tmr mustv read my post

New ann out today with forecasted figures based on improved grade, recoveries and production.

Forecasts based on improved grades just seems like a good idea to me, dunno why ha ha.

The market is now aware of the implications of improved grades and what these figures would roughly be forecasted to as a numerical value. Still ahead of the events actually occurring mind you, validating, to me at least, the importance of numerical forecasts on what if situations with only one or three variables altered. Sometimes 2. They presume investors will be influenced by said forecasts, hence the ann. Of course, their forecasts have to be accurate for this to be useful.

Okay, sorry about the ego stroking (you had to expect something) onto more important issues.

"Ore grade running 1.1 – 1.2% Cu - below life of mine resource grade of 1.5% Cu"

Very pleasing firstly that grade has already improved and secondly 1.5 is still used.

"Reducing crush size to 8mm to aid recoveries"

This is good.

"Unit operating costs will reduce rapidly with greater volumes, grades and recoveries"

Er... more good stuff...

Actually the production of volumes reducing costs is something I ignorantly didn't consider so much apart from stating project 4000 would share existing infrastructure, although I believe this point was raised by Cadreelil, or maybe paul.

"At a head grade of 1.4% Cu and 80% recoveries, 25.14m lb annualised production is expected"

Why is only 1.4% used instead of 1.5%? I would hope that 1.4 was used in opposed to 1.5 due to averaging down? Surely they can't reach an average of 1.4% this year, though, so why was this figure used I wonder? This was something I found slightly worrying, although they did use the 1.5 figure earlier on.

These forecasts based on 3.50. Price of copper would obviously have a multiplying effect, good for copper bulls, bad for bears.

Also note, when project 4000 comes on line, they stated the implications this would have on the production figures, with other figures adjusted accordingly. HOWEVER, given that the grade is much less this is probably why they chose not to include such figures in a forecasted prediction. There are just too many variables to lead to a reasonable forecast, and an easy to read one also.

From my understanding reduced costs will offset the lower grade of ore substantially, and thus would put TMR in a better situation than mere increased production alone.

Someone more knowledgable than myself:

These figures are "additional revenue". Would anyone like to have an educated guess as to EBIT from this as I would have no idea? Are they still on track with their previous forecast of 50Mpa for 2/2, 2008?

Also, how do these figures compare with yours Paul100? I would be interested to know whether it is an improvement or decrease from your estimates, and how close, and can't be bothered, if I could anyway, doing the math.

Stix, in case no one else more knowledgable answers you, personally I see 3 years, although with a significant rerating in this year alone. My judgement on timeframe, however, is not in any way recommended and is probably not credible. TMR suggest significantly increased revenue by 2010, providing you believe them, as stated in the investor presentation before this one.

Usual disclaimer: am new to this, feel free to correct. Thanks.