Taseko shares are seriously undervalued by almost any measure of value. For example, the 70 % of the El Moro mine in Chile was sold by Extrata (Feb.2010)to New Gold and then to Gold Corp for $463M (plus other considerations possibly bringing the total to $535M). Considering just the $463M brings the total value of El Moro to $661M. The El Moro total reserves are less than the Prosperity reserves. Sojitz established the Gibralter Mine value at $720M. Adding the two mine values gives approximately a $1400M present value to Taseko (neglects the two additional Taseko properties). At 200m diluted shares, I calculate a $7 present value per share for Taseko. Additional considerations (I won't elaborate)brings me to an $8 value.
I also looked at all of the reserves of Yamana Gold,the shares outstanding and other factors (which I will not detail here) - and I conclude that if Yamana is fairly priced at today's market close of $11.45, I would have to place a $20 plus per share value on Taseko.
I used a third method of determining present value for Taseko which I will not detail; however, I can comfortably say that Taseko stock price is totally unrealistic.
Sell this stock short if you like, but my guess is that anyone doing so is treading on dangerous waters.
In the US all the interest groups (enviro's and Indians and whoever) would lobby Congress and Pres., and file lawsuits, protest, demonstrate, say the world is falling, and generally do any thing possible to try to stop something they don't like. It's also great for money raising and soliciting donations from well meaning people living in urban areas who have no concept of living off the land.
Here's a post from way back which clarifies some of this:
In short, things which impact Fisheries/Fish Habitate, Navigable Waters and things which go BOOM are controlled by the Feds.
The panel does make a recommendation and the Minister can do what they'd like. However the panel could also without a recommendation pending the necessary additional information.
I believe Fish Lake has already been given an exemption to be tailings impoundment area, or so I gather from the "Blue Gold" video. I need to research that further.
So, really, if I read you right, the only things the Feds can really control is the fisheries, which means its environmental assessment is really limited to that, no matter how broad the committee tries to make it or appears to make it.
I don't know - sure seems to me that by having separate reviews, they potentially set themselves up for a big mess from a government standpoint.
Although it's true that the Review panel simply recommends and the Minister can approve or not approve regardless - right?
I don't know - there would be a hell of a battle between the state and the Feds.
But, clearly, in Canada a local and a Federal review are called for in the Law. And it must be contemplated that the Feds can say "sorry, but we don't agree" with BC about the environmental impact and the proposed steps to address the impact.
So, tell me, what would happen? What would BC do?
A friend I introduced to TGB bought options over $5 expiring in a couple of weeks.
That's a gamble.
Long term holders are looking for $5.00 without a time table. To assume that TGB will not go over $5 is a gamble.
one thing you posters from the U.S. need to understand, and that has happened in can. with prosperity:
say california has jurisdiction over mining, like up here the province of B.C. has, and the state approves a major project: then the federal govt. would interfere and say no we won't let you do that...it is unthinkable in our free and brave country...what would happen in the U.S. if that happens..?