# NRZ - NeuRizer Ltd



## Mistermoon (2 August 2005)

Don't tell me no-one on this thread is oblivious to the GROUND BREAKING announcement from MTN this morning.

A new JORC confirmed U player has entered the world market.

got in at 32c last week... 

cheers,

Mistermoon :


----------



## sam76 (2 August 2005)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN was on my watchlist after a friend's suggestion.

watched it go down to 16 cents and all the way back up again

didn't get on it   

woe is me......


----------



## Singh (2 August 2005)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Amazing!!! 106% up in a day.

Wish you had informed us yesterday.Anyway, i'm happy for you.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

All Aboard and quick,

If you have a look at the following Uranium Explorers you will notice some sharp price appreciations lately, EME NEL BKY MOX UXA UNX GBE

Now take a look at MTN, I think it hasn't been properly sighted by the market,
Its mkt cap is less than half of NEL it it boasts a deposit in S.A which is better than W.A. its deposit (using a higher cut off grade of 500ppm) is 4x the size. 


Look at this EV per lb UR08 of Companies, the avg is $2.65 MTN's is $0.26 per lb 

http://www.allianceresources.com.au...0Feb 2006.pdf


What does it all mean?
HMR was bought by Mega Uranium for $20m and its a pure exploration play, at current prices MTN can be T/O where the bidder is paying 26c per lb of U308, they could even pay up to $1 per lb and it would still be cheap, IMO once MTN releases its fully JORC Compliant Resource its mkt cap has to be around 2-3x more than what it is currently or it is a very very attractive take over target

Its deposit (using 500ppm cutoff) of 30Mt @ 0.07% = 21,000 t U3O8 which would make it the 12-15th Largest Uranium Deposit in the World, I bet that would make companies take notice


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I should also add, that their resource estimate for Mt Gee has been verified by two  independent firms and that recent drilling at Hodgkinso shows that there dill core assays are exactly like the ones that were dug out by previous companies  (ie grading, thickness) which means that they can expect to get very similar drill results from Mt Gee, which means that their resource estimate of 33,000t U308 is there,


Drilling at Mt Gee will be finished by Mid March, watch this stock

Note: The reason MTN was met with sceptisim whan they released resource estimate was because they had not dug any holes, they simply compiled previous datya from over 300 drilled holes to get a resource estimate, now they are doing the drilling to show that what was observed then (in drill core assays) is bieng observed now.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Interesting looking chart too, techies care to give me your 2 bob on it?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

And as the other Uranium spec go nuts, this undiscovered beauty quietly edges its way up


----------



## Market Cap (9 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If I am not wrong, one of the analyst rated MTN as the best value Uranium  stock in Australia.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Market Cap said:
			
		

> If I am not wrong, one of the analyst rated MTN as the best value Uranium  stock in Australia.





You wouldn't be wrong that was stated in the Patersons report, its current mkt cap attributes just 26c per lb U3O8 against the mkt avg of $2.65, 

I put a link to the report, its on the Alliance Resources web page, LHS

http://www.allianceresources.com.au/


That being said and given the way stocks like NEL MOX EME BKY AGS GBE and now UXA have run it makes you think what MTN is capable of, IMO (and I could be wrong but time shall tell) MTN will trade at $1.50 in the next 4-6weeks, so thats my call, 

I like MTN so much because its not an explorer with tennements, its an explorer with a 55m lb U3O8 deposit that its drilling up to get JORC status, drilling started a few weeks ago and should finish my mid-march


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (13 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Charties I'm a little confused, what do you guys see?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (16 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Ahhh placement to sophisticated group, that explains it, well 5.5m @ 66c is pretty good imo, tops up cash coffers to $4m + and brings total capital to 50m shares (Still tiny!!!)

Well driling at Mt Gee should be nearing an end, can wait for assay announcements, remember pesismistic estimates by me are 55m lbs U3O8, the 2 independents say 60m-75m lb's U3O8 (at Mt Gee alone)

This is a sleeping giant, don't say you weren't warned, will see some weakness today and next few days as short term holders and traders get out (they hate placements) 

*Fundamentally this is the most undervalued Uranium Company on the ASX*, if someone doesn't agree with that statement post why

Just remember companies like UXA don't even have a sniff of U3O8 and yet they have rocketed, as has NEL which has a deposit (JORC NOW) that is 1/3 - 1/4 the size of Mt Gee and is in W.A.  we shall see how long it takes for lift off


----------



## Market Cap (16 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Here's a link to AIR's review of the Patersons report...

http://www.aireview.com/index.php?act=view&catid=2&id=3621

It points out that high level of merger and acquisition is likely to continue in the sector and that MTN is a potential takeover target given its low valuation and project upside.




			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> You wouldn't be wrong that was stated in the Patersons report, its current mkt cap attributes just 26c per lb U3O8 against the mkt avg of $2.65,
> 
> I put a link to the report, its on the Alliance Resources web page, LHS
> 
> http://www.allianceresources.com.au/


----------



## kgee (20 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi ,yeah I'm very interested in MTN as well and have been following it on another forum www.sharetrader.com.nz they seem to think that it may be undervalued as the tenement theyre on is heritage listed...and although there is mining in the area MTN's operation would be on a lot larger scale as well there was a question on the hardness of the ground compelled with the low grade deposit....so I'm debating the question wether to buy...of interest fat prophets have a buy recommendation on it


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (20 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The tennement they have that is heritage listed is 'Fleureau Penninsula' which is near adelaide and no where near its main deposits of Mt Gee, Hodgkinson and Armchair, correct me if I'm wrong


JORC Contained U3O8 tonnes
Using 500ppm cut-off 30mt @ 0.07% = 46.2m lbs U3O8

Using 300ppm cutoff (what PDN is using for Langer Heinrich)
 56.6 Mt @ 0.06% = 73.1 m lbs U3O8


50m shares @ 75c = $37.5m with 46m lbs U3O8 = 80c per lb
                                       with 73m lbs U3O8 = 50c per lb

Current Mkt Average is $2.65 per lb
 @ $2.65 per lb with 46 m lbs = $122m = $2.40 (MTN)
                      with 73m lbs = $193.5m = $3.85 (MTN)

You do the math, looks like a very very tasty take over target, especially given the fact that Mega Uranium liked HMR so much that it took it over (which had no deposits just exploration) 



*Remember The Mt Gee drilling program is expected to be complete mid March 2006. The results of the drilling
will be released progressively as the program proceeds.

The drilling program at Mt Gee will comprise up to six diamond drill holes. The principal purpose of
the program is to investigate extensions of the deposit as the current model suggests its further
continuation in each direction. The drilling will also increase confidence in the results of drilling by
previous explorers, and enhance the resource estimate through the provision of additional data.*


----------



## kgee (20 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi again I am just reporting what I have read on other forums ...I have pasted their arguement here...it's been going for some time...I'm not 100% sure about it myself but will be  following  up on it and will make further investigations
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Tapman, 
You are misguided. 
There are multiple peolple telling you what they think of MTN. I can assure that it is not just me. I can tell you that there are many many very knowledgeable people that look upon Mt Gee with great scepticism.

I have been saying right from the beginning that this area is a no go zone.

Arkaroola Creek/Gorge is at the base of Mt Gee 
Its also listed as a national heritage register

http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=5979

Arkaroola Gorge, Arkaroola Rd, Arkaroola Village via Copley, SA 
Photographs: 
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. 

Also Mt Gee itself is heritage listed. 
http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=5978

Armchair 
http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=5982

Mt Painter 
http://www.deh.gov.au/cgi-bin/ahdb/search.pl?mode=place_detail;place_id=5981

Mt Gee, Painter, Armchair, Arkaroola Gorge is not just nearby, its where MTN want to dig.

Legally as stated by Marathon you can dig it up. 
But the hurdles are immense.

As you can see from the heritage register this is an area of great significance.

What realistically are MTN's chances of mining, when it affects numerous national heritage places, Rare species (as listed on the heritage register)

And for Arkaroola Gorge

"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." 

National Estate significance means this is area is protected big time. 

Mining at Mt Gee, Painter, Armchair is not impossible, But wow, look at all those obstacles!

As I have said on this thread right from the start. 
Marathons future is not at Mt Gee.

Watch them spend more money on their gold prospect in Victoria, and the IOCG Targets around Coober Pedy, as the focus on Mt Gee slowly but surely fades away.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

They are drilling there now, ie Hodkinson, Mt Gee and Armchair, so how can it be heritage listed if they are drilling there?

I will get to the bottom of this tomorrow and post up.


----------



## kgee (21 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yeah I'm still looking to get verification on this .... I've copied this from the other forum..

CRA were drilling in an era when native title and environmental issues meant little.

Goldstream drilled for the Ramp amd Capital Raising. Remember Pierponts Article. 
So they didn't care about the long term prospects.

The juniors exploring nearby are about 20-30Km away from the very sensitive areas.

Marathon as can be seen from their map are right in the middle of the sensitive area.

http://www.marathonresources.com.au/pdf/051103ParalanaDrilling.pdf

This is not to say that the other juniors won't have issues. However I feel they are far enough away to give them some hope of mining.



I'm going to try and find the pierpont article and if its of any relevance I'll post it here


----------



## kgee (21 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

http://www.pierpont.com.au/eco_Archives/default.cfm?behaviour=view_article&id=3494 
A very interesting read


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

From what I can gather, although clarification is still pending they are somewhat surrounded by heritage listed spots ie Mt Gee etc,

But there actual deposits lie on the boundry of these as your not allowed to drill on heritage listed spots,

Also re CRA they arrived in 1989 to do there drilling well after Mt Gee was listed in 1982, moreover Goldstream drilled the place in 2001

List:  Register of the National Estate   
Class:  Natural  
Legal Status:  Registered (28/09/1982)   


Types of 'legal status' for each heritage list
The legal status of each place is shown on the results screen when you do a search on the Australian Heritage Database. You can limit your searches to records with a particular legal status by using the 'legal status' pull down box.

There are different types of legal status categories for each heritage list. Here is an explanation of each.

World Heritage List 
National Heritage List
Commonwealth Heritage List 
Register of the National Estate  


Register of the National Estate
Registered
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.



Here's my view, the reason Gold Stream abandoned its Uranium focus in 2001 was because suprise suprise Uranium price bottomed at $9 lb,
Moreover check the graph it shows that in 1989-90 when CRA had its focus Uranium again was starting to bottom out around $9 lb
And omg guess what again when Exoil looked at it back in 1970 the price was yep you guessed it around the $9 lb mark




So what does all this mean?

Put simply the price is now 4.5x what it was when all three of these other companies were drilling, they all drilled it and seemed to face no enviro problems, and MTN is drilling it, but whats different is that uranium is $40 lb or 4.5x what it was then, a rising Uranium price means that a lower cut-off is still profitable ie look at PDN they are starting to use 200-300ppm as they're cut-off


Also for reference a Uranium Spot Price Graph going back to the 70's ignore the green line as it represents uranium's price in todays' dollars (ie inflation adjusted) just look at the blue line

http://www.uxc.com/review/uxc_g_hist-price.html


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

More info, have highlighted the key bits, you had me a tee bit worried when you first posted, *you must be careful with your wording old boy*, the National Heritage list and the Register of National Estate are very different things 


YOUR PLACE MAY BE ENTERED IN THE REGISTER OF THE NATIONAL ESTATE

WHAT DOES THAT MEAN?
The Register of the National Estate is Australia's national inventory of natural and cultural heritage places which are worth keeping for the future. It is compiled by the Australian Heritage Commission-the Commonwealth Government's adviser on the National Estate.

There are now more than 12 000 natural, historic and indigenous places in the Register. They come from all parts of Australia and are owned variously by Commonwealth, State and local governments, by businesses, voluntary and other organisations and by private individuals. All places entered in the Register are strictly assessed against publicly available criteria outlining national estate values.

What does it mean if you're a private owner and your property is placed in the Interim List of the Register of the National Estate, or finally entered in the Register?

Direct benefits to owners

Firstly, listing in the Register means that your place has heritage value and has met various criteria of national estate significance. Details of these criteria are in another Background Note. Copies of the 'statement of significance' from the Register database, which outlines the special national estate values of your property, are sent to you when the Commission lets you know it intends to enter your place in the Register. Information on registered places is also available on the internet (http:/www.ahc.gov.au).

Not a land management decision

Entry in the Register of the National Estate is not a land management decision. The way in which private, State and local government owners manage their national estate properties is not directly affected by listing. The Commission does not manage places in the Register  and entry in the Register does not give the Commonwealth Government any rights to acquire, manage, or enter places which are private property.

No legal constraints on private owners

Entry of their property in the Register does not place any direct legal constraints on the actions of owners of private property. Owners of registered places are not required to change the way in which they manage, maintain, or dispose of, their property. Entry in the Register does not mean that owners have to give any public right of access to registered properties.

Commonwealth Government constrained by heritage listing

The Commonwealth Government is the only body whose actions are constrained as a result of listings in the Register of the National Estate.












Each place in the List is assessed by the Australian Heritage Council as having national heritage values which can be protected and managed under a range of Commonwealth powers. A place entered in the National Heritage List is a national heritage place.

Places on the list are protected under the Environment Protection and Biodiversity Conservation Act 1999. This requires that approval is obtained before any action takes place which has, will have, or is likely to have, a significant impact on the national heritage values of a listed place. Proposals for actions which could affect such values will be rigorously assessed.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (22 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Price edging up ever so slowly after huge volatility from placements,

More importantly its getting very very close to drilling results from Mt Gee,

Also Kgee, did you see my 2 previous posts re Mt Gee and heritage, copy them and put them on that other forum where the debate is ragging, interested to know what they have to say


----------



## Market Cap (22 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks for your good work in clarifying the issue, Young Trader. I was getting a bit worried but you have restored the confidence I had with MTN as one of the better Uranium stock. 

Cheers,
MC


----------



## kgee (22 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yes a big thanks young trader I will do as you suggest and will get back if there are any interesting developments ,as well if my other inquiries turn up I will do like wise
Of note the real reason that I'm doing so much research is that my last name is Gee and for some reason when I saw MTN i thought this must be fate and wanted to jump straight in...which probably scared me more than when I have made my previous investments...so I'm not trying to be a scare mongerer  its just with this stock the more I have dug the more red flags have appeared
thanks again
Ps I've stocks  in AZA and EDN any comments


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (23 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Chart looks to be building strongly for a huge up-surge and drilling results are out by the end of the month, coincidence? I don't think so


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Chart looks to be building strongly for a huge up-surge and drilling results are out by the end of the month, coincidence? I don't think so





Don't miss the rocket, its at T minus 10 or so days to lift off!!!!!!!

jUST IMAGINE WHAT A CONFIRMATION OF A *55m lb + Uranium Deposit*  @ 500ppm cut-off will do for a company with a mkt Cap of like $40m in todays Uranium Environment!!!!!!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> IMO (and I could be wrong but time shall tell) MTN will trade at $1.50 in the next 4-6weeks, so thats my call





Still hold strongly to this belief, although its now 3-5weeks


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Few decent sized buy orders on the bid side this morn, $45k +

Mkt waking up to this sleeping bull?

Or Drilling results?

Time will tell


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hit $1 today,


Sell depth very very thin

Have drilling ann been confirmed?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Ahhh profit takers emerge,

was freakin out, at one stage there was like 10,000 on the sell side and that was it!!!!!!!!


----------



## Theo (29 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi everyone,

Our family are very happy owners of Marathon shares.   :  To date, 353% increase in price since listing in March 2005!  And they have a lot of momentum left (we think they're just warming up).

Just for the record, the Paralana ore system (10km) long, which consists of 3 rich uranium deposits, namely Armchair-Streitberg, Hodgkinson and Mt Gee are located some 50km from a national park and are located on a privately owned ex sheep station, namely Arkoroola Station (owned and managed by local family for many years).  The main form of income for that property is tourism (backpackers, etc.).  The area for the possible future mine is situated on a designated conservation area and there is absolutely no heritage restrictions or native title/claim that we are aware of.   

Drilling continues at Mt Gee - 3 to 4 of the 6 holes are complete, and we hope, like every other happy Marathon investor, that the assay results become available any day now.

We did our investment homework very carefully.  For the time being, the Marathon team is small, but very experienced.  It's only a matter of 'when' not 'if' this team will be expanding.  

We believe that this resource is extremely large, and what has been drilled in the past, some 70km of core and what is being drilled now and in the future will proved beyond doubt that this is a world-class uranium resource.

We have looked at all the other uranium stocks in Western Australia, Northern Territory, Queensland, and Namibia (Paladin Resources).  Marathon Resources' Mt Gee deposit is shaping up to be better than any of the above.  Now's the time to get on board, especially as the political climate is starting to favour the exploration, mining, and exporting to China and India.

Be careful when you look at companies that they just don't talk about supposedly uranium-rich tenements - this is risky speculation.  The proof of the pudding is visual pitchblende, and when the geiger counter ticks wildly over large mineralised drillcore intersections.  This is what Marathon has had and looks forward to seeing a lot more of.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey Theo, if you check all of my extensive posts you will see that I agree with what you have said completely and can back up your statements,


I still can't believe how much the mkt discounts this stock, 

@ 500ppm cut off = 55m lbs U3O8 which @ $2.65 per lb = $150m = $3 MTN

@ 300ppm cut off = 75m lbs U3O8 which @ $2.65 per lb = $200m = $4 MTN


I would be very suprised if A Canadian doesn't swallow this up, they can pay up to $2 for it and its still a bargain,


----------



## michael_selway (29 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Hey Theo, if you check all of my extensive posts you will see that I agree with what you have said completely and can back up your statements,
> 
> 
> I still can't believe how much the mkt discounts this stock,
> ...




Hi how did u get $2.65?

thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

$2.65 *was* the old mkt EV per lb avg see the patersons report was $2.65 

The current mkt EV per lb is about $3.50 see the RCR report

Its pretty simple, you simply list the current Uranium companies with their depostis and get their avg EV for a mkt EV, I do this for Oil companies for Gold companies, ie for example a good EV per ounce gold is $25 - $50 as the project moves closer to cash flow/development this rises,

Also many factors such as margins, profitability and so on effect the individual companies EV, for example PDN is on an EV of $5 per lb, but it is very close to production,

I'd say that at least $2 ev per lb, minimum should apply to MTN, (the low $2 because its in S.A.)



Hmmm I can't upload the report there too large,

well go to http://www.allianceresources.com.au/
the patersons report is on the left hand side dated 16/2/06

then go to http://rcresearch.com.au/documents/Look at the March review


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmmm looks like results are in as MTN powers ahead on an otherwise slow day for Uranium


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just realised why stock is powering ahead,

They are presenting tomorrow at the Pay Dirt conference, so all the smart players are realising that tomorrow they will re-announce previous JORC ann of 55m lbs - 75m lbs U3O8

Wait till that hits the mkt tomorrow


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Tick Tock Tick Tock, the eerrriee quiet before the storm,

They are presenting @ the conference @ 11.40am, I expect to see stock trade weak until they have finished presenting and with any luck there presentation will be an ASX ann,

I hope they do an EV per lb Uranium comparison to show just how undervalued they are


----------



## Rafa (31 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

sitting near the lows for the day...

what did they say at the conference today???


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (31 March 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Not sure, they haven't released a presentation yet,

I think today was just profit takers, traders and nervous punters, as far as I am concerned I will hold this stock for as long as it takes for a take over bid to come from a company like Mega, or Teck Caminco etc

The company has been far too quiet and far too well behaved, unlike other companies who have been releasing random Uranium ann, they have been quite, I think that they are in discussions with someone hence why they are keeping so quiet, but thats just my point of view, 

Like I said I'm gonna hold, and wait for $2

Everyone else make up your own mind what you will do


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

For the last 2 or so months I have been going on about Marathon Resources and their potential, 

I felt a bit better when a *Patersons * report named MTN as "the most compelling buy in the Uranium Sector"


I am now happy to add that *Fat Prophets* has joined the ranks,


I found this article in the weekend Australian which shows *Fat Prophets * are now backing Marathon as a clear favourite in the Uranium Sector, 



 WEALTH  


Resource minnows worth fishing for
Look beyond the majors for investment thrills, writes Robin Bromby
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

April 01, 2006 


Uranium has investors running hot at the moment, even though most of the projects are years away from production. 

Most analysts believe the uranium story has been overbought, but *Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt has a clear favourite in Marathon Resources. *
*"The company is one of only a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls that, in our view, have a meaningful prospect of achieving mining status," says Wendt. *
The stock hit a new intraday high of $1.17 yesterday, about double what it was in February. 

*Wendt says two things differentiated Marathon from most uranium hopefuls.* First, it possessed a large identified resource; second, its resource was located in South Australia, a state sympathetic to uranium mining.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks to open very very strong indeed,


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What a great day for MTN, be intersting to see how it performs over this week,


Those drilling results are well overdue!!!! Damn Labs and their backlogs, hurry up!


----------



## kgee (4 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Did anyone attend the sa uranium conference?
I just read it http://www.marathonresources.com.au/pdf/060331_UraniumConf.pdf
and it didn't really show me anything
I also heard a rumour that drilling at Mt Gee had to be completed by Easter,Tourist Season.????


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (4 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Its alive, its alive!

Finally market is realising this is one of the few real Uranium Players in the mkt (I didn't say the only but certainly one of only a few who have real potential)


----------



## travcorp (5 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Today has been profit taking, but I think this one looks the goods to get up to $1.50 at least...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmm I don't think it was just profit taking, I think it was a combination of profit taking and market selling in Uranium,

But that being said, I have re-evaluated my stance on MTN, I originally picked $1.50 + as the price target, but now feel that a true fair value is close to $2.50 ish,

Here's my reasons,

Firstly as has been mentioned many times they have an indicated and inferred resource of 

56.6M t grading 0.06% for 33,200t Uranium = 73m lbs Uranium,

Now given that the current drilling is aimed at increasing the confidence, ie perhaps shift some to the measured category, 

@ an EV of $2 lb mkt cap should = $150m = about $2.70 MTN,

I have kept saying I think that a Canadian Major would be hard pressed not to want to buy up MTN @ levels up to $2.50 as it is acquiring Uranium very cheap,

Also it is important to note that this resource is for Mt Gee only, no resource Calculation has been undertaken for its Hodkinson Deposits,

In time I think MTN will be able to show that the Mt Gee/Hodgkinson area is one of the best deposits in Australia, the only other deposit in Australia (apart form the 3 current mines (and 4th Honeymoon) that is close is VUL and SMM's Mt Isa deposit which is in QLD.


Also a final thought a few weeks back Uranium was $37.5 a lb today its $41 lb, so say you bought a company which had a JORC deposit of Uranium and you paid an equivalent of say $2.50 per lb uranium, the recent price increase would have covered your acquisition cost, 

To put it another way imagine buying a gold company that had a JORC deposit of 1moz and you paid $50m AUD for the company = an EV per oz gold of $50, now when the gold price went from $545 US /oz to $595 you effectively covered the cost of the acquisition,

So the point is in times of commodity price rises the EV per unit of resource has to increase.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Anyone here a Fat Prophets subscriber?

If so have the published a report on MTN yet?
 ie what exactly does Gavin Wendt think?

Most analysts believe the uranium story has been overbought, but Fat Prophets analyst Gavin Wendt has a clear favourite in Marathon Resources. 
"The company is one of only a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls that, in our view, have a meaningful prospect of achieving mining status," says Wendt. 
The stock hit a new intraday high of $1.17 yesterday, about double what it was in February. 

Wendt says two things differentiated Marathon from most uranium hopefuls. First, it possessed a large identified resource; second, its resource was located in South Australia, a state sympathetic to uranium mining.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kgee said:
			
		

> Did anyone attend the sa uranium conference?
> I just read it http://www.marathonresources.com.au/pdf/060331_UraniumConf.pdf
> and it didn't really show me anything
> I also heard a rumour that drilling at Mt Gee had to be completed by Easter,Tourist Season.????





Kgee, you been quite since we sorted out the whole Hetigage issue,

But according to their presentation Mt Gee driling is still underway,

How much longer? Don't think it can be too much longer they started in Early Feb, its been almost 2 months the drilling should have been finished by Mid March, give 2-3 weeks for lab assays and stuff sets this week or next at the latest as an announcement time.

The principal purpose of the program is to investigate extensions of the deposit as the current model suggests its further continuation in each direction. The drilling will also increase confidence in the results of drilling by
previous explorers, and *enhance the resource estimate through the provision of additional data.*


My guess is they're feeding assays into Computer Modeling to build new resource Calculation, which will have a much higher confidence, ie move more to indicated category.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (10 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I would be very suprised if there is no ann regarding drilling, Mt Gee/Hodgkinson, assays, resource calc something,


They have been far too quite over at MTN, but then I guess thats their philosophy, its not a sprint its a Marathon, slow and steady wins the race


----------



## kgee (10 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi Young trader,yeah I hope those results are out soon...I see you posted on the NZ site...It almost felt unethical that I post your work there especially when I was getting thanks for it...I look forward to following this debate

I haven't rang yet ...I have their phone no. in front of me but are a little hesitant to hear what they say...I'm guessing it'll be a "we can niether confirm or deny" ....which could leed to another kiwi nucleur boycott!

By the way nice going on BKY I put a buy order in this morning but missed out when I checked this afternoon 26% in one day ...I might start following your post's a little closer


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

*Good to know that my views are shared by others, but they are seriously overlooking BKY!!!!!*


Uranium hopefuls
CRITERION
Tim Boreham 
April 11, 2006
THE current valuations being ascribed to even the most rag-tag uranium hopefuls might look reasonable in a decade's time. But it's just as likely that we've solved the Middle East's woes and sent a man to Mars by then as well.
The truth is: even if another ripper uranium resource is proved up, there's bugger-all prospect of an Australian mine being built (and approvals granted) in that period. 

While the world will clamour for more uranium, shorter-term demand is likely to be satisfied by known new mines and existing projects, such as BHP Billiton's Olympic Dam. 

Even Rio Tinto's Leigh Clifford - who's now known for pontificating on commodity prices - warns the current $US40 a pound uranium price - which has almost doubled in the past year - cannot be sustained. 

He notes the planned new nuclear power plants - such as the 40 slated by the Chinese - could take a decade to fire up. 

Clifford's salient warning is supported by the Australian Bureau of Agricultural & Resource Economics, which forecasts a modest 1 per cent per annum uptick in uranium demand over the next five years. 

ABARE forecasts that the value of Australia's uranium exports will decline to $521 million by 2010-11, compared with $712 million in 2005-06. 

"Despite recent significant increases in expenditure on uranium exploration, uranium production over the outlook period is expected to be largely dictated by production from existing operations," ABARE says. 

While there's a big global supply/demand gap, the void is filled by recycling material from decommissioned bombs and reprocessing spent fuel. 

There's also new production this year: Paladin Resources' Langer Heinrich project in Namibia (1180 tonnes per year) and the Zarechnoye mine in Kazakhstan (590 tonnes). 

Next year, it's Southern Cross Resources' Dominion project in South Africa (1800 tonnes), while Cameco (the world's biggest producer) is expanding output at its existing Cigar Lake operation in Canada. 

As with all manias, investors are spoiled for choice in terms of options to do their dough. At least 40 listed miners claim a uranium exposure. Dozens have packaged up their uranium tenements (or, strictly speaking, patches of dirt where uranium might reside) and flogged them off. 

Oxiana, for instance, spun off Toro Resources (TOE) at 20c on March 24. Toro only yesterday announced the start of its drilling program, but that didn't stop the stock leaping to a high of $1.60 in late March. TOE stock yesterday closed 5.5c better at $1.22. 

The uranium mania has been fuelled by political developments which look promising, but might be red herrings more than anything. 

First, Labor's likely rethink on its "three mines" stance could remove a 20-year impediment to the sector's development. Labor governs in the relevant states of South Australia, Western Australia and Queensland, but expect them to handpass the hot potato into the calloused hands of their federal comrades. 

Criterion suspects Labor's policy will change, given Australia has $32 billion of current uranium reserves. Alternatively, Labor is likely to be voted out of office in at least one of these states over the next decade, with Queensland looking the most vulnerable. 

In the shorter term, it's more important for miners to prove up a resource for the politicians and greenies to argue over. 

Uranium enthusiasts have also been heartened by the feds' agreement with China, to allow the Chinese to buy yellowcake and explore for the stuff here. 

Hmm, very promising. But once again, the existing mines will fill the short-term demand. China did sign an exploration deal with Uranium Exploration (UNX), but there's more than a sneaking suspicion it's more interested in Uranex's Tanzanian ground. 

*Criterion ascribes a SELL recommendation to a whole sector: uranium explorers with no proven resources and little hope of achieving production. 

It's a bit tough to tar all the players with the "overvalued" brush, but the valuations look crazy. At the very least, there's no way of knowing whether they're ridiculous or not. 

Examples are Toro, UNX (38.5c), Nova Energy (NEL, $1.74), Encounter Resources (ENR, 60.5C) and Globe Uranium (GBE, 55c).  * 

Paladin (PDN) should make good money from Langer Heinrich and its Malawi project will probably get off the ground. 

But Paladin's market cap stands at $2.1 billion: more than the value ascribed to the Seven Network, Unitab, Dyno Nobel or the soon-to-be-producing Bendigo Mining. 

*A handful are worthy of a SPECULATIVE BUY. Summit Resources (SMM) has a proven ore body at its Mt Isa project: 22,100 tonnes of "measured and indicated resources". It's the local deposit most likely to be developed. 

Marathon Resources (MTN, $1.07) has 33,000 tonnes of inferred resources at its Mt Gee tenement in the Flinders Ranges. 

"Marathon Resources appears to be in the right place at the right time," says stock-picker Fat Prophets. 

Another investor says: "Marathon has run ahead of itself. Needs to do more work." 

Compass Resources (CMR, $2.35) also earns Brownie points for looking in the right place: the Rum Jungle field in the Northern Territory, which supplied Cold War uranium to the British and Americans before being forgotten for four decades. 

Monaro Resources (MRO $1.06) is taking a different tack and looking to the Kyrgyz Republic, Russia's traditional source of uranium. 

Monaro is still setting up, but boasts the biggest acreage in the consonant-rich republic. As well as being deficient in vowels, Kyrgyz also lacks the usual pesky environmental standards and red tape. *  

Alternatively, investors could forget about the blue sky and stick with ERA, the only dedicated uranium producer. 

The trouble is, ERA's output is subject to long-term contracts well below current spot prices. Over time, these contracts will be rewritten at higher prices, so uranium's old-timer will be able to join the party. 

ERA shares look fully valued at $15 but we rate them a LONG-TERM BUY. 

Criterion subscribes to uranium watcher (and Monaro chairman) Warwick Grigor's view that investors should hold back for more drilling results. 

His rule of thumb is that anyone with a 1000-tonne plus resource is worth a look at. 

Grigor believes uranium is not just a cyclical play, but will benefit from sustained long-term energy demand. 

The world certainly can't rely on wind farms if those orange-bellied parrots keep flying in the way. 

Grigor adds: "I think the sector needs to play it cool for a little while." Indeed. 

borehamt@theaustralian.com.au 

The Australian accepts no responsibility for stock recommendations. Readers should contact a licensed financial adviser. The author does not hold shares in the above-mentioned companies.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (12 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks like it will hold around the $1.07 - $1.20 mark until drilling is out,

Damn results are sure taking their time, surely they can't be too far away,

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?

Are they there yet?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Lots of holders are getting impatient and I can't really blame them, drilling results are well overdue,

I hear that they are due out at the end of the month but will the market notice?

I think investors will, but the pure speculators and punters have left the Uranium scene for a bit,

The Uranium supply shortage is not going away, it is a fuel of the future (medium term) and thus I still firmly believe that if a major is smart enough they will acquire a company which controls a huge deposit, I would call Mt Gee a huge deposit being in Australia's top 10, so am confident that one day a take over/ JV bid/offer will come along.

With a mkt cap of $55m and 70m lbs of Uranium (with upside) its still trading at under $1 per lb and still represents the most undervalued EV play on the mkt


----------



## Jay-684 (24 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

any reason why the SP has taken a tumble over the past week?

bought in at $1.16 and feel I might have bought in at the top


----------



## powerkoala (24 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Same here.
Got it at 1.075.
Collapse since...
any idea what happen?
no announcement or anything? :swear:


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (24 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Did you read my post?


The martket is Fed up with waiting for drilling results, it was a snowballl effect, once $1.07 (strong suppot) was broken, it began a downtrend, with today's movements it looks very shaky, when they arrive it will be interesting to see how stock performs

Long term its still the most undervalued play in Uranium on an EV basis, so says Patersons and Fat Prophets




			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Lots of holders are getting impatient and I can't really blame them, drilling results are well overdue,
> 
> I hear that they are due out at the end of the month but will the market notice?
> 
> ...


----------



## powerkoala (24 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I did read ur post. 
That why buy on support level. 
Yet, still no news at all.
Hope there will be something good this week.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Stock is taking a beating, market seems to be Totaly Fed Up waiting for drilling, 

I keep saying long term is great, but am going to use charts for buy signal short term,


----------



## Jay-684 (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I'm going to keep holding.

I know if I sell it'll immediately go up 

I only have a $2000 parcel of MTN, so the downside of losing half or more of it isnt that bad.

I missed out on TZN @ 99c last week, and thought I'd missed the train. Obviously I was wrong! So I'll just pray for MTN instead


----------



## powerkoala (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Same here.
Hopefully news will come soon.


----------



## powerkoala (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Result out.
Still not effecting the market though... -sigh-


----------



## RichKid (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				powerkoala said:
			
		

> Result out.
> Still not effecting the market though... -sigh-




Are we to assume that the results were known so sp has already 'reacted' (ie poor results so has fallen over last few days) or that the results are not that significant (hence no movement).

YT, I'm interested in what fat prophets said about MTN, did they have a price target or time line for when value would be recognised?


----------



## RichKid (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Emmm, looks like it's just the quaterly reporting, can't see any recent reports on drilling. A positive is that it's just sitting on a previous high, a negative is that it' s not established support yet. Short term selling pressure appears to be around.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Lots of holders are getting impatient and I can't really blame them, drilling results are well overdue,
> 
> I hear that they are due out at the end of the month but will the market notice?




These aren't the results, they are activity reports,

But like I said when they are out market may not notice, 

Fats says buy up to $1.07 medium time frame, its apparently they're favourite uranium stock, they eagerly anticipate the results


----------



## RichKid (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> *Good to know that my views are shared by others, but they are seriously overlooking BKY!!!!!*
> 
> 
> Uranium hopefuls
> ...




Great article YT, thanks, liked the humour too. ERA is hitting resistance atm, appears to be ranging more than anything else.


----------



## blobbob (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Delays in lab - results out by end of this week according to activity report


----------



## powerkoala (26 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Think market won't effect much as they already wait too long.
Well, I still hold though. 
Hope some good news arrives.


----------



## kgee (27 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi I did a bit of investigating on mining at MT Gee 
I sent this letter as follows 
Dear Sir / Madam 
Hi, I belong to a sharetraders forum and I'm trying to get to the bottom of a debate concerning Marathon Resources mining at MT Gee in the Arakoola region of the North Flinders Ranges 
There is a lot of speculation going on that mining will never happen there because of conservation and cultural concern's 
I have researched thru a lot of the legislation but as a layman the the acts such as the Environment Protection & Biodeversity Act 1999 are all pretty heavy reading but seem to suggest that approval for mining would be difficult 
I was hoping that maybe you could give me your personal opinion on mining at Mt Gee and maybe some other contacts that would be informed on this subject 
Thank's Your's Sincerely

The Reply

Thank you for your query. As you are aware Marathon Resources have been conducting exploration activities within the Mt Gee area, which occurs within the Arkaroola Sanctuary. Exploration and mining activities are permitted to occur within Sanctuaries in South Australia. Exploration for Uranium in the Mt. Gee area has occurred since the late 1960’s. It should be noted that Marathon Resources are in the early stages of exploration. 

The Regulation and Rehabilitation Branch (of Minerals and Energy, PIRSA) are the regulatory authority for mining activities within South Australia. If Marathon Resources does decide to apply for a mining lease over the Mt Gee area, the proposal would be assessed via PIRSA’s standard regulatory consultation/assessment process. This requires consultation with relevant state government agencies, community groups and individuals. The proposal would also be referred to the Federal Department of the Environment and Heritage as the proposal would trigger the EPBC Act 1999 (likely reasons: Nuclear Action and Threatened Species and Communities). This would result in a Federal / State consultation/assessment process. Only after the standard regulatory consultation/assessment process is complete, would a decision to approve or reject a mining lease be made by appropriate state and federal government Ministers.

For further information on this matter please contact the Regulation and Rehabilitation Branch (PIRSA) on 8463 3112 or refer to the following website for further details concerning mineral exploration and mining in South Australia http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/sector5.shtml.

Kind Regards

Daniel Radulovic

Environmental Officer – Mining (DEH)

I know the reply is as much as I expected ie there been no opinion 
but the regulatory conditions do seem quite restrictive and I personally think if Rupert is half correct it will be the EPBC act that stands in the way of mining at Mt Gee...pure speculation on my part...I sold at 1.16 I may live to regret it but the stress it was giving me trying to get to the bottom of this,I figured it was better redirecting my focus somewhere a little less controversial


----------



## powerkoala (27 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Ouch...
This stock really got smashed...  
Still wont bail out....


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (27 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Stock is taking a beating, market seems to be Totaly Fed Up waiting for drilling,
> 
> I keep saying long term is great, but am going to use charts for buy signal short term,




Any lower is worrying, especially below 80c,


----------



## RickG (27 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The problem with MTN, is that it is being traded on relatively low volumes. It seems to me it is the small investor (ie us) that is making the price fall, not the Institutions.  As YT has said, I think the small investor is sick of waiting for the drilling reports, and can see better value by putting there money in other stocks.

Trouble is, now no matter how good the drilling reports maybe, I am worried people will not take notice, having moved on.

But anyway, I am just glad BKY is moving up today 

Rick

PS.  Yes I hold MTN.


----------



## powerkoala (28 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hm,...
Everyday got bashed 7%
How you feel ?
So cheap yet nobody want it....
Any idea now Young Trader?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Stock is taking a beating, market seems to be Totaly Fed Up waiting for drilling,
> 
> I keep saying long term is great, but am going to use charts for buy signal short term,
> 
> Any lower is worrying, especially below 80c,





Like I said Power, LT is great, by far THE LOWEST EV Uranium player, short term chart suggests down-trend and lack of news will not help fix situation,


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Also you say so cheap, but the news they have now is the same as before when I first bought @ 60c (and have traded many times since taking profits), only thing that has changed is markets view on Uranium and spot price U3O8,

Support level I see, 80c, 75c, 65c, 55c

It will look cheap the lower it falls, how low will it go who knows?

Did anyone predict that Mega Uranium would take over HMR? I didn't,

Why HMR and not MTN? Who knows, they are both in South Aus and MTN has 33kt Uranium while HMR has none, MTN has IMO some of the best Uranium ground in South Aus, it also has the lowest EV per lb, yet no take over offers,


----------



## powerkoala (28 April 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think market just knock everything down today.
Even nice stock got bashed so why not MTN as well   
Cheers


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Stock may have bottomed @ 80c, be interesting to watch,

Drill results are still not out, has jumped up today by 15%,


----------



## powerkoala (11 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Result out
Finally :swear:


----------



## Jay-684 (11 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

up 8.4% so far

very early days though, so who knows where it'll close

still a long way off the high I bought at!


----------



## powerkoala (11 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Don't worry mate.
Patient is virtue.
At least now we can go NORTH :


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (11 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I suppose that as the company's name suggests, its a 'Marathon' But the company's management have done a ****e job IMO, due to the long delay and lack of news flow the stock began to drop and thus now when news is released there's not enough buyers to generate enough momentum to start upward trend, hence stock will face strong selling on the way up, 

That + the fact that there will be little to no activity till the end of the year is telling me not to buy back in, but rather to wait for next Uranium Bull Run, like I always said you have to overlay technical with fundamental analysis.

An article or fat prophets commentary may cause short upward swing, but long term stock may drift back to 66c level.


----------



## Gspot (23 May 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks Like Y_T is correct on this stock drifting back to 66c. Unfortunately this amazing wisdom came after I bought in at 85c.  
Anyone out there know, what Marathon has planned for next?? Mt Gee?? Y_T??


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wake up peeps!

Someone is finally seeing the value in MTN offmarket bid @ 68c


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Very opportunistic bid IMO,


As stated MTN has one of the largest undeveloped Uranium Resources in Australia, Approximately 
33,000t U3O8 = 72.6M lbs Uranium,

@ their bid of 68c they are paying $33.5m for the company or an amazingly low 46c per lb of Uranium,

I Always said if they're EV per lb Uranium  stayed so low you'd see a takeover bid sooner or later, well here it is, and they have timed it well, just after 2 corrections 1 in Uranium he other in the general Market, so they can put in such a cheap offer!

This stock was heavily backed by Fat Prophets @ $1 and Patersons as well lets see what they're analysts say regarding this offer, fair value? I don't think so


----------



## powerkoala (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

But still, this sp before was $1.375 and goes down since....
now up quite good. not enough to return profit for me yet...


----------



## michael_selway (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				powerkoala said:
			
		

> But still, this sp before was $1.375 and goes down since....
> now up quite good. not enough to return profit for me yet...




Do you think offer is a bit cheap/disgraceful?



> I don't hold MTN but I do find the offer letter funny.
> 
> You should sell because they're no liquidity. Therefore I should sell my BHP, less liquid than MTN.
> 
> ...




thx

MS


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				michael_selway said:
			
		

> Do you think offer is a bit cheap/disgraceful?





MS, I'm in Coporate Law and I'm not salt, I'm as sweet as sugar (So sweet I'll make your teeth rot!   )


But yes this offer is disgracefully undervalued as I posted above,

Very opportunistic bid IMO,


As stated MTN has one of the largest undeveloped Uranium Resources in Australia, Approximately 
33,000t U3O8 = 72.6M lbs Uranium,

@ their bid of 68c they are paying $33.5m for the company or an amazingly low 46c per lb of Uranium,

I Always said if they're EV per lb Uranium stayed so low you'd see a takeover bid sooner or later, well here it is, and they have timed it well, just after 2 corrections 1 in Uranium he other in the general Market, so they can put in such a cheap offer!

This stock was heavily backed by Fat Prophets @ $1 and Patersons as well lets see what they're analysts say regarding this offer, fair value? I don't 
think so


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Here are the fundamentals for my reasoning, as stated in previous post (see my early posts on MTN) Avg EV per lb Australian Uranium Companies is $2.65

Now here Crosby is trying to buy MTN for 0.45c a lb so immediately how cheap does their offer seem, realistically they can double or even tripple their offer in terms of price so that the EV they pay rises to 90c per lb or $1.35c per lb and it would still be cheap, at $1.35c per lb (which would require a bid of around $2) they are still only paying half what the market avg is for a lb of Uranium,

I hope this all makes sense, 

So in essence what Crosby are paying for is the resource (73m lbs) they should be paying at least $1 per lb if not $1.35 which requires $73m - $100m bid = $1.50 - $2


So we'll wait and see, one thing is for sure 68c is just too cheap


----------



## stockmaster (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Here are the fundamentals for my reasoning, as stated in previous post (see my early posts on MTN) Avg EV per lb Australian Uranium Companies is $2.65
> 
> Now here Crosby is trying to buy MTN for 0.45c a lb so immediately how cheap does their offer seem, realistically they can double or even tripple their offer in terms of price so that the EV they pay rises to 90c per lb or $1.35c per lb and it would still be cheap, at $1.35c per lb (which would require a bid of around $2) they are still only paying half what the market avg is for a lb of Uranium,
> 
> ...





What price do u expect than? $1?


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I think the reason they can get away with a lower bid atm is that mining will not be approved while the Labor Party has 3 mine policy. They could be buying something that can never actually operate! Where's the value in that?


----------



## kgee (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey YT this can't be the type of  takeover you were thinking about????
Didn't they put the strangest spin on the reasons for takeover....
it was'nt all serious was it?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Please correct me if I'm wrong here but I think the reason they can get away with a lower bid atm is that mining will not be approved while the Labor Party has 3 mine policy. They could be buying something that can never actually operate! Where's the value in that?




Well if that were true, Mega should not have bid (and increased its bid by 300% eventually) for HMR

Stocks like NEL, ENR, AGS, VUL, SMM should command very low EV per lb mkt caps, 

The key word when I was highlighting my EV per lb avg was Australian companies which is a very low $2.65 per lb, 

For Example EME in NT gets well over $5 per lb because its in N.T. 
PDN gets like $30 because its about to produce,

So no I don't think that 0.45c per lb is justifiable given its in S.A. the 2nd best place to be in Aus, and given that worse places like Qld and W.A. command $2.65 and even AGS operating in S.A. commands over $2 per lb

Its all comparative!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kgee said:
			
		

> Hey YT this can't be the type of  takeover you were thinking about????
> Didn't they put the strangest spin on the reasons for takeover....
> it was'nt all serious was it?





Well if I wanted to acquire an excellent asset, I'd wait as Captain Jack Sparrow says for the 'Opportune Time' which in the case of listed equities after a sevre correction and an exodus from investors in that sector (Uranium) I'd then put in the cheapest offer I could stating that it was at a premium to the Companies stock price (Which just happens to be at a 12 month low) 

I'd then also seek to put out as much negativity so that un-informed investors were encouraged to accept the offer, 

I think MS summed it up best 

I don't hold MTN but I do find the offer letter funny.

You should sell because they're no liquidity. Therefore I should sell my BHP, less liquid than MTN.

You should sell because project cost is multiple of market cap. Therefore I should sell all my exploration based shares in case they discover something and have to deveolp it.

You should sell because of uranium price risk. Therefore I should sell all of my commodities portfolio.

I'm glad I read that, could have saved me a fortune. Corporate lawyers, salt of the earth.


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I agree YT, it's the potential that is being bought, but with significant risk which Crosby outline well in the bidder statement. All part of the game I suppose. 

Anyone gambling on a higher bid? The environment is ripe for it.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

To put it into perspective MTN has deposits with an in-situ value of *$4.3b gross*

Thats 72m lbs @ $45 us/lb @ 75c:1 excahnge rate

I'd be very very very suprised if 1 of 2 things didn't happen,

1. Company Rejects the offer (if they didn't I'd suspect foul play and would wish to know exactly who is bidding for it)

2. Another Major steps in and ups the Anti


----------



## YELNATS (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Who is Crosby and who do they really represent? 

I think their low offer and the way they talk the company down is a bit shabby and lacks credibility. 

As a holder of MTN I'm hanging out for a better bid from Crosby or a counter-bidder.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YELNATS said:
			
		

> Who is Crosby and who do they really represent?
> 
> I think their low offer and the way they talk the company down is a bit shabby and lacks credibility.
> 
> As a holder of MTN I'm hanging out for a better bid from Crosby or a counter-bidder.




 Crosby is the same group who went after Tethyan Copper, offering a very low bid for the company

"TAKE NO ACTION IN RELATION TO CROSBY’S OFFER
In the next day or two you should receive takeover documentation from Skafell Pty Ltd (the nominee
company that Crosby Capital Partners is using to make its unsolicited takeover Offer).
Your Directors remain convinced that Crosby’s Offer undervalues the Company and its assets and advise you
to take no action in relation to the Offer. We are working on our detailed response to Crosby’s Offer (our
Target’s Statement) and will send it to you within the next 14 days."


A serious offer appeared well above Crosby's that eventually won,

Look at it like this its downside is 68c, its upside is $1.50 - $2 IMO  hence I jumped on board as soon as I saw take over bid because I like those odds, low downside, extremely high upside


----------



## 56gsa (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I seem to remember TOE was floated with one of its objectives to consolidate uranium interests in Australia - I wonder if TOE will start getting active in buying up other small uranium hopefuls?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A response,

The bid will be rejected!!!!!!!!



Crosby bids for Marathon 

Ben Sharples
Thursday, July 06, 2006

FRESH from its failed takeover bid for Tethyan Copper, Crosby Capital has popped up on the Australian resource radar again, this time with a $A33.4 million hostile bid for junior Marathon Resources. *However, the Hong Kong-based investment bank may have a fight on its hands.*



Under terms of the bid, Crosby has offered to buy all of Marathon's ordinary shares, including those to be issued on the exercise of outstanding options for 68c per share.

*Marathon chief executive John Santich told MiningNews.net the bid clearly and significantly undervalued the company and the board would not be recommending its shareholders to sell at 68c.*

In its bid to soften up shareholders, Crosby listed a number of "significant risks" to shareholders, including project development risk and significant capital funding requirements; regulatory uncertainty over uranium mining; concentrated commodity price risk; uncertainty over the management's capability to advance and develop projects; and lack of liquidity.

"Lots of those things are true, that's the nature of the minerals industry, nobody's arguing about that, we all know that, that is why you invest in companies that you hope make a discovery," Santich said.

"That is the nature of the business."

Santich described the concentrated commodity risk related to Marathon as a "furphy" and poured cold water over suggestions that the company's management was not capable of advancing and developing projects.

"The only uncertainty is we haven't developed our full development team, but quite clearly we have the skills and we have the track record in terms of developing projects," he said. 

"As for the lack of liquidity, I'm not sure that that is true, I think there is a fair amount of turnover, I think that the only pointer that they have there is, who would want to sell with the stock plummeting to 50c. 

"There are plenty of reasons for that – the end of the financial year, the state of the market generally, and the fact that we've had a bit of difficulty getting our assays in on time from the laboratories."

*Santich said Crosby has taken the stock at a long-time low and applied a "fantastic" premium, but have failed to take a long-term view. * 

*"They've done it before, they recognise value when they see it, they'll take it out, pull it apart and put it back in for $200 million and they'll have the profits instead of our shareholders," Santich said.

"I hope we can manage to demonstrate to shareholders there is value there, but on the other hand, it's good to see somebody come out of the woodwork and say 'hey, this stock is undervalued, let's buy it'.*
*
"Let's face it, Crosby are not going to pay full value for anything, it's a banker's bid, and that's what you do when you're in that sort of business, you look for something that is undervalued and you try and buy it."*

Marathon is exploring the Paralana mineral system in the North Flinders Rangers, which hosts the company's Hodgkinson and Mt Gee uranium deposits.

The advanced Mt Gee deposit has an inferred resource of 57 million tones at 0.06% uranium oxide for 33,000t of contained uranium oxide, while recent drilling at Hodgkinson returned hits of 23m at 0.15% uranium oxide, including 1m at 1.15%. 

Marathon also has a portfolio of copper-gold-uranium properties in the Gawler Craton, South Australia, along with copper-gold properties in western Victoria.

Shares in the company, which hit a 52-week high of $1.45 in April, remained unchanged during morning trade at 55c, capitalising the company at $24 million.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

And there it is, the rejection!

What will Crosby do? Should be a fair bit of speculation in the air, I'd expect Fat Prophets and Patersons to make comments on the offer,

At least it throws the spotlight on this hugely undervalued company


RESPONSE TO CROSBY BID
The Board of Marathon has met to consider the announcement dated 5 July 2006 by Crosby
Capital Partners Inc (Crosby) that it intends to make a takeover bid for Marathon.
The Board believes the unsolicited bid to be opportunistic and significantly undervalues
Marathon’s assets and future prospects.
The bid is also heavily conditional and uncertain. The Crosby announcement only contains an
outline of conditions of the bid. The full terms of these conditions will be set out in the
Bidder’s Statement.
The directors of Marathon collectively control 22.8% of Marathon’s fully diluted issued
capital and do not intend to accept the proposed offer. This means the minimum acceptance
condition set out in Crosby’s announcement will not be able to be met and the proposed offer
cannot succeed unless this condition is waived or varied.
Directors advise shareholders to take no action in respect of Crosby’s announcement or
the offer, when it eventuates, until the board of Marathon provides its detailed response
in the target statement, which will be provided to all shareholders in accordance with
the statutory timetable after Crosby’s formal offer documents have been received by
Marathon.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Small buyers scrambling to get on board before close,

Should be some very interesting articles in the paper tommorrow


----------



## Sean K (6 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

One of those was me.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

One things for sure, this bid is NOT going to succeed, but given the time that Crosby has probably spent putting it together I wonder how quickly they will turn around and up the ante, they are silly if they really want the company they should put in a bid of $50m = $1 per share, still heavily undervalues the company but gets alot of shareholders going hmmmmm that sounds ok,



> Marathon runner: uranium junior won't wear Crosby
> Robin Bromby, Takeovers
> July 07, 2006
> *MARATHON Resources, one of the nation's most promising uranium explorers,* has vowed to defend itself against an unwelcome $33.4 million takeover bid from Hong Kong investment bank Crosby Capital Partners.
> ...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmm MEGA seems hungry!

Over here boy, over here, look big JORC deposit, come on boy over here, nice juicy 72m lbs of Uranium


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmm apparantly PDN's hungry too, 


Also interesting to note, but if there are alot of holders who bought in when MTN was above say $1, it is highly unlikely that they would be happy with a bid below that level, 
I am still supremely confiednt that someone else will make a bid around $1, where the auction goes from there I can't say




King coal
CRITERION
Tim Boreham 
July 07, 2006
Marathon Resources (MTN) 76c 
Excel Coal (EXL) $8.68 
TAKEOVERS are always a fertile source of blarney, but we're intrigued about the "talk it down" tactics employed in two new resource sector bids. Unveiling US coal giant Peabody's $1.83 billion ($8.50 a share) offer for Excel Coal yesterday, Excel's management pretty much admitted the company's fortunes had peaked.

In the case of uranium hopeful Marathon, suitor Crosby Capital devoted nine pages to questioning whether Marathon could last the distance. 

*Readers were left to ponder why the Hong Kong merchant bankers actually want to buy Marathon, if it's as crappy as they portray. * 

In the case of Excel, management offered 2006-07 (current year) net profit guidance of $120 million. 

Yes, that's up on the expected $95-100 million for 2005-06 but well short of market expectations of around $160 million. 

While coal's gloss looks to be wearing thin, analysts have described Peabody's bid as insufficient. 

According to Fat Prophets resource analyst Gavin Wendt, the offer should be more like $9.50 to $10.50 a share. "It seems to sell the company well short." 

In the case of Marathon, Crosby's $33 million, 68c a share, bid either endorses the uranium sector's potential or confirms the naysayers' doubts. 

Marathon's key deposit, Mt Gee in the Flinders Ranges, has an inferred resource of 33,000 tonnes of uranium oxide, but Crosby kindly notes the tenement is ranked within the lowest category. 

"Any cash flow from development of the company's prospects will be subject to successful advancement of further exploration projects and feasibility, which would be several years away," Crosby says. Crosby estimates Marathon has spent $2.4 million to date in total, but that developing Mt Gee alone would cost $150 million. 

Crosby insists it's providing the means for punters to exit an illiquid stock, one which has tumbled from its early April peak of $1.45 a share. 

*Uranium sceptic Criterion nominated Marathon as one of the better uranium explorers, assigning a SPECULATIVE BUY call at $1.07 on April 11. 

So our thinking was right, but the timing was off. * 

Marathon yesterday described the Crosby offer as "unsolicited and opportunistic" and noted that, as directors held 22 per cent of the capital, Crosby's bid wouldn't succeed with its condition of 90 per cent minimum acceptance. 

*Fat Prophet's Wendt, a Marathon fan, notes that most investors would have got into Marathon at a higher price. "Psychologically no-one wants to sell out at a loss." 

Criterion believes Marathon holders might as well HOLD. * 
We also rate Excel a HOLD. There's a good chance of a counter-bid, or of Peabody being forced to sweeten the offer.


----------



## 56gsa (10 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN Announcement today - Conclusion from technical presentation - suggests deposit could be more than 33,000t....  timely to be putting this out!

Conclusion:
1) Historical intellectual input provided the base for understanding of geology and U-mineralisation at Mt Painter - Mt Gee area. However, it has also led to mythical opinions limiting exploration and resource potential.
2) Tectogenetic and ore genesis studies provide new information allowing reidentification and re-definition of the nature of the mineralised system and revision of exploration and resource potential.
3) Tectonic deformation controlling mineralisation is secondary of nature resulting from rejuvenation of pre-existing structures. Kinematic analysis suggests the system is propagated from the basement and from NE towards SW.
4) PMS forms uniform, 11-12 km NE extending, structurally controlled U-rich mineral system. Tectonic genesis, internal complexity of the system and ore development main stage (coffinite-uraninite) indicate its epigenetic, hydrothermal nature. Origin of torbernite is seen as resulting from later epithermal stage.
5) At Mt Gee deposit alone inferred resource of about 57million tonnes at 0.06% for 33,200 tonnes U3O8 has been defined. Mineralisation extends along WNW – ESE structural trend and is modified by influence of N and NE oriented structures.
*6) Recent Marathon drilling results (MN8-13) and assays from archival PIRSA drillings (MGD047a & 151) and the CRAE drill hole (GE49), confirm continuity of U-mineralisation (along WNW trend within about 20m thick breccia zone), and suggest an increase of grade and inferred resource also in the eastern part of the Mt Gee deposit, compared to previous estimates.*7) Up to date, U-mineralisation has been identified near surface and shallower levels of the PMS. This has led to identification of Mt Gee, Hodgkinson, Armachair-Streitberg deposits and a number of prospects with presence of uranium mineralisation. Further strong exploration and resource potential exists at shallow levels and with depth as determined by geophysical and tectonic criteria.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (13 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Breakout?


I had 80c as a resistance level (Highs reached in August 05, was base for launch in march 06, was tested as support in late april/may 06, and has provided resistance in the last week)

Techies your view?


----------



## Sean K (13 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think too much depends on the takeover YT.

Could go anywhere. 

They might accept $1.00, or someone else could come in and fight for it and it goes to $1.50.....Or, the offer is withdrawn and it goes back to .50c.


----------



## Realist (13 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



> According to Fat Prophets resource analyst Gavin Wendt, the offer should be more like $9.50 to $10.50 a share. "It seems to sell the company well short."




