Ann: Divestment of Hamersley Iron Ore Project, page-54

re: "(sic) ... covering some 1,900km2 along the western margin of the Hamersley Province", and "I have no understanding of exactly the location of Red Hills Iron Ore to PF1's Hamersley"
The darker shaded area on the map is the Hamersley Province?, (opinion based on my basic map reading abilities) rough calculation put the RHI and PF1 projects approximately 100 - 120 klms apart, I find it interesting that you have subjectively highlighted key words (in bold text) IMO, it lacks an apparent reason? or making some sort of an inference to the higher possible value of Equinox's Hamersley project? based solely on it being a nearology play?



re: "Looks like they paid $400mill for 40% of RHI's mineral tenements"
Not quite the case:
They acquired 100% of RHI's participating interest, which is 40% of the RHIOJV Project.
Not looks like:
They have paid $400m (per se) for the acquisition: $200m on completion of acquisition, and a further $200m the after first shipment leaves port, who knows when/if that will be.
It's an impressive valuation for the RHIOJV project, as per RHI announcements, the partners of the RHIOJV (which Mineral Resources and Baowu are effectively part of) were unable to reach agreement on a way forward. Mineral Resources buying out Red Hill Iron's share likely takes care of this; gives them a larger piece of the pie; and allows them all to move on with the development.
Plus royalties, although precedent conditions are a little complex for the royalties but @ 0.75% of Freight on Board (FOB) eventually/probably? is a nice long term revenue stream.

re: "nor do I have a good understanding yet on MT, Grade or transportation issues the differ between to two."

Measured - MRL - 263MT Fe 57.2% SiO₂ 5.72% Al₂O₃ 3.76%
Measured - PF1 - NIL
Indicated - MRL - 452MT Fe 56.3% SiO₂ 6.32% Al₂O₃ 3.85%
Indicated - PF1 - 42.6MT Fe 55.2% SiO₂ 10.9% Al₂O₃ 5.5%
Inferred - MRL - 104MT Fe 55.2% SiO₂ 6.82% Al₂O₃ 4.21%
Inferred - PF1 - 300.6MT Fe 54.5% SiO₂ 10.9% Al₂O₃ 4.4%
Bottom line, PF1 have a very small indicated reserve by comparison versus MRL, and a lower quality Fe% (although there is not much difference) but the impurities are higher.


http://www.jorc.org/docs/2004_2012_jorc_codes_side-by-side.pdf

Transport:
MRL: Transport in place with them already shipping from other tenements, applied to build two new berths at Port Hedland and also looking at options to ship through to Port of Ashburton as Port Hedland is becoming bottle necked with the increased product from the majors...... after a record year in 2020 where 540Mn tonnes were shipped through the port, the WA government expanded the maximum capacity to 617mn t/year but concerns about dust in the adjacent towns have restricted throughput.
https://www.argusmedia.com/en/news/2198039-minres-starts-western-australian-iron-ore-mine
PF1:The Transport scoping study examined in detail 4 of 20 distinct options available to transport ore from the Project to port. The 4 options selected for detailed analysis included a combination of existing and new road and rail infrastructure. Based on the destination port and the ability of
WEJV to negotiate with 3rd party infrastructure owners, 3 options were identified as economically viable options for the optimal usage of the existing roads through to rail infrastructure. The transport study is from July 2014 and IMO, will obviously need updating but with the increased production in 2020 and into 2021 will the 3rd party infrastructure be able to accomodate increased loading? see above
https://hotcopper.com.au/threads/ann-winmar-receives-encouraging-transport-study-results.2326271/
Further thwarting any possible 3rd party agreement/s to use established infrastructures, all the Iron Ore mining firms that use Port Hedland, - BHP, Fortescue, Roy Hill, Atlas Iron and MinRes have plans to expand production over the next few years.

Interview with Mark Hancock ASX:FEL - talking premium grade, purity, cut off, etc . . .
do not advertise external links.au/companies/news/942783/fe-limited-well-funded-ahead-of-near-term-production-and-shipments-from-wiluna-west-iron-ore-project-942783.html

Iron Ore prices: - gladly stand corrected on any points
From half yearly reports:
RIO - average realised price for H1 2021 - A168.40/t - Dry Metric Tonne/FOB
BHP - average realised price for H1 2021 - US$103.78 (A$140.16) Wet Metric Tonne/FOB
MIN - average realised price for H1 2021 - US$119 (A$160.72) - Dry Metric Tonne/FOB
FMG - Record average revenue June quarter of US$168/ (A$226) Dry Metric Tonne realising 84 per cent of the average Platts 62% Fe CFR Index,
OPINION Only - FMG were the only report that showed US$ value to Fe %
FMG - and US$135 (A$182) Dry Metric Tonne for FY21 - lower grade? or average over the 6 months?

