UMC - United Minerals Corporation

[powerkoala]

it could be institutional buyers
look at the number they bought
at least 80k each transaction
36c now
even seller starts to run away

 

[mick2006]

something is certainly going on, has been going up solidly on good volume for the last couple of weeks, 1 million plus shares on the good days and only small volume on the down days.

There has been alot of off screen buying which is why I thought it might be institutional buying, where they have a price in mind and they buy upto it and let it settle for a couple days and have another go.

What do you guys think?

 

[powerkoala]

well, we got blue sky here
lot of buyers and less seller
breach 38c now...
guess something is really nice going to happen soon

 

[dj_420]

UMC has broken through a number of resistance points in recent trading. first level of resistance was at 32 cents. i now see this 32 cents level as a new base of support. has gone above 32 cents several times but on a number of occasions failed to close above this level.

second resistance level broken was 34.4 cents. broke through this area on higher than average volume. i would like to see some new support form around this old resistance level of 34.5 - 35 cents to form a new higher level of support.

sp needs to close above these old resistance levels for a number of days to build new support and confirm breakout to new highs.

large increase in volume and MACD indicator looking good for indication of uptrend resuming.

 

[mick2006]

buyers now seem happy to defend the 37c mark, buying up anytime it falls to that level. If the quarterly contains any unexpected goodies it could send the stock skyward, can't see to many willing to sell before the company updates its major projects.

 

[dj_420]

a close at 38 cents. great increase of 22% today. very bullish IMO closed one cent of the intraday high of 39 cents. huge day for volume with 2.2 million traded.

 

[mick2006]

could the following article explain the takeoff in UMC shareprice, FMG had previously tried to get they hands on UMCs Iron Ore tennements and would make sense if they a trying to shore up reserves for the future.

If you read the last line that FMG are already in discussions with third party users for their iron ore infrastructure, could this mean a potential tie up with UMC?

If UMC don't have to fund their own port and rail it would be a massive boost for a junior miner, it simply would be a matter of dig it up and ship it out. Low cost because mineralisation is poking through to the surface, high profit with current high iron ore prices.

Also would it be possible one of the majors is slowly accumulating UMC stock to get a seat at the table when UMC shores up a major reserve?

FMG offers to help on ore port upgrade
19th January 2007, 8:00 WST

Andrew Forrest’s Fortescue Metals Group has backed its pledge to bust open transport access in the Pilbara with an offer to build key infrastructure that may underpin a $186 million upgrade of public wharf facilities at Port Hedland.

Fortescue has always guaranteed third-party access to port and rail infrastructure now under construction as part of its $3.7 billion Pilbara iron ore empire.

But it yesterday confirmed it might also build a dedicated ore conveyor linking its own facilities at Anderson Point with a multi-user public wharf planned by the Port Hedland Port Authority at neighbouring Utah Point.

Fortescue government affairs manager Julian Tapp said the public wharf was vital for the development of new mines in the Pilbara. Fortescue also believed a conveyor from its own rail-unloading facilities could make both the wharf and Fortescue’s own railway more attractive to prospective users.

“We wrote to the port and said we’d be interested in using it (the public wharf) and . . . if there’s reasonable demand, we could stick a conveyor across to Utah Point,” he said.

The proposed kilometre-long conveyor link could dramatically improve the efficiency of the planned 16 million tonnes a year public wharf, which will otherwise be accessible only by road unless mining giant BHP Billiton is forced to provide third party access to its passing Goldsworthy-Finucane Island railway.

Under a long-standing expansion plan, the PHPA aims to cater for an expected increase in third party bulk mineral exports, including iron ore produced by junior miners such as Atlas Iron, by building the new wharf adjacent to BHP Billiton’s Finucane Island facility.

The new wharf will replace the small public wharf on the eastern side of the port, which will instead handle higher value materials such as oil and consumables, significantly reducing truck movements through the centre of the port town.

The upgrade is expected to be approved in the next few weeks so that the facility can enter service late next year. The project would be underwritten by user fees and commitments from prospective users of the facility.

A further $200 million Stage 3 expansion is also believed to be under consideration that would include dedicated rail access to the public facility.

Mr Tapp said the proposed conveyor would give Fortescue greater flexibility. Its Anderson Point berth would be reserved for Cape-size vessels, while shipments destined for Fortescue’s smaller customers could be loaded onto Panamax vessels at the public wharf.

Emerging miners were also more likely to use only smaller Panamax vessels, he said, while conveyor access to the public wharf would give Fortescue additional loading capacity during any expansion or maintenance work at its own facilities.

Mr Tapp also confirmed Fortescue may launch a fresh application to the National Competition Council to have BHP Billiton’s Goldsworthy railway “declared” a service under the Trade Practices Act and opened to other users.

