MTN - Marathon Resources

[prs]

Hi mmmmining
Can you please explain what you mean in simple terms for those of us who aren't up with the jargon yet?

[siempre33]

Originally Posted by mmmmining
"Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:

Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry...." etc.

insider responded...
"It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good... I'm 90% sure MTN will mine at Mt Gee now"
__________________

I was musing about the accuracy of the above, so thought I'd shoot a note to an expert on the subject of mining uranium.....Glenn Catchpole is not only an expert, but imo THE expert on both ISR and U/G.....credited with major discoveries in Kazakhstan and Canada [with Cameco], as well as in Wyoming, where his co., Uranerz, is less than 3 yrs. away from production, Glenn has over 40yrs. in the biz....
__________________

From: David xxxx
Sent: Friday, April 06, 2007 12:01 PM
To: Glenn Catchpole
Subject: shareholder Q

Mr. Catchpole,
I saw a comment on a discussion board which I believe was in error.... "It sounds a lot environmentally friendlier than ISL... good..."

could you please comment on the comparative impact on the environment of ISL/ISR mining vs. underground conventional mining....I've been of the opinion that the URZ way is not only more enviro friendly, but also much less costly....

thanx for your time....David aka siempre..


RE: shareholder Q‎
From: Glenn Catchpole (gcatchpole@uranerz.com)
Sent: Fri 4/06/07 1:23 PM
To: David xxxx

Like a lot of mining related questions, the answers are not always that straight forward. In the case of your question… is ISR mining more environmentally friendly and less costly than conventional underground (U/G) mining…. the answer is not just a simple yes or no. The overall impact and disturbances during mining are less for ISR than U/G since a U/G mine requires a conventional mill including crushing and grinding circuits plus a state of the art tailings disposal facility is necessary. For an ISR mine the issue is the impact to the water quality in the aquifer where the uranium is located. In both the U/G and ISR, situation the technology exists to reclaim and decommission the facilities in accordance with the regulations and the law. On a total cost basis, it costs less to reclaim the ISR mine but not necessary on a unit cost basis (cost per pound of uranium produced).

In regards to comparing the costs of production between the two methods, the capital cost and monthly cash cost for and ISR mine are typically considerably less than for an U/G mine but the important numbers are what are the comparison between the two methods in terms of amortized unit capital costs and the operations unit costs. In other words, you need to put things on a cost per pound of uranium produced. For example, the capital cost and the total monthly operating cash cost for a U/G mine may be 10 times the respective costs for an ISR mine, but when you put it on a unit cost basis, a U/G mine in the Athabasca Basin of Canada sitting over a high grade deposit will most likely have unit costs (capital and operating) less than a good ISR mine. As in every kind of mining, ore grade is king and size is queen. That being said, the attraction of an ISR mining project for a small company (like Uranerz) is that it takes much less capital to get into production and a shorter time frame. Also, it should be kept in mind that the ISR mining method only works on certain types of uranium deposits, with very specific features (such as good hydrogeologic parameters). The ISR mining method does not work in the Athabasca Basin. To further illustrate, in Wyoming when the uranium bust came in the early 1980s, all the conventional uranium mines and some of the ISR mines in Wyoming had to shut down for economic reasons. A couple of the ISR mines (both located in the Powder River Basin) managed to stay in operation during the bust period. The reason the conventional mines had to shut down was due to the relatively low grade uranium deposits in Wyoming. However, the high grade deposits in the Athabasca Basin continued to be profitably mined by conventional mining methods during this same bust period.

Hope this explanation was not too confusing. To emphasize what I think are important points, it typically is less expensive in total cash to license and construct an ISR mine compared to an U/G mine, and it can take significantly less time. These factors, coupled with the experience of our management team with ISR mining in Wyoming, accounts for our decision relative to our business model.

Sincerely,

Glenn Catchpole, President & CEO

Uranerz Energy Corporation



gcatchpole@uranerz.com

[mmmmining]

siempre33, the letter looks very familiar to me. I have seen it somewhere. I kind of believe Glenn or whoever just borrowed it from some publication.

Anyway what he said, or you quote on costs is right. But it does not prove what I said and Insider said are wrong. But we only talk about Environment Impact Here.
About cost, please read my previous posting.

ISL is not applicable because it is not right type of ore. Even it is applicable, the impact is devastating because it is in a mountain range.

Based on my limited mining knowledge, contained tank leaching definitely has less impact on environment. This is what the experts from Coffey's conclusion. I guess we rather believe Coffey than Glenn, me, insider or you. Because none of us has been working on it with first hand knowledge.

Don't try to do expert's job, it is impossible, and wasting time. The best we can do is to interpret their findings, cross-reference, and verify them.

[mmmmining]

MTN could reach $5 today. It is the only a few choices for new players who can jump on uranium train very cheaply. The timing of US$113 coincident with Easter holiday will spread a lot of greed amount punters. When they wake up, MTN is still well within reach. How lucky they are!

I stick my neck out... Please be gentle....

[nizar]

MTN could reach $5 today. It is the only a few choices for new players who can jump on uranium train very cheaply. The timing of US$113 coincident with Easter holiday will spread a lot of greed amount punters. When they wake up, MTN is still well within reach. How lucky they are!

I stick my neck out... Please be gentle....

Tend to agree.

[kennas]

$5 is a bit much guys. :confused:

Looks to be opening up only slightly higher. Predicting a 10%+ jump?? I suppose uranium has gone up 10%. Is that your thinking?

[mmmmining]

$5 is a bit much guys. :confused:

Looks to be opening up only slightly higher. Predicting a 10%+ jump?? I suppose uranium has gone up 10%. Is that your thinking?

It is a complicated analysis, based on greedy and fear. Let's see towards the end of the day. I hope I am wrong, just sometimes I have to make some daring production to generate some interests. Such as I predict US$110/lb.

Not ramping, because I believe $10+ SP for MTN. $5 is only half way.

[kennas]

It is a complicated analysis, based on greedy and fear. Let's see towards the end of the day. I hope I am wrong, just sometimes I have to make some daring production to generate some interests. Such as I predict US$110/lb.

Not ramping, because I believe $10+ SP for MTN. $5 is only half way.Well, with only 4 sellers it's gunna get there! :eek:

[mmmmining]

Well, with only 4 sellers it's gunna get there! :eek:
Kennas, give me this one, would you, it is $4.99 man!

[Halba]

I bought @ open for a quickie 4.51

:) :) :)

[kennas]

Kennas, give me this one, would you, it is $4.99 man!No way. $5 is five bucks! If you had have said $5 ish, then OK. ;) Days not over though.

MTN might be getting the benefit of the knowledge now that QLD and WA are unlikely to change their policies this year, or even while Carphead and Beatboy are in power.

[Halba]

I get $65 a share

Reasons:

ERA/PDN "producers" value ~5000-6000m. MTN will be unhedged so will gain the full benefit in 4 years when mine starts. MTN expected production ~3mil pounds(Estimated), Profit ~$300m, p/e 17 = 5100m so this market cap is consistent.

MTN will only need to raise capital @ $15-20 later on, so its issued capital may reach 70million shares only. Mngmt are good in this respect.

Share price: 5100/70 = $72 a share. Less $10 a share, but add $5 due to exploration upside as it is in good areas. Total = $65 a share

Time frame - just before production it will reach this. Exploration upside - blue sky. MTN mine life is a strong point enables this valuation to be supported.

Refer Canadian peers selling for $20-30/lb

[nizar]

I bought @ open for a quickie 4.51

:) :) :)

Same, I also bought at open, but for a holdie. ;)

[mmmmining]

I get $65 a share


I am glad Halba is in such a good mode. Today you can sell ice to eskimos. :D :D

[kennas]

I get $65 a share

Reasons:

ERA/PDN "producers" value ~5000-6000m. Halba, I think your analysis breaks down a little comparing MTN to ERA/PDN market caps. Very different companys I think. What's ERA's total resource? How many other projects do PDN have on the board compared to MTN. Perhaps there's another company in a similar sitaution that it would be better compared to? Not sure which??

I'm also not sure if we can count on shares on issue staying around 70m. That's only 15m more than now after oppies are converted. Funding the mine development will be very expensive won't it?? Perhaps a JV partner will assist, but that will dilute it further anyway. Do you have any examples, history, or how much a company is diluted from JORC to production. Perhaps PDN is a recent example.

Otherwise, what you say sounds reasonable, but with the above factored in, I think $65 is ambitious.

[Rafa]

he he, check out the sell depth

4.950 110 1
4.990 59 1
5.000 10000 1
5.190 4433 1
5.200 2570 1
5.490 30000 1
5.500 837 1
5.800 811 1
6.000 1 1
.
.
.
64.99 XXXXX Rafa
65.00 XXXXX Halba

ah, gotta love the market at times like this!

[Halba]

Halba, I think your analysis breaks down a little comparing MTN to ERA/PDN market caps. Very different companys I think. What's ERA's total resource? How many other projects do PDN have on the board compared to MTN. Perhaps there's another company in a similar sitaution that it would be better compared to? Not sure which??

I'm also not sure if we can count on shares on issue staying around 70m. That's only 15m more than now after oppies are converted. Funding the mine development will be very expensive won't it?? Perhaps a JV partner will assist, but that will dilute it further anyway. Do you have any examples, history, or how much a company is diluted from JORC to production. Perhaps PDN is a recent example.

Otherwise, what you say sounds reasonable, but with the above factored in, I think $65 is ambitious.

Yep its very optimistic I admit. :) . But this analysis is based on current uranium prices only so it is achievable. Key thing is the mngmt not diluting company too much. CAPEX has been quoted at around US $200M. Operating costs will be low because grade is world class.

[mmmmining]

No way. $5 is five bucks! If you had have said $5 ish, then OK. ;) Days not over though.

MTN might be getting the benefit of the knowledge now that QLD and WA are unlikely to change their policies this year, or even while Carphead and Beatboy are in power.

I have got it, $5.00. Is it a good birthday present for you?

[kennas]

I'm also not sure if we can count on shares on issue staying around 70m. That's only 15m more than now after oppies are converted. Funding the mine development will be very expensive won't it?? Perhaps a JV partner will assist, but that will dilute it further anyway. Do you have any examples, history, or how much a company is diluted from JORC to production. Perhaps PDN is a recent example.
PDN has gone from having 300m shares on issue in 2003 to 500m in 2007. If that can be expected with MTN up to production (4 years is reasonable I think) then you need to add 66% ish to the shares on issue. So that brings it to around 90m ish shares on issue by 2011, perhaps. (If PDN is a good example)

[Halba]

Doesn't work that way kennas. It's all about the price of the shares and need to raise. PDN raised when uranium wasn't hyped. Now you can raise 20% higher than the market price, less dilution. MTN has $8m cash in bank, no raisings in the short term IMHO

[kennas]

Doesn't work that way kennas. It's all about the price of the shares and need to raise. PDN raised when uranium wasn't hyped. Now you can raise 20% higher than the market price, less dilution. MTN has $8m cash in bank, no raisings in the short term IMHOSo, what's the difference in the need to raise as a guestimate? I thought you would have had an idea of the costs to be able to come up with your valuation. What's your guestimate on the costs to develop the mine and get the workforce etc? This must then be applied to the shares on issue in some way? Yes, agree current sp is a factor, but you have been able to make a call of 70m on issue?? I can't find in PDNs BFS how much it was supposed to cost to get to production. I can only find $20m for first stage, and approval for a $71 debt facility....Perhaps SMMs PFS might be a good indication. Do you have that figure? I think this is important in being able to get a more realistic valuation at production. Or, maybe there's just too many 'ifs'??

[nizar]

Kennas - LH construction cost PDN us$92million.
Alot of upside with MTN i believe (thats why i bought), if you simply look at it from a peer comparison.

[Halba]

Hi kennas

Straight from MTN company - in one of their presentations they've cited CAPEX as being 150-200million I think. It was in their AGM preso. Also MTN can use debt don't forget. Why does it have to be 100% share raisings?

http://www.marathonresources.com.au/pdf/061116_ChairmansAddress.pdf page 17, says 100-200m AUD costs.

Currently @ 4.88, mkt cap 292mil. 80mil pounds, = $3.66AUD/lb

Canadian peers sell for $10-20 USD/lb

[nizar]

Going for a late arvo run :D

[sleeper88]

let me just say, thx butterfingers for giving us mtn shareholders floor prices to assist the ever increasing SP..first floor price was 68c, now 3.52, whats next, 6.00??, if so..then they baby will rocket to $7+

p.s. if only you guys were french..maybe then we'll see a half decent offer :D

[Halba]

Doubt we'll get to $10...too many takeovers ;)

Comment: This is a superb run. Enjoyable for those who hold, frustrating for those on the sidelines(my uni mates missed out!)

[kennas]

Doubt we'll get to $10...too many takeovers ;)I agree. With the likelihood of QLD and WA premiers remaining recalcitrant, coal industry slaves, attention could focus even more to SA/NT for U. The smaller developers need either lots of money to get up and running, JVs or takeovers. With the global imbalance in supply and demand pressing the big players for more resources, the later is the most likely IMO.

[Halba]

I doubt MTN will last on the ASX for another month..once ALP policy changes it is allowed to get taken over isn't it..?

[kennas]

I doubt MTN will last on the ASX for another month..once ALP policy changes it is allowed to get taken over isn't it..?It can be taken over any time I think after clearance from the regulator. Not sure about details of foreign ownership of Australian U mines. Mega took Redport....

[Halba]

Looks too cheap. SMM takeover is over 1300m+ valuation of SMM, and it has 65million pounds 50% owned, approx $37 a pound valuation

MTN if it was valued even at half of SMM's valuation would be worth $1.4billion, or around $15 a share right now.

[JWBH01]

Is it still worth getting in on this?

[Halba]

Is it still worth getting in on this?

This stock has been analysed to death on this thread. Make up your own mind. I just posted how undervalued it was. I'm surprised you are unsure re: the value.

[insider]

Looks too cheap. SMM takeover is over 1300m+ valuation of SMM, and it has 65million pounds 50% owned, approx $37 a pound valuation

MTN if it was valued even at half of SMM's valuation would be worth $1.4billion, or around $15 a share right now.

JWBH This is pretty accurate... It's important when you evaluate a company evaluate their competitors... Once you've done that you'll be a better judge...

[andrewkmz]

I am confident the management will reject any offer under one billion $. The directors controls more than 20% shares.

[Halba]

I am confident the management will reject any offer under one billion $. The directors controls more than 20% shares.

Yep no takeover until at least $15 a share. A JV is not out of the question.

[kennas]

Looks too cheap. SMM takeover is over 1300m+ valuation of SMM, and it has 65million pounds 50% owned, approx $37 a pound valuation

MTN if it was valued even at half of SMM's valuation would be worth $1.4billion, or around $15 a share right now.I don't think this is an accurate comparison Halba. SMM is more than just the IUJV. The rest of their deposits must be taken into consideration, plus the Georgia Basin Project and it has some Fe projects. While their recent JORCs on Anderson's etc were small, they are open. Can't compare this with MTN that simply. MTN have more than Mt Gee too, so it's difficult to do either justice I feel.

Having said that, I would be happy to say that MTN looks relatively cheap by comparison, but it's impossible to put a figure on it.

[Halba]

I don't think SMM's other deposits and open add much???

MTN has other deposits as u say.

I'm merely comparing them like for like.

All of the bidding for SMM is just coz of Valhalla

[kennas]

All of the bidding for SMM is just coz of ValhallaWell, we can agree to disagree there. :) SMM is more than Valhalla IMO. That's why the interest.

[UraniumLover]

i don't think smm's other deposits and open add much???

MTN has other deposits as u say.

I'm merely comparing them like for like.

All of the bidding for SMM is just coz of Valhalla

I'm trying to figure out which is better to top up at the moment PNN or MTN.
I wouldn't add any more positions with smm given the conference is coming up
Haven't seen much analysis on PNN so difficult to compare. MTN seems more undervalued but PNN has sino and earlier production schedule with less issues concerning extraction.

[Halba]

Well, we can agree to disagree there. :) SMM is more than Valhalla IMO. That's why the interest.

Unfortunately as of today 12/04/07 over 90% of SMM's resources are at Valhalla. To imagine other deposits is pure fiction.

[Halba]

I'm trying to figure out which is better to top up at the moment PNN or MTN.
I wouldn't add any more positions with SMM given the conference is coming up.
Haven't seen much analysis on PNN so difficult to compare. MTN seems more undervalued but PNN has sino and earlier production schedule with less issues concerning extraction

lol Uraniumlover time for some lovin of MTN. PNN has 19mil pounds(40% owned), and MTN has 80-90mil pounds of u 100% owned?

[dj_420]

lol Uraniumlover time for some lovin of MTN. PNN has 19mil pounds(40% owned), and MTN has 80-90mil pounds of u 100% owned?

i think the fact is SMM has had excellent mgt the whole way through the process. they have some great deposits and some huge areas of exploration.

why do you think PDN is going after SMM and not MTN????

that is the big question everyone should be asking. i personally think it has to do with heritage area of mt gee and the yellow footed rock wallaby!

