Re: Why $400 per share may still be low...

HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Reply New Message

Prev Message Back To Forum Threaded View Next Message

Francis Dube

Rank: President [?]

Points: 44898 [?]

Votes: 625 Score: 3.5 [?]

Your Vote:

Please Log In to Vote

Did you know? You can earn activity points by filling your profile with information about yourself (what city you live in, your favorite team, blogs etc.)

Re: Why $400 per share may still be low...

in response to

Re: Why $400 per share may still be low...

Rundle

posted on Dec 29, 2007 01:44PM

No disrespect taken...At this point I would be a fool to believe this will be worth $1000 per share. I am merely pointing out what could be and that this is a big could be...At this point of the game it is a dream but a dream based on logic. The biggest unknown is tonnage (give the bashers credit) but if we keep increasing tonnage and JohnDefur's meteor theory holds up and the distribution of ore is similar to the meteor impact of Sudbury then and only then do my numbers make sense. Like I pointed out, there is lots to do for Richard and Neil and the rest of the team. I just indulged in a Saturday afternoon dream and shared it. I am happy you enjoyed it.