jobs bonanza in victoria , page-33

Not sure that allocations are only weeks away.

The way I read the article, these were just expressions of interest (as part of the market assessment maybe??) not the actual tenders. So I still think any allocations are more likely a year away, than weeks away.

Also, Mantle aren't part of the "consortium of Indian, Japanese and Australian companies" that was mentioned in the articles. The consortium is called Latrobe Valley Next Generation (LV-NG) which is led by Exergen and also includes Tata, Itochu, Thiess and Sedgeman.

I don't believe that they'd even think of including Mantle or its tenements until they find out where their allocation is going to be and, more importantly, whether there is anything in Mantle's tenements. Previously discussed backdoor listings might change that, but it doesn't look like Exergen need any capital given the firepower of their backers, so why would they list? This seems like a less and less likely option, IMO I don't think it will happen.

The question of whether Exergen needs MNM and/or will walk away from MNM is an interesting one. Here's the way I think of it.

From what I understand, companies are still in the business of making money, for themselves, for their investors, for their shareholders. When BHP got its first mine did it say, well we've got our stuff, no need for any more now? When FMG got its first mine did it say, well we've got our stuff, no need for any more now? I don't think they did say that, because they wanted to grow, they wanted to add revenue streams, because it made commercial sense.

Regarding BM, the relevant question I think is whether the project is commercially viable. DYOR on that question. If it is commercially viable, then there's a good chance the project goes ahead irrespective of what's going on somewhere else. Why walk away from revenue?? If it isn't commercially viable, then there's a good chance it doesn't go ahead. A Preliminary Feasibility Study (PFS) would tell that story but that's a little ways away.

The question is also around timing IMO. From Exergen's perspective if you're going about proving your technology at a commercial scale, do you build more than one demo plant? Maybe you do. But I'm not sure you do. Commercially it would make more sense to build the demo at BM with a JV partner because once its proven you build your bigger plants on your own 100% owned tenements and reap all the rewards for yourself.

Could Exergen walk away from BM altogether? Of course they could. What are the chances of it happening? You decide that.

Are overburnder and sulphurs levels a consideration? Of course they are. Anyone who says otherwise is misleading you IMO. It has been specifically stated that these things will be taken into consideration before moving to a JVA. It's all part of working out whether the project is commercially viable. The question is simply risk and reward. From what we know, what are the chances. Good and bad. Then you make your bet.

LV is much more complicated IMO. Given that, I think it's a long time before we know much concrete about it. Awesome to have big tenements in the area, let's hope the final two are granted soon, this seems like a comparatively long native title process.

We've got to model, we've got to drill. I don't think it's likely you'll find out tomorrow what's happening. These things take time and there are many steps (look at BM).

But there are milestones along the way, good news along the way, shareholder wealth along the way.

If BM and/or LV were all that Mantle were working on, the risk reward ratio would be very different IMO. It's worth remembering that it isn't.

Mt Mulligan is very exciting. Wouldn't have the slightest clue what's going on, though. It's my view that this will more than likely work out positively but it looks like we won't be given updates, we'll probably just be told when the ILUA signing ceremony is going to happen, or not.

Granite Castle, too. Drill baby drill.

Haunted Stream, Texas, Charters Towers, Ashford. These things get added to the ratio.

I could add more but I'm sure everyone is getting bored.

I know many on Hot Copper work in absolute terms. 100% for, or 100% against. Everything is awesome or everything is crap. I try to be a little more objective and I invest my longer-term money after I've done research and weighed up the probabilities and risk/reward scenarios. When new information comes in, I change my outlook, isn't that what sensible people do? I don't make these decisions on the basis of hype or downramping.

I obviously don't include my TA money in that, because for that money I couldn't care less about the company or what it's doing plus hype and/or downramping is actually useful to watch because it creates trading opportunities.

Will buying $100 of MNM today turn into $10 million tomorrow? No. This isn't Lotto. Would be nice though.

Sorry for the long post, forgive any spelling/grammatical errors.