RE: Taking Stock. For those doing real DD....1. "Benton. I'm not disputing that moly oxide is the product sold. Thats what comes out of a roaster."
Great. On that we agree...
2. "I'm saying compare your LWC numbers to what TCM uses in their finiancials. You want to talk production and dollars and cents, lets use what TCM uses. They are 18 km away and are producing. What could be a better way to compare???"
You are right. Endako is the best basis for comparison to LWC, and this is what I have said along. Its also what LWC have been comparing their deposit to, and Jim Davis has spent a considerable amount of time doing just this - more than either of us - my words are based on what he has told me. As others have mentioned, your analysis of TCM is a bit off. TCM's cost are $10/lb to produce moly oxide and LWC believe that can achieve the same cost because: 1. their deposit geometry is much more favourable and is at shallower depth, thereby reducing their cost of extraction as compared to to TCM; 2. their recovery rates with be higher based on metallurgical testing of the ore, and a qualified geoligsit's opinion - TCM are having recovery issues because some of their higher grade stuff is hosted in black quartz type rock and it has been immpossible for them to float the Mo out of this rock; 3. LWC believe they will acheive much higher recovery rates because they do not have this issue with their ore, and so far preliminary testing has demonstarted that the Mo is easily "floated' out of the host rock/ore - the geology of the two deposits is different, to the favour of LWC, and this is not my opinion, its is what I am being told by Davis whom I take to be more than honest and completely professional (if he has any fault, it is that he is too honest). LWC beleives that these factors will negate the cost disadvantage of their slightyly lower grade ore, making the net production costs difference per pound of moly oxide 0 (zero) or neglible. It is these details that become crucial in truly comparing the economics of deposits, and it is because you are overlooking these, probably not due to any real fault in your abilities, that you are not grasping the full picture with the regards to the comparison of the econmics of the two deposits.
3. "Noront is not being valued at 10% of the insitu value. That is rediculous show me some verifcation on that to prove that you are not just pulling it out of thin air? The do not have a 43-101 resource estimate on the project so you are full of it. There is only speculation as to the tonnes in the ground. Also to compare Noront ore to a low grade moly deposit is comparing apples to rocks. 2% Nickle is worth $500 per tonne not including copper PGMs etc..... Give me a break already."
Actuall, I refer you to very recent research/intiation reports, one by Genuity Capital, and the other by Wasserman Morris, that in fact value NOT using this metric. You are correct that NOT do not yet have a 43-101, but they are about to produce one after drilling 35 holes totalling 6333.6 metres. Although the we do not yet have the 43-101, companies like Sprott, Pinetree, Cormarck and the two mentioned above, to name a few, have been caluclating resources potential based on the drill results and estimating the resource tonnage and value based on the avergae grades - its really quite simple actaully. Anyway, if you do youir research, and you do the math, you will find that NOT is being valued at roughly 10% of the expected resources value of DE1, which in my view is an undervaluation anayway, because it excludes some othet highly propsective properties and any speculative value for further discoveries on their Mc Fauld's Lake properties... But that's the market these days.
You fail to understand that it does not really matter that NOT is a Cu - NI - PGM deposit and LWC is moly depoist. The cost/profit ratios are quite similar and (because) they are both open pittable deposits. I think you you should do some further research on this before you accuse me of pulling things out of thin air.
3. "Yes I am saying that $2.5 billion worth of moly is worth $18 million in the ground right now on a very low grade early stage deposit, only inferred resource no scoping study no feasability study etc.... Yes I am saying that is what it is worth. I could compare hundreds of other resource stocks that are valued at a lot less than 1% of insitu resource value based on 43-101 compliant resources.... LWC is more than fully valued at the current stock price."
Great, so you agree that LWC has a $2.5 billion inferred preliminary resource. No that we have established that, you ought to keep in my mind that comparison to TCM you accused me of not making earlier. It is because of the similarities between TCM and LWC that we can make more appropraite valuations that place the net valuation of LWC's ore much higher than you are. By your rational, you would have dicount the gross value of TCM's resources by the same ratio... Perhaps you should phone TCM and tell them to stop mining because the net value of their reource is far less that what they have calculated. You valuation simple does not make any sense. Even if you want to increase LWC's projected costs per pound of moly oxide by 50% to $15/lb, it still does not make any sense based on the comparison to to TCM that you rightly point out is valid. Are you telling me that LWC's depoit is worth $2,482,000,000 less than the gross value of the 78 million pound so moly oxide you admit they have - even if the their costs per pound are $10 or even $15/lb?? Now who is engaging in funny math?? Your mistake is that you are trying to value LWC as if were a mainly an underground deposit, like TTM's, and not a shallow surafce deposit like TCM's. You cannot have it both ways my friend... If we are going to compare to TCM, let's be consistent.
4. "Tell me how LWC can produce the same pound of Moly as TCM at the same or cheaper cost while having to mine and mill more than twice the ore?"
See my answer to '2' above...
"When grades are significantly different (double or more in this case) you compare cost per tonne, not cost per pound.
Your analysis is full of holes."
Now who's analysis is full of holes??
Regards,
B.