Just going to add a bit more input on some of these points.
Okay that makes sense. However, I hope we don't see the trend of monthly financings continue. If we need $10M, I would like to see them try to raise it all at once
The fact that the private placements have been pretty consistent tells me management knows endgame is at hand, and will only finance when they need more money for operations and day to day costs of business. Theres no sense diluting to the tune of $10M if they think theyll only need $2M until Teck acts. This is a safer strategy issuing multiple placements to keep dilution to a minimum. On the other hand if we see a large placement it might be an indicator that were going to see another delay in the BFS.
5. We have 25% of 130 billion dollars in the ground. We are cheap. We have a good IRR in the safest jurisdiction on the planet. That fetches a premium. Watch Harper in China for a clue.
In situ Value wont matter when it comes to the buyout, it will come down to the EV in the ground. We have 25% of this figure as Teck will not be paying full value for everything we have in the ground. They need to build a mine, pay costs and make a profit themselves. Our NPV was $2.7 billion last I checked and we would have 25% of that ($675M....not even $2/share). These new mineralized intercepts and soaring commodity prices are our best friend for seeing a high buyout. That being said value isnt always a dollar sign and I think we can get a premium for our shares. Ive said before and Ill say it again...there are not many deposits of this size in the world which can hit production about the same time as peak copper. That alone is going to be worth money to an acquiring company.
I should clarify. We are not cheap for a junior explorer. We are not cheap based on dollars in the ground. What makes us cheap is our excellent economics and potential.
No I cant recall last time I saw a junior hit a 1 billion dollar market cap ($2.70), we definately are not cheap.
7. We got improved economics. The pounds didn't vanish. How can this be bad?
Typically the Resource Estimate is not supposed to determine what is economical. That is left to the PFS/BFS. However, I think I found the answer on their website. One of their goals is to provide "a realistic resource estimate geared toward maximizing the economic return/benefits of the Schaft Creek deposit over the life of mine." I can live with a one time haircut to the Resource Estimate. However, I can't see any reason for them to further reduce our Resource Estimate. Drilling is supposed to increase the Resource Estimate, not decrease it.
No whether we use a lower tonnage with a higher grade, or a higher tonnage with a lower grade....the rock is the rock is the rock. Ore wont just vanish because they play with numbers on paper. Its no secret the strategy of management is to sell Schaft Creek....all these numbers do is make it look a lot sweeter to an acquiring company by lowering their CapEx.
Now this is a discussion,
Rogue,
