RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:Initial takes on updated PEAOK, now we're starting to get somewhere......
You are raising the concerns related to why you or the market aren't seeing the value that I or other WRN shareholders are seeing. I will address each of these:
1) WRN has been in existence for 15 years. They theoretically could've sold the project for $4 a share when it was trading at their all-time highs in 2011 but did not. Mind you, that $4 ten years ago is around $8 given a decade's worth of inflation. If they weren't interested in selling at an equivalent of $8, why would they sell for less than half that? Truth be told, with $50mm in the treasury, they are under zero pressure to sell to anyone or go bankrupt any time soon.
2) Permitting, sure that is a risk with any project anywhere. However, we don't see the same fiascos with the FNs that we see with other Canadian projects, Casino isn't in a wetland area so the environmental whackos aren't causing any problems. The BATT is in the rear view mirror and we all realize that it will RIO who carries the torch past the finish line as far as final permitting is concerned. I personally don't see much risk here as far as this is concerned and it shouldn't cause any drag on the negotiated price or the goodwill attached to Casino.
3) If RIO drops the ball (and yes, the ball is in their court right now) we have other majors who would be willing and able to step up. Neither you or I know the total number of NDAs that have been signed, so we don't know how many, other than there have been multiple other parties over the last 5 years or so kicking the tires on Casino.
4) Capex can and will creep up year by year. But, you can't look at capex in isolation. Is the cost of labour and energy increasing faster than gold and copper? How about in the future? My bet is that gold and copper will increase much faster for two primary reasons: gold will likey play an integral part in the new monetary system after the Great Reset and copper will play a critical role in the EV revolution and other such green energy tech.
5) If it were a standalone gold mine or a standalone copper mine they would be marginally profitable or some such argument. Isn't that like me saying if Uncle Laura had balls she'd be known as Uncle Harry? I don't see how your argument here has any merit. The fact is that if this is a gold play, the copper offsets yield an exceptionally low cost to mine the gold and vice versa with the copper.
6) I'll also throw this one out here.......I remember various posters (EvenSteven??) who have mentioned that Dale has said on occasion that this is as good or better a project than Western Silver. That project sold for $1 billion. Mind you, that was 15 years ago, so we are now talking at least $2 billion in today's dollars to account for inflation, probably higher. What is $2+ billion divided by 135mm shares outstanding? Hey, that is $16 a share. Hmmmm, I have calculated a floor of $13 a share, my gut tells me, believing the individual who has done this before, that we can easily justify $16 and throwing in goodwill, now we are right back to the $20 I have been saying all along.
OK, so I have addressed your concerns, provided my rationale, used calculations,etc. to arrive at my targets. Are they guaranteed, no, but this is what one would call an educated guess.
Can you provide any figures, or calculations that would justify a $3 a share? Oh, I have one for you: Using recent 20 day moving averages, we are around $2.50 USD and adding the customary 50% premium in a buyout, that would give us $3.75 a share in a buyout. So, even using your market logic, I can shoot down your argument of $3 a share.
So, we're all waiting Metalhead, how can you justify your $3 a share target. I don't want platitutes, or crazy theories, just give me a rational, well thought out reason WHY the shares would be sold for less than 10% of a normally calculated NPV using realistic metal prices and discount rates. Your $3 a share is about $400 million or about 6% of my calculated NPV. That is so insanely low, I don't think you are able to legitimately justify such a figure. That being said, I will listen to your arguments if they are sound.