"In the case of the Hamersley deal the $32 million bought 106...

"In the case of the Hamersley deal the $32 million bought 106 million tonnes of ore assaying 58.6% iron. On a unit basis the price is equivalent to $3.32 per tonne of ore. In the second sale to Mineral Resources the $42 million bought 54.8 million tonnes of 56.7% ore, $1.30 a tonne."

This working is flawed. $32m buys 106 mt, therefore the ore is worth 32/106 = $0.3 per tonne of ore, not 106/32 = $3.31 per tonne. I'm surprised this was not picked up upon by editors, as it should be clear to all that selling more ore for less dollars does not give a greater $:tonne ratio.

Still by any calculations I think IOH is greatly undervalued. Based on the mineral resources transaction of $1.35 Per Fe Tonne (42/[54.8*.567]) and total Fe tonnes now equivalent to 432.2 (after sale of the tenements to Rio and Min Resources) as well as cash of 37.5 (at 30/9/11) + 32 (rio) + 42 (assuming Min Resources transaction goes ahead), then IOH reaches an EV valuation of $694.97 million.

Clearly it is trading at a heavy discount, based on fears of Chinese growth slowdown (and subsequent fall in IO demand) and the lack of access to infrastructure. More sales of tenements would probably alleviate these concerns (if they haven't already started to), although obviously the most beneficial progress would be the acquisition of port and rail access.