Ridiculous.     

Not that I think MTN is a bad buy at all, quite the contrary, but for an analyst (who happens to own the stock, so is biased) to make such a claim as to value a stock 15 times what it is selling now for is criminal.

Hence why FAT (his company) is down 12% this year. They are a joke.

It is about as usefull as a doctor (more likely some old guy in a white coat) prescribing an abdominizer for health reasons.


----------



## Sean K (13 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Realist, I think you'll find Fat Prophets have beaten the market over the past few years. 

The reason the listed company is down is because the general market is going OK and the rest of us think we can pick winners just as easily. 

LICs will do better when the market gets tougher.


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (14 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Postman Pat turned up today with an envelope from Marathon......
QU: When does Bill Crosby's offer cease?.....just cannot see this takeover lifting off. Are they MAD?


----------



## shinobi346 (14 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Of course it won't. Especially when they need 90%+ for it to go ahead and the directors who are strongly against the takeover hold +20%.

Crosby can bag MTN all they want and say how they are doing shareholders a favour by buying out their share but if MTN is so bad why do THEY want it?


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (14 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				shinobi346 said:
			
		

> Of course it won't. Especially when they need 90%+ for it to go ahead and the directors who are strongly against the takeover hold +20%.
> 
> Crosby can bag MTN all they want and say how they are doing shareholders a favour by buying out their share but if MTN is so bad why do THEY want it?
> Today 01:49 PM




Sure I understand what your saying ,but what's got me confused is ...Has Crosby done their homework,or are am I missing the obvious,where's the cutting edge twist for this takeover ? or is it as dumb as lifting the price to "X" say $1.00,if so it seems so amatuerish... :iamwithst


----------



## 56gsa (15 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Fat Prophets StockWatch: Marathon In Demand
July 13 2006 - Australasian Investment Review – (AIR) 

Marathon Resources has released encouraging results from exploration drilling on its Mt Gee uranium project in South Australia that point to a likely upgrade in the resource base. 
Unfortunately, speculative interest in uranium stocks has waned since earlier this year, during the hype associated with the landmark uranium supply deal signed between Australia and China.

This volatile sentiment unfortunately has overshadowed the very real achievements made by Marathon, which remains one of just a handful of Australian uranium hopefuls in our view with a meaningful prospect of achieving development status.

From an all-time high of $1.45 in April, Marathon has corrected sharply. Just as rallies often become overextended through irrational investor optimism, corrections frequently attract excessive pessimism. 

In the case of Marathon, this has seen prices retreat to around 50 cents in the last week.

 The company has just received a hostile takeover bid from Crosby Capital Partners, a Hong Kong-based merchant banking group, offering cash consideration of 68 cents a share. 
While Crosby’s interest reflects the obvious attractions of Marathon’s uranium assets, we believe the bid is too low and is unlikely to succeed. 

Marathon Resources represents a first-class emerging uranium opportunity. 

Investors must be diligent and invest only in those uranium companies that have solid assets with a realistic possibility of achieving production status in the near future. 

Two things differentiate Marathon from most Australian uranium hopefuls. Firstly, it possesses a large, identified uranium resource that is growing in size; and secondly, its resource is strategically located in South Australia, one of only two states in Australia currently sympathetic to uranium mining and that host uranium mines. 

With an advanced and proven uranium resource located in a state with current support for uranium mining, Marathon Resources appears to be in the right place at the right time. 

Despite the recent fall out in the uranium sector in Australia, the company has all of the fundamentals in place for long-term success. 

Disclosure: Marathon is held in the Fat Prophets portfolio. 

Copyright Australasian Investment Review.
AIR publishes a weekly magazine. Subscriptions are free at www.aireview.com.au


----------



## Realist (24 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I own MTN and am not ramping it. Or even recommending it, do your own research.

But Beazley's "remove the no new mines policy" comments tonite will certainly cause a stir in the price of MTN I would guess.  Particularly being in SA a sympathetic state.

With some company wanting to take them over for 68 cents a share a couple of weeks ago and with the price being about $1.30 a few months back and only 72 cents today it certainly seems to me it is going to rise tomorrow.


----------



## Realist (26 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well it is up to 77.5 today, so a pissweak 6.5% increase this week, depsite Uranium being up and Beazley's comments.

Alot of cautious people out there..


----------



## YELNATS (26 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A lot of cautious people or non-believers in Beazley's ability to change ALP policy. Regards YN.


----------



## Realist (26 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The ALP policy will change, it is just a matter of when. I'm betting next year.

MTN is up nicely today.


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (26 July 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YELNATS said:
			
		

> A lot of cautious people or non-believers in Beazley's ability to change ALP policy. Regards YN.




Also I would add that the *BIG* fella from Perth ain't in power ,nor is Midnight Oil !
Still Crosby & Co ,might know something more about MTN then you & I .The plot thickens.


----------



## 56gsa (4 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Only just saw this 1 August Announcement , re joint ventures with UraniumSA over 3 of MTNs Central Gawler Craton licences.  UraniumSA has also signed JVs with Stellar Resources (SRZ) over ground in the same area.

Arrangements are conditional on a UraniumSA successful IPO later this year, with SRZ and MTN shareholders getting priority, and SRZ & MTN getting shares in UraniumSA.

Zero response on market - but this would perhaps make Crosby bid at current levels even less likely?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

How long will it be before one of those 'Corporate Advisors' for a big Canadian miner like Laramide or Mega realise just how undervalued MTN, 

I mean I was just looking through a report on RPT (couldn't attach but here's link http://rcresearch.com.au/documents/ ) and the second graph on page 2 shows MTN as having the 7th Largest JORC Deposit amongst the global Uranium Juniors, it shows Mega paying $100m for RPT's 25mlbs, 

So how much is MTN's 75mlbs worth? The same $100m, logic would indicate more, around 3x more given size, however there maybe a higher percieved risk due to lack of confidence in the resource etc, so if an equally confident resource would be valued at $300m (3x RPTs $100m) then due to reduced confidence we apply what a 1/3 disc rate? That still gives $100m

I just don't get why companies like TOE enjoy mkt caps of 4x that of MTN when they are operating in the same area and guess what MTN has a resource and a bloody big one at that!

I've said it from day one, this company is cheap, damn cheap and its a matter of time before it gets snapped up, minimum the company is worth $100m = $2 per share, a succesful bid may have to be a shigh as $150 - $200m to win over directors.

So until a decent offer comes in we'll just have to sit and wait


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

UBS has been buying up recently, now holds just under 6%


Good to see I'm not alone in my faith for this company


----------



## Realist (29 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

You are not alone, I hold quite a alot of MTN.

I'm very confident in MTN.  Obviously they have alot of Uranium, but the takeover bid at 68c gave me the confidence to buy, and at 70c it is a bargain!

Keep holding....


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmm, up from .695 to .765 in the past few days.

10% rise, is something happening?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yep, 

UBS released today exactly how thy've gone about getting a 6% interest,

On marekt purchases *AFTER THE TAKE OVER BID*, KEY WORD AFTER!

They're buying anything on market in small chomps so as not to alert the mkt to it, sellers are starting to thin out + anyone who may have been a seller realises that they can wait to see  how high UBS will chomp up to,


Something is definately up


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Yep,
> 
> UBS released today exactly how thy've gone about getting a 6% interest,
> 
> ...





Music to my ears....  : 

Thanks!


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

New resource estimate just out.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This is their 3rd re-estimate and the mkt just doesn't seem to care,

@ cut-off of 300ppm (which is what all the majors ie PDN are using) there's 30kt's+ U3O8 in the ground,

@ $48us/lb and 75c US/AUD exchange = 

30,000 x 2,200 x ($48/0.75c) = $4,224,000,000

Thats right in ground value of $4.2Billion

Whats MTN's current mkt cap? around $35m

*So lets see $35m MKT CAP VS $4.2Billion in ground value of 1 of 4 deposits*


When will this get it proper value (At least $100m) attributed to it?


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> When will this get it proper value (At least $100m) attributed to it?




I don't know, but I want it to stay off the radar so I can buy more!  
Perhaps they need someone more local doing the estimates. Eitherway, they need to drill it more & I see this and the 2 previous rpts re:substancial holders as v+ve news. Glad to see they've dropped reference to 'tectonogenic analysis' as all it appears to be is standard structural analysis.


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Patience my friends.

If we can hold over a year and make a 10 bagger, our taxes are halved...

Alot depends on the Labour Party mining policy in SA I suppose. That is to be decided early next year isn't it?


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well with the news that Uranium One has given the go ahead for development of their Honeymoon deposit in SA (unless I read the Miningnews report wrong...), "Thunderbirds are go!" for SA already...


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Archinos said:
			
		

> Well with the news that Uranium One has given the go ahead for development of their Honeymoon deposit in SA (unless I read the Miningnews report wrong...), "Thunderbirds are go!" for SA already...




Wow, that is interesting, I have noticed Uranium shares mostly rise a little in the past two days.

Can you please post that article?


----------



## Sean K (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yeah, saw that report too. Isn't it one of the three that Labor had approved those many moons ago?

MTN looking ok atm.


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

from Miningnews.net.
AUSTRALIA is set to get its fourth uranium mine with sxr Uranium One giving the green light to the development of the Honeymoon project in South Australia, 34 years after the discovery of the deposit.

The development of the Honeymoon project is expected to cost $US41.5 million ($A54 million) including $5.6 million for working capital costs, and produce 400 tonnes of uranium oxide annually over a life of six to seven years. Cash operating costs are pegged at $14.13 per pound of uranium oxide.

Capital expenditure and cash operating costs have increased on a 2004 feasibility estimate of $24.6 million and $12.40 per pound, respectively.

The project has a net present value of $37.7 million at an 8% discount and an internal rate of return of 40%, applying a flat uranium price of $46.50/lb over the life of the project. The uranium spot price is currently $48.50/lb.

The development decision comes after a review of a 2004 Ausenco feasibility study by Mayfield Engineering and Aker Kvaerner Australia and a revised mineral resource estimate compiled by Adelaide-based Ore Reserve Evaluation Services.

Extraction of the yellowcake will be via in situ leaching and _the project is fully permitted with a mining licence in effect for 20 years_. sxr Uranium One said it plans to finance the project with a mix of finance from debt and internal sources.

In addition, sxr Uranium One has revised the indicated resource to 1.2 million tonnes at 0.24% uranium oxide for 2900t. 

The company said while the grade of the deposit has increased from 0.11%, the resource has reduced by 12%, with the company excluding a number of thin, low-grade intercepts believed not amenable to ISL mining.

Honeymoon is expected to come online in 2008....

I haven't chased up details re when they got permitted, however I don't think it's too long a bow to drawn in saying that the development should give substantial impetus to the push for further U mining activity (in SA at least).


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

and from ABC online...

Australia's fourth uranium mine is a step closer, with resources company Uranium One approving development at its Honeymoon site in the far north-east of South Australia.

Honeymoon was granted a 20-year licence under the previous Liberal state government, and is now waiting on final approval from the Environment Protection Authority. 

Uranium One's Greg Cochran says he is confident of getting that approval before production starts in early 2008. 

"The current State Government has been very supportive during the approvals process," he said.

"The standards that both the South Australian and Federal governments set are extremely high."

Honeymoon will be Australia's smallest uranium mine, and will employ about 50 people. 

Uranium One has already secured markets for its yellowcake uranium in Europe and in North America.


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It is 78 cents now.

Up 8.5 cents or 12% in a couple of days.

Definately something going on...


----------



## dangerman (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

PARALANA MINERAL SYSTEM
MT GEE DEPOSIT: REVISED ESTIMATES DEMONSTRATE
HIGHER GRADE RESOURCE
HIGHLIGHTS
1. NEW ASSESSMENT CONFIRMS SUBSTANTIAL INFERRED
RESOURCE AND HIGHER GRADE OF THE MT GEE DEPOSIT
(KRIGING METHOD WITH RIGOUROUS YAMAMOTO CORRECTION *)
(a) CUT OFF GRADE 1,000ppm YIELDS 10.1Mt @ 0.133% U3O8 FOR
AROUND 13,500t U3O8
(b) CUT OFF GRADE 500ppm YIELDS 25.4Mt @ 0.081% U3O8 FOR
AROUND 20,600t U3O8
(c) CUT OFF GRADE 300ppm YIELDS 45.6Mt @ 0.068% U3O8 FOR
AROUND 31,250t U3O8
(COMPARES WITH 59.0Mt @ 0.062% U3O8 FOR AROUND 36,650t U3O8
USING ORDINARY KRIGING METHOD)
2. FULLY FUNDED DRILLING PROGRAM AIMING TO UPGRADE
TO INDICATED/MEASURED RESOURCE SCHEDULED TO START
LATER THIS YEAR
3. MINING SCOPING STUDY PLANNED TO COMMENCE EARLY 2007
4. ORE GENESIS STUDIES: URANINITE (UO2) DOMINATES MT GEE
MINERALISATION INDICATING SIMPLER EXTRACTION PROCESS


----------



## dubiousinfo (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Couldn't SA Govt give the next U mine approval to an Australian company.


----------



## havingfun (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

South Africans could probably say the same thing...plenty to go round


----------



## Realist (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> Couldn't SA Govt give the next U mine approval to an Australian company.





Ridiculous isn't it!!


----------



## Archinos (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Perhaps, but then again it is this exact situation that has given rise to the current opportunities


----------



## havingfun (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

UBS are not ur average corner co-op/building society..Give it time


----------



## 56gsa (30 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

UBS appear to be buying on behalf of Australian hedge fund MM&E Capital (http://www.mmecapital.com.au)... according to their website they have a 3-6 month horizon on takeover arbitrage so i guess they're looking to for an increase in Crosby bid or rival bid... given they've be buying at less than 80, not sure what prioce they would look to be selling at?


----------



## Archinos (31 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Nice one 56
I also noticed that they're into IPOs, so perhaps it's a double pronged stratergy since MTN holders will also be eligible for the Uranium SA float - if it goes like any of the others as of late, might there be the chance of a very neat & quick return once floated?


----------



## dj_420 (31 August 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

im in on 0.75, got in right before the ann re deposit rerating. this stock shows huge potential. i agree with YT, why all the interest in AGS when MTN has much more u and it is 100% owned. as well as that MTN has other tennements also. what the?? market has completely overlooked this little stock i believe. so am happy to get in at mid 70's.

besides that what does everyone think about the upcoming float UraniumSA. Im in the progress of looking through the prospectus. let me know what others think about it.


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Told you something was up. 83 cents now!!!

Ironically on September 1st - I entered MTN in Augusts stock tipping comp.


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

86 cents now! Wow...

Up 16 cents or 23% from last week.


----------



## Rafa (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

the volume is absolutely tiny!!!


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> the volume is absolutely tiny!!!




And buyers disappearing quickly. Strange. I'm grabbing some though.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The key is to see what UBS is doing,

If next week they announce a change to their holding and it shows that they have been buying more, it will all depend on price, 

If they have in fact been buying above 80c, that will be extremely bullish, however I'd expect that they are smarter than that, knowing that there will be weak hands they can still IMO soak up more weak sellers around the mid 70c level, 

Depending on how it closes and opens next week, from a techie perspective it looks very bullish, 80c has been the lid on MTN corresponding to the highs reached last august, re-tested this July, and smashed through on vertical ascent in march 06,

Kennas, a chart please, with a strong lid drawn at 80c from Aug 05- to now should show what I'm on about, if you have the time, thanks


Anyway as the companies name suggest it will be a 'marathon' not a 'sprint'


----------



## Sean K (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

2 year weekly. Pretty clear resistance at $0.80. Let's hope it holds above, then onward and upward!

Interesting pennant on the long weekly, not really clear on the 6 mth daily.


----------



## Realist (1 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Anyway as the companies name suggest it will be a 'marathon' not a 'sprint'





Exactly!!  That is why I bought it.  I'm not in for a quick buck, I'm in for a longterm fortune..


----------



## dj_420 (3 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey guys take a look at this, these figures are worked out by a company market capitalisation divided by the tonnage of u that stock owns. 

eg summit 280 000 000 / 40 000 (estimate u tonnes) = $7 000
which is undervalued when compared to other u stocks.

BUT when we do the same for MTN
market captialisation of 40 000 000 / 31 250 (tonnes in mt gee) = $1 280

DID i do these calculations correctly??
because from what i can see MTN is obscenely undervalued, it is so undervalued it is not funny. DOes anyone want to check these figures to make sure im not wrong




COMPANY COMPARISONS

ORD MINNETT

URANIUM REPORT ERA

Attached is Ord Minnett's Company Review dated 11 July 2006 on Australian Uranium Producer ERA.

Table 4 compares a number of uranium companies market value of A$ per tonne U3O8 based on their uranium reserves and resources.

Summary Table 4

COMPANY Valuation A$/tU3O8

AREVA $75,084

PALADIN $56,520

DENISON $46,558

CAMECO $29,314

SRX URANIUM $10,224

ERA $9,818

SUMMIT $6,932

MARATHON $1,280

An analysis of Ord Minnett's table indicates, based on companies uranium reserves and resources, Summit's share price on a comparative basis, should be over 10x its current price when compared to AREVA, over 8x its current price when compared to Paladin, around 7x when compared to Denison and 4x times when compared to Cameco.

Further, the quality of Summit's uranium resources in terms of grade and tonnes and proximity to existing mining infrastructure, translate directly into Summit becoming one of the world's lowest cost uranium producers with high margin profitability.

Alan J Eggers Managing Director
SUMMIT RESOURCES LIMITED


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (4 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

May have popped above 80c level, (not yet confirmed)

If so new base at 80c (previous 68c which was T/O offer)

Be interesting to see if  UBS are still buying now that price is above 75c,


----------



## shinobi346 (4 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A thick booklet from crosbys was on my doorstep when I got home this evening. I immediately chucked it in the wheelie bin. They can waste some other persons time but not mine.


----------



## dj_420 (4 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Support seems to be building around the 80 cent mark, a few times the sp gapped but buyers filled in the gap.

i would have thought that if sp movements last week was JUST because of jv with USA and MTN holders are offered a priority of the float then it would have retraced already (friday been the last day).

MTN up 3% today, in general most u stocks across the board were up due to increase in spot price. MTN has begin to show some nice movement (if not slow but steady) in sp.


----------



## dj_420 (4 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i forgot to ask has anyone been looking at acquiring USA shares in this float due to MTN having a priority??

i had a look over tennements, some interesting grades at ben buy tennement 0.12 - 0.18% u. and port lincoln with 4.6 kg/t.


----------



## 56gsa (4 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

420 - had a quick look - interesting because of the JVs they have formed with MTN & SRZ - and also a lot of the prospects are in the same area.  But then the Board doesnt stick out as having huge experience in the development of U.?  

As a MTN holder it would be good for uSA to rocket, and do well - but then thats just hoping.  I think it was uSA also said they would be issuing SHs free options about 3 months down the track - obviously a strategy to get people to hold..

Did you look at UKL's prospects at all - they did well today altho some on the thread thought little of their holdings?  Be interesting to compare.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This Uranium Sa float has got some serious backer behind it, I didn't realise,
Have a read




Chinese join the uranium search
Email Print Normal font Large font By BARRY FitzGERALD
September 5, 2006

Advertisement
AdvertisementChina'S interest in Australian uranium from existing mines has been extended to its participation in potential new discoveries resulting from the uranium exploration boom.

*The $6 million float of Adelaide-based UraniumSA yesterday has Chinese investors among its seed capital investors and Xu Gang, the Australian representative of China's monopoly uranium buyer, Chinese National Nuclear Corp, on its board.*

*UraniumSA managing director Russel Bluck said having Mr Xu on the board represented CNNC's first active interest in uranium exploration in Australia. He noted that CNNC was not a "direct" holder in the company.*

Mr Xu is a non-executive director, as is Alice McCleary, a member of the Takeovers Panel. The chairman is Tom Phillips, former chief executive of Mitsubishi Australia and a director of Australia Post.

UraniumSA's focus is on the uranium potential of South Australia, home to three of Australia's four uranium mines and advanced projects - Olympic Dam, Beverley and Honeymoon.

The group has secured more than 7500 square kilometres of exploration ground in what it calls the Gawler Craton uranium province, with much of the package contributed by listed groups Stellar Resources and Marathon Resources.

Stellar shareholders will get a preferential offer for 14.73 million UraniumSA shares at the issue price of 20 ¢ and Marathon shareholders 6.26 million shares. That would leave about 9 million shares available to the public. Sponsoring broker is Melbourne's Lands Kirwan Tong.

UraniumSA's main exploration properties are in the Kingoonya palaeo-drainage system. Other explorers that have taken up ground in the area are Toro and Heathgate, operator of the Beverley mine in SA's Curnamona Craton.

The area has the potential for sediment-hosted uranium deposits amenable to in-situ leach extraction, similar to that used at Beverley.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I've been thinking,

Given that this Xu Gang chap (Aus rep for Chinese National Monopoly Uranium Company) is on the board and was a seed investor in UraniumSa, he is surely well versed with MTN and its huge deposit,

I see this as a big thing as he must also be aware that a very low Hostile T/O offer has been put in, I wonder if Mr Xu likes what he sees at MTN? ?


----------



## newbie investor (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I felt people here are positive about JV with UraniumSA. However, I don't share the same view with them.

I wonder why Marathon Resources and Stellar would agree the JVs with UraniumSA. They gave UraniumSA 70% equity for those minerals but only get a tiny proportion of shares from USA. It's not a fair deal at all.

I also concern cash flow problem. I'm not sure when Marathon can start to make a profit. I think current cash level can only last for 1 year. That means Marathon will need to issue placement to outsider and dilute shareholding from current investor.

The ideal situation for me is Crosby raise its bid to higher level and we sell our shares to them. If no new bidder and Crosby bid is collasped, Crosby and MM&E Capital will sell out all their shares. I fear the price will fall down to lower than 50c in that case.


----------



## dj_420 (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

newbie

i think you are underestimating MTN. a placement around $1 is not going to dilute these shares much. there are only 50 million of them to start with!!!!
say they need another 15 million to continue exp for a year, that is only another 15 - 16 million shares on issue. 

if they get 70% then obviously the tennements are in areas completely unexplored. why risk a potload of money when you already have a huge resource.

as for cash flow, YES it is going to be years before MTN see a profit but that is because they arent allowed to mine their resource yet.

look at mt gee, its 100% owned and has almost 70 million pounds of u.
that is a company maker for an exploration company.

if crosby raise their bid i am still not selling out. i think the majority of the shareholders want to see MTN go right through to production stage. i am not selling out, this is a long term investment for me.


----------



## Realist (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I too got the booklet and offer from Crosby recently.

I was disapointed the booklet paper was glossy and the paper was hard, it made for poor toilet paper indeed.


----------



## newbie investor (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				cathers_420 said:
			
		

> newbie
> 
> i think you are underestimating MTN. a placement around $1 is not going to dilute these shares much. there are only 50 million of them to start with!!!!
> say they need another 15 million to continue exp for a year, that is only another 15 - 16 million shares on issue.
> ...



It's simply unrealistic to expect a placement of $1 a share. If the bid from Crosby collasped, current price isn't sustainable. Given market capitialisation of MTN, even a placement of $1 per share can have considerable dilutive effect.

If Crosby can offer a reasonable price and I expect that the price of MTN will fall sharply when Crosby withdraw from the bid, I don't see a reason to reject the offer. I won't reject them only because they are foreign based company.

I never doubt technical abilities of MTN for mining. But since the setup of JVs with UraniumSA, I doubt MTN has enough expertise to deal with financial issue. I'm inclined to cash in for a good price.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmmm I smell a rat, newbie you work for Crosby? ? ? 

Mate on a serious note, they have spun out assets which aren't getting any attention, its what good management does so they can focus their attention on the one area,

Mt Gee is one of several deposits, last I checked the company had $4m or so in the bank which will be enough for at least 6 months more of drilling,

Their previos placement was @ 66c, so if they placed say 10m shares @ 68c = say $6.5m after costs they have enough cash to get pre-feasibility completed

That would take mkt cap from 55m shares to 65m,
Also re "The ideal situation for me is Crosby raise its bid to higher level and we sell our shares to them. If no new bidder and Crosby bid is collasped, Crosby and MM&E Capital will sell out all their shares. I fear the price will fall down to lower than 50c in that case."

Crosby don't have any MTN shares, only an idiot would accept their offer, read this thread thoroughly to get an idea of what type of operators Crosby are, they're vultures who seek out highly undervalued companies and try and swoop,

If the bid fails who knows what will happen, for now MTN has started to come back under the spotlight,

I reckon in the next 6months we'll see an offer of $2 per share = $100m (what was paid for RPT)


----------



## nizar (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

YT,

do u hold MTN?

if yes, then a good chance (only chance IMO) to get ur hands on uraniumSA float... With one of their directors a CNNC representative; and some media coverage already; it will be a winner i reckon... and open at a massive premium... i think public offer have no chance


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

50,000 MTN, bought at 72c day of the T/O offer,

Previously rode from 60c to $1.35


----------



## radio-active man (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If the ar*e end of the sp falls through as suspected by youngtrader my cheque book will be open to pick up the pieces. I am sure that I will not be only one. Manipulation is a wonderful tool of the money men.

This is a longterm play; Mt Gee is arguably the 4th largest known deposit in Australia and is situated in SA. (Refer article below)

Sell at your own peril. Good luck at finding Mt gee in the article below. Just like everything about MTN, it is all there to see but you really have to look hard to find it. 

Probably just the way I like it. As all of a sudden this is going to explode. People are going to wake up and are going to see through all the garbage and lies about this one. 

Who else is going to apologies for their negative tirades and then offer to buy the company or withdraw their criticism of the way they JORC'd the resource.

Crosby's offer, (btw went straight into the bin) reworded.

Your company is garbage, your management is garbage, the resource probably isn't there or isn't worth that much but hey coz we are such good guys we are willing to buy the company of you.

As if, this is a scam on the grandest scale.

These shares are being handed down to my grandkids and further down my lines. I will be adding to my holding at every opportunity. the Uranium boom has not even begun. 

One thing to think about.

If Australia has 1/3 of the worlds Uranium reserves add up the table below and see how long the our uranium reserves will last. (http://www.iaea.org/NewsCenter/News/2006/uranium_resources.html)
85 years is one estimate. We first run out of oil, gas and then Uranium. What's left to sustain the worlds growing poulation. 


Amazing how shortsighted I have been in the past. Not anymore.


August 2006 

Australia's Uranium Deposits and Prospective Mines

Summary of Resources Available in Major Deposits and Prospective Mines Deposit Grade U3O8 Contained U3O8 category 

Jabiluka, NT 0.52% 67 000 t reserves 
plus: 0.39% 21 000 measured & indicated resources 
0.48% 75 000 inferred resources 

Beverley 4 mile ??? > 50,000T??

Koongarra, NT 0.8% 14 540 t reserves 
Mt Fitch, NT 0.046% 4 050 t resources

Angela, NT 0.1% 10 250 t resources 

Bigrlyi, NT 0.14% 5 200 t resources 

Nolans Bore, NT 0.02% 3977 t resources 

Kintyre, WA 0.15-0.4% 36 000 t reserves & resources 

Yeelirrie, WA 0.15% 52 500 t indicated resources 

Mulga Rock, WA 0.14% 13 300 t resources 

Manyingee, WA 0.09% 12 000 t resources 

Oobagooma, WA 10 700 t inferred resources 

Lake Maitland, WA 0.03% 7900 t resources

Lake Way, WA 0.054% 4600 t resources 
Centipede, WA 0.063% 4400 t resources 
Thatchers Soak, WA 0.03% 4100 t resources 
Honeymoon, SA 0.42m%, 0.24% 2900 t indicated resources 
Billeroo West (Gould Dam), SA 0.045%, 0.33 m% 2 500 t indicated resources 
Prominent Hill, SA 0.012% 9900 t inferred resources 
Mt Gee, SA 0.073% 33,000 t inferred resources

Crocker Well, SA 0.048% 8 576 t resources 
Curnamona, SA ? ? 
Valhalla, Qld 0.077% 16 900 t indicated resources 
9 000 t inferred resources 

Skal, Qld 0.119% 5000 t resources 
Andersons Lode, Qld 0.143% 6500 t inferred resources 
Westmoreland, Qld up to 0.2% 22 500 t inferred resources 
Ben Lomond, Qld 0.25% 4 760 t resources 
Maureen, Qld 0.123% 2940 t resources 

This table was updated with April 2006 data from Geoscience Australia. Figures may differ from older ones in the text, and not all deposits are written up below.
Note that information on Ranger, Olympic Dam and Beverley are in a separate paper.
See also paper on Uranium Exploration in Australia.


----------



## dj_420 (5 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

hey newbie, ill buy your shares in MTN if you dont want em

honestly i think you are an absolute fool to sell this stock.
there is no value in buying a share and selling out at the first sign of a takeover. do you hold any  shares for long term?

what exactly do u see wrong with MTN.

COuld it be the fact that they have a defined JORC resource of 70 million pounds (which in fact is larger than many u producers deposits and they still have other tennements for exp) or is it the fact that they only have 45 million shares on issue.

how many shares do you think are needed to dilute stock.

take a look at EXT almost a billion shares on issue and have not even defined a resource. now to raise capital to finish defining deposit the issues WILL dilute that stock. you do realise that it actually takes capital to define a deposit and begin mining.

NOW look back at MTN they have a huge resource and ONLY 45 million shares on issue. this share would be great value even with 150 million shares on issue

If you can find a stock that has a deposit the same size and only 5 million shares on issue so YOU dont have your dillution pls let me know.

You realise that SMM has 200 million shares on issue and that is considered very small for the advanced state they have drilled their deposits up to


----------



## newbie investor (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				cathers_420 said:
			
		

> hey newbie, ill buy your shares in MTN if you dont want em
> 
> honestly i think you are an absolute fool to sell this stock.
> there is no value in buying a share and selling out at the first sign of a takeover. do you hold any  shares for long term?
> ...



If I sell it higher than market price to you, you are fool.
If I sell it lower than market price, I'm fool.
If I sell it to you at market price, why don't I sell it at market?

I doubt you're working for MTN  . You always emphasize the value of resources. You seem to neglect the cost of development and the risk that those projects may not bring into production. 

My advise is: If the offer is higher than current price, ACCEPT it. If the offer is lower than current price, REJECT it. I think this decision rule is much more sensible than yours. I don't prepare to accept 68c offer but I hope they will raise it soon.

I studied finance in UNSW and not an expert of mining. I may not judge the potential of the mineral system as good as you. I only know that if everything is as certain as what you said, MTN doesn't need to spend so much to upgrade the resources. And the stock price would be 10 times more already.


----------



## dj_420 (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

look at every single australian u stock with significant deposit

they should all be 10x
AGS
SMM
MTN

many more but i dont know all of them

i have studied finance also and for political reasons, which is a macroeconomic influence on the market these stocks are undervalued. i see value in long term rather than a quick offer today. 

these political influences will soon change, ie policy change, we now have news articles that are talking about nuclear enrichment. so attitude is changing, by the time next year comes around everyone will be saying reverse the three mines policy BUT we wont allow enrichment.

BY the time the policy changes U spot price will be $65 - 70 plus. it is an exciting time in aust for any company who has a significant u desposit

THAT is all we need, policy change.

i know that about the market price i was just trying to make a point. i dont see the point in selling out and then having a policy reversal next year which will give the good u companies a good 2x boost at minimum. i would feel like a right fool if i sold out now at $1 and then see the policy reversed next year and accelerate to $3 +

what do you see as fair value on this stock, we are well below our highs for the last year.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Interesting write up on new float UraniumSa

http://www.fnarena.com/index2.cfm?type=dsp_newsitem&n=8143A82F-17A4-1130-F531368BCB1ED984

Hope the link works


----------



## Realist (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN got beaten like a bongo drum today. Down 9 points.  Why?

Something is up, is someone manipulating the price or something?

Is Crosby buying any shares itself outside of the offer?   What happens if Crosby get 51% of MTN, what does that mean for us?  What it they get 89% or 90% what happens?


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Realist, 

MTN is a buy and wait for a higher offer play,


Don't focus on day to day fluctuations too much,

Was a bit suprised to see it jump above 80c so easily and now fall through so easily (so much of resistance/support)

They need 90% before they can do a forced T/O as directors hold 20%+ this won't happen,

So only way for a T/O to succeed is for directors to ok it,

This is a buy and wait for $2 for me, unless I really need the money for a better punt

Regards


----------



## Realist (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I totally agree Young Trader, I was just checking though.  

There's something more to this than meets the eye I think.  I suspect Crosby have moved their first pawn.  They'll make a big move soon for say $1.40 or they'll run off and try their silly games with another company.  I don't seriously expect they ever thought they could buy MTN for 68c, it is merely their first of many moves.

One thing that is for sure, no-one will take the 68c offer.


----------



## Rafa (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This MTN is driving me nuts...
Switched out of AVO couple of days ago (after a tidy profit) into MTN...     

oh well.... gotta love trading!

if the offer is $2bucks i'll be selling...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (6 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> I totally agree Young Trader, I was just checking though.
> 
> There's something more to this than meets the eye I think.  I suspect Crosby have moved their first pawn.  They'll make a big move soon for say $1.40 or they'll run off and try their silly games with another company.  I don't seriously expect they ever thought they could buy MTN for 68c, it is merely their first of many moves.
> 
> One thing that is for sure, no-one will take the 68c offer.





Agree Realist,

Of note is the fact that to put a T/O offer together like Crosby has done requires research time, meetings, finance approvals, etc ALL = TIME = FEES, lawyers fees + accountnats fees + bankers fees + advisors fees and so on,

Usually can cost 1-2% of the deal, 2% of $30m = $600k so they'll at least up the offer before they walk away, else they'll cop a loss, both in money and in terms of reputation, which when operating in Hong Kong is far more important.


Crosby will become know as the dog that always loses its fight


----------



## shinobi346 (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Has anybody got their priority app form yet? I've been checking the letterbox everyday after work but haven't received anything except evil bills. The offer opened on Monday and on a first in first served basis, you can understand why I am getting pretty anxious.


----------



## Beethoven (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				shinobi346 said:
			
		

> Has anybody got their priority app form yet? I've been checking the letterbox everyday after work but haven't received anything except evil bills. The offer opened on Monday and on a first in first served basis, you can understand why I am getting pretty anxious.




I got a letter saying investors are encouraged to buy into the IPO and get the application form on the uraniumSA website.


----------



## shinobi346 (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I got that letter, but the way I read it was the propectus would be sent to us soon. The one on USA's website is only for the general public. The priority form needs to be sent to us because it confirms eligibilty for the offer.

Either we've both lost it in the mail or it's slow getting to us. Kinda sucks when the priority offer is already open for applications and its processed on a first in first served basis and and all I can do here is sit here and wait for the form to arrive.


----------



## Beethoven (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				shinobi346 said:
			
		

> I got that letter, but the way I read it was the propectus would be sent to us soon. The one on USA's website is only for the general public. The priority form needs to be sent to us because it confirms eligibilty for the offer.
> 
> Either we've both lost it in the mail or it's slow getting to us. Kinda sucks when the priority offer is already open for applications and its processed on a first in first served basis and and all I can do here is sit here and wait for the form to arrive.




haha probably or someone is stealing our mail


----------



## Gspot (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I've spoke to Marathon and the prospectus doesn't go out till the 12th.


----------



## powerkoala (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I just print the prospectus at UraniumSA website and sent them on Wednesday. Doesnt it count ?
I m holding MTN, but can't wait that long for the prospectus to arrive on 12 Sept.
Hope they accept it.


----------



## shinobi346 (8 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks for that Gspot. So we effectively only have the 12th-29th to respond to the offer. Maybe they should change the start date of the priority offer for MTN shareholders to the 12th then.  

powerkoala - You'll still be in line to get the shares but I don't think they will know/acknowledge you are eligible for the priority offer. Using that form puts you in a different queue than using the blue and yellow forms MTn and the other mob are/should be sending out.

I'll be pissed off if there are MTn shareholders signing up for the offer already using a form they got by other means.


----------



## Realist (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Up 7 cents, or 9% today.

Certainly MTN is a chance for traders to buy on dips and sell on peaks these past few weeks.

It wont go below 70c I would not have thought cause of the takeover offer at 68 cents.

So when/if it dips again I may buy in.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think people are taking more notice of MTN given what PNN managed in terms of MOU, 

I doubt MTN will do similar because those MOU's with Sino require them to have a majority control of 60% or more and most companies don't see that as good value (JMS)

But I reckon when a major offers you a JV you take it, beggers can't be choosers!


----------



## Realist (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

you got your USA offer yet YoungTrader?

I assume you are going to take it up...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I got it last week, already sent it off ages ago....... Haven't you guys got yours yet??????????





Just joking, nope haven't got it yet, a bit edgy like you guys becuase its a first in first serve basis,

C'mon Postie!!!!!!!!!


----------



## Plan B (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just got my USA blue priority form and prospectus.

It looks like B/pay can be used with the blue form...and you dont have to post the blue application form back ......hope mine goes through in time...lol


----------



## Realist (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Is there a mad rush for the priority spots though?    

I'm not so sure there is!


----------



## Plan B (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Mad rush?? ..... No

But as YT has said , First in first served...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Plan B what was the priority allotment type ie 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:10????


They haven't said how they're doing it,


----------



## Beethoven (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Plan B what was the priority allotment type ie 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:10????
> 
> 
> They haven't said how they're doing it,




hi YT,

i got my form just not too long ago.  All u get is a form that looks almost identical to the public offer form and the prospectus on the uraniumSA website.  Doesn't really say much on the prority allotment.

Hope that helps


----------



## dj_420 (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i still havent received my priority form 
i think the whole system is pretty unfair, insto's would already have their allotments, and in the meantime some ppl might miss out because of the postal system.

in all honesty i think they should have had both forms on their prospectus, WHICH didnt have the form even for public offer on the date which they said it was to be opened. 

the timeframe also is a quack, by the time some of us receive our forms we will have maybe 10 days to get our applications in. although my app will be express posted the min i get it!

im just going to be very dissapointed if i miss out on some shares. ive already sold down in other stocks so i could have extra money for this float


----------



## powerkoala (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

keep checking the mail box....
yet nothing there, got crosby offer and buttermere offer which goes straight to bin.
sent the public offer form since 6 sept and hoping i can get them.


----------



## Beethoven (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				powerkoala said:
			
		

> keep checking the mail box....
> yet nothing there, got crosby offer and buttermere offer which goes straight to bin.
> sent the public offer form since 6 sept and hoping i can get them.




when did u get the crosby offer?


----------



## powerkoala (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

last week...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Beethoven said:
			
		

> hi YT,
> 
> i got my form just not too long ago.  All u get is a form that looks almost identical to the public offer form and the prospectus on the uraniumSA website.  Doesn't really say much on the prority allotment.
> 
> Hope that helps




Are you in S.A.?

I'm in Melb, should take 3 days from S.A. to Melb,

If your in S.A. you would have got it in 1 day,

Expecting mine Friday!


----------



## Beethoven (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Are you in S.A.?
> 
> I'm in Melb, should take 3 days from S.A. to Melb,
> 
> ...




lol believe it or not im from queensland  So distance wise i should be getting it later than you ????

I was concerned about the distance and time it would take to reach my area.  Wow im impressed this package was actually air mailed to me


----------



## Plan B (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Plan B what was the priority allotment type ie 1:3 1:5 1:6 1:10????
> 
> 
> They haven't said how they're doing it,




Sorry to take so long YT , i went out for the afternoon....
but as Beethoven has said , they dont say much on the priority allotment.


----------



## Mellow77 (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just got the priority offer,
do you guys understand the instructions like me, i.e. pay for desired amount of shares by BPAY and wait whether I get my portion? Without actually having to send the blue form back?

Thanx for your opinions.


----------



## Plan B (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Mellow77 said:
			
		

> Just got the priority offer,
> do you guys understand the instructions like me, i.e. pay for desired amount of shares by BPAY and wait whether I get my portion? Without actually having to send the blue form back?
> 
> Thanx for your opinions.




Yes thats the way i understand it .... 

It also says the same thing on the USA web site ------> http://www.uraniumsa.com.au/


----------



## Beethoven (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Mellow77 said:
			
		

> Just got the priority offer,
> do you guys understand the instructions like me, i.e. pay for desired amount of shares by BPAY and wait whether I get my portion? Without actually having to send the blue form back?
> 
> Thanx for your opinions.




Well that was what i did was gave a sum of money through bpay and entered biller code... ref number and that was it.  I didnt send the blue form through the mail.  Now waiting for my shares if i get any that is...


----------



## radio-active man (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

yep got my priority offer application blue form today and as soon as I got home jumped on the internet and plugged in the bpay variables.

I believe that the biller reference number will be specific to your details and therefore there is no need to send the blue form back.

Fingers x'ed i get my full amount.

lol


----------



## dj_420 (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

what a crock, i feel ripped off already, i am still waiting for priority offer, hoping it will come in the morning.

i just have a feeling that ive missed out because it took so long to get here. i think USA should have done it differently, a lot of ppl will miss out due to postage delays.


----------



## radio-active man (14 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Cathers,

don't quote me on this but I read somewhere if the priority offer was ovesubscribed then the priority offer will be scaled back.

I hope it's not and hope that you get yours. Be sure to take a day off and wait for the postman.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Uranium buy sets off chain reaction
Robin Bromby 
September 15, 2006
INVESTORS need to rerate uranium companies in light of China's Sinosteel move to take control of a small deposit in South Australia, according to one analyst.
Far East Capital's Warwick Grigor is sending a note to clients this morning telling them that the Sinosteel plan to take 60 per cent of the Crocker Well project means Beijing now rates uranium as an essential strategic mineral. 

"Everyone needs to sharpen their pencils and realise this is not another dotcom boom," he says. 

"Real big money will now start to flow." 

Pepinnini Minerals, the company exploring Crocker Well, which plans to sell a 60 per cent stake to Sinosteel, saw its shares lift another 7c to 67c yesterday. 

*Another South Australian explorer which is believed to have been approached by Sinosteel, Marathon Resources, rose 4c to 79c. * 

But Mr Grigor sounds one warning note: many of the uranium projects in Australia will fall by the wayside, especially those which are reheated ones from exploration in the 1960s and 70s uranium land rush. 

Those with grades too low or a resource too small will not get over the development hurdle, he says. 

"A project will need to have 20,000 tonnes to make the grade - anything else is tinkering at the edges." 

Crocker Well contains an estimated 6735 tonnes of uranium, a tenth of the size of the mothballed Jabiluka deposit in the Northern Territory. 

It lies just across the border from Broken Hill and near the Honeymoon deposit, where a Canadian company plans to open Australia's fourth uranium mine. 

Gavin Wendt, resources analyst at financial adviser Fat Prophets, said the Sinosteel move showed the Chinese would be looking at the smaller companies where they could deal with several suppliers and have equity in the project rather than depend just on existing producers BHP Billiton or Energy Resources of Australia. 

"I don't think this will be the last uranium deal we'll see with China," Mr Wendt said. 

He expected Chinese companies to concentrate initially on deposits in South Australia and the Northern Territory where mines could be developed under present political policies. 

But he said Canadian interest in our uranium resources would continue and it was clear those buyers were prepared to take the long-term view that eventually Queensland and West Australian bans on mining would be lifted - as shown by the Canadian takeover of West Australian explorer Redport.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

China's hunger for secure supplies feeds our economy
China is pumping money into our resources sector -- and our companies can't get enough, Robin Bromby reports
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

September 16, 2006
NOTHING would have concentrated minds in Beijing more than that 71.5 per cent increase in iron ore prices at the start of 2005. Then, this year, Shanghai Baosteel was forced to capitulate again, agreeing to pay BHP Billiton a further 19 per cent hike, setting the price for other iron ore buyers.
The Chinese tried to talk the prices down before the 2006 talks, to no avail - although, as one industry insider points out, they don't want prices to go down too far because so much of their domestic production is from low-grade iron ore mines. Too low a price would put these operations out of business. 

So, while the huge price hikes did cause concern, it was really the balance of power in the sector that mattered more. 

Long before this, the Chinese steel makers were known to be fed up with the iron ore situation where the three big players - BHP, Rio Tinto and Brazil's CVRD - called the tune and everyone else danced to it. 

Now it's clear they're not going to take it any longer than they have to. Chinese companies are either buying deposits, taking substantial stakes in companies or using their enormous foreign exchange resources to buy up emerging mine production. The bottom line: they want some level of control and security of supply. 

And it's not just in Australia. This is a worldwide phenomenon. China National Offshore Oil tried to buy Unocal and was thwarted only by political pressure in the US; they tried to get a stake in Canada's oil sands; the China National Nuclear Corp was recently awarded uranium targets in Chad; the Chinese are building a large iron ore mine and railway in Gabon. 

Tony Howland-Rose says we should welcome them. 

His company, Allegiance Mining, is about to start mining nickel near Zeehan, Tasmania. One of the world's largest buyers of the metal, Jinchuan Group, is to take all the nickel produced at the Avebury mine for 10 years and is expected to soon exercise its option over 25 million Allegiance shares. 

Jinchuan is also involved with Fox Resources. There the Chinese came up with financing to help develop Fox's West Whundo copper-zinc project in return for the right to buy all the copper produced. 

Furthermore, Jinchuan earlier this year subscribed for shares in the initial public offering by Redstone Resources, which has extensive nickel-copper-platinum group metals targets in the Musgrave region, which straddles the Northern Territory, West Australian and South Australian borders. 

Howland-Rose says the Chinese want security of supply, just as the Japanese did when they bought into our coal and other assets back in the 1970s and 80s. Australians should see this as the perfect match: our exploration companies get financing they would otherwise struggle to find, while the Chinese know they are going to get the metal they need to keep their factories humming along. 

"Whether we like it or not, we have an interdependency. A lot of good relationships are going to come out of this," Howland-Rose says. 

Aurox Resources managing director Charles Schaus could not agree more. His company has just signed a deal whereby Chengde Iron & Steel and China Metallurgical Group will invest in the junior and guarantee to buy the bulk of the output of vanadium and titanomagnite iron ore from the Balla Balla project southwest of Port Hedland. 

Customers for such speciality metals are not always easy to find and are also susceptible to sudden price falls. 

Precious Metals Australia learned that lesson several years ago when Xstrata decided the Windimurra mine in Western Australia was no longer viable and closed it down - and so chopped off PMA's royalty stream. 

Schaus says the deal for Aurox not only guarantees a buyer for mine output, but his company suddenly has access to Chengde's considerable vanadium expertise. Aurox, as a result, is now bullet-proof, he says. 

"This is the best thing that could ever have happened to Aurox - we're still getting to grips with the benefits." 

Handling the relationship the wrong way can cause deals to fall apart. For evidence of that, look no further than Andrew Forrest 

and Fortescue Metals Group wrecking the relationship with Chinese steel makers by the use of some loose words about the deals done. The Chinese have never come back, no matter how much they want FMG's iron ore. 

But, as this week's move into uranium by Sinosteel showed, the Chinese game is no longer just about iron ore. They want just about everything - bauxite, nickel, liquefied petroleum gas, copper, rare earths, vanadium, among them. Sinosteel also retains a small stake in Lynas Corp, which is moving to be a producer in Western Australia of rare earths - which will all be processed in China. 

And yesterday the Aluminium Corp of China - known as Chalco - got the Queensland Government nod to develop the huge bauxite deposit at Aurukun. 

It was the uranium deal that really raised eyebrows. Sinosteel is negotiating to take 60 per cent of the Crocker Well deposit in South Australia. *It is known that the Chinese company had approached Marathon Resources, which is also exploring for uranium in South Australia.*
Uranex took a more tentative step earlier this year by forming a loose alliance with China National Nuclear Corp. At this stage, this does not involve Chinese ownership - and, anyway, it's thought CNNC is more interested in Uranex's large Tanzanian exploration acreage rather than the Thatcher Soak project in Western Australia, at least while that state bans uranium mining. 

Remember, too, there have been hints that the Chinese are interested in investing in Olympic Dam, although BHP has shown no sign of following up on that. 

But Resource Capital Research's John Wilson says we should expect China to target more of our uranium. 

He says there has been a constant flow of executives from Australian uranium explorers making their way to Beijing in recent months. 

"It's an open market - and the Chinese have shown they're the people prepared to pay the most for these resources," Wilson says. 

"We don't appreciate their appetite for uranium," he says. 

Nor, possibly, for other metals. 

Sinosteel owns 40 per cent of Rio Tinto's Channar iron ore mine and is in a joint venture with Midwest Corp on its Weld Range hematite project and Koolanooka magnetite deposit, both in the mid-west region of Western Australia. BHP sliced off 40 per cent of its Jimblebar Pilbara operation to a consortium of four Chinese steel mills. 

Back in the mid-west, Anshan Iron & Steel has 50 per cent of Gindalbie Metal's iron ore deposits, the two companies agreeing this week to build a magnetite pellet plant in the Chinese city of Yinkou. 

In fact, the Gindalbie experience shows the efficacious side of the Chinese resources land rush. The move by Anshan (usually called AnSteel) plucked what had been a junior explorer and placed the Australian company into the ranks of industry players. The deal was seen by analysts as a company-maker. 

The other regional iron ore emerging player, Murchison Metals, opted to do a deal with South Korea's Pohang Iron & Steel - the demand in Korea for steel feedstocks is no less insatiable. 

Gindalbie managing director David McSweeney is thrilled to be in business with AnSteel. He knows, because the steel maker is essentially a government agency, that the alliance has the full support of the Chinese Government and that the relationship is rock solid and long term. AnSteel will finance the mining feasibility study, finance the mine development, finance the pellet plant in China - and buy all the mine's output. "Gindalbie couldn't be in a better position," McSweeney says. 

In June, Shougang Steel paid $52.5 million to Mt Gibson Iron to take control of the Extension Hill magnetite deposit. 

Base metals are of interest, too. Hunan NonFerrous Group is to work with Compass Resources to jointly develop the Browns base metals project in the Northern Territory, Hunan as a first step taking a $30 million placement in the Australian company. The Chinese have agreed to put up $60 million of the development cost, 70 per cent of future exploration and will be a willing buyer for Compass's cobalt output. However, the Compass uranium interests around the old Rum Jungle mine were specifically excluded from the joint venture. 

Companies still in the exploration stage are also looking to China for financial and technical lifelines. 

David Flanagan heads Pilbara iron ore explorer Atlas Iron. 

He is looking for a Chinese partner for both the direct-ship iron ore Atlas has 75km from Port Hedland and for the development of the deeper, and much larger, magnetite deposit. 

Flanagan knows the Chinese can provide the infrastructure and expertise needed to get such a project going. 

He knows, too, that this is all about our digging up the raw material, shipping it to China where it gets processed and value-added - and then some of that is sold back to us. 

"It all makes perfect sense if you come from China."


----------



## Sean K (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks for these articles YT. MTN is definately in the sights of the Chinese. As expected, not much support out there for the Crosby offer which was pretty lame really.


----------



## hector (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi guys, enjoy reading your posts. Some news from down my way for what it's worth:

"Marathon Resources Ltd have served a 'Notice of Entry' to property owners in the vicinity of the former Wild Dog Mine (Myponga, Fleurieu Peninsula SA, mined for uranium during 1954 to 1955) for the purpose of undertaking mineral exploration" - from Victor Harbor Times Sept 14th.

"They pulled 346t of uranium out of the Wild Dog mine in 1954-55, so it is a highly defined area and it is a must for us to explore its possibilities" Peter Williams, Chairman


----------



## Realist (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks Hector...

maybe we'll see some price action soon..


----------



## hector (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Nah mate, fairly ambitious vision to imagine U mine there adjacent to Adelaide water reservoir. On the other hand, Terramin got through all EPA hurdles with concerns about River Murray contamination with its Angus Zinc Project, so if high grade finds a possibility perhaps.

Any positive exploration ann is good news for SP though I suppose...


----------



## dj_420 (18 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

There are many media articles beginning to appear on the topic of uranium. i think many u players in aust will see a large re-rating. any stock that has a deposit of 30 000 tonnes plus will IMO soon enjoy a nice ride. 

it will be the quality and size of deposits that will make or break companies now. 30 000 tonnes at a med grade will provide a significant deposit for a u exp. 

we have seen u spot price increase to $52 per pound and it hasnt really flowed through to u stocks as much as what was expected. i think towards the end of the year we will begin to see a massive boom in u.

SMM and MTN my picks for aust u stocks. looking forward to SMM JORC ann regarding andersons and other tennements.


----------



## dj_420 (20 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

spot price of uranium now $53.25

so every $1 that u spot price increases means that insitu value for MTN deposit increases by around $70 million US.

i am beginning to be super bullish on uranium, think we will see some speculation driven buying soon and re-rating of solid uranium stocks, like ags, bmn, smm, mtn, pdn. some have already had a good run but i believe there is plenty in the tank for these companies.

just waiting for policy reversal, every time there is some media speculation on this topic we see a big rush to the aust u stocks.


----------



## dj_420 (20 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Got this article on u, ill post it on MTN thread but obviously just as relevant to decent u stocks


http://www.theage.com.au/news/busin...nuclear/2006/09/19/1158431711366.html?page=2#

Powerful argument for nuclear

Michael Backman
September 20, 2006
Page 1 of 2 | Single page 
IS URANIUM a good bet? If the evidence from Asia is anything to go by, the answer is yes. The economies of China and India are growing fast. Neither produce enough power for existing requirements.

The US Government's National Intelligence Council has estimated that India's energy consumption will at least double by 2020. China's will rise by 150 per cent. That heralds an environmental disaster.

Why? Because the power that both produce comes largely from the dirtiest, most harmful means: burning coal. The situation is unsustainable. Nuclear power is an obvious solution and, in a few decades, Asia could be home to at least half the world's nuclear reactors.

Coal burning accounts for about 70 per cent of the energy produced in China, compared with a global average of about 25 per cent. China wants to get this down to 60 per cent by 2020, but even if it is possible it will mean coal-generated power will dramatically increase in absolute terms.

As things stand, China uses more coal than the US, the European Union and Japan combined, and its coal consumption this year is up

14 per cent on last year. According to one report, a new coal-fired power station opens in China every seven to 10 days.

Not surprisingly, China has quickly become one of the most polluted countries. Air quality is abysmal. Official estimates are that 400,000 Chinese die each year from diseases related to air pollution. Separately, the World Bank says 16 of the world's 20 most polluted cities are in China.

Pollution levels in India are also rising but the problem is not as acute as in China. Nonetheless, India is stepping up its construction of coal-fired plants, meaning that its greenhouse gas emissions will accelerate. And given that India's population is expected to pass China's in 2030, that's a worrying trend.

Both are looking to generate more power from gas and hydro-electric schemes. But both sources will only slow the rate of growth of greenhouse gas emissions. And so nuclear energy is looking increasingly viable, and even desirable.

According to the World Nuclear Association, of the 442 operational reactors in the world, almost a quarter, or 109, are in Asia. Another 28 are under construction worldwide. Fifteen of these are in Asia. More are planned, so that in total, 285 nuclear reactors are either operational, under construction, planned or proposed for South and East Asia.

The most nuclear of Asia's economies are South Korea, Japan and Taiwan, which generate 45, 29 and 20 per cent respectively of their power from nuclear sources. China's nuclear power plants generate just 2 per cent and India's 2.8 per cent. This is when, worldwide, nuclear accounts for 16 per cent of all the power generated. There is room for growth.

A sign of things to come was the nuclear co-operation treaty between India and the US earlier this year. And the US Government's Export-Import Bank recently provided US company Westinghouse with $US5 billion in loan guarantees for bids to supply technology to build nuclear power plants in China's Guangdong and Zhejiang provinces.

Australia's agreement to sell uranium to China is instructive, as was the recent announcement that a representative of China's main nuclear power plant operator, the Chinese National Nuclear Corp, had joined the board of South Australia-based explorer UraniumSA, which is preparing to float on the stock exchange.

China plans a fivefold increase in its nuclear power capacity by 2020. It now has 10 operational nuclear reactors. With five more under construction, 13 more planned and a further 50 proposed, China expects to have at least 78 nuclear reactors in the future.

Assuming that each new plant will consume the same uranium as the average of the existing plants (in fact, the newer plants are likely to consume more), then

China's annual demand for uranium will rise to at least 10,093 tonnes, from the current 1294 tonnes.

That's almost a tenfold increase. China produces about half its current uranium needs, suggesting that almost all its future requirements will be imported.

Most of the uranium China imports probably comes from Kazakhstan, Russia and Namibia. We don't actually know because China withholds the data. Certainly, Kazakhstan is the world's fourth-biggest producer of uranium and supplies about 8 per cent of world demand. But a new source will be Australia.

As for India, its long-term plan is to increase nuclear's share of power output to 25-30 per cent by 2050. Government plans are for 47 nuclear reactors in the future, up from 14. Assuming that each new plant consumes the same uranium as the average of existing plants, then India's annual demand for uranium will be 3918 tonnes, up from 1334 tonnes. India is now self-sufficient in uranium. Eventually, it will become a net importer.

There might be some squeamishness now about China and India's nuclear programs, but if their use of fossil fuels continues to grow exponentially then it may not be long before the world actually begs China and India to build more nuclear reactors.

Even if India and China do nothing more than raise nuclear power's share of the total to the current world average, uranium has a very bright future indeed.

michaelbackman@yahoo.com


----------



## nizar (20 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

yeh i read this article at work 2day... its GOLD..


