What makes the ratio of MC/IGV even better is that CAPEX IS ALL PAID FOR!!!! This isn't just an exploration junior here but a near-term producer with all funding in place. So a 5% ratio would have to be OK on this basis.
Nevertheless it is interesting to look at a couple of base-metal company comparisons to check the relativities. I chose these companies because I am familiar with their projects. Of course there are many others:
The first comparison is NSW located Tri-Origin TRO with an IGV Zn/Cu/Pb/Ag/Au @ 16.9% Zn Eq resource of +$10B has a MC of $113M = 1% ratio but they still need to finance a plant.....PFS due this month.......look for a re-rating here.
Another comparison is the copper giant emerging producer +150,000tpa (in 2008) Equinox EQN, MC $1.2B with 13B lbs Cu & 150M lbs Co at IGV say $AUD56B using same Cu spot $US3/lb & Co $US32/lb, all funding in place, ratio MC/IGV 2.1%. EQN also has 21M lbs Uranium not included above and lots of exploration upside. Zambia location is a significant negative, but plenty of positives apart from that, not least a 37 year mine life.
It is the location and exploration upside of CMR that to me is a significant component of the company's value over and above current resources, plus the fact that capex funding is paid for.
In the end the important number is the economically mineable portion of the IGV at what metals prices and the EPS potential. CMR's ton/rock IGV at current spot prices for the base metals is around $A300/ton which is pretty healthy. (EQN around $A70, TRO around $650)
CMR Price at posting:
0.0¢ Sentiment: Buy Disclosure: Held
