RE:IVN to NCU comparison >>> math mistake corrected >>>Unless I need adjust the risk and project factors I am quite sure the basic math relationships here are reasonably correct.
Please specify if you see an error or see a factor you think needs adjusting.
One thing this tells us is that the benefits of copper going up in price will effect NCU more in a positive direction than it will benefit IVN. The converse is also true. If copper goes to below $2.00 for any longer period of time then NCU is sunk but IVN can survive it.
N
Notgnu wrote: Sorry. That last post is a mess. This is the corrected version. It turns out that in the long term. Using a 30% risk discount and 85% project value for KK out of the whole of IVN that NCU is 25% the price of IVN... now that makes more sense to me.
| | IVN @ 40% | NCU @ 100% | |
| Long term average copper production per year (uses 500,000 tonnes production) | 440 million pounds | 290 million pounds | |
| $4.60 copper less ($1.15 for IVN and $2.00 for NCU) all in cost per pound | $3.45 C/F | $2.60 C/F | |
| Long term avg annual free cash flow | $1.52 billion | $750 million | |
| IVN E/V X 85% for K.K. only | $8.5 billion | | |
| NCU E/V plus $1B to build the open pit | | $1.4 billion | |
| Cash flow factor 1:6 adjustment IVN to NCU | $267 million | $750 million | |
| DRC 30 year risk vs USA risk neg 30% | $187 million | $750 million | 4X |
| | | | |
| Ivn = 4X as expensive | | | |
| | | | |
| | | | |
Cheers,
Notgnu