InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 14
Posts 787
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 07/08/2014

Re: Anvil post# 83591

Sunday, 10/19/2014 6:11:12 PM

Sunday, October 19, 2014 6:11:12 PM

Post# of 115337
You funny! These are the ONLY methodologies approved by CIM & TSX. I didn't make them up :) No point in doubting them.

'Similar' mineral properties do not have to be adjacent but they have to feature similar (but not identical - as each mineral deposit is unique) geology, mineralization, blue sky potential etc. There are books written on this topic so I won't start explaining that here.

Past expenditures that would be considered for example at Ruby won't include failed tunnels or raises but the ones that provide access to working areas or prospective mining areas. So what would be the cost to build miles of tunnels (nowadays)? And to buy the processing equipment (second hand if you want). Just an example as there is more to that.

Remember that we are also discussing the other prospective mineral properties that NBRI owns.

If Perry sells one of those properties he could ask for a royalty which would be also taken into consideration when someone would value NBRI. That would be based on a technical report of course. More to be discussed but please do not doubt what I say and make me write more on the topic. Still Sunday :)

Agreed with the farm-in agreement.

Cheers.
Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent NBRI News