GREY:PGDIF - Post by User
Comment by
lovecaratson Dec 13, 2017 12:27pm
109 Views
Post# 27147714
RE:RE:RE:$5b NPV...huh??
RE:RE:RE:$5b NPV...huh??cudjo...anyone...help me understand this statement made by rocdic.
It appears he really is sincere in expressing it, but for the love of me and my half century of varied experience in the mining business, I simply cannot appreciate its meaning:
If you don't believe call Tom if we have $5b npv all in costs for everything, post the number but if not I am selling smallest project I would get in ...
O.K., perhaps Tom has been telling racer-x that it is going to COST $5B on a NPV basis to build and operate. Huh?
Say what? To mine and process 7.1 Mt as published in the PEA???
That would work out to $704 per tonne!! Yikes!!
O.K. So we double the tonnage....and we now get a NET PRESENT COST of $352/t. Whew!! That's a whole lot better.
Now we go back to the published Investor numbers and use the phony $178/ct...which is a FUTURE VALUE number, NOT a NET PRESENT VALUE figure. Hmm.
With a grade of 1.67 ct/t this amounts to US$297/t. No bad if it were real.
Let's now go with the current exchange rate cause I really don't know what the FUTURE exchange rate will be, so use US:CD @ 0.80.
This generates a FUTURE insitu value per tonne of CD$372/t
Compare this now to the previously fabricated NET PRESENT COST (per Tom & racer-x) of $352/t....AND WE HAVE A WINNER...NOT.
Clearly something is seriously wrong with information being passed on here.
Fact or fiction. You decide.
LC