Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Royal Nickel Corp. RNKLF



GREY:RNKLF - Post by User

Comment by marben100on Sep 27, 2018 2:47pm
145 Views
Post# 28703120

RE:From ceo.ca board

RE:From ceo.ca boardOre should never be valued on the value of contained metal alone.

A DCF model is needed to estimate the economic value of a resource. You have to deduct mining and processing costs, royalties, G&A and sustaining CAPEX and discount for the time it takes to mine and extract the metal.

An underground resource of 3g/t or less is unlikely to be economic (can be highly ecomonic when near surface and amenable to open pit mining) - as has been demonstrated by the Beta Hunt financial results to date. Things start to get interesting above 5g/t.

Selby's comment refers to the necessity of having ore above that grade. He hasn't yet said they've got it (except in relatively small amounts in the new discovery area), though he is hopeful, given the new geological model they're using.

RNX needs to demonstrate that it's got meaningful ore tonnage above that grade.
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>