On valuations of HGO and their NPV, a few comments:I don't think...

On valuations of HGO and their NPV, a few comments:

I don't think it is reasonable to value HGO, YET, on an NPV basis alone. A few reasons for this:

Imagine two miners, A and B. They are identical in every regard except A is where HGO is now, and B is (one possible) HGO outcome in 6 months time.

A is low on cash, is at a point of maximum borrowings, and is forecasting being cashflow positive by the end of the quarter. A has yet to pass their bank test, and has had two delays to their schedule.

B is identical, except that they have 6 months worth of production under their belt. Their cash costs are now known, rather than just based on a BFS. B has now chipped into their debt significantly based on 6 months of steady-state production. B has passed their bank test. B also knows what the copper price has been in the last 6 months for the unhedged portion of their production. B has already booked a reserves upgrade. B has now reserves to support a 10 year mine life rather than claims of a 10 year mine life based on resources. B also knows what has happened in Europe over the preceding 6 months.

These two companies are chalk and cheese. And whilst (excluding the reserves and mine life changes) their NPV's are almost identical, clearly the risk and therefore valuation varies greatly.

So, whilst the NPV calculations are useful, they will vary greatly. Plug in certain assumptions (and remember these assumptions have to go 6 years forward in time!), and we get one result, like 30 cents, plug in other assumptions, like Wilson's, and we get a completely different result. And plug in a further incident or delay to K, and the result is serious and very, very different.

In such a volatile world, and whilst HGO has yet to receive a single dollar in payment, I think any type of valuation that relies on 6 years forecast is marginal at best.

NPV's look 'scientific', but they are only as accurate as their inputs, which are little more than guesses.

Yaq