RE:There are 4 to 5 analysts CURRENTLY following TLG depending Potadvisor,
While I realize you're a self-proclaimed investment genius who knows how to value companies and apparently has a stock market portfolio worth many millions of dollars, it doesn't appear evident that your alleged skills translate very well to microcap first mine build precious metals companies. Then again, we should realize all your self-promoting claims must be true since they're posted on an internet chat board.
First off, I suppose if "4 or 5 analysts" have (I assume) 12-month targets of $1.25 - $2.25, I guess they must be correct. After all, analysts almost never have a bullish bias on the sectors / stocks they cover or downgrade their price estimates when further information becomes available. Just to give a couple of recent examples, sector analysts were also bullish on the likes of Pure Gold Mining and Marathon Gold - they really hit the nail on the head with those two picks, didn't they? Not saying TLG won't be a winner, but I thought you did your own research based on your self-proclaimed skill in valuing companies and thus no need to rely on analysts to support your faith in TLG...?
"TLG's gold ounces went up from the last MR, YES or NO ? The answer is of course YES"
Yes, their indicated AuEq went up significantly when their latest MRE was released in October.
Only issue there is they produced zero measured ounces (measured ounces indicate a higher level of confidence in becoming reserves than indicated ounces).
The key figure in the FS will be proven and probable reserves (i.e., ounces that are deemed economcially mineable), so I wouldn't start popping the champagne yet (since you claim to possess a multi-million dollar stock portfolio, I assume that's what you drink...?).
"TLG's last assesment of their infrastructure went up from 350 to 500 milion, YES or NO ? if course that is a YES."
Uh-Oh, another fly in the ointment. I think it's highly likely that, had that existing infrastructure not been in place, this project would be deemed economically unmineable and TLG shares worth next to zero. It's initial and sustaining capex that are the key numbers to look at, again presented in the FS. Thus, even with the existing infrastructure, TLG's initial capex will likely be at least $900M (with a decent chance of hitting $1B+ given JR's recent claims of "...some incredible opportunities to go even bigger and more profitable..." to achieve "...the best outcome possible"), which is quite pricey for a first project. Also, the higher the intital capex, the more likely the project could go over-budget and require more financing / higher capex, which would throw off the NPV estimate presented in the FS.
"The GOLD price went UP STRONGLY in the last couple of years, YES or No ? Now that ios a RESOUNDING OF COURSE YOU IDI_TS."
Misleading. Yes, the price of gold has gone up a significant amount, but TLG will not be selling an ounce of gold until sometime in 2026 at the earliest IMO, so the FS, JV agreement, financing, contracting, and permitting progress will likely have much more of an impact on the share price than what gold will be trading at for the rest of 2024, 2025, and into 2026. Also, gold is currently at its all-time highs, so we can only take educated guesses re. what the price of gold will be when TLG starts pouring and selling ounces, or during the time period between now and then for that matter. I'm assuming a gold price of $1,800 - $2,000 when examining juniors, which I think is relatively conservative.
"TLG is trading under the infrastructure assesment value, YES or NO ? Again YES, WAYYY UNDER."
See my response to quote 2 above.
"Based on nimber 4 above, than it is FAIR to say that TLG's gold in the ground shows a NEGATIVE VALUE, YES or NO ? Again, YES since you have to be an UNEDUCATED IDI_T TO think otherwise."
Bizzare statement. Reinfoces Pot's failure to grasp the likelihood that the only reason this project is seen to be economically viable is because the existing infrastructre is in place. Without it, highly unlikely this project gets off the ground at all.
"Since the mine was in operation in the past, it is safe to say that the METALURGY IS GOOD, YES or NO ?? Again a resounding YES."
Again, the proven and probable reserves will tell the story.
"The LOWEST PRICE PAID for a resource from 2012 to 2020 with ZERO infastructure was $33 for an INGROUND OUNCE in 2017 when gold's AVERAGE price that year was $1257 DOLLARS.
The HIGHEST price paid for a resource ingound ounce in that time frame was $171.45 per INGROUND OUNCE in 2021 and the AVERAGE gold price that year was $1800 dollars.
Than, based on the above statements, would it not be 100% CORRECT to say that with gold OVER $2200 DOLLARS PER OUNCE, TLG should, if a buyout was to occur get at least $33 dollars per inground ounce. With that, we would DISCOUNT gold price to less than $1300 and give ZERO value for our infrastructure. YES or NO ??? ANOTHER RESOUNDING NO BRAINER YES. Oh common you IDI_TS, the math is NOT THAT HARD HERE, even UNEDUCATED MOR_NS can get that."
Three examples of irrelevant rambling that mean nothing going forward.
What is relevant over the next 2-3 years are the estimates provided by the FS, management's ability to steer the ship post-FS toward a fully financed, fully contracted, fully permitted project, then construct said mining operation on time and on budget up to first pour such that the mining operation will yield a good profit margin per ounce.