Ok, so I've been looking at this report from Goldminerpulse and it sure does look ugly. In more ways than one.
I believe their conclusion is basically correct, but it doesn't help our cause that it was shoddily prepared. That's right. Thrown together. It is not helpful to make statements like "overvalued by a factor of at least 6 and probably as much as 10 times" when one's own conclusions are off-kilter by a factor of 1.5 or 2.
From their report: "At the March 23, 2011 close, White Tiger Gold showed a total of 341,850 oz of gold in the Measured, Indicated and Inferred categories." The report then goes on to make interesting and eye-opening calculations using this figure. Problem is, I believe that the number is plain wrong. I believe it should be 591,000 oz of gold in all categories.
The author outlines his calculations here: http://www.goldminerpulse.com/c/wtg.php
His figures do not line up with the ones published in the NI 43-101 documents he cites as his source:
It appears he completely forgot the P&P category for the Savkino project (113 000 oz; see page 5 of "SAVKINO GOLD PROJECT, CHITA REGION RUSSIAN FEDERATION MINERAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES NI-43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared By Micon International).
Furthermore, he fails to include all of the inferred resources for the Nasedkino project. He extracts only one line which is from the "Pridolinny Deposit", namely 14,480 oz. There are actually three deposits in this project for which the NI 43-101 gives inferred resource numbers. The other two, "Gora 5" and "Zhelanny" have a combined 137,000 oz Au. (see pages 8 and 88 of SAVKINO GOLD PROJECT, CHITA REGION RUSSIAN FEDERATION MINERAL RESOURCES AND RESERVES NI-43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT Prepared ByMicon International )
Now I know some will pooh-pooh this as nit-picking, but I sure don't see it that way. How can we get all up in arms about valuation if we are basing our conclusions on someone else's shoddy due diligence.
I hope minority CMM shareholders win the day, since I am one of them, but holy smack, those who publish the "facts" should at least try to publish the "facts"
That having been said, I guess I must welcome critique of my own"facts" :)
Johnny