The Iron Ore Fines 62% Fe CFR Futures are down - US$181 -3/8/21
https://au.investing.com/commodities/iron-ore-62-cfr-futures
Prices for iron ore cargoes with a 63.5% Fe for delivery into Tianjin fell to below US$200/tonne, (US191.50 3/8/21) the lowest since May as some Chinese steel producers were told to cut production. Steel producers in Anhui, Gansu, Fujian, Jiangsu, Jiangxi, Shandong and Yunnan provinces were told to limit production to 2020 volumes amid China's efforts to curb carbon emissions as well as considering imposing export tariffs on steel rates from 10% - 25% to tame prices.
https://tradingeconomics.com/commodity/iron-ore
Custeel Iron Ore Price Index shows the differences between Fe58% / Fe 62% and Fe 65%, Opinion, the Fe 58% would be indicative of what will come out of Hamersely? doesn't include any penalty for impurities?
http://www.custeel.com/en/csi.jsp

Red Hill Iron threads also have some good discussions about grade/pricing, it isn't all just about Fe grades, the impurities have a impact on the price as well BUT if Equinox Resources can progress and drill out the "inferred" part of the resource to upgrade it to indicated/measured (part of the SS review) to the be able to progress to a PFS. Who knows, maybe 2 years of DFO production to provide funds to then go to BFO to lower impurities?

WFE's review of the Hamersley I/O project including from the Mine Gate Scoping Study, the product sold after on-site processing was assumed for the Scoping Study to have a grade of 57% Fe and sub 15% combined SiO2 and Al2O3. - the reported PF1 results of "Indicated Resource" show those assumptions were not correct? as neither of these figures with Fe 55.2%, SiO₂ 10.9% & Al₂O₃ 5.5% - combined 16.4%.
Included in the review, this product is low grade by international standards and would be sold at a discount to a typical >63.5% Fe product and may incur further penalties if other deleterious elements including SiO2, Al2O3 and P are above customer maxima specifications.

Lots of steps needed, (from review) to progress:
AMA has reconfirmed the key work and areas of focus that are required to advance the Scoping Study towards a Pre-Feasibility Study in 2020.
These include:
a) further metallurgical test work;
b) confirmation of the mass recovery and product sizing based on variability testing on diamond drill core;
c) confirmation of the product quality from additional testing and in conjunction with detailed mine production modelling;
d) confirmation of the target product mix based on the additional test work in conjunction with mine modelling and marketing;
e) appointment of a marketing expert to assist in the determination of the optimum product mix;
f) further development of the processing flowsheet in conjunction with additional option studies;
g) generation of the standard deliverables associated with the next level of engineering work required in a pre-feasibility study including detailed process design criteria, mass balance, process flow diagrams and equipment modelling and sizing;
h) generation of updated capital and operating cost estimates with the high level of accuracy required for a pre-feasibility study and based on the more detailed engineering deliverables; and
i) review of the potential process risks and mitigation plans, in particular optimising water and power consumption.

I assume that as part of the Equinox IPO, independent solicitor and geologist reports will be required, as per the original ASX request when the company wanted to spend funds on Hamersley? Otherwise, (OPINION) it doesn't make sense that it was originally requested?

__ BUT, if this was so good, with Iron Ore in a "super cycle" (but is it?) and (OPINION ONLY) seemingly as Pathfinder are doing all the IPO work, why didn't Pathfinder demerger the Hamersley project out, do an IPO to raise the $7m - $9m, issue the same amount of shares (ie 35M to PF1 shareholders instead of to PF1 the company) with the "newco" being admitted to the ASX, shareholders have retained "their" project and the Company has cash to advance the I/O project as well as including in the Prospectus, M & A funds for acquisitions.

OR (OPINION) they are currently hamstrung with King Tut being held up (and it will be some time before anything will be progressed there) overheads and cash burn, working capital being depleted and a limited M & A budget, easiest option was to "sell" Hamersley, take consideration shares, IPO at listing circa $7M (minimum) sell shares (baring availability of them being escrowed) as needed to fund an acquisition, top up working capital, etc.

Will the IPO be successful? Will there be enough votes to have this passed at the meeting? What percent of votes will be excluded?
I suspect (OPINION) it is lucky the it is only an ordinary resolution that doesn't have the same criteria to pass as an extraordinary resolution has.
I also cannot see any "massive acquisition" in the near term!

cheers