Last month the Federal Court ruled that neither BHP Billiton’s Goldsworthy nor Newman railways should be exempt from national competition laws, while the Australian Competition Tribunal is expected to hear Fortescue’s appeal against the Federal Government’s refusal to declare the Newman railway before the middle of the year.

Fortescue has also begun negotiations with prospective third party users of its own rail and port operations.

JOHN PHACEAS

 

[dj_420]

qtrly out today, not much more than we already knew, a number of additional leases have been granted, with another two (from memory) that are pending approval.

UMC has stopped diamond exploration, and decided to focus efforts on the two main projects bauxite and iron ore. sensible move IMO, no point in wasting time with the diamond exp. these two projects are potential company makers and should have full focus of company.

so we are still awaiting some bauxite results, tenements to be granted and the drilling program to begin in pilbara.

 

[dj_420]

just a chart updating movements since breakout. sp has held critical support level of 34.5 cents. from market depth it shows that this area has large amounts of bids increasing.

 

[Pat]

UMC is finding some good support as DJ said, Closed at 0.355 today, However resistance is forming at 37-40 cents. More volume will break these levels, a good ann on drill results should help UMC's fight.

The Quarterly didn't add much to the equation, gotta wait for those drill results. And I guess conformation of the 2 other tenements.

The chart, Forming a nice 4 month trend, and looks to me like its riding the top Bollinger Band, when will it retrace to the bottom band?

MACD, I'm still learning how to use this indicator to its full potential, so any critisism is welcome... anyone?

Stochastics says it isn't over sold just yet so they all look good to me.

Go UMC!

 

[JJP]

Usually not logical to even attempt to work out iron ore reserves from surface sampling......of course it just can't be done, without depth measurements for a start.

However, its hard not to get excited about the results of their mapping and rock chip sampling, reported via the ASX on the 19th December, 2006........expecially in view of the central Pilbara location - and some old drill data reported in the same area from Goldsworthy Mining.(in 1987)

On page 3 of that 19th December release (Fork North brockman)......it seems that the UMC geologist has located surface mineralisation of some 2.5 km in length and up to 300 metres in width. They undertook widespread 7 samples from various locations within this zone.

Results of which, I have shown here:

U1025RC 65.5%
U1004BRC 64.3%
U1004RC 62.5%
U1018RC 63.4%
U1001RC 62.5%
U1002RC 60%
U1005RC 65.5%

and a significant 8th sample from a location 500 metres to the north of 62.7% (U1006RC).....which does not seem to be part of the surface zone. (no other of these iron ore small caps have these sort of chip results

Now if we take it one step further, just for purposes of this exercise.....lets just use a mineralisation depth of say 15 metres across this 750 sq km zone(ie 2.5 km x 300 metres) - remember this is whats on the surface only.....and a iron ore density of a fairly typical 3 tonnes for each sq metre.........comes to 33 million tonnes of high grade ore.....from one location.

Could be a load of hypotical rubbish......except for one thing......in the 1987 drill, up 100 million tons of high grade ore were reported in this same area by Goldsworthy. (UKD ref 4/10/06 announcement)

 

[JJP]

Typing mistake of course in the last post......should 750 sq metres, not 750 sq kms.

By way of trying to value what a discovery of 33 million tons of high grade fe would be worth......company like MGX started off with about that amount of reserves at Tallering Peak. MGX when up to a market cap of $300 million as exports got underway.......at the start of the iron ore boom.

Pilbara has port and rail facilities much cheaper than that of MGX's mid-west location. Most interesting stock - which in my opinion cannort be compared with all the other smaller iron ore plays, that ofter get a mention here.

 

[JJP]

Here is a 1987 drill report for what is now BHP's Mining Area C.....soon to be largest iron ore mine. As we have said, on a number of times......UMC leases are right in the middle of these high grade proven deposits.

http://geodocs.doir.wa.gov.au/viewer/multipageViewerAction.do?documentId=37431&viewMarkId=0&ct=true&at=none&btv=true&atv=false&vmtv=false&ac=ff0000&cabinetId=1200&pg=3&scl=64&bds=0|0|2560|3584

The 1987 results are noteworthy because of the huge quantities involved over a number of locations..........but what is of particular interest however.....is the fact that BHP even today still quote a reserves figure of 890 million tonnes at Mining Area C..... the 1987 report actually refers to 880 million tonnes at Area C..

BHP handed back to the Crown.....(what is now UMC leases) in about 2002 prior to the boom.....it would seem possible therefore, that a decision to relinquish parts of Area C was made on a 1987 drill programme.

If true.....I would suggest a definate positive...... you would consider it likely that with improved exploration technology, UMC may also made some major iron ore discoveries on their land.

