From a value standpoint, SC could soon become bigger than Bambas and those operating costs that you mentioned could come down big time so I would not say those are correct numbers.

RT is trying to show the actual numbers from our Feasibility Study as they compare with that of Las Bambas. These are the only numbers that are proven. They are correct as of today.

All the rest is unproven upside that we believe exists, but as of yet we have no proof. This is why our stock price sits where it is and why nobody is looking to buy us out. We need the drill results first to prove that the anomaly is mineralized, and to show that the pit slope can be extended eastwards. We also need the drill results to pull all, or a portion of, that waste into the resource category and from there to be incorporated into a reserve eventually.

Everyone was shocked when the FS came out with such disappointing numbers. It is not an absolute given that the drill results will give us back that waste or allow a better pit slope. There is a risk there and we all got caught in the past because we ignored the point of the FS which was to say that sure we had raw minerals but were they economical to mine? We found out that a good portion of them were not considered economical to mine.

I think the difference in our case is that the upside is potentially huge. We could double in size, we are very likely to get an environmental permit one day, we should bring a good portion of that waste back into the reserve category and we should be able to extend the life of the mine. The EA alone should get us considered at 5% NPV instead of the current 8% and that would bring the overall resource up to nearly $1.7B from the current $513M. But these things have to be proven still, and we can't just take it for granted.