research report out-mt bevan re-rating soon, page-58

Thanks, Bigstar -tend to go with your EV calcs.-think that this is the way that the asset will be sold- i.e. in one go at in-ground figure without any discounting for either income or expenditure flows over time and am happy to go for your Case 1 as I think that this is also the way that the asset will be sold- i.e for total resource without a full JORC. In such a case the buyer must be compensated for uncertainty (the reason that I threw in the northern half of the magnetite and all the haematite for nothing). In your example, this compensation is essentially provided by the difference between your Case 1 (Non-JORC) and Case 2 (JORC) price per tonne. Sounds odd to say that I`m pleased to accept this Ambrian benchmark-as I said I thought Snowden`s figures overblown based on what transactions were available-since it takes a lot off the likely reward to HAW shareholders but the likely real world outcome is what we`re all trying to establish and why this forum is so useful for communications such as this.

Any 10 cps+ outcome for the IO will do for me and I suspect most HAW shareholders though for the buyer at 10 cps this would represent paying only $177.5 m for up to 4.4bn tonnes of magnetite (which I make to be only 4 cents per tonne) and a significant and in terms of operational cash flow highly benefical amount of haematite. (I`m guessing the first thing a smart buyer would be to sort out the massive haematite at Mt.Mason with JMS (who are definitely going ahead) and either buy them out or get back a decent chunk of the $177.5m from them straight away. Would then go on to the DSO layered haematite and by the time I`d finished with that don`t think the magnetite would stand me in for much at all.

Am therefore hopeful that the truth will lie somewhere between 10 cents and 25 cents per share but much obliged to yourself and JD for your input as this helps me to think along!