AGS - Alliance Resources

[Halba]

The "25% free carried stake" makes this one expensive. Whilst others that fully own/operate operations (MTN,BMN 80%, ERN 90%) will reap the rewards long term....I mean the more you own of the deposits the more you will go up...why bother with AGS and rann...not one piece of quality news this entire year proves my point...and its been 5 months into this year....this is because it doesn't fully own its operations...so will give no new meaningful news...what do AGS mngmt do with their time?

Uraniumlover is right...full ownership is important...every pound of uranium explored or dug out I get 100% benefit in the other stocks...whereas every pound or uranium found in AGS only a paltry 25%....and no guarantees of finding new deposits...arguably exploration value of AGS is same as MTN,BMN,ERN..theres nothing to suggest it is better exploration and deserves a premium...AGS high grade in Western zone ONLY(East zone is not HIGH grade but 0.03 average low grade)...the tonnage won't compare to BMN,ERN...and large tonnage counts!

The whole overall discovery is stated in latest presentation by Johnston at about 45,000 to 52,000t....take the median, and thats 100mil lbs...even that won't be fully JORC....so overall AGS share only 25mil lbs...arguably I wouldn't include other exploration as other companies have exploration too....so on a dollar per lb it is 650/25 = $26/lb. If it doubles from here without proving anything above 100mil lbs(i.e. not discovering any new deposits - Beverley 4 mile East drill holes don't count as they are part of the 100mil lbs)....it will be worth $52 a lb...:bad: As far as I know they won't be drilling elsewhere = only on East this year...so they really can't double from here can they? Even 25% more increase in SP, thats 26*1.25 = $32/lb...:22_yikes:...Even PDN is cheaper than AGS atm...the dollar per pound of PDN was quoted at 25-30dollar per pound...but ags is 3 years behind PDN right now..

 

[zed327]

I'm pretty sure the share price will do the talking over the next few weeks.

One very important item that has been left out by those saying AGS is overvalued comparred to others is they are in partnership with Generel Atomic.

Now you don't get anymore qualified in uranium processing than this mob.

What backing and experience of getting the uranium from the ground to it's buyers do these others have.

 

[nizar]

The "25% free carried stake" makes this one expensive. Whilst others that fully own/operate operations (MTN,BMN 80%, ERN 90%) will reap the rewards long term....I mean the more you own of the deposits the more you will go up...why bother with AGS and rann...not one piece of quality news this entire year proves my point...and its been 5 months into this year....this is because it doesn't fully own its operations...so will give no new meaningful news...what do AGS mngmt do with their time?

Uraniumlover is right...full ownership is important...every pound of uranium explored or dug out I get 100% benefit in the other stocks...whereas every pound or uranium found in AGS only a paltry 25%....and no guarantees of finding new deposits...arguably exploration value of AGS is same as MTN,BMN,ERN..theres nothing to suggest it is better exploration and deserves a premium...AGS high grade in Western zone ONLY(East zone is not HIGH grade but 0.03 average low grade)...the tonnage won't compare to BMN,ERN...and large tonnage counts!

The whole overall discovery is stated in latest presentation by Johnston at about 45,000 to 52,000t....take the median, and thats 100mil lbs...even that won't be fully JORC....so overall AGS share only 25mil lbs...arguably I wouldn't include other exploration as other companies have exploration too....so on a dollar per lb it is 650/25 = $26/lb. If it doubles from here without proving anything above 100mil lbs(i.e. not discovering any new deposits - Beverley 4 mile East drill holes don't count as they are part of the 100mil lbs)....it will be worth $52 a lb...:bad: As far as I know they won't be drilling elsewhere = only on East this year...so they really can't double from here can they? Even 25% more increase in SP, thats 26*1.25 = $32/lb...:22_yikes:...Even PDN is cheaper than AGS atm...the dollar per pound of PDN was quoted at 25-30dollar per pound...but ags is 3 years behind PDN right now..

hehe, you really hate it when share prices run for a reason that you cannot explain dont you

Well there was a very nice candle on friday, bucked the trend with most U stocks down. I think maybe another candle on monday, then perhaps a pullback to find support at $2.50ish. That, along with reduced volume on the pullback if it happens, would be a outstanding breakout for me.

Also note MACD about the cross positive.

 

[spooly74]

AGS high grade in Western zone ONLY(East zone is not HIGH grade but 0.03 average low grade)...the tonnage won't compare to BMN,ERN...and large tonnage counts!

Halba ...please do some research.

I`ll start with this comment you made 0.03% for 4 mile East

Read the bit in the red below ....just for starters.

ps... You still holding your 4700 shares???

