There's a simple test for your spreadsheet model. Plug in $7500 tonne product value and 10% discount rate, and you should get RPA's numbers for NPV and IRR, more or less. I can guarantee that you won't.
It mystifies me that there are numbers in this "corrected" version that are still not consistent with the numbers in the PEA. Why would they be different?
And your spreadsheet isn't even internally consistent. Your CAPEX in the summary doesn't match your CAPEX in the calculations section. The real issue is that your life of mine CAPEX is only about 40% of RPA's, and it specifically excluded a number of costs that are not yet known.
How do you expect to get 20 years times 60,000 tonnes/year out of a pit that doesn't even have a resource large enough for that? And that ignores the 75% recovery concept.
And just from eyeballing your numbers in the spreadsheet, there are embedded equations that are simply wrong. For example, why does your "Remaining recoerable graphite" go down by the net production per year, rather than by the gross amount of the ore required to produce it? Whatever. This is GIGO, in my opinion.
So, going back to my first comment, your should test your model by inserting $7500/tonne and 10% for the NPV. If you don't land in the right ballpark (close to RPA's numbers) you should report that to us.
Lar
