Member Info for Daveavt

And no negotiated trade, went straight through online.

That was me, thought I'd add a bit of liquidity to the market seeing as people were saying they couldn't buy shares.

Thanks for that little deramp again. 'consider carefully the motivations of some of the contributors on this page. ' Says wizard that only talks down a share when they want to buy in and not a cheep when it's on the way up'

Brilliant, I guess you just think these companies keep going around buying assets, drilling holes, sell at a profit, next person buys, drill some more holes, sell at a profit ad infinitum yes? Toral is not as progressed as us. If you want to see I relative price, you'd need to see what price ferrum sells Toral for, in the FUTURE, not what it sold for in the past, unmeasured, with a company attached, and sold to a mining company. I know you're just here to deramp so it doesn't actually matter what you try and reply with.

I think you missed my point on purpose. Toral was bought with a company attached to it, and was larger in size, and was 100 percent purchase instead of 85, hence why it cost much more, but was sold without any extensive drilling campaign, so the price you keep harping on about what it was sold for is irrelevant in comparison to what is currently happening to the outcome of LS. Two completely different scenarios.

Yes, so lagoa wasn't even close to Toral in size, hence why it was much cheaper. I just stated that...

You're right, Toral isn't a benchmark. Ferrum purchased the company Goldcrest off of Thc, with it's debts and liabilities etc, who owned the licences for Toral. Ferrum since then haven't even completed a 6 hole study on the site, they are not even where we are. So in summary, a company was sold that owned the licence to an unmeasured asset, to a company that has since sat on it with no intention to mine it. We are completing a multi angled multi hole measured site, larger resource, and by the gist of it looking to sell to someone directly to mine, and make revenue out of, hence the fact of the government being interested in workforce, income etc connected with the mine. Remember also Toral had 4.5mt inferred, and Lagoa only 1.5mt when it was purchased. 'Inferred resources are not based on any drillhole campaign and are an educated guess regarding the mineral reserves in the land base in question. Inferred resources rely on seismic data and an understanding of the geology of the area in question. As per balance sheets, etc. The market often gives little to no value to inferred resources unless there is a massive ongoing drilling campaign which is expected to convert most of the inferred resources to indicated and/or measured. Many segments of the materials sector, such a potash, iron ore, and molybdenum to name a few, often get valued on measured resources alone.' So, neither had extensive drilling campaigns when sold, hence their low purchase price which is irrelevant now.

Wentsland, What would you pay for a resource with over a billion in the ground value, and the fact of a location and facilities easy to mine, and support from your local government. Would you pay 1 percent?

Hi, the 1.5 billion is the value of the minerals in the ground, not the sale price of the mine. So we are saying even if the sale price was even a small percentage, it would still be a large amount.

'I've decided to trade it for a 5th time' Translated as 'I've decided to deramp for a 5th time and try and quote 7 and 5p for the fifth time which it's never even gone near in a hope to scare new shareholders' LOL

I'm not interested in your constant 'by the way here is my trading strategy for the 50th time, which I like to post over and over again as an attempt to deramp'

You don't add royalties to a 'valuation process'. Do you understand the concept of a royalty? I don't think you do hence your comment. And I said they are not proving it to sell to someone 'to sit on'. When we bought it, we are not a mining company. We will be selling it to someone that is. We won't be selling it to another investment company, like us. We know this from the mention of talks with the government about the mine.

If you knew what you were talking about why did you just say 'no royalties were paid on the sale of toral' Firstly, you don't say royalties on a 'sale', the royalties are on mined tonnage. Secondly, we are not proving it just to sell to someone else to sit on.

Once again, that was not a proven asset, so can be at 80 percent less of it's land value, and not taking into account the value of the minerals.

Royalty on the minerals mined by the mining company that purchases it. Like I said, go and study up on it.

Wizard you need to go study how mining assets are valued. Going back to the royalty rates I mentioned, just for zinc it's currently 2.5 to 5 percent per ton. Zinc is $3200, so that's 80 to 160 dollars per ton royalty that could be requested in a deal. And there is an estimated ten million tons of it. The way you are trying to value (deramp) it is wrong.

No, I was talking 5 million bare minimum to us. Forget what we paid for it, it was an unproven, half estimated resource, that hence doesn't factor even the value of the minerals. Mafl are turning it into a proven, over double size resource, that will take into account the value of the minerals.

And that's excluding the fact they could take a royalty of each ton extracted. Even just a dollar is ten million dollars, for a mineral currently priced at $3200 per ton. And that's just zinc....

Because of this, I quote....' In general, before an extraction program can begin, Resources and Probable Reserves must be “proven up” to the category of Proven Reserves, the most geologically certain category. This requires additional cost - expenditure on drilling (information gathering) at the site, which will make assets in the category of Resources and Probable Reserves less valuable then Proven Reserves. There is a significant premium paid for operating mines, where reserve and cost uncertainty has been reduced. According to major mining property acquisitions Proven and Probable Reserves are valued at a 44% discount, Measured and Indicated Resources at an 83% discount, with no value being attributed to Inferred Resources. The uncertainty surrounding the estimate of extractable reserve is called reserve risk.'... now when we bought this property it wasn't even a FULLY 'measured and indicated resource'. MAFL is in the process of making it a PROVEN resource, and over double it's previous mere 'estimate'. And not only that, it's a resource that has the infrastructure around it to mine it. So the 177k paid could be at a near 80 percent discount to what it should have been alone, let alone we have doubled the resource, have infrastructure, and more minerals found than first estimated. Resource will be 5 million plus bare minimum.

Marineville, we've broken 20 a few times..