VIC,Thanks for the engraved invitation to comment!YES, I would...

VIC,
Thanks for the engraved invitation to comment!

YES, I would agree that after-tax cash flows and the NPV derived therefrom are the right way to value PROJECTS, using the most sensible forecasts for the 'known unknowables,' especially life-of-project COMMODITY PRICES, which are usually the BIGGEST value determinants of a resource project.

That said, valuing a COMPANY depends on more than valuing its known PROJECTS, as RDL rightly points out. For CQT in particular, what is the OPTION VALUE of:

1) The additional resources already listed in the Announcement but not yet included in CQT's JORC-compliant Resource/Reserve inventory.

2) Undiscovered resources in CQT's huge landholdings in North Queensland.

3) Operating improvements at Pajingo (not to mention more exploration there).

4) JK's next brainstorm for corporate/resource acquisition plays.

5) The swings and roundabouts of Gold/Silver/Copper prices. These cut both ways. Consider how many oil companies used 'hockey-stick' oil-price projections back in the OPEC-driven oil shocks of the 1970's, but took it on the chin when oil fell below US$20/bbl. Iron ore is the other side of the coin: less than $10/tonne in the 20th century when BHP and RIO wouldn't touch ores below 60-65% Fe and wouldn't believe that any custiomers would want what's now the lifeblood of most producing IO juniors.

If you can predict the future 'known unknowables,' you're a better oracle than I am, much less foresee the 'unknown unknowables' that may come from left field (if I can be forgiven for using a baseball analogy...).