OK, I found a window of time and I have used it. I have not had...

OK, I found a window of time and I have used it. I have not had a lot of time to review and edit my comments but I am sure others will point out any point where I am flawed in my thoughts.

To discuss what DD has raised it seems the best way is to respond to points in the order in which they were raised.

The first one I found bemusing was this one:

“Someone is going to have to dig the Uranium up, it's going to cost a lot of money and take a lot of time (possibly up to 50 years)”

Well, yes but the question is “So?”

I am confused by this. Extract is an exploration company, they explore and (hopefully) find resources. They have been successful and now they are approaching a fork in the road.

Do they sell what they have found or do they become something else, a producer? I don’t know which way they will go and if they aim for being a producer then a whole raft of new variables are drawn in to determine what the “value” of the company is.

That’s all in the future, right now it is an explorer and they have been successful which brings me to the next bemusing statement.

“…we should be able to do a lot better than just multiply pounds of Uranium by a dollar multiplier”

What? An explorer has found a resource. That resource is in the ground and estimates of how much it costs to get out of the ground have been commissioned in the form a feasibility study.

What more exotic ways is DD recommending that we employ to value the pounds in the ground? I would be very keen to learn from this.

Is it that we should not attempt to value explorers at all? Is that the complaint? If we should attempt to value this company in some other way than has been attempted then I am all ears, please advise.

Now the whole section on “Price of Uranium appears to be falling”. Again I am confused, maybe it is a function of lower intelligence on my behalf but I seek enlightenment.
The message seems to be that Uraniuam prices:

a) Are falling
b) There is no evidence that demand will outstrip supply.

Well, others seem to have touched on this already. How is this an EXT-only thing? Why is this not raised on the Uranium thread as it seems to be global in its implications?

If there is indeed no future for the Uranium market then all companies are in trouble but if for some miraculous reason there is a future for Uranium then surely companies with larger, more concentrated resources are better placed than those with smaller, more dispersed resources?

If there is a market for Uranium then EXT seems poised to benefit more than others, isn’t that logical?

Having said all that, I can’t see into the future but on the face of it, there seem to be a large number of new plants in the process of construction or on the drawing board and the existing plants look to have extended lives ahead of them.

Globally, it's all good it seems and (again) EXT seems to be poised to benefit more than many others.

This goes on in to the “Maybe supply has exceeded demand” section, more of the same, how is this specific to EXT? If there is no future for Uranium surely there are others who will suffer sooner and moreso?

The rest of DD’s post keeps on these global themes, discusses Thorium (abundant yes but so is Uranium). DD is aware that Uranium is one of the most abundant elements in the Earth as evinced by his later comments. Even Earth’s oceans are chock-full of Uranium, the stuff is everywhere.

But economics are what it is about, how much does it cost to get it to market? If we are to go with DD’s comments then there is no Uranium market for anyone.

I stress, others will be affected by this before EXT is. Why pick on this company?

We have made Comparative valuations. We have looked at recent sales of in-ground resources (see George Forrest purchase of Forsys in Dec 2008) and this is the basis for my own valuations. Is this an erroneous way of determining value? I look forward to seeing a better way.

I won’t bother to go into Thorium as I don’t know much but will ask how much does it cost to extract Thorium, how efficient is Thorium when compared to the existing technology? Like I said, I don’t know but it seems again that we have a global discussion here not an EXT specific one. How many Thorium reactors working today? Who is using them?

DD then goes on to say that Extract Resources having an easily mineable resource is actually a disadvantage. What????

He said “It's repeated often that it's low cost and won't take long to remove sand cover, set up operations, and then start trucking ore to a processing plant. Again, this is terrible from a competitive standpoint.”

Please explain.

It would be better if Extract’s resource was hard to remove? Better if setting up operations was lengthier and more expensive? How would this be more competitive? I just don’t understand this.

Then we move onto the US dollar being a “flawed” currency and more discussion of things like the Global Finanical Crisis, etc.

Why is this specific to Extract? Why choose to downplay this one company with all this?

I go back to what I said in my earlier post. You must listen to what everyone has to say but YOU MUST ALWAYS ASK WHY THEY ARE SAYING IT. There is no reason to attack this one company with things of a global nature and there is no reason to spend so much time attacking it unless you have SOMETHING TO GAIN from your efforts.

DD you are an interesting creature. For me, the odds are high that you are compensated in some way for all this effort. I would LOVE to know the details but somehow I think I will never find out.

I feel for the people who you may have scared off but in the end I am not my brother’s keeper. I can only affect what I do and you have not scared me.

I know this won’t make any difference but how do you live with yourself if this is what you do to make a crust?