[UraniumLover]

i think the fact is SMM has had excellent mgt the whole way through the process. they have some great deposits and some huge areas of exploration.

why do you think PDN is going after SMM and not MTN????

that is the big question everyone should be asking. i personally think it has to do with heritage area of mt gee and the yellow footed rock wallaby!

Good point. why did Sino pick PNN instead of MTN?

[Halba]

Umm guys china CITIC is invested in MTN... Point is MTN is selling for 1/10 of the valuation of SMM, that sort of difference is a joke really.

[kennas]

Unfortunately as of today 12/04/07 over 90% of SMM's resources are at Valhalla. To imagine other deposits is pure fiction. :confused:

The uranium they have defined is predominantly Valhalla, yes, but I suppose I should have explained my point better. They have numerous projects that have potential for greater resources and not just uranium. The Areva and PDN offers are not just for a stake in Valhalla.

They have numerous U deposits which are open, and the other U prospects which still being drilled, the new Georgia Basin U prospect, Base Metals, Iron Ore and Phosphate.

Perhaps you should have alook at their web site to see that they actually have. I think these other projects actually do exist.

http://www.summitresources.com.au/

(not holding SMM)

[insider]

Good point. Why did Sino pick PNN instead of MTN?

I think PNN arranged a contract to sell uranium well below the current value that's why Sino are desperate to mine... so they can get uranium for a fraction of the price... can someone confirm it please?

[Halba]

:confused:

The uranium they have defined is predominantly Valhalla, yes, but I suppose I should have explained my point better. They have numerous projects that have potential for greater resources and not just uranium. The Areva and PDN offers are not just for a stake in Valhalla.

They have numerous U deposits which are open, and the other U prospects which still being drilled, the new Georgia Basin U prospect, Base Metals, Iron Ore and Phosphate.

Perhaps you should have alook at their web site to see that they actually have. I think these other projects actually do exist.

http://www.summitresources.com.au/

(not holding SMM)

Kennas I know these deposits. They are small 3-5mil pounds same as Watta and Andersons.

[UraniumLover]

Umm guys china CITIC is invested in MTN... Point is MTN is selling for 1/10 of the valuation of SMM, that sort of difference is a joke really.

I reckon it's because Summit is now an average Joe Share. It gets far more media coverage than a share like MTN. For instance today Summit was in the business section of the local paper, the business section of sky news on Foxel. It's portrayed as the next uranium mine in Australia to go prod.
Always in Fin market wrap due to it's good returns when compared to non uranium shares like MTN which doesn't get mentioned.

[nizar]

Always in Fin market wrap due to it's good returns when compared to non uranium shares like MTN which doesn't get mentioned

MTN a non-uranium share ? :eek7:

Oh thats right, you were the guy that wanted to buy BMNOs !! :rolleyes:

[insider]

when compared to non uranium shares like MTN

huh? :confused:

[Halba]

I reckon it's because Summit is now an average Joe Share. It gets far more media coverage than a share like MTN. For instance today Summit was in the business section of the local paper, the business section of sky news on Foxel. It's portrayed as the next uranium mine in Australia to go prod.
Always in Fin market wrap due to it's good returns when compared to non uranium shares like MTN which doesn't get mentioned.

What you say is good/correct in your post, but right at the end it lacks basic knowledge.

[kennas]

Kennas I know these deposits. They are small 3-5mil pounds same as Watta and Andersons.OK, so what value to you put on these to SMM? You then need to adjust your resource to market cap analysis for your comparison to MTN. This is important. You've made a valuation, on only one of SMMs projects to determine a valuation of $15 for MTN. The additional projects you need to assess and place value on include:

Uranium:
Andersons
Watta
Skal
Bikini
Mirrioola
Tjilpa
Warawai

Uranium targets with known mineralisation:
Mirrioola South
Mirrioola Nth
Crowbar
Woomera
Pile
Hero
Red Alpha
BullFrog
Ecotte
Western
Mixabe
Drum
Riah John
Calton
Naparjin

Also - the Georgia Basin - geophysical surveys underway

Base Metal Projects:
Apoge
Red Bull
Barkley
+13 other projects

Iron Ore (to be floated perhaps):
Constance Range - potentially 200m tns

Phosphate:
Babbling Brook Hill
Riversleigh

SMM is been valued on all of this by PDN and Areva. Not just Valhalla.

I'd be interested to see what you come up with, and if you still get $15 for MTN then great! :)

(not holding SMM)

(holding MTN)

[Halba]

Kennas if you flick back, I said MTN would be worth $15 right now, with a valuation 1/2 of SMM. That means I'm taking into account upsides from both sides already. 15 is very conservative. MTN also have many prospects in the Mount painter inlier probably equivalent to SMM's satellites. MTN @ $15 is about $10 a pound, SMM @ current is over 30 on current resources only. Since both have equal ability and opportunity(through drilling) to increase resources then arguably MTN is still more 1/3 cheaper than SMM at $15 a share.

Please watch the following:

http://www.investortv.com.au/wl/vr.aspx?id=CMP126ZNLECT15X77B2JQ

[kennas]

Kennas if you flick back, I said MTN would be worth $15 right now, with a valuation 1/2 of SMM. That means I'm taking into account upsides from both sides already.

No you didn't, you only considered the defined resource from Valhalla and compared it to Mt Gee:


Looks too cheap. SMM takeover is over 1300m+ valuation of SMM, and it has 65million pounds 50% owned, approx $37 a pound valuation.

MTN if it was valued even at half of SMM's valuation would be worth $1.4billion, or around $15 a share right now.

You are correct in saying that you need to consider all of SMMs assets compared to all of MTNs. Both have some other great assets as you say.

Analysing just those 2 projects is not an accurate way of determining the full value of either company. Perhaps SMMs other assets are worth 10 times those of MTNs? I'm not saying they are, but perhaps PDN and Areva's accountants, lawyers, analysts, directors and MDs have actually looked at this??

[mmmmining]

I am confused with all SMMTN comparsion things. Simply you cannot.

Maybe keep it simple, use EV/lb, or NPV whatever, to workout something. It wasting time to get into too much details since there are so many uncertainties.

[Halba]

Well at the moment market is rerating mtn steadily, so the market speaks I guess kennas.

Our words mean little.

[Halba]

I am confused with all SMMTN comparsion things. Simply you cannot.

Maybe keep it simple, use EV/lb, or NPV whatever, to workout something. It wasting time to get into too much details since there are so many uncertainties.

Why not?? They are both ASX listed and have similar size projects. MTN mkt cap $300m, SMM $1.4bil

[kennas]

Well at the moment market is rerating mtn steadily, so the market speaks I guess kennas.

Our words mean little.LOL, I agree. Market values SMM at $1.2b, and MTN at about $330m. Case closed. :D

[dj_420]

perhaps some of this difference could be due to heritage area of mt gee!

noone acknowledges this fact, the little yellow footed rock wallaby could be the very reason why MTN isnt through the roof.

[Halba]

perhaps some of this difference could be due to heritage area of mt gee!

noone acknowledges this fact, the little yellow footed rock wallaby could be the very reason why MTN isnt through the roof.

Underground mine

I don't see wallabies inhabiting underground areas.

[dj_420]

Underground mine

You could argue the same thing for jabiluka but that is not going to happen anytime soon.

MAYBE just maybe this is why MTN is priced at a massive discount to SMM.

[UraniumLover]

MTN a non-uranium share ? :eek7:

Oh thats right, you were the guy that wanted to buy BMNOs !! :rolleyes:

I know MTN is uranium.. that was a grammar issue. Was trying to make point MTN hardly mentioned in publications like Fin while PDN, SMM get far more publicity
I never wanted to buy BMNO's either.. was just checking them out.
I wouldn't be returning over 100% in this if I didn't know what it mined.

[Halba]

:band Another breakout. Regardless of some pessimism, this is another 52 week high.

MARATHON RESOURCES FPO

Stock Bid $ Offer $ Last $ Change* Open $ High $ Low $ Volume News
MTN 5.200 5.220 5.220 +0.220 5.050 5.220 5.050 31,540

[insider]

I know MTN is uranium.. that was a grammar issue. Was trying to make point MTN hardly mentioned in publications like Fin while PDN, SMM get far more publicity
I never wanted to buy BMNO's either.. was just checking them out.
I wouldn't be returning over 100% in this if I didn't know what it mined.

We were joking... at least I was :p:

[mmmmining]

Kennas if you flick back, I said MTN would be worth $15 right now, with a valuation 1/2 of SMM. That means I'm taking into account upsides from both sides already. 15 is very conservative. MTN also have many prospects in the Mount painter inlier probably equivalent to SMM's satellites. MTN @ $15 is about $10 a pound, SMM @ current is over 30 on current resources only. Since both have equal ability and opportunity(through drilling) to increase resources then arguably MTN is still more 1/3 cheaper than SMM at $15 a share.

Please watch the following:

http://www.investortv.com.au/wl/vr.aspx?id=CMP126ZNLECT15X77B2JQ
I feel like a bit behind after all the actions. I have not contribute anything to MTN except successfully predict $110sh/lb uranium and $5+MTN.

I reviewed all recent postings, and start believing Halbra's $15-$65 MTN price target. I cannot finish my reasoning tonight just one glass too much. I promise I will write something this weekend, short and simple, no wobbling though...

[kennas]

I feel like a bit behind after all the actions. I have not contribute anything to MTN except successfully predict $110sh/lb uranium and $5+MTN.

I reviewed all recent postings, and start believing Halbra's $15-$65 MTN price target. I cannot finish my reasoning tonight just one glass too much. I promise I will write something this weekend, short and simple, no wobbling though...mmmming, I am really glad you think MTN is worth something between 15 and 65 dollars. Cheers. :D

My personal prediction is for $100 because I own it!

Go MTN!!!, you are the best shtlock in the multiverse!!!!!!

How's thAT FOR FUnDAMENtal ANALYSIs!!

[Halba]

No worries kennas. By the way as the TSX listed uranium company valuations keep blowing out(last night up again), the more there is a "valuation gap" between MTN and the rest ,and what is the effect on MTN SP? It has to go up!

Canadian listed valuations : $15-35 a pound USD (examples include UEX Corp, Denison, Mega uranium, Laramide)

Australian listed MTN : $3 a pound AUD

See they are valued at much much higher and USD as well!!! MTN is valued on AUD per pound!

Cheers

Halba.

[mmmmining]

My personal prediction is for $100 because I own it!

I cannot count you as a owner of MTN. You read chart, not value. You jump in and out, with no loyalty. You $100 price is only considered as ramping :D

My God, have a medidoc ramping?:D :D

Go back to my previous posting, When MTN is only about 78c in Oct 06, I predicted it would reach $4 in 6 months with conditions. It is now $5+.

It is a time to think again, to find the magic feel.

I am still gathering information. I need to read, talk, and feel things. I will write it later.

Stay tuned...

[kennas]

I cannot count you as a owner of MTN. You read chart, not value. You jump in and out, with no loyalty.

I do both FA and TA to be best of my ability and experience. This is not much. I'm a beginner. You only see the charts.

I own MTN for now, I have NO loyaly to it, and will sell it when I think it's too expensive, or otherwise, to make money.



It is a time to think again, to find the magic feel.

I need to read, talk, and feel things.
I don't even know what this means. :confused:

Did you not understand my post to be sarcasm? Please say you did. Concerning.

I'm very much looking forward to your detailed analysis on the $65 valuation. Unless that was a error, or sarcasm also?

[nizar]

I own MTN for now, I have NO loyaly to it, and will sell it when I think it's too expensive, or otherwise, to make money.


I take the same approach.

[mmmmining]

Did you not understand my post to be sarcasm? Please say you did. Concerning.



Kennas, I am a three-year retard crying baby....

[Halba]

Kennas removed my prediction of $5.50 on monday due to ramping? How is that ramping if I am proved to be correct. Its not so far off % wise to be a ramp.

[Joe Blow]

Kennas removed my prediction of $5.50 on monday due to ramping? How is that ramping if I am proved to be correct. Its not so far off % wise to be a ramp.

Halba,

Ramping has absolutely nothing to do with being wrong or right. Ramping is not providing detailed reasoning to back up your assertions. The truth is nobody knows what is going to happen on Monday. Perhaps you should stop making arbitrary price predictions if you don't want them removed?

[Kimosabi]

Kennas removed my prediction of $5.50 on monday due to ramping? How is that ramping if I am proved to be correct. Its not so far off % wise to be a ramp.

hahaha, an ASF speeding ticket...

[mmmmining]

This week, I met a exploration director from a Canadian company, who is looking projects to invest all over the world. Surprise, and surprise, we talked about uranium. The way he is think about uranium ban in Australia is amazing. After I explained to him about the upcoming changes, he is so excited. Of course, we talked more in much details. Read my post, you might found some companies I mentioned to them.

There is no suggestion that a Canadian company is going to lunch a takeover on MTN. But the massive misunderstanding on Australian labor uranium policy could be resolved on April 29. It will open a floor-gate for investing in Australian uranium industry by fund, and company from Northern America. I believe MTN will be the prime target. So here is what I wrote based on our conversation:

MTN a $15 to $65 stock

Q: Is it going to be in a uranium friendly state?
A: It was, and it is.

Q: When a stock is only around $5, how can you predict it is $15+ stock?
A: Six months again, it was at 80c, I predicted it is $4+ stock by now. Now is $5.20, increased by 450%. Everything is possible, given another 6 months, it could triple, that is $15+ stock within six months.

Q: How about fundamental? Does it really worth $15+ now?
A: Yes. No doubt about it. Currently it has combined JORC and Non_JORC of 80mlb uranium at reasonable grade, with very easy metallurgical process. Full diluted with less than 60m share. Currently valued at less than EV$4/lb, while peer valuation ranged from $10 to $40 EV/lb. (NEL, DYL, PNN, AGS, SMM, EME, CUY)

At $10/lb, MTN worth $12.50, At $40/lb it is a $50 stock at right now.

Q: It only worth up to $50, how can you achieve the $65 up target?
A: The up limit of $50 is just for now. Things could change dramatically in next six months, like six months in the past. The extra $15 can be easily worked out with:
1. Resources upgrade to 100mlb+. The can easily be achieved with Mt Gee and satellite deposits only by either lower the cut-off grade, or more drilling.
2. Discovery of uranium in other tenements, or JV tenements;
3. Spot uranium price reach US$150 which I consider it as peak price. So peer valuation might go higher.
4. Takeover battle, better involved US people, not Chinese.
5. Sentiment shifting
6. Halba has predict it.
Any of the above could work to its favor. $65 per share might be conservative in a prolong uranium market.

Q: Why the current price is in deep discount?
A: Very big question. The current price is so depressed by three reasons:
1. False environment concern. A lot people mistakenly think Mt Gee is in a National Reserve, on Heritage List, or too remote. The most accurate description is that is on National Estate list for some natural beauties, and good access to infrastructure. There has no legal prohibition to mining activities because of National Estate Status. $10b in ground value of Mt Gee deposit can get most environmental issues cleared because it is significant to SA state interest. Mining in Mt Gee is not a possibility, it is a SURE thing, and it is SUPPORTED BY SA GOVERNMRNT NOW. Premier has mentioned MTN, along with AGS, CUY and PNN in recent speech as potential uranium miner. Watch this: http://www.investortv.com.au/player.aspx?id=CT15X77B2

2. Producing a JORC resource without drilling a hole. It caused very bad publicity, and draw criticism from geological society and investment circle. It is all cleared with published apology by the criticizer, and a serious of remarkable drilling results. Mt Gee could be bigger and better than current model.

3. Low profile, with virtually no promotion. What is wrong with that? As a long term holder, I enjoy it.

When all this is cleared, the sky is the limit.

Q: How about valuation on NPV basis as a near term producer?
A: I don’t want to get into too much detail. Let professional do the dirty work. I just use a simple method, that is when an explorer moving up to a producer, the EV/lb can rise much higher to $20-40 /lb range depends on the spot uranium price, and production rate, etc.

Q: MTN is so cheap, why PDN or Canadians not take over it?
A: Good question. You should ask why PDN not take over SMM a year ago? For Canadians, Mega Uranium has got deposits in WA and QLD, Lamrade in QLD, which both are not as sure as SA about uranium mining. Do you trust their wisdom? Takeover MTN required $1bn+ scrap or money. There are a very few companies that is big enough.

People usually think something cheap must not good, or has some problems with it. It is a common sense. But common sense can only make you common profit, not super rich. I predict it is just a matter of time that a new offer could come from Canadian or US fund on MTN. Watch out. I hear things.

Q: How about technical aspect?
A: It is not too bad, with very few sellers. Just need a bit of volume to push it up into $10 range. It only took 150k shares to move up 20c, and still well on the uptrend. Massive sentiment is shifting. Within three months, the publishing of upgraded JORC resources, and final version of scope study could send MTN to $10+.

The End.

[spooly74]

Mining in Mt Gee is not a possibility, it is a SURE thing

No it is not a SURE THING.

MTN has just recieved its scoping study and released its "summary" to the market. I look forward to reading the complete study.

MTN will also have the tough enviromental concerns that need to be addressed (even with an underground mine)

Lots to do .....Far from a SURE THING IMO

[mmmmining]

No it is not a SURE THING.

MTN has just recieved its scoping study and released its "summary" to the market. I look forward to reading the complete study.

