Thanks Luke, you were quite correct and thanks for the edit (green NOT brown). I was savoring a tall glass of Guiness at the time and was probably fixated on the glass, which was at least half full. I am an eternal optimist, and am simply waiting and watching for the right time to load up.

As an indication of how close we might potentially be to the tide coming back in, note that market prices for all the major miners have escalated significantly and steadily over the last six months or so. A big part of that is because many Asians/funds now see these stocks as a better inflation hedge than owning commodity contracts, which are now more of a short term manipulative device used by Western funds.

That is significant, because once the big miners see a newly sustained equity pricing level that is more reflective of long term value, they will begin to see value in greenfield expansion. We will suddenly "be there", and the NOTs will get grabbed up. CLF for example has seen this as inevitable, and has taken effective strategic stakes in a number of small outfits at bargain basement prices. I pointed out in a prior post the wisdom of NOT management avoiding the engagement ring effect, and I believe it is more a matter of time, allbeit a drawn out and frustrating wait.

The main point of my post is that Xstrata is not a likely partner for such a physical development. FWR was a major opportunity for X in a core business, could have been taken for pocket change, but they passed on it. CLF can surely develop a strategic partnership with someone who is nickel-centric but X seems very unlikely. Little has changed since FWR went on the block , and while I agree with the concept as presented, I would hope for a Vale, Hudbay, or even a Sherritt. I'd vote for HBM myself, they can operate well in this environment. More copper and even zinc would be a big help. Governments' cost sharing will be key to CLF just going it alone. They love the cheap assets that are more or less in their back-yard.

I agree that "anything is possible". What is incomprehensible is why would Xstrata pay megabucks now for control of an asset they could have easily outbid CLF for way back ? If you look at historic posts around the time of the FWR bidding, you will see this issue discussed a number of times.

I will certainly allow for the theoretical but somewhat paranoid possibility that X said to CLF "We won't bid, you get it cheap, and we make a deal later" . But not a chance of this in the real world. Let's face the reality, X is dominated by operators and financial risk managers, some of the best in major mining. But they would need absolutely everything , including construction and offtake marketing , risk managed to the nth before a final capital commitment. CLF is far more nimble and entrepreneurial and saw great future leverage in the control of the cr that ,IMHO, Xstrata simply missed or ignored.

I also believe Ontario, as mining friendly a jurisdiction as it is, would present serious complexities for Xstrata , not the least of which would be FN relationships.

Thanks for a very informative and interesting post. I would like to present my view of the same data , much of which should be set in the historic perspective of the CLF takeover of FWR.

There was no doubt at that time that many posters (myself included) were quite surprised to see Xstrata do nothing to protect its major cr interests. But they did not, and the cost of attempting to wind back that clock would be in the billions, not the $200 million it would have taken to seal both FWR and possibly much of the RoF. That is historic fact. Why did they pass on that opportunity ?

Xstrata not only has many other opportunities, but also the current regime there is not known to be mine developers. In that context, they would be more likely to attempt a takeover of CLF than attempt to develop a major infrastructure and mine. They also do not appear to have the types of strategic alliances such as Arcellor that provides some backbone to CLF's aggressive approach. Development risk management is not in my view their long suit.

So the chances of a second round strategic development by Xstrata are slim to none except thgrough a $20 billion plus takeover of CLF.

What might be possible is an alliance with CLF but that seems equally remote.

Finally, we are seeing virtually no significant brownfield developments other than in precious metals. That is likely to remain the situation until either the world financial system has further stabilised on a number of fronts, or the majors are swimming in so much cash they have nothing else to apply it to. More likely shareholders are looking for dividends for the same reasons, and mining megaprojects will remain few and far between.

Hopefully some change in that perspective comes sooner rather than later.

We saw the OSC head in the press the other day flashing and gnarling his new false teeth. He was reportedly seen out on Bay St the other day shopping for a hat that has WOLF in large letters.

Of paramount importance in Ontario in particular is that ALL drilling results be published within 10 days of receipt by management. Some in the industry prefer the current highly subjective system which leaves retail holders in the dark unduly and unnecessarily.

There is no such thing as a drill hole that is not material. Disclosure lies at the root of most Bay St. abuses. But who else has a WOLF on a short leash ?

All kidding aside, NOT's problems will oinly go away as the resource expands to world class from mediocre, and the price of nickel rises/firms. Currently majors have virtually no budgets for new heavy mine infrastructure development. With international political and economic risks high, all capital is reserved for incremental development with relatively short paybacks.

Yes, and another in Aussieland today (Riverside) , indicates we are well undervalued.

Looks to me like a shell game going on with major shareholdings. Hopefully OSC is cognizant of the timing , relationships and reporting requirements. The volumes tell me something big is at hand.