RE: RE: Not wrong "if TCM says they sold Moly oxide on their website, and moly oxide is 60% moly for 12.75 which is roughly the spot price, then the spot price is priced to moly oxide and not full moly."
That's the point! it was not. I just pointed out that TCM financials don't match if the price was for MoO3. Follow the link and check for yourself.
And of course they sold MoO3. That's the physical form of the product. But it's priced only for it's Mo content.
"2. The prices used in the 43-101 and other reports prepared by Ausenco are not just picked by MSQ."
Yes they are. The client decides what pricing scenario is presented as a base case. NPVs were calculated with range of MoO3 prices so both Ausenco and MSQ have their backs covered. Ausenco would be liable if unrealistic cost data was used. The cost side of things was actually conservative. If you read few feasibility studies, you see that assumed mineral prices can vary hugely between two companies releasing studies in the same year.
"ou promise to apologize if you are wrong, sounds like your original post wasnt 100% fact and is just how you interpret certain readings. "
I'm as sure as I can about this. All the other companies report all their numbers based on pure Mo price. Every feasibility study is based on Mo price not MoO3 price. Check for yourself.
And for your info, I don't own GMO or any other moly company currently. Just used it as an example.
I wonder how many apologies I get when LME moly trading ultimately proves my case.