Loved your post BS. Quite controversial. The concept of the need for better PR appears to have been "endorsed" by many of our members. Whether it is delivered by a charismatic CEO of the likes of Robert Friedland remains to be determined.

I basically agree with you. A good, dedicated PR person certainly couldn't hurt. However, that person still has to have something to promote. Quite frankly, right now there isn't a hell of a lot more now than there was 6 months ago. Now please bear with me and my thoughts. When the original DE1 results came out, the market reacted immediately and drove the SP to the $7 level. Why? Because the market thought that perhaps another Voisey's Bay had been discovered! Its been over 6 months and quite frankly, drilling results since then have been somewhat encouraging but mediocre at best. At Voisey's Bay, within 8 months they had identified a resource of some 25+Mt. The Voisey's Bay play was very easy for investors to understand, and Friedland's "antics" certainly didn't hurt. It was a massive Ni/Cu deposit and Diamond Fields owned all the prospective ground in the area (i.e. all the "blue" areas which were interpreted as the mafic igneous host rock). Metal prices were buoyant at the same time.

Now let's look at McFaulds in the same light. An array of juniors, and an assortment of scattered Ni/Cu/PGE, Cu/Zn and chromite mineralization which remains to be explained/understood individually or as a collective package. Sure we know that they are MMS and VMS related, but what metallogenic model has been presented by the companies? I'm sure that each has or is developing their own "working model" for future exploration plans, but even if they made statements to that effect, would the average investor be able to understand the implications? I have provided my two cents worth on this forum in this regard, but what's that worth?

The average investor is only interested in tonnage, grade and location. To really make investors sit up, take notice and invest, I believe that the total potential tonnage of MMS and/or VMS deposits at McFaulds is going to have to be of the order of 50 - 100Mt. I think that the economics will demand it. To develop a mining complex there will require a capital cost of the order of $1B in my opinion. Concentrates would be produced and transported to smelters/refineries over an all seasons road/rail system.

Now what is a theoretical market value for NOT, using "rule of thumb" discounts which I understand, but I don't necessarily agree with, are commonly used by some mining analysts.

DE1- max 5Mt with a GMV of about $3.6B-->10%=$360M
DE2- massive chromite @$300/t--->10%=$30/t
Windfall- don't have a clue, but lets assume the SP of NOT pre DE1=$0.50

So $360m/130M=$2.77 + 0.50 = $3.27 + value for chromite potential + ?? other potential

Not far off NOT's current market price or the previous $4 PP price.

When I finished reading The Big Score, I started playing with some figures. My calculations indicate that Inco's final cost of acquiring Diamond Fields was about CAD$4.8B for deposits whose tonnage were estimated by Inco's Bob Horn at about 132Mt and whose GMV (Apr 96 metal prices) = CAD$37B. That represented about 13% of GMV. One could argue here that a 3% premium was warranted because of the exclusive land position and the need to ward off other competitors such as Falconbridge. (*I do not believe that Inco made their bid based on a % of GMV. Their bid was undoubtedly based on a much more sophisticated DCF analysis).

Collectively, the juniors at McFaulds could promote a "metallogenic vision", but logistically is probably impossible. Individually, why give competitors an advantage nor would they want to until they have tied up as much ground as possible through J/V's. Until more major investors such as Sprott et al join the band wagon, small retail investors such as ourselves can only sit back and hope for some spectacular news. A move to the main TSE board would help and should be a priority for NOT. This they can control whereas, intersecting new deposits is unpredictable.

Having said all that, as a geo, I believe that there is better than a 50:50 chance that McFaulds will eventually reveal itself as at least a +50Mt "MMS and VMS camp". Your comments are always welcome.

Best Regards

geoprof