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> *According to one report, a new coal-fired power station opens in China every seven to 10 days.*



   


Thats scary!,

Back to MTN, not suprisingly the 'bid' has been 'extended' lol


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I have read several times that Sino Steel approached MTN to sign a similar deal to the one they inked with PNN,

However I feel the following paragraph from MTN's target statement shows what the directos are fighting for

*
Based on the JORC compliant inferred resource (the same resource category asMarathon’s Mt Gee deposit), and the $30.5 million cash component, this
transaction effectively values PepinNini’s in ground inferred resource at $3.42 per lb of U3O8. This compares to the implied value attributed by the Offer to the U3O8estimated to be contained in your Mt Gee resource of 48.5 cents per lb of U3O8.*

So it would appear that after crunching some numbers the chaps over at MTN feel that if Sino Steel would offer PNN an effective $3.43 per lb deal, then a deal with MTN should be worth similar, which would be 7.1134x higher than Crosby's current offer($3.42 per lb vs 0.485c per lb) 

Lets say 7x for simplicities sake, that would = $4.76 per MTN share


I doubt Sino would offer anywhere near that, but I'd be happy with a deal that valued MTN @ $2 a share


----------



## radio-active man (26 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

As seems as though buttermore has withdrawn its takeover offer. Refer to latest announcement.


----------



## deftfear (26 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think the release is regarding buttermere's application to the takeover panel, not the takeover of mtn as such.


----------



## dubiousinfo (26 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> As seems as though buttermore has withdrawn its takeover offer. Refer to latest announcement.




Crosby's (Buttermere) have not withdrawn the takeover offer.

The application that was withdrawn was in relation to Crosby's claim of deficiencies in the the Marathon Target Statement.  Marathon issued a supplementary Target Statement yesterday which has negated Crosby's claims, so there is no issue to be decided.

The takeover offer still stands till the extended date of 3 Nov.


----------



## radio-active man (26 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

thanks for the clarification. 




			
				dubiousinfo said:
			
		

> Crosby's (Buttermere) have not withdrawn the takeover offer.
> 
> The application that was withdrawn was in relation to Crosby's claim of deficiencies in the the Marathon Target Statement.  Marathon issued a supplementary Target Statement yesterday which has negated Crosby's claims, so there is no issue to be decided.
> 
> The takeover offer still stands till the extended date of 3 Nov.


----------



## Realist (26 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Butterballs should just raise their bid, they are wasting everyone's time and money with this pissant offer.

Just offer $2 a share and we'll all be happy.

I read somewhere there is no evidence of anyone whatsoever taking this offer.  Haha, that is riduculous, what on earth are they thinking, or are they pulling a sly one over us somehow?....


----------



## radio-active man (27 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Personally I feel that there has been a "very slow" accumulation between 75-85c. Once it broke the 80c resistance it should have ran and ran hard. 

Nice ploy though make an offer of 68c and buy up everything on offer between 75-85c using a different alias.

You won't shake me out.

JORC resource - arguably the 4th largest in Australia.


----------



## newbie investor (27 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> Butterballs should just raise their bid, they are wasting everyone's time and money with this pissant offer.
> 
> Just offer $2 a share and we'll all be happy.
> 
> I read somewhere there is no evidence of anyone whatsoever taking this offer.  Haha, that is riduculous, what on earth are they thinking, or are they pulling a sly one over us somehow?....



You think they will offer you $2 a share?

Crosby lost much money due to recent slump of natural gas price. I guess they've already lost US$100m. I think they will withdraw the offer very soon.


----------



## Sean K (27 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				newbie investor said:
			
		

> Crosby lost much money due to recent slump of natural gas price. I guess they've already lost US$100m. I think they will withdraw the offer very soon.




I have got a feeling this could hurt MTNs sp too.........We know it's worth more, but I've just got this feeling.......


----------



## Realist (27 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It wont hurt the stock price at all.

If no-one wants to sell at 68c, then obviously everyone thinks it worth more than that. The current SP is 76c. So you'd think it was currently undervalued.

If everyone was jumping to sell at 68c that would worry me!!

It is a waiting game, Labor party conference re: no new mines policy, MTN to move towards mining the stuff and selling it,  USA float which MTN own 8% of, and another possible takeover from a bigger player.  Who knows, but I am holding and waiting.   : 

We've had no bad news yet!!


----------



## newbie investor (28 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> It wont hurt the stock price at all.



You forget MM&E Capital? 

They aren't LT investor. They only want to earn from "takeover arbitrage". If Crosby withdraw its offer, you can imagine what they will do.


----------



## Realist (28 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				newbie investor said:
			
		

> You forget MM&E Capital?
> 
> They aren't LT investor. They only want to earn from "takeover arbitrage". If Crosby withdraw its offer, you can imagine what they will do.




 I'm not interested in temporary price changes.

I'm interested in the fact that MTN has potentially the 4th largest Uranium source in the world and it is very cheaply priced, a market cap of $29M. 
It is a waiting game... 


And thanks to MTN I should have got USA IPO shares and may make money on that enoguht o cover my iniital purchase of MTN I hope.

MTN is a hold and wait!!


----------



## radio-active man (28 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

That does sound better "4th largest Uranium source in the world' but I am not to sure how accurate that statements is.

Australia, yes and arguably the world?????? 



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> I'm not interested in temporary price changes.
> 
> I'm interested in the fact that MTN has potentially the 4th largest Uranium source in the world and it is very cheaply priced, a market cap of $29M.
> It is a waiting game...
> ...


----------



## Realist (28 September 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> That does sound better "4th largest Uranium source in the world' but I am not to sure how accurate that statements is.
> 
> Australia, yes and arguably the world??????





Would you believe the 4th largest in the known Universe?


----------



## newbie investor (3 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Takeover bid seems to be over.

Crosby finally changed its target to Orchard Petroleum. It's interesting that the offer price is A$0.68 again. I think they really like this figure.


----------



## dj_420 (3 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

its also interesting to see that the last traded price was 0.74 cents. i thought most takeovers were supposed to be above the sp otherwise ppl have no incentive to sell. 

crosby's sounds like its a very poorly run outfit. no-one will ever take them seriously with the offers they put on the table.


----------



## Realist (3 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

They made the takeover bid when MTN was 48c. But that was May during the big dip, MTN was trading over $1.10 a few months before.

They were trying their luck and it cost them money for no gain, it just made them look silly.

At $1 people would have seriously considered it, at $1.50 I think it may have happened.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (3 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The Hong Kong investment bank yesterday said it had approached the board of Melbourne's *Orchard Petroleum with a $147 million cash takeover offer.*
Meanwhile, it is still battling for control of South Australian uranium explorer Marathon Resources *after losing its $180 million bid for Tethyan Copper * to Chilean copper miner Antofagasta earlier this year.


Notice how all of there bids are $150m or $150m+

a $150m bid for MTN = $3 per share,

Given the time and expense in putting together a T/O it is highly unlikely that Crosby will walk away without even uping the bid to $1 minimum,

Also Crosby is based in Hong Kong, China is just a few hrs away, since its no secret that Sino Steel approached MTN and PNN regarding JV's and got told by MTN to take a hike, I wonder who Crosby is doing the bid for, also like I have said the Uranium SA float exposed MTN to the Chinese Nuclear Corp,


----------



## insider (8 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What does the 6 month forecast look like for MTN? There's been take over offers so perhaps there are more in future. There are upcoming reports. The Labor state of SA are very keen on mining uranium... Any thoughts... looks like an awesome investment from here... But can someone share a bit of their own research whilst I sift through their reports?


----------



## mmmmining (9 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> What does the 6 month forecast look like for MTN? There's been take over offers so perhaps there are more in future. There are upcoming reports. The Labor state of SA are very keen on mining uranium... Any thoughts... looks like an awesome investment from here... But can someone share a bit of their own research whilst I sift through their reports?





I can see MTN's price could be as low as $0.4, or as high as $4 in 6-month time depends on how the story is developed.

Let's image Cosby put all its money into Orchard, and say withdrawn the offer to MTN, I reckon all weak hands will sell down, and push down the price toward $0.4, and rebounce to $0.8 within a couple of days.

Let's image that a Chinese comany will purchase 60% of MT Gee and surrending area for $120m (use PNN as reference), $4 MTN will look cheap.

I believe a couple of bad  Pierpont reports (Aug and Dec 2005) is still haunting this stock even it is cleared by independant mining consulant company. 

I believe the biggest problem with this company is the communication. They did not address shareholder's concern in an effective way, either too academic, or with backward and inward view.

The $0.5/lb referred JORC resources is extremely cheap by any standard. The management should explain this to shareholder in great detailed plan instead of asking us just simply reject to Cosby's offer.

The only negative things I can put together are:
1. Bad  Pierpont Reports;
2. Lack of new drilling in MT Gee area;
3. Lack of info on metallurgical test of MT Gee, accessibility, and environment isssue, and government policy.
4. Lack of clarification about MT Gee resources. I figured it out the currently 31,000 ton resources only for MT Gee area only. There are several other deposits such as Mt Painter, MT painter East, Radium Ridge, Armchair, Henckinson, etc not even included. 
5. Lack of both technical and managment capacity to move the project forward quickly.  PNN is doing well by recognize their shortcoming, and find a Chinese partner.

I believe and hope time will overcome all these concerns. (I have held a bit of MTN at higher purchase price while having seen many of my other Uranium stocks' price more than doubled).  I am adding some position from time to time.

believe that Cosby's bid is not a serious one because they have not hold any MTN stocks before the offer.  Cosby has the bad habbits to jump on stock that is deeply undervalued when a lot of weak hands fold.

As the matter of factor, the low ball offer is the negative to the MTN stock price.   Just look at SMM, PDN, PNN, NEL, RPT, etc are all either recovered to near all time high from June low. Without Cosby's offer, I believe MTN will be over $1 at least.

We should express our concern to the Board. We can write to them, call them, and do want we can.


----------



## dj_420 (9 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i cant see this stock dropping to 40 cents. the crosby bid at 68 cents sets a floor for the stock, if it dropped to 60 cents i would expect to see a lot of buying at that level.

the main points are ppl are worried with MTN getting extra tennements and whether or not cleared to mine existing deposits. ie the mt gee sensitive area.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (13 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Drilling to resume at Mt Gee in a few weeks


----------



## Realist (17 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN up to 81c now, people must be expecting USA to soar tomorrow - and as MTN owns nearly 10% of it MTN will follow!  

MTN may hit 90c tomorrow because of the USA float.


----------



## mmmmining (17 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Drilling to resume at Mt Gee in a few weeks



Some interesting activities. Maybe finally it is the turn for MTN to go up. 

Having spoken to John, the MD of MTN, I fell much better now. The company is currently keeping all options open to bring the Mt Gee project forward, such as DYI, and PNN style deal. I believe the coming shareholder meeting is a good opportunity for us to press the company to move quickly.

They are busy in upgrading the resource to measured and indicated category in coming months.

I confirmed with him that current resources estimate is only for Mt Gee area only. So the several other deposits around are not included, such as MT Paint, Armchair, etc. Potential resources upgrade.

Also there is no particular problems with environment, site access, water resources other than usual requirement, situation and procedures in relation to the future Mt Gee mining application. Currently they have road access to Mt Gee.

Gee, I wish the MD can do this through an interview with media. But as a shareholder, I have the duty to share it with follow MTN invertors.

I think that if everything is going according to company's plan, the MTN will worth $4 per share, using $5/lb which is the benchmark for the U stock with JORC resources, even the company is doubling the number of share on issue.


----------



## mmmmining (19 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN finally did something right, addressed my, maybe the whole market's concern. I am not sure whether it is too little and too late. Anyway, I am happy with the actions they are taking, and wait to see the progress in unlocking the company's value.

I hope Corsby can get lost, or show us some real money.


----------



## dj_420 (19 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i think you will find that this company is grossly undervalued. ive posted a comparison chart earlier on the thread and shows that mtn is valued at around 45 cents per pound of uranium.

this pricing is ridiculous, it will only be a matter of the company converting their deposit into measured resource and we should see some sort of re-rating. 

very small amount of shares on issue make this a very attractive u player to be holding. jv with usa are in some very interesting tenements also, i have posted the grades for these tenements also.

the best thing about this company is they have 100% on the mt gee deposit. we shall see what the drilling program brings.


----------



## dj_420 (20 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

hey guys check out the sell depth on this stock.

seems a lot of buyers are stacking up and no-one wants to sell this one.
i think this is due to resuming drilling at mt gee. young trader have you got any news on this one??


----------



## mmmmining (23 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> hey guys check out the sell depth on this stock.
> 
> seems a lot of buyers are stacking up and no-one wants to sell this one.
> i think this is due to resuming drilling at mt gee. young trader have you got any news on this one??




I have decided to put MTN into my bottom draw until the the announcement of the MT Gee drilling results. But the odds is pretty high that another party may have serious look on the MTN, and provide a serious offer. There are a lot of taking around with Chineses, Japaneses, and Brozilians. I heard of Japanese neclear industry players has paid a visit to Australia recently. I believe they want to get involved in upstream to hedge against the rising and rising of uranium price. Japan is the third largest uranium consumer in the world, and have 13 reactors under-construction and planning. In addition to the power generation, it might have hiden ambition for other purpose.  

There are still some weak hands there that are willing to sell for penny profits or loss. But I am willing to take the risk for the huge return, something like at least 100%, maybe 500% from current position. More than ever I believe the downside is limited even with another short-term uranium stock correction.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If MTN moves a wee bit higher, say to 89c its a breakout and just like 80c level will become support,

If someone (Sean  ) could post up a chart it would be great,

Significant levels

*68c*: Strong Support (Placement to Bell Potter @ 66c ages ago + T/O Bid @ 68c)

*80c*: From chart now appears to be support level, significant as this was intial high back in Aug 05

*87c*: Current resistance, was Intra Day highs back in Aug 05 peaks and reached last month

If it breaks through on to $1 


Oh and surprise surprise Crosby has extended its bid until Dec 5th


----------



## dj_420 (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i think its amusing that since buttermere has extended the offer the sp has risen a few cents. i personally think the offer is absolutely ridiculous and i think with current market sentiment all MTN shareholders are laughing at buttermere's pathetic attempt to take over such a highly undervalued company.

hey YT the six monthly chart is a bit choppy but the yearly chart shows more of a trend with support and resistance lines.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks to have broken through (For now)

DJ try and use a 2 yr Candle Chart,

It is critical that you see the Aug 05 spikes, both intra-day and closing has had left levels of resistance/support,


----------



## Sean K (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

DJs chart shows that it's prety clearly trending up.

YT, agree that short term support will be around $0.80 but there is greater support around $0.70 I think. If it pulls back shortly, then this line wil prove pretty solid I reckon and would be a great place to pick some more up. Also noting that the TO offer is at $0.68, so I see this level as a floor. 

Seems to be resistance just under $0.90, but after that should rocket. I'm not sure if the April/May anomoly should be taken into consideration, but perhaps when it gets back to the all time high, the punters who bought in at that level, and are still sitting on big paper losses, will cash in, thankful they have got their money back...perhaps. Once that is sorted, on to $100.   

My 2 year weekly chart gives just a slightly diffferent perspective.


----------



## Sean K (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks to have broken out now. Like many other things. $0.93 as I speak. 

GO URANIUM!


----------



## Fab (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I am interested in buying in this one. Can anyone let me know what are the positives of this stock? I believe they already produce uranium. Can anyone let me know why this is a good stock compared to other uranium stocks? I am interested in it because it is a cheap stock at this stage.


----------



## Sean K (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Fab said:
			
		

> I am interested in buying in this one. Can anyone let me know what are the positives of this stock? I believe they already produce uranium. Can anyone let me know why this is a good stock compared to other uranium stocks? I am interested in it because it is a cheap stock at this stage.




Not producing Fab. Mt Gee has 45 m lbs inferred uranium with scope to increase it. They have now got a contractor in (Coffey) to take it to JORC indicated and measured stage. This is a massive deposit. SA is a U friendly state, unlike WA and less so QLD (I think due to having less coal) but will still probably need Labor national policy change to start mining the stuff. Check back through this thread, YT gives some good numbers on what this might be worth. If approval to mine this comes through next year, then yes, I agree, this is cheap! However, if they can't mine it, well, bummer.


----------



## Realist (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

At 93c there is no question this has broken out now!


----------



## Fab (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

kennas,

Thanks for your feedback. I am just trying to re-invest the money I just got by  selling my SMM. Sounds like MTN and SMM are very similar. I mean they will both benefit from a change in policy. Which one is the best potential uranium producer? MTN current price is the same as SMM 1 year ago   
I am wondering if I should to try to re-enter SMM or buy into MTN


----------



## dj_420 (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

im holding both SMM and MTN, pending a policy turnaround these two will be major players in aust.

just a question if and when policy does turnaround does that mean ERA are allowed to mine jabiluka or is that off limits because it is sensitive area.


----------



## Broadside (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> im holding both SMM and MTN, pending a policy turnaround these two will be major players in aust.
> 
> just a question if and when policy does turnaround does that mean ERA are allowed to mine jabiluka or is that off limits because it is sensitive area.




I don't think Jabiluka is so much about 3 mines policy, more about environmental concerns being in Kakadu


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Broadside said:
			
		

> I don't think Jabiluka is so much about 3 mines policy, more about environmental concerns being in Kakadu




Heritage listed park ? that is Kakadu not Jabiluka..........


----------



## Sean K (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Fab said:
			
		

> kennas,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. I am just trying to re-invest the money I just got by selling my SMM. Sounds like MTN and SMM are very similar. I mean they will both benefit from a change in policy. Which one is the best potential uranium producer? MTN current price is the same as SMM 1 year ago
> I am wondering if I should to try to re-enter SMM or buy into MTN




Hold both Fab. Along with AGS, possibly the 3 best non producers in the country.


----------



## radio-active man (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Not far from the $1 party again. Looking forward to $1.50, $2 ......$100 parties. 

One of the most undervalued stocks on the ASX.


----------



## Broadside (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				3 veiws of a secret said:
			
		

> Heritage listed park ? that is Kakadu not Jabiluka..........




but Jabiluka is within Kakadu which is why there is an environmental problem??


----------



## radio-active man (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Please start a new thread to talk about dumb a*se green issues.

We are trying to do our bit for the environment by extracting the green fuel from Mt Gee.


----------



## sleeper88 (25 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> please start a new thread to talk about dumb a*se green issues.
> 
> We are trying to our bit for the environment by extracting the green fuel from Mt Gee.




well guys..i hope ERA's Jabiluka deposit never gets mined, which means..all the way with Mt Gee   ..
but i must say it's highly unlikely since...for example Xstrata's mcarthur zinc operation got the nod recently.. even after environmental concerns


----------



## mmmmining (26 October 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Fab said:
			
		

> kennas,
> 
> Thanks for your feedback. I am just trying to re-invest the money I just got by  selling my SMM. Sounds like MTN and SMM are very similar. I mean they will both benefit from a change in policy. Which one is the best potential uranium producer? MTN current price is the same as SMM 1 year ago
> I am wondering if I should to try to re-enter SMM or buy into MTN




I think it is very dangerous to bet on one or two horses. The orginal uranium bug James Dines recommend to bet on a basket of uranium stocks. (unfortunately most of the uranium stocks he recommended is in TSX, Some of them are really good one. I have made some moeny indirectly through the takeover target in HMR, RPT). I try to convince him to cover more Aussie stock, so far no results. 

Anyway, we can apply his principle,  I would mind to hold some SMM, MTN, PNN, ERA, PDN, DYL, UNX, OMC, SRZ, SAU, UKL, ARU, CMR, AGC, NEL, EQN, BHP, UEQ, MRO..... It is too long to list, but the key is disversification by development stage (producer, resource, explorer), and geography (Australia, Africa, Central Asia..). I know some of them will be super stars (or already are), some of them may be ugly ducks. But as long as the uranium trend is right, you will make a lot of money!

Afterall, MTN is the horse I am betting on seriously. I will hold it for a very long-time. My average entry prices is very close to the today's closing price. I wish I have discover this good Aussie stock a year ago.  I firmly believe it worths more than $4 a share compare with other U stocks even with share base doubled.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Did I read right?

Have that arbitrage group of UBS MM&E sold out their entire position on what I calculated to be an avg price of 0.885c? ? ? ?

Thats a big overhang gone


----------



## Sean K (1 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Did I read right?
> 
> Have that arbitrage group of UBS MM&E sold out their entire position on what I calculated to be an avg price of 0.885c? ? ? ?
> 
> Thats a big overhang gone




Is that a good thing mate? Selling $1.7 m probably not that big and issue is it? They were substatial I suppose..  

Well, stock up 5+%...... 

How's study going? LOL


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (1 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Is that a good thing mate? Selling $1.7 m probably not that big and issue is it? They were substatial I suppose..
> 
> Well, stock up 5+%......
> 
> How's study going? LOL





Its a good thing if you look at it like this, if Crosby don't raise the bid and offer falls through as UBS was TakeOver arbitrage they would have sold off their position = drive the price way low to dump 2m+ shares

However now if takeover falls through there won't be as much selling (there will still be those few who were happy with downside risk limited by takeover offer and when that this appears so will they)

p.s. Study? ? Huh forgot all about it


----------



## mmmmining (2 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Its a good thing if you look at it like this, if Crosby don't raise the bid and offer falls through as UBS was TakeOver arbitrage they would have sold off their position = drive the price way low to dump 2m+ shares
> 
> However now if takeover falls through there won't be as much selling (there will still be those few who were happy with downside risk limited by takeover offer and when that this appears so will they)
> 
> p.s. Study? ? Huh forgot all about it




I agree with YT. The Crosby's takeover offer is becoming less and less relevant. I believe the market is speculating the massive Uranium resources the Mt Gee hold. When UBS has unloaded its stocks (I guess it was triggered by their investment guideline for takeover arbitrage, not by their head, if they do have one), the upside lid is removed. I added some position


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (2 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I've got radioactive feeling today about MTN .....have'nt you? ONE DOLLAR! BONG goes de dong


----------



## dj_420 (2 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Volume has picked up for MTN lately. This chart shows previous false breakout then followed by a slight pull back. Hammer candlestick is bullish and indicates uptrend is resuming and the next day it has opened on a runaway gap. Todays trading shows a clear breakout from old trading channel.

IMO this move has occured for several reasons:

- MTN is clearly undervalued and market interest is picking up 
- USA has shown large increase in SP in last two days
- Overhang of shares has been removed (UBS and MME)
- Drilling resume at Mt Gee
- Increase in uranium sector has picked up of late


----------



## Sean K (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> Volume has picked up for MTN lately. This chart shows previous false breakout then followed by a slight pull back. Hammer candlestick is bullish and indicates uptrend is resuming and the next day it has opened on a runaway gap. Todays trading shows a clear breakout from old trading channel.
> 
> IMO this move has occured for several reasons:
> 
> ...




Yep, agree here DJ. 

I'd also say that there is a lot of speculative money flowing into the market atm. Traders have come out of hybernation after the May correction and jumping on momentum everywhere. U players have been a favourite target.


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Yep, agree here DJ.
> 
> I'd also say that there is a lot of speculative money flowing into the market atm. Traders have come out of hybernation after the May correction and jumping on momentum everywhere. U players have been a favourite target.




Kennas! perfectly correctI'm with you .Also the media plugs along the political features of global warming etc etc .....and U just tags along in the background. 
Funny how times have changed,and how U is percieved to be clean,and if you saw ABC with Kerry O'Ryan( schpelling) on the 7.30 report last nite,I think CEY and Anvil mine (?) was been given the thumbs down treatment....ie very dirty stuff........enough waffle back to the project of shares.............


----------



## insider (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

OK boys... Need a quick opinion on this babe... Should I buy? Why? What are the chances of them issuing more shares? My window opprtunity is closing on another stick and I can only buy one... The problem of choice


----------



## Sean K (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> OK boys... Need a quick opinion on this babe... Should I buy? Why? What are the chances of them issuing more shares? My window opprtunity is closing on another stick and I can only buy one... The problem of choice




Yes, the problem is choice....

Throw a dart at MTN, SMM, AGS, EVE.

Any of these could do anything. 

Potential for some consolidation soon. I think the big gains have been made. 

(I hold each of above)

Sorry not to be indecisive. You really must DYOR on each of these to make a decision.


----------



## insider (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It's more the fact they've gone up so much without any drilling announcement... they seem to be good... Appreciate it Kennas


----------



## insider (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well I like the fact they're based in SA... No recent drilling results, Few sellers, steady climb and an all time high of 1.45... I got out of DYL at 27.5 cents and am happy with that... A few weeks ago I was choosing Between DYL and MTN and went DYL... that paid off but MTN would have been a great choice too... I'll see how the day will go and make a decision after lunch... Feel like a gourmet sandwich


----------



## Rafa (3 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I agree, the choices are unlimited...
its hard to pick one definitely...

but i think EVE and MTN are near certain...

will they outperform other U stocks tho???
well, in the short term, i see the sentiment dragging all Uranium stock up.

In the SHORT TERM... This could be a BIGGER story than ZINC!
(given Zinc has had a great run in Oct)


Insider, i got out of DYL too recently
looking at either USA or URA now to compensate.


----------



## insider (6 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just waiting patiently for some news!


----------



## djones (6 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Just waiting patiently for some news!




You only bought in on 3rd-November!! So hope you are patient!


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (7 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Was just about to say MTN joing the U band wagon, but then remembered drilling was meant to start early Nov, well its early Nov!


----------



## Rafa (7 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN certainly hasn't got on the U bandwagon,
most other U stocks have doubled in the last week...

MTN is barely up 30%...
what a dog!!!

   

Can't wait for the market to remember MTN again...

If they do release a few annoncements, in the current climate, $2 is not out of the question.

I am thinking of buying some more.


----------



## Sean K (7 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I was just a matter of time before they had their turn.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I'm out, had a good run from 70c to $1.20

Seems to be hitting resistance,

Good luck to holders


----------



## Sean K (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Seems like follow the leader YT. I'm on the sidelines for the moment too. 

Have held on to some SMM and AGS expecting the imminent JORC anns to keep them solid.


----------



## Rafa (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

fair point about resistance, lot of buyers from 6 months ago, when MTN was last at these levels may be looking to sell soon...

besides that, was there any other reasons for getting out?


----------



## insider (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A rise of interest rates is always a good reason... but i still hold


----------



## Sean K (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> fair point about resistance, lot of buyers from 6 months ago, when MTN was last at these levels may be looking to sell soon...
> 
> besides that, was there any other reasons for getting out?




Rafa, check what happened to MTN from May to July. That run up in April was not sustainable, and neither can this be. Might go up another 20% or maybe 50%, but nothing goes verticle for ever. Just when do you take profits? What is the trading plan? I originally bought this as a long term play thinking it would be an operator in a few years with there possibly being a takeover on the horizon. Now, I'm just been cautious. I'll wait for a decent dip to be back in.


----------



## radio-active man (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

sorry to see you guys leaving.

When evryone is buying it's probably the right time to be selling and vice versa.

US election, global crash ahhh regardless we still need energy to keep us cool in summer and warm in winter. Just ask the japanese....


----------



## dj_420 (8 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

im still holding. i believe sp still has a way to go yet. stock has received some coverage as of late and interest is picking up on internet sites. some guy called crazy john smith has been plugging it on his website. not to sure about quality of posts could be another hc promoting speccies.

i think its great that MTN has finally picked up in volume and interest. typically has traded very low on volume in the past which has meant less volatility for the sp.

i think we will see a continued general uptrend, with uranium sector right in the spotlight at the moment. may see some short term retracement but has trended a bit slower in comparison to other uranium stocks.


----------



## Morgan (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sold out of EVE this afternoon before the close as looking to finish down on previous day's close for the second day in a row.
Keeping a close watch on MTN (is starting to look overbought) but still holding while it continues to close higher than previous day's close.


----------



## Morgan (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sold out of EVE this afternoon as looking to close lower than the previous day's close for second day in a row. Still holding MTN while it continues to close higher each day (but keeping a very close eye on them!!).


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> sorry to see you guys leaving.
> 
> When evryone is buying it's probably the right time to be selling and vice versa.
> 
> US election, global crash ahhh regardless we still need energy to keep us cool in summer and warm in winter. Just ask the japanese....



U Man, 

Haven't 'left' this yet. Still very much with it, my money just isn't where my mouth is atm. But, I'm sure it will be again. 

I was just reading back through their past few anns and the advancements they have made at Mt Gee are quite impressive. They are due to ann drilling to take the current inferred resource to indicated and measured. This ann should keep MTN on the radar for most punters. Perhaps they will even increase the current resource as they are focussing on drilling to extentions to the east and south. 

They currently have inferred 68 m lb at a 300ppm cut off, and 45 m lb at 500 ppm. These are great numbers. If they increase this resource in size or quality, it would be fantastic for the company.


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just ann placement of $6m ish shares at $1.10, not far off current price. Board restructure and a ramp of the FS being done by Coffey. Not too much to get excited about.


----------



## deftfear (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think it looks pretty good, having the chinese goverment as a significant shareholder can't be a bad thing and issuing the shares at that price is pretty good considering the sp over the last 4-6 months has much less than that. It gives me good confidence in the management of the company at least.


----------



## Sean K (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				deftfear said:
			
		

> I think it looks pretty good, having the chinese goverment as a significant shareholder can't be a bad thing and issuing the shares at that price is pretty good considering the sp over the last 4-6 months has much less than that. It gives me good confidence in the management of the company at least.



Yes, CITIC on board could be a good thing. Interesting. And Mr Zeng looks like he might know a thing or two about start up operations.


----------



## djones (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Up 41.84% after brokerage, not sure what to do now.... getting edgy and thinking of selling. I should at least put a stop loss in!

EDIT: 48.64% now in 14 days.


----------



## sleeper88 (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				djones said:
			
		

> Up 41.84% after brokerage, not sure what to do now.... getting edgy and thinking of selling. I should at least put a stop loss in!




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   )


----------



## insider (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I say hold... Look at the sellers list... it's so small! 
It is important to know at what price you'd be hapy to sell at... so are you happy?


----------



## Rafa (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

hmm, i'm up 60 odd % too on initial entry, and loaded up even more two days ago in the 1.10ish range...

with the placement being at 1.10, which is rather amazing, given it barely traded at that price, ever, i think this would have to be a floor for the price from now on...

a BIG CONGRATULATIONS to the management team...

kennas's point from a few posts ago is still valid, there were lot of buyers in this range in May, so they may be looking to get out here... it needs to break the MAY high before real blue sky... but I am hold on for the ride.

Plus, with chinese on board, the sky is finally the limit with this company.

 :jump:  :jump:  :jump:


----------



## radio-active man (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Grab the bull by the horns and hold on for the ride.... As Rafa rightly pointed out. $1.10 is our new support....

Buttermores baaaaahahahahaha

Sweeeeet..... Duuude.....


----------



## 3 veiws of a secret (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well what can I say sold out today 25% profit takings,might be a bit premature,but I will be keen to re-enter this share if it takes a small slide. G'luck to holders .........just keep surfing the Uranium wave . :bowser:


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Chinese major and Aussie coal player in Marathon investment
(Thursday, 9 November 2006)

THE Australian subsidiary of major Chinese company CITIC Group, which controls more than $US100 billion in assets, and the private investment arm of Macarthur Coal boss Ken Talbot have jumped into bed with a second South Australian-based uranium explorer in less than two weeks.


----------



## Rafa (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

hmmm, did i miss something, who was the first???


----------



## Plan B (9 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

*Chinese major and Aussie coal player in Marathon investment*
Jesse Riseborough
Thursday, 9 November 2006

THE Australian subsidiary of major Chinese company CITIC Group, which controls more than $US100 billion in assets, and the private investment arm of Macarthur Coal boss Ken Talbot have jumped into bed with a second South Australian-based uranium explorer in less than two weeks.

Macarthur Coal managing director Ken Talbot

This time the coffers of takeover target Marathon Resources are set to be bolstered by a $A7.15 million placement to the pair with the funds earmarked for completion of a scoping study at the company's flagship Mt Gee project in South Australia.

Interestingly, the two players involved in the placement, Talbot Group Holdings and CITIC Group, were involved in a smaller placement late last month with fellow South Australian-based uranium explorer Southern Gold.

The Southern Gold placement to the pair raised $2.25 million at an issue price of 25c per share while the Marathon placement will be undertaken at $1.10 per share and will give them an 11.7% stake in Marathon.

Marathon was also quick to point to the placement price representing a 61.7% premium to the offer price of 68c per share made by Hong Kong-based raider Crosby Capital Partners in July.

The relationship between the three companies will also be expanded to the boardroom with the managing director of CITIC's Australian operations Chen Zeng and Macarthur Coal "associate" Denis Wood both being added to the Marathon board at the expense of Sam Appleyard and William Latimer.

Marathon said the restructure would provide the additional skills required to enhance the development potential of its Mt Gee deposit which hosts an inferred resource of 57 million tonnes at 0.06% uranium oxide for 33,000t of contained uranium oxide.

The relationship between CITIC Group and Macarthur Coal also extends to the share register with CITIC holding an 11.6% stake in the Talbot-led Macarthur.

The Chinese have shown a penchant for South Australian uranium investment of late with the southern state home to one of the more friendly uranium exploration and mining regimes in Australia.

In September, PepinNini Minerals formed a strategic alliance with major Chinese steel manufacturer Sinosteel to develop the company's Crocker Well and Mt Victoria deposits in the Curnamona province.

Shares in Marathon were unchanged in early afternoon trade at $1.19.


----------



## mmmmining (12 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Move from Las Vegas to Macau, not much change, right? The only thing I can see Macau, the mini-Las Vegas will become a giant soon. A math problems here:

1. The good old Chinese touch is still working in Uranium stocks. 
$.50 placement in PNN up over 60%
$2.50 placement in CMR up over 60%
$.25 placement in SAU up over 30%

So giving some time for MTN, what doe it worth for $1.1 placement?, $1.4 or $1.8?

Besides, the MTN is still at less $1 EV per lb resources. Still much cheaper than SMM, EME, NEL, DYL, RPT.... you name it.


----------



## radio-active man (25 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

kennas,

If you have a few spare moments can you comment on the technicals for MTN.

Lookly at the weekly candle chart I see a cup and handle formation.

I here some more Chinese whispers on this one. But my chinese is non existant and it may not be chinese but some other asian language.   

Thanks in advance.


----------



## mmmmining (25 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> kennas,
> 
> If you have a few spare moments can you comment on the technicals for MTN.
> 
> ...



Might be Japanese utilities. I would like to see the fight between Chinese and Japanese. They may well like each very much.


----------



## Sean K (26 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> kennas,
> 
> If you have a few spare moments can you comment on the technicals for MTN.
> 
> ...



Will catch up on this one tomorrow. I'm thinking about getting back in myself.


----------



## Sean K (26 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Will catch up on this one tomorrow. I'm thinking about getting back in myself.




RAM,

I don't see a cup and handle on the weekly, but on the daily there's a descending triangle with both MACD and Stochastics looking negative. Lagging indicators so not the whole story. Looks to be trending down for the minute with highs getting lower. The doji on Friday is also slightly negative indicting sellers just won the day. However, found a bit of a support line around $1.12/13 for the moment. If it starts to get a bit more support and had a couple of positive closes heading back towards resistance at $1.21/22, then keep a close eye on it. 

A break below $1.10 is a sell IMO.  
Break above $1.21 on vol a buy IMO.I will be.


----------



## radio-active man (26 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Kennas,

Thanks for the analysis. 

Take note of the no. of shares on issue... Extremely easy to manipulate imo. It was nice to c the 500,000 xtrade on friday. 

Relatively big players taking positions and looking to shake out weak hands.


----------



## dj_420 (27 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i would like to see the current sp hold today on its increase and break the descending triangle pattern. nice support is building around the 1.10 upward levels.

IMO this stock is still grossly undervalued, market cap of $44 million for a insitu resource value of $4.3 billion US dollars. seems a little off the mark to me. based on market cap this stock is still way undervalued and has got a long way to go.

large off market trade on fri 500 000 seems to point that larger people taking position.


----------



## Sean K (27 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This definately has potential to break up. Will be looking for an entry on break up to $1.21/2 ish.


----------



## Sean K (27 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> This definately has potential to break up. Will be looking for an entry on break up to $1.21/2 ish.




Looks like it could be happening. Not back in yet, but probably will be tomorrow if the support is still there. Looks like a break from a pennant (love thse things) and potential price target, if confirmed, would be about $1.60. ish.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (28 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Someones playing with the price today,

I've seen big buy orders go up at least 5-6 times now, its either 1 300k buy orderor 2 150k buy orders at the same time, 

They keep going up at $1.18-$1.21 and as soon as it looks like they'll get filled they get pulled,

Very sus indeed, anyone else notice that?


----------



## djones (28 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> Someones playing with the price today,
> 
> I've seen big buy orders go up at least 5-6 times now, its either 1 300k buy orderor 2 150k buy orders at the same time,
> 
> ...




Noticed a 300k buy at .20 almost as soon as trading opened today. In the long term though these manipulators are unimportant.


----------



## dj_420 (28 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

from charts MTN sp showed a pennant formation with last two days of trading breaking out of that pattern.

market has been down today but MTN sp showed a sig increase in interest on when it was sold down. would like to see a sustained rise now, from market depth there is some resistance around 1.30, would be good to see a break above these levels.


----------



## Sean K (28 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> from charts MTN sp showed a pennant formation with last two days of trading breaking out of that pattern.
> 
> market has been down today but MTN sp showed a sig increase in interest on when it was sold down. would like to see a sustained rise now, from market depth there is some resistance around 1.30, would be good to see a break above these levels.




I agree. This looks like it's heading up now.


----------



## Sean K (30 November 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If it holds above $1.22 then I think I'll be back into this.


----------



## Sean K (4 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks to be breaking up. I'm back in.


----------



## Rafa (4 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

welcome back...


----------



## Sean K (4 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Looks to be breaking up. I'm back in.




  

Break up confirmed!!!!!!


----------



## insider (4 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

good stuff kennas!    You did the right thing... I'm holding onto MTN at least until the federal election... MTN have, in my opinion, Huge potential! I see MTN as a stock that is a great alternative to companies like AGS and DYL that have huge market capital already


----------



## Sean K (6 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hit $1.44 but quickly retreated. Traders taking profits.

Good news for MTN though as this is an alltime high I believe. Would be nice for a positive finish, but doesn't look like it now. Spike is interesting though. People are watching this and jumping in on breakouts. Good darts.


----------



## Sean K (7 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Are there any uranium companies not going to all time highs? Might as well have just thrown a dart at the stock list and you'd hit a winner. Shooting fish in a barrell really. What a joke. 

I do like buying into these things when they break though. MTN was a classic.


----------



## Ken (7 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

anything copper, uranium, nickel,   just pumps the price up big time.

ERA $12 to $19 is a joke....

happy days if your on...


----------



## djones (7 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Ken said:
			
		

> anything copper, uranium, nickel,   just pumps the price up big time.
> 
> ERA $12 to $19 is a joke....
> 
> happy days if your on...




Happier days if you know when to get off!


----------



## insider (7 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN is such a great stock because it is the only few stocks that haven't hit a ridiculous market capital like AGS, DYL and PDN... yet... It'll probably follow suit... I reckon hold on to em for a long while... Sorry if it sounds like ramping


----------



## radio-active man (7 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

When the sp hits $10 or mtn has a mc of $500 million and you are banging the MTN drums then it might be considered ramping. At present this sooooooooooooooo undervalued...

JORC ~30,000 tonnes...
mc  ~ 50 million


----------



## Sean K (12 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN consolidating between $1.40 and $1.50 around previous all time high. 

Interesting that the Talbot Group have taken 10% of the company. Anyone know anything about this mob?

I only know it's also taken a stake in Southern Gold and has a close association with CITIC, who now have a few % of Marathon as well. Perhaps they will join forces to take MTN soon?

The results from the current drill program at Mt Gee which are being fed into the resource model to upgrade the resource won't be available until 'well after the Christmas period' so we've got a bit of a wait for further anns, unless perhaps if they hit something very significant which will probably require them to come clean with the market. They did say that the initial drill results seemed to be in line with previous drilling so expect a wait I think.


----------



## insider (12 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hmmm... I thought about and now I guess I was right... This week will be all about retracing... I hope that it doesn't close below 1.40 tomorrow... I like to see healthy figures   and I have a 1000 percent return in a year to make


----------



## Sean K (13 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Going for an all time high again...

Almost off the page.


----------



## Rafa (13 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

103882 sellers at 1.50.....
most of the buyers at 1.45...

with todays volume sitting at 326622, its going to take something big to move this outside each of the above price points...


BTW Kennas, I sold AVO...


----------



## Sean K (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN hitting a brick wall at $1.50. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!

If it doesn't get through this quick, may drop back to recoup for another run. Or fall over.   

Rafa, still holding AVO. It's back up a little with ann of go ahead of Trident.   Still, maybe it's hit it's terminal peak?


----------



## insider (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> MTN hitting a brick wall at $1.50. Come on!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!
> 
> If it doesn't get through this quick, may drop back to recoup for another run. Or fall over.
> 
> Rafa, still holding AVO. It's back up a little with ann of go ahead of Trident.   Still, maybe it's hit it's terminal peak?




We're gonna need some dynamite... There's still a long way for an announcement... It's good to see the stock go up on low volumes... Can't complain there... an interesting week... I'm still holding from 1.005 a share


----------



## Rafa (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

nothing wrong with consolodation, 
but i think holding above 1.40 is the key here,
that is the all time high, stretching back from May 06.

I am happy to risk 10 cents for a potential rocket ride thru the brick wall...    


As for AVO, the long awaited announcement has proved to be an anti climax...   

It has to be, so far, the most disasspointing stock i've held this year...
the present gold malaise is not helping either tho...


----------



## Sean K (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> nothing wrong with consolodation,
> but i think holding above 1.40 is the key here,
> that is the all time high, stretching back from May 06.
> 
> ...



Some good support for MTN today. Went down just a bit and the buyers came in.

I'm out of AVO too. Poor effort that.


----------



## insider (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> nothing wrong with consolodation,
> but i think holding above 1.40 is the key here,
> that is the all time high, stretching back from May 06.
> 
> ...





EXT has been the most disapointing stock for me... Hey If Warren buffet had to pick from all the growing U stocks he'd choose this one because it has gone up the least for what it's worth... I'm almost certain that in a month time this baby will hit 2 bucks... RAMP RAMP RAMP


----------



## mmmmining (14 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> EXT has been the most disapointing stock for me... Hey If Warren buffet had to pick from all the growing U stocks he'd choose this one because it has gone up the least for what it's worth... I'm almost certain that in a month time this baby will hit 2 bucks... RAMP RAMP RAMP




Only if there is not so many hitch-hikes. I wish The Corporate Law should be revised since so many companies have abused it in the area of share placement. I would suggest that:

1. Existing shareholder should have the priority to participating share placement of any kind.  I believe the internet auction can be a good vehicle to raise money cheaply;

2. No more than one share placement for every two years.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN consolidated nicely and ready to go up. Wouldn't be surprised if it goes at around the blue circle - about Thursday.   

Surprised it hasn't taken off with the rest of the U pack today. That $1.50 resistance proving hard yakka.


----------



## Rafa (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

its a marathon kennas...    
gotta love all things U at the moment tho...


----------



## mmmmining (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> MTN consolidated nicely and ready to go up. Wouldn't be surprised if it goes at around the blue circle - about Thursday.
> 
> Surprised it hasn't taken off with the rest of the U pack today. That $1.50 resistance proving hard yakka.



Tomorrow might be the day when UxC confirms the $72/lb uranium if not higher.


----------



## Sean K (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I was wrong. Sorry.

Broken through today. Trading $1.54 atm   

Breakout!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!!! 

Relax kennas, day's not over.


----------



## insider (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

1.58... Very Nice... Still MTN is soooooo undervalued...


----------



## mmmmining (18 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Newly appointed Director Dennis Wood has bought 136,364 MTN shares at average price of $1.44. I like it, the director is aligning his own money with the company, not just collecting directorship fee. Excellent. Should he want interest free loan, I would vote for it.


----------



## Plan B (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Come on $1.70........ Toot .....Toot..

sellers are very thin ATM..... I think they are all hiding....:hide:      lol


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

LOL, someone bought 2 shares at $1.70. Ha! 

That takeover offer at, what $0.68?, must be looking like a good offer!

Would like some further consolidation soon. This blue sky stuff worries me. The harder the run, blah blah........


----------



## Plan B (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> LOL, someone bought 2 shares at $1.70. Ha!




It wasn't me......lol......I think whoever it was had a chuckle to themselves.....lol


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A bit of nostalgia from way back in March, it was like the 4th post on MTN

Some times good things take a bit of time,

Not holding though got off @ $1.20ish level, no regrets as money has been put to good use since



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> All Aboard and quick,
> 
> If you have a look at the following Uranium Explorers you will notice some sharp price appreciations lately, EME NEL BKY MOX UXA UNX GBE
> 
> ...


----------



## mmmmining (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

$1.5 EV/lb JORC resources, can anyone find another close one? Looks like stone-age valuation.


----------



## Sean K (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> A bit of nostalgia from way back in March, it was like the 4th post on MTN
> 
> Some times good things take a bit of time,
> 
> Not holding though got off @ $1.20ish level, no regrets as money has been put to good use since



When will you reconsider it YT? Hard to get back in at this stage isn't it. Seems to have run too hard. I'm even thinking of taking some off the table soon. I suppose it depends on relative price movements etc, but the resource they have here looks pretty impressive. 

I see from one of their past anns in regard to the Paralana Mineral System at Mt Gee that they were using a 500ppm cut off in a resource estimate of 45m lbs! I wonder what it would be if they dropped that back to a 250ppm cut off?   

It's got to have another period of consolidation soon. Surely.


----------



## mmmmining (21 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Anyone listened the audio on boardroom.com? My sixth-sense tell me that Cosby might "vary the term of offer". 

Just my pure speculation, no fact. 

If can heard it too, let me know.


----------



## Plan B (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Please stop...... my sides are hurting from laughing so hard....


----------



## deftfear (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

My thoughts exactly, they can't honestly expect that anyone is going to take up their offer. It doesnt look like they are going to increase their price either as previously suggested, their offer price is about 60% lower than the current market price, and it only seems to keep going up.


----------



## JimBob (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Why would they even bother extending their offer when the share price is trading at more than $1 over their offer price?


----------



## insider (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Maybe it's a kind of dummy bidding... like at an auction... your guess is as good as mine


----------



## insider (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Maybe it's a kind of dummy bidding... like at an auction... your guess is as good as mine




Yeah now that I think of it... It really could be dummy bidding... every time the stock jumps up alot Buttermere comes out with a ridiculous bid... Why? Probably to shake the day traders and short termers out of the tree... It's just a theory but it certainly seems to work...   It also alows the company to reinvest in itself to make extra dough maybe... That's the only reason I can come up with...

What I just wrote is purely fictional and only for entertainment purposes


----------



## mmmmining (22 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Even David Tweed is more generous.


----------



## Sean K (28 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

That takeover offer from Butterbrains at $0.86 ish is looking tempting for MTN holders I reckon. LOL.

Hardly any volume today, no one wants to sell - or is that, no one wants to buy??

What an awesome chart. Surely this has to consolidate at some point. 

Market cap still only $97m ish is pretty undemanding for the resource wouldn't you think? Say, compared to SMMs $540m ish. They don't have 5 x the potential resource??? Is that right?


----------



## mmmmining (28 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

On EV/LB Resources basis, MTN is still the cheapest. Compare with the peers, it maybe worth north of $8 if there is no more placement. I think the expectation is building for the assay results. The company hinted it is in line with the estimation already. Let's see.

I still like the factor that the newly appointed director spend $200,000 own money buying MTN when the share price is rising. Pretty rare for a junior mining company's director. Usually they just wait to get freebies, but not Mr Wood.


----------



## Halba (30 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

what about the discount for the fact it is heritage listed? So many barriers to mining, chances are it will miss the u boom. have people forgotten this? see earlier posts?

You need production to make money. in the ground is useless


----------



## blobbob (30 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> what about the discount for the fact it is heritage listed? So many barriers to mining, chances are it will miss the u boom. have people forgotten this? see earlier posts?
> 
> You need production to make money. in the ground is useless




If it was herritage listed they would''nt be able to drill there!!
has a better chance of mining than Summit IMO.


----------



## mmmmining (30 December 2006)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				blobbob said:
			
		

> If it was herritage listed they would''nt be able to drill there!!
> has a better chance of mining than Summit IMO.




The market has factored in this false impression that Mt GEE cannot be mined because of heritage. At the same time,  it create the biggest unique opportunity to jump on this uranium train with dirty cheap price.

MTN has four times of resources than NEL, but NEL's EV is more than twice of MTN. you figure it out. By apply NEL's valuation, MTN should worth north of $16.


----------



## britishcarfreak (2 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Do you guys think there'll be much resistance at the $2 mark?

Would any of you risk buying in now or do you think there are other better U stocks?  I've been playing bannerman but sadly sold out a few days before the push past $2 and am too cautious to get back in.

Looking at the chart I have here the support figure seems to be back at $1.50.  Does anyone else agree that that is a reasonable risk assumption?  Still 25% would suck.  Hence my reluctance to enter this at the moment.  Comments appreciated.  Thanks guys.


----------



## Sean K (2 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				britishcarfreak said:
			
		

> Do you guys think there'll be much resistance at the $2 mark?
> 
> Would any of you risk buying in now or do you think there are other better U stocks?  I've been playing bannerman but sadly sold out a few days before the push past $2 and am too cautious to get back in.
> 
> Looking at the chart I have here the support figure seems to be back at $1.50.  Does anyone else agree that that is a reasonable risk assumption?  Still 25% would suck.  Hence my reluctance to enter this at the moment.  Comments appreciated.  Thanks guys.



I agree BCF, must be very hard to enter this with confidence right now. Looks like resistance at $1.95ish yes, and next support probably at $1.50. There must be some punters taking profits at the moment. Market cap still isn't that really demanding at under $100m I think (need to check), with the potential resource they have at Mt Gee. A possible option might be to buy in incrementally instead of all your cash in at once. If it keeps going up buy a little more, if it fails you haven't lost the house. Perhaps. I've owned this for a little while, but personally I would be concerned about buying at these levels. I'm even thinking of taking some profits. I have this in my top 3 potential U plays at the moment with SMM and AGS. (holding all) My   , others might be more bullish on the whole uranium thing at the moment and just slap a buy on anything they own. Good luck.


----------



## dj_420 (2 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

agreed. do some research and sort the potential stocks from the explorers.

IMO there are a very small number of uranium plays in australia that will make it to production. SMM, MTN and AGS been them.

still very low market cap when compared to other uranium stocks however. divide market cap by pounds of u to get a valuation on a per pound basis.

there may be some anticipation in regards to a resource update. i think there are a few who are expecting some bumper results.


----------



## dj_420 (2 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i would see this IMO as a buy when it breaks above 2.00 on confirmed breakout. prob a psychological barrier around the 2.00 mark. beyond that i would like to see strong support form around 2.00.

downside is 1.50 however it took quite a few attempts to break that point so should see strong buying support at those levels.


----------



## exgeo (5 January 2007)

*MTN Marathon Resources - Uranium in SA*

Marathon has 45.6 Mt @ 0.068% U308 (31,250 t U308 @ 0.68 kg/t) in South Australia. This is a respectable sized deposit and SA is a Uranium-mining friendly state. At the time of writing they are doing resource drilling to upgrade the JORC status from inferred to indicated or measured. They have had drill hits of around 1kg/t over 2-3m during drilling. They are the target of an off-market takeover from Crosby Capital, the same outfit who made the lowball attempt to takeover Tethyan Copper. Their offer is pitched at 68c compared to the current share price of 200c. On a market-cap per unit of uranium in the ground, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than Nova (NEL), Summit (SMM) and Energy Metals (EMM). Of course NEL and SMM have the added disadvantage of being in uranium-unfriendly states. If you want to verify this for yourself, here's the raw data which you can import into Excel as a CSV file (copy and paste the data into a text file using notepad first, then save the notepad file as "blah.csv"):

Company,U308 (t),Grade (Kg/t),Price  ©,shares,Mkt Cap ($M),Cap/Lb ($/lb)
MTN,32250,0.6,200,"43,430,000",87,1.2
ARU,3954,0.21,50,"58,132,507",29,3.3
EME,3800,2.1,388,"12,020,750",47,5.6
VUL,20000,1.8,145,"120,000,000",174,4.0
OMC,4950,0.4,50,"101,605,000",51,4.7
GGY,1200,2,7.5,"247,727,528",19,7.0
RPT,7860,0.52,16,"565,689,000",91,5.2
NEL,9000,0.6,305,"57,050,001",174,8.8
SMM,20000,2,320,"197,440,020",632,14.4
PDN,40000,0.7,800,"497,000,000","3,976",99.4


----------



## Sean K (5 January 2007)

*Re: MTN Marathon Resources - Uranium in SA*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> Marathon has 45.6 Mt @ 0.068% U308 (31,250 t U308 @ 0.68 kg/t) in South Australia. This is a respectable sized deposit and SA is a Uranium-mining friendly state. At the time of writing they are doing resource drilling to upgrade the JORC status from inferred to indicated or measured. They have had drill hits of around 1kg/t over 2-3m during drilling. They are the target of an off-market takeover from Crosby Capital, the same outfit who made the lowball attempt to takeover Tethyan Copper. Their offer is pitched at 68c compared to the current share price of 200c. On a market-cap per unit of uranium in the ground, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than Nova (NEL), Summit (SMM) and Energy Metals (EMM). Of course NEL and SMM have the added disadvantage of being in uranium-unfriendly states. If you want to verify this for yourself, here's the raw data which you can import into Excel as a CSV file (copy and paste the data into a text file using notepad first, then save the notepad file as "blah.csv"):
> 
> Company,U308 (t),Grade (Kg/t),Price  ©,shares,Mkt Cap ($M),Cap/Lb ($/lb)
> MTN,32250,0.6,200,"43,430,000",87,1.2
> ...




xgeo, The first figure I tried to corroborate here was the 20000 t U that you say SMM have which is about 44m lb U3O8.  

SMM currrently have 57m lbs JORC in a 50/50 JV with PDN in the IUJV, which brings their component to 28.5m lbs. They have about 8 other projects to be JORCed shortly. 

How can I trust any of the other figures?


----------



## hector (5 January 2007)

*Re: MTN Marathon Resources - Uranium in SA*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> Marathon has 45.6 Mt @ 0.068% U308 (31,250 t U308 @ 0.68 kg/t) in South Australia. This is a respectable sized deposit and SA is a Uranium-mining friendly state. At the time of writing they are doing resource drilling to upgrade the JORC status from inferred to indicated or measured. They have had drill hits of around 1kg/t over 2-3m during drilling. They are the target of an off-market takeover from Crosby Capital, the same outfit who made the lowball attempt to takeover Tethyan Copper. Their offer is pitched at 68c compared to the current share price of 200c. On a market-cap per unit of uranium in the ground, they are an order of magnitude cheaper than Nova (NEL), Summit (SMM) and Energy Metals (EMM). Of course NEL and SMM have the added disadvantage of being in uranium-unfriendly states. If you want to verify this for yourself, here's the raw data which you can import into Excel as a CSV file (copy and paste the data into a text file using notepad first, then save the notepad file as "blah.csv"):




Thanks exgeo,

I'm new to fundamentals, but just looking at your data it seems:

MTN has 10% shares listed as PDN for a 75% size/grade resource
MTN sp is 25% of PDN
 - this implies each share has 7.5x value of resource backing for 1/4 of the sp, ie a value advantage of 30x !!??

How's my maths?


----------



## exgeo (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

On page 6 of SMM's latest annual report it is stated that the company "controls over 70 Mlbs" of JORC resources. This is 31,800t U308. It is not made clear whether this means 100% control. Even assuming they have only 50% of that amount (ie/ 16,000t) there seems little doubt that the resource will be upgraded very substantially given the intersections they've been reporting thoughout the year. I would encourage anyone to verify for themselves any information they read on this site before making an investment.

If SMM win the court case that they are prosecuting against Resolute then they may end up with 100% of the IUJV, or at least an "option to purchase the other 50% interest on commercial terms".

It seems EME may also report a significant resource increase due to recent drilling having extended the Bigyrli deposit down dip. MTN's overall tonnage may not change that much as they drilling mainly to increase the level of confidence in the existing resource, not extend it. But they are a lot cheaper to start with, and don't have political problems. NEL may also increase the resource tonnage a bit, but not by more than 10-20% I would guess. They are also drilling to increase the level of confidence and fill in some gaps in the previous drilling which may of course lead to a tonnage increase. As a guide to the prices companies are putting on resources in the ground, you can look at the values of Redport and Valhalla when they were taken over (the SP and no. of shares listed in my data). Of course the U308 price has increased substantially since then partly due to Cigar Lake in Canada flooding and delaying the opening of this new mine which was supposed to open in 2008.


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> On page 6 of SMM's latest annual report it is stated that the company "controls over 70 Mlbs" of JORC resources. This is 31,800t U308. It is not made clear whether this means 100% control. Even assuming they have only 50% of that amount (ie/ 16,000t) there seems little doubt that the resource will be upgraded very substantially given the intersections they've been reporting thoughout the year. I would encourage anyone to verify for themselves any information they read on this site before making an investment.
> 
> If SMM win the court case that they are prosecuting against Resolute then they may end up with 100% of the IUJV, or at least an "option to purchase the other 50% interest on commercial terms".
> 
> It seems EME may also report a significant resource increase due to recent drilling having extended the Bigyrli deposit down dip. MTN's overall tonnage may not change that much as they drilling mainly to increase the level of confidence in the existing resource, not extend it. But they are a lot cheaper to start with, and don't have political problems. NEL may also increase the resource tonnage a bit, but not by more than 10-20% I would guess. They are also drilling to increase the level of confidence and fill in some gaps in the previous drilling which may of course lead to a tonnage increase. As a guide to the prices companies are putting on resources in the ground, you can look at the values of Redport and Valhalla when they were taken over (the SP and no. of shares listed in my data). Of course the U308 price has increased substantially since then partly due to Cigar Lake in Canada flooding and delaying the opening of this new mine which was supposed to open in 2008.



Thanks for the info exgeo (ex geologist?)

