If anyone is familiar with NPV calculations I would welcome any comments on the following. I've compared a number of parameters between the 2008 PFS and 2012 FS in an effort to understand why the economics tanked and see if there's still some hope that Teck can do something with SC. I've compared grades, op costs, exchange rates, recoverable metal, etc. but the only significant difference comes in the economic analysis. The metal prices were higher in the 2012 base case and the exchange rate was more favourable in 2012 as well. I recall from studying NPV calculations some time ago that you have to be careful about time zero because you have to spend money over a period of time before you get any back. The only difference I have found so far is that the 2012 FS used a 5 year period before positive cash flow whereas the 2008 PFS used only 3 years. Since the NPV is an exponential function that 2 years could create a significant difference in NPV and IRR. I think CUU stretched the project size from 100,000 t/d to 130,000 t/d to demonstrate some improvement over the 2008 results but it may have come at the expense of the project economics. So this time difference could be the smoking gun to explain what happened. It also gives me hope that Teck, who build mines for a living, will pull the 2012 FS apart and come up with an improved mine plan using the real and current parameters and project sizing they just applied at the Highland Valley copper mine. The data I used for this explanation is shown below.
2008 PFS - " For the economic analysis, the initial capex was spread over a three year
period, the construction period, prior to concentrate production "
2012 FS
 |
