Member Info for Lenz

Sandgrounded .. and they know a lot more than we or the brokers know !

Prof, NCM are looking at 3m tons per year in the FS. @ I think about 3..75g/T let’s say 4g/T as I am not sure .. so that’s 12m g per year divide by 30 = 400,000 Oz per year that is way more than your calcs show !

Your opinion not backed by facts . As usual

Merry Christmas guys and gals .. let’s hope for much better 2022 than 2021 .. all the best to you and your families

SD is the expert. … this is the part that matters, just go with the flow

Just for info they are not stopping at Havieron .. still 24/7 working right through ;-)

The PFS was rushed out for a reason just to show it was viable, do you think the majority of shareholders will accept a low ball offer when most are PI’s .. laughable comment !

Lucan .. not if you want to continue in an amicable JV

Lucan the current share price will have no bearing on what is paid for the 5%

Countthechickens. This is the bit that kick starts it, they can if they have spent no less than US $20m by way of expenditure towards completion of the FS … it should never have been included. It should have been on completion and publication of the FS … bad deal at the time !

Stage 4 “. . . . . completes and delivers, or incurs no less than US$20 million by way of Expenditure toward the carrying out of, a FEASABILITY STUDY . . . . (Stage 4 Commitment)”

StarBright .. yes if they knew the AISC was going to reduce due to bulk mining, and that the reserves over the next 5 years will be 20moz or more . And I believe both companies know this IMHO

In addition to that of the revised MRE comes in at 6moz or more then the 5% should be worth $330m +

If they all estimate ( brokers ) 12moz @ $1800/oz and an AISC of $700 that’s $1100 x 12m = $13.2bn .. divide by 20 = $660m for 5% .. but we all know and they do too that there is more than 12moz there .. so the 5% payment will be interesting !

Betenberg should be dumped, they have done nothing but bring this share price down over the last year !

StarBright … yes that is what I am suggesting !

There is no way on earth that 5% will be anything less than what the loan is, and probably multiples of that, if and it’s a big IF … NCM and GGP know this is a 20moz mine then 5% is worth 1moz x current gold price minus AISC which could be in the region of $1bn, but I don’t think they will pay that. Anything between $300-500m I think may be acceptable to both parties !

Correct ! So why say how you think the independent assessor will come up with their own value, then take the one nearest to that, both GGP and NCM valuations will be assessed and one will be judged to be fair market value, nothing else ! That is if they are outside 10% which I don’t think they will be, as I think both will come to an acceptable agreement !

StarBright .. NO read the rns it states there what will happen … how hard is it for some people to understand jeez !

What don’t you understand ?

Under the joint venture agreement, if the option exercise price cannot be agreed by this date, each party is thereafter required to notify the other of its assessment of fair market value. If both parties' assessments are within 10% of each other, the option exercise price will be the average of those assessments. If both parties' assessments are not within 10% of each other, the parties will proceed to independent expert determination, with the expert being required to determine which of the values nominated by the parties is to be the fair market value.

Read this gives an idea how it is worked out .. future revenue is included ;-)

Classification of Valuation Models according to type of Mineral Assets

There are three different approaches to valuation,

Income / Cash Flow Approach: it relies on the “value-in use” principle and requires determination of the present value of future cash flows over the useful life of the mineral asset. Valuation methods for this approach include: Discounted Cash Flow, Real Options, Monte Carlo Analysis and Probabilistic Methods
Market Approach: it relies on the principle of substitution. The mineral asset is compared with the transaction value of similar mineral project transacted on an open market. Valuation methods for this approach include Comparable Transactions, Option Agreement Terms, Gross “in Situ” Metal Value, Net Present Value per unit of metal.
Cost Approach: it relies on historical and/or future amounts spent on the mineral asset. Valuation methods for this approach include Value per Unit Area, Market capitalization, Appraised Value, Multiples, Geoscience Factor.