Member Info for Pbow

Also ill add the graph is wrong. I cant recall exactly but im sure Brown sold lots of British gold for a price of something in the 200's in the late 90s early 00's

Ah im so sorry of course we shouldn't consider inflation adjustments in the pricing of gold when we do for everything else in the NPV valuation. It makes absolutely perfect sense. Good to see you are bladdered again what will this be your 4th banning? Or is it your 3rd? Because we all know whats coming.....

December 1980 the inflation adjusted price for gold was 2,191 USD. October 2000 486 USD. Imagine buying a mine in 1980 based on an inflation adjusted price of over 2,191 USD and gold fell to 485 USD how much money you would have lost.

I 100% agree the FS should be based on a higher price for Gold and copper.... but nothing like spot given the reason its so high is Trump and he wont be in power by the time the mine enters production (unless TAM is a goer)

You seem to have an issue reading a graph.

Im not flying to Abu Dhabi.... as I said im flying to Qatar (Doha) where I will change planes and go to Abu Dhabi. QR24 then I get on QR1044. I get reasonably well paid but its difficult to justify paying 5k pounds ish to fly direct with Etihad rather than paying 2k pounds to fly indirect with Qatar Airways when the journey takes only a few hours longer - with most of those hours spent in the business class lounge on the way to Manc and in the first class lounge on the way to Abu Dhabi.

Oh Rodney its also wrong because the PFS is only based on a % of the resources in cascabel. So when Stas is doing his calculation he should go balls deep and full on bat sh*t crazy mode and multiply his 7 billion by at least 4. He should be shouting from the roof tops that NPV is a minimum of 28 billion he is significantly undervaluing the company and should be ashamed of himself for being such a deramper........ Mather will be the richest man in Australia when his is sold!!!!

Hi Cash im now on the plane we have taken off from Manchester Airport bound for Doha. There I will connect to a flight to Abu Dhabi and get to relax. Just waiting for my food to come, then the turn down service so I can hopefully get some kip.

Rodney yes it is wrong for the reasons I set out in my post at 20:42 plus the blindingly obvious that no one in their right mind would use spot prices for a mine with a life of 30 ish years.

Rodney i dont defend the deletion of the sensitivity analysis. I just dont care that they have. It made exactly no impact when it was included for 2 or 3 months. As demonstrated by my posts in the Telegram groups of almost a year ago I thought the inclusion would help... it didnt so.

The bit where he is ramping Rodney is he is misrepresenting what happened with the sale of the mine in Ecuador to justify a figure in the 40s.

When you give your examples try and find one that has the exact same country risk as Ecuador, and is at the same development stage as Cascabel- if you can I will be felighted and will happily give that equal waiting to the example I have provided. If it doesnt meet those criteria then im sorry but my example is a better representation of where we sit.

But your 7 billion is fundamentally wrong.

1) doesnt take into account inflation / escalation.

2) doesnt take into account the Franco deal (positive and negative impacts).

3) doesnt take into account the new plan which clearly introduces significant cost.

4) TAM may add to NPV or it could decimate NPV so should not be included until the drilling is completed and the assay results are received.

And your point 2. So ive given a mine that is as close as its possible to be to Cascabel and that had a valuation of 18/19% of NPV based on the rates used in its PFS!!!!! Which are almost the same as the Cascabel ones. So if we are to use NPV as the metric of valuation this suggests we are all going to end up crying.

Sorry went wrong. Try again

Pete:

I've been bored again so have done my updated estimate of NPV based on the fluctuation in copper price (9% increase). And the gold price (44% increase) from PFS. Also taking into account 20% of gold been given to Franco for the first 750k ounces of gold and 12% thereafter, and then paying 20% of the spot price for each ounce. That makes a weighted average by my reckoning of 10%. So a total increase on return of gold is 34%. So the copper adds in 0.36 billion and the gold (taking into account franco) adds in 0.7933 billion. So that puts us at 4.35 billion

Silver is separate and cannot be calculated based on the PFS

It seems that the sensitivity analysis in the PFS takes into account the additional royalty payable to the government. As the calculations aren't linear.

The max displayed impact on NPV for gold is 30% which would take the gold price to 2275 per ounce which is above the point where the maximum royalty kicks in

The only bit that is missing (for completeness is the inflation/ escalation aspect of the construction cost) however I'm not clever enough to include this in my calculation. But to be reasonable say knocks off 12% which would put us at an NPV of 3.8 billion

These are my posts in the Telegram group from 29th August 2024

Pete:

The problem with the sensitivity analysis though......

It only shows upto 30% plus or minus

Gold is well past that 😂😂

It's kindof possible to work it out

But it's made slightly harder because the royalty to the government changes

Which is why an increase in gold to 10% increases NPV by .3 billion and from 10% to 20% only .2 billion

Yes but the bit you are deliberately ignoring Stas is the mine im talking about was sold for 18/19% of the NPV price of its PFS. You would need to update their NPV to reflect the spot prices from when that was sold which would make the % massively smaller and use that % on your updated Cascabel NPV but you dont want to do that as it doesnt fit your narrative.

There are a few jokey messages in between which I haven't copied and pasted as they add no value.

