The fact is those are the current numbers, and that is the result using them. Would I say it's probably better than what I just showed, probably, but that does not change the actual numbers one can use right now. 

Sure it is less to build etc, but again this simple valuation was not taking any of this into factor. Then again 2x to build for nearing 3x the resource, big deal. 

My point stands and is very clear the valuation takes no note of resource size into it, nor does the post offer any substance besides they paid $x/1% lets multiply that by our 25%! What if QBII was 10x the size? It can be a very missleading thing as it was accompanied by nothing else. Of course one needs to do their own DD, but it was still a valuation without much support and why not include these numbers so someone can see if and make their mind up if they believe it is comparable. If I had all the time in the world we could factor in those costs to produce and use value numbers with an assumption on price of copper bringing them close to 2x resource than being close to 3x. Still a big difference.