Jump to content



Recommended Posts

In reply to: mitis on Sunday 31/12/06 08:58am

Company say they will have bankable JORC reserves by the end of this half.....ie June 2007. Initial drilling to start this quarter.


Typically many investors trade off drill results..... and the lead up to release of these results.


I would see this company.....at its present market capitalisation, in a completely different ballpark to a typical situation where traders look for the best entry/exit strategy.....

and accordingly have taken a long position, with no intention of selling for the forseeable future.


Here is why:


As mentioned previously, UMC tenements adjoin the biggest iron ore mine in Australia.....BHP's Mine C which is part of the collective iron ore precinst referred to by BHP as Mining Area C......(with resources of 890 million tonnes of direct shipping grade marra mamba ore.....and big exploration udside according to BHP)


Mine C at max capacity in the 2nd half of this year will produce 42 mtpa for BHP. Thats about $3 billion plus annual revenue revenue, for the mining giant.


Here is a link to much more detail about Mining Area C......shows the scope of this massive project.




A key question of course.....would be - well how come UMC was able to acquire these tenements in the first place (and that only now has exploration been possible).


This area which now comprises the UMC holdings was surrended by the Goldsworth/BHP group around 2000....when firstly marra mamba iron ore deposits had not been developed for the export market (only in 2002, after much testing with steel mills in Japan.... was marra mamba proven to be very suitable for steel production)......and also in 2000 steel production was in a virtual slump. Never would BHP or anybody else have considered such a boom was just around the corner). Around this time....West Australia family mining company DF Rhodes secured these tenement.....and following survey, issue of lease title.....and a WA Mining Court battle with FMG, was UMC able to acquire the property from Rhodes.


The real answer to investors question....on this (in my opinion - most exciting stock).....is for you to do your own research. Maybe in for a big surprise.......(Rio's and Hancok's Hope Downs deposit is 10 kms to the east from UMC proporty.....on the same marra mamba foundation.)




Link to comment
Share on other sites

  • Replies 236
  • Created
  • Last Reply

Top Posters In This Topic

Top Posters In This Topic

Posted Images

  • 3 weeks later...

just an article that UMC holders should have a look at:



Resourcestocks Jan 2007 Issue

Pages 75 & 76


United Minerals'

company Maker


Most junior companies count themselves lucky if they have one potential company-making project. By Michael Weir.


Western Australia-based explorer United Minerals Corporation has two potential world-class, company-making assets that could both transform the company into a major mining house.


United Minerals has been through somewhat of a transformation in the past year. What was listed as a diamond explorer focused on WA's Kimberley region two years ago is now a company that can offer investors broad commodity exposure, including a slice of two of the world's hottest bulk commodities - iron ore and bauxite.


The geographical focus is still in WA's north, with the Kimberley and neighbouring Pilbara region now making up parts of the United Minerals portfolio.


The two flagship projects are a bauxite project in the Kimberley and an iron ore project in the Pilbara.

They are both relatively new to the portfolio but already the share market has certainly agreed with the changes.


United Minerals was trading at around 9c in December 2005 when it unveiled its bauxite plans. That news pushed the price immediately to around I5c. The more recent move into iron ore saw the share price spike again to a peak of 36c.


With the recent bouncy market the share price has settled at around 26c, but with just 97.8 million shares on issue the company carries a market value of less than $24 million, clearly highlighting the upside potential the two projects could bring.


"What we have now in the portfolio are two extremely high quality, bulk commodity projects," executive director Matthew Hogan said.


"They are both well located, have exceptional potential and each could easily be a company maker in its own right.


"We are now positioned with the right team and the money in the bank to aggressively pursue these opportunities over the next year and hopefully deliver some spectacular results to shareholders."


And United Minerals likes to look after its shareholders.

Earlier this year the company made a one-for-three options issue to existing shareholders at 2c exercisable at 20c. The issue raised more than $600,000 and means the company has almost $5 million

in the bank, enough to fund its plans for the next 18 months.


