Awhile ago the Globe wrote an article that was talking about Detour Gold coming into production on time and on budget. This is such a rare event that the news was about this feat.
Here's how they did it though: they submitted their feasibility to extensive external peer reviews. Their very clever management sent out the different sections of the feasibility and asked for constructive criticism. They then incorporated any ideas that worked into their final document.
The decision by Detour Gold paid off. They put the mine into production themselves and had a keen interest in getting it done correctly. I do wonder if Elmer is behaving like he said, like a development company, and preparing this document very carefully so that there are no flaws.
Here's a quote from an article about the reviews they chose to do but the full article is well worth reading because I think this might represent the future of most feasibilities:
"Some sort of audit of a feasibility study is almost a given, says André Allaire, vice-president of markets, mining and metals at BBA. But, he notes, those reviews are usually done by investors. Allaire points out that with BBA’s studies posted on SEDAR or their clients’ websites as part of NI 43-101 compliance, new investors will frequently audit the technical work. Clients like Detour Gold do not frequently request audits"
http://www.cim.org/en/Publications-and-Technical-Resources/Publications/CIM-Magazine/August-2012/Upfront/Measure-twice-build-once.aspx