That's the problem with rating a lot of these explorers at the moment as many have results to be JORCed in the comming weeks/months and they contiue to drill to extend their projects. Perhaps the reason why someone like PDN has a higher ration of lbs to market cap is because they are actually about to produce. Also, perhaps SMMs is so high because they actually have a JORC and have another 6-8 on the way? There seems to be a lot of vaiables when trying to come up with the best value, or most undervalued stock in the U sector at the moment....I'd like to be able to see which has the most potential relative to market cap to make a decision on what to buy.

(U holdings: SMM, AGS, MTN, WME, BMN, EXT, BHP)


----------



## exgeo (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well as you can see from my (as pointed out, imperfect!) market cap/lb listed above, MTN is the cheapest out of the ones I researched. This research was done over Christmas 2005 and has been updated as new info came to my attention. A reader could use it as the basis for their own spreadsheet and add their own stocks- my reason for posting it was just to highlight a method of ascertaining relative value.

Comparing the explorers to PDN one can see what might happen if any of them ever get into production! NEL currently have GRD Minproc working on a feasibility study on their Lake Way deposits (GRD did the engineering for Langer Heinrich). By the way, I am a former geologist, and worked for Acclaim Uranium until 1999. Acclaim (subsequently renamed Aztec Resources) sold Langer Heinrich to PDN for "the price of a cut lunch" as I saw one other poster on this forum write! I also did limited work at Centipede (NEL) and various other calcrete uranium projects around WA. Since 2004 I've been mining the stocks market for profits instead of kicking rocks.


----------



## Sean K (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> Well as you can see from my (as pointed out, imperfect!) market cap/lb listed above, MTN is the cheapest out of the ones I researched. This research was done over Christmas 2005 and has been updated as new info came to my attention. A reader could use it as the basis for their own spreadsheet and add their own stocks- my reason for posting it was just to highlight a method of ascertaining relative value.
> 
> Comparing the explorers to PDN one can see what might happen if any of them ever get into production! NEL currently have GRD Minproc working on a feasibility study on their Lake Way deposits (GRD did the engineering for Langer Heinrich). By the way, I am a former geologist, and worked for Acclaim Uranium until 1999. Acclaim (subsequently renamed Aztec Resources) sold Langer Heinrich to PDN for "the price of a cut lunch" as I saw one other poster on this forum write! I also did limited work at Centipede (NEL) and various other calcrete uranium projects around WA. Since 2004 I've been mining the stocks market for profits instead of kicking rocks.



You're input here is much appreciated exgeo. Cheers. 

LOL about you working for Acclaim. I've held them on and off for 10 years. My first foray into them was when a 'friend' told me (not a cabbie) that a 'friend' of theirs was a geo for Acclaim and they had hit some gigantic gold deposit in WA that would send it's sp from $0.05 to $1.00!, and it was going to be ann shortly. I subsequently told all my friends, and even my dad bought some. It went up about 5% after the ann and then crashed down again. I'm now holding AEX again.   I forgot to include it my above list. 

Getting back to MTN, I have done similar calcs to see which might be the most undervalued U play atm and I tend to agree that MTN might be one of the better ones considering resource to market cap. That's why I hold it. 

I'll try and download your speadsheet there and maybe update the figures to take in any recent anns. 

Thanks.


----------



## exgeo (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

yes, of course all these things are moving targets, as they announce resource increases and so on. The idea is not to say one company is 10% cheaper than another, merely to spot glaring "order-of-magnitude" anomalies such as how undervalued MTN is compared to other uranium companies.


----------



## mmmmining (7 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> yes, of course all these things are moving targets, as they announce resource increases and so on. The idea is not to say one company is 10% cheaper than another, merely to spot glaring "order-of-magnitude" anomalies such as how undervalued MTN is compared to other uranium companies.



Exgeo, I am glad you are in your name sake, May I ask you  a couple of questions about MTN:
1. Since they have drilled a few holes, can they do the scintillometer log to measure radiation of each hole, and calculate the eq. ore grade? I guess by doing so, we can have a quick results

2. How accurate that their resources model is, and how good is their geology interpretation for Mt Gee Area is?

Thanks.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

LOL. I took profits on MTN yesterday and what do you know - ann released with some outstanding new interesection which will probably significantly increase the resourse!!


----------



## Plan B (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> LOL. I took profits on MTN yesterday and what do you know - ann released with some outstanding new interesection which will probably significantly increase the resourse!!




Its always the way Kennas....lol

A big buy went through yesterday morning & also in the previous week......I thought something was up....


----------



## dj_420 (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

great results from MTN today. drill sections have identified larger extent of high grade and very thick mineralisation along north west end of resource.

IMO i think this one will be a lot larger than 69 million pounds once fully drilled. remember this is only the first results. a lot more drilling to go but resource remains open in all directions.

hasnt been a huge increase on sp as anticipated. market cap is still around 100 million which considering resource and uranium friendly state is still undervalued when compared to MTN peers.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				dj_420 said:
			
		

> great results from MTN today. drill sections have identified larger extent of high grade and very thick mineralisation along north west end of resource.
> 
> IMO i think this one will be a lot larger than 69 million pounds once fully drilled. remember this is only the first results. a lot more drilling to go but resource remains open in all directions.
> 
> hasnt been a huge increase on sp as anticipated. market cap is still around 100 million which considering resource and uranium friendly state is still undervalued when compared to MTN peers.



Would have to agree here dj. Some of those grades make it better quality than Beverley 4 Mile, but not sure how the depths make it, or the type of deposit make it....

(not holding MTN now   )


----------



## Rafa (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

what to you make of the current market depth?
doesn't look like it will break $2 today, probably bad timing with the release of the result... on a normal Uphoric day, and this would have flown!

probably gives you time to get back in Kennas, if you haven't re-invested the cash elsewhere...


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> what to you make of the current market depth?
> doesn't look like it will break $2 today, probably bad timing with the release of the result... on a normal Uphoric day, and this would have flown!
> 
> probably gives you time to get back in Kennas, if you haven't re-invested the cash elsewhere...



I'm using the money to buy bandaids for my BDG wounds.....

You're right, last week this ann would have sent it up 20%. Was up there for a little while but came off.....


----------



## exgeo (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

1/ Marathon's resource model up to date looks pretty conservative to me. It seems like they've excluded some large areas of former drilling from the resource calculation because the drilling density was not great enough to include this area, despite indications of mineralisation. This is one of the aims of the current drilling.

2/ As can be seen from Today's announcement, MTN are using gamma logging (the eU308 values- "equivalent U308") to determine in-situ grades and confirming the results with chemical assays. If disequilibrium has occurred (if the deposit is very young for example) then the gamma logging may not give the correct U308 values, hence the chemical assays as a confirmatory check. This will also serve to check the calibration of the logging tool as well.

The poster who mentioned that the grades are higher than 4-mile well is comparing apples and pears. 4 mile/Beverly will be an ISL (In-situ-leach) mine in all probability. This means they only have to drill some wells and inject an acid solution which dissolves out the uranium. A central collection well then extracts the uranium solution. MTN's deposit is hard-rock (haematite breccia) and needs to be physically dug up, necessitating an open pit or underground mine, depending on depth. Obviously this costs more.


----------



## Sean K (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> The poster who mentioned that the grades are higher than 4-mile well is comparing apples and pears. 4 mile/Beverly will be an ISL (In-situ-leach) mine in all probability. This means they only have to drill some wells and inject an acid solution which dissolves out the uranium. A central collection well then extracts the uranium solution. MTN's deposit is hard-rock (haematite breccia) and needs to be physically dug up, necessitating an open pit or underground mine, depending on depth. Obviously this costs more.



Excellent, thanks for this info, I've always wondered the difference in the type of deposit, but too lazy to investigate it further. Some investor!   

So that's why AGS's deposit has been rated so highly, even before a JORC?


----------



## Rafa (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks exgeo for sharing your knowledge...


----------



## mmmmining (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> 1/ Marathon's resource model up to date looks pretty conservative to me. It seems like they've excluded some large areas of former drilling from the resource calculation because the drilling density was not great enough to include this area, despite indications of mineralisation. This is one of the aims of the current drilling.



Also MT Gee, the current JORC resources area is only one of the deposit. (the white area in on the map) There are small deposits at Armchair, Streitberg, Radium Ridge, Mt Painter, EastPainter, and Hodgkinson in Paralana Mineral System. For example, the drilling results for Hodgkinson does not lead to any resources estimate.


----------



## hitmanlam (9 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks exgeo.  Very informative post.  You and YT are my idols!  

Cheers to exgeo & YT.   :bier:


----------



## panem (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Greetings from Germany!

Currently I am holding 15 different uranium stocks.

But Marathon will be the star in 2007.

A 10-bagger.

JORC and  in-situ?

70 mio. lbs?

A reasonable marketcap of about 1,5 billion.

Just wait some month.


----------



## Sean K (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				panem said:
			
		

> Greetings from Germany!
> 
> Currently I am holding 15 different uranium stocks.
> 
> ...



From what we've seen in the U threads, MTN seems to be a little undervalued to me. I'm not sure about $1.5b as a market cap..... Need further analysis to make that seem plausible........ 


(not holding)


----------



## panem (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> From what we've seen in the U threads, MTN seems to be a little undervalued to me. I'm not sure about $1.5b as a market cap..... Need further analysis to make that seem plausible........
> 
> 
> (not holding)





Yes - these are the words by far East Capital Research on Marathon -BEFORE- the recent update....

But even 700 Mio. would be a tenbagger...

Compare the resources to UrAsia or Summit - by quality AND lbs...

I could give you some links, if needed.


----------



## Sean K (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				panem said:
			
		

> Yes - these are the words by far East Capital Research on Marathon -BEFORE- the recent update....
> 
> But even 700 Mio. would be a tenbagger...
> 
> ...



Thanks Panem, A lot of analysis has already gone into MTN throughout the thread, but with the number of posts it sometimes get lost. If you have some information handy that would help others make a trading decision, would be much appreciated. Cheers.


----------



## panem (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It is quite easy to evaluate:

These are the new results as they came thru the official ASX news:

PARALANA MINERAL SYSTEM
SIGNIFICANT INTERCEPTS FROM DRILLING AT MT GEE
UPDATE OF CURRENT RESOURCE DRILLING
Marathon Resources is pleased to announce that recent drilling at Mt Gee has intersected significant
uranium mineralisation in the western part of the deposit. The Mt Gee deposit is part of the11-12 km
NE extending uranium-rich Paralana Mineral System within Marathon's 100% owned EL 3258
(Figure 1).

Downhole gamma logging results from RC06MN22 and another 12 gamma logged holes of the Mt
Gee drilling program (see Summary of Intercepts in the table below) demonstrate the presence of high
grade mineralisation and significant thickness of intersections, including:

RC06MN17:
98 to 128m:
30m @ 0.08% eU
3
O
8
Including
98 to 104m:
6m @ 0.15% eU
3
O
8
114 to 118m:
4m @ 0.22% eU
3
O
8
RC06MN21:
171 to 188m:
17m @ 0.07% e U
3
O
8
Including
171 to 179m:
8m @ 0.11% eU
3
O
8
RC06MN22:
153 to 230m:
*77m @ 0.12% eU
3*
O
8
Including
174 to 185m:
11m @ 0.16% eU
3
O
8
204 to 208m:
4m @ 0.19% eU
3
O
8
RC06MN25:
113 to 182m:
69m @ 0.07% eU
3
O
8
Including
117 to 182m:
5m @ 0.14% eU
3
O
8

It should be emphasised that these results are preliminary and the gamma logging will be
confirmed by geochemical analysis. The gamma tool used in the logging program was
calibrated at the Adelaide Model test pits prior to the commencement of logging.

Analysis of the new drilling data demonstrates that increased thickness and high grade zones
are focused approximately 150 m north-west of the area identified by Exoil, CRA (Rio Tinto)
and Goldstream Resources in their exploration drilling programs in the past (Figure 2). Results
of those programs yielded the chemical analyses indicated below:
Exoil MG101:
169.2 to 210.3m
41.1m @ 0.16% U
3
O
8
CRA DD91GE33:
234.0 to 281.1m
47.1m @ 0.16% U
3
O
8
Goldstream PD99GE03:
148.0 to 196.0m
48.0m @ 0.17% U
3
O
8
The new Marathon's drill hole intersections suggest a much larger extent of high grade and very
thick mineralisation along the north-west trend, as previously interpreted based on historical
drilling results, and the results are consistent with the Company's exploration and resource model
of the deposit.
The purpose of the current drilling is to upgrade the resource definition of the Mt Gee deposit from
inferred to indicated and/or measured category. During the period 17.11 - 18.12.2006, the first 18
drill holes, all located in the western part of the deposit, for about 3,500 m RC drilling of the 93


*The Mt Gee deposit, with its Inferred Resource of 45.5 million tonnes of uranium
mineralisation averaging 0.068% U

, or 69 million pounds of contained U

, is one of
Australia's largest undeveloped uranium deposits.*

As noted in the Company's ASX Release of 19 December 2006, the current drilling program at
Mt Gee was suspended on 18 December 2006 for the Christmas break with 18 holes
completed. Drilling recommenced on 4 January 2007.


----------



## panem (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Next step:

Consider this very carefully:

(even with grades only HALF of the recent results)

http://members.iinet.net.au/~bartle/Picture 8.png


----------



## panem (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Now listen to the analysis from Far East Capital ltd (no linking allowed, but google for the latest analysis from december 2006) on the whole uranium sector and most of the Australien u-stocks:

http://www.fareastcapital.com.au/research.asp?catID=67


Grigor was quite unsure how to deal with Marathon and emphezising Acclaim and Monaro caused by the higher grades.

But IF the newest results will lead into a JORC - and that I will put at 85%- than the way up to much higher stockprices should be clear.

Spoken VERY conservative...

Even at 0,08 and 40 mio.lbs it would be a great value.


----------



## insider (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				panem said:
			
		

> Now listen to the analysis from Far East Capital ltd (no linking allowed, but google for the latest analysis from december 2006) on the whole uranium sector and most of the Australien u-stocks:
> 
> http://www.fareastcapital.com.au/research.asp?catID=67
> 
> ...




Great Sources of info   I wonder what they'd say about MTN since they've now put out some results and have hit 2.22 at one stage...


----------



## insider (13 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				panem said:
			
		

> Greetings from Germany!
> 
> Currently I am holding 15 different uranium stocks.
> 
> ...




If only it were true!


----------



## panem (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> If only it were true!




Just wait.

Marathon is very weak at PR.

Look at Ditem Exploration for ex. : The CEO is making a tour across Europe (it is an ex-minister from Canada) granting information about Ditem searching for uranium at the athabasca basin.


In other words: They are grass-root, worth 10 mio bucks but they go on tour.

I know, nearly NOBODY in Europe knows that Marathon exists - and those who know doesn't know the grades or lbs they have.

THAT is the problem.

Kisses,

panem


----------



## mmmmining (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				panem said:
			
		

> Just wait.
> 
> Marathon is very weak at PR.
> 
> panem




It is true. They did very little on PR. I believe it is a good thing for investors. The management is using the money wisely.


----------



## panem (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yes, indeed.


Look at the homepage...


Compare it to Wildhorse or ESO Uranium...


OK: In the end it is the lbs. that matter.

But anyway: At least the NAME should be known.


----------



## Pat (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Does anyone have any idea what really happend with MTN great ann? As said before a week earlier it could of gone to $2.40. Chart looks like a little  down trend but hasn't broken it's long term line, some support seems to have built. but how long can this dream run continue. I'm out @ $1.96 as i feel urainium is comming to a close.... can't loose $$$ taking profits... Any thoughts?


----------



## Sean K (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Pat said:
			
		

> Does anyone have any idea what really happend with MTN great ann? As said before a week earlier it could of gone to $2.40. Chart looks like a little  down trend but hasn't broken it's long term line, some support seems to have built. but how long can this dream run continue. I'm out @ $1.96 as i feel urainium is comming to a close.... can't loose $$$ taking profits... Any thoughts?



Oversold on stochastics, RSI still well above 50, and the MACD is negative...doesn't paint a picture to me. If you look at the summaries of all the U stocks though, this still seems undervalued in Market Cap/Lbs U3O8.

I thought that ann was excellent also....  

(not holding)


----------



## trueblue (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I got in very late according to past posts. But having read that Talbot and CAL were buying in, I decided to go with the flow. Bought at $1.09 and still made a tidy profit.


----------



## mmmmining (15 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				trueblue said:
			
		

> I got in very late according to past posts. But having read that Talbot and CAL were buying in, I decided to go with the flow. Bought at $1.09 and still made a tidy profit.



$1.09 is a good price. I added some more at $1.60 after the newly appointed director spend $200,000 on it at $1.44. I will buy more if I have some spare money.  It is still the cheapest comparing with other uranium stocks on EV/lb resources basis.


----------



## Rafa (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Marathon is waking up from its slumber, should only be a matter of time before it breaks its intra day all time high on the day of the announcement...

I hope no long termers sold in the recent correction...


----------



## Pat (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN finally held on a good day, havent seen this since it's ann. WOW!
Chart still looks great, still above the trend and the 20 day MA.
MACD coming up.

Yes I sold in during the correction (Was it even a correction?) 
Shame on me!   

But i'm sure i'm not the only one, will learn from this though, trust the charts and the indicators.

Thumbs up to who ever held....


----------



## insider (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

100% of my portfolio is MTN... been holding since $1.005... those who sold and cashed in did well... don't deny it


----------



## Morgan (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yes I sold in during the correction (Was it even a correction?) 
Shame on me!   


Pat,

It's never wrong to be stopped out on a stock that seems to be going against you at that point in time. The market does not care how much you may personally like a particular stock.
Hindsight always occurs after the fact!!
Those who don't use stops are just waiting to learn the lesson the hard way- I did!


----------



## Rafa (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

there certainly is a place for stops...
but for volatile stocks like these, i find its better to consider the trend...
i.e. sell when the trend changes.

in this case, i didn't think the trend changed, unless it closed under 1.80, hence i didn't sell.

The risk is tho you must be willing to loose more than your normal stop loss limits.


----------



## panem (19 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

We still need some strong news and more substantial results from the drillings to underline the possible value that might develope here.

AND the IR hould be much more active - since even Monaro is in Europe to create some contacts.


-------------
"Der Letzte zahlt die Rechnung, meine Herren!"


----------



## hitmanlam (25 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just thought i'd give an update on MTN.  Not alot of comments recently.  I can understand why.  Steady as a rock.

Here the chart for MTN.  As you can see, general trend is up.  Previous resistance was at $2.10.  Broke that a couple of days ago.  MACD is also looking good.  Volume is pretty much the same for as long as i could remember.  A thinly traded stock.  That's understandable with a small market cap.

There won't be alot of suprises for the future for MTN.  I think it will be a slow & steady climb all the way to whatever the fair value is for this stock.  (Look at the EV/lb U308).

I think it will continue to go up with one of the best fundamentals in the U sector.  (regardless whether its an instu leech mine or not, the fundamentals are still great!)  The lead up to the possible change in policy in April will give the sp abit of a boost as with all Aus U stocks.  Besides that, i don't think there will be too many suprises.  Patient holders will be rewarded.


----------



## mmmmining (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Who let the dog out? 

If the drilling results really match the company's resources modeling, it will be fantastic! On peer's EV/lb resources basis, such as SMM, and EME, It is a $12-$20 dollars stock! Am I wrong in calculation? You can prove it.

Mt Gee is only one of the deposit in the Paralana Mineral System which has JORC resources. There are several satellite deposits, such as Radium Ridge, Mt Painter, East Painter, Armchair, Streitberg, and Hodgkinson.

New director Dennis Wood's $200,000 is well spent, his paper profit is worth more than $150,000 in six weeks. It just shows you how strong the buying signal is when a small company's director spend  a lot of his/her own money buying stock!


----------



## siempre33 (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

who said it would be "slow and steady"? ... Marathon up 18%+ today,
quite a "ground-breaking" day for the sp... I will recommend this stock to a friend...


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

How far she's come since my first posts on her back in March 06, oh how unloved she was then at 60c



			
				YOUNG_TRADER said:
			
		

> The tennement they have that is heritage listed is 'Fleureau Penninsula' which is near adelaide and no where near its main deposits of Mt Gee, Hodgkinson and Armchair, correct me if I'm wrong
> 
> 
> JORC Contained U3O8 tonnes
> ...


----------



## Plan B (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Look what happens when i go away for the day....lol

Market cap still only $142 million at share price $2.85  

So what is going to happen after April 2007 labour conference????


----------



## Morgan (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yet another offer extension today from Buttermeres to take the stock off your hands for 68c !
:screwy:


----------



## hitmanlam (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

My slow & steady prediction was totally wrong.  But hey, who am i to complain....   

Anyways, comparing this to other U stocks & their EV/lb ratio, (around $5 being the market standard) this stock has still a fair way to run yet.  A technical breakout plus good fundamental supporting this breakout is a very good sign me.

Current EV/lb = $2, SP = $2.80
U sector = $5

You do the maths.......


----------



## Mellow77 (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

To do the maths is nice but as was stated above there are different types of resources and more importantly types of mining them. To simply take a ratio of price per lib from another company and use it as a comparison for another is not very sophisticated...

I sold half of my holding today unfortunately in early morning for 2.55 which I bought @ 1$ not long ago. It was meant to be my second short... Again as with ERA (my first) the short seems not to bring any profit... But patient is my second name (hahahahaha).

This uranium bull seems to be unstoppable.

Going to have a nice dinner & red wine (which is very nice in Oz) thanx to MTN 

Cheers!


----------



## Realist (29 January 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Mellow77 said:
			
		

> I sold half of my holding today unfortunately in early morning for 2.55 which I bought @ 1$ not long ago.




Yeeouch, it closed at $2.85.


----------



## CartmanR (1 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Isn't Western Australia a no go with uranium, and hasn't the SA Government guaranteed they won't mine on the Fleurieu Peninsula, which is where they're currently hoping to get into?


----------



## hitmanlam (2 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Going for abit of a run this one.  I think it will steadily increase till April's announcement on policy.  Still alot of upside when you think the amount of resources they've got.

Glad i picked up this one before it ran.  40% in the last couple of weeks!


----------



## mmmmining (2 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN is out of control. It looks like the bias on MTN is gradually disappeared. People start to associate MTN with SMM, NEL, and EME. Still market cap. less than $200m, less than $3/lb resources, still the cheapest one amount the major juniors.

Funny to notice that NEL has the same SP ($3.25) today, and similar market cap (with much less cash $2m vs $8m though). but has less than 1/3 of the uranum resources (NEL 9000t vs MTN 31,255t). 

Simply apply NEL's valuation, MTN's SP should be over $10!!! It explains why the steady and continues upwards of MTN's SP. 

Another good thing is $8m in the bank will keep MTN running for a couple of years without dilute the share base.

I guess for whoever still not on the uranium express, MTN is still waiting for them on the station. But time is running out....


----------



## insider (2 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> MTN is out of control. It looks like the bias on MTN is gradually disappeared. People start to associate MTN with SMM, NEL, and EME. Still market cap. less than $200m, less than $3/lb resources, still the cheapest one amount the major juniors.
> 
> Funny to notice that NEL has the same SP ($3.25) today, and similar market cap (with much less cash $2m vs $8m though). but has less than 1/3 of the uranum resources (NEL 9000t vs MTN 31,255t).
> 
> ...




I have the same sentiment as you MMMMMMMINING


----------



## UraniumLover (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN is still undervalued. This road train has another 100 % + Growth rate  in it if you compare it to other shares in the Uranium sector like EME,AGS on Market Capitilisation / t u308 basis. I'm riding this BULL all the way to production . UP over 100% crazy , best performer by far in my Uranium Portfolio.
UraniumLover


----------



## Halba (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

doubt $10 for this

SMM has i reckon 150-200mil pounds on their tenements, and that also about $3-4/EV a lb concurrently. SMM has lower operating costs, not on a heritage listed property, open cut mine, and also higher forecast output rates etc etc.


----------



## radio-active man (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

smm hs beattie to contend with. I put this fact down as their biggest risk.

Don't forget even though the federal party may have a change in heart re: the 3 mines policy. This change does not automatically come into effect in each of the states.

State and Federal politics is a dirty game.

Lot's of positives and negatives on both SMM and MTN atm. The mc is one of MTN strengths as it allows for plenty of ST and LT growth.


----------



## champ2003 (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> doubt $10 for this
> 
> SMM has i reckon 150-200mil pounds on their tenements, and that also about $3-4/EV a lb concurrently. SMM has lower operating costs, not on a heritage listed property, open cut mine, and also higher forecast output rates etc etc.




How many shares does SMM have on offer though? I'm not sure. Thats something to look in to also.


----------



## spooly74 (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				radio-active man said:
			
		

> smm hs beattie to contend with. I put this fact down as their biggest risk.
> 
> Don't forget even though the federal party may have a change in heart re: the 3 mines policy. This change does not automatically come into effect in each of the states.
> 
> ...




Beattie has said in many interviews that whatever the party decides in April at the conference ... the QLD Gov will follow suit. Here is a couple of quotes from the man himself ...

_PETER BEATTIE: I don't want to do anything that's going to undermine the coal industry, but the future of uranium's in the hands of the national ALP conference.

REPORTER: Will the national ALP conference stand in the way of Queensland benefiting from a uranium bonanza?

PETER BEATTIE: Let me assure you, nothing involving the Labor Party or anyone else will stand in the way of Queensland's advancement or development._ ...abc.net


----------



## TheAbyss (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

IMO Mr Beattie will claim all decisions that are favourable and play teflon man (nothing sticks) with anything potentially damaging to the party or himself. He has a long history of playing the media.

The fact that he is saying that the nuclear decision is out of his hands is a strong pointer towards it getting a go ahead.

The coal miners are major contributors and he wont want to risk their ire so he will be want to be seen as towing the federal line. The less he involves himself the more likely the outcome to be a positve one for the U308 companies. After all he is not going to stand still if he can maximise some gain. We are not seeing him beating his chest and denouncing U308 and supporting alternatives such as coal (clean or otherwise or CSM gas.

All just my opinion bases on what most Qlders see on a regular basis.


----------



## Halba (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

imho st and lt growth mean nothing when a company can;'t produce. your money is okay in a bubble, but when people realise these things can't produce then whats the point?????

i don't see MTN producing in time, and its production(1000t) won't be meaningful when it does start to produce

The environmental approval process for MTN (as it is in a sensitive area) is going to be complex. Look at terramin on how it was handled, and that was a small mine.


----------



## champ2003 (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> imho st and lt growth mean nothing when a company can;'t produce. your money is okay in a bubble, but when people realise these things can't produce then whats the point?????
> 
> i don't see MTN producing in time, and its production(1000t) won't be meaningful when it does start to produce
> 
> The environmental approval process for MTN (as it is in a sensitive area) is going to be complex. Look at terramin on how it was handled, and that was a small mine.




LOL and have a look at Terramin's share price in 1 year from now. I think it will be a lot higher than it is currently. I'm sure that MTN will expand its resources also in other locations however I beleive that there is more to it already than just Mt Gee. They also have Tennants at Wild Dog that will be explored. MTN is only 1 of very few that is in the process of conducting a pre feasablity study in a mining friendly state which is SA. MTN will be a producer one day. Mt Gee alone has 59 Million Tonnes @ 0.062% which is the equivilent of 80 million pounds U3O8 so I guess if 80 million pounds does nothing for you then there's not much else out there thats better at this stage IMO.

Best regards

Champ


----------



## champ2003 (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> How many shares does SMM have on offer though? I'm not sure. Thats something to look in to also.




Halba if you would like to compare SMM with MTN here is something else to consider. 

SMM has approx 197 Million shares on offer, MTN has only 43 Million which is about 4.5 times less. That makes MTN's share price dirt cheap as a comparison also.

Cheers!

Champ


----------



## mmmmining (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Some people said MTN has property on Heritage List, and Environmental sensitive area. It sounds like "THE SUSTAINABLE ENERGY and ANTI-URANIUM SERVICE INC.", the anti-nuclear people. 

For whoever bring these issue again, I appreciate they do the following things:

1. Provide detail information on which part or the whole MT Gee (EL3258) is on the Heritage List, and from which year?

2. Provide detail information on which part or the whole Mt Gee (EL3258) Area is environment sensitive? When SA govt declare it?

We just cannot keep reproduce the hearsays, bring up the facts.

Thanks.


----------



## UraniumLover (3 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I prefer MTN over SMM. 
MTN  has a much lower Market capitailisation compared to t/u308. Probably makes it a more attractive take over target - possibly from a Chinese company like Sinosteel who like PNN in SA. I would have gone for MTN but anyway.
MTN growth rate has been far greater. MTN 200% increase in last 3 months, SMM 45% -
MTN-(SA) has Mike Rann who is very supportive of the SA Uranium Industry. Policy change should be less risk.


----------



## mmmmining (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

In addition to Mt Gee's  31,255t U3O8, there are resource estimates done by Exoil as follow: (MTN's ann on 2 Aug 2005)

Hodgkinson: 484t at 2200ppm
Armchair: 680t at 1000ppm
Streitberg: 600t at 1000ppm
Radium Ridge: 1211t at 700ppm
Total: 2975t at 1000ppm

MTN does not even mention this afterwards. They are all within 12km radius, and a good size deposits with further exploration upside that most uranium junior hopefuls are dying for. 

Why?

If Mt Gee deposit is not real, I guess MTN will jump up and down about those smaller deposits.


----------



## champ2003 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> In addition to Mt Gee's  31,255t U3O8, there are resource estimates done by Exoil as follow: (MTN's ann on 2 Aug 2005)
> 
> Hodgkinson: 484t at 2200ppm
> Armchair: 680t at 1000ppm
> ...




That sounds good Mmmmining however you need to increase MT gee's Inferred resources to 45.5 Million Tonnes of Uranium mineralisation averaging .068% u3o8 or 69 million pounds of contained u3o8.* (AS stated in the latest Mt Gee update dated 9th Jan 2007).*

Best regards

Champ


----------



## mmmmining (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> In addition to Mt Gee's  31,255t U3O8, there are resource estimates done by Exoil as follow: (MTN's ann on 2 Aug 2005)
> 
> Hodgkinson: 484t at 2200ppm
> Armchair: 680t at 1000ppm
> ...




Sorry, I might confused you guys. All tonnage is contained U3O8, not minerals.
So in addition to 31255t U3O8 at Mt Gee, they have additional 2975t  (6.54m lb) U3O8 at nearby deposits. 

Also they have some more at Mt Painter East at lower grade (considered "very high" for some other juniors) although the have a few high grade drilling, and a small high grade ore body at 3300ppm. It is estimated that 10mt ore at 300ppm for another 3000t (6.6m lb) contained U3O8!  (from MTN's ann dated on Aug 2, 2005)

Also the Mt Painter has not been mentioned. I guess it will be a natural extension from Mt Gee deposit after more drilling at east side of Mt Gee.

I strongly recommended for MTN lovers and MTN doubters read the Aug 2, 2005 ann. I believe the whole MTN story begun from there.

If you cannot find it, please PM me. I will email you one.


----------



## champ2003 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Sorry, I might confused you guys. All tonnage is contained U3O8, not minerals.
> So in addition to 31255t U3O8 at Mt Gee, they have additional 2975t  (6.54m lb) U3O8 at nearby deposits.
> 
> Also they have some more at Mt Painter East at lower grade (considered "very high" for some other juniors) although the have a few high grade drilling, and a small high grade ore body at 3300ppm. It is estimated that 10mt ore at 300ppm for another 3000t (6.6m lb) contained U3O8!  (from MTN's ann dated on Aug 2, 2005)
> ...




Hi Mmmmining, 

No offence but I think that you are a little confused about the Inferred resource at Mt Gee. Its not 31255t. Please refer to the link below to see the latest results. Forget 2005 results as thats well and truly outdated now.

This is the exact wording in the latest document with the link below:-

The Mt Gee deposit, with its Inferred Resource of 45.5 million tonnes of uranium
mineralisation averaging 0.068% U3O8, or 69 million pounds of contained U3O8, is one of
Australia’s largest undeveloped uranium deposits.


http://imagesignal.comsec.com.au/asxdata/20070109/pdf/00683884.pdf 

Best regards

Champ


----------



## spooly74 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> Hi Mmmmining,
> 
> No offence but I think that you are a little confused about the Inferred resource at Mt Gee. Its not 31255t. Please refer to the link below to see the latest results. Forget 2005 results as thats well and truly outdated now.
> 
> ...




Hi Champ

45.5 million t of mineralised ore at 0.068% u3o8 = 30,940t u3o8 
30,940t u308 = just over 68 million pounds of contained u308 (68,068,000)

45.5 million t is the _total mineralised area_ Marathon have to process to get 30,940t of contained u308.

cheers


----------



## champ2003 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				spooly74 said:
			
		

> Hi Champ
> 
> 45.5 million t of mineralised ore at 0.068% u3o8 = 30,940t u3o8
> 30,940t u308 = just over 68 million pounds of contained u308 (68,068,000)
> ...




Hi Spooly,

Thanks for clarifying that. It appears that it was actually me that had it mixed up LOL.

Anyway at the end of the day 68 million pounds sounds good to me.   

Best regards

Champ


----------



## mmmmining (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				spooly74 said:
			
		

> Hi Champ
> 
> 45.5 million t of mineralised ore at 0.068% u3o8 = 30,940t u3o8
> 30,940t u308 = just over 68 million pounds of contained u308 (68,068,000)
> ...



Cahmp and Spooly,

I guess we are talking about the same thing. I quoted directly from the latest qtr report, 31,255t U3O8, which is exactly the same as 45.5Mt ore x 0.068% if you consider MTN ignore the last two digits of the grade which is: 0.06845%, whatever it is. Anyway, the resource number is just a base for further upgrade. That is what the drilling job for.

My purpose here is

1.  To point out that in addition to 31,255t contained U3O8 JORC resources in Mt Gee deposit only, there are additional 6,000t (or 13m lb) contained U3O8 non JORC resources in various grade around Mt Gee. It represent near 20% more resources.

2. From another angle to prove the Mt Gee is real. 6,000t (13m lb) Contained U3O8 means a lot to dozens of uranium juniors, but MTN not even bother to mention it recently. It proves that Mt Gee deposit is big enough that they can focus on, and we can trust for.

To have the additional resources in mind will increase my confidence to hold MTN, or buy more.


----------



## champ2003 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Cahmp and Spooly,
> 
> I guess we are talking about the same thing. I quoted directly from the latest qtr report, 31,255t U3O8, which is exactly the same as 45.5Mt ore x 0.068% if you consider MTN ignore the last two digits of the grade which is: 0.06845%, whatever it is. Anyway, the resource number is just a base for further upgrade. That is what the drilling job for.
> 
> ...




Thanks Mmmmmining,

I agree. It makes good sense. 

Cheers

Champ


----------



## spooly74 (4 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> Hi Spooly,
> 
> Thanks for clarifying that. It appears that it was actually me that had it mixed up LOL.
> 
> ...




Yep, and I dont think you're alone either! 68 mil sounds good to a lot of others aswell


----------



## insider (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wow this thing is just free falling... down 37 cents... where's support I can't tell... There really doesn't seem to be any

But it looks like the day traders are already selling up with their 2000 shares each.... good


----------



## 56gsa (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> where's support I can't tell...




2.95?  otherwise 2.40?


----------



## nizar (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Oh wow since when was MTN worth $3++


----------



## Halba (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

rite in middle of national park

GOOD LUCK!!


----------



## exgeo (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

These last few posts bring to mind visions of Clive Dunn in Dad's Army exhorting people to "don't panic, don't panic!".

I'm a holder of MTN (15,000 shares) and will continue to be unless proven a lot more wrong than one day's fall. After such a runup, a pull-back is to be expected. I think there's a much greater chance of losing money by being short uranium stocks than by being long. For the record, I also have NEL, SMM, EME and URL that I just bought a couple of days ago.


----------



## insider (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> These last few posts bring to mind visions of Clive Dunn in Dad's Army exhorting people to "don't panic, don't panic!".
> 
> I'm a holder of MTN (15,000 shares) and will continue to be unless proven a lot more wrong than one day's fall. After such a runup, a pull-back is to be expected. I think there's a much greater chance of losing money by being short uranium stocks than by being long. For the record, I also have NEL, SMM, EME and URL that I just bought a couple of days ago.




No way... this price fall is scheduled... It's fine... seriously you can't expect it to never go down... remember it's two steps foward and one step back


----------



## champ2003 (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> rite in middle of national park
> 
> GOOD LUCK!!




Halba we have asked people like you who mention crap like this to be specific. Please show us the specific facts/ articles/announcements etc to back up your claims.

There are many professionals out there who will argue your point and Fat Prophets are one of them and they are extremely fussy on their Uranium recommendations.

Show us the facts. Not your uninformed opinions.

Thanks 

Champ


----------



## mmmmining (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

One piece of land can either be national park/natural reserve or explorable/mineable. They cannot be both.

Residential land could be part of exploration/mining lease. But national park/natural reserve cannot.  

In terms of MTN, Actually there is a nation park nearby. But Mt Gee is not part of it.  The national park is adjacent to AGS's EPL, and AGS's EPL encircles the whole MTN's Mt Gee EPL.

The aboriginal rite sites is not necessarily limited to national park, or crown land, it could be on any land, including private owned farms. (I believe it is excluded from you backyard, but could on a public park). 

Like any company, MTN has to deal with aboriginal issue before exploring and mining. It is a standard operation procedure. It is the risk for MTN only, it could be any companies, such as SMM, AGS, AEE, NEL, CUY.....


----------



## insider (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The truth about aboriginal rites to land is usually the aboriginals allow mining in the area in return for royalties.

The reality about mining is that there is nearly no control when it's under ground... we can mine under people's houses, you just can't damage them...
so keeping that in mind, just so long as the damage is not cosmetic or if there is any you must replace, there shouldn't be any real issues when it comes to tunneling...

And if there is a problem just remember; Everything has a price!!!


----------



## champ2003 (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> The truth about aboriginal rites to land is usually the aboriginals allow mining in the area in return for royalties.
> 
> The reality about mining is that there is nearly no control when it's under ground... we can mine under people's houses, you just can't damage them...
> so keeping that in mind, just so long as the damage is not cosmetic or if there is any you must replace, there shouldn't be any real issues when it comes to tunneling...
> ...




Too true Insider and mmmmining. Great to see some educated comments.

Cheers!

Champ

P.s everyone, I don't mind reading negatives either so long as it is factual.


----------



## spooly74 (6 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi Guys, 
Below is a link to the Mt Painter Region and includes a general history of the area and the mining thats gone on there in the past. 
There is a mention of the area being a sanctuary but also says the "MPI (Mount Painter Inlier) is an excellent example of conservation and tourism operating side-by-side with active mineral exploration".
The only thing that would worry me is the terrain.
Anyhow check it out if interested.
cheers

http://www.pir.sa.gov.au/pages/minerals/references/mesa_journal/mj_38/mj38_mt_painter.pdf


----------



## mmmmining (7 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN get smashed today another stock falling from as high as $3.50 to $2.85


----------



## mb1 (7 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well the support levels are around 2.80. Ive been waiting for this to happen so I can on this train. Is now the time? 
Whats the next level of support? 2.20?


----------



## kerosam (7 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources (bid by Buttermere)*

is this mob serious???? last price in the market for MTN was $2.84 and they are offering $0.68 per share! am i missing out on something here? 

but then again, MTN's value could be only $0.68.


----------



## mmmmining (7 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources (bid by Buttermere)*



			
				kerosam said:
			
		

> is this mob serious???? last price in the market for MTN was $2.84 and they are offering $0.68 per share! am i missing out on something here?
> 
> but then again, MTN's value could be only $0.68.



When MTN's value could be only $0.68, you could be a very rich guy, so keep hoping.


----------



## UraniumLover (7 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

what a joke  when you consider only 43 m shares..
I might take day off  and go see Peter Williams down George street Tomorrow for lunch and put in an offer myself lol . Maybe ask for a job too since i like Uranium so much     don't think get much work done tomorrow as looking to buy more if rebound from resistance 2.80.


----------



## Realist (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN is getting beaten like a red headed step child today.

Down to $2.56.    

I too have received about 5 letters from Buttermere.

I seriously considered selling all my shares for 0.68 when they were $3.20.......Not.

David Tweed or whatever his name is would not even try that one!


----------



## Accaeric (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

good buy opportunity

Just as most U stocks smashed recently, take PNN, down to 1.38 from 2.2, today back as high as 1.94


----------



## mmmmining (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Fear dominate MTN for last three days, just like greed did last week. People just speculating all kind of things. People who read chart set a lot of stop loss marks, when it hit, it can sell share to you at any price,  Virtually could be lower than $0.68. For the same reason, when stock moves up, when it hit the buy high limit, the stock could be skyrocketing in a very short period of time.

That contribute to the big swing of MTN and all uranium stocks. It can easily be manipulated by big guys, who just need to read chart, test the stop loss, support level, or buy limit, resistance level, then everyone dancing around..... 

Chartist did make a good money, but if you can read chartist, I guess you can make more money.


----------



## insider (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> MTN is getting beaten like a red headed step child today.
> 
> Down to $2.56.
> 
> ...



 LMFAO   I hope you don't have a red headed step child!

It is a bit annoying seeing it so low because my urge was to sell at $3.20 before it fell further and then buy more but then I wouldn't get CGT for another year... ARRRRG


----------



## exgeo (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Buttermere (aka Crosby Capital Partners) are the same mob who put in a lowball bid for Tethyan copper, with the bid price always a few cents below the market price. Not surprisingly, eventually somebody else was successful in buying Tethyan. No doubt MTN, NEL, SMM and anybody else with a JORC Uranium resource will eventually get taken out by one of the bigger companies. RPT and VUL have already gone in the last 12 months.


----------



## mb1 (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

whats the next major support level? $2.00?


----------



## Accaeric (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mb1 said:
			
		

> whats the next major support level? $2.00?




Next support level is $0.68     Just kidding

IMO, it will be bouncing back to $3 shortly


----------



## mb1 (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Bugger it, im in. I waited and the buying opportunity is there for me. Long term hold


----------



## mmmmining (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Buyer is on sideline and wait....

Sellers has accumulate enough stock inventory for sell. They are sell it at whole sell price...

No news, purely technical selling.... and weak hands are continuously shaking out. 

A ticket from ASX might on the card...

A assays report could completely reverse this trend.


----------



## gamerice (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Buyer is on sideline and wait....
> 
> Sellers has accumulate enough stock inventory for sell. They are sell it at whole sell price...
> 
> ...




when do you think we will get the next assay report/announcement?


----------



## mmmmining (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				gamerice said:
			
		

> when do you think we will get the next assay report/announcement?




I don't know and I don't care. Could be any time. I Just hold tight. If someone offer $10 for MTN, I might consider it. Otherwise, I will stay on.


----------



## dj_420 (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

crazy intra day spreads on this one. low of 2.45 high of 2.83! thats like a 20% swing, if i was good at swing trading would be great one to make some dosh off. 

always very volatile this one


----------



## insider (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mb1 said:
			
		

> Bugger it, im in. I waited and the buying opportunity is there for me. Long term hold




Allow me to quote some WC Warrant taken from the song Cherry Pie. "A smile on your face, ten miles wide"   . Good work MB1... you have to be in it to win it... Let's hope it goes up from 2.45 dollars "I scream you scream for her"

MTN is "Sweet Cherry Pie"


----------



## Accaeric (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Accaeric said:
			
		

> Next support level is $0.68     Just kidding
> 
> IMO, it will be bouncing back to $3 shortly




Actually, i didn't expect it hits $3 today.


----------



## Realist (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> LMFAO   I hope you don't have a red headed step child!




I did have one...  :casanova: 

$3.10 now, what a weird day.


----------



## Rafa (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

amazing...
i didn't buy any, cause i already have plenty, 
but loving not having a stop loss set on this one...

well, now, anyway, now that its back up... 

hope some of you others took the opp to top up.


----------



## mmmmining (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Enjoy the ride? I do. Suddenly I realize that $10k would not get your 20,000 shares anymore,  even not enough for 4,000. Amazing, isn't it?

I am glad that there are still many true believers. 

Do we have any new passengers? If do have, welcome.

The future ride maybe up and down, but the destination is only one. Fasten your seatbelt....


----------



## UraniumLover (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Not sure whether i should put my last dollars on MTN or BTM.
Both are great but which one is better


----------



## kromey (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

BTM?


----------



## insider (8 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				UraniumLover said:
			
		

> Not sure whether i should put my last dollars on MTN or BTM.
> Both are great but which one is better



 Howabout both if you can't decide... But I'd put it in MTN


----------



## UraniumLover (9 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

typo - BMN    BANNERMAN RESOURCES FPO


----------



## Rafa (9 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i'd get both too...
(infact i already have both)


----------



## yellowcake (12 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi guys,

If I calculated this thing correctly, MTN is valued at about 1.39 US $/lb of JORC-compliant U3O8, which is well below the comparables. Why is that? Are they in the middle of a national park or something? Or is just because they're not listed on the pink sheets?

Also, where can I find maps of mining/exploration tenements in Australia (i.e. who owns what)? 

Are mining claims (a.k.a. exploration tenements) regulated by the Federal Government or by the States / Northern Territory?

thanks for any info!

cheers,

yellowcake


----------



## mmmmining (12 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				yellowcake said:
			
		

> Hi guys,
> 
> Are they in the middle of a national park or something?
> 
> yellowcake




Go read our early post about national park and relation to AGS, etc.. Mt Gee EPL is not a national park...


----------



## mmmmining (14 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

New drilling results are out. It is very consistent with the first batch. And the width is about 30m. I am getting more and more confident about the size of the resources...


----------



## hitmanlam (15 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Chart for MTN.  Resistance at $3.45-$3.50.


----------



## Pat (15 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> Chart for MTN.  Resistance at $3.45-$3.50.




Hitman,
May I ask what all this means?


----------



## hitmanlam (15 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Pat said:
			
		

> Hitman,
> May I ask what all this means?




MTN looks like forming an "Ascending triangle".  This pretty much means increasing sellers near the $3.50 mark and not allowing the price to go above this price.  Imagine a ceiling at $3.50.  This is resistance.  (horizontal line drawn at $3.50).  However, buyers are building at lower prices resulting in the support price going up (bottom line going up).  There is a struggle between seller & buyers with sellers increasing near $3.50 & increase buying below this price.   This is what you see on the chart with the wedged-like shape forming.

So when price slowly creeps up to $3.50, what will happen you might ask?  Either two things:
1)  Bounce of resistance of $3.50 and price going lower.
2)  Price 'breaks' through this resistance and continuing the uptrend.

In the case of MTN, price is going up, then pausing or slight retracing, then it could either going up or down.  See the circles drawn.

Conclusion - Because it is an ascending triangle in an uptrend, it is "more likely" that price will continue its uptrend.  The support line increasing below the horizontal resistance line is the signal!  If is was a short-term trader, I would buy only above/pass the resistance e.g $3.60?  More chance of price continuing.  But don't take my word on it!!! DYOR.


----------



## Sean K (16 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> MTN looks like forming an "Ascending triangle".  This pretty much means increasing sellers near the $3.50 mark and not allowing the price to go above this price.  Imagine a ceiling at $3.50.  This is resistance.  (horizontal line drawn at $3.50).



Certainly resistance at $3.50, but looks a pretty rough old ascending triangle....


----------



## Pat (17 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> MTN looks like forming an "Ascending triangle".  This pretty much means increasing sellers near the $3.50 mark and not allowing the price to go above this price.  Imagine a ceiling at $3.50.  This is resistance.  (horizontal line drawn at $3.50).  However, buyers are building at lower prices resulting in the support price going up (bottom line going up).  There is a struggle between seller & buyers with sellers increasing near $3.50 & increase buying below this price.   This is what you see on the chart with the wedged-like shape forming.
> 
> So when price slowly creeps up to $3.50, what will happen you might ask?  Either two things:
> 1)  Bounce of resistance of $3.50 and price going lower.
> ...




Thanks for that Hitman...

Understand what a ascending triangle is, and yes a bit rough Kennas, but so am I.
However what are those "big" green circles indicating?
Just a sideways pattern?

Anyway, I see MTN continuing it's dream run, just come off the the top Bollinger band with the crazy panic sell for those 3 days... "crazy"! Last day had that MEGA volume, I jumped in for the run back up... But still don't trust this U bubble.

MACD still good with and maybe a bearish crossover but i'd say this is/was a result of the panic sell.

How high can it go, I sure as hell don't know


----------



## Rafa (19 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

first attemt to break 3.50 is underway...
wasn't expecting it so soon!


----------



## Rafa (19 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wow...
this is looking like its going to be the first and last attempt!


----------



## mmmmining (19 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Like it or not, At this moment, MTN is both technical and fundamental sound. As a long-term believer and holder, it is just another milestone (touch wood). Share price up and down, I don't care. 

I do congradulate fellow MTN holders.


----------



## hitmanlam (19 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Pat said:
			
		

> Thanks for that Hitman...
> 
> Understand what a ascending triangle is, and yes a bit rough Kennas, but so am I.
> However what are those "big" green circles indicating?
> Just a sideways pattern?




I was just highlighting that MTN was in a period of consolidation.  Profit-takers came in but the share price soon recovered, reaching new highs.  Last couple of days, volume was fairly low.  If i had more money, I would have topped up at close today.  Bullish signal, it broke resistance, still good fundamentals & the historical chart shows that the sp is ready for another leg up.


----------



## Pat (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> I was just highlighting that MTN was in a period of consolidation.  Profit-takers came in but the share price soon recovered, reaching new highs.  Last couple of days, volume was fairly low.  If i had more money, I would have topped up at close today.  Bullish signal, it broke resistance, still good fundamentals & the historical chart shows that the sp is ready for another leg up.





Thanks mate.
I agree. MTN the black sheep, taken off like a rocket in the past 2-3 months..... WOW!!!!!
I just wish i held, stupid money emotions   
Cheers.


----------



## UraniumLover (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

has anybody worked out what MTN is worth. 
up another 9% last i looked today.


----------



## insider (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

the resource findings are worth about 5 Billion dollars...


----------



## mmmmining (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN has 69mlb JORC resrouces U3O8 in Mt Gee, plus another 13mlb non-JORC resources surround Mt Gee deposit in the EL3528, the Paralana Mineral System, including Mt Painter, East Painter, Radium Ridge, Armchair, Streitberg, and Hodgkinsen. 

It contains the source rocks for the deposit in B4M, Honeymoon, Beverley deposits.

Fully diluted shares: 60m, the $8m cash in hand will prevent dilution.
Resources: 81mlb

At $3/lb  It worth: $4.05
At $4/lb, It worth: $5.40
At $5/lb, It worth: $6.13 (assume 10% dilution)
At $6/lb, It worth: $7.36  
At $7/lb, It worth: $8.59
At $8/lb, It worth: $8.93 (assume another 10% dilution)
At $9/lb, It worth: $10.04
At $10/lb, It worth: $11.16

Well, this is only one way to look at it. You might argue that MTN is not SMM, or PDN, or EME. That is right, MTN is not. This is why MTN is valued at low end, not high!

Also that is the beauty of MTN! Full of fear, not much greedy, an important formula for love and hate, and steady appreciation of share price.

Lets highlight the fear of MTN:

Has JORC resource without drilling a hole (Latest drilling results support the modeling)
Inside a National Park (totally false)
Heritage List (totally false)
Aboriginal land (which land is not?)
Environment issue (which mining project does not need to address it?)
Remote (has driveable road/trail to the site)
Water catchment (It is the old Wild Dog license near Adelaide, not Mt Gee, and MTN hand it back to SA government)

Fear comes and goes, eventually, the facts will decide the final price of MTN either by takeover, or operation of a uranium mine.


----------



## Halba (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

its worth zilch if it cannot mine at good uranium prices


----------



## shinobi346 (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

and it is worth lots if it can. have a nice day.


----------



## mmmmining (20 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> its worth zilch if it cannot mine at good uranium prices




Halba, you just have added another fear on my list. very good, thank you. 

To address your fear, I cannot only see you and me, and Mr market cannot control this. same to SMM, PDN, BMN, etc.

Keep hoping, while seeing this stock up and up, and losing the opportunity to make good money.  

It is not easy to fight the market, and you never win. I learn the lesson. 

Halba, also we need you, we still have people on the sideline. It is a very good bullish indicator that MTN is not at top yet.

As always, stock up and down, MTN might be down tomorrow, or even next week, or next month. As long as you believe the truth, who cares?


----------



## hitmanlam (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well, just saw PDN place a takeover offer for SMM today.

I thought about MTN and why a big Canadian company hasn't put an offer on the table yet.  I mean, MTN has proven that it's got an economically viable resource.  And not just that, it's cheap too.  EV/lb of $3 and a market cap of only $240 mil.  For a big Canadian company, $240 mil is NOTHING.

So why no offer yet?

The more i thought about it, the more i think this is the reason why.  There's one thing that stands in the way, the current 3 mines policy...

All of us know that the Aus U companies would absolutely plummet if policy didnt change in April.  IMO, and emphasize here just an opinion, the big companies are waiting for this policy to change before they put an offer on the table.  Although they might have to pay a higher price after the change in policy, i think they are willing to pay that premium just to make sure that they eliminate the chance of buying a company that won't mine.

My prediction, and a bold one at that.....there will be an offer for MTN straight after the April policy.  Not just MTN, but a wave of takeover offer for unvalued Aus companies.  Abit like the takeover frenzy that happen after the media law changes awhile ago.  

PS.  There is always the risk of Labour not changing policy (although looking very unlikely now) and the other is I could be absolutely wrong!  I have no contact with any director or anyone remotely that.  The above is just a wild prediction.  Don't take it as financial advice.  And finally, DYOR!!!


----------



## insider (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Great analysis... I agree with ya


----------



## YELNATS (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> Well, just saw PDN place a takeover offer for SMM today.
> 
> I thought about MTN and why a big Canadian company hasn't put an offer on the table yet.  I mean, MTN has proven that it's got an economically viable resource.  And not just that, it's cheap too.  EV/lb of $3 and a market cap of only $240 mil.  For a big Canadian company, $240 mil is NOTHING.




Well there is still Buttermere's offer for MTN, extended again until May 4th. Only 68c, but at least they say they are now reconsidering it, in view of MTN's recent gains. They probably need to lift it about 1000% !!! regards YN.


----------



## purple (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				hitmanlam said:
			
		

> My prediction, and a bold one at that.....there will be an offer for MTN straight after the April policy.  Not just MTN, but a wave of takeover offer for unvalued Aus companies.




March 07 - *IF* Cameco reports remediation work will take longer than expected
April 07 - *IF* Labor lifts all bans on U mining

there will be a queue stretching all the way from the North Pole for takeovers/acquisitions.

Question is, how is the Fed gov going to control it? Same way it took the China boom - just export the stuff out ASAP, sit back and let the cash pour in!

tha might be pretty dangerous as it might lead to uncontrolled U prices...if it surges to a level where it's too expensive to use anymore, it implodes...

then it's the Charge of the Light Brigade...U will become like oil, overpriced, and we will turn to the next energy miracle, the humble soybean.


----------



## insider (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If the three mines policy is lifted and everyone can mine... then doesn't that mean The price Of uranium would fall... It makes sense to me


----------



## champ2003 (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> If the three mines policy is lifted and everyone can mine... then doesn't that mean The price Of uranium would fall... It makes sense to me




No not at all as it has absolutely no impact on the physical Uranium on offer to the market and as you know demand will exceed supply for many years to come. A policy being lifted adds what?? Nothing but the chance for Australia to try and capitalise on high prices in 4-5 years time.

cheers

Champ


----------



## deftfear (27 February 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I didn't think that the 3 mines policy was a problem anyway, the SA government is pro uranium mining and would consider approving the mine regardless of the national labour party policy.

My opinion on uranium price if the 3 mine ban is lifted is that long term it may help push the price down, but short term it will probably just keep going the way it has been. Until all these possible mines come into production, I don't think there is a need to panic.


----------



## insider (3 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey guys where do you all think MTN will be heading? It is correction time so the likely hood of them falling is likely but the fundamentals are sooo good. What will some of you people do?

I think there is a strong chance that MTN will get smashed due to the market conditions so some buying opportunities are coming about. I haven't sold yet. thoughts people?


----------



## champ2003 (3 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Hey guys where do you all think MTN will be heading? It is correction time so the likely hood of them falling is likely but the fundamentals are sooo good. What will some of you people do?
> 
> I think there is a strong chance that MTN will get smashed due to the market conditions so some buying opportunities are coming about. I haven't sold yet. thoughts people?




The mere fact that this stock has held up so well in the last week tells me it's unlikely that it will drop too much further just IMO. It did it's 12.53% drop in 1 day last week and rebounded the next day.

As you said fundamentals are very strong. There may be some more short term consolidation though.


----------



## nizar (3 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> If the three mines policy is lifted and everyone can mine... then doesn't that mean The price Of uranium would fall... It makes sense to me




Nope. The price of uranium will depend on supply-demand dynamics. Having the ban lifted will not bring any new supply to the market - at least not for a while. The lag time between discovery to production is about 8 years.
And even when you know the uranium is there - its gonna take about 3-4 years eg. SMM.


----------



## Halba (4 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

agreed too long lead time for Aussie u explorers ATM, probably heavily discounted till 1 year before proddy

Imma think africa it will be more easily valued ,as govt approvals very quick and easy, and only has to be a mineable reserve/deposit. This is probably the best bet in capturing full upside from U (examples posted on threads in this forum include ern,ext,bmn,mru,wmt,acb,eve/african energy etc). These are in my opinion likely to 'leapfrog' the likes of SMM,MTN to production and thus will provide higher % total returns (and they are also low mkt cap).

 I think you would probably need 5000t(10 mil pounds or so reserves) of U to get to bankable status IMHO, as that would represent possible 10 yr mine lifes. Additionally getting to bankable status would allow you to get taken over by majors(looking for quick proddie - look at OMC example) and thus immediately command premium.