At that time, if the company continues to deliver results, there will be a swag of options due to be exercised that could pump another $8 million into United Minerals' kitty.


Chief executive Jim Richards, an experienced explorer with several discoveries to his credit, is clearly excited when talking about the company's bauxite potential.

His team of geologists and technical staff were scouring the Kimberley for diamonds last year but, unlike many explorers who had traipsed the ground previously, were not blinkered in their search and kept an eye out for other opportunities.


It was then they came across the bauxite and, seeing the potential, pegged as much ground as possible, ending up with more than 6800 square kilometres in the North Kimberley Bauxite Province.


The area's bauxite potential is already well known. The world-class Mitchell Plateau project, which hosts a resource of some 460 million tonnes, is located in the vicinity.


But there is another very important piece to this jigsaw - energy, and more specifically, gas.

The bauxite project sits in the North Kimberley where, just off the coast, lie some massive undeveloped gas fields. Inpex is proposing to develop the Ichthys gas-condensate field which hosts about 9 trillion cubic feet of gas, while Woodside Petroleum's Brecknock and other Browse Basin projects have more than 20tcf of gas and 300 million barrels of oil.


"During the course of the year United Minerals has placed increasing importance upon its bauxite project, especially as the intention of Woodside and Inpex to develop major gas fields has firmed," Richards said.


"These gas projects in the Browse Basin have world-class gas reserves and when production commences, industrial-scale energy is expected to be available to this mineral-rich area for the first time.


"It must be stressed that the development of a major gas project in the vicinity of United Minerals' bauxite project is highly significant and this is the major driver for the project.


"Such vast energy resources could open up the viability of an alumina refinery and possible aluminium smelter, thus substantially adding value to both bauxite and gas."


Richards said such a proposal was also expected to be most favourably received by both the State and Federal governments.


A major exploration program has been mapped out with the aim of proving up a world-class bauxite resource in the North Kimberley, and one capable of sustaining a stand-alone alumina refinery.


Already the company has drilled a Phase I reconnaissance program with a total of 508 holes for 3486m at the Grass Hill and-Couchman Range bauxite projects. This has shown there are significant amounts of bauxite within the UMC project areas and a number of the holes do also show some depth of bauxitic material.

Benefication would increase the potential tonnages of bauxite available and previous studies (not UMC) in the region have shown these types of bauxite ores do react well to a simple and inexpensive crushing, washing and screening procedure.


Further assay work (XRF) is currently underway on selected samples to assess the amount of Total Chemical Alumina (TCA) present. This will assist in judging the potential upside of benefication.

Furthermore, the Mitchell Plateau South Project was not able to be accessed in 2006 and is yet to be drilled.

The next 12 months should see a steady stream of results from the bauxite project and investors will be able to clearly see how the picture is building.

Iron ore is the other string in United Minerals' bow and you couldn't get a much better location than the company's newly acquired Pilbara project.


United Minerals has managed to put its foot on 263sq.km of ground right next to BHP Billiton's producing Area C mine. Bought from DFD Rhodes, the deal cost United Minerals just $200,000 cash, 5 million shares at I6c and a 1.5% production royalty.


"This is a major acquisition for the company, especially given these tenements lie in the heart of the Pilbara iron ore province," Richards said.

"Drill targets will be defined by the end of 2006 and we will move ahead to undertake clearances and to drill the best targets as soon as possible."


Richards said the key to the iron ore project was the four major items of Pilbara infrastructure that either pass over or are adjacent to the company's ground: BHP Billiton's Area C mine, Rio Tinto's railway including the West Angelas spur line, BHP Billiton's railway and the Great Northern Highway to Port Hedland.


"There is lots of iron ore in the Pilbara, but much of it is stranded, whereas we are essentially at Pilbara Central, in terms of both mines and infrastructure," Richards said.


Developing a full-scale mine may not even have to be considered.


