In general, there are two ways that historical information regarding the development stages of a project/mine is presented - paragraphs or tabulated. The tabulation is often easier to read.
When it comes to historical production/operational information, what level of detail should be presented? Is a high-level summary sufficient? Or does there have to be substantial disclosure to demonstrate support for the projected parameters in the cash flow model?
Where a mine has been in production for many years, and metallurgical performance is well understood and controlled, why should the original testwork results be disclosed in detail to support the projected parameters in the cash flow model?
Hi Andy, It does not need to be reported if it is not relevant. On all my reports where this is the case we put a statement like the following.
"There is no metallurgical testwork that is material to the operational this stage of operation.
The plants are well established and no changes are planned. Accordingly, there has not been any recent testwork completed for the purposes of process design and metallurgical amenability assessment as these are unnecessary for operating plants. The type of ore material is consistent with historical processing, and any metallurgical testwork conducted is to support short term operational issues. The plant recovery factors are benchmarked to actual recoveries achieved by the plant. "