Fair value right now is whatever the market says it is. Fair value later is the thing to determine and where people will make profits or losses. Tough to figure. If gold goes low enough, not even 12 - 15 gpt will be profitable to mine. So, for me, it boils down to deciding over and over and over if gold is likely to go below 1000.
Wild speculation. Right. I'm one of the few here who explains their reasoning. I do that because I'm not trying to pull the wool over anyone's eyes. I put the rationale out there for all to see and make their own judgements about.
You, on the other hand, never explain even a little of your rationale. People are simply supposed to assume you are right.
From the Campbell, Canada page at mining technology about the Campbell mine (reading 289 page annual report not necessary)
"As of December 2005, proven and probable ore reserves stood at 5.5Mt grading 8.2g/t and containing 1.45Moz of gold. Measured and indicated mineralisation contained a further 1.83Moz."
and "In 2005, 440,000t of ore grading 15g/t were milled at a 96% recovery to yield 209,200oz of gold, virtually the same as in 2004. Output in 2006 was then expected to be around 200,000oz."
It's really rather revealing that this sort of data is so easy to find but that nobody has ever posted an example of a 43-101 predicted grade that was even remotely close to correct compared to actual production for a mine with an extreme coefficient of variance like F2 has. Not a single example from Red Lake. Not a single example from anywhere else in Canada. Not a single example from anywhere else in the world.
Don't you think people ought to have to back up what they say with data that supports what they are saying?
in re: Will you believe that ore grade is 3 times higher than known, even if reports, bulk sample including, said it differently?
I'll believe whatever empirically driven conclusions are demanded by the data. I'd take your nonsense seriously if there was even 1 instance of a 43-101 predicted grade that was even remotely close to accurate for deposits that have a very high coefficient of variance in the small scale sampling; i.e., core drilling, etc.
There isn't such an example.
You are quite right. And, as Paul Harvey used to say, "Now, for the rest of the story."
The techniques used by SRK in the latest 43-101 for F2 predicted the grades in those two areas to be a little more than 4 grams per tonne. Those techniques that predicted a little more than 4 gpt where 7.1 gtp and 8.2 gpt were recovered from actual production are the same techniques that predicted 8.1 gpt for a lot of the rest of F2. That means, in all likelihood, that the 8.1 gpt prediction for a lot of the rest of F2 is likely to be about say 53% to 62% of the grade that will actually be recovered in production. That would be between say 12.39 gpt and 13.20 gpt, solidly within my predicted production grade of 12 to 15 gpt.
So, you found examples of 43-101 predicted grades using linear forecasting techniques from before there was such a thing as a NI 43-101 standard? That is VERY impressive. So, what was the coefficient of variance in the small scale sampling from Battle Mountain. It's about 650% at F2.
So, how do you explain that in 2005 the Placer Dome mine that later got bought by Goldcorp filed a 43-101 with a predicted production grade of 8.2 gpt yet produced that year at 15.9 gpt and has done similarly better than predicted for many years before that and for every year since?
How do you explain Goldcorp filing a 43-101 estimate for Couchenour that predicts approximately 10 gpt when their geos tell an analyst conference (reported by the analyst from TD) that they expect actual production to be approximately 17 gpt?
So, how do you explain the 43-101 filed last by Goldcorp for Red Lake mine that predicts a little over 9 gpt when actual production is around 19 gpt?
That's two concrete examples from the same camp as F2 where what the company predicted in advance was laughably inadequate compared to actual production.
That's one concrete example reported by an analyst from TD that Goldcorp's own geos expect Couchenour to produce at far higher grades than linear forecasting predicts.
Yeah, right. Only morons believe things for which is there is abundant empirical evidence. Smart people, such as yourself, only believe patent nonsense they invented out of whole cloth that has no emprical evidence in support of it at all. And, by now, pretty much everyone on this board knows that you have never, never, ever, not even once presented any empirical evidence to support your claim that "in real world things go worse than contemplated in advance" when it comes to deposits like F2 with an extreme coefficient of variance in the drill results.
well, it should be very easy to prove the moron claim then. Find a 43-101 resource report that used linear forecasting methods on a deposit with a coefficient of variance like F2 has that got even remotely close to predicting the production grade. You won't find one. They ALL predict production grade far lower than actual.
