I apologize for my slow response. I'm not always in a position to occupy my time with personal activities. It's too bad agoracom hasn't programmed an update so iPhone users can post. I can read but not post which is one reason I rarely contribute.

Here is my attempt to rebut some of the well thought out arguments. Once again these are my subjective responses so take it for what it's worth. If nothing else, hopefully it will trigger further debate and interesting reading.

Babjak1

"(1) Other ROF stocks are not taking the beating that Noront has. Same economic climate for these stocks. Price is either up or holding well."

It is illogical to think all ROF companies should be trading together. At times I would expect a high correlation while at other times one should expect divergence. One big reason comes to mind. We have already seen takeover activity in the RIF. Smaller market cap companies with assets are easier targets for someone like Cliffs to acquire. Smaller companies may also be given premiums on initial discovery phazes and a premium for being in the vicinity of NOT's large discoveries. All this could give them better price stability for the time being. On the other hand, a takeover bid to acquire NOT would take substantially more resources and hence less likely. This fact could easily account for price divergence.

"(2) Noront's share price manages to go down while two things happen at the same time (a) shorts cover & (b) institutional ownership goes up NOT down. If fund managers are going out of the stock why is the institutional ownership going up? Who are the sellers?"

First, how do you know on any given day or time of day what the institutional ownership is and who the buyers and sellers are? I am not aware of any system that tracks the full information? Many transactions are done anonymously and many transactions are done on other non public exchanges. Secondly, creating cash flow involves continual buying and selling of stock. I do this myself to some degree however I usually use options. Institution 'A' may sell some shares at $1.20. Institution 'B' may sell shares at $1.18. Institution 'A' rebuys at $1.18 and has created $0.02/share cash flow. Institution 'B' doesn't re-buy today maybe because the SP doesn't drop further so they buy into the money market and put an order in the next day. Of course this is easier for professionals as they incur much less transaction costs then you or me. They can also complete their transaction quicker than you or me so if there is only a very small window of opportunity to complete a transaction you can bet they will win the race.

"(4) I have yet to find a stock that that tripled the deposit during a RISING metal market that has actually gone down in price. I can't find one. Can you?"

This will no doubt create some good counter arguments but it is risky correlating the spot price of a commodity with that of the insitu value of a discovery still in the early stages of exploration. The truth is the spot value of the commodity in the ground is zero until it has been extracted. If you can say with 100% certainty that you can deliver 1 contract worth of commodity from the deposit at an exact delivery date, then you can use a NPV to give it full value. With less than 100% certainty you would have to subtract a risk premium. As time progresses towards extraction less and less risk is filtered out which should be reflected in the NPV. The problem is to answer the questions and filter out the risk costs very large amount of capital. Obviously if the cost is too great the commodity will never get extracted rendering the commodity worthless. For those of you calculating a NPV, please tell me how many years you are discounting before delivery? What discount rate are you using? These are not constant values so in theory each one of us could come up with different NPVs.

So in the short term the commodity may be raising but would not be reflected in the stock price of NOT. In fact this would support my theory of time to production reflecting on the SP. The shorter the time the higher the NPV and vice-versa.

goFWR

"It also means that for any commodity that will be produced at time period 1, you can sell it, through the futures market, for the time 0 price today! - No discounting!

Once again how do you know what the time period is to production???"

"As the term structure of interest rates is already included in the price of the resource at time 0- it is not proper to discount the proceeds for deferral of timeline as your post suggests."

Your are making the assumption the resource will be mined and at a certain delivery time and at a fixed discounted interest rate. Since those are uncertainties, you should account for a risk premium. What I am saying is in today's economic environment this risk premium goes up as the delivery time is presumed to increase. It's also a self fulfilling prophecy. If I fund manager 'A' believes he can sell today and buy tomorrow or next week at a reduced price due to economical reasons, and fund manager 'B' believes fund manager 'A' will sell today due to economical reasons, fund manager 'B' better sell today too which supports fund manager's 'A' assumption.

I am getting exhausted. I think I've made some points worth debating -or maybe forgetting.

One final thing...

OBG - what is with the personal attack? I've been out of KXL for quite some period, but thanks for asking. Exercising some good trading rules helped cover some losses. I'm sure there are others here with loses in KXL and many other stocks. You must be way in the black with NOT to make such a blatant statement. Congratulations! If you feel my input on this forum is worthless, just say so... I have much better things to do with my time. I will not debate this further.

Good trading to all,
Doug