I did notice the measurement differences, but didn't think it was too important in light of the point I was trying to make

That being that given the evidence of the 2 scenarios set out in the option agreement, the 12%NPV versus the 8%NPV and the reason for their differences, ie size of mine, where does the property that dwarfs these examples fit in that valuation logic

It simply doesn't

Not sure if the NPV assumptions in the original agreement, which was drafted and presented by Salazar to Teck for approval, were typical of how such deals were structured then or not

In retospect though, our facts simply cannot logically be aligned with what they were seeking nor their valuation model

As you pointed out the actual copper production, defined in our BFS, and that would be subject to the NPV formulations doesn't match their models, not to mention the added multiplier of the copper equivalent exercise to account for the PM's and moly

So again, if they drop the required NPV from 12% to 8%, for going from a mine producing 25 to 50 tons/annum, and from 12 to 15 years

What should an appropriate NPV be for an approximate 110 tons/annum copper mine with a 21 year life?

(and sufficient PM credits to cover the cost of the operation)