----------



## UraniumLover (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well, right now MTN is 3.09 a drop of 17.06%. Incredible.. Fishing isn't far off below 3.00
Can't wait until all ords goes back up ..


----------



## Realist (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				UraniumLover said:
			
		

> Well, right now MTN is 3.09 a drop of 17.06%. Incredible.. Fishing isn't far off below 3.00
> Can't wait until all ords goes back up ..




It's getting beaten like a cheap Pinyata today.


----------



## mmmmining (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				UraniumLover said:
			
		

> Well, right now MTN is 3.09 a drop of 17.06%. Incredible.. Fishing isn't far off below 3.00
> Can't wait until all ords goes back up ..



Have you seen it from $1.45 to $0.47?

The from $0.47 to $4.10

From $4.10 to $3.05

I guess Buttermere/Cosby is going to make a move before somebody else get a hand in this stock. It might use its associates to sell down MTN, and then raise an offer around $4.50, make it more attractive... 

Pure speculation, with some reasoning, no insider info or fact.


----------



## UraniumLover (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Have you seen it from $1.45 to $0.47?
> 
> The from $0.47 to $4.10
> 
> ...




mmmmining I took the day of work to experience such an event. I hope  Buttermere puts a better offer this time. I haven't worked it out yet but what would be a good offer for MTN if you took into consideration PDN offer for SMM which was rejected by SMM? I found that amusing.


----------



## Realist (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Have you seen it from $1.45 to $0.47?
> 
> The from $0.47 to $4.10
> 
> ...




Good point. It is possible.


----------



## insider (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Realist said:
			
		

> It's getting beaten like a cheap Pinyata today.



 Is that worse than beating a red headed step child?  :casanova:  :horse:


----------



## nizar (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Its funny with MTN i got a buy signal when it hit broke out into blue skies $1.37 not too long ago. But i wasnt convinced because volume was ordinary. Next week i check its still in the $1.30s im feeling like a champion thinking what a great move to not buy that dog and instead buying something else (that did give me my quick 10-20%).

I forget about MTN, do a bit more trading. Go on holidays. Go away for work. 2 months later i check and its like $4+.

But you live and you learn. And Now i know - PRICE is king.


----------



## UraniumLover (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> Its funny with MTN i got a buy signal when it hit broke out into blue skies $1.37 not too long ago. But i wasnt convinced because volume was ordinary. Next week i check its still in the $1.30s im feeling like a champion thinking what a great move to not buy that dog and instead buying something else (that did give me my quick 10-20%).
> 
> I forget about MTN, do a bit more trading. Go on holidays. Go away for work. 2 months later i check and its like $4+.
> 
> But you live and you learn. And Now i know - PRICE is king.




Relax Nizar .. MTN will recover.


----------



## sydney1963 (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> Its funny with MTN i got a buy signal when it hit broke out into blue skies $1.37 not too long ago. But i wasnt convinced because volume was ordinary. Next week i check its still in the $1.30s im feeling like a champion thinking what a great move to not buy that dog and instead buying something else (that did give me my quick 10-20%).
> 
> I forget about MTN, do a bit more trading. Go on holidays. Go away for work. 2 months later i check and its like $4+.
> 
> But you live and you learn. And Now i know - PRICE is king.



Go for 4 weeks holiday,when u cme back it will be $4.00


----------



## greggy (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> Go for 4 weeks holiday,when u cme back it will be $4.00



On what basis do you make this call?? Perhaps you just have quite a few of them. Either way, its not helpful to make calls like this without proper reasoning or a chart.


----------



## mmmmining (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Spoken with a geologist at MTN, he has disclosed nothing unusual happened except the market correction. 

A valid point he made is MTN is still outperforming many other uranium stocks in past one, two, and three months period. There is no need to panic.

He told me that the Mt Gee EPL is pastral lease from Crown land. The owner is running a tourist joint (like 20 rooms trailer park)  just outside the EPL with some bush walking trails inside the EPL, which is no national park and no heritage. 

For these who is panic about mining will affect tourist, please be advised to visit The Grand Canyon in USA. A uranium/copper mining site is one of the tourist attraction on the South Rim.

Another small info might address the water supply concern. There is a hot spring 3km from the Mt Gee deposit. The water resources is scarce, but there are ways to overcome it.

Of course, the issues that MTN is facing is no different from other uranium hopefuls, and mining companies, you have to address them one by one.

Hope the above info can help relief some of the pains of MTN holders.

My fair comments is that it is still too early to looking at the mining issues, instead, we should focus on the resources definition and upgrade.

So I believe Mr Market might consider it is not fair to view MTN as possible  producer, but only give it a greenfield project valuation.


----------



## champ2003 (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Everything has its price but i'd like to know, Is everybody ready for the large rebound when it happens?


----------



## insider (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Spoken with a geologist at MTN, he has disclosed nothing unusual happened except the market correction.
> 
> A valid point he made is MTN is still outperforming many other uranium stocks in past one, two, and three months period. There is no need to panic.
> 
> ...




These issues were never anything to worry about... Those that bring it up are just kidding themselves... Tell me something do you think that the owner of the caravan park wouldn't want to see that place chocablock full of miners living in properties and houses he has built... Think of the economic benefits a mine would have in that area.


----------



## Halba (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What about minority groups? Can they stretch it out or delay the project severely? This has happened with my Terramin stock - delayed coz near a small town and has been delayed for more than a year.


----------



## mmmmining (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> What about minority groups? Can they stretch it out or delay the project severely? This has happened with my Terramin stock - delayed coz near a small town and has been delayed for more than a year.




Halba, I believe MTN has to deal with issues one by one. At this stage, their priority is to define and upgrade the resources to indicate and measured level. Mt Gee is no town, but full of hillside.


----------



## Halba (5 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Okay. I have to agree the resource itself is world class, similar to AGS's beverley 4 mile and SMM's. 

I'll see how the coffey mining study is, its due soon.


----------



## hitmanlam (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

How I see it is MTN has great fundamentals (good mkt cap, good size resource).  However, I can still see the price of this share going down short term due to this correction.  But before you go & sell your shares, just think of these two ideas: (For me, I tell myself that these are facts)

1)  When the correction is over and it rebounds up, where will the share price be then?.......(certainly not under $3)

2)  Even if it does go down to $2 - $2.50, it would be a prime takeover target.  And looking at the average price of the last couple of weeks plus a small premium to go with it, the takeover bid would be at least $4.50.

So whatever the short-term price of this stock will be, I believe that long term price of this stock is UP.  The tricky part is trying to pick where the bottom will be & then buying in hard.

PS.  If it ever reaches under $2.  I think I am willing to increase my margin loan, mortgage my house, sell my car, and whack it all into this stock.  I have already talked myself into doing it if it ever occurs.


----------



## sydney1963 (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				greggy said:
			
		

> On what basis do you make this call?? Perhaps you just have quite a few of them. Either way, its not helpful to make calls like this without proper reasoning or a chart.



It's the cheapst uranium stock in the market. According to the resources MTN has, its worth 5 billion. [$3/IB of U3O8]


----------



## Sean K (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> It's the cheapst uranium stock in the market. According to the resources MTN has, its worth 5 billion. [$3/IB of U3O8]



Can you expand on how you've come to this $5 b valuation please Sydney. Thanks.


----------



## Halba (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sydney, I don't think MTN is the "cheapest". So many things affect value and value is perceptive. Considering the location and resources I believe BMN to be the cheapest. These u stocks are particularly sensitive re: their location.


----------



## insider (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Can you expand on how you've come to this $5 b valuation please Sydney. Thanks.




He got that value by multiplying the found resource by its current price... 

So 69,000,000,000 pounds X $85 per pound... He has a point but how much is a company that doesn't earn money worth?


----------



## Sean K (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> He got that value by multiplying the found resource by its current price...
> 
> So 69,000,000,000 pounds X $85 per pound... He has a point but how much is a company that doesn't earn money worth?



Thanks Insider. I think that makes $5.8b. But surely a company's valuation isn't what raw resources it has in the ground. I think there are many other factors to consider what it's 'value' is.


----------



## nizar (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Thanks Insider. I think that makes $5.8b. But surely a company's valuation isn't what raw resources it has in the ground. I think there are many other factors to consider what it's 'value' is.




The cost and the TIME taken to extract it should probably be considered.


----------



## Sean K (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> The cost and the TIME taken to extract it should probably be considered.



Cost is a good start. We've got no idea how much it's going to cost to actually get the mine up and running at this point. How much debt will that put the company under, or how many more shares will they have to issue to get the cash, diluting the shares by how much, blah, blah....list is endless. 

Perhaps someone knows the 'average' cost to establish a uranium mine at Mt Gee, and how much it will cost to then extract it considering all the logistics and work force costs.

Hhhmm, perhaps this has already been covered in the thread and I missed it??


----------



## Rafa (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I posted this on the SMM thread a while back,
But I am happy to value an explorer at an absolute *maximum* of 1/10 the value of its resource, taking into account dev time, risk, dilution, etc, etc.


----------



## Sean K (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> I posted this on the SMM thread a while back,
> But I am happy to value an explorer at an absolute *maximum* of 1/10 the value of its resource, taking into account dev time, risk, dilution, etc, etc.



Is this common Rafa, or just your experience? I have seen that stated somewhere before. Perhaps it was you....


----------



## mmmmining (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi, Guys, I think we are getting too technical. MTN is not into mining stage yet. It is still a exploration company, so use the valuation method accordingly, that is the EV/lb resources.

The ratio of IGV (in ground value) to market cap/EV for exploration company is very high (10 to 30),  moving significantly lower (5-10) when approaching mining stage.


----------



## nizar (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> i posted this on the SMM thread a while back,
> but i am happy to value an explorer at an absolute *maximum* of 1/10 the value of its resource, taking into account dev time, risk, dilution, etc, etc




Agree.
I have heard this before.

I have market cap of MTN at $131million.

$580million still a while to get to that.
Looks cheap compared to DYL i must say.

(i dont hold this stock)


----------



## sydneysider (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Cost is a good start. We've got no idea how much it's going to cost to actually get the mine up and running at this point. How much debt will that put the company under, or how many more shares will they have to issue to get the cash, diluting the shares by how much, blah, blah....list is endless.
> 
> Perhaps someone knows the 'average' cost to establish a uranium mine at Mt Gee, and how much it will cost to then extract it considering all the logistics and work force costs.
> 
> Hhhmm, perhaps this has already been covered in the thread and I missed it??




Is there an issue with any potential mining at Mt Gee being blocked by aboriginal interests due to proximity to a sacred site nearby? I seem to recall reading something about this issue?


----------



## nizar (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydneysider said:
			
		

> Is there an issue with any potential mining at Mt Gee being blocked by aboriginal interests due to proximity to a sacred site nearby? I seem to recall reading something about this issue?




Similar to whats happening at Jabiluka ey?


----------



## exgeo (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

If you look back through this post, this question has only been asked and answered about 10 times before. It seems there is not much problem with aboriginal sites. Most problems can be made to disappear if the right palms are crossed with silver in any case.


----------



## sydneysider (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				exgeo said:
			
		

> If you look back through this post, this question has only been asked and answered about 10 times before. It seems there is not much problem with aboriginal sites. Most problems can be made to disappear if the right palms are crossed with silver in any case.




U must be kidding? Who pays the bribes to whom??


----------



## sydney1963 (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN @ $3.33 11.30 back from 2.94 yesterday,but the correction may not be finished yet,still SP200 did not go down to 5500 as some expected b4.


----------



## mmmmining (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> SP200 did not go down to 5500 as some expected b4.



You cannot pick a number in the air or from your smart system, and ask Mr Market to perform accordingly, and MTN does not have 100% weight in SP200, and MTN even not in any index yet.


----------



## Sean K (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> still SP200 did not go down to 5500 as some expected b4.



You should put the word YET in that sentence. I hope it doesn't for those still heavily exposed.


----------



## sydney1963 (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> You should put the word YET in that sentence. I hope it doesn't for those still heavily exposed.



O.K, they said b4 on CBNC that correction may be extended to 10%, now DOWJ
still did not reach 6.5%. That mean ASX will be affected in the future if DOWJ went down another 3.5%, that could take SP200 to 5600 or even lower.
Again MTN, BMN & ERN are not at any index, I agree, but still could be affected by that, I say could be. It all speculation, and it is the worst case.


----------



## greggy (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> It's the cheapst uranium stock in the market. According to the resources MTN has, its worth 5 billion. [$3/IB of U3O8]



If you think that MTN is worth $5 billion then that equates to a share price of well over $100 and a higher market cap than PDN?  I think your figures are way overinflated and if there was a "Ramp of the Month Awarrd for Newbies" I would back your nomination.
DYOR


----------



## Halba (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

normally in ground value doesn't mean the mkt cap should be that?


----------



## greggy (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> normally in ground value doesn't mean the mkt cap should be that?



Agreed 100%. Hence, my point that sydney1963's analysis is totally misleading and dangerous.
DYOR


----------



## insider (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Let's find some middle ground here...

SMM have a resource of 72,000,000,000 pounds
MTN have a resource of 69,000,000,000 pounds

SMM: I'm not quite sure how much ownership SMM have on their projects but I don't think it's 100%... correct me if I'm wrong please, but be nice about it 

MTN: have 100% ownership of the project at Mt gee which is where the results come from

AGS had roughly about $450M
DYL somewhere like $350M
SMM have a market capital of around $600M
MTN have a market capital of around $170M

So in relation to other companies MTN is certainly a contender and a lot cheaper... They are not worth a billion but over the next twelve months I can see them rising to $500M... This is wishful thinking


----------



## greggy (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Let's find some middle ground here...
> 
> SMM have a resource of 72,000,000,000 pounds
> MTN have a resource of 69,000,000,000 pounds
> ...



Nice work here Insider, but $500M is still way short of sydney1963's $5 billion value.  For sydney to quote such a high value is very irresponsible and just plain ramping,


----------



## mmmmining (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				greggy said:
			
		

> Nice work here Insider, but $500M is still way short of sydney1963's $5 billion value.  For sydney to quote such a high value is very irresponsible and just plain ramping,



Greggy, I guess everybody understand that Sydney1963 confused in ground value with stock market value. Maybe we should give him a break, considering he is new kinds on the block. IT is a learning process. There is no need to speak the "R" word IMHO.

Anyway, we should focused on how MTN could travel from $170m to $500m market cap. Definitely there are a lot of fears in MTN, and plenty of greeds in SMM. We just have to wait, study, and research.


----------



## greggy (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Greggy, I guess everybody understand that Sydney1963 confused in ground value with stock market value. Maybe we should give him a break, considering he is new kinds on the block. IT is a learning process. There is no need to speak the "R" word IMHO.
> 
> Anyway, we should focused on how MTN could travel from $170m to $500m market cap. Definitely there are a lot of fears in MTN, and plenty of greeds in SMM. We just have to wait, study, and research.



I'm just trying to say here that it would bit of a worry if someone had since gone out and bought some thinking they were worth that much, but I'll move on from here.  I just saw it as ramping and should you disagree so be it.


----------



## nizar (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				greggy said:
			
		

> *I'm just trying to say here that it would bit of a worry if someone had since gone out and bought some thinking they were worth that much, * but I'll move on from here.  I just saw it as ramping and should you disagree so be it.




Somebody who buys stock blindly from a post on an online forum deserves to get burnt anyway.
Seriously.


----------



## insider (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey I have been burnt by rampings... I can't blame them because the choice was mine... but remember free tips are usually the most expensive!!!!

Back to MTN... They are going to take over Microsoft and the Pentagon... then take over the world... I swear :


----------



## prs (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Guys, I'm totally new to investing so please be understanding if I come up with strange questions. I've invested heavily in Marathon, like my super and of course apprehensive with latest downturn. You guys impress me with your knowledge and enthusiasm that MTN will regain its composure and rebound. Do you think it will go backwards much more and what sort of rebound do you think it will make?


----------



## Halba (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

prs ...you understand that no one has a crystal ball and can tell you where the price will be the next day, week etc.

But most ppl seem to be bullish on MTN so just ride the trend.


----------



## mmmmining (6 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> Somebody who buys stock blindly from a post on an online forum deserves to get burnt anyway.
> Seriously.



You just  :axt:  two groups of ASFers, I don't know which group you have hit harder, these who believe ASF is god, or those who believe that ASFers believe ASF is god?  

Anyway, thanks for answering it for me. :alcohol:


----------



## Mousie (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> You just  :axt:  two groups of ASFers, I don't know which group you have hit harder, these who believe ASF is god, or those who believe that ASFers believe ASF is god?
> 
> Anyway, thanks for answering it for me. :alcohol:





LOL!!! 

To put it more kindly though:

ASF exposes us to stocks which we may not have heard of before, and now that we do, we can understand them a bit better objectively.

But with so many stocks (that you understood from ASF), and so few cash to go around, decide for yourself which ones provide the best value, and TAKE THE PLUNGE!!!

See? Easy!!!

(Disclaimer: Errrrr...if after all's said and done and you're still in the red, maybe not   )


----------



## Sean K (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This thread has become very amusing.


----------



## Halba (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi mmining, nizar and others

I have purchased a small parcel of MTN this morning. You have all successfully convinced me. I might top up again if it falls to add to my holding. 

Reasons: Big resource and china shareholding tempted me. I guess with china as a s/holder the SA govt will want to give this the go ahead. Its on crown land so the usual things will have to be gotten through. Its best off as mmining has said to focus on the resource first, rest of stuff later. 

Cheerios.


----------



## mmmmining (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> Hi mmining, nizar and others
> 
> I have purchased a small parcel of MTN this morning. You have all successfully convinced me. I might top up again if it falls to add to my holding.
> 
> ...



Halba,

Dangerous, I guess you are acting on your own will, right? I don't want be named as a ramper.

Well, my theory is still the same, I am betting on the whole uranium sectors, not one or two particular stocks (provide you have enough play money).

The booming uranium sector will provide a support on the floor. We need to find stocks with star performance. Betting on multiple horses increase your odds to find them.

Of course, you might end up with one or two dogs. But we all know that, if you can have a few good ones with 100% to 1000%+ appreciations, you are still well ahead.


----------



## Halba (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I bought a small position, of my own volition. It will benefit from the labor party conference soon!


----------



## hector (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Halba,
> 
> Dangerous, I guess you are acting on your own will, right? I don't want be named as a ramper.
> 
> ...





No offence, but you speaks the english as goods as Nacho Libre and all the orphans put together!


----------



## mmmmining (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Halba,

I still hold MTN firmly. I didn't see any fundamental change for this stock yet. A few things we need to watch out carefully:

1. More drilling results, anytime soon (miner price impact and short)
2. Resource upgrade, End of March to May; (to establish new baseline)
3. Scope Study April to May; (MUST Watch)
4. Labor party conferences April 29; (Built in, Only negative will screw MTN)
5. Cosby revised bid, anytime (very likely, my prediction is $4.20 per share if Cosby still has a bit talent)
6. Chinese Count-bid anytime after Cosby revised bid (likely $5 per share)

I believe:
The resource upgrade will bring MTN to $5 level if there is no significant downgrade (-10%) on resources;

The company maker is not from a takeover, but from the scope study. A definite YES answer is must. Assume 5mlb annual production, with reasonable capex, then:
$20/lb cost will send this stock to $10
$30/lb cost will send this stock to $7
$50/lb will bury MTN instantly

Let's watch this baby together..


----------



## Halba (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Agree the scoping study by coffey is the key.


----------



## Plan B (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Halba,
> 
> I still hold MTN firmly. I didn't see any fundamental change for this stock yet. A few things we need to watch out carefully:
> 
> ...




Great summary, well done...



> 4. Labor party conferences April 29; (Built in, Only negative will screw MTN)




Im finding it hard to work out how much is actually built in to the share price already , ill guess we will find out soon enough.


----------



## Halba (7 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Don't think the costs will get that high...MTN's ore is very high grade and quality is good. i think average grade was 800ppm, with higher grade zones. This is a bargain isn't it with SMM likely to exit index.


----------



## sydney1963 (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> Don't think the costs will get that high...MTN's ore is very high grade and quality is good. i think average grade was 800ppm, with higher grade zones. This is a bargain isn't it with SMM likely to exit index.



SMM market cap @ 850 millon, MTN @ 150 millon [atm].
Compare between the value of the resources both have. [under ground] 
You will find MTN markt cap is very low, it is a bargain.


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Agreed sydney pleased that my buy yesterday was spot on   

I agree fundamentals looks good.

I guess I'm going to get set on MTN....big day ahead for me now.


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

oops cancel that its on the slide again


----------



## mmmmining (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> oops cancel that its on the slide again



Halba, I don't watch stock price every minutes, unless I want to trade it. Because I cannot move the price.


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Just accumulating a stake, need to get the entry right.

Slow, small amounts to buy it.


----------



## chris1983 (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

hmm.  this looks good hey.  I have no money   Who wants to lend me some?


----------



## Mousie (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				chris1983 said:
			
		

> hmm.  this looks good hey.  I have no money   Who wants to lend me some?




LOL you just traded WMT and what did you blew it on?? :


----------



## chris1983 (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Mousie said:
			
		

> LOL you just traded WMT and what did you blew it on?? :




I'm on FXR atm.  I think they have a % gain in them once they put a message out that their nickel operations are going smoothly.  MTN looks really good though..there must be a reason to their current valuation because their deposit is world class


----------



## Mousie (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				chris1983 said:
			
		

> I'm on FXR atm.  I think they have a % gain in them once they put a message out that their nickel operations are going smoothly.  MTN looks really good though..there must be a reason to their current valuation because their deposit is world class




FXR looks a bit like a "picking the presently unloved" approach from what I noticed in just a few minutes research - but if u wanna get into MTN be prepared to hold a bit long-term IMO, these guys here are waiting for production and that may be some way off.


----------



## Rafa (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Chris,
I've had MTN for ages, around the 70c mark...

I think MTN has run up way too fast for its own good, (from 1.80 to 4.00 in a matter of weeks) and was due for a well deserved breather...

If I was you, i would still wait... this correction, in my opinion, is not yet over, and there may be a cheaper entry point that can be attained... (mid $2 is my estimate)

It all depends on how you do your trading..
Long term, this is a good stock, but even tho this one and BMN are the two stocks i love the most, in my opinion there may be cheaper entry points to come in the near future.

Be interesting to hear any TA views on this correction... i.e. percentage retracement from peak, etc, and what this all means.


----------



## mmmmining (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> Chris,
> and there may be a cheaper entry point that can be attained... (mid $2 is my estimate)



It has been there on this Tuesday, $2.62, and 
If you are so sure, you can make some money or end up with more shares by selling it now, and buy it back at $2.75?


----------



## sydney1963 (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> It has been there on this Tuesday, $2.62, and
> If you are so sure, you can make some money or end up with more shares by selling it now, and buy it back at $2.75?



Friday or Monday,because the data[job figure] will be announced on US by Friday which will effect the market and MTN sp.

_The tug of war that's going on between the bulls and the bears is over the strength of the underlying economy and the strength of earnings," Quincy Krosby, Chief Investment Strategist at The Hartford, told CNBC.com. "Investors will be focused on the important economic data that's coming out on Friday. If the market can keep hold of Tuesday's gains, even if it's in a tight trading range, that's positive."_


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

My opinion.

2.62 no way. This is a far too extreme price prediction. It hit that in one second in the extremities of the correction. It has bounced back well. Why would it go back down there?


----------



## mmmmining (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				sydney1963 said:
			
		

> Friday or Monday,because the data[job figure] will be announced on US by Friday which will effect the market and MTN sp.
> 
> _The tug of war that's going on between the bulls and the bears is over the strength of the underlying economy and the strength of earnings," Quincy Krosby, Chief Investment Strategist at The Hartford, told CNBC.com. "Investors will be focused on the important economic data that's coming out on Friday. If the market can keep hold of Tuesday's gains, even if it's in a tight trading range, that's positive."_



You might find more clues by checking MTN.com.


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

No one can predict the markets. Nobody has a crystal ball.

Just buy the stocks u think are good and hold em.


----------



## Sean K (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> My opinion.
> 2.62 no way. This is a far too extreme price prediction. It hit that in one second in the extremities of the correction. It has bounced back well. Why would it go back down there?



A few people are tipping that the correction has some way to go. Extreme lows anticipated are in the 4000s. It might not get there but if a wave C takes the markets back under the last low, then most stocks, including this, will probably suffer too. Having said that, if the market steadies, and more good drill results come out, or there's a takeover offer, etc etc, then this will go ok.


----------



## mmmmining (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I am sorry if you do check in at MTN.com, and have found contents not relevant.

MTN is a speculative stocks, and in a very unique industry. It has its own boom and bust cycle associated with uranium industry, has very little to do with those economic calendar, particular US's. 

If you want to speculate MTN, or uranium stock, you just waste your time and opportunity to study those big economic indicators.

If you have done your research, like it, and still worry about the damn job number, why not commit half of your money now, and another half later?


----------



## Halba (8 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The coffey mining study is critical to the success of this share. IMHO other factors can work short term, but that is the critical and most important element.


----------



## mmmmining (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

People never learn. Stupid Buttermere  should hear our voice before make such stupid offer. $3.52 is too low. $4.20 should be more acceptable.

Now we have a reference price, not the $3.52. is how much Buttermere want to see it a few years later. I guess Buttermere is not for not a non-profitable organization. I guess it want to double the price. I guess $7 for MTN is a fair price..


----------



## Halba (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

the fair price will be what the mkt decides i guess! Ah well i got a small parcel of these


----------



## mmmmining (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I am laughing at the offer statement:

"220% premium to the price of the placement shares of $1.10 to Talbot Group and CITIC Australia...."

How about a 15% discount to the all-time high!, and
450% premium to the original offer....

Where are those people in last 9 month?

Still not get it right...


----------



## Sean K (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> People never learn. Stupid Buttermere  should hear our voice before make such stupid offer. $3.52 is too low. $4.20 should be more acceptable.
> 
> Now we have a reference price, not the $3.52. is how much Buttermere want to see it a few years later. I guess Buttermere is not for not a non-profitable organization. I guess it want to double the price. I guess $7 for MTN is a fair price..



Still not sure what a 'fair' price is for any company without a final JORC, or approaval to mine.....

Normal takeover offers come in at approximately 30% above the volume weighted average of the previous 30 days trading. So, $4.20 ish would seem fair ish at the moment. Buttermere are dreaming at the moment really. Their offer might look ok if we do have a major correction back down to the 4000s in the XAO, and the U market follows everything else.


----------



## mmmmining (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Still not sure what a 'fair' price is for any company without a final JORC, or approaval to mine.....
> 
> Normal takeover offers come in at approximately 30% above the value weighted average of the previous 30 days trading. So, $4.20 ish would seem fair ish at the moment. Buttermere are dreaming at the moment really. There offer might look ok if we do have a major correction back down to the 4000s in the XAO, and the U market follows everything else.




Kennas, MTN do have JORC resources, like 67mlb. They are upgrading it from referred cat. to indicated and measured cat.

You can use all kind of formula to get the fair price, such as EV/lb resources, or peer analysis. Use both methods will value MTN at $10+.

I named the $7 plus is based on the Buttermere investment objective.


----------



## Sean K (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Kennas, MTN do have JORC resources, like 67mlb. They are upgrading it from referred cat. to indicated and measured cat.



Yes. Note I said *final * JORC. It will have more than current JORC IMO. It wasn't supposed to be a negative comment.


----------



## Realist (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Buttermere are morons.   

Their original offer was embarassingly weak. And they sent me a letter every week, week after week, it did my head in getting offers for 68c for my $3.00 shares - it was worse than getting a letter from David Tweed.

Now the next offer looks weak to.

They need to pay a premium, cause otherwise i have to sell and pay 50% CGT tax.

I aint selling. There is no point in me selling, I'll lose money on tax.


----------



## Halba (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

3.52 seems a bit of a joke of a bid.


----------



## Broadside (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> People never learn. Stupid Buttermere  should hear our voice before make such stupid offer. $3.52 is too low. $4.20 should be more acceptable.
> 
> Now we have a reference price, not the $3.52. is how much Buttermere want to see it a few years later. I guess Buttermere is not for not a non-profitable organization. I guess it want to double the price. I guess $7 for MTN is a fair price..




Buttermere also screwed up their takeover for TYC which is why I got into MTN, I don't know who is in charge of their strategy but they ought to be given the elbow.  If they made an offer of $1.20 9 months ago, they may not have succeeded but they would have got a lot of acceptances and would be sitting on a very large paper profit.  Here's a tip, next time Buttermere make an initial offer for another company, buy with your ears pinned back and wait.


----------



## mmmmining (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

For whoever not in the position yet, or have not in full position, $3.52 is not the final price, and think whoever increase the offer by 450%, and want it all for $3.52will not sell it tomorrow at $3.52;

For whoever is luck in the position, it is not a celebration time yet, and anything could happen, good and bad;

For whoever want to check US's jobless number first before considering  MTN, it is a very valuable lesson for investment and speculation.


----------



## Halba (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

They're gonna have to bid more!


----------



## nizar (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> They're gonna have to bid more!




I think so too.


----------



## Rafa (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Buttermore are abosulute morons   
I really do think that this correction has some way to go, and if they delayed their bid till next week, they may well have seen MTN at 2.60ish and then the bid of 3.50 would have looked ok... Not only that, it would have allowed me to buy some more!    

as it stands, MTN was around 3.30 when they came in with their second rediculous bid!!!

its fair to say my comments yesterday of it falling back to 2.60ish are now invalid.

That is good news for existing holders and bad news for those either wanting to get in, or to get some more (like me)! 

Anyway...

I would think 3.52 is the new floor, so any purchases around the present prices should not see too much downside...

However the upside is huge, as there is no way this share is going to go for this price... 400 - 500m is a reasonably take over offer, whatever that equates to in share price (including all options, etc, etc).


----------



## Halba (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi rafa the risk rewards look good at this price. 25c downside, and possible upside as you say to the $400m dollar mark.


----------



## Rafa (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i tend to agree with that...

And although a lot of it does depend on the final JORC and the FS from Coffeys...from where i am sitting at this point in time... this would have to be a good time to get in.


----------



## insider (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I will not accept less than $15 per share


----------



## nizar (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> i tend to agree with that...
> 
> And although a lot of it does depend on the final JORC and the FS from Coffeys...from where i am sitting at this point in time... this would have to be a good time to get in.




Yeh i picked up a few at $3.75.


----------



## insider (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> Yeh i picked up a few at $3.75.



Nice you made 1 cent per share profit...


----------



## insider (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

some shares slipped through at 18minutes past 4>>>> 4:18PM

how does this happen... when I go to the bank one minute late they just lock me out and then I stick my finger up...


----------



## nizar (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Nice you made 1 cent per share profit...




Damn i thought it was 5c   
LOL


----------



## insider (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> Damn i thought it was 5c
> LOL



Try not to spend it all at once... lol... It should have been 5 Cents


----------



## Halba (9 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Drill results r imminent also nizar so you have joined at a good time.


----------



## prs (11 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Halba
What are these new drill results you mention?
Do you know when the results of the new licences are likely?
I mentioned in a previous thread that I had invested my super in Marathon, well that's about 154,000 shares so you can see that I'm pretty keen for this whole thing to work so I can retire.


----------



## Halba (11 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

prs such comments "I hold 154,000 shares" etc cannot be independently verified. I believe the moderator doesn't want people disclosing these figures as they don't contribute anything meaningful to the thread. I myself and others should cease this habit of telling how much you own - this contributes nothing and as stated can't be verified.

To answer your question re: drill results its in the prior announcements. I would think with 154,000 shares you would be up to date and even in the ear of the directors.


----------



## sydney1963 (11 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> prs such comments "I hold 154,000 shares" etc cannot be independently verified. I believe the moderator doesn't want people disclosing these figures as they don't contribute anything meaningful to the thread. I myself and others should cease this habit of telling how much you own - this contributes nothing and as stated can't be verified.
> 
> To answer your question re: drill results its in the prior announcements. I would think with 154,000 shares you would be up to date and even in the ear of the directors.



Yesterday, 07:34 AM  
Halba     Join Date: Apr 2006
Posts: 580  

 Re: ERN - Erongo Energy 

--------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Agree Chris but I invested in BLR for some smaller diversification. I hold like 2k in BLR and 40 times that in BMN so agree.


Happy that ERN closed well on friday, news must be imminent.


----------



## Halba (11 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



> Halba said:
> 
> I myself and others should cease this habit of telling how much you own




Already admitted I have done it on occasion.

Am ceasing this habit. So quoting my past words does nothing.


----------



## mmmmining (11 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> I mentioned in a previous thread that I had invested my super in Marathon, well that's about 154,000 shares so you can see that I'm pretty keen for this whole thing to work so I can retire.




With such large holding on MTN, a non-indexed stock, You are very modest to claim that you are new to investment.

Anyway, welcome pre, I believe you have 154,000 reasons to do your own research actively on  MTN, instead of being a passive reader and holder. If you have any information on MTN, I appreciate if you can share with us.

For whoever worried about the SA government, SA is in top 5 attraction to miners, ahead of QLD.

http://www.mineweb.net/whats_new/674167.htm


----------



## prs (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Guys, please accept my apologies for any inappropriate comments. I AM completely new to investing and while I cannot disclose the reason why I decided upon MTN and chose to invest everything, I can honestly say that this is an interesting and traumatic ride that I'm on. I listen and read as much as I can but there are probably a number of sites I'm not aware of pertaining to my investment. Should you guys wish to offer any sites I would be very greatful. Please take it easy guys I really am only learning but would like to know heaps more with a view to continued investing. 
I have e-mailed MTN and asked a similar question about the licences and not received a response. Disappointing but I haven't given up hope. I feel a bit shy about giving info that I have for fear of getting beaten down. However, should I find anything out I will most definately share, a reason why I joined this site. I guess also, there's a side of me that is looking for confirmation that I've done the right thing. Thks mmmmining for the welcome.


----------



## Halba (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

prs how much $$ are you sitting on? Throwing 154,000 shares into a company without research is suicide. You might have fluked it here ,but i strongly suggest you do some research before hopping in.

Frankly i do not believe you. You sound very new and i very much doubt a newbie would put 154,000 shares. 154,000 shares even purchased at average of $2 is worth over $300,000. Do i believe you? I don't coz even i do not play with that sort of cash.

If i am wrong i must apologise. But normally people with that kind of cash(in one stock) are highly professional and methodical and have connections in the industry.


----------



## mmmmining (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Halba, I don't think we should getting into too much private (how much share I own, you own, or "Pre" own is a private matter). If you still not calm down yet, just think "Pre" might be a relative of one of the executives in MTN, or "Pre" might a rich person, or simply inherit it, even win a lotto.  

I believe "Pre" might contribute a lot in this thread because of his large holding. All we need is use our time and energy to analyze MTN, not "Pre".


----------



## Halba (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

who the heck is "pre" mmining? I was addressing "prs"

on a strictly MTN note the share is doing splendid  

they are current drilling the eastern most side of the deposit. results or some progress report is imminent. Coffey mining study i believe will be in may


----------



## mmmmining (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> who the heck is "pre" mmining? I was addressing "prs"
> 
> on a strictly MTN note the share is doing splendid
> 
> they are current drilling the eastern most side of the deposit. results or some progress report is imminent. Coffey mining study i believe will be in may



Sorry, Halba, a typo. should be "prs"


----------



## prs (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Guys, research was done prior to my investing. I am not a relative of anyone at MTN, I promise all of you I am a 57 yr old punter who is desperate to retire, who was literally getting nowhere with his superannuation and didn't have enough to fulfill that dream. I have taken a big plunge and while you may feel it suicidal it appears to be working. I am not a professional. I invested my super and bought MTN shares when they were $1.63, you know roughly how many shares I hold and the closing price today was $3.88. You can work it out from there.
Halba, the reason I invested that amount of money is that I have been  working for over 41 yrs and I have been accruing super for that amount of time.


----------



## Sean K (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Guys, it's probably best that no one post up how many shares they've bought and for how much. I've found that it just presents problems on the forum. There is no way to varify it, and can also be easily suspected as ramping. I'm not saying anyone has done that deliberately here, it's just a general comment. If anyone really has to tell someone how many shares they own in something, it's best to be done via PM. Cheers. Sean K


----------



## prs (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sorry kennas, just trying to help these guys understand where I'm coming from and that I'm not stupid, suicidal or some sort of ogre. No more numbers will be mentioned.


----------



## sleeper88 (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

getting back to the issue here, does anyone think the directors will accept this offer and tell us shareholders to accept it too, in the absence of any higher bids (thats what they all say). I mean directors have made stupid decisions in the past. 
Also, would it be wise for PDN to drop its offer for SMM and bid for MTN instead?


----------



## Halba (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sleeper 88 I doubt much more will be heard on the issue of takeover.

Directors think its laughable and I myself think this is a joke (very underbidding).


----------



## mmmmining (12 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Per ann, The Cosby's need a few days to formally lodge the revised offer. 

I guess MTN is very likely to release further drilling results before any official response, even a preliminary scope study if it is to board's advantage. 

Either way will send MTN's SP well pass $4, and of course a big Rejection. 

If rejection without further drilling results or preliminary scope study, the SP will be around current level.

If the board recommend to accept the offer, then Bad News...


----------



## insider (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Nice little announcement this morning... 

Quote from video transcript. "Marathon is the obvious company to invest in".


----------



## mmmmining (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> Nice little announcement this morning...
> 
> Quote from video transcript. "Marathon is the obvious company to invest in".



The video addressed several concerns, such as politics, environment, metallurgy, size and quality of resources. Very encouraging to listen.

Indicated 1000t+ U3O8/yr production (revenue at $250m+), and ~30yr mining life..


----------



## nizar (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> Per ann, The Cosby's need a few days to formally lodge the revised offer.
> 
> I guess MTN is very likely to release further drilling results before any official response, even a preliminary scope study if it is to board's advantage.
> 
> ...




MTN must and i suspect will, reject the offer saying the usual:
"THis offer undervalues the company and its prospects, etc,etc"

But if they accept like those idiots over at OMC, then that will cap the price. Look at OMC 4 months on, other uranium stocks have bolted, but its done nothing, im very happy to have sold that dog.

So if directors accept, that will cap the price.
If they reject, then off and away we go.


----------



## champ2003 (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				nizar said:
			
		

> MTN must and i suspect will, reject the offer saying the usual:
> "THis offer undervalues the company and its prospects, etc,etc"
> 
> But if they accept like those idiots over at OMC, then that will cap the price. Look at OMC 4 months on, other uranium stocks have bolted, but its done nothing, im very happy to have sold that dog.
> ...




After this mornings announcement with them promoting investment into their company it has an underlying tone of rejection of offer IMO.

I think that they want to grow the company themselves.


----------



## Sean K (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> After this mornings announcement with them promoting investment into their company it has an underlying tone of rejection of offer IMO.
> 
> I think that they want to grow the company themselves.



Everyone has a price I reckon.


----------



## champ2003 (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Everyone has a price I reckon.




Yeah very true Kennas. It will be very interesting to see what price MTN eventually gives in to.


----------



## Halba (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

lmao "everyone has a price". But it looks as though I'm prepared to give this stock a PV valuation of somewhere between $750-$1.2billion dollars.

Reasons: $10/lb EV/lb as the standard benchmark. More premium added due to it being good grades.


----------



## champ2003 (13 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Gosh at $3.85 the offer of $3.52 looks really attractive....NOT!!!!


----------



## nizar (14 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Any thoughts on the Chairmans response?
He didnt really lean either way....
Why dont they just say No and give a presentation and bag the sh$% out of buttermere the way SMM did to PDN


----------



## Rafa (14 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

patience Nizar,
they don't really need to...
the market knows!

was hoping MTN dropped to 3.52 so i could buy some more...!
FALL MTN, FALL!!!


----------



## prs (14 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I believe we can expect another drop in the uranium sector, not very big and certainly nowhere near the ordinaries. Could this be the correction we ought to have expected in April?


----------



## Sean K (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

That ann from MTN looks pretty positive to me yet the sp has hardly moved   Factored in perhaps? 

They continue to get great grades, and will certainly extend the resource.


----------



## mmmmining (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

More drilling results are out.

People have no idea with so many numbers. It is strange that market often cheers for a couple of rock grabbing, and quiet with flood of drilling results. Sometimes, Mr Market are really spoiled. 

I believe MTN can do better by putting the numbers in context of the modeling.

Anyway, I am going to do a study tonight, to compare all kind of numbers.


----------



## nizar (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> That ann from MTN looks pretty positive to me yet the sp has hardly moved   Factored in perhaps?
> 
> They continue to get great grades, and will certainly extend the resource.




Agree, the resource will be extended..
The market has misunderstood.

I dont think anything is factored in, not at this market cap.


----------



## Halba (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Looks good the grades look higher than their model am I correct?

A lot of 900-1000ppm's higher than 690 average grade.

Also mkt will only react on final jorc numbers.

cheerios

Bear in mind mkt got bashed yest ppl a bit slow today.


----------



## insider (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> That ann from MTN looks pretty positive to me yet the sp has hardly moved   Factored in perhaps?
> 
> They continue to get great grades, and will certainly extend the resource.




This is where I believe the uranium sector is a bit strange... There is no logical pattern to it going up or down or sideways... AGS did the same thing, they came out with results, they didn't move for a while, I sold and then bang... the stock rose to 2 dollars from 43 cents or something... I'm happy sit back and watch it bolt off... there's no way I'm falling for this again... the common thing with both stocks is that AGS was in a correction period with new results... and MTN is now in a correction period with new results


----------



## mmmmining (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> the common thing with both stocks is that AGS was in a correction period with new results... and MTN is now in a correction period with new results




IMHO, the only thing is common between AGS and MTN is  both has uranium asset in SA, and only miles away from each other.

The key difference is that AGS is full of greed, over $400m market cap for a possible 25% of 30,000t U3O8.

(High grade, near term producer, ISL mining, More exploration targets, everything about AGS is excellent, blue sky...)

On the other hand, MTN is full of fear, less than $230m market cap for a JORC 100% of 31,000t U3O8, 

(Doubtful resources modeling, average grade, may not be mined, national park, aboriginal problem, heritage issue, environmental problem. The very low share price reinforce people's doubt. Cannot be that cheap, must have some problems.....)

As time pass by, both greed in AGS and fear for MTN are eased. You can notice the share price travel in a different way from Mid-Jan. 

AGS is a passive pig-back uranium asset holder. The delay in release the JORC resources by partner is not inspiring. 

While batch after batch excellent drilling results, and PR activities do remove a lot of doubts on MTN

When Cosby offered MTN at 68c, MTN's share has been around 75c for a few months until the uranium sector took off.

It is very normal to see the MTN is trading around $3.70, a 5% premium over Cosby's offer.

Having seen so many good drilling results, people start to take it for granted. I guess MTN's price will not be much higher than $3.52 until the indicated/measured JORC resources released, or a positive scope study. 

I am not saying that AGS is not worth $2, or to use AGS's valuation to get $10+ for MTN. Because they are very different stocks, with different stories...


----------



## Halba (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Both have different resource models, grades, enviro/social issues/ sentiment

Its like comparing a juicy orange to a nice apple.

I think AGS- east zone has about 35000,40,000t contained u308

West may have about 15,000-20,000 high grade, with another 10,000+ in surrounds. Send me a pm if u want to know my calcs. Thats about 50,000 exploration target+(versus the 30,000 u mentioned) so you might want to have a look at your calculation again... re AGS

Also open pits u can produce more than underground depending on size of process plant( ithink MTN said minimum 1000tpa).


----------



## bigt (15 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Very good comment mmmmmining, there is more to a stock than tonnage alone..much more.


----------



## prs (15 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium price*

Anybody notice that uranium has gone up to $91/lb?
Any comments on the impact?


----------



## insider (15 March 2007)

*Re: Uranium price*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> Anybody notice that uranium has gone up to $91/lb?
> Any comments on the impact?




It did? good...

You made some great points mmmmmining... but you didn't understand what I was saying... I was saying that I believe that the uranium sector is kind of unpredictable, companies that are worth billions yet don't make a cent is one way it defies logic...  people keep asking questions like "it's soooo good why doesn't it go up?" and then for no reason at all it jumps up unexpectedly... there probably is a reason but it does defy logic... My dodgy little comparison between AGS and MTN was nothing more than an example of unpredictability in this sector... so my advice is just sit and wait... that's all... What I speak of is something outside of analysis, good results, issues, politics etc.


----------



## Halba (16 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Insider sure they don't make profits, but isn't markets all about expectations of profit? With the resource size of Mt Gee, the profit potential is sizeable (assuming +1000tpa given in presentations). Not only that, the forward u price is unlikely to be $100/lb, it could theoretically be higher when they are in bankable feasibility - say about $120/lb.


----------



## prs (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I would have thought that with demand for U outstripping supply, with actual auctioning going on for U,   with Cigar Lake flooded and probably not capable of production for some years to come, with China trying its hardest to get into Australia's uranium, with ERA with a flooded mine and with the results of the recent drilling at Mt Gee that MTN must surely be qualified to be issued with a licence in the near future. Any thoughts?


----------



## Sean K (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> I would have thought that with demand for U outstripping supply, with actual auctioning going on for U,   with Cigar Lake flooded and probably not capable of production for some years to come, with China trying its hardest to get into Australia's uranium, with ERA with a flooded mine and with the results of the recent drilling at Mt Gee that MTN must surely be qualified to be issued with a licence in the near future. Any thoughts?



I don't think any of those factors play a part in MTN getting a lisence to mine.    I think that's up to the SA gov after an application is received. Plus, I think getting the lisence to mine is after a BFS anyway, so long time comming I think. And, I'm still not sure if SA are playing the National Labor card on No New Mines at the moment anyway.


----------



## champ2003 (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> I don't think any of those factors play a part in MTN getting a lisence to mine.    I think that's up to the SA gov after an application is received. Plus, I think getting the lisence to mine is after a BFS anyway, so long time comming I think. And, I'm still not sure if SA are playing the National Labor card on No New Mines at the moment anyway.




Thank god for the election coming up so we can all put the speculation over mining in SA to rest. As far as I'm aware its the most  uranium mining friendly state in Australia.???


----------



## Sean K (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> kennas said:
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Amen to that. I have to say though that SA is not a 'U friendly' State, just because they have 2 operating and one approved. The Honeymoon Mine has been allowed to go ahead because it was approved in 2002 when the Liberal Party was in power in SA. While the current leader may be open to mining, he still has to follow Nat Labor policy.


----------



## Halba (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yep kennas is right. Don't even have to look at this approval issue until AFTER the BFS outcomes.


----------



## champ2003 (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Amen to that. I have to say though that SA is not a 'U friendly' State, just because they have 2 operating and one approved. The Honeymoon Mine has been allowed to go ahead because it was approved in 2002 when the Liberal Party was in power in SA. While the current leader may be open to mining, he still has to follow Nat Labor policy.




Thanks guys,

In your opinion whats the most friendly U mining state at the moment then?


----------



## Sean K (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				champ2003 said:
			
		

> Thanks guys,
> 
> In your opinion whats the most friendly U mining state at the moment then?



Canberra, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Nowra, and NT. And any Australian embassy overseas.


----------



## champ2003 (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				kennas said:
			
		

> Canberra, Norfolk Island, Christmas Island, Nowra, and NT. And any Australian embassy overseas.




Ok I guess i asked a silly question. 

Cheers!


----------



## insider (17 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

There was a full page article on uranium in today's Herald Sun... it was titled "Uranium Fever" It picked the top ten Uranium Deposits in Australia and said who owned them... There wasn't anything said about MTN that we don't know but mentioned the takeover bid from Crosby Financial Partners in Hong Kong... It also stated that MTN along side PNN have had recent gains of 400%...

There wasn't that much said about the companies and no market capitals were mentioned, however the found resource was... Hopefully investors will see how much more uranium MTN have compared with the rest and compare market capitals...

In the Article there was also mention about how the market is anticipating a change in next months review of the labor policy on new mines...


----------



## Halba (18 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Those articles are aimed at the average Joe, not much in them really.


----------



## Sean K (18 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> Those articles are aimed at the average Joe, not much in them really.



I agree, not much we shouldn't know already. The effect will be that your next cabbie will be telling you to buy uranium stocks.....


----------



## nizar (18 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> Those articles are aimed at the average Joe, not much in them really.




Creating awareness (that MTN exists!) among average Joes is not a bad thing.

But i dont want them to catch on yet. Though it willl be good if, in the future, they do come to the understanding that uranium stocks are unreal - they will be buying from us when PDN is around the $30/40 mark and MTN maybe $10-15.

And thats just before the uranium bubble bursts.

Remember the masses rarely get it right.

I was reading a book where it was mentioned that there was a fund manager that pick stocks by taking the position opposite to what is in those stockmarket newsletters, he subscribes to about 30 newsletters, and in his calculation, he puts largest weighting to the ones that have the largest number of subscribers. He managed north of a billion dollars, and has been very succesful. His reasoning was that the masses always rely on these newslettes to make decisions, and the masses rarely get it right. Funny stuff


----------



## insider (18 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The thing is for the no new mines policy to be lifted I think there needs to be a significant amount of investor pressure... So getting the average joe to jump on would be good...


----------



## prs (20 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey Guys
The board has gone very quiet. What's happening, what are your thoughts about the lack of movement?


----------



## mmmmining (20 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> Hey Guys
> The board has gone very quiet. What's happening, what are your thoughts about the lack of movement?




I check the dictionary about a word PATIENT,

1. bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint;
2. manifesting forbearance under provocation or strain;
3. not hasty or impetuous;
4. steadfast despite opposition, difficulty, or adversity

In last April, someone bought MTN at $1.40. It took 8 long months until last Dec. to be in the money;
MTN just being sideway for a month, I believe you need to hug "PATIENT" for a while.

By the way, MTN will response by this Friday.


----------



## insider (20 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				mmmmining said:
			
		

> I check the dictionary about a word PATIENT,
> 
> 1. bearing pains or trials calmly or without complaint;
> 2. manifesting forbearance under provocation or strain;
> ...




I've been waiting for Thursday and Friday for months... MTN will be presenting at a national uranium conference... should be good... Go to Uranium a raging bull thread to read more... MTN's involvement will be positive... MTN have the largest deposit of all the companies presenting but one of the smallest capitals...


----------



## prs (21 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

G'Day mmmmining
You're dead right and I believe that's the lesson I have to learn at the moment. I have been told to be patient and that the next two weeks are going to see MTN start to really move. 
Insider, what was the name of that site please?


----------



## mmmmining (21 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> G'Day mmmmining
> You're dead right and I believe that's the lesson I have to learn at the moment. I have been told to be patient and that the next two weeks are going to see MTN start to really move.
> Insider, what was the name of that site please?



if you are in Adelaide, you should take a look, at least the expo. 

http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/


----------



## prs (21 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Insider, what I mean is could you please give me the page number at Raging Bull as there are over 80 of them?


----------



## prs (21 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

mmmmining thanks for sharing that. I've just had a look at the site and my impatience has been replaced with absolute encouragement.


----------



## insider (21 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				prs said:
			
		

> Insider, what I mean is could you please give me the page number at Raging Bull as there are over 80 of them?



here's the link... 

http://www.paydirtsuraniumconference.com/


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

A share acceptance form from buttermere just came through the mail... I shredded it...


----------



## UraniumLover (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				insider said:
			
		

> A share acceptance form from buttermere just came through the mail... I shredded it...



:blover: Lovin MTN still :blover:  I shredded buttermere too. 
Hopefully this will continue moving up like other u plays today.


----------



## Halba (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Uraniumlover seems like you are lovin a lot of stocks today.... :1luvu:


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN reject the revised offer.


----------



## mmmmining (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Good Staff.

Highlight from the rejection document:

1. CEO of Crosby boost on 14 Mar 07: (page 5 or 2)

"We continue to see substantial additional value within the Marathon business."

For project with such huge risk, under normal situation, it required MTN return 100%+ to justify $200m+ return. From this point of view, MTN will worth $7+

2. Resources upgrade in 3 months (page 9 or 6)

3. The scoping study is well advanced (page 9 or 6)

4. Drilling out side Mt Gee in the Paralana Mineral System. 4 diamont drill holes completed this month at Armchair deposit.  (page 9 or 6)

5. (extra)  I quote from: www.miningNews.net:

"South Australian Mineral Resources Development Minister Paul Holloway told the Paydirt Uranium Conference in Adelaide that "the State Government is very confident that the no new mines policy will change, allowing South Australia's competitive advantage in the uranium sector to come to the fore".

"It's my opinion that South Australia will move fairly quickly to change our policy," he said, noting that any policy change won't affect existing operations and already strong support for the change from the state's premier and other ministers."


----------



## andrewkmz (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I like the word "unanimously", which means all directors agreed to reject. Also "the scoping study on the Mt Gee deposit being undertaken by Coffey Mining is well advanced.", seems to me very positive. I feel this one is worth a lot of more.


----------



## shinobi346 (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				UraniumLover said:
			
		

> :blover: Lovin MTN still :blover:  I shredded buttermere too.
> Hopefully this will continue moving up like other u plays today.





I tore mine up today too. I would have torn it up a while ago but it must have got lost under the pile of paper on my desk. Buttermere talks about doing us a favour by taking the risk of holding MTN off us. I don't think so. 


Dear Buttermere. Your desire to buy MTN only makes me want to hold more.


----------



## Halba (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

the announcements today by MTN were highly professional. The responses to the bid were well worded and showed that a lot of key events will be happening in the next few months which will add value to MTN. 

Comparisons with other uranium transactions include Omegacorp - which got taken over for about $14/lb of inferred resource. Others include SMM also around that per pound, and SXR's purchase of Urasia.

They have also put up a timetable of their likely development. Their timeline seems as good as any other Australian deposit right now, and are aiming for a 2011 start date. This is realistic, but probably it cannot come earlier than that.


----------



## UraniumLover (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Halba said:
			
		

> Uraniumlover seems like you are lovin a lot of stocks today.... :1luvu:



Haliba ,
it is hard not be just a little excited. 
The only problem is i'm running out of money. Maybe you can lend me some Haliba so i can spread more love. Currently holding following u stocks
:1luvu:MTN, BMN, PNN, ACB, UKL, WMT, NTU, ERN, SMM, PDN, TOE :1luvu:
Out of all these MTN,PNN,TOE my favourites as SA. Living in  SA i know how important these projects wll be for the state as SA needs it badly. Mike Rann won't last if these projects don't go through in my opinion.  There has been a reduction of jobs in agriculture due to drought, economies of scale etc and the rural guys need Mining jobs.
With the Uranium conference in SA soon the likes of PNN, MTN, TOE should benefit in terms of foreign investment and exposure. I may attend if not too buzy to say hi to Sinosteel and other foreign investors.


----------



## insider (22 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				shinobi346 said:
			
		

> I tore mine up today too. I would have torn it up a while ago but it must have got lost under the pile of paper on my desk. Buttermere talks about doing us a favour by taking the risk of holding MTN off us. I don't think so.
> 
> 
> Dear Buttermere. Your desire to buy MTN only makes me want to hold more.




You actually read it?!


----------



## mmmmining (28 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> In addition to Mt Gee's  31,255t U3O8, there are resource estimates done by Exoil as follow: (MTN's ann on 2 Aug 2005)
> 
> Hodgkinson: 484t at 2200ppm
> Armchair: 680t at 1000ppm
> ...




MTN need to break the all time high ($4.1) with large volume before everyone is convinced to forget about the Cosby's bulldogXShizi. 

It might just around the corner with a positive drilling results from Armchair. Refer to my previous post, Armchair might have 680t uranium at 1000ppm. The amount is not significant, but it give rooms for people's imagination, Current Mt Gee is a small area, there are a lot more outside.


----------



## Halba (28 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Needs an announcement to break.

So far the breaks have not been convincing. All it will take is one DOW down and it will go back down


----------



## nizar (28 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> Needs an announcement to break.
> 
> So far the breaks have not been convincing. All it will take is one DOW down and it will go back down




The DOW was down last nite, didnt seem to bother the MTN open.


----------



## mmmmining (28 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nizar said:


> The DOW was down last nite, didnt seem to bother the MTN open.




I guess you are senior enough to read Halba.

Let me have a try: He did not have enough MTN (this is what the  for), and wish it goes down enough, so he can top it up like crazy... 

Halba, deny it please!


----------



## Halba (28 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think i got MTN covered, but it all depends on price doesn't it?

I think it will need a good announcement for it to break. But this is healthy price action nonetheless. 

:sword:  <<< break the wall downnn!


----------



## Halba (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi. Thought people had forgotten this stock! Fat prophets have a hold on it and a $400m dollar+ valuation(or around 7-8dollars), assuming $5/lb. They think the market is still undervaluing this resource. I agree.


----------



## Plan B (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> Hi. Thought people had forgotten this stock! Fat prophets have a hold on it and a $400m dollar+ valuation(or around 7-8dollars), assuming $5/lb. They think the market is still undervaluing this resource. I agree.




Yes I tend to agree... 

And IMHO if some other company other than "butterballs" doesnt come in and offer a higher price before the april labour conference..... Then I will eat my hat!! .. :alcohol:


----------



## mmmmining (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

People are playing waiting game:
In a week or two: Armchair drilling results;
In a month or two resources upgrade;
Scope study results;
Revised bid again??
Counter-bid??


----------



## Sean K (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Considering the loc of Mt Gee tennament has anyone considered a tie up between MTN/AGS/Quasar/Heathgate. That's one serious block of U infested dirt. Just thinking out loud...perhaps they'll hear me.


----------



## Plan B (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Considering the loc of Mt Gee tennament has anyone considered a tie up between MTN/AGS/Quasar/Heathgate. That's one serious block of U infested dirt. Just thinking out loud...perhaps they'll hear me.




I like the way you think Kennas..... lol


----------



## champ2003 (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> Hi. Thought people had forgotten this stock! Fat prophets have a hold on it and a $400m dollar+ valuation(or around 7-8dollars), assuming $5/lb. They think the market is still undervaluing this resource. I agree.




