AdamThere are two things that I found disappointing about this...

Adam
There are two things that I found disappointing about this announcement. The first was the fact that it has taken nearly seven months from the initial announcement to process a few tons of sample to get this result. The initial announcement on 27th January stated that product grades could be achieved of approximately 57% Fe, 6-7% Si, 6-7% Al and 0.05% P with a yield in the order of 17% and that at least 160 million tons at DSO grades could be recoverable. Whilst the latest announcement was confirmation of the 27th January announcement it should have been delivered in a time frame of 2 - 3 months not 7.

The second disappointment is in the grade of the resource. A typical silica content should be in the range of 3% -7.5% with an aluminium content of less than 3%. The Aluminium content of the DSO iron ore is on the high side whilst the silica and aluminium content on the mid range product is way too high and will require further treating to make it a saleable product. This is what I think was being alluded to when they said they were going to undertake further testing. I only hope it doesn't take a further 7 months to do that.

I think at this stage your comparisons to BRM are a bit premature. I was a shareholder in that company having bought in at 50 cents and selling at the height of the takeover so I know it well. They have a superior product, access to port facilities, heaps more cash and IMO a far more proactive management team. I do take your point though that the potential of DMA is there but only if we have the right team driving this forward.