Western Copper and Gold Corp T.WRN

Email to Sandy

[Sooner]

Here's my email - I'll report back what I hear. I'm confident our management is trying to get best possible return for their shareholders...as they are also shareholders!
-----

Sandy

Please confirm why the below appears to be added to the Rio Tinto rights in the most recent MD&A but doesn't appear in prior releases.

 

Seems to imply Rio has right to maintain at least 8% equity stake in WRN until at least May 2024. - which somewhat dissuades other potential major from entering into agreement with us to create some competitive tension for Rio? Please confirm why this appears to be something not previously disclosed or if I missed that prior. Was the below in the original agreement with Rio or added after? How does the below bullet points benefit WRN? 

 

Rio Tinto will have a right to:

Participate in future equity issuances to maintain its ownership in Western Copper until the earlier of: (a) Rio’s ownership falling below 5.0%; and (b) May 28, 2023.

A one-time “demand registration right” until the earlier of: (a) Rio’s ownership falling below 8.0%; and (b) May 28, 2023.

“Piggy-back registration rights” until the earlier of: (a) Rio’s ownership falling below 8.0%; and (b) May 28, 2023.

Rio also maintains the one-time right to extend the above dates until May 28, 2024.

[Sooner]

Paul's response  "This was in the original agreement, which has been available on SEDAR since we signed the deal.  The key point here is that Rio only holds 8% of the shares.  We specifically kept them at that level as it allows another potential bidder to get involved at any time. There are a number of examples a major got involved in a company where another major

[Sooner]

As Clark pointed out...and Paul confirmed...there is nothing that management is doing to slip this into the most recent MD&A ...so stating that was the case is false and misleading information that I can only assume would be breaking some sort of laws when it comes to investing - if the intent is to provide that information with the sole intent to profit from it! I would consider the above

[MetalMinded]

The funny thing is that Meth is so dumb, there is no realization that rhough MAC Adress and IP tracing, the authorities can easily find them.  Once you have that, you can take advantage of the ENTIRE internet to search for other activity with that MAC address and I tracing and easily zero in on the person, where they are, and all of their illegal activity.  

[GardenManman]

thanks sooner, leave it to Nov. Frankly, disappointed, tired.

[GardenManman]

methhead 666 think takeover $2.0, pappy think Elon have interest on WRN, and Marine think each major may have interest on WRN copper. Actually I think you guys are all overthinking. I am tired of WRN and leave it to Nov. And have no interest to trade to accumulate shares. Tired.

[Sooner]

Garden  Most likely...you will see best by taking off beer goggles but also ensuring you don't have blinders on

[jclarke042]

This is interesting. Might be worth a look into how this unfolded, just for context. Thanks Sooner.

[Sooner]

Clark - just for clarity....Sooner didn't write that...I copied reply from Paul to me email. btw - hey meth u ignorant Meathead...why don't u just reach out to Paul directly with you concerns about Rio etc rather than making false and misleading statements about him related to the MD&A ? He is quite professional and timely in his responses! 

[jclarke042]

Yeah I got you - appreciate you sharing the response.

[Sooner]

Clark  comparing Solgold to WRN - it appears lots of similarities on financials regard NPV ----  the one key difference is they appear to trade at a 3 x premium to WRN. I sent email to Sandy, Paul below with just a few questions. I wonder if this is the key that Paul believes will drive market cap - (eg more than 1 major owning a minority position???) my email to them of which I'll

[jclarke042]

Admittedly I don't know enough about Cascabel to compare it in any meaningful way to Casino. I attribute WRNs dreadful MC/NPV ratio to two factors: 1. The market is assuming, correctly so far as it turns out, that Rio won't decide anything until November 2023. That's not a typo. Market is saying if Rio has that option to extend, they will use it, if only because they can. I read on

[Heywood_Silvers]

Clarke, don't be so sure that WRN needs RIO more than the other way around.  There are only a couple of projects of the size that Casino offers which are for sale in a safe jurisdiction. So, if you have two projects and at least 4 majors who are / will / should be interested in acquiring this strategic asset, I would say that the supply demand part of the equation is in our favour. Why

[jclarke042]

  If Rio buys our 92% for $1.2b, US or .7P/NPV I wouldn't exactly consider that a fire sale. And apart from you & Blue, I'm not sure anyone here would either. That said, since your thesis is solely that Casino should be valued in the world of 5000 gold, I'll channel Sooner. Show me any project's PEA/FS where they used long term, base case metals prices 2x from today??

[Heywood_Silvers]

Fire sale comes from knocking 50% off the top of the NPV by excluding the back half of the mine life.  Then, with the remaining 50% you knock it down further due to the excessively conservative figures.  Then with the remaining 30 - 40 you knock half off of that since no suitor ever pays 100% of NPV.  Voila, you arrive at around 15 - 20 cents of true value.  I don't know

[Sooner]

Hey  the one thing I agree with you on for sure is the ridiculousness in NPV calc that uses current metal prices in future ...so 500M lbs of copper mined 30 years from now is basically worthless in the NPV calc....but the exact same amount of copper mined next year adds significant amount to NPV calc. Not logical ...

[dfwrgk]

Interesting to be quoted. I'm just a shareholder like the rest of you. But I definitely don't assume no other company is looking at us besides Rio. Our asset is too rare. We should not extend with them another year, were that possible. I see no advantage for us, structuring the deal that way. It's all too vague. They're apparently not real eager to meet. We should definitely be

[jclarke042]

  No, I added that part based on expected timeframe for FS/Metallurgy work to be finished

[Sooner]

Point 1- I believe it requires both parties to extend  point 2 - ok but capex of Cascabel is higher than casino and has longer payback period cant see these as being valid reasons for disparity in valuation ...

[dfwrgk]

Perhaps I'm misunderstanding the discussion here, but I'm pretty sure Paul recently said the Extension was solely Rio's option. If they request it, we are obligated to the agreement for 12 more months. 

[jclarke042]

Not misunderstanding - it's a Rio's sole discretion. I just didn't want to be the bearer of bad news.

[Sooner]

Then if they wait they wait and extend...we just continue on with moving the project forward and hopefully market cap increases , we get another major to take on 8% stake, etc...