Actually Fat prophets has a valuation much higher than 7-8 dollars. Try doubling that and you will be close.


----------



## prs (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Anybody tell me why it is that uranium has gone up to $95/lb and MTN has remained pretty much the same?


----------



## Mousie (30 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Anybody tell me why it is that uranium has gone up to $95/lb and MTN has remained pretty much the same?




Try asking Mr Market.   No, seriously.


----------



## insider (31 March 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Anybody tell me why it is that uranium has gone up to $95/lb and MTN has remained pretty much the same?




There are plenty of possibilities... My assumption is market manipulation... It's short lived...

I've seen orders for 27, 1, 100, 32 shares... It's ridiculous crap... Don't worry...


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Is Mount Gee under the Flinders Ranges Council, the pastoral zone or the rural zone... If you don't understand what I'm asking to please investigate or don't answer at all... I can't find a detailed map of South Australia that can show me which council Mount Gee is under...


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I'm pretty sure it falls under the Flinders Ranges council which offers two planning policies. Policy A is the very strict one and applies mostly for areas south of Hawker... It's a no mining kind of policy... Policy B, although still strict allows a possibility for mining if constraints are followed... the Paralana system, (Unless somebody can hopefully prove that it is not part of the Flinders ranges) is treated as an animal sanctuary so mining there is tight... 

Essentially the directors of MTN will need to offer a condition where once they have finished mining works they would remove any evidence of human impact for example plant vegetation over tracks and tunnels... MTN's mining will require tunneling to get to resources as the surface of these scenic resources mustn't be impacted...

Below are the conditions of policy B

here is the source provided as ASF policy requires: http://www.planning.sa.gov.au/edp/pdf/FLRA.PDF

This is page 44

Environmental Class B Policy Area 

Objective 1:  The conservation and protection of the natural environment and beauty of the 
area. 

Land in the area constitutes the foreground of the most prominent ranges in the region.  It contains 
many features of outstanding natural beauty and environmental importance. 

The land should be kept free of development that is not a necessary part of pastoral activity.  Any new 
development should be in close proximity of existing buildings and structures. 

Where  there  are  popular  tourist  attractions,  such  as  the  gorges,  existing  sites  for  the  parking  of 
caravans  in  informal  groups,  within  vicinity  of  these  sites,  should  be  retained.    No  additional  sites 
should be established. 

Stock routes should be carefully monitored and controlled to prevent over-grazing. 

Objective 2:  Roads which do not destroy or damage the natural environment, character and 
beauty of the area. 

Care  should  be  taken  to  ensure  that  the  improvement  of  roads  in  the  Environmental  Class  B  Area 
does not unduly disturb landforms,  vegetation,  wildlife  and  other  attributes  which  make  the  area 
attractive to both tourists and scientists. 

It may be necessary to adopt lower than normal design speeds for some roads, and curtail the degree 
of access they provide, by having, for example, spur rather than loop roads.  At creek crossings, care 
should be taken to minimise damage to vegetation by roadworks.  Concrete fords rather than bridges 
should be used wherever possible. 

New roads and improvement to existing roads should ensure access to areas of scenic importance is 
available, but restricted to protect the environmental quality of the Area.  In respect, access to these 
areas  not  served  by  a  road  shown  on  Flinders  Structure  Plan,  Map  FlRa/1  (Overlay  1)  needs  to 
remain difficult to discourage vehicular access. 

Objective 3:  The retention and protection of the landscape from mining operations, and 
prospecting and exploring of new resources. 

Mining activities in the Environmental Area Class B should be carried out with the minimum effect on 
the scenic and natural qualities of the area. 

PRINCIPLES OF DEVELOPMENT CONTROL 

Form of Development 

The principles of development control expressed in this zone are additional to those which apply to the 
whole of the council area. 

1  Development should not damage the natural scenic features of the area. 

2  Native vegetation should not be cleared. 

3  New roads or tracks should only be formed or constructed where the natural environment of the 
area is not endangered. 

4  Development should be designed and sited so as to conserve buildings, structures or sites of 
natural or man-made heritage, especially those listed as State Heritage Items, or Aboriginal 
heritage significance, geological monuments or on the register of the National Estate. 

5  Mining activities should only take place in the Ranges Zone where: 

(a)  the deposits are of such paramount significance that all other environment, heritage or 
conservation considerations may be over-ridden; 

(b)  the exploitation of the deposits is in the National or State interest; 

(c)  investigations have shown that alternative deposits are not available on other land in 
the locality outside the zone; and 

(d)  the operations are subject to stringent safeguards to protect the landscape and natural 
environment. 

6  No buildings or structures, including transmission line towers and antennae, should be erected in 
the Ranges Zone other than: 

(a)  simple shelters and rainwater storage for walkers and persons on horseback; or 

(b)  buildings which form extensions of an existing pastoral homestead and/or tourist 
accommodation facilities provided that they are: 

(i)  essential for pastoral activities,  

(ii)  small scale tourist accommodation, such as .Farm Stays. and .Bed and Breakfast. 
establishments associated with existing pastoral activities, and are 

(iii)  located within or form compact and continuous extensions of existing groups of 
homestead buildings and/or tourist related buildings, 

(iv)  in keeping with the existing use of the land, 

(v)  of the same or lesser scale as existing buildings, 

(vi)  are ancillary and adjacent to existing buildings, 

(vii)  constructed of materials which blend with the landscape and the design of existing 
buildings, 

(viii) sited and designed to be unobtrusive, and 

(ix)  sited so that excavations for access roads, utilities and building construction are 
minimised, or 

(x)  sited so as to not result in the removal or damage to native vegetation. 

7  Rubbish collection points should be provided with any development associated with tourist 
attractions, and regularly serviced to remove any such rubbish. 

8  The provision of firewood deposits should be incorporated in development associated with tourist 
accommodation where appropriate, to ensure degradation of the natural vegetation does not 
occur. 

Is MT Gee  and Mt Painter heritage listed? - yes
Is Mt Gee and Mt Painter an animal sanctuary of the rare and endangered yellow footed rock wallaby? - yes
Is Mount Gee and Mount Painter Mineable? - Yes


----------



## Halba (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Anybody tell me why it is that uranium has gone up to $95/lb and MTN has remained pretty much the same?




I was right it can't mine. It's just gone up to this level due to hype. I was right all along.


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> I was right it can't mine. It's just gone up to this level due to hype. I was right all along.




read my previous post... infact read the last three sentences


----------



## Halba (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

looks complex still . I just note that Rio's application to mine Robe river was revoked due to the prescence of troglobites. Such is the risk of mining in australia- too many barriers and this is reflected in MTN's price. The run from 80c to $4.00 was just due to it going up on uranium price, the run after here has to be on some fundamental reason i.e. mineability, and this has to come from the government, not your word insider. If Premier Rann comes out and supports Mt Gee then yes it will be fine to mine. So far he has only supported Curnamona;s mine, AGS Beverley 4 mile and Honeymoon in the public. He has yet to make a single mention of Mt Gee mine and his support of the mine. If Rann does, then this would seal the deal.


----------



## insider (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Ummm... I will take back what I said... The Paralana system is a Zone A as shown on the map on page 50... Zone A guidelines are shown on page 43... The summary of it all is MTN can't mine unless the rules are overiden... Sorry Halba but A simple can't mine isn't enough you need sources and research and I just provided it... Ultimately MTN directors must have researched this and have some thing up there sleeves unless they are uranium pretenders... I haven't been this nervous since the correction...


----------



## mmmmining (1 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Ummm... I will take back what I said... The Paralana system is a Zone A as shown on the map on page 50... Zone A guidelines are shown on page 43... The summary of it all is MTN can't mine unless the rules are overiden... Sorry Halba but A simple can't mine isn't enough you need sources and research and I just provided it... Ultimately MTN directors must have researched this and have some thing up there sleeves unless they are uranium pretenders... I haven't been this nervous since the correction...




Death to MTN? Come on, guys, are we MTN executives, or Coffey' specialists? or a bunch of kids are watching scary movie on Friday night? 

NONE. Today is April 1, April FOUL DAY!   

Considering the following is posted on 2 April.

Insider, thank you for opening this kind of worms. I cannot find any Objectives for prohibiting mining "Environmental Class A Policy Area". 

ONLY land you cannot mine is the national park and natural reserve. I repeat. Any rest of land can be mined even your backyard is not safe if you can pass the EIA.

The document is dated on about Development Act 1993, dated back on 21 August 2003. I believe MTN executives have read it, Coffey's consultants have read it. I don't believe they are all EVA, try to eat a "forbidden fruit".

If you are still not sure yet, thinking about a billions of dollars, hundreds of jobs, is that significant to state and national interest? How about billions tones of CO2 saved for the planet, and reduced greenhouse gases emissions indirectly?

On Page 44  of the Plan:

Objective 3: ....
Mining activities should only occur in the Environmental Class A policy Area if the reserves of minerals are of paramount importance, ...or their exploitation is in the State or national interest......."

Still not calm down yet?

Who will against it? Of course, the so-called environmentalist, the greens. How big is their voice? And how many people will live in Mt Gee? So relax, let those environmentalist pretender eat **** and die, let the acid rain falling on the green forest turn the tree leaves into "Bob Brown"...

Still not, sell the dame MTN, and run. Don't look back, and don't regret for the rest of your life...


----------



## insider (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Death to MTN? Come on, guys, are we MTN executives, or Coffey' specialists? or a bunch of kids are watching scary movie on Friday night?
> 
> NONE. Today is April 1, April FOUL DAY!
> 
> ...




I understand what you're saying but for now it's under Class A zoning, the resource is under a mountain lined with Crush Breccia and some rare crystal formations... There are endangered species in the area as it is regarded as an animal sanctuary... The paralana system is heritage listed... 

Yes it all can be overridden as all the documents I've sourced and read for twelve hours today suggest but there is a huge task ahead... If another company with an equally substantial resource in South Australia turn up soon MTN won't look so hot to the premier of SA... I keep forgetting the losers name...

I don't care how good a company is but you have keep asking questions for and against it... I hate complacency...

Remember I have all my eggs in this basket... Good luck to everyone which means good luck to me too...

They won't mine without conditions...


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> I understand what you're saying but for now it's under Class A zoning, the resource is under a mountain lined with Crush Breccia and some rare crystal formations... There are endangered species in the area as it is regarded as an animal sanctuary... The paralana system is heritage listed...
> 
> Yes it all can be overridden as all the documents I've sourced and read for twelve hours today suggest but there is a huge task ahead... If another company with an equally substantial resource in South Australia turn up soon MTN won't look so hot to the premier of SA... I keep forgetting the losers name...
> 
> ...



Understand your concern. 
A few sleep pills for you:
Ken Tolbot own over 8% of it, 
CITIC owns over 8% of it;
Directors collect owns like 15%;
Cosby want it at $3.52, and expecting to make a killing on it

Go ask yourself a simple question, are they stupid? 

MTN is super cheap compare with peers, the market has discounted the environmental issues already.  I repeat, I believe it is minable. Only take a bit longer, tougher, and more money to get all approvals. We have not get there yet. If not, we can sue the directors.

Relax, just wait for the Coffey's scope study. They will tell you the full story. Don't pick up a piece of old and dirty document, and scare to death. Plus Cosby has provided a floor on the share price ATM.


----------



## insider (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Understand your concern.
> A few sleep pills for you:
> Ken Tolbot own over 8% of it,
> CITIC owns over 8% of it;
> ...




LOL... you're good mmmmining....Buttermere are stupid though... The thing is no one ever at ASF or HC showed sources of all that was discussed earlier and not in that depth... I just wish someone would would rip out a massive take over bid today...

when is Coffey's scope study coming?


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> LOL... you're good mmmmining....Buttermere are stupid though... The thing is no one ever at ASF or HC showed sources of all that was discussed earlier and not in that depth... I just wish someone would would rip out a massive take over bid today...
> 
> when is Coffey's scope study coming?




They told me the end of May for the Scope Study. But I doubt it because they might have to released it after the resources upgrade, which might be around early June.

The scope study has been mentioned in the target statement as "Well Advanced" equal to "Looking Good", or "Being Taken Care Of..."

Before that, a lot of drilling results will be released to the market, including one of the satellite deposit, Armchair.


----------



## insider (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> They told me the end of May for the Scope Study. But I doubt it because they might have to released it after the resources upgrade, which might be around early June.
> 
> Before that, a lot of drilling results will be released to the market, including one of the satellite deposit, Armchair.




sounds exciting


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Armchair doesn't have much u, satellite deposits r small.


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> Armchair doesn't have much u, satellite deposits r small.



Yes, it is very small compare to Mt Gee. But it is not your armpit either. Here is the summary all the satellite deposits (non JORC)

Hodgkinson: 484t at 2200ppm
Armchair: 680t at 1000ppm
Streitberg: 600t at 1000ppm
Radium Ridge: 1211t at 700ppm
Total: 2975t at 1000ppm


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Not too bad, thats about 6million pounds. Worth about $40m or so assuming $6/lb. More than SMM's latest resource estimates.


----------



## insider (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Here is the Heritage listing of MTN... as you can see in 1976 Mt Gee was a Uranium project then in 1982 became a Registered National Estate... The question you need to ask is why do they still allow drilling... Maybe the state plan to release the Mountain for Uranium mining.



> Arkaroola Gorge, Arkaroola Rd, Arkaroola Village via Copley, SA
> Photographs:
> List: Register of the National Estate
> Class: Natural
> ...


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Any land with exploration license issued is not a protected reserve or natural reserve, or national park. A registration on a XYZ list does not prevent it from drilling. It is a fact. It has been drilled not just by MTN, last drilling is around 2000 by GDM. 

I am pretty sure it would not be prevented from mining if MTN can pass the tough EIA. Let's wait for the Coffey's scope study.


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Mmmmining said:
			
		

> Let's wait for the Coffey's scope study.




Yep. If that gives a big tick this _has the potential to increase very quickly_. Why? Coz it will be able to be mined, and the right valuation Ev/lb will be applied. Till then I have no idea


----------



## mmmmining (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> Yep. If that gives a big tick this _has the potential to increase very quickly_. Why? Coz it will be able to be mined, and the right valuation Ev/lb will be applied. Till then I have no idea




Yes, we are small punters, let the professional do their job. Here is a link about what does it mean being on the National Estate List.

http://www.ahc.gov.au/register/furtherinfo/listing.html

I am happy to know it means almost nothing. The land holders can do their business as usual, including exploration, and mining.

Very interesting to know, If I find your home lovely, I can nominate your home as a National Estate, so be nice and careful.


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

When I saw the photos and the video there appears to be nothing there. Just hilly areas far from people (Mt. Gee actual mine area). This should beat AGS's returns until the end of the year. Surely AGS can't double, MTN has the potential to double on one tick in scoping study. AGS scoping study tick, JORCS, resource estimates are already priced in.


----------



## insider (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> When I saw the photos and the video there appears to be nothing there. Just hilly areas far from people (Mt. Gee actual mine area). This should beat AGS's returns until the end of the year. Surely AGS can't double, MTN has the potential to double on one tick in scoping study. AGS scoping study tick, JORCS, resource estimates are already priced in.




Yeah I saw A picture of a yellow footed rock wallaby sitting on what was a crush breccia lined with a phosphorus uranium type of crystal (yellow colour)... The wallaby didn't realize it but it was sitting on billions of dollars... Stupid animal


----------



## Halba (2 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Yeah I saw A picture of a yellow footed rock wallaby sitting on what was a crush breccia lined with a phosphorus uranium type of crystal (yellow colour)... The wallaby didn't realize it but it was sitting on billions of dollars... Stupid animal




It's an underground mine, key word being under the ground so it won't affect anything above the ground. :batman:


----------



## Sean K (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> MTN has the potential to double on one tick in scoping study. AGS scoping study tick, JORCS, resource estimates are already priced in.[/U]



Halba, I don't agree with this. AGS might be overvalued at the moment depending on the JORC produced. If overall it's under Lonsec's estimate of potentially 120m lbs ish, then it could be smashed. Opposite for larger resource. Point is, we don't really know if it's all factored in yet. It's just speculation really which we must acknowledge. (personally, I am expecting a 'buy the rumour sell the fact' sell off based on previous experience with long anticipated announcement as you would have exp with BMN. Although the scoping study ann didn't do AGS any harm. But again, this is speculation which must be acknowledged) Your comment 'MTN has potential to double' when they ann a scoping study, well....what can I say?


----------



## Fab (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Halba, I don't agree with this. AGS might be overvalued at the moment depending on the JORC produced. If overall it's under Lonsec's estimate of potentially 120m lbs ish, then it could be smashed. Opposite for larger resource. Point is, we don't really know if it's all factored in yet. It's just speculation really which we must acknowledge. (personally, I am expecting a 'buy the rumour sell the fact' sell off based on previous experience with long anticipated announcement as you would have exp with BMN. Although the scoping study ann didn't do AGS any harm. But again, this is speculation which must be acknowledged) Your comment 'MTN has potential to double' when they ann a scoping study, well....what can I say?




What does overvalued means for a U stock? Look at PDN


----------



## Halba (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

PDN controls, owns and operates its uranium deposit, ensuring greater $$. The only stocks that majority own control their uranium are BMN and MTN and ERN(90%). SMM, AGS all have 50% interests or less.


----------



## mmmmining (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Halba, you have a good point. If you are majority owner, and an operator, you control you destination, for good or bad. 

I would say AGS's situation is not that bad since Quasar Resources is the partner. It seems the SA Premier like it, another positive. Only thing is B4M has to have enough staff to justify the rich valuation.

MTN is not out of favor either. It was mentioned by Premier in the ann as well.


----------



## Broadside (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> When I saw the photos and the video there appears to be nothing there. Just hilly areas far from people (Mt. Gee actual mine area). This should beat AGS's returns until the end of the year. Surely AGS can't double, MTN has the potential to double on one tick in scoping study. AGS scoping study tick, JORCS, resource estimates are already priced in.




Halba the AGS JORC will only be scratching the surface, there will be a lot more exploration upside to come.  I think MTN has great potential but in terms of quality I think AGS is one of the very best prospects in Australia, and will be one of the first new producers, certainly far sooner than MTN, if they ever produce.


----------



## Halba (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



> Mmmmining
> MTN is not out of favor either. It was mentioned by Premier in the ann as well.




Yes. That was excellent he mentioned it. Showed Mt Gee still on radar. All it needs is one of those bullish ramps from Rann and we're sailing to a more appropriate valuation. 100% owned production of 1000tpa+ potential production is quite good cash flow, but lets see how much AGS's mine can produce(8 weeks time scoping study - if they meet deadline)


----------



## mmmmining (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The interim scoping report has been received. 

Not much contents. But the keywords is the title:

MT Gee Scoping Points to Mining, and Long Term Commitment to Environment...


----------



## mmmmining (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Try to analysis the purpose of this release. Cannot figure it out. Let's me do a interpretation, maybe wrong.

1. Mt Gee has more resources than published. It is more significant than most people thought. Such phase is used:

"indicated both increased mineralised thickness and higher grades than anticipated;"

"Only scratched the surface"

"Paralana Mineral System has the potential to be one of the great uranium systems in Australia"

2. Mining is possible.

Reinforced its (MTN) view on the mining potential of the Mt Gee..."

"We already have a viable mine"

"Underground mining"

"a tank leach processing plant sited...."

"1000t/yr"

3. Tough EIA process

"One of he great uranium systems in Australia"  means back off, greens or so, for state and national interest

"Long term commitment to Environment"

"committed to environmentally sustainable mining.."

"committed to both the environment in the Flinders Ranges..."

4. Cost at high end

"Given the spot price and encouraging uranium grades,..."

"Underground mining...."

"tank leach processing plant...."


Conclusion:

At $100 U3O8 price, project revenue is US$220m year
IGV is US$7b Very significant. 

I have a tick based on this report, and don't care what Mr Market is thinking in short term.


----------



## prs (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Halba, you have a good point. If you are majority owner, and an operator, you control you destination, for good or bad.
> 
> I would say AGS's situation is not that bad since Quasar Resources is the partner. It seems the SA Premier like it, another positive. Only thing is B4M has to have enough staff to justify the rich valuation.
> 
> MTN is not out of favor either. It was mentioned by Premier in the ann as well.



Guys
Initially some of you accused me of being a professional and I tried to point out that I wasn't. Perhaps I now support that claim with the question, what the hell is "ann" please? There is certain jargon that I just don't understand and it frustrates me as I have such a significant investment in MTN. Please use the KISS principle, _Keep It Simple Stupid_.


----------



## prs (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Try to analysis the purpose of this release. Cannot figure it out. Let's me do a interpretation, maybe wrong.
> 
> 1. Mt Gee has more resources than published. It is more significant than most people thought. Such phase is used:
> 
> ...




MMMMining
Please explain what you mean by the last 3 lines of your last communication I am confused and please forgive me for my lack of knowledge and understanding of your jargon.


----------



## harriss2 (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hello prs,

I know exactly what you are saying.  I am feeling quite emboldened now, and this is my second post on ASF  -  each within the half hour.


"ann" means announcement.  Took me months to work that one out, and yes I was frustrated with my stupidity.

Took me longer to work out IMO, and IMHO.  Actually, I didn't work it out.
Someone was kind enough to ask the question in one of the threads, and as I breathed a sigh of relief, I stated "Oh, so that's what it means!"


----------



## zed327 (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Found this tonight for MTN holders that are hoping to mine soon.  


Potential uranium mine touted in SA
A South Australian uranium explorer says an interim report shows the potential for an underground mine in the north of the state.

Marathon Resources says its deposit at Mount Gee could produce 1,000 tonnes of uranium annually.

But Marathon chief executive John Santich says more studies would need to be done before a mine is developed.

"It's too early to say yet but it will be several years because a lot of preliminary work will have to be done, including environmental and social work, as well as technical material," he said.

Yesterday, two companies behind another uranium deposit in far north SA, Alliance and Quasar Resources, indicated they would apply for a mining lease this year.

Premier Mike Rann promoted the deposit near the Beverley uranium mine during his trade visit in Chile.


----------



## zed327 (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sorry about the blue highlight, really bad colour choice   

This is the full article 


http://www.abc.net.au/news/newsitems/200704/s1888908.htm


----------



## mmmmining (3 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



harriss2 said:


> Hello prs,
> 
> I know exactly what you are saying.  I am feeling quite emboldened now, and this is my second post on ASF  -  each within the half hour.
> 
> ...




Here is a tip, search internet for the whatever you don't know.


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN are taking off without a count down... and all the dummy sellers are disappearing


----------



## Realist (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wow, up 22c today already!!


----------



## mmmmining (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN has broken the all-time high. We need big volume to confirm this, and hopeful it can close well above the last all time high, $4.1 for a couple of days. So people can decouple it from Cosby's bid. So far so good.


----------



## Realist (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I got the letter from Crosby a couple of days ago.

I chuckled.... then sighed and frowned.


They've got to offer us a premium or what is the point?

I mean I turned down 68c fer christs sakes now we are  $4.21.

Anyone who accepted that first Crosby offer must be suicidal.


How much are these morons spending on these offers? The postage alone must be really high.


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

there's about 2000 shareholders... each including posting would cost about 2 dollars... 4000 dollars...


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This is annoying to watch... MTN clearly has bots working against them... every time the price goes up about 50000 shares are always hovering about 2 cents above the last traded price and then when it goes down so do the bots but nothing is ever sold... and then you get the odd BOT wanting to buy 91 shares just to push the price down or something...


----------



## Brujo (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What are/is "bots"?


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thre little computer programs that are suppose to imitate humans


----------



## Mousie (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Thre little computer programs that are suppose to imitate humans




Must have been living in a cave when it comes to this - you mean these people (presumably some full service brokers) use bots to buy/sell their client's big chunks of shares via manipulation?


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It's more so that they can buy more MTN shares by getting people to sell early... if you hold good for you


----------



## Mousie (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I just wanna understand what's going on coz I've noticed small chunks of shares being sold or bought as well; always wondered how these guys are gonna keep paying brokerage to sell off small lumps at a time to disguise the fact that it's actually one buyer/selling doing the trades


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Mousie said:


> I just wanna understand what's going on coz I've noticed small chunks of shares being sold or bought as well; always wondered how these guys are gonna keep paying brokerage to sell off small lumps at a time to disguise the fact that it's actually one buyer/selling doing the trades




It's probably buttermere so that their take over bid looks tempting... even though it isn't


----------



## mmmmining (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Mousie said:


> I just wanna understand what's going on coz I've noticed small chunks of shares being sold or bought as well; always wondered how these guys are gonna keep paying brokerage to sell off small lumps at a time to disguise the fact that it's actually one buyer/selling doing the trades



Some brokers only charge you as one trade of the total number of shares per day, if you place a multiple buys only or multiple sells only for the same share. (if you buy and sell multiple times, you are charged one buy, and one sell)

Well some brokers or fund managers might trade it generate fees or balance portfolios based on the certain written rules.


----------



## insider (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The bots have a bid for 6 shares...


----------



## shinobi346 (4 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> there's about 2000 shareholders... each including posting would cost about 2 dollars... 4000 dollars...





Where did you find there's only 2000 shareholders? 

I heard they have to pay quite a bit for the share registry. so the postage is just a fraction of what those bozos are spending.


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I wouldn't know I don't work in a mail room... I heard it from an interview or something or I read it somewhere... who really cares up 19 cents today


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Is mtn's Mt gee resource (ISL) In-Situ Leech?


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Is mtn's Mt gee resource (ISL) In-Situ Leech?




"a tank leach processing plant sited...."


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> "a tank leach processing plant sited...."




What does that involve?


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Mt Gee doesn't allow for isl anyway


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

You know I just found a statistic that says less than 1% of mines in Australia don't get approval... In fact environmental approvals favor companies not the community...


----------



## mmmmining (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> What does that involve?




Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:

Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry. The slurry is pumped into a leaching tank and classified by a sparge tube projecting water at teeter velocity at the bottom of the ore bed. Thereafter, a second ore bed is pumped by the slurry into the tank and the second bed classified. This is repeated until there are four or five ore beds in the tank. Thereafter, the ore is leached by passing liquid up from the bottom of the tank at velocities less than teeter velocities so that the bed remains classified. After leaching, the ore is formed into a slurry and the slurry pumped from the tanks to disposal.


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Broken out on volume. Looks good to go.


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Simply it is not ISL, and heap leach, but want to read more:
> 
> Uranium ore is crushed and formed into a slurry. The slurry is pumped into a leaching tank and classified by a sparge tube projecting water at teeter velocity at the bottom of the ore bed. Thereafter, a second ore bed is pumped by the slurry into the tank and the second bed classified. This is repeated until there are four or five ore beds in the tank. Thereafter, the ore is leached by passing liquid up from the bottom of the tank at velocities less than teeter velocities so that the bed remains classified. After leaching, the ore is formed into a slurry and the slurry pumped from the tanks to disposal.




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


----------



## insider (5 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Broken out on volume. Looks good to go.




The sellers list is anorexic...


----------



## mmmmining (6 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> Fully diluted shares: 60m, the $8m cash in hand will prevent dilution.
> Resources: 81mlb
> 
> At $3/lb  It worth: $4.05
> ...




Well, MTN is still at EV$3.3/lb. With possible increasing resources, and anticipated positive scope study, and in a favorable state, it seems still a long way to go to catch peers valuation, which is at EV $10/lb. Maybe by the time it gets there, uranium stocks are valued at $20/lb. Who knows?

At $10/lb MTN worth $11+ assume 22% dilution.


----------



## prs (6 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (7 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (7 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

$5 is a bit much guys.  

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


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> $5 is a bit much guys.
> 
> 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.


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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!


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Well, with only 4 sellers it's gunna get there!



Kennas, give me this one, would you, it is $4.99 man!


----------



## Halba (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I bought @ open for a quickie 4.51


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> I bought @ open for a quickie 4.51




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


----------



## mmmmining (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> I get $65 a share




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


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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?


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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



So, 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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Going for a late arvo run


----------



## sleeper88 (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Halba (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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!)


----------



## Sean K (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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..?


----------



## Sean K (11 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Is it still worth getting in on this?


----------



## Halba (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



JWBH01 said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Halba (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



andrewkmz said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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*


----------



## Sean K (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> All of the bidding for SMM is just coz of *Valhalla*



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


----------



## UraniumLover (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> i don't think smm's other deposits and open add much???
> 
> MTN has other deposits as u say.
> 
> ...




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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Sean K (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


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



 

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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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 (12 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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


----------



## UraniumLover (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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 ?  

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


----------



## insider (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> when compared to non uranium shares like MTN




huh?


----------



## Halba (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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:



Halba said:


> 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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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

Our words mean little.


----------



## Halba (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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*


----------



## Sean K (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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.


----------



## dj_420 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> *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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nizar said:


> MTN a non-uranium share ?
> 
> Oh thats right, you were the guy that wanted to buy BMNOs !!




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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

: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 (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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 :


----------



## mmmmining (13 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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...


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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.  

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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  

My God, have a medidoc ramping?  

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...


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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. 



mmmmining said:


> 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.  

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


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




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


----------



## Halba (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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:
> 
> ...




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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> 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".


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mmmmining said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 ). 

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.


----------



## Sean K (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (14 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Easy boys and girls... Just chill  

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 (15 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (15 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (15 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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)


----------



## Sean K (15 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



ironchef said:


> 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 (15 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> *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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



ironchef said:


> 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???


----------



## Sean K (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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. 



kennas said:


> 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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Rafa (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Realist (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.....


----------



## chris1983 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Realist said:


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




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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## sleeper88 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



sleeper88 said:


> 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   )




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 (16 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Caliente said:


> 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




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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> How long can this go on?
> 
> MTN just kicked up 50 cents to $6.30 on open




haha..I wish I had these


----------



## Kimosabi (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



chris1983 said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



chris1983 said:


> haha..I wish I had these




lol, I think everyone does atm


----------



## chris1983 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



chris1983 said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


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




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


----------



## Halba (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Rafa (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



chris1983 said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jammin said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



radio-active man said:


> 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 (17 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## jammin (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nizar said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



deftfear said:


> 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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (18 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (19 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## motion (19 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (20 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Sean K (20 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Chart review:


----------



## Halba (20 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (20 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (20 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



UraniumLover said:


> 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



JWBH01 said:


> 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'  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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



sleeper88 said:


> 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.

 


P.S ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



champ2003 said:


> ISL mines are apparently also problem prone.



How's that? Interested to know.


----------



## Halba (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> How's that? Interested to know.



Can you post it in the Uranium thread please champ? Cheers.


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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?  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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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


----------



## Sean K (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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



Might 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Sorry Halba, you're saying an underground mine is cheaper than open cut, or ISL?  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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



JWBH01 said:


> 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 (21 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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 (22 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...





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 (22 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Halba said:


> 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
> 
> ...




What has WME got to do with MTN??


----------



## Go Nuke (23 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (23 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> 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 (23 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> 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 (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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 (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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 (29 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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 (30 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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




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

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


----------



## exgeo (30 April 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (1 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

*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?


----------



## champ2003 (1 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (1 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



champ2003 said:


> 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


----------



## Sean K (1 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



champ2003 said:


> *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??
> 
> ...



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


----------



## insider (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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*


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> 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!  

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


----------



## insider (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Aaaaah, the infamous and extremely important Yellow Footed Rock Wallaby, without which our way of life will cease to exist!
> 
> 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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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...


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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.


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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



			
				 Belinda - MTN POC said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



From that photo I'd agree Spooly, although it's hard to say for sure. Some distance isn't it. 



insider said:


> 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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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.
> 
> ...




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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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.
> 
> ...



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'.


----------



## dj_420 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> 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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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/rel...ctionFor=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 projects&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 (2 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Dratoz (3 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (3 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (4 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (4 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (4 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Punter said:


> 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 (4 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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


----------



## Sean K (4 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (5 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (5 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Punter said:


> 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 (5 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (5 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



TheAbyss said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (8 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (8 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (8 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Punter said:


> 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 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> 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 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Punter (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## dj_420 (9 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (10 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



dj_420 said:


> 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%
> 
> ...




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


----------



## Sean K (22 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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.


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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 (25 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

yeah, i'm free carried on this too, but i am free carrying a LOT!  
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.


----------



## Sean K (25 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Rafa said:


> yeah, i'm free carried on this too, but i am free carrying a LOT!
> 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.


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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.


----------



## Rafa (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Sean K (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Rafa said:


> 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



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:



			
				Stock School said:
			
		

> 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.
> 
> ...


----------



## Rafa (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 )

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...


----------



## Kimosabi (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Rafa said:


> 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 )
> ...




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 (28 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> 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
> 
> ...




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 (29 May 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Rafa (1 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 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.





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


----------



## nizar (1 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Rafa said:


> 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 (1 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Rafa said:


> 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 (1 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nizar said:


> 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...


----------



## Broadside (1 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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


----------



## Kauri (7 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kauri said:


> 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 (25 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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

where to from here???


----------



## billhill (25 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



			
				Rafa said:
			
		

> 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 (25 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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 (25 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## Sean K (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Lachlan6 said:


> 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 (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

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.


----------



## YOUNG_TRADER (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN seems do be defying the general U sideways trend atm which is interesting, I wonder how long until the U phoria begins, last I chcked the U spot price was only headed one way, Cigar Lake was still flooded, Jabaluka was still a no no and Olympic Dam wasn't going to make a splash until 2010

Nice charts Kennas


----------



## Kauri (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kauri said:


> 7 June..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...




 Not one I am trading but have been following it in my voodoo C+H stable.. looks like the chicken entrails may be lining up...
.....Cheers
........Kauri


----------



## nomore4s (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kauri said:


> Not one I am trading but have been following it in my voodoo C+H stable.. looks like the chicken entrails may be lining up...
> .....Cheers
> ........Kauri




Kauri, what price target does the C&H give you? I get around $7.60ish.And also do you have a valid EW count on this stock?



Lachlan6 said:


> Wanted to buy MTN this morning but jumped a little too far I think, may have to wait for a lsight pullback.




I also wanted to enter this morning but when it opened at $6.60 thought I had missed it, so I put in a small buy order at $6.46 (not thinking it would get filled) and was surprised to get back and see it had been filled. Will now be looking for an opp to pyramid into the postion.


----------



## Kauri (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nomore4s said:


> Kauri, what price target does the C&H give you? I get around $7.60ish.And also do you have a valid EW count on this stock?
> .




 nomore. 
           In my attached chart the green arrows give the conventional thinking on C+H target,,, there is also an E/W count...whether it is valid is another story though..   ...
.Cheers
.......Kauri


----------



## insider (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Buttermere have been smoked... They will no longer extend their rubbish Take over offer of $3.52... If you want you have until July 4th to sell your shares at a 3 dollar premium...


----------



## nomore4s (26 June 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nomore4s said:


> I also wanted to enter this morning but when it opened at $6.60 thought I had missed it, so I put in a small buy order at $6.46 (not thinking it would get filled) and was surprised to get back and see it had been filled. Will now be looking for an opp to pyramid into the postion.




lol, maybe it wasn't so lucky. Oh well, hasn't hit my stop yet will just have to see how it plays out from here.


----------



## Sean K (16 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

6.40 proven support and sp consolidating sideways approaching upward trend line. If goes to long term pattern should bump up around green circle. 

Those final assays delivered on 2 July looked very good. Revised resource estimate due in August, hopefully on time, which will draw focus again. One rig still working with another due mid July, but wouldn't be surprised with a delay due to the overload in the sector. 

Now all I want to hear is Carpenter come out with a bullish statement for Mt Gee mining, to clear the air over the environmental issues which I think are still clouding it, and is why it still seemed undervalued pound for pound compared to others as has been discussed here in detail.


----------



## MBI (16 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Now all I want to hear is Carpenter come out with a bullish statement for Mt Gee mining, to clear the air over the environmental issues .....




What the background story about Carpenter here, will he be of any significant influence over Mt Gee?  Or did you mean to say Mike Rann?

Yeah share your same outlook and all is looking nice and good for MTN at the moment.  Somehow this counter has been overlooked by most u-investors. Actually looking forward to bigger uptrend once the BFS is able to identify the practical and amicable environment $ method to mine and process the ore.  

Cheers ....


----------



## Sean K (16 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



MBI said:


> What the background story about Carpenter here, will he be of any significant influence over Mt Gee?  Or did you mean to say Mike Rann?
> 
> Yeah share your same outlook and all is looking nice and good for MTN at the moment.  Somehow this counter has been overlooked by most u-investors. Actually looking forward to bigger uptrend once the BFS is able to identify the practical and amicable environment $ method to mine and process the ore.
> 
> Cheers ....



ooops, too many Pisco Sours for kennas. Or course, Rann. 

Seems they have to go for underground mining to satisfy the tree huggers unfortunately. Real shame, because the yellow foot rock wallaby isn't really THAT cute. They're in Zoos for Gods sake, why do they need to stay at Mt Gee!!

So, underground mining is a drawback, but with these grades and tonnage, it's economical. With their other developing assets I don't see MTN being independant for long.


----------



## ahspritemk (18 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Quite a drop this morning, there were just no buyers with decent volume. Had a low of $5.87 but back upto 6.02 once some support formed. Wish I had some free cash atm, could potientialy be a good time to top up IMO with the possibility of the revised resource estimate in Aug. The fact that the sp dropped so much with such little volume does worry me a bit. Yesty morning I had been buying and selling quite a bit between 6.30-6.40 & 6.58-6.60, made a nice little profit but now wish i hadnt made a final purchase to hang onto. Ah well im still happy with mtn for the long term.


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



ahspritemk said:


> The fact that the sp dropped so much with such little volume does worry me a bit.



Be more concerned when this occurs on volume. No drop is a really good drop IMO, but gentle sideways is OK  which that was not!! Might be conforming to that upward supprt line, to be confirmed later. If you're just getting in, then don parachute. U market is a bit skittish atm, but as has been discussed here previously, this is one of the better ones to be playing with, pending environmental concerns.


----------



## MBI (18 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> So, underground mining is a drawback, but with these grades and tonnage, it's economical. With their other developing assets I don't see MTN being independant for long.




I reckon equity-wise it will a tight game for any buyer as the last I remembered is that Citic Resources and Talbot Coal collectively hold 19%, although they may split as each have quite different long term agenda with Citic more into it to secure uranium supply line for its motherland China.  Personally if this were to happen I would prefer it to be after the BFS to milk more value for existing shareholders.  But then of course it may be an offer the current mgt and major shdrs cannot refuse.

What do you think about their mgt capability to bring the mine to production?  Appointed new CEO Stuart Hall with some experience in BHP/Rio/WMC.  Anyone heard of his actual track record in these organisations?


  Cheers


----------



## Sean K (18 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



MBI said:


> What do you think about their mgt capability to bring the mine to production?  Appointed new CEO Stuart Hall with some experience in BHP/Rio/WMC.  Anyone heard of his actual track record in these organisations?



I question ANY explorer's capability to bring a project to production unless they have done it before. What have MTN done as a team? Nada, as far as I can see. Happy to be corrected. I think their best path forward is JV, before they get bought out, pending BFS with authority to mine under the yellow foot rock wallably sanctuary!


----------



## Sean K (24 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> 6.40 proven support and sp consolidating sideways approaching upward trend line. If goes to long term pattern should bump up around green circle.






kennas said:


> Be more concerned when this occurs on volume. No drop is a really good drop IMO, but gentle sideways is OK  which that was not!! Might be conforming to that upward supprt line, to be confirmed later. If you're just getting in, then don parachute. U market is a bit skittish atm, but as has been discussed here previously, this is one of the better ones to be playing with, pending environmental concerns.




Found some support yesty, but late last week I got my first real signal to bail. Holding to see if it can recover $6.00 quickly, but if not I think it's head for the bunker and wait for another entry signal for me.


----------



## MBI (24 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Found some support yesty, but late last week I got my first real signal to bail. Holding to see if it can recover $6.00 quickly, but if not I think it's head for the bunker and wait for another entry signal for me.




It is looking pretty ugly this morning at 5.72/1.
You may be right to head for bunkers.
I will wait a little longer and do likewise when the downtrend is supported with volume.
Any inkling what may be the reasons for this selldown?


----------



## Sean K (24 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



MBI said:


> It is looking pretty ugly this morning at 5.72/1.
> You may be right to head for bunkers.
> I will wait a little longer and do likewise when the downtrend is supported with volume.
> Any inkling what may be the reasons for this selldown?



Could be part of the overall consolidation, ev/lb it's getting even cheaper, but that's gotta be for a reason. Loss of confidence in sector? People concerned the Govt won't permit mining at Mt Gee? Profit taking with $$ being put into iron and oil? Volume looks like it's coming off as it consolidates, so there's something to hang on to.. :dunno: 

Need Rann to say this is a significant find for investors to come flooding back IMO.


----------



## dj_420 (24 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

maybe this was caused by delayed reaction to uranium stocks???

all other uranium stocks consolidated and came right off their highs where as MTN maintained its uptrend. maybe this sentiment is just catching up to MTN.

prob a lot of profit takers shifting back into iron ore!


----------



## Rafa (24 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

i tend to agree...
also noticed a decided weakening in sentiment after the japan earthquake...

the thing about the nuclear industry, esp in Oz, is that its on a knife edge... one dodgy reactor explosion, and its all over


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Nothing earth shattering about their quarterly really. 

Mention of the environmental concerns but nothing to make you sleep better.

Spent $800K on the defence of the Butterbrains offer, which seems crazy. I could have defended it.

They don't seem to be moving too fast here, or do I know nothing? 

The 'proper' scoping study is to be completed by the sounds, then PFS 'early next year', BFS, DFS, what other sort of FS can we fit in......

One positive I suppose is that the resource estimate is going to be certainly upgraded and the initial scoping study was done on a low conversion factor, which will be lifted.  

Anyone excited about the report?


----------



## deftfear (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I don't know if I'd say I was excited, but it looked pretty good to me. I Liked the "A revised resource statement will be released shortly, once signed off by the independent resource estimation consultants." bit. It doesnt look like this is too far away which will hopefully get the company a bit more attention again and maybe going in the other direction.

I also noticed the takeover defence expenditure and think its ridiculous, the takeover had no chance to go through, but it cost that much. Not sure if it's the companies fault for spending too much, or if thats what it takes to defend a company from a takeover.

It looks like the company has a reasonable timeline to the BFS, seems a lot more focused than the company previously was. Probably the doing of new directors.


----------



## Sean K (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



deftfear said:


> I don't know if I'd say I was excited, but it looked pretty good to me. I Liked the "A revised resource statement will be released shortly, once signed off by the independent resource estimation consultants." bit. It doesnt look like this is too far away which will hopefully get the company a bit more attention again and maybe going in the other direction.



Yes, deft, I am looking forward to this too. Won't be far away. If they get another 10-20m lbs JORC then this can be added to their ev/lb ratio and make them look even cheaper. I can't help think that it's the entire environmental/underground mining issue that is holding them back.


----------



## insider (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What annoys me is that shareholders again are the last people to know about the announcement which clearly says 'capital raising' on the horizon. people had obviously reacted sold prior to the announcement because of insider knowledge... the company wasn't like this 6 months ago...


----------



## deftfear (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> What annoys me is that shareholders again are the last people to know about the announcement which clearly says 'capital raising' on the horizon. people had obviously reacted sold prior to the announcement because of insider knowledge... the company wasn't like this 6 months ago...




What makes it clear as to capital raising? All I can see are that they are nearly out of money, but if they were to raise funds, all they would need to issue would be about 1,000,000 shares @ $5 to keep them going for another 6 months or so. Pretty good compared to when they raised funds last year.


----------



## insider (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



deftfear said:


> What makes it clear as to capital raising? All I can see are that they are nearly out of money, but if they were to raise funds, all they would need to issue would be about 1,000,000 shares @ $5 to keep them going for another 6 months or so. Pretty good compared to when they raised funds last year.




No crap... Companies have 2 options to get money... one is to borrow from the bank and the other is to issue more shares... They certainly are not going to borrow from the bank so they are going to issue more shares... I have never seen the SP go up on an announcement stating the issue of shares at a discounted price... It always goes down... And the offered shares are normally considerably lower than the current SP... Yes I do know that sometimes they put conditions like existing shareholders only or whatever... 

What I'm getting to is that the SP will be down for a little while longer than we all anticipated prior to todays announcement and everybody who gets privileged access to announcements before they're made public have the upper hand in reacting to it... 

Not that I was selling mine anyway


----------



## insider (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



deftfear said:


> What makes it clear as to capital raising? All I can see are that they are nearly out of money, but if they were to raise funds, all they would need to issue would be about 1,000,000 shares @ $5 to keep them going for another 6 months or so. Pretty good compared to when they raised funds last year.




Let's hope that by the time MTN decide to raise funds for mining that the SP is around $20 so that way they just need to issue another  10,000,000


----------



## MBI (25 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



deftfear said:


> It looks like the company has a reasonable timeline to the BFS, seems a lot more focused than the company previously was. Probably the doing of new directors.




Not quite share the same view that they are more focused.  It was run by a geologist all this long till April this year.  So it is very much geology-centric which is okay until the resources are JORCed.  They appointed new CEO supposedly an ex-BHP/Rio/WMC executive with project implementation experience in April.  But sofar I have yet to see or hear anything of clarity moving forward beyond resource estimate and high level blah blah blah on scoping and feasibility studies.  Neither am I impressed with the implementation schedule in this latest announcement because it does not offer anything new (as Kennas has pointed out correctly) to what the mkt already knew. That is why I had asked the question whether anyone heard about this new CEO in an earlier post (yet to hear from anyone).  Quite disappointing really, compared to the focused, progressive mgt team in Wild Horse (which may worth your while to take a closer look).  WHorse was listed late last year and has just announced a JORC inferred resource of 10m lb in Europe.  Their SP needless to say has shot up the past few weeks and especially when they recruited the ex-CFO from Summit Resources (which was acquired by PDN) providing indication that things are hotting up with a senior funding expertise on deck.

MTN needs to step forward and do better in communicating and spelling out their detailed project plan because its valuation has reached a stage where further appreciation requires clarity as to how they are going to monetise the identified resource.  They are not very good in doing this since day-one but is now a critical factor for the mkt to embrace its potential.  Sofar the new CEO seems to be lost in action.

Cheers


----------



## Go Nuke (26 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN certainly getting punished today!:whip

A low of $5.11 so far.
I was wishing I had been a part of the MTN group, but right now Im happy not to be in it.
I thought it might have stopped at support of $5.20 but blown by that today.

I can't see the next support line till about $3.80
Perhaps the 200 moving average will save it?

Good luck to anyone holding.


----------



## Rafa (26 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

200DMA is a long long way away.. 

but almost every other U stock besidse MTN has hit that line in the recent weeks... why not MTN i guess... (on that note, BMN has bounced off quite nicely off it)

Cap raising is going to be a significant driver for near term SP movement...
i would anticipate cap raising to be between $4 - $5, the higher the better of course.

time to get out was when it broke major trend line (as per lachlan post late june, and kennas's post a week or so ago)....  regardless... the next few weeks may present a good buying opp, but the major uptrend looks shot.


----------



## insider (26 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> MTN certainly getting punished today!:whip
> 
> A low of $5.11 so far.
> I was wishing I had been a part of the MTN group, but right now Im happy not to be in it.
> ...




The reason why I don't see the price falling down to 3.80 is that along the way price triggers will go off and people will be picking up shares... I think its nervous selling from now on... Having said that anything is possible


----------



## clint87 (26 July 2007)

*mtn marathon resources limited*

does anyone know whats going on with mtn in the last week they have had a big down in the last week but i carnt find any reason for it the compony annoucments are still positive


----------



## Lachlan6 (27 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Gday all MTN holders. Dont despair (not yet anyway), MTN may have hit fundamental support. The thing I liked about today's action for MTN was both it was against the general trend of the market and that it has formed a bullish engulfing pattern, which can only be confirmed on Monday's trading day. Furthermore has hit support from mid May lows, so I think there is a high chance this will be the lows for the time being. I am still glad I got out at $5.81, however if I was to initiate a new position I would like to see a definent sign of reversal or even a break to new highs.


----------



## nomore4s (27 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Lachlan6 said:


> Gday all MTN holders. Dont despair (not yet anyway), MTN may have hit fundamental support. The thing I liked about today's action for MTN was both it was against the general trend of the market and that it has formed a bullish engulfing pattern, which can only be confirmed on Monday's trading day. Furthermore has hit support from mid May lows, so I think there is a high chance this will be the lows for the time being. I am still glad I got out at $5.81, however if I was to initiate a new position I would like to see a definent sign of reversal or even a break to new highs.




Lachlan, I agree with you very strong day considering the overall market, Have a look at todays volume, somebody was buying, over 2x the ave vol for the last few months, with a close at the high. Will be one to watch over the next few days/weeks.

I exited my position at $5.94 after it broke through the trend line, will be looking to re-enter if there is some follow up confirmation to todays bar.


----------



## MBI (27 July 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks guys for the trend analysis.  It really received a good beating this week.  Good that both of you (nomore4s and lachan6) bailed out just below 6.00 with opportunity to re-enter - well done mate.  Missed it totally, should have been more vigilant when Kennas shrewdly flagged out the sell signal.  Nevertheless glad it has recovered some lost ground during the last hr today.


----------



## samtomo (1 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi everyone

I'm new to this forum, but have been investing in the uranium stocks for over a year. I bought some MTN a few months ago, and am wondering whether it's time to get out. I don't mind minor corrections, as i invest for the long-term. I read Kennas' post, about bailing, and i should have, but wasn't lucky enough to do so. I feel that the share price will recover, as it is still undervalued and the uranium bull market should not be over yet, but would like some input in relation to time frame.... or maybe i have it wrong, and the trend has changed?

Your assistance would be greatly appreciated, as i'm hitting my head against a brick wall for not pulling out. So my question is, do i wait it out, or bail?

Thankyou


----------



## Sean K (1 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



samtomo said:


> Hi everyone
> 
> I'm new to this forum, but have been investing in the uranium stocks for over a year. I bought some MTN a few months ago, and am wondering whether it's time to get out. I don't mind minor corrections, as i invest for the long-term. I read Kennas' post, about bailing, and i should have, but wasn't lucky enough to do so. I feel that the share price will recover, as it is still undervalued and the uranium bull market should not be over yet, but would like some input in relation to time frame.... or maybe i have it wrong, and the trend has changed?
> 
> ...



Sam, The only thing in doubt long term for MTN in my opinion is whether they will be allowed to mine or not. I spoke to the company about it and they gave me the 'no answer, answer' which is that Mt Gee is in a Class A Environmental Zone and if the State or Fed Gov decides that mining there is in the State or National interest, then they will get approval. That is one of the reasons they're going for an underground mine. If/when someone official like says they support mining here, then it should go great, IMO. And vikyversa, of course!! It's still spec until this decision is made. Personally, I think this is a very significant mine to a State pro uranium, and will overtake importance of the yellow footed rock wallaby. Unless PG gets his nose in the way. I suggest you call or email the company to discuss this for yourself. Cheers.


----------



## samtomo (1 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks a heap Kennas

Just went through a stress attack. Your advice was very much helpful and appreciated.


----------



## Rafa (6 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

In my opinion MTN has entered the BUY range, just above the $4 mark
Did anyone jump in today??? I got a few... 

oh dear


----------



## insider (6 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

No but my port folio is limping... MTN has dragged me down from 68,000 to 45,000... I'm 4 months away from 50% CGT and now this... I got paralysis of analysis seeing as I spent the first 2 weeks of this correction finishing up at Uni even though I prepared for a correction like this with high interest rate bank accounts but I wasn't around for it when it started.. Now I sit and wait as a decision becomes harder and harder to commit to...  Bad timing...


----------



## Rafa (6 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

know what you mean...
good thing you started that holiday thread 
i think i'll definitely need one after this!


----------



## Rafa (7 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN off to a flyer, still long way to go to get to fair value... whatever that might be...

certainly, markets looks rather friendly today...


----------



## mb1 (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

$4.18??? are you serious, this is getting stupid.
What are peoples opinion on turning point?

Pakistan is building 25 nuclear reactors to counter power shortages


----------



## Sean K (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mb1 said:


> $4.18??? are you serious, this is getting stupid.
> What are peoples opinion on turning point?
> 
> Pakistan is building 25 nuclear reactors to counter power shortages



Certainly lost a bit of support hasn't it. Chart wise $4.00 looks like a speed bump, meeting 200d ma as well. Confidence must be lacking in Mt Gee, or just a lull for uranium explorers perhaps...U spot declining wouldn't be helping. They've all been sliding for the past few weeks.


----------



## dj_420 (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mb1 said:


> $4.18??? are you serious, this is getting stupid.
> What are peoples opinion on turning point?
> 
> Pakistan is building 25 nuclear reactors to counter power shortages




seems that there was a lot of people holding from 75 cents, a large amount of profits, people probably just protecting interests, slowing driving price down and the slump in uranium sector means that no one is picking up bargains.

maybe also pressure from fact that a lot of ppl holding from recent purchases would now also be in the red!


----------



## samtomo (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

.... make that $4.10!! Doesn't look good at all!! Glad i sold out earlier. The fact that the all ords are up today, doesn't seem to be making a difference. Guess it's still got some correcting to do. On the other hand, maybe a perfect buying opportunity for the long-term traders? 

We'll just have to keep our eye on this one. Needs to recover a fair bit, before i trust it.


----------



## Go Nuke (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> MTN certainly getting punished today!:whip
> 
> A low of $5.11 so far.
> I was wishing I had been a part of the MTN group, but right now Im happy not to be in it.
> ...




Well, it seems I might not have been too far from the mark

Yes Im sure it is a bit of profit taking. MTN has performed outstanding over the last few months. I too think its the downturn in the U sector thats driving the price down, like most other Uranium stocks.

Now...where's that turn around price..hmm:bananasmi


----------



## Rafa (8 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

not one to second guess this stock, as it could fly at a moments notice, but i originally thought the low 4's was the support...

barring that, i think there will be strong support at 3.60 which was butternuts revised offer.

go_nuke... if you are going to buy in, please let us know...  so we can all sell.


----------



## samtomo (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well it looks like MTN is off to a strong start this morning (just like a lot of other U stocks). It tends to do so in the mornings, then creeps back down as the day goes on. We'll just have to see how the day pans out. Still think that it should still pass below the $4.00 mark.


----------



## insider (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hopefully we will never see the 4 Dollar mark again... This company surprised me with a down day yesterday... a modest valuation is about $7 with the current fall in the uranium spot price... Remember that Deutsche Bak and Fat Profits had recommendations at around the $8.50 mark prior to the recent correction...


----------



## samtomo (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

.... Don't let the fact that it's an up day fool you... If you have a look at a recent chart, you will see that there's an up day on every 4th or 5th day... therefore, probably a down day tomorrow.

I'll need further confirmation that the downtrend is truely over before i jump in! 

Goodluck to everyone holding


----------



## insider (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

With the sub prime mortgage debacle having undeserved influence on our markets, I believe that trying to get MTN cheaper than what it is now is more of a gamble as it will most likely return to it's all time high with JORC report due at the end of this month plus reports following next month... The only negative will be capital raising but I'm sure they will do that after the JORC report...

These are my opinions

Good luck with it Sam... as you haven't bought into to them yet you're clearly barracking for a cheaper entry whilst I'm not... tell us how you go...


----------



## mb1 (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I agree with you Insider.

I also got into today to add to positions.

I think the sell off might of be to do with the announcement regarding options for director.


----------



## insider (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mb1 said:


> I agree with you Insider.
> 
> I also got into today to add to positions.
> 
> I think the sell off might of be to do with the announcement regarding options for director.




I think so too... The guy needs to get paid... I don't know why that's sooo bad... He only works for us and now he works for his options


----------



## spooly74 (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



mb1 said:


> I also got into today to add to positions.
> 
> I think the sell off might of be to do with the announcement regarding options for director.




Compared to where this stock was a couple of weeks ago, there certainly seems value at current prices.

Interested to hear holders thoughts on the low conversion factor of about 45% due to uncertainty about the continuity of the resource.

Currently only planning production of 13000t U3o8.
How much more do you think is expected from the upcoming results to change this??

cheers


----------



## insider (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



spooly74 said:


> Compared to where this stock was a couple of weeks ago, there certainly seems value at current prices.
> 
> Interested to hear holders thoughts on the low conversion factor of about 45% due to uncertainty about the continuity of the resource.
> 
> ...




There is suppose to be a kind of feasibility study which indicates the approach the company must take to extract the minerals with as least disturbance to the aesthetics of the environment... Hence the only approach that can be taken in the Zone A area (strictest policy) will be underground... The purpose of such a report is to dampen the doubts investors have about mining in Mt Gee which is suspected of creating the cheapened share price when compared to it's peers...


----------



## mb1 (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

VERY big buys coming in at the end, 36000 shares at 4.50.
hopefully tomorrow is green....will wait and see


----------



## insider (9 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

SAM may have a second chance tomorrow at getting in below $4.00 as the european markets are taking a beating so maybe the XAO will follow


----------



## samtomo (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Was lucky enough to get in at $4. :dance::dance: It may go down further, but at least i'm in, and don't need to sit here and watch the market every minute of the day. 

There may be turbulence over the next month or so, in a couple of months, we'll by flying, high... back to where we were a short period of time ago (this is based on cycle analysis and charts over the last couple of years). 

Let the good times roll....:bananasmi:bananasmiartyman:

Luck has been on my side! Goodluck to everyone holding!!


----------



## Sean K (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

From XAO thread:



insider said:


> Hey Kennas You were right when you told me that 50% CGT is for chumps...



Hmmmm, can't remember saying that exactly, but I think I know the comments you are referring to. However, now that you are out though, you need to be planning how to get back in on a turnaround, if/when it does. You may have just saved yourself some $$, and/or peace of mind, but one thing I always forget to do is buy back in on the turn around!  