MTN will also have the tough enviromental concerns that need to be addressed (even with an underground mine)

Lots to do .....Far from a SURE THING IMO

I hear people say MTN cannot be mined, or not a SURE things 6 months ago, only see the SP goes up 450%. We need more people like you, when considering 99%+ chance is not a sure thing in a real life.

Keep say not sure, and not sure, the more people say it, the more I am sure that MTN's SP is far from peak.

When people are in doubt, it is a good thing for stock price.

[spooly74]

I hear this 6 months ago, only see the SP goes up 450%. We need more people like you, when considering 99%+ is not a sure thing in a real life.

Keep say not sure, and not sure, the more people say it, the more I am sure that MTN's SP is far from peak.

I`m not blind mmmmining ........I can see the percentages thanks.

Care to comment on the subject at hand which is MTN being a SURE THING with regards to mining Mt Gee.

[nizar]

This week, I met a exploration director from a Canadian company, who is looking projects to invest all over the world. Surprise, and surprise, we talked about uranium. The way he is think about uranium ban in Australia is amazing. After I explained to him about the upcoming changes, he is so excited. Of course, we talked more in much details. Read my post, you might found some companies I mentioned to them.

There is no suggestion that a Canadian company is going to lunch a takeover on MTN. But the massive misunderstanding on Australian labor uranium policy could be resolved on April 29. It will open a floor-gate for investing in Australian uranium industry by fund, and company from Northern America. I believe MTN will be the prime target. So here is what I wrote based on our conversation:

MTN a $15 to $65 stock

Q: Is it going to be in a uranium friendly state?
A: It was, and it is.

Q: When a stock is only around $5, how can you predict it is $15+ stock?
A: Six months again, it was at 80c, I predicted it is $4+ stock by now. Now is $5.20, increased by 450%. Everything is possible, given another 6 months, it could triple, that is $15+ stock within six months.

Q: How about fundamental? Does it really worth $15+ now?
A: Yes. No doubt about it. Currently it has combined JORC and Non_JORC of 80mlb uranium at reasonable grade, with very easy metallurgical process. Full diluted with less than 60m share. Currently valued at less than EV$4/lb, while peer valuation ranged from $10 to $40 EV/lb. (NEL, DYL, PNN, AGS, SMM, EME, CUY)

At $10/lb, MTN worth $12.50, At $40/lb it is a $50 stock at right now.

Q: It only worth up to $50, how can you achieve the $65 up target?
A: The up limit of $50 is just for now. Things could change dramatically in next six months, like six months in the past. The extra $15 can be easily worked out with:
1. Resources upgrade to 100mlb+. The can easily be achieved with Mt Gee and satellite deposits only by either lower the cut-off grade, or more drilling.
2. Discovery of uranium in other tenements, or JV tenements;
3. Spot uranium price reach US$150 which I consider it as peak price. So peer valuation might go higher.
4. Takeover battle, better involved US people, not Chinese.
5. Sentiment shifting
6. Halba has predict it.
Any of the above could work to its favor. $65 per share might be conservative in a prolong uranium market.

Q: Why the current price is in deep discount?
A: Very big question. The current price is so depressed by three reasons:
1. False environment concern. A lot people mistakenly think Mt Gee is in a National Reserve, on Heritage List, or too remote. The most accurate description is that is on National Estate list for some natural beauties, and good access to infrastructure. There has no legal prohibition to mining activities because of National Estate Status. $10b in ground value of Mt Gee deposit can get most environmental issues cleared because it is significant to SA state interest. Mining in Mt Gee is not a possibility, it is a SURE thing, and it is SUPPORTED BY SA GOVERNMRNT NOW. Premier has mentioned MTN, along with AGS, CUY and PNN in recent speech as potential uranium miner. Watch this: http://www.investortv.com.au/player.aspx?id=CT15X77B2

2. Producing a JORC resource without drilling a hole. It caused very bad publicity, and draw criticism from geological society and investment circle. It is all cleared with published apology by the criticizer, and a serious of remarkable drilling results. Mt Gee could be bigger and better than current model.

3. Low profile, with virtually no promotion. What is wrong with that? As a long term holder, I enjoy it.

When all this is cleared, the sky is the limit.

Q: How about valuation on NPV basis as a near term producer?
A: I don’t want to get into too much detail. Let professional do the dirty work. I just use a simple method, that is when an explorer moving up to a producer, the EV/lb can rise much higher to $20-40 /lb range depends on the spot uranium price, and production rate, etc.

Q: MTN is so cheap, why PDN or Canadians not take over it?
A: Good question. You should ask why PDN not take over SMM a year ago? For Canadians, Mega Uranium has got deposits in WA and QLD, Lamrade in QLD, which both are not as sure as SA about uranium mining. Do you trust their wisdom? Takeover MTN required $1bn+ scrap or money. There are a very few companies that is big enough.

People usually think something cheap must not good, or has some problems with it. It is a common sense. But common sense can only make you common profit, not super rich. I predict it is just a matter of time that a new offer could come from Canadian or US fund on MTN. Watch out. I hear things.

Q: How about technical aspect?
A: It is not too bad, with very few sellers. Just need a bit of volume to push it up into $10 range. It only took 150k shares to move up 20c, and still well on the uptrend. Massive sentiment is shifting. Within three months, the publishing of upgraded JORC resources, and final version of scope study could send MTN to $10+.

The End.

Great post mining.
Your best so far.
Agree wholly.
I was reading one of PDNs presentations compared uranium companies with on a EV/lb basis, MTN right at the bottom of the scale at $4/lb. Bit of a joke really.

[champ2003]

I agree with mmmmining as well. I can see Spooly's point about mining not being a sure thing though as you never really know until they actually go into production however the potential upside is MASSIVE!

[Halba]

yes mmmmining, my $65 target was based on production. Once a development entity gets into production there is another 200-300% jump in stock price. But good analysis mmmmining. Case in point: PALADIN. I agree nothing is a sure thing, but trend is your friend? Its quite feasible that my $65 target which was based on current uranium prices can be exceeded when uranium prices increase when they produce?

[c95mbq]

I`m not blind mmmmining ........I can see the percentages thanks.

Care to comment on the subject at hand which is MTN being a SURE THING with regards to mining Mt Gee.

I keep following this thread not because I own MTN, although I do, more for the comedy gold that it is providing. I would love to see MTN take off even more than it has but let's face it - there is no such thing as a free lunch. If MTN is at $5.20 a share it's because that's what it's assessed as being worth. Granted this can change any time the market is open but, barring news that come out after market close, putting a higher price than that, or lower for that matter, is nothing but speculation. I'm not saying there's anything wrong with speculation, one might have very good reasons for feeling a share is under/over valued, whether that is using TA or FA. However, I am not comfortable with the idea of "sure things".

[kennas]

This week, I met a exploration director from a Canadian company, who is looking projects to invest all over the world. Surprise, and surprise, we talked about uranium.............

MTN a $15 to $65 stock

The End.Firstly mmmmming, thank you for your efforts in putting this post together. Cheers.

I have a few retorts however, aimed at trying to accuartely determine what MTN should be valued at now, or into the future.

I will raise just one at this time, which has been glossed over a little, but will significantly effect your valuation. That is, dilution of the stock due to the need to raise funds, or take on a JV partner, in order to get to production. The company has stated that this will cost somewhere between $100 and $200m. (PDN took $92m at old prices) So, for just a start, can you please revise your valuation based on that? Or, if this should not be a factor, I would be happy for someone to refute this. :)

[Halba]

Kennas. this issue has been dealt with before by me. I have said the market does not care about share dilution now. Even so you fail to understand that raisings are not all done through share issues. When mtn hit $20 a share it will only have to raise 5 million shares to fund the mine.

[insider]

Kennas. this issue has been dealt with before by me. I have said the market does not care about share dilution now. Even so you fail to understand that raisings are not all done through share issues. When mtn hit $20 a share it will only have to raise 5 million shares to fund the mine.

Oh Yeah!!!:)

Not to mention bank loans and Talbots involvement will come in handy when it comes to setting up

[kennas]

Kennas. this issue has been dealt with before by me. I have said the market does not care about share dilution now. Even so you fail to understand that raisings are not all done through share issues. When mtn hit $20 a share it will only have to raise 5 million shares to fund the mine.The issue seems to be fundamental analysis, not what the market 'cares' about. Yes, this has been discussed, but mmmmmining has not considered it in his valuation. Share dilution is only moments away, relatively. So, he needs to consider the $100m dilution as part of the valuation doesn't he? For a start. You failed to do this yourself in your $15 valuation, which was based off a flawed peer comparison with SMM.

[Halba]

The issue seems to be fundamental analysis, not what the market 'cares' about. Yes, this has been discussed, but mmmmmining has not considered it in his valuation. Share dilution is only moments away, relatively. So, he needs to consider the $100m dilution as part of the valuation doesn't he? For a start. You failed to do this yourself in your $15 valuation, which was based off a flawed peer comparison with SMM.

kennas i have a far superior understanding than you in the uranium market generally. You are nitpicking my valuation and simply wasting time. It is starting to get annoying but i am responding to each nitpick for i don't know why. I could simply choose to not waste my time and just enjoy the stock price gains. Your credibility kennas is extremely poor especially after you nitpicked both chris and my posts on BMN and ERN when they were like 1/2 the current price.

I follow canadian listed companies and my "flawed comparisons" with SMM you say are not flawed. In fact most TSX listed producers trade at similar values to SMM.

[mmmmining]

Firstly mmmmming, thank you for your efforts in putting this post together. Cheers.

I have a few retorts however, aimed at trying to accuartely determine what MTN should be valued at now, or into the future.

I will raise just one at this time, which has been glossed over a little, but will significantly effect your valuation. That is, dilution of the stock due to the need to raise funds, or take on a JV partner, in order to get to production. The company has stated that this will cost somewhere between $100 and $200m. (PDN took $92m at old prices) So, for just a start, can you please revise your valuation based on that? Or, if this should not be a factor, I would be happy for someone to refute this. :)

Thank you for not chipping off my post.

Anyway, based on the peer analysis that MTN should worth between $12.5 to $50 dollars. I mean just right now, not tomorrow, not next month. So no need to revise my statement on this part to take into account dilution. For dilution part, please see my previous analysis on this thread.

For $65 dollars upend, as I said it depends on a lot of factors (include Halba's prediction. If Halba revise it I will revise it accordingly, just highlight it is anyone's guess:D ).

I can compile a list of negative impacts, including capital base dilution, but it would not help me to argue my point, would it?

The only thing I can revise is that the upend $65 could be +-50%.

Cheers.

[kennas]

kennas i have a far superior understanding than you in the uranium market generally. You are nitpicking my valuation and simply wasting time. It is starting to get annoying but i am responding to each nitpick for i don't know why. I could simply choose to not waste my time and just enjoy the stock price gains. Your credibility kennas is extremely poor especially after you nitpicked both chris and my posts on BMN and ERN when they were like 1/2 the current price.

I follow canadian listed companies and my "flawed comparisons" with SMM you say are not flawed. In fact most TSX listed producers trade at similar values to SMM.I have NEVER said anything should be less or more, I have only ever asked for objective analysis. That is all. There is no matter of my credibility here. I have NEVER made a sp prediction on this stock, up or down. All we ask for at ASF is objective analysis.

Your flawed comparison with SMM has nothing to do with the Canadian market. You have valued the entire company on Valhalla, which is just plain wrong.

Yes, you obviously know much more about the uranium market than me. You are the best.

[insider]

Easy boys and girls... Just chill :cool:

After the No new mines policy is lifted we will see a wave of international companies jumping in on the ASX with take over bids... They prefer to pay a premium to eliminate risk... The market will shift in sentiment and anything can happen... Both Dreams and nightmares for some... I too about 2 months ago predicted $15 and with all the issues discussed previously about MTN is a substantial analysis

The main reason IMHO for MTN not growing as much as predicted is the lack of Advertising the management has produced... But this has also lead to steady growth in the past 6 months or so... Imagine what might happen if they advertised...

Just My opinion

[spooly74]

Firstly mmmmming, thank you for your efforts in putting this post together. Cheers.

I have a few retorts however, aimed at trying to accuartely determine what MTN should be valued at now, or into the future.

I will raise just one at this time, which has been glossed over a little, but will significantly effect your valuation. That is, dilution of the stock due to the need to raise funds, or take on a JV partner, in order to get to production. The company has stated that this will cost somewhere between $100 and $200m. (PDN took $92m at old prices) So, for just a start, can you please revise your valuation based on that? Or, if this should not be a factor, I would be happy for someone to refute this. :)

It certainly is a factor and only one of many that need to be considered now and in the future.

With such high price targets being thrown around this thread it is important to analyse every company and project in a case by case study because every deposit is different. Simply comparing it to peers on an EV/lb basis who are in production already or still explorers should carry no weight imo.

The true cost of uranium mining can only be known once the ore body has been well delineated, grade distributions have been logged and the deposit geology is fully understood.
With underground mining, many cost implications flow from the determination of the geometry of the ore body, the ground conditions and the presence or lack of groundwater.

So far we have only been given MTN`s summary of the scoping study which has indicated that the way forward is with an underground mine.
I guess we will see the full study in 3 months with the resource upgrade.

In general, it is more difficult to predict the operating issues that will be encountered in an underground mine.
Poorer than anticipated ground conditions often leads to higher ground support, manpower, ventilation and equipment requirements for a given production rate, and the topology of the Flinders Ranges is far from ideal.
This can be accompanied by lower than expected ore grades due to excessive ore body dilution.
Dilution can then impact the revenue stream if the mill cannot process higher tonnage rates to compensate.

Proposed underground mines therefore deserve significant project scrutiny.

Cost correlations to grade are self explanatory, the lower the grade, the greater the volume of barren material which must be removed and processed so that the contained uranium can be extracted.

In MTN`s case thats about 45 million tonnes of ore to be processed and given a target of 1000 tonnes of U3O8 a year, the plant will have to process about 4,500 tonnes of ore body per day (24/7) to meet production targets (assuming an average grade of 0.06%)

As a comparison, the Sweetwater Mill in Wyoming is an acid leach facility with a 3,000 ton per day throughput capacity.
The mill was built at a cost of $359 million in todays dollars.

Dilution needs to be considered now before a $65 price target can be attached.
cheers

[champ2003]

It certainly is a factor and only one of many that need to be considered now and in the future.

With such high price targets being thrown around this thread it is important to analyse every company and project in a case by case study because every deposit is different. Simply comparing it to peers on an EV/lb basis who are in production already or still explorers should carry no weight imo.

The true cost of uranium mining can only be known once the ore body has been well delineated, grade distributions have been logged and the deposit geology is fully understood.
With underground mining, many cost implications flow from the determination of the geometry of the ore body, the ground conditions and the presence or lack of groundwater.

So far we have only been given MTN`s summary of the scoping study which has indicated that the way forward is with an underground mine.
I guess we will see the full study in 3 months with the resource upgrade.

In general, it is more difficult to predict the operating issues that will be encountered in an underground mine.
Poorer than anticipated ground conditions often leads to higher ground support, manpower, ventilation and equipment requirements for a given production rate, and the topology of the Flinders Ranges is far from ideal.
This can be accompanied by lower than expected ore grades due to excessive ore body dilution.
Dilution can then impact the revenue stream if the mill cannot process higher tonnage rates to compensate.

Proposed underground mines therefore deserve significant project scrutiny.

Cost correlations to grade are self explanatory, the lower the grade, the greater the volume of barren material which must be removed and processed so that the contained uranium can be extracted.

In MTN`s case thats about 45 million tonnes of ore to be processed and given a target of 1000 tonnes of U3O8 a year, the plant will have to process about 4,500 tonnes of ore body per day (24/7) to meet production targets (assuming an average grade of 0.06%)

As a comparison, the Sweetwater Mill in Wyoming is an acid leach facility with a 3,000 ton per day throughput capacity.
The mill was built at a cost of $359 million in todays dollars.

Dilution needs to be considered now before a $65 price target can be attached.
cheers

I can see Spooly's point however Spooly you need to read the previous posts as its been well and truly covered by Halba about dilution.

Best regards

champ

[ironchef]

It certainly is a factor and only one of many that need to be considered now and in the future.

With such high price targets being thrown around this thread it is important to analyse every company and project in a case by case study because every deposit is different. Simply comparing it to peers on an EV/lb basis who are in production already or still explorers should carry no weight imo.

The true cost of uranium mining can only be known once the ore body has been well delineated, grade distributions have been logged and the deposit geology is fully understood.
With underground mining, many cost implications flow from the determination of the geometry of the ore body, the ground conditions and the presence or lack of groundwater.

So far we have only been given MTN`s summary of the scoping study which has indicated that the way forward is with an underground mine.
I guess we will see the full study in 3 months with the resource upgrade.

In general, it is more difficult to predict the operating issues that will be encountered in an underground mine.
Poorer than anticipated ground conditions often leads to higher ground support, manpower, ventilation and equipment requirements for a given production rate, and the topology of the Flinders Ranges is far from ideal.
This can be accompanied by lower than expected ore grades due to excessive ore body dilution.
Dilution can then impact the revenue stream if the mill cannot process higher tonnage rates to compensate.