The major miners have started showing a willingness to deal with the juniors and United Minerals' task could be as simple as proving up a resource and selling at the gate to a major.


Driving the United Minerals story is a heavyweight board of highly experienced mining professionals.

Chairman Phil Crabb is a mining veteran with a host of discoveries and mining projects to his name. Also on the board is iron ore marketing expert Mai Randall and

veteran businessman Alan Birchmore, who has wide experience in developing major projects.


Link to comment
Share on other sites

Confirmation here that FMG are more than happy to share their rail and port network.......UMC leases are 30 to 40 kms away from the FMG railway. FMG also talking to other potential users, according to this story.


UMC own 40% of the same central Pilbara marra mamba iron ore foundation that hosts BHPs Mining Area C and RIO's/Hancock - Hope Downs project.....some 1.8 billion tonns of high grade ore, according to these big companies.....with big exploration upside.


If UMC could establish a high grade iron ore deposit of say just 50 million tons.......(and likely more to be discovered) their capitalisation would quickly go to about $600 million.....or $3.50 per share.


Strongly callled here in previous posts....and the share price keeps going up. One to research for sure......they have had a recent name change from UKD to now UMC.







FMG offers to help on ore port upgrade

19th January 2007, 8:00 WST


Andrew ForrestÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s Fortescue Metals Group has backed its pledge to bust open transport access in the Pilbara with an offer to build key infrastructure that may underpin a $186 million upgrade of public wharf facilities at Port Hedland.


Fortescue has always guaranteed third-party access to port and rail infrastructure now under construction as part of its $3.7 billion Pilbara iron ore empire.


But it yesterday confirmed it might also build a dedicated ore conveyor linking its own facilities at Anderson Point with a multi-user public wharf planned by the Port Hedland Port Authority at neighbouring Utah Point.


Fortescue government affairs manager Julian Tapp said the public wharf was vital for the development of new mines in the Pilbara. Fortescue also believed a conveyor from its own rail-unloading facilities could make both the wharf and FortescueÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s own railway more attractive to prospective users.


ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“We wrote to the port and said weÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢d be interested in using it (the public wharf) and . . . if thereÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s reasonable demand, we could stick a conveyor across to Utah Point,ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ he said.


The proposed kilometre-long conveyor link could dramatically improve the efficiency of the planned 16 million tonnes a year public wharf, which will otherwise be accessible only by road unless mining giant BHP Billiton is forced to provide third party access to its passing Goldsworthy-Finucane Island railway.


Under a long-standing expansion plan, the PHPA aims to cater for an expected increase in third party bulk mineral exports, including iron ore produced by junior miners such as Atlas Iron, by building the new wharf adjacent to BHP BillitonÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s Finucane Island facility.


The new wharf will replace the small public wharf on the eastern side of the port, which will instead handle higher value materials such as oil and consumables, significantly reducing truck movements through the centre of the port town.


The upgrade is expected to be approved in the next few weeks so that the facility can enter service late next year. The project would be underwritten by user fees and commitments from prospective users of the facility.


A further $200 million Stage 3 expansion is also believed to be under consideration that would include dedicated rail access to the public facility.


Mr Tapp said the proposed conveyor would give Fortescue greater flexibility. Its Anderson Point berth would be reserved for Cape-size vessels, while shipments destined for FortescueÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s smaller customers could be loaded onto Panamax vessels at the public wharf.


Emerging miners were also more likely to use only smaller Panamax vessels, he said, while conveyor access to the public wharf would give Fortescue additional loading capacity during any expansion or maintenance work at its own facilities.


Mr Tapp also confirmed Fortescue may launch a fresh application to the National Competition Council to have BHP BillitonÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s Goldsworthy railway ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“declaredÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ a service under the Trade Practices Act and opened to other users.


Last month the Federal Court ruled that neither BHP BillitonÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s Goldsworthy nor Newman railways should be exempt from national competition laws, while the Australian Competition Tribunal is expected to hear FortescueÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s appeal against the Federal GovernmentÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s refusal to declare the Newman railway before the middle of the year.


