Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Seems like a no-brainer to me. Front the money to complete the FS and satisfy EXIM. The sooner that is done, the sooner the company stock will likely rise considerably. In light of all the stock, warrants, and options these guys own, they make a huge profit backing this with some skin in the game. It works out better than Lind or Yorkville and there's no dilution. What am I missing?
Here's a question begging for an answer:
In the past, the company had a revolving credit line backed by Mark. The terms were favorable for Mark and the company needed the money. Why doesn't Dean do something along the same lines and extend credit to the company--enough money to complete the FS and EXIM consultants? When those two dominoes fall, he could be paid back, the company's valuation would be much improved, and he would be considerably richer on paper. Sounds like a win-win situation. The sooner those things happen, the better for all. I've singled out Dean, but the same could be said for any deep-pocketed person who is invested in the company. So, the question is, why hasn't this happened?
Yeah, I remember that but I am looking for confirmation on EXIM website. Those terms would be favorable.
No disrespect. I thought it had previously been posted but I didn't recall who or when.
Trying to answer this question but this is as far as I've gotten:
A Letter of Interest (LI) is a non-binding indication of EXIM’s general interest in a proposed transaction or project and provides indicative general financing terms that EXIM is prepared to consider based on a limited review of the transaction/project.
EXIM Preliminary Commitments (PCs) are non-binding preliminary offers of financing terms based on a credit evaluation and policy review, then approved by EXIM’s Board of Directors. PCs require more stringent due diligence standards than LIs, but less stringent standards for final commitments.
From this informative page: https://www.exim.gov/about/special-initiatives/ctep/critical-minerals
Do you think the details of the non-binding term sheet are publicly available?
Thanks for posting the link!
I don't have a breakdown of the after hours trades but it did spike over $3.00.
Walter, your statement, "Yorkville was a necessary evil" is not followed by an explanation as to why. Did management have to get in bed with Yorkville? Were they forced to make arrangements with Yorkville on this type of toxic financing?
Management is accountable for the SPAC failure. With the mini banking crisis that unfolded before the deal was voted on, I think someone needed to hit the pause button. I also think many people had already voted their shares prior to the mini crisis which has been used for more of an excuse than is reasonable in my mind.
But Yorkville? SPAC deal was a failure (I hold management responsible). Yorkville was ill-advised (I hold management responsible). FS progress has been delayed due to lack of funds (I hold management responsible). Shareprice is pathetic (I hold management responsible).
Was there no failure mode analysis as part of project planning so they could recognize the possibility of a SPAC failure and how Yorkville financing could compound that failure? I'm not an engineer or a financial planning expert, but the possibility of the SPAC faceplanting and toxic Yorkville financing compounding a bad situation should have been recognized as a possibility. Where was the prospective thinking on all this? We have been mopping up the mess ever since. In some ways, the mess has been getting worse. Management is responsible and accountable, not a mini banking crisis. Management failed big time and we are shouldering the results of those failures.
Yes, management has been successful in accomplishing many great things and I give them credit for those things. I believe they are hard working solid individuals. But there have been some dismal failings and they don't get a pass from me. I personally do not have a lot of financial assets and I don't have the luxury of waiting many, many years for this asset to be profitable. My retirement has already been compromised by financial plans made 6-8 years ago that included some profit from Niocorp. I am losing money on this investment and if you factor in the time value of money, I am losing a lot of money after more than a dozen years of ever-lengthening timelines to completion. Needless to say, I am not happy with management's failures to deliver on expectations they have set and I'm tired of excuses. Can't sugar coat this. Can't change the past and I try to be forward thinking, but I'm not willing to turn my back on past failures. I agree that there is a big disconnect between shareprice and the real value of the project. I cannot bank any of the real value and that's a present day reality.
Thanks for this information! Maybe they should open a lemonade stand.
Stellantis?
That's what I was thinking ;)
Does anyone have insight to this morning's share price increase?
Thanks for sharing your exchange with Jim, NCT. Your detailed questions were very precise and flushed out some important clarifications on where things stand.
"The registrant requires additional time to complete the identified report due to the need to supply additional information to its auditors."
Curious about this delay.
Is there something behind the bush?
I believe they plan to purchase scandium from other sources and start producing master alloy. When Elk Creek is producing its own scandium, they will use that for master alloy production.
Nice article! Thanks for sharing.
Yest he is presenting at the summit:
Brian Menell is a British/South African businessman with over 25 years’ experience funding, developing and managing mining, energy, trading and agri-industry projects across Africa, Europe and the Americas.
He is the Chairman & CEO of TechMet Limited, a leading metals investment company with a portfolio of assets that responsibly produce, process, and recycle the metals that are critical to building the global energy transition.
