RE: Just for the record Pauly ................The valuation that I used to get the 3.25 figure (or whatever it was) was different from the one you preferred in a couple major ways.
1. The one you preferred did not use NAG's most recent inferred numbers, while the other valuation did. This means the other valuation included values for moly and silver, and higher amounts of Cu and Au.
2. The probability of confirming the find in your preferred method was 30%, while I increased that to 50% to get the 3.25 value. I did this since the results seemed to confirm expectations to some extent.
3. The estimated lifespan of the mines was originally 10 years (you adjusted to a more reasonable 25), while it was a more conservative 20 years in the other valution.
3. The discount rate in your preferred method was 15%, while I used 20% in the updated version.
Anyways, we'll see how results continue to come out, and hopefully they continue to improve and eventually the market catches on. It would be nice to see some higher grades in the next batch of tests.