It was a question of whether you comprehended what was published in the presentation. Clearly, Glorieux did not. And you don't want to answer. Whatever.
The actual costs remain the same as those in the PEA, except through the lense of someone looking at a Canadian asset from a US$ perspective. However, on the date that the presentation was released, the numbers on Slide 16 were not valid. The exchange rate was then 0.75, and the "discount" would necessarily be somewhat less than was reported. 0.75 was one of the sensitivity factors in the PEA, so it should have been easy-peasy to get it right. Why use numbers that were already historic? Hmmm?
What is ZEN going to do, issue a new corporate presentation every time the exchange rate changes? (N.B. Glorieux): The Canadian dollar costs don't change through this exercise of adjusting US$ via the exchange rate. So, why go there at all?
Frankly, the base case reported by RPA are the valid PEA numbers, in my personal opinion.
The payback period of the mine was dropped from 4.0 years (RPA) to 3 years. Is that number also going to change with the exchange rate, in subsequent corporate presentations?
The most interesting new number is 30,000 tonnes/annum production estimated for 2018 (Slide 13). I'd sure love to see the independent QP's disclosure that supports that.
You might want to let Aubrey know that the boilerplate on Slide 2 is also stale-dated. It should reference the PEA dated July 2015, not the Resource Estimate from January 2014.
Lar