Proposed underground mines therefore deserve significant project scrutiny.

Cost correlations to grade are self explanatory, the lower the grade, the greater the volume of barren material which must be removed and processed so that the contained uranium can be extracted.

In MTN`s case thats about 45 million tonnes of ore to be processed and given a target of 1000 tonnes of U3O8 a year, the plant will have to process about 4,500 tonnes of ore body per day (24/7) to meet production targets (assuming an average grade of 0.06%)

As a comparison, the Sweetwater Mill in Wyoming is an acid leach facility with a 3,000 ton per day throughput capacity.
The mill was built at a cost of $359 million in todays dollars.

Dilution needs to be considered now before a $65 price target can be attached.
cheers

Very informative post. Amateurs like me love learning these basic details. Thanks.

I'm a bit skeptical on MTN, I compare their current price of roughly $5 to PDN $10. Are they really half of PDNs value? Is it PDN thats under priced or MTN over priced? To me it seems that PDN is a lot more stable than MTN. They have an operating mine (with another one soon to open) and a lot more resources than MTN.... .... (That goes for SMM PNN AGS BMN EME too)

Can someone explain this? (please use numbers if you can, I find it easier to understand mathematical explanations)

[kennas]

Very informative post. Amateurs like me love learning these basic details. Thanks.

I'm a bit skeptical on MTN, I compare their current price of roughly $5 to PDN $10. Are they really half of PDNs value? Is it PDN thats under priced or MTN over priced? To me it seems that PDN is a lot more stable than MTN. They have an operating mine (with another one soon to open) and a lot more resources than MTN.... .... (That goes for SMM PNN AGS BMN EME too)

Can someone explain this? (please use numbers if you can, I find it easier to understand mathematical explanations)Yes, was a good post, thank you spooly. In regard to share price Ironchef, you need to look at market cap. PDN is over $5b and MTN is just $300m, so it's much cheaper in comparison market cap. Maybe then compare what PDN have as total assets and resources, and potential, and compare to MTN to give you a better comparison. Cheers.

[Brujo]

Underground mine

I don't see wallabies inhabiting underground areas.

I've seen this "underground" aspect mentioned a couple of times and I'm not sure what relevance it has in relation to environmental/ecological issues. An underground mine will produce almost the same disturbance as an open pit mine. It's all the other surface infrastructure which occupies the space.

[Halba]

Very informative post. Amateurs like me love learning these basic details. Thanks.

I'm a bit skeptical on MTN, I compare their current price of roughly $5 to PDN $10. Are they really half of PDNs value? Is it PDN thats under priced or MTN over priced? To me it seems that PDN is a lot more stable than MTN. They have an operating mine (with another one soon to open) and a lot more resources than MTN.... .... (That goes for SMM PNN AGS BMN EME too)

Can someone explain this? (please use numbers if you can, I find it easier to understand mathematical explanations)

Have you looked at the number of shares on issue???

[kennas]

Have you looked at the number of shares on issue???

There was no need to be derogatory like this. Ironchef has admitted he is an 'amateur' like we all are and the response I gave him is a more appropriate way of assisting a fellow member in understanding value.


In regard to share price Ironchef, you need to look at market cap. PDN is over $5b and MTN is just $300m, so it's much cheaper in comparison market cap. Maybe then compare what PDN have as total assets and resources, and potential, and compare to MTN to give you a better comparison. Cheers.

[ironchef]

Thanks Kennas.

I AM an amature in all of this (I work as a software engineer, so totally different industry), only been trading for 6 months or so now. These forums are an excellent source of information for me.

[Realist]

MTN has a market cap of $260M.
PDN has a market cap of $5025M.

MTN is 1/20th of PDN.


anyone know why MTN is up so much today? 63c so far. :eek:

[Rafa]

Realist... Shhhh...
let this baby do her thing...;)

[Realist]

MTN is the best buy I ever made.

When will it stop?

I'm just shy of holding a year. I'm gonna be tempted to take my wins after that.....:o

[chris1983]

Looks like they will threaten the $6 barrier. Wow is all I have to say. I was so close to buying these at 2.70......................................but I didnt..doh

:)..

welldone so far guys

[Kimosabi]

anyone know why MTN is up so much today? 63c so far. :eek:

I suspect it's a combination of PDN being suspended, the market concluding that SA is the most likely state for another Uranium mine and the prospect of consolidation of the Uranium sector.

[Caliente]

hi, just wanted to congratulate all the shareholders in MTN on this forum! I had a chance to pick up this bad boy at 80 cents during its "slump" a while back and never thought it would run!

But boy was I way off!!!!!!

Now all you holders go and buy a flat screen TV or something, or a pie for my face :P

[sleeper88]

hmm same situation here, 65.6% on paper after brokerage, but it just gets higher, but im keeping faith it'll go higher ( or am i just greedy :confused: )

The above quote was made on the 9th of Nov 2006, its good to know i hang on to these little beauties, sitting on a 625% paper profit now

[UraniumLover]

hi, just wanted to congratulate all the shareholders in MTN on this forum! I had a chance to pick up this bad boy at 80 cents during its "slump" a while back and never thought it would run!

But boy was I way off!!!!!!

Now all you holders go and buy a flat screen TV or something, or a pie for my face :P

the scary thing is i can't see MTN slowing down after the conference..
The U bug is spreading, especially in SA . U graphs everywhere on the ground floor computers of the ASX building in SA and i wasn't even there yet.
:alcohol::bananasmi -

[Halba]

Still being valued at around $4 a pound even after the value increases. If resource upgrades come then the $ per pound will go down, resulting in share price rerating.

[Kimosabi]

How long can this go on?

MTN just kicked up 50 cents to $6.30 on open

If it keeps going up like this, hysteria is going to start up very shortly...

[chris1983]

How long can this go on?

MTN just kicked up 50 cents to $6.30 on open

haha..I wish I had these :)

[Kimosabi]

haha..I wish I had these :)

I wish I'd bought them like the person who started this thread at 30 cents.

I wonder if he held onto them though...

[nomore4s]

haha..I wish I had these :)

lol, I think everyone does atm

[chris1983]

I wish I'd bought them like the person who started this thread at 30 cents.

I wonder if he held onto them though...

Yeah..definitely an amazing run. Its hard to get them all. My money is all tied up. I did have a chance to jump in at 2.70 though and didn't. Well done to the holders.

[Kimosabi]

Yeah..definitely an amazing run. Its hard to get them all. My money is all tied up. I did have a chance to jump in at 2.70 though and didn't. Well done to the holders.

I can't help it.

I think someone put as nuke under this stock...

[Halba]

Hi there. Fantastic run. I read Rann's approval of uranium mines in the state

link here:

This is the reason for today's increase everyone.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=azjzJWnt5lzM&refer=australia

Australian Labor Party Must End Ban on Uranium Mines, Rann Says

[sleeper88]

Hi there. Fantastic run. I read Rann's approval of uranium mines in the state

link here:

This is the reason for today's increase everyone.

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=azjzJWnt5lzM&refer=australia

Australian Labor Party Must End Ban on Uranium Mines, Rann Says

Funny how they never seem to mention MTN's Mt Gee.

[Halba]

Correct. They never mention MTN. I have emailed the journalist twice and they haven't responded.

[Rafa]

haha..I wish I had these :)

i told ya chris... this is the best one of the lot... even last week you could have made mega bucks.

i've been holding this share since 80c, what a beauty... sold 2/5 of my holding in the March crash and free carrying the other 3/5ths



now... imagine what happens when the popular press actually mention MTN...!

its done all this is without any press coverage... amazing..


always said, for a non producer, WITH JORC, fair value is 10% of value of inground resource at current U spot price...

originally, that was $8/lb, now $12/lb...


What is MTN still valued at... around $5/lb - $6/lb???

[Halba]

to bloomberg

Hi Angela

Please mention Marathon Resources(owner of Mt Gee deposit) in future articles

Australian Labor Party Must End Ban on Uranium Mines, Rann Says

http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=20601081&sid=azjzJWnt5lzM&refer=australia

This is one of the largest deposits in South australia.

[ahspritemk]

What is peoples outlook on MTN over the next few weeks? My gut feeling alone says it will drop a little bit the next few days. Is it a stock worth buying into still?

[Halba]

Can't give advice, but its trading at $4.50 a pound on current valuation. Based on 80 mil pounds. The peer values are $10-20/lb so it's selling at about half to a third of the industry valuation. Now Rann has said he is opening up the state, MTN should be revalued.

[Rafa]

big gap between buyers and sellers

Buyers
Number Quantity Price
2 1100 6.100
3 5947 6.080
1 2578 6.070
2 5800 6.060
2 9300 6.050
2 1332 6.010
1 5000 6.000
1 300 5.950
1 1928 5.940
1 8877 5.920


Sellers
Price Quantity Number
6.200 16129 1
6.340 10000 1
6.350 5000 1
6.370 450 1
6.390 880 1
6.400 21576 2
6.420 7200 1
6.520 2000 1
6.600 5000 2
6.650 7500 1

[jammin]

My outlook for the next couple of days is for a retrace. This is based on the following: 1) The gap in SP from the 13th to 16th April is, I believe an exhaustion gap and signals this very impressive run up only has today (with a very small chance of tomorrow) to post the high prior to falling back.
2) An incease in SP of greater than 50% in about 8 trading days is very impressive but without any volume support does not look sustainable.
3) The most important reason is that; as someone who doesn't hold any MTN, I am hoping it falls because I am really jealous of those who do hold it.

[Halba]

Doesn't seem to be retracing much, always a keen buyer I notice, there is still strong bid depth. Perhaps the technicals will only occur when the fundamentals look less attractive, but it has a JORC resource of 80 million pounds so has to get revalued.

[nizar]

My outlook for the next couple of days is for a retrace. This is based on the following: 1) The gap in SP from the 13th to 16th April is, I believe an exhaustion gap and signals this very impressive run up only has today (with a very small chance of tomorrow) to post the high prior to falling back.
2) An incease in SP of greater than 50% in about 8 trading days is very impressive but without any volume support does not look sustainable.
3) The most important reason is that; as someone who doesn't hold any MTN, I am hoping it falls because I am really jealous of those who do hold it.

Jammin.
MTN doesnt need volume to run.
The run from $1 to $4 didnt have many days with volume >500k.
Thats what happens when total shares on issue is 60million.

[Halba]

Nice close at $6.26. Could go higher, ALP conference is in a week and as nizar mentioned doesn't need volume to increase. Notably one of few uranium companies to go up today, rest heavily down.

[radio-active man]

MTN gets a mention in the following article. Probably one of the more important pieces of journalism or should I say state advertising:

Premier Supports Development of Four Mile Uranium Project: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070402/pdf/311r9tfwn8nm8k.pdf

[insider]

MTN gets a mention in the following article. Probably one of the more important pieces of journalism or should I say state advertising:

Premier Supports Development of Four Mile Uranium Project: http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070402/pdf/311r9tfwn8nm8k.pdf

What I don't like is that RANN talks about opening one mine... never did he say a plural and he said by the end of the year...

[prs]

I'm led to believe that the cost of uranium went up again today. Can anyone confirm this?:)

[jammin]

Jammin.
MTN doesnt need volume to run.
The run from $1 to $4 didnt have many days with volume >500k.
Thats what happens when total shares on issue is 60million.

Nazir,
The SP action supports your statement.
What concerns me is relative reduction in volume over late March and April.

Halba, regarding your comment "Perhaps the technicals will only occur when the fundamentals look less attractive". I agree the fundamentals could be driving the SP but I would have thought the technical indicator of volume moving average would have confirmed the fundamentals view by by increasing rather than decreasing. I interpret the rapid price increase occurring with decreasing volume as greed taking hold of the SP and not positive fundamentals.
The good part of this is that in a couple of days I will see if I am right or wrong, as a retrace down to a support level of around $4.50 won't take long.

[kennas]

This has had a great run. Must have a pause soon IMO. I've taken profits now and running free.

Still seems undervalued for long term holders IMO. All the best.

[deftfear]

You read that really well Kennas, how low can it go today?

[kennas]

You read that really well Kennas, how low can it go today?Couldn't say, would be just a pluck. Might even end up. Some 'value' investors might see this as a buying opportunity. I'm sure Halba's buying on any pullback. :)

[Halba]

Hmmm its already back to $6, thats some good support!

Me more of a "break" momentum buyer I don't buy falling stocks l/

[nomore4s]

This has had a great run. Must have a pause soon IMO. I've taken profits now and running free.

Still seems undervalued for long term holders IMO. All the best.

Kennas I'm sure you've got a crystal ball hidden away somewhere.

MTN now @ $5.75

[insider]

Couldn't say, would be just a pluck. Might even end up. Some 'value' investors might see this as a buying opportunity. I'm sure Halba's buying on any pullback. :)

I'd like to see a retrace today... I guess it's happening... I'm happy now... quick sudden jumps make me nervous... I need consistency

[dj_420]

well back on board MTN after today at 5.40, very little sellers up to $6 could be a quick turnaround as ive learnt in the past with MTN

[Halba]

I am thinking of bidding for 1000 shares if it gets under five, but for now its just a waiting game till labour conference. If conference has positive outcomes for MTN then it will be good. Remember anyone selling will do so knowing full well that the conference April 27-29 will likely decide in favour of SA lifting the ban.

[nizar]

Ill be very suprised if this closes under $5.
Seems to be some support there.

Ill pick if up when it bounces, but maybe theres a couple more red days to come.

[nizar]

MTN looking good for a 20-tick gap up on the open! :D

[motion]

Looks like it might get under the $5 mark today !! might be worth picking up.. sitting at around 5.30 at the moment... down - 2.75%

[ahspritemk]

MARATHON RESOURCES APPOINTS NEW CHIEF EXECUTIVE
AS THE COMPANY MOVES INTO ITS NEXT STAGE OF
DEVELOPMENT

MTN sp is on a bit of a rise again although i still think it will fall a bit more over the next few weeks.

[kennas]

Chart review:

[Halba]

Kennas looks like this has bottomed out. I guess the mkt cap wasn't too exuberant to make it fall any more. The CEO ann looks good IMHO, some good experience to take this to a "mine".

[UraniumLover]

Kennas looks like this has bottomed out. I guess the mkt cap wasn't too exuberant to make it fall any more. The CEO ann looks good IMHO, some good experience to take this to a "mine".

I've topped up on this one today as soon as I saw green.
Seems to be a general revival of u stocks today.
I'm putting my money on this will continue next week with all the hype surrounding meeting - MTN should benefit.
This new CEO MR Hall better improve their marketing campaign an also learn some chinese lol

[insider]

I've topped up on this one today as soon as I saw green.
Seems to be a general revival of u stocks today.
I'm putting my money on this will continue next week with all the hype surrounding meeting - MTN should benefit.
This new CEO MR Hall better improve their marketing campaign an also learn some chinese lol

I think he does speak chinese...

[JWBH01]

I read an article in the Weekend Australian on Apr 7-8 (i know this is a bit late but I have just read it) and Warwick Grigor was saying that Marathon resources was already in his viewed "Fully Priced". What are poeple's thoughts on this?

Maybe this has already been somented in this thread.

[kennas]

I read an article in the Weekend Australian on Apr 7-8 (i know this is a bit late but I have just read it) and Warwick Grigor was saying that Marathon resources was already in his viewed "Fully Priced". What are poeple's thoughts on this?

Maybe this has already been somented in this thread. Yes, I think it's been well 'somented' :confused: in the thread. I personally don't think it's fully priced. When you compare it's market cap/lbs U to other explorers/developers it seems to be much cheaper. (please check back through thread for comparisons) Or, does it mean that it's fairly priced and the others are expensive? ;) I'm not sure if that perspective has been fully appreciated to date. Perhaps the answer is somewhere in the middle.

[Halba]

Time to send mr warwick grigor an email re: fully priced pfffffttt

No way fully priced: resource upgrades coming as per last announcement. Also more focus on 'production' with latest CEO appointment. Looks like they are focussed.

[dj_420]

i think you will find some answers will find in a BFS (when eventually released) which will show how expensive an underground mining operation will be.

i have wondered why MTN can command such a low market cap compared to its peers, upon doing quite a lot of research i believe some of this to be priced into the type of mines each different company will eventually operate.

obviously grade is king in everything and is very relevant when comparing mining techniques.

open cut mining is suited for low to high grade material that is close to surface. obviously if there is a large resource that is of low grade it can still be economic to have an open cut mine due to low costs of recovery.

as a resource gets deeper the grade needs to increase also to make it economically viable to recover the commodity. if an underground mine is warranted then the grades also must be substantially higher than what could warrant an open pit mine.

for eg (hypothetical) an open pit uranium mine might be financially viable if there is at least 10 000 tonnes contained uranium at 0.01%

for an underground mining operation it might be financially viable if there is at least 15 000 tonnes at 0.07%

now im not sure of what exact figures make a mine financially viable HOWEVER one must also compare these types of mines.

many people have wondered why AGS has a much larger market cap for a smaller (percentage) resource than MTN.

the type of mine that AGS will have is in situ leach a process by pumping weak acidic liquid down on side of the resource seeping through the uranium deposit and pulled up the other side. the solution is then refined to recover the dissolved uranium.

in situ leach mining is very cost effective takes minimal time to set up and is only limited to how much solution can be pumped through the deposit.

now in MTN ann it is stated that due to environmental issues an underground mine would be used to remove deposit. the underground mining operation will take a lot longer to get in place, operate etc, as well as been far more costly.

a lot of people have also been astounded as to why PDN would go for SMM when MTN have a huge resource, well think about it, PDN have obviously done their research and decided that the SMM resource was more viable to go after.

why would that be??

the type of mine they will use. now halba has also stated that WME grades are to low to even warrant been looked at BUT because of the resource proximity it could eventually be viable for open pit mine. there is in fact a BFS been completed on a mine near WME with avg grades near to 0.01% much lower than what WME has already found (and i will post research on this just have to go dig it up).

so in all obviously the companys that can get a mine up and running the quickest and CHEAPEST will command a higher market cap, hence AGS is at such a large market cap and now CUY is starting to show a lot of interest.

this is purely because the type of mine AGS and CUY (in situ leach) will be cheap and quick to set up.

so IMO it might also be viable when comparing resources and companys etc to consider the type of mine they will need to get up and running, leading to time capital cost etc etc.

