"This is quite a smart way to approach assessing value and it also happens to be exactly the way my partner and I are approaching it for our subscribers. To correct a few things, VIT doesn't have reserves, it has resources, so there must be some adjustment made to account for different stages of resource definition. Also, you should adjust for back-in rights such as at Cove (don't forget to include the back-in fees as they can be substantial). That said, the projects at which VIT has resources seem to be ones that could actually become mines or at least have a defined path for moving forward, unlike some of the peers that have meaningless resources. We're not done with our own analysis but back of envelope calculations tend to support the idea that VIT has upside in comparison to peer valuations even without considering the latest results at Santa Fe."

Here is my question: Does the source that you use that compares the value of VIT to its peer group - based on gold resources in the ground - make adjustments to account for different stages of resource definition - and secondly, does it adjust its calculations for back-in-rights and back in fees?