RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:S/Ni Ratio QuestionsRm90090 wrote: Are people questioning the validity of the PEA? The PEA clearly shows that it is economically viable. Unless people are worried that it is all a massive conspiracy - then we should be researching the Engineering firm Ausenco that carried out the PEA.
The PEA had some aggressive assumptions in it that significantly increased the project's economics.
For example, assuming that somebody else would build a steel mill next door that CNC could conveniently use (1) decreased capex (because mills aren't cheap) and (2) decreased opex (because the iron byproduct would otherwise have to be transported for additional processing).
At the end of the day, though consulting firms have a veneer of independence, you need to remember who's paying them. In his last interview with Crux, Mark Selby said there are bankable feasability studies that aren't worth the paper they're written on.
Looking at a single line that says NPV = 1.2B and concluding that everything is aces would be very myopic, especially when then technical document contains plenty of hedging verbiage about risks, assumptions, and forward-looking information.
I don't know enough about sulphide processing to adequately answer the S/Ni ratio query but the cheerleading contingent here says everybody is going to get rich by piling onto CNC, so it's probably fine, irrespective of how large the company's marketing and promotional spend is.