WAF (ASX) Ann: WAF hits 6.5m at 61.8 g/t gold at M1S

Originally posted by eshmun ↑

Valuing a "fiananced" mine development isn't very different to valuing an existing mine. It comes down to the strength of the forward economic mine model and the quality of data that has been inputted into the mine model. I say a "financed mine development" because there is essentially little difference in that case with an operating mine, aside from the fact that an established mine doesn't carry commisioning risk. In an ideal world with professional managers, consultants and contractors, well executed drill programs and a feasibilty study with realistic assumptions, cut off limits and properly costed inputs the commisioning risk should be negligible. Unfortunately ASX gold stocks are full of cowboys who are more motivated by what they can take than what they can give so all sorts of corners are cut on purpose or through simple dumb neglect and sometimes its just a simple case of putting lipstick on a pig. So I would disagree and say that financed developers are as much investments as operating mines. Non-financed developers and explorers are definately the realm of traders. All however IMO need to be approached with caution as the gold secror hasn't in general covered itself in glory in the last 20 years. The gold price has provided a decent platform but many gold miners, big and small, haven't even been able to compete with the performance of the underlying commodity which they mine.

Now I was talking about a very special and specific circumstance when the value of a company needs to be determined as part of a defence to a takeover offer that might be on a table.

In general the independent valuer that is called upon to determine if the offer is fair and resonable will be relying on information provided by the company and feasibilty studies that are in the public domain. They are not generally given a mandate to conduct their own independent economic modelling or given the abilty to audit the quality of the drillling and or scientific information the feasibilty study is based on, such as the quailty of the metallurgical work, geotechnical work, hydrology etc etc.

When the offer comes it's like the value of the company is crystalised in time and the independent experts need to determine a value range based on the information available at that snap shot in time.

The principal value determinant is the company's own economic model and it is tough tities if you are still polishing up your Nth iteration to that model when an offer comes. The pressure is then on the company to polish faster before the offer runs its course (ie succeeds, closes or fails). The expert valuers will also have access to comparative projects that have been transacted in arms length transactions both in Africa and around the world and such comparisons in terms of reserves, resources and planned scale of production will factor into the overall valuation. As mentioned in my previous post the depth potential of these deposits in terms of feeding into an economic mine model or a comparative reserve/resource valuation methodology can only be based on an actual resource built around any deep holes that have been drilled. The expert might be able to ascribe some value based on one hole but they can't just draw a conclusion like we might, ie take the ounces per vertical metre averaged from the established resource above the hole and multiply it by the depth that that one hole potentialy extends the resource, ie you are not going to get paid anywhere near the full value of any depth potential that exists in a takeover situation and I'm also talking about the depth potential below the deepest hole at M1. M1 already appears to extend to a depth of 650-670m below surface. There is nothing to say it doesn't extend to twice that depth or even deeper. The revised resource estimates will extend the depth a little below the base of the current resource but not much further. IMO we need to complete sufficient infill drilling at depth to fill the backend of the life of mine plan so that we can more properly defend the TO when it comes or at least establish an inferred reource at depth at M1 to at least the depth of our current deepest hole. Esh

Expand

thanks eshmun................

will read and re-read all that later this evening, if time permits...........

then learn, re-read and discuss later............

thanks again.

No.	Vol.	Price($)
13	16470	$1.53

No.

Vol.

Price($)

16470

$1.53

Price($)	Vol.	No.
$1.54	19085	15

Price($)

Vol.

No.

$1.54

19085

No.	Vol.	Price($)
1	3670	1.360
1	4785	1.355
4	42574	1.350
2	26140	1.345
1	4986	1.340

No.

Vol.

Price($)

3670

1.360

4785

1.355

42574

1.350

26140

1.345

4986

1.340

Price($)	Vol.	No.
1.370	46444	4
1.375	84504	4
1.380	66843	2
1.385	20785	3
1.390	109785	4

Price($)

Vol.

No.

1.370

46444

1.375

84504

1.380

66843

1.385

20785

1.390

109785

(20min delay)
Last $1.53		Change 0.008(0.49%)		Mkt cap ! $1.866B

Open	High	Low	Value	Volume
$1.54	$1.55	$1.52	$1.193M	779.4K

Ann: WAF hits 6.5m at 61.8 g/t gold at M1S, page-17

History-making uranium sample grades and an imminent drill run. Infini Resources is poised to transform in 2025

Pan Asia rebranding to 'clear confusion' after bagging $35M for Chile projects

Southern Cross Gold zooms in on 9 new high-grade zones above 20g/t at Golden Dyke

MinRes's Ellison knows he screwed up – for that reason, hunt for new Chair to be sped up

This biotech stock raised $11M in a risk-off environment. Its Alzheimer's drug could change the game

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)

Ann: WAF hits 6.5m at 61.8 g/t gold at M1S, page-17

Top Stories

History-making uranium sample grades and an imminent drill run. Infini Resources is poised to transform in 2025

Pan Asia rebranding to 'clear confusion' after bagging $35M for Chile projects

Southern Cross Gold zooms in on 9 new high-grade zones above 20g/t at Golden Dyke

MinRes's Ellison knows he screwed up – for that reason, hunt for new Chair to be sped up

This biotech stock raised $11M in a risk-off environment. Its Alzheimer's drug could change the game

Buyers (Bids)

Sellers (Offers)