It's interesting that your worst case projection still makes TDC a good investment. Then, consider again your assumptions. Each of them is overly pessimistic, and should be tweaked as follows:

1. Gold stays at $800 or 900 while oils stays high. OK, that's a risk. But it is mitigated in use of HYDRO ELECTRIC power from blue fish. Rather than having to buy dielsel for electrical generators for the life of the mine, TDC has some upfront costs (say $5 million) for the power poles and HV wire from Blue fish. After that, we only have to bring fuel for the fleet of heavy equipment. The crusher, conveyors and aspects of the mill are all HYDRO ELECTRIC. OTHER GOLD MINES DON"T HAVE THIS OPTION, so TYHEE would have a comparative advantage in an high oil price future.

2. IF Tyhee NEVER PROVES UP MUCH MORE GOLD. This is a weak assumption, as the yellowknife gold belt has demonstrated that the gold mineralization in these geological formations goes very deep. Giand and Con mines were continuosly expanding depth until they closed down due to low gold prices. Also, the Discovery mine shaft was still open at 3 times the depth of the Ormsby deposit. Your worry that they won't prove up much more gold may be satisfactorily answered when we get some of the deeper drill results from that larger rig that was at Clan Lake. If it demonstrates gold a much deeper levels, then this worry is dead.

3. Your Price to Earnings ratio is extremely conservative. Bear in mind the recent history. Not long ago, the TSX was at nominative parity with the dow, while the Canadian Dollar was worth 90 cents. now the TSX is 25% higher than the dow in nominative terms, adn teh Canadian Dollar is essentially equal to the US Dollar. This means that Canadian stocks have greatly outperformed US stocks, and appreciated in terms of foreign exchange. This means that the PE numbers you throw out are too conservative by far. Re-jig with a low of 22 times.

So if your math was re-assessed in light of some second thoughts on those 3 points, you would get worst case costs of about $450 with a pog of $800 for $350/oz x 200,000 oz/year with mine life extensions to a 30 year life, or more likely expand production to at least 300,000 oz/year for at least 20 year life. But share dillution to 300 million shares or an equivalent hit in financing results in:

350x300,000/300,000,000x22= $7.7 worst case share value when mine in full production. If you bought in with avg 0.5 that's a 15.4 times bagger.

More optimistically the gross profit per ounce will be higher, as costs will be mitigated by hydro, and POG may be above $1,000 in 3 to 5 years when the mine is up and running.

500x300,000/300,000,000x25= $12.5/share for a 25 bagger.

But what if the POG really does go to $1500 3 to 5 years from now, and price of oil backs of to $100, while use of hydro keeps us an advantage. At this point, investors will be more into the gold sector, and future earnings pottential is demonstrated with mine life expansion and grassroots exploration.

Now we have 1000x300,000/300,000,000x30 = $30 per share.

That's the type of long term value we could be looking at in 5 years. Would that satisfy your risk-reward calculus? It would be even better, of course, a few years later when the reserves warrant 500,000 oz/year as a fully fledged tier 2 gold producer.

This would be $ 50/share. But gas will be $6.00 per gallon, $2.00 per litre. Movies will cost $20 to see, and a pint of Guinness will be $12.

The real question in my mind is how long can you hold on to your shares as the price gradually ratchets up throu 1.5, 2.75, 5, 8, 12 and so on over the coming years?

SKELEG