Oh and Rodney I was reading through messages in the Telegram Group and have to apologise. I was incorrect it wasn't Chris Stackhouse who told Sean it was Chris Robinson. I will copy and paste the exchange now. This is in the Telegram group that multiple people here are on so would appreciate if someone would confirm what I am saying is correct. This is from 27th of September 2024.

Pete

Pete:

Morning Sean - I see in the RNS they point to the sensitivity analysis lol

So a cheap way of spreading the message

Sean:

Spot on.

I knew you'd ask...so I asked Chris Robinson just a few hours ago.

It's a bit silly from a regulatory point of view....but want to know how it gets even crazier?

Pete

There is a bit of an issue with the sensitivity analysis though 😂😂

Scott

We can't cherry pick....and go with the increases in Copper, Gold, Silver for instance.

Pete:

Yeah would have to redo the mine estimate and reflect franco streaming deal

The mine estimate will be up circa 6% I would guess

Sean:

if we talk about a potential change in NPV....would you believe we have to include changes to the cost of other things like STEEL? ...ANYTHING USED FOR MINE DEVELOPMENT. TOO.

that answer I found pretty remarkable. We'd have to redo it all. Capex etc.,

Pete

Yeah I got that from the PFS. Things like steel would be the escalation (outside of general inflation).

Sean:

.....To be honest....I am not a financial guru....I don't have a CA, CPA, or CFA.......but what Chris said made sense.

and she said any potential partner or suitor would do their own internal calculations pretty quick

Pete:

Updating the estimate should be relatively easy though.

I do these estimates for a living - albeit not mines

But big civil engineering projects.

Pete:

The problem with the sensitivity analysis though......

It only shows upto 30% plus or minus

Gold is well past that 😂😂

It's kindof possible to work it out

But it's made slightly harder because the royalty to the government changes

Which is why an increase in gold to 10% increases NPV by .3 billion and from 10% to 20% only .2 billion

So i was talking about this almost a year ago.

I wont be deleting my posts again. Just like I wont be disclosing my linked in page / twitter handle and a contactable phone number again.

Stas has set out a position and repeated it adinfintium when presented with a company with a mine in Ecuador sold recently. At a very similar stage to Cascabel though probably better as currently it is likely to enter production quicker than Cascabel - though this could change with TAM. Sold at 18/19% of its NPV from its PFS which was based on similar commodity prices to the PFS for Cascabel he has no answer other that to misrepresent what I said to justify a pricing in the 40s - that my friend is ramping.

Lol you calling out is just misrepresenting the facts. Like your comment early saying that what I had said demonstrated a minimum price in the 40s when it clearly didn't. They were bought for 18/ 19% of their NPV price in their PFS comparable rates to ours. So a like for like comparable for cascabel would be 18/ 19% of our PFS NPV which is clearly nothing like a price in the 40s. But you carry on twisting words - fill your boots, ill keep on laughing at you.

Https://www.expreso.ec/actualidad/economia/pago-tasa-minera-ecuador-arranca-1-julio-dialogo-continua-248084.html

The above is good. I hadn't realised we only had to pay one month's worth of fee by the end of the month. Gives a lot more breathing space. Previously I had understood it to be that we had to pay 6 months.

You are funny.

Again I was in Riyadh. I was in taxis due to a) not wanting to drive there and traffic and b) in the evenings I was in the hotel on my own as my wife was in Abu Dhabi.

I dont really need to do much research at present as ive done plenty before and have my notes. Most posts ive done take all of a min.

Anyway you keep on with your complete nonsense ramping. It will achieve absolutely nothing whatsoever other than maybe influence some poor gullible people who believe your absolute nonsense. I feel sorry for those people but it is what it is. Most people are fully aware why this share is where it is - its missed every self imposed deadline and been badly run. Having spoken to the chairman I have confidence that he is a serious player and will lead to better things. Im in two minds about the CEO - I have one concern with him, but im happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Its very clear when you are presented with facts they dont fot your narrative your dummy comes flying out, you are indeed correct that I think you are an idiot, I also think you are like a petulant child.

Anyway I shall get back to drinking the free Birra Moreti in the airport lounge :-)

You are funny.

Again I was in Riyadh. I was in taxis due to a) not wanting to drive there and traffic and b) in the evenings I was in the hotel on my own as my wife was in Abu Dhabi.

I dont really need to do much research at present as ive done plenty before and have my notes. Most posts ive done take all of a min.

Anyway you keep on with your complete nonsense ramping. It will achieve absolutely nothing whatsoever other than maybe influence some poor gullible people who believe your absolute nonsense. I feel sorry for those people but it is what it is. Most people are fully aware why this share is where it is - its missed every self imposed deadline and been badly run. Having spoken to the chairman I have confidence that he is a serious player and will lead to better things. Im in two minds about the CEO - I have one concern with him, but im happy to give him the benefit of the doubt.

Its very clear when you are presented with facts they dont fot your narrative your dummy comes flying out, you are indeed correct that I think you are an idiot, I also think you are like a petulant child.

Anyway I shall get back to drinking the free Birra Moreti in the airport lounge :-)