I'll get to your discussions of the Freewest deposits in a moment, but first I must comment on one sentence in your preamble. You said
At my request, without duress, I have had Agoraom remove my controversial post… let me try again and say what I intended.
The sophism boggles my mind. What duress, other than moral or ethical suasion, could you possibly have been under? No, what you have done is to alter the historical record. You rang a particular bell, and after the sound faded away, you removed the evidence so that it could no longer be sourced. And here you are, making it sound like you did a noble thing.
Try again? Say what you intended? Unless you have mistaken The Hoov for a chromite-bearing intrusive body in the James Bay Lowlands, it is patently clear that you did say what you intended to say. You intended to make it appear as if I was making excuses about engaging you in a debate that you lied by saying I requested. You said many times that "time is of the essence", yet despite no less than three enjoinders from me, it took you a week to get on topic.
Moreover, your original post, which I cannot quote, made reference to the fact that you wrote it the night before, and after sleeping on it, you felt compelled (although with some.....errr.....reluctance) to post. Is your thinking so muddled that it confuses even you?
I'm just trying to keep up with the huge number of posts on this board. I was in the hospital on the day this post was presented, and I have medical events on every single day this week. I will not be presenting my own ideas today, as I remain unable to prepare my arguments. But that doesn't prevent me from quickly raising questions on those ideas presented here. Before my life was changed by medical events, I made my living as a scientific consultant, whose main task was assessing the quality of others' scientific work, within the broader framework of the subject under review. Simple critique of another's presentation is a challenge I can manage. I'll edit Jim's comments for brevity. Unless he deletes that post too, you'll be able to refer back to it.
1. When you have the best “Bicycle” in the neighborhood, the bullies will try and take it away.They are not going to tell you how nice it is, they will just knock you over and take it.
Nobody is trying to take anything. A business deal has been proposed, and it will be consummated only if there are sufficient willing sellers.
2. FWR 100% ground and on the grounds of JV lands contains a TRUE, RARE, ETREMELY VALUABLE “Wonder of Nature”,
First off, as a hub leader, you should know that shouting (use of excessive amounts of all caps, or bolding), is a violation of the six rules of use. If your words cannot stand on their own, then you should find better words.
As a FWR shareholder, I have been working diligently at trying to find a valuation metric for the rare chromite deposits in the RoF district. Your efforts to side-track that discussion should be obvious to anyone. Despite your background in geology, you quite avoid discussing the three obvious grade criteria influencing chromite ore value, % Cr2O3, Cr:Fe ratio, and presence of deleterious metals. Nor do you discuss in situ percentage values, which you have dismissed privately (and publicly, here, for the first time). What range of in situ values do you assign such that you arrive at your "etremely(sic) valuable" conclusion?
Sorry I tried, it ended bad, with unintended consequences.
Tried what? What ended bad(ly)? What unintended consequences? What have you done to remediate those consequences?
3. A NI 43-101 is not necessary to recognize the size and special nature of this deposit
As a geologist, I am simply amazed at your misuse of the language in this paragraph. National Instrument 43-101 is a reporting standard, not a content standard. Within NI 43-101, there are specific reporting standards for any of a large range of contents which may be reported upon by a Qualified Person. A 43-101 compliant report need not contain any information with respect to resource estimation, let alone economic valuations. With the proper application of the methods of science, any person could conduct their own resource estimations, but they would obviously be limited by the quality and quantity of available data, unless they are an insider. Economic valuations arising from resource estimates are especially conservative, as inferred mineralization has no economic value whatsoever, under NI 43-101. For example, comparisons on this board of 43-101 compliant Eagles Nest economics to unsophisticated valuations of any of the RoF chromites is more than comparing apples to oranges. It is comparing them using different rules entirely.
4. I contend that ANY DEPOSIT that is among the world’s largest has a HIGH PROBABILITY of being HIGHLY PROFITABLE.
Ouch! No need to shout. (Rule 6, which surely covers bolding also. The only reason I use bold here is that there is no quote feature in this editing window. It's the only way to clearly separate quoted remarks from my own.)
