Peakmastery, I've commented in a number of posts in detail on...

Peakmastery, I've commented in a number of posts in detail on the limited net cash flow at NST despite what is implied by the sustaining cost numbers. I don't want to keep going through it because posters like you will complain that I'm repeating myself.

Not one has the actual cash flow numbers for the acquired mines except for Barrick so I can't really do any more research. I'm assuming based on the prices paid, particularly the $25m Plutonic acquisition, that its worse than NST on a net cash flow basis. That is despite a very similar profile to Paulsons in most respects. If Plutonic is as good as Paulsons, it certainly says something about NST's market cap!

It was impressive what these guys did with Paulsens. I was long the stock through part of that myself. However, as I've noted several times, it was a new mine, there was a strong period for gold prices and NST generated significant net cash flow. They even produced monthly cash flow reports for a while, now not even quarterly.

I don't believe that companies only sell junk assets. However, I also don't believe that companies give away quality assets. Particularly ones that are currently cash generative. Why would they? These assets are tiny for Barrick and its possible they just got caught up in a bit of clean out but I wouldn't say that is the mostly likely scenario.

As I've also repeated many times, the fact that NST is putting over $100m cash on its balance sheet issuing at 86cents also suggests there may be cash requirements rather than generation in the short term at least.

Finally, can you stop attacking me personally please. TOU or put me on ignore.