Discussion - The Sales Comparison Method Works Best For Preliminary-Stage Mineral Projects, But Make Adjustments Carefully: A Response To ?Sales Comparison Valuation Of Development And Operating Stage Mineral Properties? (T. R. Ellis) - Discussion

Working with junior mining companies as a valuer, my experience with regulators is that simplicity works and the sales comparison method is the way to go. What I like about Mr. Ellis?s approach (as in his Table 7) is the integration of commodity prices with the timing of acquisitions and the implication of price changes in gold on the adjustment of individual project valuations. However, the sample gold-related appraisals in Ellis?s paper are pre-2008 transactions and readers should be made aware of the current market for such projects. Before moving on, to be noted is that the effective date of the Las Brisas appraisal (Ellis?s sample Appraisal 3) is Feb. 10, 2006; given that the subject value of Transaction 9, Choco 10 in Ellis?s Table 6 was listed as $353 million for a 95% interest in the con-cession, I am uncomfortable accepting that the acquisition was suddenly worth the adjusted value of $1,205 million (as given in Ellis?s Table 7). In some cases, illiquidity discounts can apply, and commodity-wise, in the one-month period between the acquisition in January 2006 and the adjustment to the Las Brisas conditions as of February 10, 2006, the indicated gold price change was only 41 cents/g ($12.60/oz); i.e., from $17.50/g to $17.91/g ($544.40/oz to $557/oz).