Deposit size is only one metric of valuation. You should know that. You need to demonstrate evidence for all the other criteria in order to support your conclusion.
End of my "back of the envelop" valuation.
Valuation? Where is it? Did you delete that too? All I see are unsupported conclusions.
5. Ready to give all of this up for 40 cents? You’ve got to be kidding!
That's pure sophism. The offer is not a 40 cent offer. Under the Ontario Securities Act, already referenced by yours truly, a market valuation accurate on the date of the offer must be included as part of the offer. That value would remain fixed at 40 cents if and only if it was a cash offer. However, the offer made was an all-share offer. It floats in value, along with the market values of the two underlying securities.
It is patently false, and rather naive, to declare that the offer is only 40 cents per share. It is similarly a false dichotomy to compare the value of FWR shares and NOT shares based on their pre-offer characteristics. The proper comparison of value requires comparison of FWR's value against that of the consolidated entity, what I have dubbed Consolidated Noront. Whatever value is embodied in FWR assets remains a part of the consolidated entity. I have argued for synergies based on consolidation alone. But even with that idea excluded from consideration, the comparisons being made must place similar weight on blue sky, land holdings, proven mineralization, and so on. Dundee put out an analyst's report yesterday that assigned a potential tonnage at Eagles Nest of 20 M tonnes. If that is proven up, that's larger than Raglan.
As an aside, ridiculing Wes for mentioning the remoteness of the JBL district apllies to FWR and Cliffs also. Realism seems to be lacking on this board, but that's just my opinion.
Just some quick remarks about the references cited.
"One of the rare large chromium deposits in Europe, its reserves are estimated at 30 Mt of ore with 26% chromite (Cr2O3). The ore is hosted by mafic-ultramafic intrusive rocks."
In this unique case, I've left the text exactly as I found it. The original author quite clearly limited his remarks with "in Europe", but that was neither bolded, nor even mentioned by Jim. I'm more interested in world-class comparisons.
Kemi is, by the way, an excellent comparator for the Freewest chromites, because the overall Cr:Fe grade there is 1.53. Based on the limited data yet released by Freewest, that is the ballpark for the Black Thor ore. With extensive capital-intensive (and patented) processing, the Kemi complex is economic. But, as far as I know, they do not sell any ore in the world market.
Lateral continuity is the measure of a strataform deposit.
That's stratiform, by the way. In case somebody wants to look it up. You've mentioned the Big Daddy chromite as being the SW extension of this large chromite deposit. Why did you not mention that it might continue to the NE? A good scientist or geologist doesn't pick and choose the data he presents. You left out the fact that Noront holds all the land to the NE, along this strike. Are you going to argue that it simply ends on FWR lands?
THIS IS FREEWEST's GROUND, IMO. The SWEET SPOT.
Aside: I posted something last October that had "sweet spot" in the subject line. I was naive about many things that I no longer am. But the same holds true for the geologists. It was weeks later that Dr. Mungall revealed the extensive overturning of large blocks associated with the intrusives. I can't for the life of me understand Jim's repetitive and obsessive mention, even by inference, of my earlier post. Just as he claims now to have been doing something else entirely in the post he now deleted, I have to question the continued references to what is surely no longer relevent to our understanding of the regional geology. It is not informative, Jim, so why do you continue on with this?
It follows, IMO, that the thickest sequence of ultramafic rocks resides the closest to the ROF intrusive feeder conduit.It follows, IMO, that the thickest, most laterally continuous bed of chromite resides proximal to the feeder conduit as well.This is just common sense IMO, not discussion clouding noise, couched in sophisticated reasoning or questionable reckoning.
Nobody has questioned any of that, Jim. You have created a straw dragon, and you have now slain him. Bravo!
Now please show why the Noront claims to the NE of the 100% FWR lands, as they are much closer to the "sweet spot" than are the Big Daddy deposits, don't deserve some blue sky valuations.
I have one more post to make, and then I must rest again. I have medical appointments today and tomorrow as well.
Kind regards,
Lar
Sounds a little wimpy in grade and size doesn’t it… but the author classifies it as “rare” and “large”.