The reasons you were holding it are still there aren't they? If not, then you shouldn't have still been holding it perhaps?

Still might be a chance to milk this baby Insider! All the best!


----------



## exgeo (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think a lot of people are of a like mind with you and I Sam; get in now and ride it out. Even on such a terrible day as today, seems like none of the uranium stocks I hold (MTN, PDN) have set new lows. Volume of buy/sells looks more healthy than recent days too. My feeling is that most of the weak longs have been shaken out already and people such as us are now loading up again, ready for the long-haul. Anyone who had read about the supply deficit exisiting in Uranium wouldn't be too worried about a short-term fall in the price. Long term, the lack of new supply will support the uranium price.


----------



## insider (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN is a good company however the market just doesn't care... I think it will go down more because of it...


----------



## insider (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> From XAO thread:
> 
> Hmmmm, can't remember saying that exactly, but I think I know the comments you are referring to. However, now that you are out though, you need to be planning how to get back in on a turnaround, if/when it does. You may have just saved yourself some $$, and/or peace of mind, but one thing I always forget to do is buy back in on the turn around!
> 
> ...




Thanks Kennas... The reasons why I held the stock are still there but I don't care about that anymore, I care about my wallet much more... I think the worst part of this correction is yet to come out... And I'm an optimistic person


----------



## dj_420 (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Thanks Kennas... The reasons why I held the stock are still there but I don't care about that anymore, I care about my wallet much more... I think the worst part of this correction is yet to come out... And I'm an optimistic person




could be, although the market has come off almost 10% in last few weeks. IMO we are somewhere near the bottom. this is shown by quite a few companies been sold off and bought back up very quickly. people are willing to bet that correction is near an end and go long again.

ones im long on JML, GBG and PDN have all been sold off but are bought back up in weakness.

producers, near term producers and companies in industry with good demand will perform best and pull out the other end much better than spec stocks. not saying MTN is spec BUT it will be a long time out until producing so maybe further weakness there.


----------



## mb1 (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Insider your out? you even said yourself analysts put MTN at 8dollars something. Why didnt you just ride it out? The fundamentals are still the same as they were when the stock was trading around high 6.

50% GCT might not make a difference if your profit is a couple of thousand but it sure does when your talking tens of thousands...


----------



## Logique (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I'm siding with Samtomo on this one. 
If a fall in overnight US indices of nearly 3%, Dow minus 387 points, isn't enough to knock it below 4.00, or similar stocks BMN and PDN below their recent lows, then what is. The whole uranium group looks appealing to me.


----------



## insider (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think I can get in cheaper... this debacle is probably going to get worse than this... But hey I bought in at 1 dollar... At least I have a profit to take


----------



## exgeo (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

August 09, 2007
Marathon Resources’ Uranium Potential Was First Spotted By Crosby Partners
By Our Man In Oz (from www.minesite.com)



> Most punters, of the stock market and horse racing variety, like to follow a winner. In Australia, where they do things differently, there’s a prime example of why it’s sometimes good to follow a loser. Well, to be completely honest, there are actually two examples, and one loser. Crosby Partners, the Hong Kong-based merchant bank, is the two-time loser, though to be fair it has twice picked a stock which has gone on to be a winner. Two years ago it was Crosby’s low-ball bid for the Pakistan-focused explorer, Tethyan Copper which led to a bidding duel and eventual high-priced takeover of that company by a consortium of Canada’s Barrick Gold and Chile’s copper giant, Antofagasta. Last year, Crosby started the same game with an even lower-ball bid for the Australian uranium explorer, Marathon Resources, only to be beaten by Marathon’s soaring share price and joint venture deal which involved a big Chinese trading house.
> For casual observers of the stock market, there’s a pattern here. Crosby has displayed considerable acumen in spotting undervalued resource stocks, tried to get them on the cheap, and then watched the price soar. The obvious way to play the game is to follow Crosby into a deal, wait for everyone else to catch on, and make yourself a winner even if Crosby is a loser.
> 
> Marathon is the latest Crosby game, but it’s worth a Tethyan refresher. The original bid for Tethyan was delivered in May, 2005, and priced at A64 cents a share. After 10-months of haggling and a series of counter-moves Barrick and Antofagasta won the day with an offer of A$1.40, a 118 per cent increase on Crosby’s starter price. With Marathon, the bidding started in July last year at A68 cents a share, was eventually lifted to A$3.52, with Marathon itself steaming ahead to hit a peak price of A$6.98 in late June. Over an 11-month period the price of Marathon rose by 920 per cent – though it has slipped back to around A$5.13 in the current sell-off. Despite the price correction over July it is worth looking at what attracted both of Crosby’s moves, and keep an eye out for its next move.
> ...


----------



## MBI (10 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Insider - I am surprised that you cash out when you had it going since $1.  You must be very convinced that there is more downward pressure to come, and given the Wall Street volatility you may be right mate.   I missed out when Kennas hilited time to hit for bunkers and had been holding tight to the railings on the fast-n-furious rough ride since.

At least there is some light coming out from this storm:



> Marathon chief executive, Stuart Hall, told Minesite on the sidelines of a uranium conference in Western Australia, that the current mine plan was to drive into the Mt Gee orebody from outside Arkaroola, thus avoiding any surface disturbance. The exact direction and angle of the drive, which would run for about two kilometres, is yet to be decided because recent drilling is expanding the resource, and finding rich material at greater depth. “The structure appears to be getting richer at depth, so we need to do more work before finalising mine design,” Hall said. Ongoing drilling and environmental data collection is expected to last the rest of 2007, with 2008 taken up with pre-feasibility studies, leading into a full feasibility study in the first half of 2009, and a possible start on construction later that year.




It is really positive that they are still encountering bigger resource progressively which will go on till yearend.  I don't have any issue granting 70k of options to that guy at $4.7x exercise - but damn he got to do a better job fronting the market.  Having to read this info from a sideline interview report does not speak much of an impression desired from a CEO.  I put this as their weakness in addition to the environment protection issue.  good post exgeo.


----------



## insider (11 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



MBI said:


> Insider - I am surprised that you cash out when you had it going since $1.  You must be very convinced that there is more downward pressure to come, and given the Wall Street volatility you may be right mate.   I missed out when Kennas hilited time to hit for bunkers and had been holding tight to the railings on the fast-n-furious rough ride since.
> 
> At least there is some light coming out from this storm:
> 
> ...




The JORC report is due out late this month but if memory serves me correctly last correction MTN put out an amazing report and the SP still fell...


----------



## insider (13 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

pi$$ed off... at 4:10PM after the market closed a guy moves in with a massive order to clean up form $4.30 to $4.54... That is a load of crap, why is it allowed...


----------



## ahspritemk (14 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Ah well insider, im sure the person is slightly regretting buying MTN at such prices. Just wondering what your re-entry price would be, that’s if you decide to re-enter. I topped up at $4.10 this morning & $3.98 a few days ago. Wish I had known about MTN at $1 like you did, congrats.


----------



## insider (14 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I just thought you'd like to know that you probably bought those shares from me...  I'd like $3.50 I'd love $3.00  Who knows... I'm not caring about MTN as a company but paying more attention to the XAO


----------



## MBI (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> I just thought you'd like to know that you probably bought those shares from me...  I'd like $3.50 I'd love $3.00  Who knows... I'm not caring about MTN as a company but paying more attention to the XAO




Dow had another round of beating last nite, so you might be correct to dispose and pickup at $3.50 over the next few days.


----------



## samtomo (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yep, MTN is definetely copping a beating today. Current price is $3.40 and falling by the looks of things....

Not sure where the end to this will be? Any one have any comments??


----------



## exgeo (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

"Look out below" would be my comment. I'm a long term uranium bull and that hasn't changed. But you can't argue with the market. I sold everything except gold and a few oils yesterday. I plan to buy back once things settle down. I am a fundamentals based trader by the way, but not so evangelical in my beliefs that I'll stand by and suffer a 50% loss.


----------



## MBI (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



exgeo said:


> "Look out below" would be my comment. I'm a long term uranium bull and that hasn't changed. But you can't argue with the market. I sold everything except gold and a few oils yesterday. I plan to buy back once things settle down. I am a fundamentals based trader by the way, but not so evangelical in my beliefs that I'll stand by and suffer a 50% loss.




I could not agree with you more.  Right now it is more of the overall financial market risk rather than a specific sector that is relevant.  I suspect the situation is exacerbated by margin calls.


----------



## insider (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think I'd prefer to sit this out... Uranium's spot price fell to $105... this may be the beginning of the end for uranium... I'll wait and see... good luck and God bless


----------



## shinobi346 (15 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Price might be down but the real selling of the stuff hasn't really started yet. Another buyer has lined up for Aussie uranium. 


http://www.news.com.au/couriermail/story/0,23739,22248428-5003500,00.html

Nuclear proliferation no laughing matter

By staff writers and wires

August 15, 2007 11:50am

THE Federal Government's reported decision to sell uranium to India is wrong, Opposition Leader Kevin Rudd says.

The National Security Committee of federal cabinet last night reportedly decided to allow uranium shipments to India despite the fact that it is not a signatory to the international nuclear non-proliferation treaty (NPT).

Under the deal, Australian inspectors will be allowed to check that the uranium is not used for military purposes.

Mr Rudd said the decision to bypass the NTP would send the wrong message to the international community.

"It is a very bad development indeed when we have the possibility of the Government of Australia stepping outside the non-proliferation treaty, saying it's OK to sell uranium to a country which isn't a signatory to the NTP," Mr Rudd said.

Mr Rudd said Australia should have an interest in maintaining the integrity of the NTP.

"Nuclear weapons proliferation is not a laughing matter, it's a serious matter that's why the NTP exists," he said.

The Greens raised fears today that Australia is fuelling the production of nuclear weapons that could reach here, as India and the US disagreed over whether India is allowed to carry out nuclear tests.

"That's all a farce, the Indians themselves have said that will free us up to put the other uranium we've got into our nuclear weapon system," Senator Brown said.

"Australia is directly fuelling the production of nuclear weapons for a country which will soon have rockets that will reach Australia."

Yesterday India said its nuclear deal with the US would not affect its right to carry out nuclear tests if necessary.

Senator Brown said the decision to sell uranium to India would contribute to nuclear tensions between India and Pakistan and the spread of nuclear weapons around the world.

"It will also promote the building of nuclear weapons and rockets by Pakistan and across the border we're giving uranium to China and to Russia," he said.

US threat

The US State Department said today it would scrap a landmark nuclear deal with India if New Delhi conducted an atomic weapons test.

The statement came as the two governments gave different interpretations of the controversial nuclear deal's recently adopted operating agreement, also known as the 123 agreement.

"The proposed 123 agreement has provisions in it that in an event of a nuclear test by India, then all nuclear co-operation is terminated,'' State Department spokesman Sean McCormack said.

There is also a "provision for return of all materials, including reprocessed material covered by the agreement,'' he said.

Indian Prime Minister Manmohan Singh told parliament yesterday that the agreement would not affect the Asian giant's military program or any plans to test nuclear weapons.

"The agreement does not in any way affect India's right to undertake future nuclear tests, if it is necessary.''

"There is no question that we will ever compromise, in any manner, our independent foreign policy. We shall retain our strategic autonomy,'' he said.


----------



## Sean K (17 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Nice looking hammer there. Hmmmmm  Seems to be trending down fairly nicely though 

*Pattern*: reversal
*Reliability*: low/moderate

*Identification*
A small real body forms at the upper end of a trading range with a long lower shadow (*the longer the more bullish*) with no, or almost no upper shadow. 

*The Psychology*
In a downtrend or within a pullback of an uptrend, a sharp intraday sell-off is followed by a reversal which causes the stock to close near its opening price near the day’s high. This hints at the possibility of a reversal. Bulls most likely were shaken out by the intraday weakness, and shorts start getting a little worried with the bounce. The pattern is a slightly more reliable if the real body is white, but a strong following day on solid volume is still needed to confirm the pattern.


----------



## insider (17 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Nice looking hammer there. Hmmmmm  Seems to be trending down fairly nicely though
> 
> *Pattern*: reversal
> *Reliability*: low/moderate
> ...




The volumes are soooooooo low right now that any buy up or sell up will affect the sp a lot... I'm still out of the market completely


----------



## Sean K (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Nice looking hammer there. Hmmmmm  Seems to be trending down fairly nicely though



Well, that hammer didn't help. On it's own, just wasn't enough. No follow through, obviously. This is a disasterous chart. They are likely to get 90m lbs of U at Mt Gee, but I suppose that's no good if you can't mine it. My guess is that SA Gov will clear it in the end, so it's market cap for pound uranium must be looking tasty. Any thoughts on picking bottoms?


----------



## insider (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

There's news that Uranium's spot price fell to 90 bucks... Kennas you may have noticed that prior to the massive market change MTN was already in a possible bearish state possibly brought by the beginning of falls in uranium spot prices... It could've slipped got knocked over yet didn't finish slipping... if that makes sense


----------



## moses (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I was only looking at this myself this morning; its an appalling chart begging for a bottom pick. But if last nights Neilson SMA is telling us anything useful then its still got a way to go. There is no sign of positive buying pressure last night, as today's drop of 10% confirms. Bizarre!


----------



## insider (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

And to top it off MTN are running out of cash... dillution at these prices would hurt investors who bought at higher prices


----------



## moses (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

with such a pathetic chart I'm wondering if MTN was a darling of hedge funds so now being sold sold sold till its just plain silly. Any thoughts?


----------



## YELNATS (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



moses said:


> with such a pathetic chart I'm wondering if MTN was a darling of hedge funds so now being sold sold sold till its just plain silly. Any thoughts?




Bought at an average of $1.17 and sold out a long time ago at an average of $1.70.  But now I don't feel quite so silly. How low can it go? Limbo lower now.


----------



## exgeo (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think it's probably right that hedge funds in the stock for its takeover appeal are now forced sellers, along with daytraders and small investors who bought in at much lower levels and are happy to take any profit at all, while there's still some left to take. I note that the more advanced uraniums such as PDN and AGS seem to have found a bottom already whereas the ones with longer timelines to production MTN, EME, NEL, BMN are still falling.


----------



## dj_420 (22 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

buttermere's offer is looking quite good now!!!

i wonder if they will bring out the old 67 cent offer just for old times sake


----------



## MBI (23 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I still think a little early for bottom fishing as personally more inclined to the bears right now because the spot price of uranium has plummeted by a third from a high of $138 to $90.  While quite confident that the speculative hedge fund positions may have been cleared out, there is no clear indication that significant new funds are rushing in with the inability to find an equilibrium to risk-pricing in the money market.  May take awhile to settle down with current volatility. Watching the Chinese treasury with their newly billions $ investment vehicles, whether they are taking the plunge at current depressed share prices to secure their critical mineral resources (iron, zinc, alum, copper, uranium) needs.  Right now CASH is KING, and feel that it is not necessary to rush-in until a clear reversal trend (not signal) is established.


----------



## MBI (23 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

By the way, don't get me wrong on the earlier post.  I am still bullish on uranium on the long term.
A recent report has given me some needed comfort.

*NEW TORK (MarketWatch) -- Turbulent times, but a colorful veteran is sticking to his nuclear guns.*

http://www.marketwatch.com/news/sto...x?guid={74078583-AE90-44D2-81BD-F4E26B5D18DD}


----------



## moses (23 August 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

No question this Uranium dip and market "crash/correction" is a spectacular buying opportunity for deep pockets.


----------



## ahspritemk (11 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

It has been very quiet in here for a while. I was just going through MTN's last few announcements and noticed this from the 31st of Aug:

"*Resource Update*

Work continues on an update of the August 2006 resource estimate based on the most recent round of completed drilling in March 2007.
Due to unexpected delays in work being undertaken, the company now expects to announce a revised resource estimate during September."

Well its almost half way through September so id expect the announcement within the next 2 to 3 weeks. What I would like to know is, is the sp usually affected by these resource updates? How much can the resource estimate increase within a one year period? 

In 2006 the resource estimate did not influence the sp but who wanted uranium back then:.

Cheers & happy hunting


----------



## insider (17 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The much awaited MTN announcement didn't please holders and now MTN has fallen flat on its back... Announcement is a bit of a downgrade.


----------



## Sean K (17 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> The much awaited MTN announcement didn't please holders and now MTN has fallen flat on its back... Announcement is a bit of a downgrade.



This was supposed to be an UPGRADE! 

I'm a bit confused on what they've done here. They've discounted quite a proportion of the previous estimate for some vague reasons...Need to read into it a bit more...


----------



## shag (21 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> This was supposed to be an UPGRADE!
> 
> I'm a bit confused on what they've done here. They've discounted quite a proportion of the previous estimate for some vague reasons...Need to read into it a bit more...




did u read fat profits report, esp on resource downgrade
it was post meeting with comp directors or such

they say resource is likely to be reaffirmed post more drilling
im tempted to hop in if i can find some cash
see commsec has cappped lending on allegiance mining today....
cheers shag


----------



## Dratoz (21 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hi Shag,
Any chance you could post the report or a link to it? That would be appreciated.
Cheers,
Dratoz


----------



## MBI (21 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I am still grappling with the impact on the share price from its latest resource downgrade of around 6% (42.8 Mton vs 45.6Mton previously).  Reckon the bulk of the price decline is due to the 35% crash of u spot price over the past months.  But ot sure whether $3 is fair value share price or will it go lower.

Seems also there are still lots of work/studies to be done before they can firm up a mining approach.  There is not much clarity of what is the project direction or risks from here.  This ambiguity is giving me lots of unease.

On the other hand with oil price at record high of US$83 and beyond, it is likely that uranium will be push to the forefront of alternative energy.

Any comments/views from our learned friends??


----------



## shag (23 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> Hi Shag,
> Any chance you could post the report or a link to it? That would be appreciated.
> Cheers,
> Dratoz



its not that easy, for me anyway. and its too big to put here.
it likely will be posted on mtn's site in week
they don't say much bar call it a buy and oversold, plus initial respoource likely to be reaffirmed post more drilling.
i might try to pm it next week
cheers


----------



## tech/a (23 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN has just completed almost a 100% move.
Why all the chatter and guessing?
Anyone get a piece of the last move.
Anyone still holding and from what price.
Those holding whats your exit strategy?
Anyone shorting it?


----------



## Sean K (23 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



tech/a said:


> MTN has just completed almost a 100% move.
> Why all the chatter and guessing?
> Anyone get a piece of the last move.
> Anyone still holding and from what price.
> ...



Sold half on breakdown through $6, then half through $5, rest on breakthrough $4. Bought back in on capitulation day, sold on breakdown through $3.50.

Fundamentally, I'm concerned. 

Technically, will look at it again on break back up through $4. Maybe.


----------



## Dratoz (23 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Shag,
Thanks for the summary. I agree with Fat Prophets. I reckon this company will be trading much higher than now sooner or later. Obviously I would prefer the sooner option....
Regards,
Dratoz


----------



## Logique (28 September 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The 1:5 rights issue comes at a reasonable time and price 2.50. Shouldn't have to think about it for too long.


----------



## Mellow77 (19 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Anybody still interested in this?
What do you think of the Right Issue now?
Have you got the form yet? I have not though not entirely convinced to take part in it.
Cheers.


----------



## Dratoz (19 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Today I paid for mine. I am expecting better times ahead, not the least will be the resource upgrade from the current 60% to the whole drilled area. The whole Paralana sits on a low gravity anomaly, too.


----------



## shinobi346 (19 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks for reminding me, I forgot all about this form. I'm confident we haven't seen the end of Uranuium.


----------



## prs (25 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Seeing as the board is quiet I thought I'd ask a question of whomever. Do we think that MTN has finally bottomed out or do we think it has a little way to go?


----------



## Sean K (25 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Seeing as the board is quiet I thought I'd ask a question of whomever. Do we think that MTN has finally bottomed out or do we think it has a little way to go?



Potential bottom at $2.50. This is a clear support line. Breaking that however and potentially much lower. This must be looking pretty cheap on a U lb to mc comparison now. The last downgrade really shook them and there's still questions over clearances to mine in the Class A environmental area, unless this has been resolved?


----------



## prs (26 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks kennas
I bought in at $1.68 but I have an uneasy feeling despite the sentiment indicators apparently still being positive. I was hoping that $2.50 might pull it up and it does coincide with the closing of the 1 for 5 offer. MTN appears to perform behind the others and as they appear to be on the up I am hopeful that  MTN will start to move very soon. Do you or anybody else share that feeling?


----------



## Sean K (27 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Thanks kennas
> I bought in at $1.68 but I have an uneasy feeling despite the sentiment indicators apparently still being positive. I was hoping that $2.50 might pull it up and it does coincide with the closing of the 1 for 5 offer. MTN appears to perform behind the others and as they appear to be on the up I am hopeful that  MTN will start to move very soon. Do you or anybody else share that feeling?



prs, The market seems to be saying that they are very concerned that Mt Gee won't be approved, or they are concerned that management/lab team haven't got it right with the resource estimate. They may have lost a little cred I feel. There are many U stocks way off their highs and I have the feeling it's only the ones with great resources closer to production that will get up. That hasn't even stopped AGS getting smashed and they will probably be the next to mine! There's also concern about U price I think. Everyone was very certain about the supply/demand equation pushing U price higher and higher and then....it almost halves in 6 months.!! So, lots of factors for MTN I think. All the best, kennas


----------



## prs (27 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Kennas, you may be right in what you say. From what I've read though the amount of Uranium in the ground is only slightly reduced from the original estimate and it's still good stuff. The area is sensitive and so underground mining is the best option and this has been established.
I'm hopeful MTN is going to enter an uptrend very shortly and there are two reasons for this thinking. Firstly, MTN appears to lag behind the others and I keep a spreadsheet on MTN, PDN and WME which supports this. Secondly MTN has been offering shareholders a 1 share at $2.50 for every 5 held , something that may have affected the sp of late.
I am informed that even though MTN has been displaying a downtrend, it has found a support line and as the fundamentals are still good, ought to make an upward move soon. This move was anticipated in October but as it lags a little, ought to start in November. The spot price of uranium is now starting to climb, probably with the advent of the northern hemisphere winter and the demand for fuel. I'm going to hang in there just a bit longer and live in desperate hope.


----------



## Moneybags (28 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

prs,

That's a horrible chart......been a while since I looked at MTN and what a shocker. My feeling is with this change in market sentiment, following the sub prime correction, that a lot of speccies are getting dumped for safer stocks. I'd class MTN very spec with the chance it may not be approved and also the underground mine thing.

Check out other U stocks.......interestingly ERA are looking good, PDN coming back strongly, BMN consolidating well after a big rise, AGS seems to have found a bottom.........MTN seem to be still sliding.

Your well up on your purchase........how much more are you prepared to lose.....on paper of course.

MB


----------



## prs (30 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

G'Day Moneybags
I'm being advised and that advice is that the indicators are still strong for MTN and as such I will stay with it unless it gets to $2. MTN has JORC, it's in South Australia and their Premier is happy for uranium and other mining to go on, the company is strong, the demand for U is picking up with the Nthn hemisphere winter approaching and the spot price of U is picking up with even better pricing on the horizon. Even a bozo like me has trouble figuring out why MTN is still sliding.

However, further advice assures me that MTN has crossed over and is about to pick and as I have alluded MTN has traditionally been behind the others. I'm hopeful that come November, things will improve and the sp start uptrending strongly. 

I've been watching a few others and while I'm impressed with some, still feel that MTN is under rated.


----------



## Moneybags (30 October 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey, no worries prs, hope it goes well for you. 

At least you are in front on the stock so you still have time to exit if it continues to slide. As you say, it could just be the lag and be ready to find a bottom very soon. Positive day today at least.

MB


----------



## MBI (1 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Marathon Resources Ltd (ASX Code: MTN) today announced a restructure of its executive team.  
http://markets.news.com.au/Announcements/2007/1101/00778813.pdf

And the sp jump by 0.58cts <21%>.  Seems like the market is more than happy to see the CEO Stuart Hall off.  As I had mentioned earlier, he is definitely not the CEO type, more of a bolts and nuts project mgr. So far he has been a pessimist focusing excessively on the downside factors on JORC estimates and project risks. There is virtually nothing on strategic direction or clarity as to the roadmap of what is needed to be done to get to a bankable project plan.

Let's hope MTN will be re-rated.


----------



## Moneybags (1 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey prs, sure hope you held on and received that nice rise today. Well done if ya did. Other U stocks up sharply too.

MB


----------



## prs (2 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

G'Day Moneybags
Thks for your message. I had been advised that MTN's support line may be $2.50 so I was prepared to go a little under that. I was hopeful that with 2 days of minor uplifts we were out of the hole and yesterday pretty well confirmed that. Yesterday was unbelievable at work, trying to concentrate on what had to be done and occasionally checking the ASX and as the day wore on the percentage increase grew. I gave up about 4.30 Tassie time and got a bit of a rush when I checked it at home. 
This morning I checked a few indicators and I reckon we could see a bit of a pull back today.
Good luck everyone


----------



## Sean K (2 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Potential bottom at $2.50. This is a clear support line.



Perhaps a bottom found, pending our reaction to US and follow through tomorrow.

Why the jump?

Looks like a reversal to me, on volume..


----------



## nizar (2 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Perhaps a bottom found, pending our reaction to US and follow through tomorrow.
> 
> Why the jump?
> 
> Looks like a reversal to me, on volume..




Well the "pullback" for this stock, though that seems like like too light a word, Peak to trough, is about 64%.

Kennas, were you a believer on this one?


----------



## Sean K (2 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



nizar said:


> Well the "pullback" for this stock, though that seems like like too light a word, Peak to trough, is about 64%.
> 
> Kennas, were you a believer on this one?



No, not entirely, I thought I had represented my position throughout the thread.

My position still is that the SA Gov will do all they can to allow Mt Gee to be mined due to their current bullishness on the industry. There is still a risk that it wont, so we need to factor that in.

The deposit, even with the downgrade, is very very good. One of the top deposits in the country.

I've been watching closely to find a re-entry, or more solid information on the fundamentals.


----------



## Broadside (2 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I hold a few for the potential of the resource.  Personally I don't have much faith at all that the company can deliver, they failed to take advantage of a strong price and raise capital and instead do a rights issue sub $3, seems no clear direction or way forward, any wonder it languished so badly especially when U sentiment in general turned south?  

Hopefully today's announcement is a new beginning.  They can only do better.


----------



## prs (25 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN has been sitting back for some time now. It appears to be sitting better than some but still the U sector is languishing. Now that Mr Rudd and his merry men have taken over and the bone headed rocker (Garrett) may be in control, what's the feeling about the uranium sector and in particular MTN? Do you guys think the change of Gov't will have an effect on the sp or is it a cyclical thing just waiting to take off again?


----------



## shinobi346 (27 November 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Anyone taking up the offer to buy Pheonix Copper? I'm still looking into the tenaments but so far it looks like a nice parcel of land MTN is relinquishing in the Burra region of SA. No money in return but I guess they don't need any in the immediate future with their last cap raising completed not too long ago. What they get in return for EL3164 is 750k shares and 750k options so one can only hope they are confident this new company won't tank soon after launch.

The other tenaments Phenix Copper will have in the Burra region look interesting (old copper mines + close to infrastructure) but is also very close to a town. Some parts are also unavailable to further exploration.


----------



## prs (3 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Phoenix Copper doesn't look too bad but I guess my concern is the uranium sector and specifically MTN. Anybody any thoughts about why there is so little action in the uranium sector?


----------



## YELNATS (5 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Phoenix Copper doesn't look too bad but I guess my concern is the uranium sector and specifically MTN. Anybody any thoughts about why there is so little action in the uranium sector?





Even with the attraction (?) of the Phoenix Copper IPO, today MTN dipped well below the psychological $2.50 mark, going down to $2.30 and finishing at $2.42. Six months ago I would have thought this a brilliant buying opportunity, but now I'm not so sure.

As an original buyer of MTN sub-$1 and then a subsequent seller, for the moment I'll continue to watch and wait.


----------



## jman2007 (10 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

This is still looking rather tenuous, been following this stock to try and see a suitable entry point, but just watching and waiting for now.  Doesn't seem to be able to sustain any basline level of support which is rather worriesome.


----------



## Sean K (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> No, not entirely, I thought I had represented my position throughout the thread.
> 
> My position still is that the SA Gov will do all they can to allow Mt Gee to be mined due to their current bullishness on the industry. There is still a risk that it wont, so we need to factor that in.
> 
> ...



Golly geepers, perhaps this won't be a mine. What the heck is happening to MTN??? They have a high grade U deposit of considerable tonnage in the U state of Oz! Perhaps something that we are not prevey too??

This is one occasion where following the techinicals could have saved you a packet...


----------



## insider (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Hey Kennas... Its been a while since I've posted something with any substance about anything... I blame work... The sad reality is MTN really doesn't have much to look forward to anymore... imo... Their biggest hurdle is and always was the environment... The air changed in Augusts major correction, before it seemed like we would breeze through the red tape because of an amazing run and everything would be ok. After the correction people started to realize that they had to pick near definite producing companies because speculating on MTN's inherited stinky red tape  is a big risk... People were expecting more from Mt Gee in regards to its deposit and Namibian based U companies are favorited nowadays...

MTN's action to me is not surprising... having said that they probably will go for a huge run just because I have that kind of luck with words


----------



## Rafa (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

agree with both of you.... MTN has been a raging sell since it broke thru blue uptrend line in kennas's chart, then the major supports at 5 and then 4... The market doesn't lie... a share is worth what it is worth!

This was one of my favourite stocks... its time may come again, cause they have the resource... but its a matter of the conditions in the energy market at the time.

Most of Asia and the rest of the world still need Uranium, even if Australia doesnt... but people will mine what is easiest to mine first...

BMN is the standout in that area.... dig it up, process and sell...

My only other exposure to Uranium in Oz is PNN.... its my tip to be the next new U mine in Oz (expansion by the incumbents excluded), target of 2010.

If the uranium conditions demand new mines and higher spot prices.... MTN WILL come back into the picture.


----------



## Sean K (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Hey Kennas... Its been a while since I've posted something with any substance about anything... I blame work... The sad reality is MTN really doesn't have much to look forward to anymore... imo... Their biggest hurdle is and always was the environment... The air changed in Augusts major correction, before it seemed like we would breeze through the red tape because of an amazing run and everything would be ok. After the correction people started to realize that they had to pick near definite producing companies because speculating on MTN's inherited stinky red tape  is a big risk... People were expecting more from Mt Gee in regards to its deposit and Namibian based U companies are favorited nowadays...
> 
> MTN's action to me is not surprising... having said that they probably will go for a huge run just because I have that kind of luck with words



Insider, I see an incredible kick to MTN's prospects in the future: The day they ann that the SA Govt is going to allow mining at Mt Gee. How will anyone know that? Maybe get to know the secratary in Mike's office....


----------



## insider (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Maybe get to know the secratary in Mike's office....




Nah can't be bothered... : besides didn't Buttermere want to buy up at $3.58 or so... Where are they now? MTN would jump significantly if Mining was officially allowed at Mt. Gee but I suggest it'd be best to wait for that announcement...


----------



## grace (13 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I see our rock singing pollie as the biggest threat to uranium mining in Australia at the moment.  Do you remember his dissappointment outside the Labor Party national conference when Labor supported new mining federally in Australia?  He was discusted!  Labor do support new mines (on policy now anyway).....we'll just have to wait for it.  At least SA do support from a State point of view unlike WA (and who knows what is going on up here in Qld now that backflipping Pete has gone).
I used to hold MTN too.  The fact that they are sitting on some sort of nature reserve and their entry may be some way distance from there to mine was the comment from one of the Eureka reports was what made me stay way clear of them (meaning the entry to the mine would be tricky).  I see AGS (Alliance) as being a good potential miner as they just have the nice grade.  I don't own at present.


----------



## powerkoala (14 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

what is this?
a super dead cat bounce?
maybe the cat is powered with energizer lithium.
just kidding. 
but i just can't imagine after a drop of 10% to 1.80 now back to 2.50.
so lucky those who entered at 1.80.


----------



## Logique (15 December 2007)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I was looking at Kennas' above chart on Friday morning. I decided that unless there was  some unwinding of the environmental and political challenges facing Marathon to get a mine started in Australia, albeit SA, that the technical interpretation was - descending triangle, target being base minus height, 2.50 minus 1.50, equalling downside target 1.00.  However with previous resistances at about 1.30, this was the more likely new support. 

I didn't and still don't, see the challenges unwinding quickly, so nobody more surprised than me to see it run up 20% going into the close. No announcement came during the day that I saw. The historical price action shows several unsuccessful attempts to find the bottom. Don't want to rain on anyone's parade, but unless some positive news comes out soon, I think powerkoala might be on the right track. 

It has to be remembered though, Marathon are sitting on a quality high grade U resource. When/if the time comes that they can dig it up, they will make a lot of money.


----------



## jman2007 (20 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

prs,

Here's my response to your question re MTN under your "Uranium Thread" that I made towards the end of last year, not sure whether you saw it or not.  I still haven't changed my opinion of this company. Fundamentally, nothing seems to have changed.  Remember, this is just my own opinion, other members may not agree with it.  I know you have a significant stake in MTN, just bad luck that the market sentiment swung against you....



prs said:


> So considering the companies out there with exploration licences wouldn't you think that MTN ought to be the next company to be granted a licence to mine? After all, it's got JORC, it's got a solid administration and there's probably no reason why it can't start mining in a couple of years, providing it can get approval. Sure it may have to be an underground mine because of the sensitivity of the area but MTN's administration knows that. I would've thought that being the 3rd or 4th biggest uranium resource in Australia, it's to Marathon's, the South Australian Government's and the Australian Governments benefit and interest to approve it a mining licence. Anyone agree or disagree?
> I'm very interested as I have a significant number of shares.




My response...



jman2007 said:


> Well naturally you'd expext the SA Govt to get in behind this one since it's happening right in their own backyard. Although imo, to expect MTN to be in production "in a couple of years" is a bit optimistic, considering that a company like UKL who are planning a open-cut, heap-leach style of operation at Apex-Lowoy are predicting mid 2009 to the earliest start up date for production.
> 
> If you consider Cameco's Cigar Lake project, this gives you some idea of the complexities and challenges faced with mining underground, although of course, Mt Ghee isn't sitting underneath a lake.  There is still a small risk that Mt Ghee wont go ahead, but more of a hurdle will be the huge amount of capital required to get this operation going, probably several hundred million if not more. I don't know exactly who is on the MTN management team, but whether or not they have any experience developing underground operations and running them effectively I don't know, so maybe some management risk too.
> 
> Obviously the project has considerable merit, but the re-evaluation in the sp comes at a time when people are now being much more objective about which U company they back, I might even buy into MTN myself, but until the chart stabilises somewhat I'm going to wait and see what happens.


----------



## reece55 (20 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Prs
Man, I feel bad for you to be in this position, there's nothing worse than losing sleep over the stock market...... But I wonder why you stuck a significant portion of dough in a Uranium Company when the the sector is cold as ice atm, even without the credit crunch.... Was this a tip from a friend, etc??????

In my humble opinion, there is zero chance of MTN getting their mine up and therefore I think they are only worth their cash backing, which last time I checked was pretty low. I say this because of the following reasons

1. The deposit is in an extremely politically sensitive area and anyone with knowledge of South Australian politics has said from day one they are doomed. 
2. The project would require significant capital, which the current management quite simply doesn't have the expertise to acquire in a good debt market, let alone the way it is now; and
3. If you needed any other reason, just look at the chart. The stock is in a major downtrend, suitable for short selling not going long.....

I can't tell you what to do with holding, you will have to decide that yourself - but do I think MTN will recapture it's highs, not in my lifetime.....

Cheers and all the best


----------



## Go Nuke (21 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Oh and it gets worse for MTN......

From the Australian today....

http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23064530-5005200,00.html

Dumping drill cores of Uranium is not so good in a National Park:nono:


----------



## YELNATS (21 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> Oh and it gets worse for MTN......
> 
> From the Australian today....
> 
> ...





Not sure the article says the dumping was in a national park, only that it was found nearby to the Arkaroola Wilderness Sanctuary resort. If it was found on MTN's tenement, makes you wonder why the resort's owners were on MTN's ground (trespassing?) and what they were looking for?

Nonetheless it appears the method of disposal of the drill cores wasn't correct.


----------



## prs (21 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



reece55 said:


> Prs
> Man, I feel bad for you to be in this position, there's nothing worse than losing sleep over the stock market...... But I wonder why you stuck a significant portion of dough in a Uranium Company when the the sector is cold as ice atm, even without the credit crunch.... Was this a tip from a friend, etc??????
> 
> In my humble opinion, there is zero chance of MTN getting their mine up and therefore I think they are only worth their cash backing, which last time I checked was pretty low. I say this because of the following reasons
> ...




Reece55 and others
Thanks for your comments. I guess I'll just have to ride this one out now as I'm below what I paid for the shares. I would have thought that with the JORC this Coy has and the way their management appeared to be leading the coy that even though their tenement is in a sensitive area, with a bit of Gov't support, they'd have a future. I hope like all get out that the sp climbs around $4 'coz I've certainly leaned yet another lesson in life.
Thanks again guys.


----------



## jman2007 (22 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Well

As if it couldn't get any worse for MTN, release today stating that an internal investigation and audit of Exploration procedures is underway following the discovery of the inappropriately disposed of sample bags.  Couldn't have come at a worse time imo....

jman


----------



## Go Nuke (22 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wow..from around $6.50 to a low of .87c in roughly 6 months.

I used to dream of owning MTN when it was on the way up....now I'm so glad i don't hold any


----------



## Sean K (22 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> Wow..from around $6.50 to a low of .87c in roughly 6 months.
> 
> I used to dream of owning MTN when it was on the way up....now I'm so glad i don't hold any



I held for too long actually as I believed in the funny's too much. The company and it's managers are in deep doo doo by the look. Luckily at the time I was just playing technicals as there was some unertainty in Mt Gee. ie, A Red Footed Booby Reserve, or something... On the other hand, the company were reporting one of the best resources in the country with huge potential to expand. Then, they brought out downgrades. Who brings out a downgrade when the resource is supposed to be developing through resource expansion drilling that was hitting great widths and grades??  My appologies for being so bullish early on. I hope I never led anyone astray. I always call it as I see it, even with stocks I own.


----------



## bvbfan (23 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Never thought any of these targets would be hit. Glad I didnt try to catch this knife.

Fundamentals I never understood on this stock except that Mt Gee had previous issues for previous owners?


----------



## jman2007 (23 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> I held for too long actually as I believed in the funny's too much. The company and it's managers are in deep doo doo by the look. Luckily at the time I was just playing technicals as there was some unertainty in Mt Gee. ie, A Red Footed Booby Reserve, or something... On the other hand, the company were reporting one of the best resources in the country with huge potential to expand. Then, they brought out downgrades. Who brings out a downgrade when the resource is supposed to be developing through resource expansion drilling that was hitting great widths and grades??  My appologies for being so bullish early on. I hope I never led anyone astray. I always call it as I see it, even with stocks I own.




Mate,

I don't really think you can be held accountable for your views on this stock.  I seem to recall relatively recently you said you "were not convinced by the fundamentals of this stock", or words to that effect.  At the end of the day, it is up to each individual investor to make his or her mind up as the merits of a particular stock, DYOR never rang so clearly....

jman


----------



## Sean K (23 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jman2007 said:


> Mate,
> 
> I don't really think you can be held accountable for your views on this stock.  I seem to recall relatively recently you said you "were not convinced by the fundamentals of this stock", or words to that effect.  At the end of the day, it is up to each individual investor to make his or her mind up as the merits of a particular stock, DYOR never rang so clearly....
> 
> jman



Yeah, you're right. I was presenting the good and bad and advised I sold when I did which was a long time ago. I think shareholders have been let down by the company actually. Maybea takeover and the new owners can get it right...Good luck long termers.


----------



## bliimp (23 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Good luck long termers.




Yeah .... unfortunately, they will need a lot of it.

Mike "the Magnificent" Rann, whilst being very pro-mining in SA, has the luxury of :-

a) the BHP mega-expansion of Roxby Downs
b) Oxiana's Prominent Hill startup
c) Australia's fourth uranium mine at Honeymoon

etc etc etc 

He is "at the right place at the right time", what with SA experiencing a mini WA-type boom in terms of jobs, population, housing etc. 

So why would _good-news _Mike risk his electoral standing by going to bed with the _naughty_ Marathon boys!

Just read between the lines ..... he is not saying yes and he is not saying no ..... http://www.theaustralian.news.com.au/story/0,25197,23082213-5006787,00.html

I just think that the slim chance Marathon may have had has become just that much slimmer!!!


----------



## insider (24 January 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> I held for too long actually as I believed in the funny's too much. The company and it's managers are in deep doo doo by the look. Luckily at the time I was just playing technicals as there was some unertainty in Mt Gee. ie, A Red Footed Booby Reserve, or something... On the other hand, the company were reporting one of the best resources in the country with huge potential to expand. Then, they brought out downgrades. Who brings out a downgrade when the resource is supposed to be developing through resource expansion drilling that was hitting great widths and grades??  My appologies for being so bullish early on. I hope I never led anyone astray. I always call it as I see it, even with stocks I own.




I don't see how any of this was your fault... The sentiment at the time it was going up was all is good, we will mine... August hit us and then we remembered this little and most important post provided by our good friend Kgee...

https://www.aussiestockforums.com/forums/showpost.php?p=36988&postcount=16

Oh better move our money somewhere else...

Your suffering, stop it!


----------



## surfingman (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

*SA suspends Marathon mining operation*

February 12, 2008 - 5:04PM

A uranium mining operation in a wilderness sanctuary in South Australia's Flinders Ranges has been suspended indefinitely after the unauthorised dumping of waste.

"Some parts of our state are just too precious to mine - Mt Gee is clearly one of those."

Full story here

Just a few snippets of the full story.


----------



## Kimosabi (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



surfingman said:


> *SA suspends Marathon mining operation*
> 
> February 12, 2008 - 5:04PM
> 
> ...



This is going to be real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, ugly tomorrow morning...


----------



## dj_420 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> This is going to be real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, ugly tomorrow morning...




I agree with that. Without the Mt Gee tenements the company does not hold very much at all. Slump today seems like some people in the know getting back some cash while they can.


----------



## jman2007 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Kimosabi said:


> This is going to be real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, real, ugly tomorrow morning...




OMG!....

I simply cannot believe how MTN has gone from one of the darlings of the ASX to a stock that simply no-one wants to own now.  By the sounds of it, a few of the MTN staff might be better off looking for a new employer if this article is the real deal.  Like other ASF members, I used to dream about owning this stock when it was flying high, now I am so glad I never bought into the hype.

Here's a question, when do people think the project went from "highly likely, with a few teething concerns"...to now "almost definitely not viable over the short-med term"?

Thanks
jman


----------



## reece55 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



surfingman said:


> *SA suspends Marathon mining operation*
> 
> February 12, 2008 - 5:04PM
> 
> ...




And what do you know, finally reality comes home to roost.....

Honestly, I don't know how many people on this forum laughed at me when MTN was $6.00 and I said there wasn't a hope in hell that they would get a mine going in the flinders.... albeit MTN's lazy management appears to have sped the process up. If there's any volume, shorting this one would yield a substantial return tomorrow - if CFD providers will actually let you do it..... Here's hoping many here heeded my warnings only a couple of weeks ago and are out of this stock.....

Cheers


----------



## shinobi346 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

"Some parts of our state are just too precious to mine - Mt Gee is clearly one of those."

What does the illegal dumping of waste have to do with mining? Sounds like someone with a bias against mining at Mt Gee was all too happy to suspend them.


----------



## jman2007 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



shinobi346 said:


> "Some parts of our state are just too precious to mine - Mt Gee is clearly one of those."
> 
> What does the illegal dumping of waste have to do with mining? Sounds like someone with a bias against mining at Mt Gee was all too happy to revoke their licence.
> 
> I hope that I am wrong and if I am does this now mean someone else can swoop in and take out a licence on the same area? Could MTN? Indefinite is a long time, but in this day and age where life is a few years behind bars, indefinite to me means 'no time frame for renewal, but it could happen'.




"What does the illegal dumping of waste have to do with mining?"

Aaaah....at a guess I'd say "how about everything?!"  

Mate, you can't be serious, even myself as a pro-mining lobbyist know when the line in the sand has been well and truly crossed.  There is a time and a place for uranium mining, and clearly the Flinders Range is not it.  I don't particularly want to be taking my grandchildren for a walk (when I'm grey and old) in a environmentally protected area and then around the corner fall into a disused mine shaft, or be skirting around contaminated waste dumps.

If companies had such a blatant disregard for environmental codes, then every gold company between Perth and Halls Creek would be running of their cyanide-contaminated tailings into the bush...clearly not an ideal situation.  Don't underestimate the power of environmental opposition, MTN did and they paid the price.

jman


----------



## reece55 (12 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jman2007 said:


> "What does the illegal dumping of waste have to do with mining?"
> 
> Aaaah....at a guess I'd say "how about everything?!"
> 
> ...




Couldn't say it better myself Jman, sustainable mining that protects the land when exploring/extracting is crucial...

Shinobi, I'm sensing your not a South Australian and you probably haven't experienced the beauty of the Flinders - because if you were/had, I don't think you would have said what you did......

Cheers


----------



## grace (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Can someone tell me why there isn't an announcement this morning about the licence being revoked?  News report also by ABC online.  Is it truth or fiction, or have I missed something?


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



grace said:


> Can someone tell me why there isn't an announcement this morning about the licence being revoked?  News report also by ABC online.  Is it truth or fiction, or have I missed something?



Check the last MTN ann Grace. That's how the company have spun the order by the Gov to cease drilling until they've cleaned up etc etc. Hard to tell the truth from spin here... I need to read it again, but they made it sound like it was their decision....


----------



## Sean K (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

LOL, the 'official' ASX statement (market sensitive) starts like this:



> ASX STATEMENT
> 
> MARATHON RESOURCES – MT GEE PROJECT UPDATE
> 
> ...




Nothing in there about the Gov decision, and they've tried to make it sound like it was there decsion to pull up stumps....


Then the media release, not sensitive:



> MARATHON RESOURCES TO REMEDIATE DISPOSAL SITES
> 
> Marathon Resources Limited (ASX: MTN) today accepted the restrictions imposed on the company by the State Government after investigations conducted by PIRSA and the EPA.




I'm not sure of the timing between these two anns, but it seems clear that the Gov had told them to stop drilling and clear off, but in the first ann they're tried to make it look like it was their decision and they were leaving anyway...


----------



## grace (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks Kennas.  I'm still very confused about the whole thing.  I would have thought a big dumping in MTN (more than my screen shows).
I own some AGS nextdoor, so that is my interest (threw MTN out a long time ago thank goodness!).


----------



## shinobi346 (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

//rant on

I'm talking about this particular persons statement in trying to take it from about one company's actions into an issue about whether any part of Mt Gee should be mined/explored or not. not illegal dumping in general. Just because one company has broken its obligations to take care of waste in accordance with the law it shouldnt mean that all mining/exploration at MtGee should be banned which is what somebody was trying to turn the event into.

But I now see who made that statement and I'm not surprised that he said that.

The issues at hand are:

what MTN has done and what effect it has had on the environment (long and short term). What measures have been taken to prevent this from occurring again? What needs to be changed and who will take responsibility for this?, punishment and corrective actions to recover the waste etc.

Whether Mt Gee should be mined/explored at all is a completely separate issue and should not have been in the article. Again, one company's actions at Mt Gee does not represent what everyone else in the area is doing.

It is a bit extreme to say all mining in a area should be banned because of one company breaking the law, and if he held that opinion long beforehand, (which it sounds like he does) I think it was inappropriate to have it in the article. You know what hes going to say anyway. What was the point of having his third party opinion in there anyway? To shore up his support at the next election?

//rant off

I'm surprised at how robustly MTN's price has performed today. It only dropped a bit and then rallied back up towards the end of the day.  I don't think the full story has got to everyone yet.


----------



## reece55 (13 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



shinobi346 said:


> //rant on
> 
> I'm talking about this particular persons statement in trying to take it from about one company's actions into an issue about whether any part of Mt Gee should be mined/explored or not. not illegal dumping in general. Just because one company has broken its obligations to take care of waste in accordance with the law it shouldnt mean that all mining/exploration at MtGee should be banned which is what somebody was trying to turn the event into.
> 
> ...




I was surprised that it didn't fall more as well Shinobi.......

Perhaps every was too busy selling the financials all day they didn't have time to sell down MTN .... Because, regardless of whether exploration starts up again a Mt Gee (and personally I don't think it should, but that is just my opinion), I don't think MTN will be carrying it out............ Watch for an EPA fine shortly.......

Cheers


----------



## jman2007 (14 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



shinobi346 said:


> //rant on
> 
> I'm talking about this particular persons statement in trying to take it from about one company's actions into an issue about whether any part of Mt Gee should be mined/explored or not. not illegal dumping in general. Just because one company has broken its obligations to take care of waste in accordance with the law it shouldnt mean that all mining/exploration at MtGee should be banned which is what somebody was trying to turn the event into.
> 
> ...




I'm with reece55 here,

I don't think the Mt Ghee area should be mined at all, whether it's Marathon Resources or the Pink and Purple Polka-dot Uranium Company.  As I said before I am all for mining in an environmentally and socially responsible manner, but imo to put our short-term financial rewards ahead of preserving an area of beauty for future generations....well it is just plain selfish, and it leaves a really bad taste in my mouth.

Remember MTN didn't voluntarily release that they had committed a breach, it was members of the public who found this waste first.  This demonstrates that people in the company or associated with it, if not the Directors then employees associated with the recent drilling, couldn't give two s$$$s about the Flinders Range.

Shinobi, you said that "whether Mt Gee should be mined/explored at all is a completely separate issue".  I really don't have a clue what you mean, because it has everything to do with it.  MTN have clearly shown they are not capable of operating in a environmentally responsible manner, and that's all there is to it.  The risk of further breaches would be massively increased if this turned into a mining operation, with many more personnel, equipment, and reagents on site.

It is unfortunate for other companies in the area who are operating according to the law, but ultimately their fate may already have also been determined due to the actions of one rogue company.

jman


----------



## prs (19 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

My my, I'm glad I'm not being sentenced by some of you lot. I'd be hanged before all the facts came out. How bloody judgmental are you guys? Marathon is a responsible and solid company with considerable JORC who are keen to get to mining stage.  You guys blowing this out of proportion really aren't doing them any justice at all.
Are any of you in possession of the absolute facts or are you going by what you read in the media? Did MTN management actually know what was going on with the dumping or was it just one person's act of irresponsibility? Do you honestly think that a company as experienced as MTN would deliberately dump sensitive material such as this in a sensitive area knowing that they may jeopardize any chance of achieving mining status? There are probably a few other questions I could ask if I really thought about it.
What are we in this game for, to judge a company that could potentially earn us some good cash or make assumptions borne out of circumstantial evidence and not absolute facts?
Time for my opinion. MTN management didn't have a clue that this breach had occurred and dealt with it in the most appropriate manner considering their position. I wouldn't mind betting that the clown that did the deed is looking for alternative employment.
I'm sticking with them, why, because they have the goods and there is a greater need for those goods. Look at their sp, it fluctuates just like the other uranium players and I'll make a wager that when the indicators are right and things settle down more, they'll take off better than most. They're still very undervalued aren't they?


----------



## Dratoz (19 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks PRS, good post. Recently a rugby(?) player has broken his colleague's jaw. He was allowed to go on and play another match, because he was “innocent until proven guilty”. Well, this was a much clearer cut than what happened to MTN.

I agree that we need to wait for the facts before passing judgement and... let’s apply the same standard to MTN as we do to ordinary hooligans, who would be given the benefit of the doubt.

Regards,
Dratoz


----------



## peteai (19 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

While I noticed a lot of talk of doom for MTN I was very surprised that relatively little stock changed hands & there was enough buyers to keep the stock from falling very much.  

My question is : shouldn't the punishment fit the crime. How much damage was done ? And Are they repeating this kind of breach ?
I understand that the samples in the bags are harmless. I can understand they should remove the samples (i.e restore the "damage") and some sort of penalty - e.g suspension of drilling until fully investigated.

But we're not talking about a disaster & it probably takes an example like this for any company to take its internal policies seriously. I bet MTN is now scrutinising every future & past activity it does.

I don't think this a reason to shut MTN down - i.e of course, some want to shut MTN down whatever.

__________
PETEAI


----------



## jman2007 (20 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> My my, I'm glad I'm not being sentenced by some of you lot. I'd be hanged before all the facts came out. How bloody judgmental are you guys? Marathon is a responsible and solid company with considerable JORC who are keen to get to mining stage.  You guys blowing this out of proportion really aren't doing them any justice at all.
> Are any of you in possession of the absolute facts or are you going by what you read in the media? Did MTN management actually know what was going on with the dumping or was it just one person's act of irresponsibility? Do you honestly think that a company as experienced as MTN would deliberately dump sensitive material such as this in a sensitive area knowing that they may jeopardize any chance of achieving mining status? There are probably a few other questions I could ask if I really thought about it.
> What are we in this game for, to judge a company that could potentially earn us some good cash or make assumptions borne out of circumstantial evidence and not absolute facts?
> Time for my opinion. MTN management didn't have a clue that this breach had occurred and dealt with it in the most appropriate manner considering their position. I wouldn't mind betting that the clown that did the deed is looking for alternative employment.
> I'm sticking with them, why, because they have the goods and there is a greater need for those goods. Look at their sp, it fluctuates just like the other uranium players and I'll make a wager that when the indicators are right and things settle down more, they'll take off better than most. They're still very undervalued aren't they?




Well if you're so sure that the indicators are right and it's going to take off again, then why can't you make your own decision about whether it's undervalued or not?

It doesn't matter if it was 1 person repsonsible or 25 people responsible for dumping waste. At the end of the day, it is still work being carried under MTN's banner and senior management have to carry the can.  Responsibilty comes with seniority, and that's why they get paid the big bucks.  Try telling the DPI that it was "one person's act of irresponsibity therefore we didn't know about it, so you shouldn't fine us" and they'd collapse laughing.

You might want to do some background research on MTN yourself, the Geo's I have dealings with in SA claim that MTN originally tried to claim work from previous companies as their own, made ridiculous assumptions in correlating profiles in section that were hundreds of meters apart, and reported EOH mineralisation when in actual fact, the hole continued and ended in barren rock. Oh and by the way, I don't get my info from the meida, but from formulating my own opinions and talking to people who actually know what they're on about.

jman


----------



## reece55 (20 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jman2007 said:


> Well if you're so sure that the indicators are right and it's going to take off again, then why can't you make your own decision about whether it's undervalued or not?
> 
> It doesn't matter if it was 1 person repsonsible or 25 people responsible for dumping waste. At the end of the day, it is still work being carried under MTN's banner and senior management have to carry the can.  Responsibilty comes with seniority, and that's why they get paid the big bucks.  Try telling the DPI that it was "one person's act of irresponsibity therefore we didn't know about it, so you shouldn't fine us" and they'd collapse laughing.
> 
> ...




Jman
I consult to a leading exploration entity in SA in my capacity as an accountant and the same views re the dodgy assumptions in their supposed JORC were relayed to me too......  The summary I received from the expert Geo's was there was an awful lot creative interpretation to build the resource, because the number of drill results were insufficient to perform the calculation.... They likened it to joining the dots when they were in actual fact very far apart....

Sounds like there are a few sad investors on this board......... Perhaps they are looking at MTN's chart upside down?

Cheers


----------



## Dratoz (21 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Interestingly, the sad investors are not very active in posting. Quite the opposite, the most active posters at the moment are those with all the knowledge and no apparent holding (and hence with no apparent interest in posting). Hmmm. I find it strange, but then I may be an isolated case.

We will find out sooner or later if the already undeniably substantial resource is in fact much bigger. Those who post unsupported gossip should think twice, or they should provide reference to the source IMO. Just stating that "I heard something from someone but I can't tell you who it was" is, IMO, unethical and shows disregard to readers.

Dratoz


----------



## peteai (21 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Dratoz, you make a very good point. I have some MTN stock because I think it is too cheap given its potential up side. I accept there is a possile down side.  I also have a stake in the environment I've invested in Hot Rock companies.

However, I request fellow bloggers to look at the whole picture. Everything of significance has pros & cons. Re: the environment I think the Uranium MTN may produce could have great benefits in terms of reducing Co2, & I think the co2 problem is a looming global catastrophe.

Personally I don't invest in company that I consider does excessive environment damage. IMO clean coal is unproven so I do not invest in coal miners.

The buried bags of samples was a mistake by MTN, but insignificant environmentally. But many want it blown out proportion to satisfy their egos or for some their decision to bail out of MTN.
_________
PETEAI


----------



## reece55 (22 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> Interestingly, the sad investors are not very active in posting. Quite the opposite, the most active posters at the moment are those with all the knowledge and no apparent holding (and hence with no apparent interest in posting). Hmmm. I find it strange, but then I may be an isolated case.
> 
> We will find out sooner or later if the already undeniably substantial resource is in fact much bigger. Those who post unsupported gossip should think twice, or they should provide reference to the source IMO. Just stating that "I heard something from someone but I can't tell you who it was" is, IMO, unethical and shows disregard to readers.
> 
> Dratoz




Disregard to posters? Quite the opposite Dratoz, I want my fellow ASF's to make loads of $$ on the stock market, after all that is what we are here for. I have personally been active on this thread lately because I personally feel there are some very good reasons why you don't want to be a shareholder in this Company. So far, I think you will agree looking at the share price I have been right. Let me be frank, I have no vested interest in seeing this share price go up or down other than out of sheer curiosity. However, I think most here on this forum would vouch for me when I say I am not one to purposely attempt to have no regard to fellow posters, in fact quite the opposite. 

