Sculpin, in your last post you wrote "then in january, some of the worst drilling results that I have ever seen." This statement sounds familiar. If we check back, though I don't think it was you who said it at the time. I believe it was me. But my intent was obvious, right? I was trying to steal everyone's shares, right?

Here is what I wrote Jan 11, 2012:

Funny how the most hyped plays always have the worst results.

If SLI comes in line with its peers at the same stage of exploration, expect a 0.20 share price in the not so distant future. Are the deep drills still coming? Those things aren't cheap. Expect further dilution as well.

I guess they didn't beat Galway's 160g/t over 26m, hey, Primed? Even after reporting some of the worst drill results I've ever seen, the market is still giving SLI a 90mil market cap.

Read more at http://www.stockhouse.com/bullboards/messagedetail.aspx?s=SLI&t=LIST&m=30529615&l=0&pd=0&r=0#slxeHSlzz7ztCs4s.99

Here's what you wrote on the same day:

I haven,t had much of a chance to think and put on good posts here lately, but I will tell you that from that NR yesterday, that the 2 holes in Canchete are way better than I expected with more veins! And we don,t have all the info yet on them.If Hog was here and we had the drill locations you would be getting us having some good discussion on that, because it doesn,t matter where they drilled those 2 holes, they are good.

http://agoracom.com/ir/steliasmines/forums/discussion/topics/514383-something-quick/messages/1633338#message

Now that you quoted me word for word, does this mean you are a basher too?

Two more gold projects taken down this morning. Calvista and Galway.

John_Doe, showing how St. Elias is valued per ounce of gold in the ground relative to its peers is not "a retarded way to look at things." It is a crucial piece of DD that has long been overlooked by this site, due to St. Elias's percieved potential. If the market is valuing gold juniors at a certain price per ounce, you may disagree with it all day long, but I doubt you're going to change market sentiment, no matter how "retarded" that sentiment may be.

I agree with you that financings and the markets revolve around speculation to an enormous degree, but like it or not, speculation goes in both directions. When SLI raised money at 1.80, investors speculated that drilling would show a huge gold deposit. When drill results returned disappointing results, investors speculated that a huge gold deposit did not exist and drove the price down to 16 cents. Niether valuation is necessarily correct, but merely reflects the market's reaction to available information at the time.

Your original question was to provide a calcuation to show why SLI was trading at 16 cents and I gave you one.

To speak to your example above specifically, if your buddy spent your 50,000.00 to explore for gold and didn't find any gold, what happened to your investment? Like any business venture there are risks when investing in hypotheticals, no matter how sound the business model may be.

John_Doe, you said to Risk is Relative: "Why don't you do some speculative math and tell me how we have came to a share price of 16 cents. This should be interesting."

Over the last year, we have seen the collapse of the junior equities market and St. Elias has been no exception. During this time, Danny Deadlock has tracked the valuation of around 50 junior gold explorers and while valuations have fluctuated, these gold explorers have traded at an average value of between $30.00 and $40.00 per ounce in the ground.

The following is a calculation you may not have considered: As of today, at 16 cents, St. Elias is valued at $4,072.39 per ounce in the ground (18.74mm divided by 4420 ounces). I realize this calculation does not take into account any potential future discoveries or future additions to resource estimates, but the same can be said of the the 50 junior gold explorers above as well.

Baddog, 1.35 g/t (average) over a maximum interval of 0.8m is very poor. With an average grade of 1.35 g/t you want to see the interval width to be hundreds of meters. The key ingredient missing from the trenching and drill results is decent intercept widths.

Edmonton44, you ask, where are the 90% of drill results that are still missing?

My question to you would be, do you know for certain that the remaining 90% will be assayed and reported? Or did St. Elias's geologists follow standard sampling practices and only submit drill core they deemed to have mineralization potential?

The reason I ask is because if you're waiting for the remaining 90% to be assayed and reported, you should probably ask the company if they actually intend to do this. In my experience they won't, but I could be wrong in this instance. It is also in my experience that if results are not forthcoming it's because it's not material information and managment has decided that releasing these results is not in the shareholders' best interest (ie: might cause more selling pressure).

The problem with this scenario, however, is that it creates a situation where shareholders expect to see results that the company has no intention of ever providing. I've seen this before on another stock. Shareholders on the stock board were demanding that the company release the results, good or bad. The company never did release the results and eventually optioned off the property to another company. People were furious and cried conspiracy. Though we'll never know for certain with that stock, I surmise that the results were likely poor and would've resulted in selling pressure had they been released.