 

[Sean K]

Halba, thanks for your contribution to the AGS thread. Or is it the MTN, BMN and ERN thread? I'm a little confused.

Once again you provide a concerted attack on AGS with just a few holes.

The "25% free carried stake" makes this one expensive.

There's more to it than that, surely. Wouldn't 'free carried' with an experienced uranium miner make it more valuable. Or, do you mean that it only has 25% free carried to mine and then they have to help fund the mining?

Whilst others that fully own/operate operations (MTN,BMN 80%, ERN 90%)

You say fully own and then proceed to put in the % ownership.

will reap the rewards long term....

Just because they own upward of 80% does not logically mean they will 'reap rewards' at all. Are they ever going to need a JV partner to get to production?

I mean the more you own of the deposits the more you will go up

It's that simple? What about size, grade, location, management, hedging, infrastructure...

why bother with AGS and rann.

AGS has an advanced project in SA, and Rann is the only Labor State Premier who is actively lobbying for uranium mining in his State. AGS will seek a mining lisence by the end of the year and Rann has already said he will give it to them. I think that's why this project is interesting.

not one piece of quality news this entire year proves my point.

What point? You didn't make a point in relation to this and it proves nothing in itself. While I'm unsure as to what your definition of 'quality' news is, they have released several anns updating the market about their operations. They have released two anns updating the B4M project and advised that they were moving to a scoping study as soon as Quasar get the JORC to them.

Uraniumlover is right...full ownership is important..

I disagree. No junior explorer, or even developer without uranium mining experience is likely to get their project to production without significant cash inflows, or a JV/Farm In partner. I think it's very important that the juniors get a partner with significant uranium mining experience on board to take their mines to development.

and no guarantees of finding new deposits...arguably exploration value of AGS is same as MTN,BMN,ERN..theres nothing to suggest it is better exploration and deserves a premium.

Is this the sole reason why it is at a 'premium'? It might be a factor, but just one. There is no guarantee of finding anything 'new' in the region, but we have already compared the Arkaroola tenement to MTNs, and it is considerably larger. That's not to say it's got anything else on it, but it must be a consideration.

the tonnage won't compare to BMN,ERN...and large tonnage counts!

How do you know this? ERN have some historical drill holes and BMN have only completed drilling on 25% of their deposit haven't they? Also, large tonnage is not all that counts. Higher grade is much better, which B4M western zone is compared to your BMN and ERN. You should note that the higher the grade, the less tonnage is required to be mined for the same result.

arguably I wouldn't include other exploration as other companies have exploration too.

So, you value a company entirely on just one of its projects? A company's market cap is made up of more than just one of it's projects. You continue to do this and you will continue to get a flawed valuation of a company and use this to compare it against another flawed valuation. I'm surprised you did not dig up your SMM valuation based soley on Valhalla and use that compare it to MTN or BMN.

Overall Halba, I agree, AGS seems expensive compared to some of the other advanced explorers on the surface of it. I do think we need to be comparing apples with apples however, and comparing AGS with anything else is fraught with problems of 'peer' comparison. The companys you are using to compare AGS to are all very very different. While we do need to benchmark to be able to make comparisons of value, more detail is required here I feel.

 

[laurie]

Halba

Come Monday I will be handing in my resignation due to the 25% stake that I have shares in,you see I got on at .14cents you do the maths :

cheers laurie

 

[zed327]

Halba you should read Kennas posts more carefully because he does state that AGS are fully priced compared to it's peers.

You on the other hand have not had one post that is all positive to AGS.

All your posts are ramping your other stocks at AGS's expense.

Time to give it a rest.

 

[nizar]

And after writing a lengthly post tearing Halba's argument to shreds, Kennas's conclusion is.........

Overall Halba, I agree,

LOL!

 

[spooly74]

The "25% free carried stake" makes this one expensive. Whilst others that fully own/operate operations (MTN,BMN 80%, ERN 90%) will reap the rewards long term.....

How do you know that MTN, BMN, ERN will reap the rewards long term???
I`ll just use MTN as an example because we know a bit about their plans.

MTN have had their resource known for the last 40 years and I suspect they have tagged in a historical CAPEX too.

MTN reckon about 100 - 200 mill ........my ar$e

They need a milling facility to get through 4500 tonnes of orebody a DAY!

They need a purpose built tailings facility which requires heavy engineering.

They need the underground mine working to full capacity to meed the production targets.

They will have substantial infrastructure costs because of the location in the Flinders ranges.

