In a sense the decision to reach that scale is the first decision. Do we want to be that company? If yes, press 1. If no, press 2. I guess every shareholder will be pressing 1 right now
Then we reach 1 a) or 1 b).
If it’s a) then SD must be confident that we already have sufficient in-situ prospectivity to achieve scale. The technical choices about declines, shafts, haul roads, train processing decisions, feed from other companies are simpler.
If it’s 1 b) then that is very much riskier but still possible.
It’s a bit of a philosophical question but worth playing with it even if the argument might be you could have a bit of a) and a bit of b). The reason I pose the question is to try and work out what barriers to entry there are for investors right now with the company in this significantly advantageous real-world situation today.
Do the investors think we aren’t precise enough in spelling out our strategy? Are we a) or b) or a bit of both? I believe we haven’t adequately expressed what the strategy is for the longer term. We have some operational and tactical events coming over the next 18 months, but they’re just that - operational events and decisions.
Which takes me to the very first question. What do we wish to become, what is our strategic ambition, how big, how influential, how RICH as a company? And how attractive does that make us to others when we do elaborate on our big vision/strategy.
I’d welcome SD bringing us that big vision soon.