RE:I like Paul…Interesting thought experiment, Metal. Consider the basic caricature of Casino:
"OMG you guys, this is an (1) uneconomic, (2) low grade (3) optionality play in the middle of nowhere with (4) $4b Capex. Pass."
Paul's tried fixing stupid:
1.Any project with NPV $1 is technically economic, the real question is does the IRR match the operator's internal benchmark at their long term price deck.
2. While CuEq of the overall resource is rather low, we're considering a starter operation with grades approximately 4-5x the average.
3. Our FS is done at $3.60 Copper, 10% more aggressive than the PFS, but still rather conservative given the broad consensus of where copper prices are going.
4. Remember that slide in the presentation where Capex is requalified as price per tonne of production during the life? You all remember the line: "not particularly cheap, but not particularly expensive either." That slide hasn't moved the needle an inch in terms of sentiment.
So, for anyone who's read this far: how does Paul show he's "able and willing to do what's needed to drive market cap?" What does he need to do here?