Why is this Issue so Important? The metal price(s) are one of the most significant sources of uncertainty in mine project evaluation – this is because any variation from the expected metal price may considerably modify the results of the entire project value and, consequently, mislead strategic operational and economic decisions, investment decisions and even lead to erroneous conclusions of and for impairment decisions. The Problem Writing for the International Journal of the Central Bank, March 2018, Jorge Fornero and Markus Kirchner had this to say in their article entitled: Learning about Commodity Cycles and Saving Investment Dynamics in a Commodity-Exporting Economy: "...the evolution of copper price forecasts by professional forecasters of the CRU Group (reports in October of each year), as shown in figure 4. The rise of the spot price in the mid-2000s was not validated by higher forecasted prices on a medium to long-term horizon. Instead, it was considered as a transitory price increase by the professional forecasters who predicted that the spot price would return to values of around 100 cents. Due to the crisis, the price fell and almost reversed the rise from 2003 to 2007, reaching a minimum of approximately 140 cents (where the annual average understates somewhat the dynamic evolution of the spot price). That decline was relatively short-lived, and after the crisis the copper price quickly recovered and exceeded its pre-crisis levels. However, the higher post-crisis prices were also accompanied by higher forecasted prices, as part of a process of gradual forecast revisions that had already started around 2007. In the following years, the forecasted prices reached values much closer to the effective spot price. Hence, the professional forecasters seem to have incorporated a more persistent price increase in their forecasts over time. More recently, as the commodity cycle has turned and prices have fallen, it has taken the forecasters again several years to adjust their expectations on future prices downwards." It would be unfair to single out a single forecaster as no single forecaster has got it right in the past. Bloomberg published "consensus" forecasts of the gold price in 2015. Notably the long- term "consensus" forecast in 2012 was USD/oz 600. Fast forward to 2015 and the "consensus" forecast was circa US/oz 1 300; that is a 100% variation. Often it is underlined that the long-term price is not a "real" price and has to be discounted back to the year current years. Assuming that the last price on the gold forecasts above represent the long-term view at the time of each forecast, then the "real" price at 3% using a mid-term exponent is calculated. In 2007; therefore, the long-term price assumed was USD/oz of gold 467 and in 2012 USD/oz 1 353. Cynically, in 2007 one could have randomly picked a price between USD/oz 467 and USD/oz 1 353 and been in the reasonable prediction range - with the wisdom of hindsight. On August 22, 2011 gold reach an historic high of 1917.90 - well above USD/oz 1, 353. At the time of writing the price is USD/oz 1 194.80, closer to the 2011 long-term forecast. It is perhaps a fair statement that volatility plays havoc with forecasters forecasts. So the problem is simple - one cannot with any degree of confidence rely on forecasters long-term forecasts of metal prices, and yet so much reliance is placed upon these forecasts. An even more tragic reality is that when the forecasts are averaged ad named "Consensus" they assume an even greater weighting. It is safe to say that the average of wrong remains wrong. Perhaps Warren Buffets comment that " Forecasts tell you a great deal about the forecaster; they tell you nothing about the future," has some substance. One thing is clear; forecasters forecasts are always wrong and yet the industry places significant confidence on the collective opinion despite the collective forecast that in addition to being wrong is also insanely fluid. Perhaps it is time to seriously debate alternatives to the application of long-term price forecasts especially when it relates to the declaration of Mineral Reserves and Ore Reserves and the determination of impairment indicators.