The grades and intervals alone do not provide a basis for value in and of themselves. Value being a function of results as well as cost (and cost as a function of market expectations) necessitate that valuation of the grades should be done so with consideration of the current cost of an ownership stake in the company.

Grades alone are not a determinant of the quality of today's results, and grades should be evaluated from a financial perspective only in conjunction with the costs of ownership of the underlying stock. To do other than this is to ignore the reality of the situation that this 'is' an investment - if the share price does decline tomorrow we long-investors do not come out ahead solely because the results 'were fantastic'.

Consequent share-price movement given today's results would be vastly different if Noront's market capitalization were say $50million rather than +$350million. The size of the footprint need always be considered.

I have the utmost respect for your contributions Fantomas, however I don't believe that anyone should need to provide an example of 'better grades' merely to disagree with your assumptions.

Chris