RE: RE: Exploration vs. MiningHey Royally,
My figure of 50% ownership and operatorship is actually correct. The further 25% comes from pre feasability and feasability studies being carried out, which I don't see being done any time soon. But as I said it doesn't even matter as these deposits are insignificant next to the old CZZ ground.
On the % of ownership why would JJ to try dilute GBK from 1.966 to 1.2%, seems like a waste of time, especially for the low amount that actually comes to... by your calculation it would make JJ $82,000/yr (I wonder how much the lawyer fees are so far). It's not worth JJ's time stealing this position unless the agreement is that 25% of proceeds go to gbk, like we have been lead to believe.
On your calculations... you are using the wrong 43-101. Your figures are from the Mystery, Getty, Bravo etc... They have ~10Mt @ 0.59% Ni. The JCM property that is concerned with the arbitration has 22Mt @ .93% Ni, so considerably more than you've reported.
22M tonnes @ .93%ni is 204,600 tonnes of nickel, which = ~450M lb. No recovery rate has been published that i see, so I've just assumed 100%
Using $10/lb, because I like easy maths, and want ot be conservative, we get $4.5 Billion
Cost per ton of $40 = $880M
So the net return is $3.62 Billion over a 14yr mine life (1.6Mt/yr)
So $258M/yr
My understanding is that the other metals are abundant enough to actually pay for that $40/t extraction, but I'll leave that expense in there.
IF 25% of that profit goes to gbk that's $65M/yr, into 180M shares is 36c per share, I'd take that.