, and leads further weight to the feeling that these are very much numbers we can trust.
How should we read this 25% contingency number? I'm told by those who know far more than me that apparently 25% should be standard for contingencies for projects in Chile (and South America) due to currency fluctuation and general cost of doing business. So maybe this table is more telling of how others have been overly economical with their calculations. Either way, against the peer group, Marimaca's envisaged mine is very straight forward, with very few moving parts, and in a location that is logistically incredibly simple.
In Conclusion - it is very encouraging to see that the numbers they present are so conservative. This gives me great encouragement for the future.
| Company | Project | Contingency | Total | % |
| Los Andes | Vizcachitas | 268.8 | 1,300.0 | 26.1% |
| Capstone | Santo Domingo | 197.9 | 1,512.3 | 15.0% |
| Solgold | Cascabel | 245.0 | 2,538.3 | 10.7% |
| Deep South | Halib | 24.7 | 340.3 | 7.8% |
| Marimaca | Marimaca | 56.9 | 284.7 | 25.0% |