TechMet’s portfolio of assets includes lithium extraction from both brine and hard rock sources, nickel and cobalt hydroxide production from laterite ores, vanadium chemical production from industrial waste feedstocks, rare earth production and processing, tin and tungsten mining, lithium-ion battery recycling, and high-performance cathode manufacturing. Brian serves as a Director of a number of TechMet’s investee companies, including: Trinity Metals Ltd., US Vanadium LLC, Brazilian Nickel Ltd. and TechMet-Mercuria AG.
Brian Menell is a member of the Wilson Center Global Advisory Council, a member of the RUSI’s National Security and Net Zero Transition Advisory Board, and serves on the US State Department Clean Energy Resources Advisory Committee (CERAC).
Mineral Superpowers and the Rise of the Global South
Tuesday, March 12, 2024
2:35 PM - 3:15 PM
Here is the link that GMan previously posted: https://safesummit.org/speaker-directory/
I believe Brian Menell from Techmet is speaking at the same series of meetings where mark is presenting next week. as
The bureaucracy I refer to has extended back for years. I think it was a good four years ago that Jim testified at Senator Murkowski's hearing. Government has been dragging their feet big time. Mark has been singing this song about China and critical minerals for more than 10 years.
This is a big deal in my opinion and could be a very big deal if it gets through some of the bureaucratic obstacles slowing us down. In addition, more media coverage and penetration to the corporate and investment world could help advance the Elk Creek project. Personally, I think this resonates across the political divide and should be a no brainer to promote.
Thanks!
By and large, the REE Niocorp plans to produce are needed for the magnets in the motors that EVs utilize. It's important to distinguish between the batteries that are required for EVs and the magnets for the motors. These are two totally different components to the EV revolution. Niobium batteries may play a role and that could impact the company.
Battery technology is rapidly evolving. There are no guarantees that niobium will play a significant role in the eventual mass-produced EV batteries of the future. However, if niobium batteries become widely adapted, and supplying niobium sourced from a domestic supply is required, this combination would be very favorable for Niocorp. The article was shared for information purposes as, I believe, many posters here are interested in battery developments.
I'll take this opportunity to comment further about batteries. While many focus on batteries for the auto industry, there are many other common products that could be markets for rapid-charging, dependable batteries that can withstand many charging cycles. Lawn mowers, leaf blowers, golf-carts, scooters, wheel chairs, cell phones, and dozens of other products come to mind. Will niobium play a role in any of this? Who knows? As I opened with, battery technology is evolving. I and many here are trying to keep abreast of the evolution.
I've been here since March 2011. I am keeping my fingers crossed.
Thanks Walter! Patience will be rewarded.
I don't dispute that Mark is trying. At the same time, this quote from Yoda is spot on: “Do or do not. There is no try.”
You have an informed opinion and your reasoning is sound.
AO, I can't provide factual data in much the same way that I can't provide factual data on when shareholders cast their votes on the agenda for NB's annual meeting. The choice about redeeming or not was known well in advance. Why wait to the last minute? I don't know why GX shareholders would vote for the merger and then not convert their shares. At the end of the day, in the absence of clear cut factual information, you can choose to accept managements' explanation or be skeptical of that explanation. Both positions have merit.
I was a GX shareholder. I voted about 2 weeks before the meeting. Same with voting for NB's annual meeting. I cast my votes about 3 weeks ago. The meeting was yesterday. I contend that most GX shareholders voted well before the bank failures. This is not to say that some shareholders might have waited to the last minute and then voted, but I am very doubtful that's the majority.
I don't buy the explanation that Mark has offered. I admit that I could be wrong. There were predictions about redemptions that were made and posted on this board weeks or months ahead of the GX shareholder meeting and well before the failure of Silicon Valley Bank. Those predictions were right. Just be open to the possibility that the explanation about redemption rate that has been tendered might be convenient and sound plausible but not actually factual.
I also accept that I will probably never know the answer for sure.
I agree wholeheartedly! Respect is important in civil discourse. Differing opinions that are openly shared invites learning and consideration of other perspectives.
Thank you and the feeling of respect is mutual. I agree that the past is the past and we need to be forward looking. However, I don't accept the explanation for the failure of the SPAC deal as resulting from the bank failures that spooked the market for the reasons I explained in the prior post.
I do not readily accept that explanation AO. I had a small number of GX shares because I was curious what the process would be for redemption. I didn't vote the day of the meeting. I voted a week beforehand to convert my shares to Niocorp. This was before the bank failures. How many other people had already voted before the bank failures. It is what it is, but I have reason to be very skeptical of the explanation we have been given about the high number of SPAC redemptions.
I saw it on my news feed this morning and laughed when they quoted a different Mark Smith. Although some may disagree, I do think all the ESG work our management team has done positions us better than many mining projects.
Thanks for putting up the actual link.