Fortescue has also begun negotiations with prospective third party users of its own rail and port operations.











Link to comment
Share on other sites

Probably fair to say.....little known stock - maybe deserves more attention from investors in the iron ore sector.


They have secured 3 quite distinctly different, iron ore exploration leases all in close proximity to each other......in the central Pilbara.


These 3 locations..... although each is close by.........have different foundation, and really do offer the company three chances to make a major iron ore discovery. These target areas are:


Southern Flank - Marra Mamba type ore / Fork North - Brockman Type ore / Camp Hill - Marra Mamba type ore target.


Note these 3 location names.......Southern Flank...Fork North....Camp Hill,

and have a look at these drill results from these locations in 1987.





You will see the link towards the end of the report.





And this from the companies announcement of 19th Dcecember, 2006.


Grades Up To 65% Fe.


Drill Targets Identified.


ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ United Minerals Corporation has NL (UMC) have conducted an initial field mapping and grab sampling program over the CompanyÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s Pilbara Iron Project.

ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ Three areas of outcropping iron ore mineralisation were mapped and sampled with high grade (plus 60% Fe) surface mineralisation being returned from rock chip samples on all three areas.


That high grade iron ore is outcropping on the UMC tenements is highly encouraging and does indicate the potential for the project.


Zones of iron-enrichment in banded iron formations (BIF) of both the Marra Mamba and Brockman Formations show a clear structural control. Iron deposits are situated near the intersection of two different sets of open synclinal folds, the UMC ground is in a favourable structural setting for hosting these structurally controlled iron ore deposits. In addition to this, the tenements are also prospective for blind mineralisation and further work is ongoing to identify these areas.


I have show here the grab sample assay results from only the Fork North location.


UI001RC Fork North Brockman 62.5


UI002RC Fork North Brockman 60.0


UI004BRC Fork North Brockman 64.3


UI004RC Fork North Brockman 62.5


UI005RC Fork North Brockman 65.5


UI006RC Fork North Brockman 62.7


UI018RC Fork North Brockman 63.4


UI019RC Fork North Brockman 63.9


UI020RC Fork North Brockman 56.8


UI025RC Fork North Brockman 61.8


UI026RC Fork North Brockman 63.0


UI027RC Fork North Brockman 63.9


UI028RC Fork North Brockman 64.0


UI029RC Fork North Brockman 62.7


Assay results show high grade iron ore content.....buy typical of some Brockman have medium to high phorphous content. Modern China steel mines can now process high brockman....albeit with a cost penalty to the contract iron ore price. Portman are now mining much higher phorphous. UMC may have the option of blending Brockman ore with theirf Marra Mamba product.....but we can talk about that another time.


Summary from the company...... "UMC is highly encouraged by the early location of high grade iron mineralisation and resulting drill targets within the CompanyÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s tenements. It is also worth noting that the generation of blind targets is currently being worked on and there is considerable potential for further iron mineralisation within the tenement area. "

Link to comment
Share on other sites

In reply to: JJP on Saturday 27/01/07 11:36am

Usually not logical to even attempt to work out iron ore reserves from surface sampling......of course it just can't be done, without depth measurements for a start.


However, its hard not to get excited about the results of their mapping and rock chip sampling, reported via the ASX on the 19th December, 2006........expecially in view of the central Pilbara location - and some old drill data reported in the same area from Goldsworthy Mining.(in 1987)


On page 3 of that 19th December release (Fork North brockman)......it seems that the UMC geologist has located surface mineralisation of some 2.5 km in length and up to 300 metres in width. They undertook widespread 7 samples from various locations within this zone........and a significant 8th sample from a location 500 metres to the north of 62.7% (U1006RC).....which does not seem to be part of the surface zone.


Now if we take it one step further, just for purposes of this exercise.....lets just use a mineralisation depth of say 15 metres across this 750 sq meter zone(ie 2.5 km x 300 metres) - remember this is whats on the surface only.....and a iron ore density of a fairly typical Pilbara 3 tonnes for each sq metre.........comes to 33 million tonnes of high grade ore.....from one location.