There is a moron in this conversation but it's not me.
Interpreted the way these analysts interpret the available info, there's hardly any reason to invest in RBY. Better to put money in something like PVG on price dips.
But, I don't think either of these analysts have a clue about the likelihood of production at higher than 43-101 predicted grades. I saw no mention of it whatsoever. Which is odd since there has never been a 43-101 estimate using linear forecasting techniques that has come even remotely close to predicting actual production grade where the coefficient of variance in the drilling is what it is at F2.
Actually, 20 gpt (the real range I was "pumping" was 17 - 20 gpt but don't let a little thing like being accurate slow you down for gosh sake) was before they increased the size of the mining envelope by lowering the cutoff grade they plan to mine. Since they have lowered the cutoff grade I'm only "pumping" 12 - 15 gpt. Contrary to your post, I don't think there is much of anything ambiguous about that prediction at all. It's very clear cut. Once official production is declared, F2 will produce at 12 - 15 gpt or higher.
And this is how stupid jazenevd is. He thinks because something is charted on a monthly chart, that it means the pattern is going to happen in a month.
actually, I doubt JW's real motivation is what you think. I think his real motivation is an attempt to reassure himself he still is relevant in some manner. If his motivation were truly what you think, he would try to devise rational arguments so as to be more convincing. He never expresses anything that could persuade on the strength of the reasoning so I don't think you have his motivations quite pegged.
There are others who have the motivations you ascribe to JW I think but they are basically gnats with about as much effect on the share prices as one would expect from a gnat.
If anyone wants to see a project that faces and has faced many of the same issues that RBY has faced and does face, that has not exhibited the same vulnerabilities for extended periods of time all they need to do is to familiarize themselves with PVG and the history of their Brucejack deposit. That management (Quartermain, et al) was smart enough to hire consultants who understand high coefficient of variance deposits. The BCSC has not uttered one peep about their 43-101 filings because the BCSC KNOWS it does not have the gravitas to take on Snowden consulting.
Well, I take your viewpoint and you do have a point. But, I'm getting pretty sick of gmm acting like other people pursuing what they perceive to be in their own interest were some moral failing. Short selling, swing trading, etc. is neither immoral nor is it illegal. Folks who do that pay their quarter and take their chances same as a long holder does. There are some varieties of high frequency trading that are probably immoral and should be illegal but there are other varieties of high frequency trading that are neither.
gmm has about as much right to the moral high ground on this matter as some politburo hack would who spouts platitudes about the necessity of sacrificing one's own interests for the greater good of some nebulous other. Of course, I say that because I believe in free markets where everyone is entitled to a profit or a loss depending on how well they invest their money.
I will also say that any weaknesses in the share price of RBY over the last couple of years, to my mind, should be attributed to:
1 - mishandling of the project by the management of the company starting with the incident of the unscientifically selected bulk samples and exacerbated by several miscues after that.
2 - a weakening and less favorable price of gold
That's my two cents.
Funny! You still don't get the resource grade understatement issue do you? It's about as devoid of hot air as is possible.
On what basis do you predicate the notion that traders, flippers and shorts have some moral obligation to enhance the value of Rubicon? What do you pay these people to promote your goal of enhancing the value of Rubicon? Do you expect something for nothing? What does the company pay these people to enhance the value of Rubicon? Does the company expect something for nothing?
I think you seriously misunderstand market based economics.
Perhaps you should take some time to read Adam Smith's work on markets. In particular, pay close attention to the sections where a lot of individuals acting in their own perceived self interest give rise to an "invisible hand" that maximizes benefit in the aggregate.
What track record? I don't think Romarco has ever produced a single ounce of gold yet they have over 650 million shares outstanding. That doesn't speak much for the quality of management in my experience.