GREY:PGDIF - Post by User
Comment by
ekimon Jan 15, 2016 1:37pm
115 Views
Post# 24462778
RE:EKIM, saw your post on SI
RE:EKIM, saw your post on SIHey Normal Guy.
The biggest question to me for the immediate future is how forgiving the valuator will be for the breakage results in the valuation model.
It is easy to take a damaged octahedron with a chip taken out of a corner and give a valuation based on that chip not being there.
It is a bit harder taken another stone that is half broken and imaging the other half exists and give a value on that.
It is even harder being told in the breakage study that some of the high quality gems have shattered into many pieces and many of those are not in the parcel...so please assume x # of these exist...also they will be of the gem variety because they are the ones more prone to shatter.
The ugly grey/brown colour at 41% is more likely over stated based on the above.
Picking out a valuation of the stones is not straight forward. CH-7 clearly shows a bigger grey/brown population as compared to CH-6 even with a % less than 41%...but ch7 also produces twice the # of 4+ carat stones in the same sample size.
No inclusions on that 5.33 stone..that has the possiblity of the highest #/carat stone at Chidliak.
Depending on where those minor inclusions were on the 8.87 stone.
We wait for the valuations...and then economics.
I have a feeling the min/max range for the valuation will be larger then ch-6 and then the responsibility gets pushed to the QP for the PEA for what is a reasonable single valuation # to use.
The population curve is also damaged...and they talk about rebuilding that based on the breakage report...so that makes due diligence (statistical comparison) much harder from a retail pespective.
LONG...PGD
EKIM