 

[dj_420]

agreed, although im sure the directors have more of an idea of whats on the land than we do.

i would like to know the drill locations of goldsworthy, that would make it a little easier to understand what sections lie on whose land.

interest seems to have dropped a little, however i am expecting another two tenements to be granted in the area, this may help pick up interest again when granted.

 

[dj_420]

UMC chart looks great. last few times UMC has broken resistance the support has held on retracement. i see major support levels at 32 and 34 cents.

the next area of resistance will be the 38 - 39 cents mark. a break above here on volume would be blue sky for sp.

sp increases have been on large volume and retracements on small volume, this an indication that large volumes have not been dumping their stock on retracements.

the UMC story is starting to unfold with a lot more interest been generated with a sustained increase in volume as compared on a historical basis.

 

[powerkoala]

indeed,
sellers seems dry up and buyers start pushing up.
39c will be next resistance with support on 35-36c.
nice week to see where this will go

 

[dj_420]

well broken out now to new highs i believe. 40 cents. been on this one for a while, dont know how many people are on it but its run well over last month or so.

 

[JJP]

Always in the back of investors minds, is the question - well if these tenements are so good.......how come UMC managed to secure them in the first place.?

I have asked this question of management....as to why BHP released these odd shaped parcels in the first place. Seems to draw a blank with them.....they either don't know or won't say....or its too complicated.

However.....MIGHT and I stress might, have now come across the answer......and probably UMC management may not be aware of this situation also.

BHP got serious about looking to develop Mining Area C in about the year 2000. Previously the project had been owned by Goldsworthy Mining (remember the 1987 drill results undertaken by Goldsworthy).

BHP looked for any State regulations that applied to this area. In fact there was a State government act called ......MOUNT GOLDSWORTHY AGREEMENT ACT 1964.... (maybe there was a proposal to mine around then- I do not know). Anyway I have come across a copy of this legislation on line.......updated in 2000 with details of BHP's joint venture partners in the project, etc

It definately refers to what we know as Mining Area C.

Under the terms of this legislation......very specific mention (and included in a latter modification) - is made to the aggregate area not exceeding 300 square miles within the mining lease.

Here is an extract:

4) If and when the Minister has approved or is deemed to have approved the Joint Venturers’ proposals pursuant to this clause the Joint Venturers may apply for a mineral lease of mining area “C” or any part or parts thereof (not exceeding in aggregate area 300 square miles inclusive of the areas of the original mineral lease granted under clause 8(2)(a) hereof and the second mineral lease if granted under clause 11(6) hereof and in the shape of a parallelogram or parallelograms) and the Minister shall cause any necessary survey to be made of the land

http://72.14.253.104/custom?q=cache...tion+mining+area+c+survey&hl=en&ct=clnk&cd=16


--------------------------------------------------------------------------------------------

Without going to a huge amount of effort....it does look like BHP remaining parcel, lease number ML281A....or whats left of Goldsworthy original TR3156H does consist of about the required 450 sq kms.

Might have been a situation in about 2000, whereby BHP undertook a desktop survey to provide compliance with the legislation.

Would also held to explain this somewhat strange circumstance that UMC discussed....how could this come about....maybe we now have the answers......UMC quote follow:



• Two of the tenements have previously documented substantial iron ore mineralisation. The centre of these mineralised locations (as plotted on Government data) fall inside the UKD tenements although close to the boundary with BHP’s adjacent Mining lease. It is the opinion of the UKD board that substantial portions of these two mineralised areas are on the UKD tenements, although some will inevitably fall onto the BHP Billiton ground.

They are referring to 140 million tons of FE at Camp Hill and Fork Hill.
__________________________________________________________________________

These posts have a very bullish tone.......I would honestly suggest however that you do your own research and obviously be careful....especially with exploration companies.l

 

[dj_420]

i would like to see if UMC plan on releaseing previous drill results as done by goldsworthy or BHP. i may call them today and ask a few questions regarding tenements.

so we already know there is substantial tonnage there, then it is just a case of proving up this tonnage.

 

[dj_420]

ok heres a bit of a breakdown on tenements so far.

E47/1429 - Pending
Recommendation: Grant, 19/09/05

E47/1431 - Live
Granted: Live: 26/07/06

E47/1432 - Pending
Recommendation: Grant, 19/09/05



So the one tenement that has so far been granted has Fork North on there. the fork north area has a previously documented tonnage of 100 million tonnes of fe at 60% + grade.

so not sure if anyone is aware of this but they already have massive deposit, i dont think this is a JORC compliant deposit yet, BUT given that this area is already live they just have to submit application to mine and the drilling program can begin.

here is the document stating there is 100 million tonnes at fork north.

http://www.unitedminerals.com.au/documents/154.pdf