Ok I'll give it to you that calculating the in situ value of a deposit can be useful in certain instances.... If for example one wanted to compare the current MCAP of two companies holding the same type of mineral deposit (as MaCloud has posted), and to use the ratios of their respective MCAPs to in situ valu as a crude means of determining their relative overvaluedness or undervaluedness (ie. Argex has a larger MCAP than FNC despite the fact that the insitu value of FNC's Magpie deposit alone is >3x that of RGX's La Blanche deposit (of course the deposits are at different stages, one uses inferred, the other measured and indicated (as MaCloud included), etc) . Also, the insitu value provides us with an idea of how the deposit could potentially impact the existing market given its size (as you alluded to, and as I provided the example of the Lac Tio (I don't know what the Lac Tio TiO2% is, but the Magpie is potentially much larger) But, other than that, knowing the insitu value doesn't really help us unless we can be provided with a concrete example of how that might benefit us during a real market sell of the property.

I don't want Argex to tell me that the insitu value of their property is $24 Billion, unless they can also tell me that Company A with deposit in situ valu B , sold to Company C for $X which represented Y% of its' in situ value. Only then does the in situ value have much utility.

Indeed, if FNCs Magpie was to ever got bought out by Rio Tinto or someone else for just 0.1% of its in situ value, then FNC would be looking at a value per share twice the stock price of where it has been sitting on average over the last 6 months. Is 0.1% a reasonable expectation? I don't know...I can't imagine that there are too many recent transactions of Titanium/Iron/Vanadium properties to use for comparative purposes (if anyone comes across such a transaction please post). If none is available perhaps a good surrogate might be comparing Magpie based solely on its iron content (and assuming the Vanadium and TiO2 content have at least a neutral effect on the value of the deposit).

I think that most of the long-time holders of FNC, and the regular posters, already have an idea of the insitu value of its principle properties;although, I would add (and most on this board would agree) that one of FNCs chief weaknesses has been its lack of promotion, so it doesn't hurt that potential new stockholders of the company learn of some of these numbers (despite the fact that others might consider posting those numbers as a "soft pump") . There is always the inherent "danger" though that someone will extrapolate those numbers into "value per share" and create unrealistic SP expectations for a novice investor. No one on this board has done that so far, and I expect that they would be quickly rebuked (civilly and respectfully ) if they did....so calculate away, but I'll remember how rife the Freewest board was with speculative takeout offers, based on the deposit's in situ value of ~$50 Billion (if I recall correctly). In that instance their Chromite deposit was sold for ~ 0.4 % ($200 million) of the in situ value.

Respectfully and cheers,

Luker