As for unsupported gossip, well ok, fair enough. I can't give a source - I mean, why would I really quote my clients in a public forum mate? At the end of the day, each person must do there own assessment on the reasonableness of the resources calc and personally I don't have the expertise or the time to do so. All I was saying was people in the know questioned the reliability of the calculation - this is not creating idle gossip, this is asking fellow ASF investors to question it. If you then still consider MTN a good investment, then go for it. But I was warning 'look before you leap' with this one if the resource is attractive to you.... and it seems I'm not the only one with that view...

Cheers


----------



## jman2007 (22 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> Interestingly, the sad investors are not very active in posting. Quite the opposite, the most active posters at the moment are those with all the knowledge and no apparent holding (and hence with no apparent interest in posting). Hmmm. I find it strange, but then I may be an isolated case.
> 
> We will find out sooner or later if the already undeniably substantial resource is in fact much bigger. Those who post unsupported gossip should think twice, or they should provide reference to the source IMO. Just stating that "I heard something from someone but I can't tell you who it was" is, IMO, unethical and shows disregard to readers.
> 
> Dratoz




Dratoz, 

Let me make one thing clear to you, my personal communications or conversations with other professionals in the industry is not unsupported gossip.  The reason I disclosed the information at all was for the benefit of all ASF members, and to provide some balance to this thread.  What do you expect people like Reece55 and myself to do?...give you their names, phone numbers and addresses so you can go ask them yourself? Just because some info isn't publically available, it doesn't make it invalid.

The fact that two of us have raised points re the reliability of the MTN JORC calculations from two separate sources suggests that this is much more than mere rumour spreading, and has a bit more substance to it than you are giving it.  I have had no material interest in this company, either in the past or present, but am merely providing my opinion and additional information to help other people make an informed decision.

jman


----------



## Dratoz (22 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Reece55 and Jman2007,
Thanks for your replies. It adds to the credibility of the post if one supports it with a reference. There are too many people posting garbage in the hope of a financial gain. I accept that your intentions are genuine and are represent an honest information sharing. There has been so much dirt thrown at Marathon since its listing that it is difficult to differentiate between the garbage and the honest information sharing.

I read your posts and considered them carefully. This is my style of investing. Get as much info as possible, consider the differing views objectively and with minimum emotion and... make a move. I decided to add to my MTN holding. I could be wrong. Time will tell. The share market only exists due to the differing views. It would not exist if we all sold and bought at the same time, as a result of drawing the same conclusions from the information available to the market.
Good luck with your investments,
Dratoz
PS: Jman, for a change, I entirely agree with your posts on the IGR thread. I have a large holding there and share your views as to the future of the company.


----------



## jman2007 (23 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> Reece55 and Jman2007,
> Thanks for your replies. It adds to the credibility of the post if one supports it with a reference. There are too many people posting garbage in the hope of a financial gain. I accept that your intentions are genuine and are represent an honest information sharing. There has been so much dirt thrown at Marathon since its listing that it is difficult to differentiate between the garbage and the honest information sharing.
> 
> I read your posts and considered them carefully. This is my style of investing. Get as much info as possible, consider the differing views objectively and with minimum emotion and... make a move. I decided to add to my MTN holding. I could be wrong. Time will tell. The share market only exists due to the differing views. It would not exist if we all sold and bought at the same time, as a result of drawing the same conclusions from the information available to the market.
> ...




Dratoz,

I appreciate your reply.  I think information that is not initially available to be discussed or debated within a public forum can still be useful within the right context.  Unfortunately it often places people in a difficult situation when they are challenged re the authenticity of this information, in that they are not able to disclose the exact sources.

Good on you for getting into IGR btw, you'll be happy with the way that's going atm.

jman


----------



## reece55 (23 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jman2007 said:


> Dratoz,
> 
> I appreciate your reply.  I think information that is not initially available to be discussed or debated within a public forum can still be useful within the right context.  Unfortunately it often places people in a difficult situation when they are challenged re the authenticity of this information, in that they are not able to disclose the exact sources.
> 
> ...




Dratoz
I am the same as Jman here, I do appreciate your reply.

I'm not sure if you have experience with another unverified rumor mill style forum here in Aus (I am sure everyone can read between the lines here about what I am talking about), but the differentiating factor about ASF is that, in my experience, the information shared here is extremely reliable. In fact, I think I speak for most in saying we pride ourself on that fact and the mods are extremely good at monitoring any crappy posts (especially considering the activity of posters versus number of mods).

I do wish you all the best with your investment in MTN and whilst I don't fundamentally agree with mining in the Flinders, I wish you the best of luck getting some $$ out of this stock.

Cheers


----------



## jman2007 (23 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



reece55 said:


> Dratoz
> I am the same as Jman here, I do appreciate your reply.
> 
> I'm not sure if you have experience with another unverified rumor mill style forum here in Aus (I am sure everyone can read between the lines here about what I am talking about), but the differentiating factor about ASF is that, in my experience, the information shared here is extremely reliable. In fact, I think I speak for most in saying we pride ourself on that fact and the mods are extremely good at monitoring any crappy posts (especially considering the activity of posters versus number of mods).
> ...




Good call mate,

I think we've done our best here to try and maintain the high standards that ASF demands, imo if we had breached some any serious protocols I'm sure the mods would have let us know, because as you say they are usually very good at monitoring this kind of behaviour.

Cheers
jman


----------



## peteai (26 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Sentiment for MTN seems to be picking up. The "buried samples" bad news only had a limited effect - but the last couple of days the price has gone from 1.40 to $1.80+ a 30% increase.

Anyone have ideas on what has lead to this up movement ?
________________
Thanks,
Peteai


----------



## Go Nuke (26 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Personally..I dont think it will last.

Exactly like you have asked....What would make the sp go up? Nothing that I know of.

And historically looking at the chart it seems to jump up for a day or two.

I could be wrong but we will have to wait and see.

What else does MTN have other than Mt Gee?


----------



## prs (26 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

According to factual information, MTN has a significant amount of JORC and is recognized as being about the 5th biggest deposit of uranium. It appears to have a stable and dedicated management team who seem very keen to take the company to mining level. Mt Gee is in a sensitive area and as such it appears the best way to mine the U is via underground. They are aware of this and no doubt despite this are working towards mining status. Yes they have been found to have committed an indiscretion but the management of MTN has accepted the issue and moved on in a very diplomatic way.
I know there are doubting Thomas's out there but have a look for your self and you'll see that their sp has fluctuated in a very similar pattern to other U and exploration companies.   
I'm sticking with them through this because I believe with they will come up trumps.


----------



## Black Range (27 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

For all those that Hold, here's todays TUE. 26th Intra Day Trading Chart, & what a Chart it is  It shall be very Interesting to see if the run continues over the coming period. From Todays trading it seems something major may about to be announced.


No. of Trades: 180
Volume: 518,547

Opening Price: 1.580
High Price: 1.980
Low Price: 1.480

Last Trading Price: $1.950 Up 29.14%

Closing Buyer Depth: 1.800 (167,564)
Closing Seller Depth: 1.950 (82,446)

6-month High: 4.150

5-day EMA: 1.438
10-day EMA: 1.449
15-day EMA: 1.483
30-day EMA: 1.619
Avg Daily Traded Volume: 140,787
.
.
Cheers from grant64
.
.

Here's todays Closing Intra-Day Chart for Today-TUE FEB. 26th for the period 10.05a.m to 4.11p.m.

Green Line Displays Buyers, Orange Sellers Market Depth. Blue Line represents previous days close.All Data taken from http://www.turbotrader.net.au/


----------



## insider (27 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

WOW... that was the big announcement... it doesn't explain a 29% rise so I expect the SP to fall this morning... I was expecting a splash but this IMO doesn't even make a ripple...

Good Luck Holders


----------



## peteai (27 February 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think the announcement is significant - It says someone is willing to make a sizable investment. It is reasonable to believe that would have done their research and concluded a mine is likely.  

I would hazard to say that whoever is doing this knows a lot more about the situation that me or most others on the forum.

They would only consider a 13% stake if they consider the price they can get will be worth more in the future


----------



## Go Nuke (11 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Wow..Marathon actually finished UP today!

Amazing.
Whats the go behind this?
$1.40+ must be good support?? Or is some sort of news comming??


----------



## Dratoz (11 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I think it may be interesting to look at today's trades. You may find an answer there, or.... the source of many more questions.
Regards,
Dratoz


----------



## Sean K (12 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> I think it may be interesting to look at today's trades. You may find an answer there, or.... the source of many more questions.
> Regards,
> Dratoz



Thanks for that dratoz, very informative and educational. 

Maybe you could fill us in a little? Cheers, kennas


----------



## Goldmann (12 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



peteai said:


> I think the announcement is significant - It says someone is willing to make a sizable investment. It is reasonable to believe that would have done their research and concluded a mine is likely.
> 
> I would hazard to say that whoever is doing this knows a lot more about the situation that me or most others on the forum.
> 
> They would only consider a 13% stake if they consider the price they can get will be worth more in the future




Sounds like what people were saying the Singapore Govt took a big chuck of ABS... look how that turned out... remember to do your own research... big houses and banks get it wrong too..


----------



## peteai (12 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Goldmann said:


> Sounds like what people were saying the Singapore Govt took a big chuck of ABS... look how that turned out... remember to do your own research... big houses and banks get it wrong too..




You are correct not to rely just on big houses etc however I will say someone with that much at stake would be crazy not to do more research than I could possibly do -that 's why I say it is not insignificant - we are always taking risks with any explorer. If a mine goes ahead IMO MTN shares would be worth at least 10x there value now, so in one sense even if there is less than 10% chance of a mine MTN is still cheap.

IMO very few would invest a 13% stake in MTN unless they believed MTN had a good chance of success. This should not be the only reason for ivesting in MTN but it adds to the case FOR.

Other reasons are China has just announce it will have 60GW of nuclear power stations by 2020. Coal is getting expensive, Oil is very expensive,
Real action on climate change is just around the corner.

That tells me we will need good excuses to not mine U - we may have to have mines minimal impact on the environment - but when climate change really begins to bite we might adjust our environmental priorities
__________
PETEAI


----------



## Dratoz (12 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



kennas said:


> Thanks for that dratoz, very informative and educational.
> 
> Maybe you could fill us in a little? Cheers, kennas




G'Day Kennas,
OK, I will try to be more direct . There were a number of trades where 1 share changed hands, there were a few with 11 shares being involved, and there were a few with similarly low numbers, all traded in the way to support the sp.

In his/her post, Go_Nuke asked what was the go behind the increase yesterday and whether there was an announcement coming. Well, judging by the manipulation (now explained above), one can draw a conclusion that yes, there probably is. This was the "answer" I was referring to. I thought that yesterday's trades supported the assertion that there was an announcement coming. If you look at the latest PRZ announcements, you will probably find a further confirmation of it.

Now I will move on to the other part of my post, the one about the same daily trades being "the source of many more questions". If the sp is manipulated and the announcement is coming, is the sp held high to maximise the gains when it goes up, or is it held there to minimise the fall? I would like to know the answer. I have a theory that (provided that my other theory about an announcement coming up holds) the news will be good. This is based on the strong buying prior to ASX query (the speeding ticket) and based on other things that I have run out of time to write about that one can find in PRZ announcements.

So, with there being two interrelated theories that I would need to have guessed right, this is all highly theoretical, so please DYOR.

Regards,
Dratoz


----------



## jman2007 (13 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> So, with there being two interrelated theories that I would need to have guessed right, this is all highly theoretical, so please DYOR.
> 
> Regards,
> Dratoz




Dratoz

Perhaps "subjective" may be a better choice of words here, rather than theoretical.

Cheers
jman


----------



## Dratoz (13 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



jman2007 said:


> Dratoz
> 
> Perhaps "subjective" may be a better choice of words here, rather than theoretical.
> 
> ...




Jman,
I did not promise anyone on this thread not to be "subjective". I advised the readers of the fact that they should do their own research, and that my theories were only my theories. I made it clear this was a "long shot". My theories are mine, so, yes, they are "subjective" as they are mine. I did not mislead anyone to believe otherwise. I referred the readers to the source of further info that is available on a different than MTN website. I did it to address Kennas comment that my earlier post was too criptic to be understood.

I am either too criptic or subjective. I did not intend either. If I happen to be right, though, will I still be "subjective" or will I be "right" then?

Perhaps you are a little "too critical" (no offence intended).

Cheers
Dratoz


----------



## Dratoz (13 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Punter,
Are you still reading this thread? I have only now realised that you sent me a message on 2 May 07! Sorry. I am not overly proficient in using this forum's website and never noticed your message. I tried to reply, but the system reported an error. You probably changed your name or decided not to post any more. Anyway, thanks for your message, I really appreciate it, despite the delay.
Dratoz


----------



## Go Nuke (14 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Haha what a laugh.

The day after MTN gets a speeding ticket TA DA...an announcement to say they have started drilling.

I'm suprised that doesn't get a closer look by the ASX or someone of the like
I think if we start to see the volume pick up then MTN may have hit bottom and be ready to start making some higher lows.


----------



## jman2007 (14 March 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Dratoz said:


> Jman,
> I did not promise anyone on this thread not to be "subjective". I advised the readers of the fact that they should do their own research, and that my theories were only my theories. I made it clear this was a "long shot". My theories are mine, so, yes, they are "subjective" as they are mine. I did not mislead anyone to believe otherwise. I referred the readers to the source of further info that is available on a different than MTN website. I did it to address Kennas comment that my earlier post was too criptic to be understood.
> 
> I am either too criptic or subjective. I did not intend either. If I happen to be right, though, will I still be "subjective" or will I be "right" then?
> ...




Hehe, no worries Dratoz,

It was a tongue-and-cheek comment Dratoz, not intended to be a low-blow. Of course everyone is entitled to an opinion on this forum.  Good luck with MTN if you are a holder.

Cheers
jman


----------



## Theo (3 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Uranium Finally Wins Favor with Greenies
posted on: April 02, 2008 | about stocks: BHP / CCJ / RTP                    : Talk about a makeover. Nuclear power, once an environmentalist's worst nightmare, has transformed into the darling of greenies everywhere, with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore even publicly proclaiming his faith in fission. 

Why the change of heart? We've covered it here before, but essentially, in the quest for alternative energy sources, nuclear power is the obvious choice, a giant among wimps. Its technology is well-understood, with controllable production that doesn't depend on cooperating weather patterns or agricultural crops. Add that to the fact that reactors don't produce any greenhouse gas emissions, and suddenly, nuclear looks pretty sweet. 

But you can't have nuclear power without fuel - a fact that has sent uranium prices skyward in recent years. 

Uranium's had an exciting millennium so far. In 2003, it began a parabolic rise, with its spot price more than quadrupling from 2004 to 2007. Eventually prices hit $138/lb last June, before pulling back; today, it bounces from $75 to $95, about its price in the 1970s when adjusted for inflation. (See the two-year price of uranium here.) 

Part of that's due to a massive shortage of ready-to-use uranium; global demand for the mineral already outstrips supply by 139%. And there's no end in sight. The world's 439 operating reactors aren't nearly enough to satisfy global power needs, so 35 more are under construction - with another 319 either in planning or proposal stages. 

As those reactors come online, they'll need even more uranium. But production has been slow to rev up after a lull following the Cold War, and new mines haven't opened quickly enough to keep pace with demand. For the foreseeable future, the shortage will continue. 

More-Predictable Demand 

What makes uranium especially interesting is that demand for the mineral is far more predictable than other metals, since uranium's price is really only a small factor in calculating total nuclear power costs. Once operational, reactors are very cost-effective to keep fueled at high capacity - just 26% of what it costs to maintain an oil or coal-fueled plant; meaning if electricity demand ever did decline - highly unlikely - utilities would be more likely to cut back production at plants with higher fuel costs, like those fossil fuel generators, than nuclear plants. So uranium demand depends mostly on operational reactors, and less on economic fluctuations. 

As these new power plants start producing, uranium prices will probably ease a little in the short term. But the world's insatiable thirst for electricity - especially in China - will keep uranium going up long term. 

You can now get in on uranium by purchasing yellowcake futures. In 2007, NYMEX partnered with the Ux Company (which runs the Ux U3O8 index, a weekly uranium price tracker) to start offering monthly contracts of 250 lbs of yellowcake. There have also been rumblings recently about possibly introducing physical uranium contracts on the London Metals Exchange. 

Still, the traditional way to access uranium is to go to the source: the mining companies. These include the big guys like BHP Billiton (BHP) and Rio Tinto (RTP), as well as several mid-tier and junior miners like Uranium One (UUU) and Denison Mines (DML). 

Another big name is Cameco (CCJ), the world's largest uranium producer, which furnishes 20% of all mined uranium. The company operates the McArthur River Mine - the planet's biggest deposit of high-grade uranium - and the Cigar Lake Mine, its largest undeveloped deposit. And if that wasn't enough, Cameco also runs the Key Lake and Rabbit Lake Mills, the world's largest and second-largest uranium milling operations, respectively. 

Cameco's 100-day volatility of 44% isn't atypical for a single stock, but it's a wild ride compared with the S&P GSCI's 28%. Still, Cameco looks good; it's definitely profitable, and sits on millions of pounds of proven uranium reserves. 

Plus, the company still struggles with production setbacks from a 2006 flood of its Cigar Lake Mine, which will probably affect the company's earnings for the next few years. This now makes it a great time to buy for long investors: With uranium demand ever growing, once Cameco recovers, it should move back up in a big way. 

Another pure-play is United States Enrichment Corporation (USU). The company supplies low-enriched uranium to commercial nuclear power plants, through the U.S.' only enrichment facility and contract with Russia to reclaim uranium from old Soviet-era weaponry. But a major technology overhaul called the American Centrifuge Project - which was supposed to increase USEC's efficiency - is running well behind schedule and over budget. 

One last note: Fans of uranium should keep a close watch on thorium prices. Thorium, which can also be used as nuclear fuel, is safer, cleaner, more abundant and more efficient as a fuel source than uranium, and many experts suspect the mineral may be the next big step in nuclear power. So depending on how long you want to go, now could be an excellent time to get into thorium companies, like Thorium Power (THPW). 

Links 

World Nuclear Association


----------



## Sean K (5 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Theo said:


> Uranium Finally Wins Favor with Greenies
> posted on: April 02, 2008 | about stocks: BHP / CCJ / RTP                    : Talk about a makeover. Nuclear power, once an environmentalist's worst nightmare, has transformed into the darling of greenies everywhere, with Greenpeace co-founder Patrick Moore even publicly proclaiming his faith in fission.



Can't see what this has to do with MTN's current state of affairs, which is beyond supply/demand and U3O8 price etc....

They seem to be in real trouble at Mt Gee.

I have my tail between my legs having assumed that Rann would support anything to bring in some taxes, but the greenies seem to be winning the battle. Damn those vegetarians!!!!!

(What type of hairy rat are they trying to save? F'ing rediculous really. We find and destroy a species almost every day. We will go soon in comparitive terms!!!)


----------



## bztm (5 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Theo,

The heads of Greenpeace often go on to become highly-paid consultants to government and industry. They speak for 'the greenies' in the same way that Kevin Rudd speaks for the working class. Sort of / somewhat / sometimes. I wouldn't get my knickers in a twist about it!

Also, advocating nuclear power in nations that already have the power plants operating is one thing. Building new stations and starting an industry in countries that have none is quite another. As any Australian should be acutely aware. Perhaps you might want to read the ACF's Ian Lowe?

But, most importantly, Uranium has nowt to do with the Arkaroola issue.

'The greenies' would be as opposed to a project at Mount Gee if it was a bauxite mine, a hot-rock drill site, or a wind farm (or solar array for that matter!). Or another telescope - it's a great site for it, after all.

They think the place is to important in itself to be stuffed around with.

Hard to fathom, I know! But this is why even a blatantly anti-green and pro-nuclear conservative geologist like Ian Plimer totally opposes this project


----------



## peteai (11 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

What's happened today with Marathon Resources?
In after trade it reached $1.85 but was down to $1.54 earlier in the day??

Was there any news during the day to spark this rise?


----------



## peteai (15 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN sp seems to be holding around $1.90 now.

A message to the greenies : 1 pellet of uranium (about a teaspoon)
could power a "McMansion" for a year. Most of the world's elecricity comes from coal - Imagine how much C02 the Uranium at Mt Gee could displace

We must ensure the mine follows the highest standards - however it must be said that mining Mt Gee's uranium is good for the environment.

____
Cheers,
PETEAI


----------



## Dratoz (15 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN sp increasing appears to be associated with the action on PRZ side, as predicted. There appears to be a relationship as envisaged some time ago. My 2 theories appear to be working so far (see my recent posts). Reading these two companies' announcements carefully, it is difficult not to find a relationship, but DYOR.
Regards,
Dratoz


----------



## bztm (15 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

peteai

if you can find any 'greenies' currently protesting U mines not in unique high-conservation value areas i suggest you go and tell the teaspoon story to them (roxby, beverley, beverley 4 mile, honeymoon etc.)

they'll, of course, tell you about carbon-intensive production (roxby is set to consume _half _the state's electricity - where's that going to come from? currently it's coming from the playford very-dirty coal-fired power plant, isn't it?), nuclear electricity only ever being cost-effective due to massive state-subsidies, new plants requiring huge carbon inputs and taking forever to come online (thereby blowing any chance to save the world via carbon-substitution), diversion to weapons (read 'deception') and, of course, they'll ask you where the waste is going to go and who's going to pay for (and power) it being safely contained for 1000s of years

then they'll mention the opportunity cost of powering the nuclear behemoth  for $squillions rather than funding something that's actually affordable clean and safe

one could go on, the debate will run forever - at least until all the accessible U3O8 in the non-sanctuary deposits listed above has been extracted and shipped somewhere (so, yay, nuke investors get to make truckloads of dollars - which, let's face it, is what it's really about, not saving the world - and they'll make it _not_ digging up sanctuaries)

and on current trends during the whole period carbon outputs will continue to rise each year, perhaps marginally less sharply than they might have, though this is debatable, too

to many 'the highest environmental standards' means not going into areas like the heart of the arkaroola sanctuary in the first place

so say all the 'rabid greenies' - such as nick minchin and ian plimer - along, i'd wager, with the majority of the south australian public capable of forming opinions beyond who should go next on 'the biggest loser'

and where precisely do the 22 800 bags of dumped waste and the barrels dumped at hodgkinsons 2 years ago fit into your best practice scenario?

well, if you will post glib comments...


----------



## peteai (16 April 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



bztm said:


> peteai
> 
> if you can find any 'greenies' currently protesting U mines not in unique high-conservation value areas i suggest you go and tell the teaspoon story to them (roxby, beverley, beverley 4 mile, honeymoon etc.)
> 
> ...




Hi bztm,

I posted the comment to provoke some discussion and admit its more complicated that what can be covered in a few lines.

Nuclear weapons is the biggest issue for me. My counter is that stopping 1 mine will never stop a state building a bomb. As Iran shows getting the technology is the much bigger hurdle than getting the raw U. I would even agree with stopping all mining of U if it would stop bombs - but even that wouldn't stop them because the genie is out of the bottle.

However I will say that we approaching a world wide energy crunch. And global warming will exaccerbate this by taking out the high carbon solutions or  at least making them very expensive so many governments are looking to nuclear to fill a gap in their energy supply. Nuclear is getting cheaper & safer & will get a boost once the recent focus gets the best engineers to apply the latest technogies.

As for the waste, it is the high level waste that is the problem and that is mostly the pellets - i.e powering a McMansion for a year also roughly produces a teaspoon of high level waste.  And high level waste decays quickly (the decay cause the radiation) so the 1000s of years is refering to low level waste.

Mentioning the electricity consumption at Roxby is misleading because U is a by product (it is at very low concentrations - probably too low to be economical except for the fact that they are mining for other minerals)

Cheers
PETEAI


----------



## Go Nuke (5 August 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

WOW..what a mighty fall for Marathon from its heyday.

Sub $1 now today.

Anyone still holding (and praying) with this stock?
Can't blame you for being quiet about it


----------



## YELNATS (6 August 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> WOW..what a mighty fall for Marathon from its heyday.
> 
> Sub $1 now today.
> 
> ...




Continues to plummet, now 82c. Heck, Buttermere's 68c offer 2 years ago appears within reach. (not currently holding).


----------



## prs (6 August 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

I'm still holding, I have to. All I can do is ride it out and keep working. One would think that it has to bounce back down the track, just wish I knew roughly when so I can start breathing again.


----------



## peteai (11 August 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yeh I'm still holding too - I've been accused of greed in holding these shares in an earlier post - well I thought that was the idea of shares or a free capital market. Well you can lose money (on paper at this stage) too
I still think the average domestic cat does more environment damage than MTN did by burying their mining residues

Cheers,
PETEAI


----------



## prs (8 September 2008)

*MTN and Uranium*

I note with interest and great delight that MTN has been positive for days now, in fact quite strongly fighting back. I also note that Allan Kohler on ABC TV tonight claimed the commodities were down yet uranium appears to be defying the trend.
Is anyone able to explain MTN's pickup of late?


----------



## Go Nuke (8 September 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Yeah they came out with a resource upgrade for Mt Mcgee (pretty sure it was.)

Saw the price break through $1, but have got no cash and am far from confident with the way this company has been going. Well the share price and the uncertainty regarding the mining of Mt McGee.

One for the brave.

As for Alan Kohler, Ive yet to see my uranium stocks defying any trends.....Far from it in fact {That sounds like a sentence straight from his mouth hey }

PDN is going sideways and I believe its a buy..but thats about it.
ERA isn't exactly looking rosy imo...keeping it all relative though...they ARE producing!


----------



## jman2007 (9 September 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> Yeah they came out with a resource upgrade for Mt Mcgee (pretty sure it was.)
> 
> Saw the price break through $1, but have got no cash and am far from confident with the way this company has been going. Well the share price and the uncertainty regarding the mining of Mt McGee.
> 
> One for the brave.




I pretty much agree with that Go Nuke...

Speccy as hell in the current environment, and not exactly cashed up to the hilt either. Some people may be able to day trade this successfully, but not my type of stock. I've lost a bundle in CTS, another U stock, so I probably wouldn't be listening to my advice either..


----------



## jman2007 (5 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Surely this can't be good news for MTN,

Scientists discover ancient reef near Arakaroola, another nail in the coffin?

http://www.abc.net.au/news/stories/2008/09/22/2370365.htm


----------



## Go Nuke (6 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

interesting article thanks for posting that Jman 

Im sure in this current climate even a sniff of doubt regarding a companies ONLY resource ,will not help this stock.
It seems my wariness about the sp rise recently was warranted.

Though i cant relate to u Jman, all i need to say is...BMN  
Major paper loss there.


----------



## YELNATS (21 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN being annihilated today, now down 20% to just 30 cents. Is this the final demise of a once promising stock?


----------



## prs (21 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

God I hope it's not. An agent foolishly put all my super in this company when it was $1.68. Does anyone know what is going on? I rang from Hobart to talk to someone and the only person they would let me speak with was on a plane so I've got no idea.


----------



## jman2007 (22 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> God I hope it's not. An agent foolishly put all my super in this company when it was $1.68. Does anyone know what is going on? I rang from Hobart to talk to someone and the only person they would let me speak with was on a plane so I've got no idea.




New bill looking at being introduced into lower house of SA parliament next time they resume on the 28th of October, to ban mining altogether in the Arkoola Sanctuary. Looks like it will have strong support.

Otherwise Labour could just let the mining lease expire at Mt Ghee by this time next year and not let it be renewed, either way it does basically look like the end to me. Sorry to hear that your agent was a fool with your savings, pretty reprehensible really.

jman


----------



## peteai (22 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Isn't it a Greens bill without support from Labor or Liberal ??
Also I've heard leases have recently been granted in Arkoola so to me it seems very unlikely to get through.


----------



## bztm (22 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Its a Greens Bill, but the new Alliance resources leases for Beverley 4 Mile - which impinge only on a small section of the flanks of the Sanctuary at the eastern edge of the ranges - have been specifically excised from it to broaden the likely support. 

Given the suspension from drilling, and the negative publicity surrounding trying to find a new home for the waste dumped in contravention of the lease (itself a source of significant negative publicity) etc. combined with the global credit crisis, and given that a state election approaches shortly after the lease termination... well, it means that the bill might be viewed rather differently this time around. Or, if not, a similar proposal might be viewed favourably later.

The question is; What would Labor have to lose? Some prominent Liberals are already campaigning against the mine. This plays well to the green-minded middle-class. This issue of mining in Arkaroola has never really come to full public attention - and if MTN goes down now it probably never will. But if it did I have no doubt the opposition to the mine would overwhelm any support, and I reckon both major parties would believe the same.

Even if an imminent Greens proposal was defeated for political reasons, or fears of any likely compensation claim, in the longer term I wonder if any state govt. - Labor or Liberal - would court reviving the brouhaha surrounding this project? 

And, while this project may be finished-off by the financial crunch, the memory of what happened to the last would-be miner even prior to the turmoil may serve to deter all future comers. In which case, mightn't Labor seek to make a virtue of necessity and make a grand announcement of protecting the Sanctuary after the lease expires; bang in the run up to the 2010 election? Perhaps to forestall a Liberal outflanking them on the left? 

Specifically because of problems like this the state minerals minister has proposed drafting guidelines to identify no-go high-value conservation areas in conjunction with the dept. of Environment, the Chamber of Mines, and green/community groups. The latter will have Arkaroola number one on their list.


----------



## jman2007 (23 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



bztm said:


> The question is; What would Labor have to lose? Some prominent Liberals are already campaigning against the mine. This plays well to the green-minded middle-class. This issue of mining in Arkaroola has never really come to full public attention - and if MTN goes down now it probably never will. But if it did I have no doubt the opposition to the mine would overwhelm any support, and I reckon both major parties would believe the same.




Nice summary bztm, 

One thing that you should never do in a marketplace is bet against politics, no points for guessing which company's name nearly always gets mentioned during the SA parliamentary debating sessions :

My impression is also that there will be some Liberals backing this bill, and as you mention there may be much more at stake than just a one uranium explorer's future, it could also well be turned into a political football.

jman


----------



## YELNATS (23 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



Go Nuke said:


> Im sure in this current climate even a sniff of doubt regarding a companies ONLY resource ,will not help this stock.




To be fair to MTN, that's really not the case. As per the footnote to a recent MTN announcement:

Quote

Marathon is a minerals exploration company focused on the development of Mt Gee, one of Australia's largest undeveloped uranium deposits.
The Mt Gee project is located within the Paralana Mineral System of South Australia, a uranium-rich state which is home to the world's largest uranium deposit at Olympic Dam.
Marathon's portfolio also includes highly prospective copper-gold-uranium properties in the Gawler Craton of South Australia.
The Company has gold and copper-gold projects in other parts of South Australia and western Victoria, including first class copper-gold and base metal (silver-lead-zinc) projects in the Adelaide Geosyncline in South Australia and a prospective copper-gold project in the Moyston Fault Zone in Victoria.
Marathon also has a joint venture with listed uranium explorer UraniumSA Ltd (ASX: USA), in which the company holds a 7% stake; and with Primary Resources Ltd (ASX: PRZ) in the Warburton Project in Western Australia.
Marathon listed on the Australian Securities Exchange on 15 March 2005, under the stock code of MTN.
www.marathonresources.com.au

Unquote


----------



## bztm (27 October 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Out of curiosity, has anyone actually seen a discussion of any resource of Marathon's other than the Arkaroola lease?


----------



## prs (1 November 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Can anyone tell me definately whether the Arkaroola Sanctuary is actually heritage listed or is it a self proclaimed sanctuary? Surely if it is self proclaimed then mining at Mt Gee ought to be able to go ahead.
Has anyone knowledge of the actual location of the fossils recently found? Could be that they are 100's of kilometres away and as such oughtn't affect Mt Gee.

I would like to see facts rather than speculation borne out of what is read from the media.


----------



## Sean K (2 November 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Can anyone tell me definately whether the Arkaroola Sanctuary is actually heritage listed or is it a self proclaimed sanctuary? Surely if it is self proclaimed then mining at Mt Gee ought to be able to go ahead.
> Has anyone knowledge of the actual location of the fossils recently found? Could be that they are 100's of kilometres away and as such oughtn't affect Mt Gee.
> I would like to see facts rather than speculation borne out of what is read from the media.



This was discussed earlier in the thread.

Unfortunately I can not remember exact details, but the company can provide them. Something about being a Class A heritage site or something and needing special permission from State of Fed. At the time the SA Gov were very pro U mining, so they prbably would have given permission as it was in the best interest of the State. 

Either check back through the thread, or send an email to the company. 

They will give you the standard reply.

kennas


----------



## prs (2 November 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks Kennas - I have done that and the response (perhaps standard) was that it was self proclaimed and as such MTN could apply for a permit to mine. I just wondered whether anyone else had any positive and updated info.


----------



## bztm (3 November 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Can anyone tell me definately whether the Arkaroola Sanctuary is actually heritage listed or is it a self proclaimed sanctuary? Surely if it is self proclaimed then mining at Mt Gee ought to be able to go ahead.
> Has anyone knowledge of the actual location of the fossils recently found? Could be that they are 100's of kilometres away and as such oughtn't affect Mt Gee.
> 
> I would like to see facts rather than speculation borne out of what is read from the media.




It's a former Pastoral Lease that's now a formally proclaimed Sanctuary under the National Parks and Wildlife Act. No Sanctuary is exempt from mining, just as - controversially - about 75% of the land area of National and Conservation Parks and Reserves in SA is still available to exploration. 

The high-value remnant area of the northern Flinders Ranges - which encompasses the Sanctuary - is also a Class A Reserve under the Planning Act. This is the legislation that means that the area can only be mined if the deposit is of 'paramount importance' and mining is in 'the national interest'. 

Beverley and Beverley 4 Mile - both fully-backed by the State Govt. - are 20 km away on the edge of the ranges (and Sanctuary). Clearly this impacts on any question of 'paramount importance' and the 'national interest' (as does the Roxby expansion and other U mines coming online). Also, under this Act mining can also proceed only if there is no 'similar deposit' available nearby.

As to the Ancient Reef - the area is simply not large enough for anything to be 100s of kms away, as the most cursory glance at a map will indicate. I doubt that the reef is immediately adjacent (within a few kms) to Mount Gee itself; however, the mountain is a national geological monument, and this whole ancient area is littered with fossils and rare geological formations, which is what attracted Reg Sprigg to it in the first place. That the ancient reef was only identified at this late date says that this very rugged and remote area is still little known.


----------



## prs (5 November 2008)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Thanks bztm I am grateful for your input though it has made me feel rather ill. I have lost heaps to date, as have many others but the thought that potentially MT Gee will not go ahead leaves me high and dry. I guess all I can do is to wait till the sp gets back to $1.68 (what I bought into MTN at), monitor the trend and bail out and diversify.


----------



## insider (8 May 2009)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Has MTN's recent shoot up in value gone unnoticed! I got surprise message yesterday about MTN breaking $1.00 on my phone...


----------



## jman2007 (8 May 2009)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



insider said:


> Has MTN's recent shoot up in value gone unnoticed! I got surprise message yesterday about MTN breaking $1.00 on my phone...




It's a dramatic re-evaluation for sure, those MTN holders who tried to catch the falling knife and bought on the way down last year deserve a break, and a reprieve. I should really read the ann's and find out what it's all about, although I have never really considered buying this stock.


----------



## prs (28 March 2010)

*Marathon Resources*

How typical is it that the 5th largest uranium resource in Australia and one of the potentially largest known in the world is being stifled by a bunch of greenies and the SA Government. What an opportunity to invest and it's being held ransom by government red tape.


----------



## prs (2 November 2010)

*Marathon Resources*

There has been some very good and steady increase in the SP of this company and I guess it's been brought about by the recent publicity, the opposition to mining of its resources by the rent a tree hugger groups and the increase in demand for uranium. It appears that uranium is making a resurgence probably because some countries realise that it is a great source of clean power, unlike Australia, and MTN being the 5th largest resource and growing in JORC, is subject to incredible opposition by the bloody greenies.

What are the thoughts and feelings of members towards MTN's future having regard to its potential as an overseas investment?


----------



## prs (10 November 2010)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

The SA Government has apparently binned the mining prospect in the Arkaroola. How would you interpret this considering MTN has its resource of uranium in this area?


----------



## bztm (21 November 2010)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Your 'tree huggers' include senator Nick Minchin, the South Australian Museum, various geologists, and now the state Liberal Party. You might want to consider getting yourself a more accurate, not to mention creative, line in invective.


----------



## YELNATS (7 February 2011)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

Very healthy 13.6% rise today to 62.5 cents. Bear in mind that MTN reached $6.33 in early 2007. Is this one ready to fly again, if so, is it based on anything new?


----------



## hector (19 April 2011)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> The SA Government has apparently binned the mining prospect in the Arkaroola. How would you interpret this considering MTN has its resource of uranium in this area?




Well, I bought in today. Absolutely no buying depth, and with uranium understandably 'a bit on the nose' after Japan's debacle, it's quite a risk.

However, it appears marathon are continuing their course, flying local indigenous around the site, seeking  aboriginal & environmental approvals. They have Labor's Chris Schacht on board and Labor have another 18-24 months to run in SA before elections. 

I think this will always be a controversial site for a mine, but I see an opportunity for upside that's worth a punt, trading at 33c today.

Any thoughts?


----------



## prs (1 July 2011)

*MTN sudden uptrend*

Does anybody have any idea what's going on with MTN? It's made a bit of a gain over the last three days.


----------



## springhill (12 August 2012)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MC - $4.2m
SP - 4.7c
Shares - 92m
Options - NQ
Cash - $6.7m

MTN have an enviable MC:Cash ratio other specs would kill for. ATM they have no projects with the South Australian Govt banning exploration and mining in the Northern Flinders Ranges. Compensation has been paid.
Will be watching MTN for any announcements on project acquisitions. From what I have seen lately, coal outside Australia would be a good area to investigate. A small speculative piece of this could pay nice dividends.
Sell side is really thin ATM.
Plenty of cash available for any exploration events in the future.


----------



## springhill (2 January 2013)

*Re: MTN - Marathon Resources*

MTN are edging closer to their change in direction mentioned in previous post. As of last quarterly they still had $6.2m on hand and have not undergone any share dilution.

The 3 areas they are showing interest in are listed in the quarterly below.
http://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20121031/pdf/429vh3r12pzyj3.pdf

The first 2 don't interest me greatly, but if they entered the O&G sector MTN would come under consideration as a buy.


----------



## prs (4 February 2013)

*MTN trading halt*

Does anybody know why MTN has gone into a trading halt and why the share price went up prior to that?


----------



## prs (22 October 2013)

*Marathon Resources*

Has anybody got any idea what's going on with MTN as it went up over 66% yesterday and had over 19 million trades?


----------



## Country Lad (22 October 2013)

*Re: Marathon Resources*



prs said:


> Has anybody got any idea what's going on with MTN as it went up over 66% yesterday and had over 19 million trades?




There was a special cross of about 18.4 million shares from Mt Kellett Capital Partners to Bentley Capital.  The rest was probably a few people thinking something was happening where there is probably nothing untoward except for one substantial holder being replaced by another.  

Why Bentley wants the shares is anybody's guess at this stage other than they think MTN has a bit of potential, and fits into their investment strategy.

Cheers
Country Lad


----------



## prs (22 October 2013)

*Re: Marathon Resources*



Country Lad said:


> There was a special cross of about 18.4 million shares from Mt Kellett Capital Partners to Bentley Capital.  The rest was probably a few people thinking something was happening where there is probably nothing untoward except for one substantial holder being replaced by another.
> 
> Why Bentley wants the shares is anybody's guess at this stage other than they think MTN has a bit of potential, and fits into their investment strategy.
> 
> ...




Thanks for the response Country Lad. I have been lumbered with a significant number of MTN shares and when there's significant movement like there was yesterday, I get extremely concerned.

PRS


----------



## daz1982 (11 January 2015)

*MTN - Marathon Resources*

Marathon Resources Limited (“Marathon”) is pleased to announce that it has today signed a Binding Term Sheet to acquire ARP TriEnergy Pty Ltd (“TriE”) which owns the Leigh 
Creek Energy Project (“LCEP”).

http://www.proactiveinvestors.com.a...ication-project-in-south-australia-59952.html

Good time to buy cheap now?


----------



## System (3 September 2015)

On September 3rd, 2015, Marathon Resources Limited (MTN) changed its name and ASX code to Leigh Creek Energy Limited (LCK).


----------



## greggles (16 July 2018)

Leigh Creek Energy up 14.71% today to 19.5c.

News flow is expected to increase shortly as first gas production is due this quarter. Site construction and process well drilling must be nearing completion based on previous announcements.

I'm expected this one to move beyond 25c in the near future based on news flow alone.


----------



## greggles (3 September 2018)

Leigh Creek Energy has been range trading between 15c and 20c for almost the last four months. However, if today's announcement is anything to go by, it might be ready for the next leg up.

This morning LCK announced that the first syngas production for the Leigh Creek Energy Project (LCEP) is imminent after receiving its Final Activity Notification on the 3rd of September 2018. Final approval from the regulator means the Pre-Commercial Demonstration (PCD) stage for LCEP operations can now begin.

Management is currently mobilising the necessary resources to commence PCD operations and initiation and commencement of syngas is expected to commence within quarter 3 2018. 

The LCK share price is up 15.62% to 18.5c so far today, reaching an intraday high of 20c. I feel a break over 20c is close at hand, and Leigh Creek Energy is now on my watchlist.


----------



## greggles (22 February 2019)

greggles said:


> The LCK share price is up 15.62% to 18.5c so far today, reaching an intraday high of 20c. I feel a break over 20c is close at hand, and Leigh Creek Energy is now on my watchlist.




Well, LCK did get above 20c back in September 2018, but only briefly. It ended up back at 10c four months later. In December the company raised $5 million and continued to progress the Leigh Creek Energy Project.

On 19 January the company announced that successful production of commercial syngas has been achieved at Leigh Creek with the commercial objectives of the Pre-Commercial Demonstration facility having been met or exceeded. A peak flow rate of 8,913sm3/h or 7.5mmcf/day was achieved and the data recorded provided LCK with sufficient information to upgrade a portion of their large 2C reserve to a 2P reserve.

Following that announcement volume exploded and buyers pushed the share price back up over 20c. It has since settled just under that level and is currently trading at 19.5c. Things are looking good for LCK again. Watching for a break above 25c.


----------



## greggles (25 March 2019)

greggles said:


> Things are looking good for LCK again. Watching for a break above 25c.




The break above 25c came last Wednesday, the day after the company announced that the pro-rata 1-for-15 non-renounceable rights issue offer closed oversubscribed. That really wasn't a surprise considering the shares were being issued at 12c. Funds totalling AUD $3.86 million were raised by the issue and will be used for working capital.

Should hopefully be some good news announced this week:


> LCK continues to be in discussion with its PRMS consultant regarding the upgrade of a portion of its 2,964 2C Resource to 2P and3P Reserve status and the company therefore remains on track to deliver its initial Reserve number *by the end of the March quarter.*


----------



## Cam019 (27 March 2019)

*LCK* is my pick for Aprils tipping competition. LCK has had a massive surge in volume since February 19th with an nice strong up move, then into a period of reduced volume consolidation (see the range tightening up also), then it broke out again with two very small pullbacks (both with lower volume than the up bars which is what we want to see). LCK is up 253%+ since it broke out on Feb 19th.


----------



## greggles (27 March 2019)

Leigh Creek Energy announced this morning that it has received a PRMS certification of 1,153 PJ 2P at the Leigh Creek Energy Project (LCEP) from MHA Petroleum Consultants, based in Denver, USA.

The report is attached to this morning's announcement.









 LCK currently up 15.9% to 36.5c with an intraday high of 42c on volume of around 25 million shares.

Today's price action has catapulted me into second place in the March stock tipping competition.


----------



## Smurf1976 (27 March 2019)

To put these gas reserve numbers into perspective, consumption by state (excluding overseas exports). Figures are annual and are official Australian Government data:

WA = 594 PJ
Qld = 309 PJ
Vic = 287 PJ
NSW / ACT = 139 PJ
SA = 126 PJ
NT = 48 PJ
Tas = 13 PJ


----------



## peter2 (3 April 2019)

This is what makes the fin markets a mystery. 
27/3/19: LCK upgrades their gas reserves and the price jumps higher. 
Since then LCK has been sold off heavily. Is the gas escaping from one of their drill holes? 
Or is one of their long time investors selling and realising some profit on the good news? 





I don't know the answer, but I do see the 35% fall in price since the "good news".


----------



## greggles (31 October 2019)

LCK declined to a low of around 17c but in the last week has been making a nice run north again, forming a solid uptrend. Looks like someone is jumping on board and the lack of supply is driving the price higher.

The company's Quarterly Activities Report and Appendix 5B was released today. They have $3,737,000 in the bank at the end of the last quarter and anticipated cash outflows of $2,235,00 in the current quarter.

In September they announced their intention to enter the fertiliser production market via a disruptive process resulting in urea production prices of sub USD$100 ex plant, a fraction of other current and planned Australian operations.

I think LCK has fallen far enough and this most recent share price turnaround could have legs.


----------



## barney (31 October 2019)

greggles said:


> I think LCK has fallen far enough and this most recent share price turnaround could have legs.




Thanks for the heads up Greg ….. definitely worth keeping an eye on


----------



## peter2 (9 December 2019)

Nothing to see here. Price is falling faster.


----------



## greggles (11 December 2019)

I'm wondering if LCK may have bottomed out for now. It's tentatively showing signs of having found support at 15c and looks to be turning north again. After having erased more than 10 months worth of share price gains I'm starting to think it might now be in oversold territory.


----------



## greggles (30 June 2021)

Epic rollercoaster of a stock this one. Down, up, left, right. It seems you never know which way it's going to go, but the movement will undoubtedly be sharp and unsettling and will leave those on board feeling slightly queasy.

The company is currently in a trading halt and expects to release an announcement by tomorrow morning  in relation to the proposed agreement with DL E&C as announced to the market on 4 May 2021.






Something tells me some serious share price volatility will be on the cards tomorrow when LCK recommences trading.


----------



## greggles (13 December 2021)

LCK recovering nicely since the Offtake Agreement was announced with DAELIM Co. on 30 November. The agreement was for a minimum of 500,000 metric tonnes of granular urea per year for a minimum of five years.

I can't shake the feeling that something else is brewing in the background here. Watching closely.


----------



## Smurf1976 (13 December 2021)

greggles said:


> I can't shake the feeling that something else is brewing in the background here.



Urea's extremely scarce at the moment, to the point that the consequences have become an issue for government, and natural gas is rather short on supply too.

Not a bad time to be a company involved with those.


----------



## Faramir (2 January 2022)

I am picking LCK for Yearly Tipping comp 2022 because Braden Gardiner, Tradethestructure.com chose it as his Buy in The Bull Buy Hold Sell 20 Dec 2021. (I know, I should have my own reasons).









						18 Share Tips – 20 December 2021
					

John Athanasiou, Red Leaf Securities BUY RECOMMENDATIONS Singular Health Group (SHG) Trade These Shares In our opinion, the metaverse will be the most exciting theme in 2022 and that’s why we’re bullish on SHG – one of the cheapest listed metaverse companies on the ASX. SHG recently released...




					thebull.com.au
				






> LCK is aiming to become a major urea fertiliser producer in Australia. Recent good news regarding an off-take agreement put a floor under the price at 10 cents a share, so I expect more buyers to be attracted to the action moving forward. In my view, the stock is trading at a discount after closing at 17.5 cents on December 16.


----------



## Telamelo (24 March 2022)

Smurf1976 said:


> Urea's extremely scarce at the moment, to the point that the consequences have become an issue for government, and natural gas is rather short on supply too.
> 
> Not a bad time to be a company involved with those.



Food & Agriculture sector (Farmer's) impacted by record high fertiliser prices! .. below excerpt from *stock head newsletter
*
LEIGH CREEK ENERGY (LCK)*

Leigh Creek is one of the only Aussie companies poised to capitalise on the current fertiliser crisis with its Leigh Creek Urea Project (LCUP).

The company plans to produce as much as 2Mtpa of zero carbon urea via downstream processing of syngas which it will extract using in-situ gasification at the now closed Leigh Creek coalfields of northern South Australia.

The company says the cost of feed gas to the LCUP will be less than A$1/gigajoule, and the average nominal operating costs at the project are forecast to be about A$109/t which means the company will be in the lowest quartile of the global urea production cost curve.

And while the project won’t hit full production until around 2024, LCK is targeting a bankable feasibility study (BFS) for completion this quarter and expects to reach the final investment decision process for the project in the middle of this year.

Leigh Creek has a market cap of $134M and had $8.3M in the bank as at 31 December 2021.









						Leigh Creek Energy Ltd (ASX:LCK) Share Price - Market Index
					

Today’s LCK share price, stock chart and announcements. View dividend history, insider trades and ASX analyst consensus.




					www.marketindex.com.au


----------



## Telamelo (25 March 2022)

Telamelo said:


> Food & Agriculture sector (Farmer's) impacted by record high fertiliser prices! .. below excerpt from *stock head newsletter
> *LEIGH CREEK ENERGY (LCK)*
> 
> Leigh Creek is one of the only Aussie companies poised to capitalise on the current fertiliser crisis with its Leigh Creek Urea Project (LCUP).
> ...



*LCK closed up +6.9% on 25/03/2022, on 2.38 times normal volume. The stock rose above its 50 day moving average, improving its intermediate-term outlook by crossing above that important trendline.*









						LCK Share Technical Analysis | Leigh Creek Energy Ltd
					

Current Technical Analysis and interactive chart for $LCK stock / shares. See the current trading strategy, trend(s), rating and buy and sell signals.




					asx.swingtradebot.com


----------



## Telamelo (27 March 2022)

Telamelo said:


> *LCK closed up +6.9% on 25/03/2022, on 2.38 times normal volume. The stock rose above its 50 day moving average, improving its intermediate-term outlook by crossing above that important trendline.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...






Telamelo said:


> *LCK closed up +6.9% on 25/03/2022, on 2.38 times normal volume. The stock rose above its 50 day moving average, improving its intermediate-term outlook by crossing above that important trendline.*
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Leigh Creek Energy since changed it's name to NeuRizer Ltd (asx code NRZ) effective 25/03/2022 but think it changes on ASX platform only on 31/03/2022 per last Friday's announcement.


----------



## Telamelo (28 March 2022)

LCK fertiliser stock @ 0.175c +12.9% on great volume/momentum! 

P.S. It's new name is NeuRizer NRZ 

dyor .. Cheers tela


----------



## Telamelo (28 March 2022)

Telamelo said:


> LCK fertiliser stock @ 0.175c +12.9% on great volume/momentum!
> 
> P.S. It's new name is NeuRizer NRZ
> 
> dyor .. Cheers tela



LCK going nuts lol @ 0.185c +19.35% !!!


----------



## System (29 March 2022)

On March 29th, 2022, Leigh Creek Energy Limited (LCK) changed its name and ASX code to Neurizer Ltd (NRZ).


----------



## Telamelo (29 March 2022)

I really love the vibe around NeuRizer NRZ - exactly what was required to "light a bit of a spark" under our share price given promising news flow to come soon that we are all anticipating/excited about.

I really believe NRZ will kick some goals throughout 2022/23 leading up to production in 2023/24.

GLTAH

Cheers tela


----------



## Telamelo (31 March 2022)

NeuRizer NRZ gone into trading halt pre-market early this morning.

"The trading halt is to assist the Company in managing its continuous disclosure obligations as the Company expects to make an announcement to the market in relation to the NeuRizer Urea Project (in South Australia)".


----------



## Telamelo (3 April 2022)

NeuRizer *NRZ* fertiliser stock (ex Leigh Creek Energy LCK) comes out of a trading halt tomorrow morning - expecting positive news with BFS (Bankable Feasibility Study) to be announced imo









						BFS Update - NeuRizer Ltd (ASX:NRZ)
					

Read the latest Progress Report news from NeuRizer Ltd (ASX:NRZ)



					www.listcorp.com
				




Cheers tela


----------



## charlsie (3 April 2022)

The latest release says they were going to release the initial bankable feasibility study but they aren't actually allowed to and have to wait until the final BFS is completed to release the info. This is due to regulatory requirements.
   I took a small position (<5k) in Leigh Creek in January and took them over Strike energy. I wonder if I've chosen wisely?


----------



## Telamelo (4 April 2022)

charlsie said:


> The latest release says they were going to release the initial bankable feasibility study but they aren't actually allowed to and have to wait until the final BFS is completed to release the info. This is due to regulatory requirements.
> I took a small position (<5k) in Leigh Creek in January and took them over Strike energy. I wonder if I've chosen wisely?






Telamelo said:


> NeuRizer *NRZ* fertiliser stock (ex Leigh Creek Energy LCK) comes out of a trading halt tomorrow morning - expecting positive news with BFS (Bankable Feasibility Study) to be announced imo
> 
> 
> 
> ...



Good news announced this morning.. NRZ now @ 0.195c +11.43% on big volume/momentum


----------



## Telamelo (4 April 2022)

Telamelo said:


> Good news announced this morning.. NRZ now @ 0.195c +11.43% on big volume/momentum



April 4 - NeuRizer (NRZ)


ENTERED INTO DEAL WITH DL FOR FRONT-END ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FACILITY AT ITS NEURIZER UREA PROJECT
CCS Agreement with DL E&C Co. Ltd. Executed


----------



## Telamelo (4 April 2022)

Telamelo said:


> Good news announced this morning.. NRZ now @ 0.195c +11.43% on big volume/momentum



April 4 (- Neurizer Ltd (NRZ) :


ENTERED INTO DEAL WITH DL FOR FRONT-END ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FACILITY AT ITS NEURIZER UREA PROJECT



charlsie said:


> The latest release says they were going to release the initial bankable feasibility study but they aren't actually allowed to and have to wait until the final BFS is completed to release the info. This is due to regulatory requirements.
> I took a small position (<5k) in Leigh Creek in January and took them over Strike energy. I wonder if I've chosen wisely?



Hey @charlsie are you still holding NeuRizer (formerly Leigh Creek Energy) ? 

NeuRizer to 30c
(Pro Stock Tips 6 day's ago)


----------



## charlsie (12 April 2022)

Telamelo said:


> April 4 (- Neurizer Ltd (NRZ) :
> 
> 
> ENTERED INTO DEAL WITH DL FOR FRONT-END ENGINEERING AND DESIGN FOR CARBON CAPTURE AND STORAGE FACILITY AT ITS NEURIZER UREA PROJECT
> ...



yes telamelo i am. This is a great hold and see what happens  stock for me.


----------



## frugal.rock (6 October 2022)




----------



## frugal.rock (6 October 2022)

29 September 2022 ASX ANNOUNCEMENT (ASX:NRZ)

NeuRizer Ltd (ASX:NRZ) (“NeuRizer” or the “Company”) is pleased to announce that the NeuRizer Urea Project (“NRUP”) has been declared an Impact Assessed Development by the South Australian Government.

Managing Director Phil Staveley said, “This declaration is a major affirmation of the social, economic and environmental significance of our carbon-neutral NeuRizer Urea Project. 
We look forward to the benefits that this status will bring in terms of project exposure and close engagement with relevant Departments, and stakeholders.”

Under the Planning, Development and Infrastructure Act 2016 (PDI Act) the South Australian Minister for Planning has the authority to declare projects that are recognised as being of significant economic, social or environmental importance to South Australia as Impact Assessed Development.

A declaration of Impact Assessed Development is advantageous because it affords the project proponent with additional support, coordination and information services from government agencies throughout the approval process.

"_It would appear that the market has overlooked this one" so said I.

3 month and  3 year charts 








_


----------



## frugal.rock (10 October 2022)

And this was before Nordstream got taken out 😲


----------



## frugal.rock (10 October 2022)

BACKGROUND TO INTERVIEW 

"We interviewed Justyn Peters, Exec Chairman of NeuRizer (ASX: NRZ) who keep ticking boxes of accomplishments towards building their Fertiliser plant in South Australia….PRMS, BFS, Binding Offtakes, 70% funded etc. 
It’s pretty clear the plant will be built and they will soon be Australia’s only supplier of carbon neutral fertiliser. 
*At $0.14c we feel there is a disconnect between the company and its share price*."


----------



## frugal.rock (13 October 2022)

Wakey wakey market.
I'm wondering if this is currently the biggest bargain on the ASX...



Telamelo said:


> The company plans to produce as much as 2Mtpa of zero carbon urea via downstream processing of syngas which it will extract using in-situ gasification at the now closed Leigh Creek coalfields of northern South Australia.
> 
> The company says the cost of feed gas to the LCUP will be less than A$1/gigajoule, and the average nominal operating costs at the project are forecast to be about A$109/t which means the company will be in the lowest quartile of the global urea production cost curve.
> 
> And while the project won’t hit full production until around 2024, LCK is targeting a bankable feasibility study (BFS) for completion this quarter and expects to reach the final investment decision process for the project in the middle of this year.


----------



## charlsie (15 October 2022)

frugal.rock said:


> Wakey wakey market.
> I'm wondering if this is currently the biggest bargain on the ASX...



hey frugal, I've seen this type of interview before.... with a kaolin supply company. Once word got out about how glorious the company was, the SP shot up, and when it started to slide, well that's when the hard questions started to be asked.
Now even though i haven't done my research, can i ask if there's any major companies or people on the shareholder list?
(think Andrew Forrest and mincor)
It'll be interesting to see where it goes. Thanks for posting the interview


----------



## frugal.rock (17 October 2022)

charlsie said:


> Now even though i haven't done my research, can i ask if there's any major companies or people on the shareholder list?




There's 2 fairly large holdings over 10% each, major enough within themselves.

Share price isn't doing what I would expect. It was ready to go one way or the other, and without any catalyst, it's looking like it's starting a slide south with general market slop.

So, I'm out, for now. Will keep an eye on it for future reference though.


----------



## frugal.rock (26 November 2022)

December comp entry?
Signs of turnaround. Good enough for me.


----------

