Miner: …
”…Now on a serious mood if I am not offending any one I thought 57 years is the right age for a westerner man to be at Phillipine…” – I just want to clarify and get it well understood that there certainly was no intention or reason for me to have a go at people at that age or older (I am also of that vintage, or maybe a little bit older, Lol!).
…”… Why Lance left RED is primarily would be for different reasons and he is privy not to disclose that to others.…”. I don’t disagree with you Miner that why Lance left is not a public matter, and I’m sure that Anderbond would agree also, but in a company where the Executive Directors are so important to have advanced the project over the years it is a natural thing for us as long term shareholders to wonder whether it is a sign of some RED issue.
In my summary I think I made it clear (or at least I attempted to) that there doesn’t seem to be any reason related to issues at RED that could be drawn from his leaving (and in particular no indication of a split of personalities or anything related to Mapawa potential).
Anderbond:
I agree with you that RED is a very unique investment opportunity from a technical valuation perspective, although its also frustrating that it remains so discounted, and that there are many other good resource performers (in the eyes of the market) that have out-performed RED in recent times, some of which actually appear to have inferior project potential, but more successful for whatever reason. BUT maybe we just haven’t seen the best of RED yet.
It has also created a dilemma for me, since I am so convinced about its likely future standout performance that it creates a dilemma to maintain a balance to my share portfolio (that supposed to provide less overall risk). I have in fact added with more RED to my portfolio by culling others that don’t have as much potential or have gone backwards, and so far RED has done me a favour! (And as we know, there are always potential risks in any resources company, even BHP is not immune to the odd risk – for instance commodity price risk, individual project risk etc).
As for the companies that you mention, to be honest I have not followed any of them in any detail recently to give a good critique of them, and that demonstrates that there are many other companies out there with the potential to be star performers that I haven’t identified yet. With regard to Triton (TON), until I found out that Lance had moved to that company I hadn’t even heard of it! Its Salmon Gums project, within that Albany-Fraser block made famous by Tropicana clearly has lots of potential based on the drilling results to date, but of course how it pans out depends upon speculation that we as potential investors have to cross our fingers on!
As for THX, it has an interesting uranium play that has colossal grades, as well as great nearology to Sandfire through its soon to be restructured base metal portfolio. I held shares in the company quite a long time ago but I decided that its price was high reflecting its speculative value with uranium and despite the high uranium grades at its Pine Creek project I decided the market had gone off the boil for uranium stocks at the time.
As for WPG I haven’t followed the company but I do like the iron ore space and its seems as though its portfolio has stacks of potential based on a quick review of its recent presentation. I won’t go any further than that about the company. (Its amazing the extent of iron ore laden companies in Australia.
I worked in iron ore a long time ago, well before it was ever famous, and its just unbelievable how much the iron ore industry has gone beyond the principal miners in the Hamersley Range, Middleback Ranges and Savage River! It seems that even the small iron ore explorers that have prospective ground in the middle of nowhere can get (principally Chinese) buyers to provide funding in some form or other. How things have changed from years gone by – when I worked in that industry no one wanted the job I applied for, as it was like being sent to the Siberian salt mines!).
As you may know from my comments re SIH, I have concerns about Indonesia and tenement access etc, and the recent changes to Indonesian Mining Law may provide some slightly increased level of confidence to owners holding ground that were formerly KP’s. But the issue with respect to Forestry areas is still a primary risk, and the fact that Central Govt may not provide sufficient control over areas that are ruled by provincial govts and bupatis with a different agenda makes investment risky.
Therefore I am not a real fan of IUA for Tujuh Bukit despite it having very exciting intersections announced to date. If you can get more confidence on the tenement side then it’s a very exciting exploration play, and given Paulsens to continue to 2011 ensures the company has enough cash to explore in Indonesia, but my view is that such large projects need tenement surety that Indonesian Mining Law is yet to demonstrate it can give, particularly for a project that has the potential to be a huge long term operation requiring considerable capital investment. (In comparison Mapawa has the benefit of tenement security already demonstrated via the MPSA route, although I would imagine that RED would seek to transfer title to FTAA status provided the High Court judgement about FTAA legitimacy under the Philippines statute is resolved appropriately in years to come). In the case of IUA if I’m not mistaken I think that its rights over Tujuh Bukit are held via contract with the tenement holder holder – that provides a contractual risk that is not acceptable to most, especially to bankers who would probably find it untenable for lending with lack of collateral security.
I haven’t followed the MEO/MOG arrangements closely enough to comment at all.