Lethal,

You are not the only one who is a bit impatient. Anyway, it's true that Magpie deposit is huge, yes some 1 B tonnes in-situ 44% Fe, 11%Ti, and other good stuff. Take half of that (I am rounding off the 46% to 50%) FNC Magpie portion would be in the 0.5 B tonnes. In fact Magpie technical report says 293M tonnes = approx 0.400 B tonnes which is close enough for guessing the value of FNC Magpie portion.

A rough estimate would be, noting that I did not use any calculator, is as follow:

- comparison with CHM: CHM has about 1 B tonne of Fe but at a lower grade 29% versus 43%. So, the tonnage can be scaled down to about 0.700 B tonnes of Fe (no Ti for CHM which could be worth quite a bit for FNC, But let's just compare the Fe portion taking into account just a bit from Ti credit for Magpie, the value of Magpie contribution to FNC would be about half of CHM (Market Cap = $98M, say $100M. Hence FNC value would be about $40-50 M (compared to FNC cCap of $20M). FNC is undervalued by a factor of at least 2 (trowing away other holdings such RoF, Lac Lamelee, etc.

- comparison with Argex: the tonnage for RGX Labache is much less (approx 40 M tonnes of ore with Ti grade of about the same (11%). RGX counts on the Ti and the Cap = $98M. Since the tonnage is about a factor of 10 less than Magpie (or factor of 6 for conservatism). So, why FNC is at $20M compared to approx $100M for RGX. Should the value of FNC be a lot more than $100M?

May be my above calculations without a calculator are all out of whack. The whole thing does not make any sense.

goldhunter