RE:RE:lumpy13no question is a bad question.............First, read the following "To exercise the back-in right, Barrick will pay Skeena up to three times its cumulative expense on the property(3x$50M,minimum). As part of the back-in Barrick would also reimburse to Skeena the Purchase Price($10M) and assume any bonding requirement for its proportionate interest, following which the parties will form a joint venture.(from SKE news release)
Now read this from my previous post
Barrick does not back in (I hope) which means 100% for SKE and we use a conservative value of 5M onz. at Eskay and 1M onz. at Snip for a total of 6M onz. total for SKE.
When gold was $1350US, buyers were giving an average value of $65US/onz or $90 CAN./onz at the present stage of SKE .but using gold $1700 US which is 25% higher gives a buyout value of 90x (1.25) =$112CAN/onz.
With 6M onz = 6M x $112CAN = $672M CAN for SKE.......Market Value
using 160M shares..........672/160 = $4.2 CAN/share..........using 6M onz.
So If Barrick backs in then they would have to pay a fair market value to SKE shareholders for the remaining 49% of the company if they wanted all of it. A conservative fair market value would be $3/share(as previously shown) assuming $1700 gold and 6M onz .
Note...some people like to use NPV calculations