Could be a load of hypotical rubbish......except for one thing......in the 1987 drill, up 100 million tons of high grade ore were reported in this same area by Goldsworthy. (UKD ref 4/10/06 announcement)


By way of trying to value what a discovery of 33 million tons of high grade fe would be worth......company like MGX started off with about that amount of reserves at Tallering Peak. MGX when up to a market cap of $300 million as exports got underway.......at the start of the iron ore boom.


Pilbara has port and rail facilities much cheaper than that of MGX's mid-west location. Most interesting stock - which in my opinion cannort be compared with all the other smaller iron ore plays, that ofter get a mention here.



Link to comment
Share on other sites

Always in the back of investors minds, is the question - well if these tenements are so good.......how come UMC managed to secure them in the first place.?


I have asked this question of management....as to why BHP released these odd shaped parcels in the first place. Seems to draw a blank with them.....they either don't know or won't say....or its too complicated.


However.....MIGHT and I stress might, have now come across the answer......and probably UMC management may not be aware of this situation also.


BHP got serious about looking to develop Mining Area C in about the year 2000. Previously the project had been owned by Goldsworthy Mining (remember the 1987 drill results undertaken by Goldsworthy).


BHP looked for any State regulations that applied to this area. In fact there was a State government act called ......MOUNT GOLDSWORTHY AGREEMENT ACT 1964.... (maybe there was a proposal to mine around then- I do not know). Anyway I have come across a copy of this legislation on line.......updated in 2000 with details of BHP's joint venture partners in the project, etc


It definately refers to what we know as Mining Area C.


Under the terms of this legislation......very specific mention (and included in a latter modification) - is made to the aggregate area not exceeding 300 square miles within the mining lease.


Here is an extract:


4) If and when the Minister has approved or is deemed to have approved the Joint VenturersÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ proposals pursuant to this clause the Joint Venturers may apply for a mineral lease of mining area ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Â¦ÃƒƒÂ¢Ãƒ¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…âہ“CÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚ or any part or parts thereof (not exceeding in aggregate area 300 square miles inclusive of the areas of the original mineral lease granted under clause 8(2)(a) hereof and the second mineral lease if granted under clause 11(6) hereof and in the shape of a parallelogram or parallelograms) and the Minister shall cause any necessary survey to be made of the land




Without going to a huge amount of effort....it does look like BHP remaining parcel, lease number ML281A....or whats left of Goldsworthy original TR3156H does consist of about the required 450 sq kms.


Might have been a situation in about 2000, whereby BHP undertook a desktop survey to provide compliance with the legislation.


Would also held to explain this somewhat strange circumstance that UMC discussed....how could this come about....maybe we now have the answers......UMC quote follow:




ÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’â€Å¡Ãƒƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ Two of the tenements have previously documented substantial iron ore mineralisation. The centre of these mineralised locations (as plotted on Government data) fall inside the UKD tenements although close to the boundary with BHPÃÆâ€â„¢ÃƒÆ’ƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¡Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¬ÃƒÆ’¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢Ã¢â€š¬Ã…¡Ãƒâ€šÃ‚¬ÃƒÆ’…¾Ãƒâہ¡ÃƒÆ’‚¢s adjacent Mining lease. It is the opinion of the UKD board that substantial portions of these two mineralised areas are on the UKD tenements, although some will inevitably fall onto the BHP Billiton ground.


They are referring to 140 million tons of FE at Camp Hill and Fork Hill.



These posts have a very bullish tone.......I would honestly suggest however that you do your own research and obviously be careful....especially with exploration companies.l

Link to comment
Share on other sites

Create an account or sign in to comment

You need to be a member in order to leave a comment

Create an account

Sign up for a new account in our community. It's easy!

Register a new account

Sign in

Already have an account? Sign in here.

Sign In Now

  • Create New...