re: re Hi DD:Mt Gee has:3,900 tonnes at 0.94%21,000 tonnes at...

re: re Hi DD:

Mt Gee has:

3,900 tonnes at 0.94%
21,000 tonnes at 0.73%

That's not so ridiculous.

If as a rule of thumb an economic mine needs 10,000 tonnes at 0.1%, then MTN is 40% of the way there- a much better situation than many other uranium junions with only blue sky hopes. The higher the price of uranium goes, the lower the required grade. When the results for the rest of the tenement are out esp Hodgkinson I am sure we will find MTN have an economic mine. The question will then turn to politics.

While regulators may not allow MTN to mine some or all of its Mt Painter tenement in the near term, in the long run it cannot be ruled out. Like Bush allowing the drilling of oil in the previously "no go zone" of the Alaska Wildlife Sanctuary, it just needs the right political environment of an energy crisis. A good question is whether the *entire* tenement is sensitive or just certain parts?
The environmental questions, while important for any investor to consider, have already been heavily discounted in the current share price (at $8-10m for Mt Painter the market currently values MTN assuming the mine will start in 100 years!).

There are some good people behind MTN. While it might be a scam, I'm not sure why Dr Bogacz inparticular would destroy his reputation and successful consulting business for a few hundred $k. Directors, and academics inparticular, tend to value their reputation very highly. These guys didn't start business yesterday. And they have a good track record of getting juniors off the ground. But like I mentioned earlier, if anyone has evidence to the contrary it's better to know than not.

Atleast MTN has a resource for us to scrutinize, though it's being valued similarly to many "me too" gold-cum-uranium stocks without a resource that have come under far less scrutiny.

At current prices IMHO the upside is better than the downside.