I hate to sound like a bad sport when I am getting squeezed a...

I hate to sound like a bad sport when I am getting squeezed a bit here but I have to say, what a load of rubbish!

Where do Macquarie get the info for their supposedly detailed review of Plutonic? Very little has been given by NST and I can't see much detail in the Barrick reports. Barricks stated reason for selling Plutonic was to improve cash flow. Its a safe bet its cash burning even though, of course, the "sustaining costs" are below current gold prices. Barrick reappraised the value last year and wrote it down $20m to a $35m carrying value. That's a cash flow based valuation that has been proven to be in the ball park by a public marketing process. I'd trust it more than Macquaries guess. I don't care what the replacement value is. That's purely academic. It will still be a liability if gold price hold here or particularly if they fall further. That's why Barrick is selling!

And Macquaries says NST delivering solid cash flow from Paulsons. Well as I said not much cash flow is showing up in the accounts. I would love to see the Macquarie report if anyone has a copy.