[sleeper88]

this is purely because the type of mine AGS and CUY (in situ leach) will be cheap and quick to set up.

so IMO it might also be viable when comparing resources and companys etc to consider the type of mine they will need to get up and running, leading to time capital cost etc etc.

I believe blr should be added to that list of potential in situ leach miners.

[dj_420]

I believe blr should be added to that list of potential in situ leach miners.

sorry sleeper lol we will add in BLR

only showing that the type of mine can have a fundmental difference in the financial viability of a project and hence profits which directly affect sp

[champ2003]

i think you will find some answers will find in a BFS (when eventually released) which will show how expensive an underground mining operation will be.

i have wondered why MTN can command such a low market cap compared to its peers, upon doing quite a lot of research i believe some of this to be priced into the type of mines each different company will eventually operate.

obviously grade is king in everything and is very relevant when comparing mining techniques.

open cut mining is suited for low to high grade material that is close to surface. obviously if there is a large resource that is of low grade it can still be economic to have an open cut mine due to low costs of recovery.

as a resource gets deeper the grade needs to increase also to make it economically viable to recover the commodity. if an underground mine is warranted then the grades also must be substantially higher than what could warrant an open pit mine.

for eg (hypothetical) an open pit uranium mine might be financially viable if there is at least 10 000 tonnes contained uranium at 0.01%

for an underground mining operation it might be financially viable if there is at least 15 000 tonnes at 0.07%

now im not sure of what exact figures make a mine financially viable HOWEVER one must also compare these types of mines.

many people have wondered why AGS has a much larger market cap for a smaller (percentage) resource than MTN.

the type of mine that AGS will have is in situ leach a process by pumping weak acidic liquid down on side of the resource seeping through the uranium deposit and pulled up the other side. the solution is then refined to recover the dissolved uranium.

in situ leach mining is very cost effective takes minimal time to set up and is only limited to how much solution can be pumped through the deposit.

now in MTN ann it is stated that due to environmental issues an underground mine would be used to remove deposit. the underground mining operation will take a lot longer to get in place, operate etc, as well as been far more costly.

a lot of people have also been astounded as to why PDN would go for SMM when MTN have a huge resource, well think about it, PDN have obviously done their research and decided that the SMM resource was more viable to go after.

why would that be??

the type of mine they will use. now halba has also stated that WME grades are to low to even warrant been looked at BUT because of the resource proximity it could eventually be viable for open pit mine. there is in fact a BFS been completed on a mine near WME with avg grades near to 0.01% much lower than what WME has already found (and i will post research on this just have to go dig it up).

so in all obviously the companys that can get a mine up and running the quickest and CHEAPEST will command a higher market cap, hence AGS is at such a large market cap and now CUY is starting to show a lot of interest.

this is purely because the type of mine AGS and CUY (in situ leach) will be cheap and quick to set up.

so IMO it might also be viable when comparing resources and companys etc to consider the type of mine they will need to get up and running, leading to time capital cost etc etc.

Hmmmm and how do you know that PDN won't EVER go after MTN??? After all, you only go for 1 take over at a time.

:D


P.S ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.

[kennas]

ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.How's that? Interested to know.

[Halba]

Why all the talk re: ISL? MTN is not an ISL miner - its tank leach processing. At these stage I don't see how underground mine makes it less cost effective as say PNN or AGS, both have costs too. CUY also has jack all resources, I read it doesn't even have a JORC.

[kennas]

How's that? Interested to know.Can you post it in the Uranium thread please champ? Cheers.

[kennas]

why all the talk re: ISL? MTN is not an ISL miner - its tank leach processing. At these stage i don't see how underground mine makes it say less cost effective as say PNN or AGS, both have costs too. CUY also has jack all resources, i read it doesn't even have a JORC.Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL? :confused: Also, JORC isn't that important by your standards is it? Does BMN, ERN, or ECH have a JORC? Anyway, that's off topic.

As far as the comparison between underground, open cut, or ISL goes, the initial point was that the market cap of MTN may be a bit lower due to the nature of the deposit, which is a fair statement I think. It's just but one of the many factors effecting the various U potentials market cap. It's not just about the in ground resource.

[Halba]

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 mark

[spooly74]

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 mark

It will make a difference because it will depend on the type of mining method and the profit forcast for the "life of mine"

Depend on the U price too, what will it be in 15 years :confused:

[kennas]

A few dollars per pound difference in costs makes little difference when you are selling yellowcake at $120$ pound +..all will make great profits, therefore the discount is unjustified. Market agrees with my views, hence the rise in MTN and the increased support you saw in the $5 markMight be unjustified Halba, but to what degree, is an open question in my mind.

The $120 + lb price is an interesting one at the moment, and needs to be discussed further I feel. We are all valuing these companies on the spot price, which is fine perhaps for an unhedged producer, or near term producer. However, many of the spec plays at the moment will not be into production for years, if ever. What we should be coming up with is a long term forecast for U to determine is those few lbs will make a difference in the years to come.

Does anyone have a long term price projections of U3O8? I read in an article recently that UBS had it at about $40, so maybe a few lbs will make a difference when it's eventually producing? For discussion I suppose.

Yes, the market will eventually price MTN accordingly. But I don't think we are in a position to really value it at the moment. For a start, how about the BFS, which may indicate a long term U price, or hedging policy?

[Halba]

Re: uranium price predictions, uranium price affect all other stocks equally so doesn't just affect MTN. Still doesn't explain vast valuation difference

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

[dj_420]

Re: uranium price predictions, uranium price affect all other stocks equally so doesn't just affect MTN. Still doesn't explain vast valuation difference

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

halba on this thread you are stating that mine type does not matter as "what is a few dollars per pound difference" YET on WME thread you state that pre-jorc resource is insignificant due to lower grades.

is that not a bit hypocritical???

you do realise that there are a number of low grade deposits coming online soon dont you? i would have thought if the mine type can be completely discounted by your standards then the grade of a deposit does not matter either.

[dj_420]

Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL? :confused: Also, JORC isn't that important by your standards is it? Does BMN, ERN, or ECH have a JORC? Anyway, that's off topic.

As far as the comparison between underground, open cut, or ISL goes, the initial point was that the market cap of MTN may be a bit lower due to the nature of the deposit, which is a fair statement I think. It's just but one of the many factors effecting the various U potentials market cap. It's not just about the in ground resource.

what i was actually discussing halba is that an underground mine is more expensive HENCE needs higher grades and larger deposit to make it financially viable.

WHICH also means a large uranium deposit on surface can have LOWER grades to make it financially viable to mine, but you keep writing off any company with low grades. maybe look at rossing mine perhaps.

i dont see how MTN can be priced exactly the same as SMM when the mine type and HENCE costs are going to be completely different.

one last point is that the mines PDN has actually been going for and have secured over past few years are all open pittable or isl so they are obviously costing in types of mines on a long term scale in these areas

[nizar]

I read an article in the Weekend Australian on Apr 7-8 (i know this is a bit late but I have just read it) and Warwick Grigor was saying that Marathon resources was already in his viewed "Fully Priced". What are poeple's thoughts on this?

Maybe this has already been somented in this thread.

Have a look at the share price of MTN since April 7-8.
Who is right - Mr. Grigor or Mr. Market?
Ill tell you right know ill put my money where the market tells me.

[nizar]

My opinion re : uranium. There is simply inadequate supply to meet demand till 2020. Its that simple. Cigar lake really was the major impact, with some smaller impacts like ERA not meeting production targets, and langer heinrich slow ramp up. Unless something else/some other technology comes on e.g. clean coal, uranium is the only go. Also companies have the ability to hedge in 10 year contracts. The current long term uranium price is $85/lb and that will rise.

Sorry I beg to differ.
Do you know how many uranium mines in Kazakhstan are going into production from 2008-2010? I can tell you its several.
Also olympic dam expansion will start production around 2012-2013.

[Halba]

what i was actually discussing halba is that an underground mine is more expensive HENCE needs higher grades and larger deposit to make it financially viable.

WHICH also means a large uranium deposit on surface can have LOWER grades to make it financially viable to mine, but you keep writing off any company with low grades. maybe look at rossing mine perhaps.

i dont see how MTN can be priced exactly the same as SMM when the mine type and HENCE costs are going to be completely different.

one last point is that the mines PDN has actually been going for and have secured over past few years are all open pittable or isl so they are obviously costing in types of mines on a long term scale in these areas


re: WME doesn't have a JORC yet. I am merely being critical of it achieving 18 million pounds targets as the information contained here pointed to poor exploration results. This is the sole reason why i am skeptical on the marenica uranium project until i see new drill results and new exploration results. I want to see management prove themselves first.

http://www.gsn.gov.na/pdf/uranium.pdf

Scroll to Marenica uranium project

4.2.2.2.6. Marinica

e.g.

"Anomaly 1: Results obtained from this area
were poor, with only a few boreholes
encountering values in excess of 200 g/t U3O8.
Only one hole exceeded 300 g/t."

"Area 2 has the richest mineralisation. Values
exceed 150 g/t U3O8 over a fairly large area and
mineralised zones are wider than 3 m" >> if this is considered rich what about the other areas?

Cheers.

PS: if the mngmt prove to me and the market some good results, obviously i will have to retract my views.

[champ2003]

re: WME doesn't have a JORC yet. I am merely being critical of it achieving 18 million pounds targets as the information contained here pointed to poor exploration results. This is the sole reason why i am skeptical on the marenica uranium project until i see new drill results and new exploration results. I want to see management prove themselves first.

http://www.gsn.gov.na/pdf/uranium.pdf

Scroll to Marenica uranium project

4.2.2.2.6. Marinica

e.g.

"Anomaly 1: Results obtained from this area
were poor, with only a few boreholes
encountering values in excess of 200 g/t U3O8.
Only one hole exceeded 300 g/t."

"Area 2 has the richest mineralisation. Values
exceed 150 g/t U3O8 over a fairly large area and
mineralised zones are wider than 3 m" >> if this is considered rich what about the other areas?

Cheers.

PS: if the mngmt prove to me and the market some good results, obviously i will have to retract my views.

What has WME got to do with MTN??

[Go Nuke]

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

[Kimosabi]

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

Don't worry, Brian Burke has been commissioned to deal with this;)

[deftfear]

Why would MTN go into a JV lookiing for Uranium in W.A???

The current W.A premier is against Uranium mining.
Or is it because....times change..and premiers change with the times.

Maybe to derisk itself from being a one mine company, most investors see a company with only one mine being riskier than a company with multiple locations. It's obviously looking longterm, they wont be anywhere near thinking about mining there for 2-3 years, and times might have changed by then.

[dj_420]

guys just wondering if anyone had seen the relevance of this

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas.

will this have any sort of implication on the mt gee area?


ALP dumps mine policy
Email Print Normal font Large font April 28, 2007 - 8:02PM

Advertisement
AdvertisementKevin Rudd has narrowly managed to convince Labor to cast aside a 25 year policy banning new uranium mines.

After nearly two hours of debate, delegates at the Labor national conference in Sydney today backed their leader's proposal to expand uranium mining but only after an alternate plan to delay the decision was defeated by the narrowest of margins.

The issue - cast as a test of Mr Rudd's leadership and Labor's fitness for government - divided the opposition front bench and sparked a passionate debate on the conference floor.

Deputy Senate leader Stephen Conroy, a member of Mr Rudd's leadership team, voted against the uranium expansion plan, backing the alternative put forward by opposition frontbenchers Anthony Albanese and Peter Garrett.

Senator Conroy later refused to discuss his decision.

Mr Albanese and Mr Garrett had wanted any decision on new mines deferred until stricter safeguards were put in place to deal with nuclear non-proliferation and associated radioactive waste.

Their proposal was defeated by a slim 190 to 205 - a margin much closer than had been anticipated.

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas.

As Labor grappled with its difficult policy dilemma, Prime Minister John Howard flagged the government's intention to remove all unnecessary restrictions on mining, processing and exporting uranium, opening the way for domestic nuclear power generation.

Mr Rudd derided Mr Howard's plan, calling it the "Montgomery Burns solution", referring to the maniacal nuclear reactor boss in the cartoon series The Simpsons.

He told the conference that the change in Labor policy was needed because not all countries were blessed with the energy alternatives enjoyed by Australia.

"The challenge is as we debate this amendment to recognise the reality that around the world there are so many economies who do not have and possess the rich range of energy options which we in this country have at our disposal," Mr Rudd said.

"We have been supplying uranium to them for many years and this amendment seeks to recognise that reality into the years ahead."

But Mr Albanese told delegates that it wasn't a risk worth taking.

"If you're cautious about further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle, vote for my amendment," he said.

"If you think that it's pretty arrogant to suggest that we know what will happen to geology, climate, and importantly, political changes over the next 240,000 years, think there might be a doubt about it - vote for my amendment.

"If you think it actually matters that every person in this room knows that ALP members at the rank-and-file level support my amendment, then vote for it. I think it does matter.

"Let's put out a consistently clear position that says we don't want any further involvement in the nuclear fuel cycle. Vote for my amendment."

Mr Garrett, who campaigned for nuclear disarmament when he was the frontman of Midnight Oil, promised he still had the anti-nuclear fire in his belly.

"I've long been opposed to uranium mining. I'm unapologetic about it. In fact I'm proud of it," he said.

But rising Labor star and union boss Bill Shorten, who has won preselection for the next election, said that Labor values weren't worth much if the party wasn't in power.

"Not voting for change will undermine us at the next election," he said.

"For me, you can have all the Labor values in the world but they're not much good if you're in opposition. Winning is important to changing all of the issues."

He made it clear the party was risking government if it went against Mr Rudd.

"If you think that rolling the leader is a great idea then go ahead and vote for the Albanese-Garrett amendment," Mr Shorten said.

Mr Albanese later said that he was not disappointed by the result because it was so close.

"I think it's pretty hard to be disappointed with the vote when we were in a minority by only eight votes," he said.

Two protesters were kicked out after they pulled out a flag and began shouting slogans at Mr Rudd as he left the conference floor following the vote.

Earlier in the day, the party endorsed Rudd's new industrial relations policy without debate.

The new policy, which bans strike action without a secret ballot of workers and reinstates unfair dismissal protection for some workers, had been touted as a test of Mr Rudd's leadership.

But union officials agreed not to attempt to amend the policy after several hours of discussion on the edges of the conference.

Labor workplace relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard thanked delegates for their support and paid tribute to her shadow parliamentary secretary Brendan O'Connor for his work in negotiating the agreement.

"This chapter wouldn't be with you today if it wasn't for his hard work," she said.

Under the policy, fathers will be guaranteed the right to take up to 12 months unpaid parental leave as part of a new employment safety net covering all Australian workers.

Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd and industrial relations spokeswoman Julia Gillard released a policy document titled Forward with Fairness: Labor's Plan for Fairer and more Productive Australian Workplaces, which provided further details on the safety net workers would have under a Labor government.

"A Rudd Labor government will guarantee a safety net of decent, relevant and enforceable minimum wages and conditions for working Australians," the policy says.

It promises 10 legislated national employment standards, which will apply to all workers.

"Labor's new national employment standards will contain entitlements for all employees regardless of their industry or occupation," the policy says.

"These new standards cannot be removed or replaced."

The standards include separate periods of 12 months unpaid parental leave for both parents following the birth of a child.

"Labor recognises that many families want to have a parent provide all or most of the care for a child during the first two years of the child's life," the policy says.

Labor would also guarantee workers eight national public holidays, as well as prescribed state or local public holidays such as Labour Day and Melbourne Cup Day.

The minimum conditions will include mandated redundancy pay for workers in a job for more than a year and minimum periods of notice if they are sacked.

The second phase of the safety net relates to further conditions that can be guaranteed in workers' awards.

"Labor believes that awards are an important safety net and an effective floor for collective bargaining. Collective agreements will be able to override award entitlements provided the agreement means employees are genuinely better off," the policy says.

"Under Labor, awards may build on and also provide industry detail on Labor's legislated minimum standards.

"Labor's new awards may only contain a further 10 minimum employment standards."

These can include standards on minimum wages, overtime and penalty rates, allowances and superannuation.

