Sean K
Moderator
- Joined
- 21 April 2006
- Posts
- 22,316
- Reactions
- 11,609
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!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.
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.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.
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........panem said: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.
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)
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 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...
Compare the resources to UrAsia or Summit - by quality AND lbs...
I could give you some links, if needed.
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
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.
panem said: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.
insider said:If only it were true!
panem said:Just wait.
Marathon is very weak at PR.
panem
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.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?
$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.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.
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?