Post by
DAM$ on Feb 16, 2024 5:11pm
An important point?
The numbers that they gave us are just a bonus and are probably on the conservative end. I’m not about to dig through the 1000’s of pages of drill assays but I did find this as a quick comparison to the list everyone is working on. In Zones M21-25 they used 0.1-2.6 g/t
Compared to “The most significant historical and recent gold-silver grades from the M25/Marge Corridor (“F”, “X” and M21 to M25 Quartz Veins) included: • 314m grading 17.62 g/t gold over an average 36cm true width at the Marge Quartz Vein (Koskitalo, 1988); and • 58.10 g/t gold and 140 g/t silver from selected grab samples of the M25 Quartz Vein (refer to the Corporation’s news release dated December 3, 2019).” From a Dec 19/2019 report they published.
I think we are missing an important point and that is that this was ordered at the end of Oct, 2 months after the Special Committee was formed. As we have been discussing, SC’s and Financial Advisors are not set up and hired on a whim. They are engaged to negotiate a deal. As you may recall Steve said they needed a report for any deal. I am thinking that the buyer or buyers are not mid or large mining companies but venture capitalist / Finance companies who may not have the team of geologists that the miners have. Therefore, they asked for the numbers and methods to be verified by an outside independent source. IMay be one reason why they did not wait for the much anticipated latest results that they knew were going to be great.
Something to ponder over the weekend
Comment by
JoJoHairBlo on Feb 16, 2024 6:27pm
DAMS, got a question for you...if they are Private Equity, etc. and don't have a team of geologists to consult, then it wouldn't matter if these numbers LME put out are conservative or not. Aren't the suitors going to take the figures that the 3rd party came up with and base an offer on that?
Comment by
Bracko on Feb 16, 2024 7:29pm
I think Goldbelt mentioned that last year on his post saying the same thing