AAP

[kennas]

guys just wondering if anyone had seen the relevance of this

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas.

will this have any sort of implication on the mt gee area?I haven't seen anything factual to support the notion Mt Gee is a protected area. Would like to see a reference or link to confirm this. Up to this point, it's just been rumour IMO.

[Kimosabi]

Does anyone know if they can process the Mt Gee resource using the In Situ Leach process?

I don't know if anyone has bothered to do this, but there is a rather large In Situ Leach processing plant approx 25 - 30km's from Mt Gee, called Beverley operated by Heathgate Resources.

All images are courtesy of Google Earth

[dj_420]

i think that mt gee can only be mined with an underground mine due to the type of rock deposit is in and the fact that it is in an environmentally sensitive area means they cannot do in situ leach or open pit

[Kimosabi]

i think that mt gee can only be mined with an underground mine due to the type of rock deposit is in and the fact that it is in an environmentally sensitive area means they cannot do in situ leach or open pit

There are two parts to this process, 1st part is digging up the dirt. My understanding is that Mt Gee would most likely be an underground mine which is good because this will cause less impact to the local environment.

The second part of the process is processing the ore, who says the ore has to be processed at Mt Gee. Dump the ore in a truck and drive it down to Beverley(avoiding as many Wallaby's as possible) for Processing and refinement.

If the Mt Gee ore can be processed at Beverley, there could be some very interesting possibilities eventuate.

[dj_420]

There are two parts to this process, 1st part is digging up the dirt. My understanding is that Mt Gee would most likely be an underground mine which is good because this will cause less impact to the local environment.

The second part of the process is processing the ore, who says the ore has to be processed at Mt Gee. Dump the ore in a truck and drive it down to Beverley(avoiding as many Wallaby's as possible) for Processing and refinement.

If the Mt Gee ore can be processed at Beverley, there could be some very interesting possibilities eventuate.

i have no idea how easily/hard it would be for MTN could get another company to process their ore. IMO the only way that would happen would be through a JV. who knows the beverley processing plant might already be run at full capacity in which case it would not be viable for them to mine another company's ore even given credits or however that would work.

also you need to look at overheads for an underground mine, will be huge, cost blowouts prevalent in underground mining operations.

IMO stocks that can use in situ leach will be very quickly snapped up as they will be the ones to start producing the quickest. AGS and CUY.

[Kimosabi]

Does anyone know if they can process the Mt Gee resource using the In Situ Leach process?

I don't know if anyone has bothered to do this, but there is a rather large In Situ Leach processing plant approx 25 - 30km's from Mt Gee, called Beverley operated by Heathgate Resources.

All images are courtesy of Google Earth

:o After some more research this probably wouldn't work for Mt Gee.:o

The message you have entered is too short. Please lengthen your message to at least 100 characters.

[exgeo]

Hi Kimosabi,

Regarding your question about In-Situ Leach, the clue is in the name really. The Beverley plant extracts the Uranium that is IN SITU at the Beverley site. This process will only work with roll-front type deposits which have permeable rocks (for example in a palaeo river-channel, where roll-fronts are found). The ore at Mt Gee is completely different- it's a hard-rock deposit, and not particularly permeable presumably, so that would necessitate physically digging the stuff and crushing it etc. A google of "in situ leach" gave the following result:

http://www.uic.com.au/nip40.htm

[champ2003]

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas


Does anyone know what may happen if a ban is put in place banning mining on World heritage or national parks within SA? Will that automatically mean that those areas will be protected?

If so what does that mean for MTN?
:eek7:

[champ2003]

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl Place ID 5978

here is the link showing that Mt Gee IS heritage listed

I'm not sure how up to date this information is though.

[champ2003]

http://www.environment.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl Place ID 5978

here is the link showing that Mt Gee IS heritage listed

I'm not sure how up to date this information is though.

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas

Another question to ask- What are the chances of that proposal being given the green light??

It would have to be fair to say that there would be a very good argument to back up the proposal.

Maybe this should be looked into very thoroughly?

Cheers!

Champ

[kennas]

However, they won backing for a proposal banning uranium mining in national parks and world heritage areas

Another question to ask- What are the chances of that proposal being given the green light??

It would have to be fair to say that there would be a very good argument to back up the proposal.

Maybe this should be looked into very thoroughly?

Cheers!

ChampI think this environmental issue is something that needs to be raised with the company. I'll try and get on to them tomorrow.

[insider]

Yes Kennas that would be good I tried calling a little while ago and it would either not ring or no one wouldn't pick up... Probably lunch... so I gave up

[insider]

It's important to remember that Mt Gee is considered as Mt painter region...

Mt Gee is not in a world heritage area nor in a national heritage.... It is in the register of the national estate. As high lighted below

Here is a quote taken from the sites glossary:

"The place is in the Register of the National Estate. Although some places may be legally registered because they are within a larger registered area they may not necessarily possess intrinsic significance."

In other words the Mt Painter Region is up for re-evaluation because it is within the arakoola ragion... Just like AGS

What makes the conservation plan rubbish in my opinion is that it was done very roughly branding the entire mountain as significant which wouldn't be the case

List: Register of the National Estate
Class: Natural
Legal Status: Registered (28/09/1982)
Place ID: 5979
Place File No: 3/00/260/0060
Statement of Significance:
Many of the diverse, rugged and often unique geological, geographical and botanical features which make the Arkaroola-Mount Painter region a wilderness area of great scientific and aesthetic interest. In addition, it is a major haunt of the until-recently rare yellow footed rock wallaby (PETROGALE XANTHOPUS).

The Commission has determined that this place has Indigenous values of national estate significance. The Commission is currently consulting with relevant Indigenous communities about the amount of information to be placed on public record.

(The Commission is in the process of developing and/or upgrading official statements for places listed prior to 1991. The above data was mainly provided by the nominator and has not yet been revised by the Commission.)
Official Values: Not Available
Description:
The Arkaroola Creek, flowing from the Gammon Ranges to the south, swings east in the area of Bolla Bollana smelters and becomes unusually and spectacularly sinuous, frequently doubling almost back into itself. Cutting through the resistant quartzites, tillites and granites of Proterozoic age, it forms a number of beautiful waterholes and gorges with sheer rock walls. The surrounding terrain is typically chaotic with serrated quartzite, massive tillite and bulbous granite peaks. The flora often reflecting the geology, is dominated by several acacia and eucalypt species, yaccas, porcupine grass and after seasonal rains, wildflowers of great beauty.
History: Not Available
Condition and Integrity:
Moderately good. Graded roads passing through Arkaroola Village provide direct access to Bolla Bollana, Arkaroola and Stubbs waterholes. The station management attempts to control tourism by prohibiting camping outside the village and setting aside special areas for mineral collecting.
Location:
About 8000ha, 94km north-east of Copley on Arkaroola Road near Arkaroola Village, AMG points: SH5409-Copley 325454, 325507, 465507, 465454 and return to start, approx. 0.5km north of Arkaroola Village.
Bibliography:
(1) SPRIGG, R.C., & SPRIGG, G. (1976): ARKAROOLA-MT. PAINTER IN THE
FLINDERS RANGES, SOUTH AUSTRALIA. AUSTAPRINT, ADELAIDE. (2) MOONEY, P.
(1976): ARKAROOLA AREA. IN, MCBRIAR, E.M. & MOONEY, P.A. (EDS.),
GEOLOGICAL MONUMENTS OF SOUTH AUSTRALIA,PT I,GEOL. SOC. AUST., S.
AUST. DIV. 200-206. (3) CORBETT, D.W.P.,(ED.)(1969): THE NATURAL
HISTORY OF THE FLINDERS RANGES LIBRARIES BOARD

NOT HERITAGE LISTED

[kennas]

Statement of Significance:
Many of the diverse, rugged and often unique geological, geographical and botanical features which make the Arkaroola-Mount Painter region a wilderness area of great scientific and aesthetic interest. In addition, it is a major haunt of the until-recently rare yellow footed rock wallaby (PETROGALE XANTHOPUS).Aaaaah, the infamous and extremely important Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby, without which our way of life will cease to exist! :banghead:

I've written to the company as well to get their official perspective.

[insider]

Aaaaah, the infamous and extremely important Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby, without which our way of life will cease to exist! :banghead:

I've written to the company as well to get their official perspective.

What I think would be better would be to speak to the Flinders Ranges Council on the matter but They don't have a phone number... I wanted to ask them Is Mt Gee in a Landscaped Pastoral zone or is it in Zone A

[Kimosabi]

Alright doubter, here we go...

Fat Prophets nominated MTN as it's latest stock of the week and to HOLD.

If you've got e-trade you can look it up on Fat Prophets Mining Stock of the week.

I'll just post the one quote from the article..

"The extraordinary value in Marathon is now being realised, but we believe there is even more upside to come."

[insider]

QUOTE=Kimosabi;152696]Alright doubter, here we go...

Fat Prophets nominated MTN as it's latest stock of the week and to HOLD.

If you've got e-trade you can look it up on Fat Prophets Mining Stock of the week.

I'll just post the one quote from the article..

"The extraordinary value in Marathon is now being realised, but we believe there is even more upside to come."[/QUOTE]

Post the whole thing please... Not that I'm a doubter...

[kennas]

How's this:

Reflecting strong corporate interest in the uranium sector and the quality of its Mt Gee uranium deposit, Marathon Resources continues to trade well in advance of Crosby's $3.52 a share takeover offer. We see little downside for shareholders given current circumstances, including the possibility of rival bidders emerging. Reflecting its confidence, Marathon has appointed one of Australia's most experienced resource executives as its new CEO.

"The extraordinary value in Marathon is now being realised, but we believe there is even more upside to come."

Fat Prophets first recommended Marathon Resources at 72 cents in March 2006 (Fat Mining 16). Our last review of this stock was in February (Fat Mining 68).

Since our last review in March, there has been a clear acceleration of the upward trend. As a result, the stock achieved a new all-time high of $6.42 last week. This represents a gain of 145% in just one month.

Following such rapid gains, the upward trend of any stock would be at risk of pausing for consolidation. Marathon is no exception. In the near term, we anticipate further consolidation with last week's low of $5.10 providing initial support.

Given the strength of the longer term trend, we believe the outlook for Marathon remains positive. In time, we expect prices to extend to new highs above $6.42.

[Kimosabi]

How's this:

Reflecting strong corporate interest in the uranium sector and the quality of its Mt Gee uranium deposit, Marathon Resources continues to trade well in advance of Crosby's $3.52 a share takeover offer. We see little downside for shareholders given current circumstances, including the possibility of rival bidders emerging. Reflecting its confidence, Marathon has appointed one of Australia's most experienced resource executives as its new CEO.

"The extraordinary value in Marathon is now being realised, but we believe there is even more upside to come."

Fat Prophets first recommended Marathon Resources at 72 cents in March 2006 (Fat Mining 16). Our last review of this stock was in February (Fat Mining 68).

Since our last review in March, there has been a clear acceleration of the upward trend. As a result, the stock achieved a new all-time high of $6.42 last week. This represents a gain of 145% in just one month.

Following such rapid gains, the upward trend of any stock would be at risk of pausing for consolidation. Marathon is no exception. In the near term, we anticipate further consolidation with last week's low of $5.10 providing initial support.

Given the strength of the longer term trend, we believe the outlook for Marathon remains positive. In time, we expect prices to extend to new highs above $6.42.

I didn't want to post the whole article because it's effectively private research. Unless of course you can get this info from a public source.

[kennas]

OK, direct from Belinda at MTN. This is a great response and very prompt. Got to hand it to them for that!



Hi Sean,

Thanks for your email. This is often an area of confusion for those following Marathon. Below is some information that will hopefully answer your questions.

The exploration license held for the Mount Gee area is EL3258.

EL3258 lies within the Flinders Ranges Planning Area "A".
EL3258 lies almost entirely within the area zoned Environmental Class A within the Development Plan for "Land not Within a Council Area".

Is Mt Gee in a National Park?

No

Is Mt Gee 'Pastoral Land'?

EL3258 is within the boundaries of the Arkaroola Pastoral Lease (No. 2240). The Arkaroola Pastoral Lease is declared a sanctuary under the South Australian National Parks & Wildlife Act 1972. Arkaroola Station itself is a 'rejected' place in the Australian Heritage Register. No part of Arkaroola Station has been declared or proclaimed a national park, conservation area, Recreation Park or a regional reserve.

Can minerals be mined at Mt Gee, being within Environmental Class A area?

Objective 2 is regarding the protection of the landscape from damage by mining operations and exploring for new resources.

It states that "Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A zone unless the deposits are if such paramount importance and their exploitation is in the highest national of state interest that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden. Deposits which may potentially have the required degree of significance have been identified in the following localities only: the western face of the Heysen Ranges: portion of the Moralana Valley; portion of the Mt Hack and Mt Uro areas; portion of the Stirrup Iron Range: portion of the East Gammons and the Mt Painter-Freeling Heights area."

The interim report of a scoping study by Coffeys indicates that an underground mine approached from the flat outside the Flinders Ranges is one of out best options.

Mt Gee is also on the National Estate List. Can minerals be mined?

We are aware of 3 places in the Arkaroola area are entered in the Register of National Estate. Entry of itself in the Register of the National Estate does not mean that a place is subject to restraints or control, or that management of the place needs to be altered.

There are no legal constraints on the way owners of private property, or state or local governments manage or dispose of properties entered in the register of the National Estate. The listing of places on the Register of National Estate is not an impediment in itself to the carrying on of the exploration program of EL3258.

[kennas]

I've asked Belinda about this clause:

"Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A zone unless the deposits are if such paramount importance and their exploitation is in the highest national of state interest that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden"

and asked for an opinion on whether the SA Gov would consider Mt Gee to be of such importance.

Given Ranns position on U mining, I'd say it's a fair chance to get through.

[spooly74]

OK, direct from Belinda at MTN. This is a great response and very prompt. Got to hand it to them for that!


Nice work kennas.

Based on what Belinda just said and from what was on the interim scoping study my guess is they are looking around this area (see image)

IMO there was no way they would be allowed build it in the Flinders Ranges.

They will be up for higher transport costs but will save huge money with the proposed location.

Distance looks around 20 km.

I`m waiting for the scoping study to reveal all.

[Kimosabi]

Surprisingly, I found the most important part of the latest quarterly report which doesn't have anything to do with exploration etc, etc, was that they have moved to a larger office in Adelaide.

Having worked for a number of businesses both public and private, I cannot emphasize enough, how good a sign it is when a business moves to a larger premises.

If they are prepared to go through the hassle of moving to a larger office, then they are real serious about progressing the Mount Gee project.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070427/pdf/3124wgt1jmjlx9.pdf

[insider]

Good work People... I hate it when the environmental issue pops up every time... But it seems to be easily crushed...

[kennas]

Based on what Belinda just said and from what was on the interim scoping study my guess is they are looking around this area (see image)

IMO there was no way they would be allowed build it in the Flinders Ranges.

They will be up for higher transport costs but will save huge money with the proposed location.

Distance looks around 20 km.

I`m waiting for the scoping study to reveal all.
From that photo I'd agree Spooly, although it's hard to say for sure. Some distance isn't it.


Good work People... I hate it when the environmental issue pops up every time... But it seems to be easily crushed...
I don't think it's been crushed yet Insider.


"Mining operations should not take place in the Environmental Class A zone unless the deposits are if such paramount importance and their exploitation is in the highest national of state interest that all other environment, heritage or conservation considerations may be overridden"MTN are going to have to prove that mining is either:

1. Not going to effect the environment significantly, and especially that little yellow footed rat, or whatever, and/or
2. That it is of 'paramount importance to the State'.

Now, given Mike Rann is out there pegging ground himself, he probably would think the royalties/taxes flowing into the State coffers are of 'paramount importance'.

Apparently Mike hasn't visited Mt Gee to this point, but I am sure that he and his environmental minister will be out there assessing it when the scoping study comes in with the method of mining and environmental impact.

Games not over yet it would seem.

[dj_420]

Surprisingly, I found the most important part of the latest quarterly report which doesn't have anything to do with exploration etc, etc, was that they have moved to a larger office in Adelaide.

Having worked for a number of businesses both public and private, I cannot emphasize enough, how good a sign it is when a business moves to a larger premises.

If they are prepared to go through the hassle of moving to a larger office, then they are real serious about progressing the Mount Gee project.

http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070427/pdf/3124wgt1jmjlx9.pdf

i dont know how moving to a larger office would prove the success of an operation. i think the intention is there but there are other factors at play here.

