I think that sort of overt skepticism about projects in Montana is more than well deserved. It's clearly been earned, as there's no doubt at all that Montana has been overtly hostile to business, and to mining business in particular. It is clearly correct that there are some people out there who'd love nothing better than to sustain that sort of hostility, and for that view of the overt hostility toward any investment in Montana projects to continue to be the proper view held by the market... and I have no doubt they intend to posture those risks, as well as they can, while trying to make it be true...
But, it's also true that there have been changes that have occurred in Montana, recently... including that the law and its enforcement have been changed in ways that make it quite a lot harder for the DEQ to succeed in violating others rights, the way they have in the past, while preventing projects from moving forward in the way they'd prefer to prevent them from moving forward... extra-legally... just by obstructing and stonewalling, rather than honestly complying with the requirements of Montana law while honoring people's rights under the law...
I've still not dissected the issues there nearly as carefully as some others may have... and, don't claim to be fully current on all the in's and out's in Montana politics that are at issue, or that are likely to come into play...
But, for now, it looks like there is vastly less awareness in the market re the nature of the change that has already occurred, recently, and the potential implication of that change being sustained, than there is inertia in the market's willingness to assume and pretend that nothing has changed... or to assume that the change that has occurred doesn't matter...
I think it's useful to be aware of the risks... and the change that has occurred, while noting things could change again...
But, you do need to be aware of change that has occurred... and only more if the rest of the market is trying hard to ignore it. It's useful, still, to note and respond to the various aspects of "proofs in performance" as they become apparent, rather than responding only to the purposeful posturing... of either side... intending to influence you.
For now, the market is voting for inertia, refusing to recognize any value in changes that have been put forward... that clearly have resulted in change... which may or may not "stick". I think it's pretty reasonable to require proof before assuming the changes made do matter in a way that should have them being fully priced.
Skepticism is justifiable.
I've clearly noted I'm not convinced, yet, re their ability to sustain their project timelines in Montana.
But, IF they sustain them, that proof will be something that matters.
There clearly is a Luddite wing of Nimby's out there, who will oppose anything, anywhere, any time, without reason... but, reality for most people is that you can't drive cars and use cellphones without mining... you're not "fixing the planet" by exporting those jobs and projects to other jurisdictions with lower wages, and less regulatory oversight. And, reality is that miners here aren't "raping the earth" rather than complying with the generally accepted and sensible environmental rules we do have now. Respecting the law requires enabling it in operating in the common interest, not obstructing it in response to the demands of some narrow special interest...
Of course, politics and policy aren't always driven by what's reasonable.. but, for now, Montana seems to be striving toward striking a better balance than they have in the past... and, they are at least succeeding in "looking" quite a bit less like Bolivia than they have...
We've not seen the proof in results, yet.
Proof in the performance ? We've seen evidence of real change in policy... and now we see proofs the change in policy is being properly implemented. It appears they ARE better able to predict when they'll get performance in responses to their inputs. Applications ARE being acted on... rather than ignored. We've not yet seen any proofs delivered that the effort to make regulation and the investment environment more predictable... are going to pay off... by enabling businesses that were obstructed in the past, to succeed in the market, now. But, it is something worth noting that paperwork that might have taken years, before, can now be counted on to be completed and acted upon on within the timeline required.
Getting the papers shuffled more quickly, predictably, and on a reasonable time line... makes operating a business engaged in that process easier and cheaper... but still might not change much in the result of having shuffled the papers faster. I guess we'll find out... soon... if there is more than the effort in obstruction of the operation of law, as policy, that has been responsible for preventing the miners in Montana from mining ?
TLR isn't the only company addressing that set of concerns, now, either. I ended up here in part because of my dissatisfaction with the management at USGIF... who just bought (or were bought by) RX Gold, where there are similar issues with their similarly situated Montana development project.
I like TLR's Montana project better... in part because I like their relationship to it, better... including that their really isn't very much at risk, or much risk for them that is inherent in their participation. TLR's Montana risk is limited... while they retain the shared potential in the upside if there is success.
That leaves only the question of how the market risks and values Butte Highlands... and what the valuation that results in the market means, in terms of opportunity, when it is properly adjusted for risk... either as the risk changes over time, or as the market perception of risk changes.
For now, there is a positive bias in the trends in fundamentals, that isn't reflected in any positive change in share prices already fully discounting improvement that is occurring.
For now, I think there has been more than a hint of positive real change in the fact of the risk... making the risk a lot less than it has been. I don't see much evidence that the market is accepting that and, as a result, valuing Montana projects more than they have in the past...
Potential for success in Montana... isn't being priced in...
It's priced as a "fail" based on the expectation there will be success in the effort in obstruction.. But... the project may not fail. The effort in obstruction may fail, instead.
I don't think it is credible to claim the current share price has already fully discounted much of the improving potential of a success occurring in Montana... So, if they do deliver a success in the next six or eight months... there should be leverage in the upside ? And, if they don't... it's not really costing them anything anyway, and it seems it's already more than fully priced in...
I'd still rather buy a realized risk that's already fully priced in... or more... that proves the market overly pessimistic... than buy risks the market ignores... until they're realized...
Montana mines are still priced as if Montana is Bolivia...
And, it may turn out... that Montana isn't Bolivia...
Otherwise, I agree with you that the share price also represents a significant discount to what clearly is an rapidly improving value in Nevada... with a focus on only a portion of South Eureka...
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
