ridd1ck, page-5

As far as costs go, the MGX presentation put out yesterday contains a chart on page 12 that shows GBG to have the lowest capital requirements on a per ton basis out of the 3 magnetite miners displayed. The hematite mines displayed are much less capital intensive again.

MGX have been a little bit 'sneaky' in preparing that chart, in that they use their fully operational outputs for comparison, whereas many of the others are costed a long way off from their fully operational outputs, infact, using only their startup production rates as in GBG's case, at 8tpa mag.

If in fact they used the expected production of 35 - 45tpa of mag and hem., GBG would have a far less capital intensive project that may go closer to some of the more distant (from port) hematite miners.

Some of the other miners are discriminated against too as far as production numbers but if you add in what you know of GBG's numbers, it does give some idea as to the far greater resource size AND production potential of GBG in comparison to MGX.

But of course MGX is already in production and very profitable, and rightly deserves a premium for that.

But in about 5-6 years, GBG will have a market cap that is multiples of MGX, which is already an ASX200 stock.