[dj_420]

additionally there is the environmental impact issue here. the greens took a hit with the 3 mines policy been scrapped but won one round with the fact that no mining can be done on national park, heritage area, ALTHOUGH this is different i think there will still be opposition to the mine given that many other areas in SA can mine and it wont be as significant as if it was just the one mine.

meaning if mt gee was the only signicant uranium deposit in SA it would have a significant impact on the state, HOWEVER as it is not the only deposit there will be less significance. probably splitting hairs but i now see more upside in CUY and AGS with insutu leach and the fact that they are given green light for trial leaching then following successful trials can start mining.

i also think that the whole process to mine will be long enough without environmental issues dragging the whole process out. just my two cents guys.


oh yeah and is the jabiluka deposit heritage area? so that means it will NEVER be mined, is this correct? obviously should be under ERA thread but still interesting

[kennas]

additionally there is the environmental impact issue here. the greens took a hit with the 3 mines policy been scrapped but won one round with the fact that no mining can be done on national park, heritage area, ALTHOUGH this is different i think there will still be opposition to the mine given that many other areas in SA can mine and it wont be as significant as if it was just the one mine.

meaning if mt gee was the only signicant uranium deposit in SA it would have a significant impact on the state, HOWEVER as it is not the only deposit there will be less significance. probably splitting hairs but i now see more upside in CUY and AGS with insutu leach and the fact that they are given green light for trial leaching then following successful trials can start mining.

i also think that the whole process to mine will be long enough without environmental issues dragging the whole process out. just my two cents guys.

oh yeah and is the jabiluka deposit heritage area? so that means it will NEVER be mined, is this correct? obviously should be under ERA thread but still interestingThis all does make Mt Gee less certain. IRT Jabiluka, it's a Native Title issue. The local aboriginals won't allow mining at this point, but they are negatiating I believe. There's probably a price tag on it. Having spent 3 years in Darwin I got to understand that 'Sacred Sites' are actually 'Sacred Sources of Beer Money'.

[dj_420]

This all does make Mt Gee less certain. IRT Jabiluka, it's a Native Title issue. The local aboriginals won't allow mining at this point, but they are negatiating I believe. There's probably a price tag on it. Having spent 3 years in Darwin I got to understand that 'Sacred Sites' are actually 'Sacred Sources of Beer Money'.

lol sacred beer money. hahaha.

i can understand the jabiluka area as it is a great area of wilderness, WHAT i dont understand is aboriginal entitlements in the middle of the desert, like the pilbarra, what are they going to do with all that red dirt?

[Dratoz]

MTN are systematically reducing the number of obstacles. Have a look at some of the posts from two years ago to find out the lists of stuff that some people came up with to rubbish MTN. There appears to be just one issue left. It looks like MTN and Coffey have found a solution to it and the environmental issues will be addressed. Once they do, the sp will be somewhere higher than where it is at the moment. Right?

I bought some more today at $5.20. The management has not disappointed so far, and there are strong indications, probably the strongest ever, that Paralana will be mined, possibly with the actual mine being somewhere not too far from there. If you do not believe this, you should sell. If you do, you should hold and/or buy. The choice depends on individuals' investment strategies, the amount of research done on MTN and its management, tollerance for risk, etc.
Good luck to holders.
Dratoz

[champ2003]

MTN are systematically reducing the number of obstacles. Have a look at some of the posts from two years ago to find out the lists of stuff that some people came up with to rubbish MTN. There appears to be just one issue left. It looks like MTN and Coffey have found a solution to it and the environmental issues will be addressed. Once they do, the sp will be somewhere higher than where it is at the moment. Right?

I bought some more today at $5.20. The management has not disappointed so far, and there are strong indications, probably the strongest ever, that Paralana will be mined, possibly with the actual mine being somewhere not too far from there. If you do not believe this, you should sell. If you do, you should hold and/or buy. The choice depends on individuals' investment strategies, the amount of research done on MTN and its management, tollerance for risk, etc.
Good luck to holders.
Dratoz

That all sounds great however if the govornment introduce a ban as mentioned above then it doesn't matter how good the resource is or the management is. As you said, I guess it depends on what level of risk you would like to take however there are other uranium companies out there that have much safer conditions and therefore has much more assurance of the future posibility of becoming a mine.

I think that the extra research that you conducted today was great Kennas however there will always be that dark cloud ovehanging MTN in relation to the substantial environmental and gov't regulatory risks. All the best!

Cheers!

Champ

[zed327]

The last few months i have been in and out of MTN and i regard it's resource very highly.
I have been very tempted to pull out of AGS and go into MTN because of it's better valuation but that sanctuary bit has always put me off.
To me sanctuary means sanctuary and i can see many years of court battles going on over this.
The market will valuate SA u stocks on who is most likely to get gov approval quickly and get the uranium to market first while the prices are so high.
I see a huge upside for MTN if it can overcome this hurdle.

[dj_420]

yes i think they will be substantially higher than what they are today but you also have to look at type of mine they will operate. people went on and on about comparing SMM to MTN and if MTN was the same market cap as SMM they would be $15 per share.

THERE is some crucial reasons why they arent $15 a share

1 - enrivonmental concerns
2 - type of mine

ill just put up a little comparison of mining method to prove my point



http://www.ccnmatthews.com/news/releases/show.jsp?action=showRelease&actionFor=646025&searchText=false&showText=all

Westmoreland

On Apr. 17, 2007, Laramide Resources Ltd announced the completion of the scoping study. In the study, the mine is planned as an entirely open cut operation using conventional acid leaching and solvent extraction technology in the process plant. A mining and milling rate of 1.5 million tonnes per year at an average grade of 0.10% U3O8 for average annual production of 3 million pounds of U3O8 [1154 t U] was used in the scoping study. Production costs for a pound of U3O8 average US$ 19.02 for the first 6 years of the mine life, during which time the strip ratio will be 2.3 to 1. From year 7 onwards, the average production costs of U3O8 will increase to US$ 25.17 per pound as the strip ratio increases during the mining of the smaller Junnagunna and Huarabagoo deposits. Life of the mine will be greater than 11 years.



http://www.uranium1.com/index.php?section=uranium%20projects&page=2

In August, 2006 Uranium One announced the results of the feasibility study conducted by Mayfield Engineering Pty Ltd. and Aker Kvaerner Australia.

Highlights from the feasibility study include:

Indicated mineral resource estimate of 1.2 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.24% containing 6.5 million pounds U3O8
Steady state production level of 880,000 pounds U3O8 per annum, assuming a 70% rate of recovery
Average cash operating costs over the life of the project are expected to be US$14.13 per pound U3O8
Start-up capital costs of US$35.9 million, with an additional US$5.6 million required for working capital



http://ezinearticles.com/?Conventional-Mining-Will-Keep-Uranium-Price-High&id=316788

A research report by Orion Securities in Toronto, which participated in raising money for Forsys, suggested the all-in cost to mine the company’s Valencia project could come in under $25/pound and would have an IIR of 30 percent after tax. Early estimates show the Valencia project might annually produce 2.5 million pounds of U308 over ten years. This was sufficient to interest the fuel broker for a major U.S. utility. Felker said, “We’ve started the process of marketing our uranium after the utility sent a consulting geologist to study the property.” Due diligence was done on site in Namibia. Felker explained his company’s Valencia project was about 30 months away from where Paladin’s Langer Heinrich is today.

He calculated, from studies he was recently involved with, that the operating costs for an underground mining and milling operation would cost about $80 to $120/ton. An average grade of 0.1 percent U3O8 would yield two pounds per ton, but a feed grade averaging 0.2 percent would yield four pounds per ton. Uranium ore yielding four pounds per ton would cost about $25/pound. Miller explained that grades at Green Mountain, which SXR Uranium One is currently investigating for purchase, and his company’s Roca Honda property, should be profitable using the $100/ton benchmark. Both properties have reported economic grades through various studies.



http://ezinearticles.com/?U.S.-Uranium-Mines-Could-Produce-25-Million-Pounds-in-10-Years&id=335587

StockInterview: How large would a uranium deposit have to be to justify the conventional mining method?

David Miller: Near-surface, open-pittable deposits could be as small as a few hundred thousand pounds to be economic if a mill is nearby. To justify a new mill, for example in New Mexico, a critical mass of about 50 million pounds of uranium is needed. Grades can vary greatly. If the deposit is shallow and mined by open pit, with a mill nearby, then grades could be as low as 0.05 percent U3O8. With a 1500 to 2000-foot underground mine, grades above 0.20 percent may be required.








from these articles and research we get the following:

westmoreland -
open pit resource at 0.10% and strip ratio of 2.3 to 1 = US $19.02

honeymoon -
in situ leach resource at 0.24% = US $14.13



it was also stated in one of the articles that for an underground uranium mine grading 4 pounds per tonne or 0.2% would costs an average of $25 per pound. now the average of MTN uranium deposit is 0.068% indicating to me that since the head feed percentage of uranium is much lower the costs would be higher.

another point is made that an underground uranium mine would be feasible at grades above 0.2% much higher than mt gee.

even say on an avg of 0.1% we can assume the costs would be much higher than 0.2%.


so i am not writing the company off merely pointing out different costs in different types of mines. and mt gee may be quite more expensive per pound than everyone thinks. hence the difference in SMM and MTN, the valhulla resource should be open pittable i believe making it much cheaper per pound basis.

so typically for an underground mine you want high grade resource to be financially viable. the grade at mt gee is comparable to a mine that can be viable from insutu leach not underground mining. IMO its like comparing apples with oranges, there are completely different factors in each type.

and for me much less risk lies in a company that can produce low cost in situ leach type mine. and might i add much quicker to set up also.

[zed327]

Top post dj.
Puts a whole new perspective on this deposit than what i had before.

Jesus this 100 letter thing is bugging me trying to make up the numbers with dribble like this last sentence.:mad:

[Dratoz]

DJ,
Yes, your last was quite an informative post. I like this type much more than those where misinformed people repeat over and over again that MTN is in the middle of a national park. This is why one of the points I was making in my last post was that those who do not believe MTN will mine should sell. I now want to add that those should also stop posting their misinformed and repetitious notes that do not add any value, but only waste people's time reading this stuff.

It is fair for those who consider that MTN will mine to be posting the kind of posts as your last, with an assessment of the risks associated with the company's value. That's fair and much different from people posting, well... garbage, over and over again.

Your post provides some indication of how much it costs to get this stuff out of the ground, and it added some further data to my data-base. Thanks for this. ISL is a cheaper way of extracting this stuff (if such is allowed, as it is not free of environmental concerns, either), but one of MTN announcements stated that grades in excess of 0.04% (if I remember correctly) would be economical. When we talk about economies of scale, MTN has to be ahead of many other U explorers and potential miners. Paralana appears to be sitting on a big U resource, and the scope of the upside is yet to be determined. Just focusing on the confirmed quantities and the economical cut off of 0.04%, which was calculated by Coffey when U price was $80-90 and not today's $113, there has to be some value there! I think this value may actually be significant. We should not have to wait long to find out. The final Coffey's report is due within a couple months.

Cheers and I am looking forward to more factual and informative posts :) ,
Dratoz

[Punter]

Currently the mkt cap of mtn 'prices in' a lot of those risks. If it was $1bn mkt cap then fair enough it would be very RISKY. but risk is relative to the price. At the current price people are only concentrating on the resources/quality/size, not on the next part which will be covered in scoping/ BFS etc. As the latter parts scoping/BFS/permitting are slowly ticked off the share price will almost certainly rise.

Re: grade. one has to also look at the thicknesses/widths of the orebody as well. these are as /more important than grade. Borschoff says the world needs large tonnage mines. MTN is a large tonnage mine with over 50million tonnes of mineralisation. It is the 3rd largest deposit in australia and one of the largest deposits of its type (hard rock) in the world. Most of the drill results so far have averaged well over the 600ppm odd average grade, so will be upgraded. The thicknesses of the orebody are also quite good.

So far so good for MTN. I await the full report. Its better to get the facts from the company than speculate ourselves, best to concentrate on whats 'in the price' and thats resources only.

[deftfear]

One thing I don't think I have read yet is would buttermere have made a takeover offer for the company if they didn't think they could eventually mine at Mt Gee? You would think that they would have done a fair bit of due diligence, although this could be debateable seeing that they have no clue when it comes to making takeover offer.

[Punter]

News out....talbot increases its stake in mtn....to 10m shares..or 19.9% of the company...is this significant...only time will tell..

[kennas]

News out....talbot increases its stake in mtn....to 10m shares..or 19.9% of the company...is this significant...only time will tell..That is a significant slice for CITIC/THG to take, and would seem to be more than just an investment, or even blocking stake for any takeover. These guys aren't in the business of takeovers are they? They are just 'investors'. Any idea?

[Kimosabi]

That is a significant slice for CITIC/THG to take, and would seem to be more than just an investment, or even blocking stake for any takeover. These guys aren't in the business of takeovers are they? They are just 'investors'. Any idea?

I don't know if you guys noticed, but CITIC and THG have a entered into an MOU and THG has now become an associate of CITIC and another announcement has just come out that CITIC now has a 19.9% stake in MTN

[kennas]

Kimo= I don't know if you guys noticed, but CITIC and THG have a entered into an MOU and THG has now become an associate of CITIC and another announcement has just come out that CITIC now has a 19.9% stake in MTN.

It's the same deal by my understanding kimo. CITIC and THG have been in cahoots for a while in Australia. Google them and you'll see what they're up to. I think Southern Gold is another joint investment.

[sleeper88]

Marathon Resources

Reflecting strong corporate interest in the uranium sector and the quality of its Mt Gee uranium deposit, Marathon Resources continues to trade well in advance of Crosby's $3.52 a share takeover offer. We see little downside for shareholders given current circumstances, including the possibility of rival bidders emerging. Reflecting its confidence, Marathon has appointed one of Australia's most experienced resource executives as its new CEO.

Fat Prophets first recommended Marathon Resources at 72 cents in March 2006 (Fat Mining 16). Our last review of this stock was in February (Fat Mining 68).

Since our last review in March, there has been a clear acceleration of the upward trend. As a result, the stock achieved a new all-time high of $6.42 last week. This represents a gain of 145% in just one month.

Following such rapid gains, the upward trend of any stock would be at risk of pausing for consolidation. Marathon is no exception. In the near term, we anticipate further consolidation with last week's low of $5.10 providing initial support.
Given the strength of the longer term trend, we believe the outlook for Marathon remains positive. In time, we expect prices to extend to new highs above $6.42.

As we have commented in our recent reports on Marathon, corporate activity in the uranium sector in Australia has grown to reach fever pitch. The best recent example of this is the takeover bid of Summit Resources by one of our uranium favourites, Paladin Resources.

Of course, Marathon Resources, with its large, flagship Mt Gee uranium deposit in South Australia, has been one of the companies in the best position of all to benefit from the frenetic sentiment in the sector.

Indeed, Crosby Capital Partners announced a substantial increase its cash takeover bid for Marathon, boosting its bid from $0.68 a share to $3.52 a share.

Marathon's directors have encouraged their shareholders to follow our advice and ignore the Crosby takeover bid.
Like us, they believe the offer price is inadequate compared to other recent uranium transactions, is opportunistic, and does not represent fair value for what is one of Australia's biggest undeveloped uranium deposits.

As we commented in our last note on Marathon, Crosby says its revised offer is in response to the strong increase in the price of uranium and the resulting strong performance of the uranium sector as a whole, particularly in Australia. Interestingly, they also believe the underlying fundamentals of Marathon have not changed since their original offer.

Our interpretation of all of this is that Crosby is trying to downplay any contribution that Marathon management has made in terms of adding value, as they push the line that the surging Marathon share price is due only to higher uranium pricing and favourable sentiment.

We reiterate our view that this is misplaced. Of course, uranium prices have surged to a record high of US$113 a pound and sentiment in the sector has never been better. But to suggest that Marathon management has done little to add value is laughable.

Marathon has made substantial progress in the development of its Mt Gee Project over the past six months. In particular, it has completed a major drilling program at Mt Gee and the Scoping Study is well advanced.

Management believes that the ongoing development at Mt Gee, with the announcement of a new resource estimate in around three months, along with the surging price of uranium, clearly reflects the opportunistic nature of Crosby's offer.
As we pointed out last time, Marathon is at an important stage. It is involved in an aggressive program of work to increase the confidence in the Mt Gee resource from Inferred to Indicated status, which is a major step towards a full Feasibility Study to assess mining options.

Earlier this month, the company provided an update on the progress of the Scoping Study being prepared by Coffey Mining. The results so far apparently reinforce the company's view of the development potential of the Mt Gee deposit.
The report examines a number of open-pit and underground mining and processing options, with the most prospective so far being underground mining. Furthermore, given the strong uranium price and high uranium grades, the best returns are likely to come from a leach processing facility situated on site.

The block model developed by Coffey mining for the report indicates that a cut-off grade of 400ppm U3O8 is viable for an underground operation targeting a production rate of over 1,000 tonnes U3O8 annually.

This estimate is also based on Marathon's August 2006 Inferred Resource estimate of 45.5 million tonnes of uranium mineralisation averaging 0.068% U3O8, or 69 million pounds of contained U3O8. This figure will be updated further following assessment of the results of the recent Mt Gee drilling program, and incorporation into a new resource estimate.

Uranium resource experts Hellman & Schofield will complete the new resource estimate, which Marathon anticipates will increase the deposit with respect to grade, tonnage and confidence. We anticipate the progressive release of drilling results to market, followed by completion of the resource upgrade within a three-month timeframe.

As our Members know, Mt Gee is in fact one of the biggest undeveloped uranium deposits in Australia, which is continuing to grow in size. It has the major added benefit of being located in South Australia, one of only two states in Australia amenable to uranium mining.

Marathon management began adding value very early on in the piece, when it essentially compiled the current Mt Gee uranium resource without drilling, through the clever utilisation of extensive historical data compiled by previous explorers from the 1960s to the late-1990s.

