I don't understand the correlation here. What does any of our evaluation (this method of resources * a %) have to do with a FS or PEA even for that matter? It is just based on the Resource estmate and paying a percentage of the amount. This is why I said before (different thread) that you can do it on VD or CXM using old numbers, but it could be inaccurate. This could also go up though and by no means has to go down, but what was posted still holds, not sure how it is apples to oranges. If anything is apples to oranges it is the mining method, and as solution mining is often chaeper, there could be a higher margin meaning the percent used could end up being justified as higher than 10%, as where SC costs more to mine and 10% could be high as you also have all the operating expenses and construction taken from the cost of copper and the 10% you already payed for it.

No need for a FS or PEA, just a resource estimate. We could have done those numbers on SC long before the FS was released. We had the same information we used.

===================================

It has to do with the level of preparedness/confirmation of the project. Look how the numbers changed for SC through these same stages. The more steps up the ladder (boxes checked off) the more value per pound in the ground. SC for example has great grades open at depth, but the FS determined the pit couldn't be deep enough to recover them so they were removed. We have a district sized resource around the FS area, but the value wasn't included because it didn't have the required confirmation.

If it was just about an RE and we are worth 10% of that, why did we take SC all the way to FS? Valuations for all jr explorers would be much different if that was the case. For example, with SC our value will jump further with a road, an EA or a production decision (more boxes ticked off). Pounds in the ground didn't change but value would?

For VD, for example:

• Historical RE, 1.2 billion lbs. We bought for a couple million, neighbors passed on it.
• We drill and prove it up enough for a RE -> value/lb increases
• We complete a PEA (less risk now) -> value/lb increases further
• EA or permitting (even less risk) -> value/lb increases again
• Successful full scale test of the in-situ leaching -> value/lb even better
• Full blown FS (proof it can be mined, how much cost, expected recoveries, etc. ie: SC level of study) -> most value/lb.

I agree with you - cost/lb for extraction is a massive factor (and part of the FS level of study). I just don't think the equation for valuation is as simple

I'm not saying all these are needed to sell, but the selling price will reflect the stage of preparedness we take it to. I hope RE or PEA is enough - lets flip this thing?