They also need power and more importantly a water supply for the life of mine (32 years) plus all the diesel suppllied.

They even need to take it all down when they are finished and return the land to it`s original state.

MTN might not be fully finished in the Flinders Ranges till the year 2045.

How does that compare to other Uranium companies?

Is any of this info factored into your peer evaluations for the long term?

 

[Spineli]

Courtesy: www.smh.com.au

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

 

[zed327]

Halba you should carefully read this part of the above Labour uranium mining changes.

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

AGS isn't in national parks and world heritage areas.

MTN is.

 

[zed327]

My post from the 2nd of april 2007:

MTN is in a protected reserve and have got one hell of a job to get past all the relevent do gooders to be able to mine. All the uranium that MTN have ain't worth a cracker if they are not allowed to get it out of the ground where as AGS are already half way there with all this political backing. AGS will be the first new u mine to start up,no buts about it.

 

[Pommiegranite]

For the fundametalists out there...

AGS has a 246,049,285 shares in circulation X $2.55 SP.

A rough calc shows that AGS has a market cap of $600,000,000, which seems pretty high for a company which hasn't started mining Uranium yet.
Would anyone agree with me that a lot is priced in.

Does anyone have a list of market caps of U explorers/miners in comparison?

How much more upside do you all think is there and where will this come from?

Thanks
PG

 

[Sean K]

For the fundametalists out there...

AGS has a 246,049,285 shares in circulation X $2.55 SP.

A rough calc shows that AGS has a market cap of $600,000,000, which seems pretty high for a company which hasn't started mining Uranium yet.
Would anyone agree with me that a lot is priced in.

Does anyone have a list of market caps of U explorers/miners in comparison?

How much more upside do you all think is there and where will this come from?

Thanks
PG

Pommi, see the South Australian Uranium Explorers thread. There is a doc attached that has all the SA explorers and their current market cap.

 

[laurie]

For the fundametalists out there...

AGS has a 246,049,285 shares in circulation X $2.55 SP.

A rough calc shows that AGS has a market cap of $600,000,000, which seems pretty high for a company which hasn't started mining Uranium yet.
Would anyone agree with me that a lot is priced in.

Does anyone have a list of market caps of U explorers/miners in comparison?

How much more upside do you all think is there and where will this come from?

Thanks
PG

So what do you think it should be worth does it really matter at the end of the day its the market that determines what a company is worth

cheers laurie

 

[Pommiegranite]

So what do you think it should be worth does it really matter at the end of the day its the market that determines what a company is worth

cheers laurie

Sorry..I don't agree.....WE are the market...and feeding off each others bullishness as opposed to fundamentals will result in a reality check one day.

Its okay for a little buying in for a short period and bailing out....but some of us will be left holding the baby on judgement day.

AGS reeks of a bubble brewing...a definite risky play in the long term...

Having said that...I hold....and will continue to do so...but will be watching this stock like an eagle....and intend on selling some at various points over the next 6 months to recoup my outlay.

 

[Pommiegranite]

So what do you think it should be worth does it really matter at the end of the day its the market that determines what a company is worth

cheers laurie

ps..well done on buying in at 14c...................................................

When are you bailing? Surely you're not gonna hold for 20 years?

 

[james99]

Pommiegranite

http://www.summitresources.com.au/pdf/reports/independent/FarEastReportOct06.pdf

It provides a brief analysis. However, it is from October 2006. Since then things have changed, eg share prices (making some poor value), and some companies have significantly increased their tenements and that is not reflected in the analysis nor public announcments (making them better value despite in some cases signficiant share increases).

Others have SA and NT tenements and will now have some certainty under Howard or Labour.

 

[spooly74]

AGS reeks of a bubble brewing...a definite risky play in the long term...

Having said that...I hold....and will continue to do so...but will be watching this stock like an eagle....and intend on selling some at various points over the next 6 months to recoup my outlay.

With 8 months left in the year including 14 million dollars worth of results, Jorc for high grade part (or maybe the whole) of Western area of B4mile, scoping study to begin and an application for mining lease in the mail to media Mike, you should have plenty of buyers to recoup your outlay.

All the best

 

[laurie]

ps..well done on buying in at 14c...................................................

When are you bailing? Surely you're not gonna hold for 20 years?

No... you're right Pommiegranite but if I sell its Mr Costello that will be smiling not me,having said that come 1st July I may off load a few to take profits to top up other holdings and to carry forward the CGT into next financial year also I may have to consider a spp if mining goes ahead and all of this can be pushed aside if a T/O happens and thanks for your kind words on my buy in

cheers laurie