This data was of sufficient quality to enable Marathon to generate a 3D model of the Mt Gee deposit and the current +30,000 tonne U3O8 resource estimate. Marathon then commissioned independent industry experts, Hellman and Schofield, for an independent assessment of the robustness of its resource estimates, which was positive and verified the resource size.
Mt Gee is part of the 11-12km long uranium-rich Paralana Mineral System that falls within Marathon's 100%-owned EL 3258.
Adding to investor confidence is the fact that Marathon recently appointed Stuart Hall as its new Chief Executive Officer. He has more than 30 years experience in the resources industry in Australia, Africa and Europe, including senior positions with BHP Billiton, WMC Resources and Rio Tinto.

Given the way uranium prices are edging ever higher, along with the unprecedented level of corporate interest in the uranium sector in Australia, we believe Members should maintain their position in Marathon Resources. They are holding one of the sector's best uranium exposures in our opinion.

Accordingly, Marathon Resources will remain held within the Fat Prophets Mining & Resource portfolio.

[champ2003]

Currently the mkt cap of mtn 'prices in' a lot of those risks. If it was $1bn mkt cap then fair enough it would be very RISKY. but risk is relative to the price. At the current price people are only concentrating on the resources/quality/size, not on the next part which will be covered in scoping/ BFS etc. As the latter parts scoping/BFS/permitting are slowly ticked off the share price will almost certainly rise.

Re: grade. one has to also look at the thicknesses/widths of the orebody as well. these are as /more important than grade. Borschoff says the world needs large tonnage mines. MTN is a large tonnage mine with over 50million tonnes of mineralisation. It is the 3rd largest deposit in australia and one of the largest deposits of its type (hard rock) in the world. Most of the drill results so far have averaged well over the 600ppm odd average grade, so will be upgraded. The thicknesses of the orebody are also quite good.

So far so good for MTN. I await the full report. Its better to get the facts from the company than speculate ourselves, best to concentrate on whats 'in the price' and thats resources only.

(Borschoff says the world needs large tonnage mines)
Borschoff said that the world needs low grade/large tonnage mines to be exact Punter and that isn't what MTN has. Sorry to be objective however it's best to input correct info. Actually its BMN that is low grade/large tonnage, well at the moment anyway. We'll see how it all pans out in the coming months as they reveal more of the potential resource.
:)

[TheAbyss]

Apparently CITIC and Talbot Holdings both purchased 19% each of MTN on Friday. Potentially we have 2 bidders going to war over MTN next week.

Article in this mornings Courier Mail business section. The online version doesnt carry it though.

[Punter]

Apparently CITIC and Talbot Holdings both purchased 19% each of MTN on Friday. Potentially we have 2 bidders going to war over MTN next week.

Article in this mornings Courier Mail business section. The online version doesnt carry it though.

Actually CITIC and Talbot have created a joint venture in which they have pooled their holdings together. The 19% figure you see is the holding owned by the JV between CITIC and Talbot. They are both required to report that 19% figure. But they both don't own 19% each, in total they do. The purpose of this is clear - to act as a blocking stake in the case of a takeover. They see Mt Gee as valuable.

[kennas]

MTN's been a bit bearish the past few weeks since over extending itself. It's descending towards a longer term up trend line that might give it some support to turn up. Support at $5.10 ish might hold it up too. It could break one way or the other if it does culminate around the green circle. It's not very convincing yet though. Needs to be reviewed.

[Punter]

MTN's been a bit bearish the past few weeks since over extending itself. It's descending towards a longer term up trend line that might give it some support to turn up. Support at $5.10 ish might hold it up too. It could break one way or the other if it does culminate around the green circle. It's not very convincing yet though. Needs to be reviewed.

Now MTN is a REAL uranium resource kennas ;) , cheap too. Technicals can only show so much, but in a rising commodity market, conditions could not be better to develop Mt Gee mine and resources. Hope mngmt get stuff going, its been a while between drinks {burp}, when was the last drill announcement?

[insider]

Now MTN is a REAL uranium resource kennas ;) , cheap too. Technicals can only show so much, but in a rising commodity market, conditions could not be better to develop Mt Gee mine and resources. Hope mngmt get stuff going, its been a while between drinks {burp}, when was the last drill announcement?

I believe it was 14th of march....... It's over due for an update....... Must reach 100 word limit....... :)

[Kimosabi]

I believe it was 14th of march....... It's over due for an update....... Must reach 100 word limit....... :)

Here it is, the latest drill report ==> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070509/pdf/312clcvl20kyzd.pdf

[insider]

Here it is, the latest drill report ==> http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20070509/pdf/312clcvl20kyzd.pdf

There doesn't seem to be much notice of the results... The price is still going south... Probably a Uranium correction

[Punter]

Stock looks like its breaking down, along with every single u junior on the mkt :banghead:, cept its correcting when the company fundamentals could not be better :banghead:

[Punter]

Latest drill results as attached. Market does not give a **** about these right now, for whatever reason. But I care about my companies and I feel its good progress being done, although mkt does not recognise. That's fine with me.

[prs]

So what does everyone think of the downturn in share price considering the results of drilling from MTN and the fact that the spot price of U is about to change? Why is the price on a downturn?

[Kimosabi]

The Marathon Picture of their Uranium Reserves Sucks, this gives you a much better idea of where and how concentrated the Mt Gee reserves are located.

I'd love to see a 3D model of their reserves as well.

Cut from the Uranium: State of Play document produced by the SA Government ==> ttp://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/minerals/references/mesa_journal/mj_41/mj41_u_state_play.pdf (http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/byteserve/minerals/references/mesa_journal/mj_41/mj41_u_state_play.pdf)

[dj_420]

guys uranium stocks are all out of favour at the moment.

AGS, TOE, CUY, MTN, PNN, all been hit in last week or so. most down 10-15%

funnily enough its has happened all on the back of 3 mine policy been scrapped!

i would not worry to much about it, ive only recently entered CUY, am in the red now but there will be a turnaround soon.

also actually made an entry on URA since it has dropped 20%

[Punter]

guys uranium stocks are all out of favour at the moment.

AGS, TOE, CUY, MTN, PNN, all been hit in last week or so. most down 10-15%

funnily enough its has happened all on the back of 3 mine policy been scrapped!

i would not worry to much about it, ive only recently entered CUY, am in the red now but there will be a turnaround soon.

also actually made an entry on URA since it has dropped 20%

Thanks dj, agree with your comments on this point. I don't see them coming out of this rut, until every other stock on the ASX gets overvalued, then people will start to see some value :confused:

[kennas]

MTN's been a bit bearish the past few weeks since over extending itself. It's descending towards a longer term up trend line that might give it some support to turn up. Support at $5.10 ish might hold it up too. It could break one way or the other if it does culminate around the green circle. It's not very convincing yet though. Needs to be reviewed.Looks to have found support as indicated. Starting to turn perhaps, but maybe too early to tell. Wait for EOD confirmation perhaps. I'm concerned at this stage that general market consolidation/weakness will turn the TA on it's head.

[kennas]

Looks to have found support as indicated. Starting to turn perhaps, but maybe too early to tell. Wait for EOD confirmation perhaps. I'm concerned at this stage that general market consolidation/weakness will turn the TA on it's head.Failed badly intra day at 5.50 and dropped back. 5.50 estab as a bit of resistance. Currently dropped below 5.00 uptrend and horizontal support, which is of concern. Currently 4.85, next stop 4.00 perhaps. Will be interesting to see how it's supported today and if there's any 'technical' buying. Not sure if that can relate to MTN but we shall see. I'm still holding free carried from selling at the top - fortunate, and maybe lucky.

[Rafa]

yeah, i'm free carried on this too, but i am free carrying a LOT! :eek:
my uptrend line found support at 4.80ish... but yours is more accurate...

in that case, 5 buck close is key... excluding an intraday spike down.

[kennas]

yeah, i'm free carried on this too, but i am free carrying a LOT! :eek:
my uptrend line found support at 4.80ish... but yours is more accurate...

in that case, 5 buck close is key... excluding an intraday spike down.Has been well supported intra day which is encouraging. Initial bounce off 4.81. Still early, and I don't like calling things intraday, as it normally leads to embarrassment. I see where you get the 4.80 from. Perhaps that's more accurate? Seems to be at the moment.

[kennas]

Has been well supported intra day which is encouraging. Initial bounce off 4.81. Still early, and I don't like calling things intraday, as it normally leads to embarrassment. I see where you get the 4.80 from. Perhaps that's more accurate? Seems to be at the moment.Miraculaous recovery from 4.80, now looking better, and 5.00 ish still supported. Potential short term breakout when/if it's around the green circle. Still concerned with general market toppiness, but I I've been thinking that for the past 6 months. :o

[Rafa]

thanks for the chart kennas...
certainly approaching D day soon...

in your experience of such a technical pattern, would the break more likely be up or down? I think it should be up, but as you say... this damn markets been toppy for a while now :confused:

[kennas]

thanks for the chart kennas...
certainly approaching D day soon...

in your experience of such a technical pattern, would the break more likely be up or down? I think it should be up, but as you say... this damn markets been toppy for a while now :confused:Descending triangles are bearish and are more likely to break down. Having said that've I've seen quite a few during this bull market eventually break up. I haven't entered a pattern like this until I see it break the trend. The only way to do this is to start making higher highs and lows. That's why breaking 5.50 is important here. Alternatively, if you could short this, I'd be looking at a confirmed break through 5.00 to sell.

Detail:



The descending triangle is a bearish formation that usually forms during a downtrend as a continuation pattern. There are instances when descending triangles form as reversal patterns at the end of an uptrend, but they are typically continuation patterns. Regardless of where they form, descending triangles are bearish patterns that indicate distribution.

Because of its shape, the pattern can also be referred to as a right-angle triangle. Two or more comparable lows form a horizontal line at the bottom. Two or more declining peaks form a descending trend line above that converges with the horizontal line as it descends. If both lines were extended right, the descending trend line could act as the hypotenuse of a right triangle. If a perpendicular line were drawn extending up from the left end of the horizontal line, a right triangle would form. Let's examine each individual part of the pattern and then look at an example.

Trend: In order to qualify as a continuation pattern, an established trend should exist. However, because the descending triangle is definitely a bearish pattern, the length and duration of the current trend is not as important. The robustness of the formation is paramount.
Lower Horizontal Line: At least 2 reaction lows are required to form the lower horizontal line. The lows do not have to be exact, but should be within reasonable proximity of each other. There should be some distance separating the lows and a reaction high between them.
Upper Descending Trend Line: At least two reaction highs are required to form the upper descending trend line. These reaction highs should be successively lower and there should be some distance between the highs. If a more recent reaction high is equal to or greater than the previous reaction high, then the descending triangle is not valid.
Duration: The length of the pattern can range from a few weeks to many months, with the average pattern lasting from 1-3 months.
Volume: As the pattern develops, volume usually contracts. When the downside break occurs, there would ideally be an expansion of volume for confirmation. While volume confirmation is preferred, it is not always necessary.
Return to Breakout: A basic tenet of technical analysis is that broken support turns into resistance and visa versa. When the horizontal support line of the descending triangle is broken, it turns into resistance. Sometimes there will be a return to this newfound resistance level before the down move begins in earnest.
Target: Once the breakout has occurred, the price projection is found by measuring the widest distance of the pattern and subtracting it from the resistance breakout.

[Rafa]

that is amazing,
i have (as you have said) seen numerous of these patterns lately that break up

well, as i am free holding, i guess i am doing nothing else but to hold... (till it breaks down i guess :eek:)

the run last week when it went to 5.50ish really got me perplexed! i still for the life of me can't work out what that one was about...

well, wait and see...
PS: doing a fair bit of that lately... :banghead:

[Kimosabi]

that is amazing,
i have (as you have said) seen numerous of these patterns lately that break up

well, as i am free holding, i guess i am doing nothing else but to hold... (till it breaks down i guess :eek:)

the run last week when it went to 5.50ish really got me perplexed! i still for the life of me can't work out what that one was about...

well, wait and see...
PS: doing a fair bit of that lately... :banghead:

I bought into these at $4.95 and then got out of them at $5.49 last week.

I wish I sold them when MTN bounced to +$6

Everything is making me nervous at the moment so I'm mainly doing quick in/out trades and trying to keep my exposure to a minimum.

I personally don't think this is the Market for any long-term investing in just about everything.

Sorry guys, that bearish feeling in me keeps raising it's ugly head.

[nizar]

I bought into these at $4.95 and then got out of them at $5.49 last week.

I wish I sold them when MTN bounced to +$6

Everything is making me nervous at the moment so I'm mainly doing quick in/out trades and trying to keep my exposure to a minimum.

I personally don't think this is the Market for any long-term investing in just about everything.

Sorry guys, that bearish feeling in me keeps raising it's ugly head.

Change in market sentiment.
Oil and stocks breaking out like CHAMPIONS the last month or so.

Its the uranium sector thats suffering, not the "market".

[greenfs]

Hard to argue with all that has been said lately about this stock.

I am not a holder of this stock but am now monitoring the graphs with much interest after one of my very wealthy & learned colleagues has only recently indicated that he confidently expects the sp will again double to $10+ in the short to medium term.

This is not intended as a ramp of the stock and hopefully Joe will not view it as such.

:2twocents

[Rafa]

Miraculaous recovery from 4.80, now looking better, and 5.00 ish still supported. Potential short term breakout when/if it's around the green circle. Still concerned with general market toppiness, but I I've been thinking that for the past 6 months. :o


Miraculous is the word... What the hell just happened ;)
Great way to finish the weekend... albiet on a lack of any major news.

[nizar]

Miraculous is the word... What the hell just happened ;)
Great way to finish the weekend... albiet on a lack of any major news.

Does the news matter? Or is it the price that matters?
WHich one do you profit from?

Think about it.

[insider]

Miraculous is the word... What the hell just happened ;)
Great way to finish the weekend... albiet on a lack of any major news.

Yes the scoping study must be around the corner... Must be a pretty good one... My assumptions are as follows:

- Greater resources other than Mt. Gee within the Paralana System

- A feasibility study will detail the extraction of the minerals and prove to be cost effective

- After this there is just one more thing... A Mining license

We are just about set for a huge run again IMO

[Rafa]

Does the news matter? Or is it the price that matters?
WHich one do you profit from?

Think about it.

Nizar... calm down mate... i never said news was nescessary...
i don't need to think about anything... ;)

u need to think about it, your not replying to Chris or CaptJohn... this ain't the BMN thread...:D:D:D

[Broadside]

Rumour of a leak of a favourable scoping study, maybe it's true looking at that surge, we'll find out soon enough.

[Kauri]

It looks to me that MTN may have formed into a cup, not sure if the last couple of days are the start of the handle or still in the cusp...

[Kauri]

13/06/07 It looks to me that MTN may have formed into a cup, not sure if the last couple of days are the start of the handle or still in the cusp...

Is having a go at breaking out of the handle although the volume is not behind it as of yet... worth keeping an eye on however????

[Rafa]

MTN has closed at $6.45 which is its all time high...
gotta love this quietly moving stock... :)

where to from here???

[billhill]

MTN has closed at $6.45 which is its all time high...
gotta love this quietly moving stock...

where to from here???

Not wrong Rafa. I've noticed some strength coming back into uranium stocks lately if only a little. As i said on the paladin thread the exodus of money from the U sector has led to some quite attractive opportunities IMO (maybe the oil and gas sector is looking fully valued). This being one of them. A huge resource, a state government more freindly to U mining then WA or QLD and the U price continuing to head in one direction. I think we will see a more steady run in U stocks with stable and good fundamentals. Companies like PDN and MTN are my prefered.

[insider]

There is speculation that the scoping study is due at the end of June or perhaps early July... It is nearly the end of June... MTN is again defying the Market trend as people are beginning to realize that MTN is the best value stock around... Good luck to all holders and new comers

[Lachlan6]

I reckon (MTN) is about to leg it higher. It has been consolidating since April and today broke resistance in a down market. Look at the 50 day EMA as a level of support and possibly a good place to trail stops in the mean time. Look for longer term targets of $10.8 being 100% of the range from July last year to April this year. Only negative is steep divergence in MACD and RSI. However this means just be a little careful IMO, but apart from that, the chart looks spot on. Not to mention OBV, insto's love this one.

[kennas]

I reckon (MTN) is about to leg it higher. It has been consolidating since April and today broke resistance in a down market. Look at the 50 day EMA as a level of support and possibly a good place to trail stops in the mean time. Look for longer term targets of $10.8 being 100% of the range from July last year to April this year. Only negative is steep divergence in MACD and RSI. However this means just be a little careful IMO, but apart from that, the chart looks spot on. Not to mention OBV, insto's love this one.Absolutely. Looks pretty good, and has responded well to long term upward trend line. Not sure about price targets from here using fibs and ranges. I haven't seen those projections being very reliable. I'm not too concerned with MACD here as the early spike to 6.40 which was an abberation IMO, and significantly influenced the indicators putting them out of sinc. Or, maybe they still have an influence? Up for argument.

[Lachlan6]

Nah agree with you Kennas. A lot of the time divergences can be counter the overall trend with little effect. In this case probably the case. Wanted to buy MTN this morning but jumped a little too far I think, may have to wait for a lsight pullback.