Sorry Golfyeti... I should have given context to my numbers. I was using 120 ktpd production. At 180 ktpd and the same numbers, the NPV goes up by about $1B.

The other websites are confusing to my simple mind. Honestly, I haven't played around with them that much.

The issue with using 2008 PfS numbers (i.e. neg 32 cents) is that Moly prices (currently ~20% of in situ metal value @ $15.95/lb Mo) have plunged since 2008. I'd like to know the 3yr trailing average Mo price. IIRC, the 3 yr ave metal prices will be used in the BFS.

The TCK/CUU agreement states that 8% discount will be used to assertain a 'positive BFS'.

Gy: "...I understand how discounting makes far-in-the-future revenues worth considerably less. Bottom line however, 80 years of 700M/yr revs is not worth less than 40 years of 700M/yr revs. NPV is a good reference point before considering everything else of value, i.e. potential for increased TPD, higher-grade deposits outside starter pit etc...."

Agreed. 80 yrs of X income is not worth less than 40 yrs of X income. The trouble is placing a price tag on that last 40 yrs of an 80 yr mine. That is why Elmer suggested, in the MD&A, of using another accounting method for what Sirmoz from SH called "a mine beneath a mine". I don't know what to make of the last 40 yrs, hence my call out to the 'bean counters' for a little insight. http://agoracom.com/ir/CopperFoxMetals/forums/discussion/topics/507832-we-are-in-good-hands/messages/1614586#message

Let's call the two halves of an 80 yr mine 40A + 40B. To me... the last 40 yrs ("40B") of a 80 yr mine is a strategic investment. Like when Coke goes to the third world and spends $x hiring guys on donkeys to take coca cola into the far reaches of now-where to get the market started - and more importantly - to keep Pepsi at bay.

Another approach, to me, would be looking at the opportunity cost of developing a 40 yr mine (40B). Buy buying 40A, they save having to find, explore, prove, permit, and build a 40 yr mine. That 'free' mine following 40A is worth a lot - right now.

Gy: "....What are the chances that out the of many new and large anomolies that were found within the new 20KM by 4KM zone of exploration interest that SC#1 (the Paramount Zone) just happend to have had the highest grades? In other words, based on the "BIGGER and BRIGHTER" looking blobs that we haven't even got results on yet, wouldn't it make at least statistical sense that the best finds are yet to come??"

I think the chances are pretty good for finding something better than Paramount. Paramount is 'lost' in all of the red blobs in the latest 3D model. Mudguy has poured a fair amount of cold water on this as we still need a drill to confirm the Titan. I am a bit more optimistic due to my thesis that Elmer has a good model of how the poryphry system works and what the Titan is telling him.

What tempers my outlook for more SC's is that the ES zone only showed some weak Titan signatures and the Exploration Target (Aerial Mags) nearest SC and paritally covered by Titan did not recieve mention in the Titan or subsequent NR's. That is taking out a lot of the more promising 'targets'. So... in short... the remaining anomallies are still wild cards imho.

I am no statistician but the probability for more SC's has quite a range (0 to 300% more SC's...). BTW... I think of "more SC's" as whole new large, discrete deposits - not majour extensions of our existing deposit. I think that is where I and WG's have not sync'd up.