Pity these tenements don't grow on trees. Hard to come by...

First 54 Last

Share
Profile

Follow
Fitzy888

478 Posts.

128

06/12/23

14:50

Post #: 71304859
Share

Originally posted by SaberX: ↑

That's the thing. It's hard to discern how much conflict of interest is apparent or subtly baked into this. Sure there's no acquisition price but with the direct ownership by related parties they are essentially getting a share of 50% of the gold up to the 70k ounces. Then a royalty thereafter. They're pretty much getting a net profit margin on 50% of the gold e.g. 36k ounces without paying any Capex or any other costs that the mill technically cost. Sure they pay the running costs. But I'd argue the alternative would be beacon buying a project and taking 100% of the 70k ounces net margin I e. Less costs.

how much of the mill capacity would they have otherwise been able to use on another project if they paid and bought something? While you take it at face value no one will ever be able to know how fair arms length this is and if there were other options passed in as the directors have a hand in both troughs.

given the market reaction it's clear they aren't hugely positive of this either.

keeo in mind reserves in the initial lady Ida were 100k ounces so your giving away 35k ounces of that straight away. Company bears the drilling and exploration risks also

Expand

Pity these tenements don't grow on trees.
Hard to come by anything with decent grade without getting your pants pulled down.
300000oz reserve with more upside in discovery.
It still stacks up overtime but I don't have the answers whether we could have done better.

Last edited by Fitzy888: 06/12/23
8 Upvote

0 Great analysis

Reply