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.
Hopefully this helps clear up some confusion. For this example lets assume sport price of gold is $2000/oz and spot price of silver is $25oz.
Mexus ships to the refiner carbon filters with the following estimated assay amounts;
Gold - 5oz & Silver 10oz.
Mexus would receive an upfront payment of 90% of those assay values.
Gold 5 oz @ $2000 = $10,000 - Will be paid 90% or $9,000
Silver 10 oz @ $25 oz = $250 - Will be paid 90% or $225
Total paid up front will be $9,225. I thnk we all agree on that part. Where we diverge is the following. If final payment is being made on assay amount, then once the refiner confirms the assays are accurate, they would cut a check to Mexus for the following;
Gold - 7% of $10,000 = $700 (For an all in amount of $9,700 for gold)
Silver - 5% of $250 = $12.50 (For an all in amount of $237.50 for silver)
I don't see how the refiner makes any money paying out 97% of the assayed amount. The assayed material in the carbon filter is no where near .999 purity. I don't think it is anywhere close to .900 purity. For that reason alone, I would be certain the refiner is paying the 97% and 95% amount on the amount (weight) of sellable gold and silver refined. Not assayed amount.
I don't know what 5 oz of assayed gold means in terms of actual sellable gold, but I would imagine there would be at least a 10% decrease in the amount of assayed weight and .999 sellable weight.
That's a large reason why I struggle with the credibility of this PR.
Perhaps we're splitting hairs, but I disagree. 8 claimed the company would ultimately be paid 97% of the assay gold value & 95% of assay silver (getting 90% of assay paid up front). I contend the 97% and 95% amounts will not be paid based on assayed amounts, but on actual gold/silver sold amount. I feel that is a significant distinction.
That may very well be true. My point is similar statements have been made in previous PR's and no significant increase in production occurred.
Could this time be different? Sure, there is always that possibility. But to point at the PR released today as "proof" that Mexus is now undeniably at production and consistent, significant gold sales are assured would not be prudent, as Mexus has made similar claims before without the results coming to fruition.
Interesting.... Today's PR has a deja vu quality to it. LIke many other recycled PRs.
Absolutely... I'm up for that. Great cause.
You're obviously welcome to do what you want with your money. I'm appreciattive you understand the risk and have promoted not playing with mortgage money.
However, there is a difference between start-up struggles/issues and deceptive practices. Mexus' engagement in the latter is my main issue. Mistakes happen. As long as the mistake is learned from and not repeated, it is part of the learning process.
Again, that's not happening. Promises of drilling reports and minerable reserves that meet industry standards, claims of assay values/grades and pond values that never result in sellable product, averaging drill results to get a deceptively higher number than is really there, repeated engagement of JV's who lied/stole from the company.
After the first JV, processes should have been put in place to prevent any future JVs from taking advantage of the company. (Not to mention Mexus was knowingly participating in the deception with Mar Mar).
This company and it's leader is not trustworthy and have demonstrated that repeatedly.
Then why not say producing instead of yielding?
The other point is that the sentence does not say the company yielding (or producing) 5- 6oz of gold a day. It's written so that people read it that way, but that's not what it says. It says they are processing 300 m3 per day. Who knows if the 5- 6 oz of gold in the carbon filters is per day, so far this week, this month....?
Maybe it's per day, but given the history of sneaky word-smithed statements from this company even someone with a not quite a full deck to shuffle I'm know enough to be highly skeptical.
Not apples to oranges in my book. Share price was never close to $3.00. It's never been close to $1.00. To infer otherwise is deceptive.
If you want to argue about market cap and what share price would be if Mexus Market Cap was equivalent to that of 2018 or prior that's a whole other discussion. But that is not what was being portrayed.
Yeah, Mexus was never at $3.00 share even when factoring in a pre-split.
Makes one wonder if folks have really done the due diligence they profess to have completed.
How can someone “know what you own” if they don’t even know share price has never topped $1.00?
But hey, none of that matters becasue it's all in the past. Honest Paul has it figured out..... this time.
Whatever happened with DARCO? Mexus was going to join forces with them and use some zero waste recovery method.
But hey, I'm sure this time with Fresnillo will be different.
Someone make sure the Fresnillo employees aren't stealing and hiding Mexus gold under their beds. Cue the dumb Gringo. He may be needed again to help frame a thief.
Curious as to what changed your mind about Mexus.
Hard to imagine one PR would cause you to do a 180 on your previous stance.
I doubt there would be any royalty or JV play with Mexusand Fresnillo here.
Should any mineable mineral reserves be uncovered, the only value Mexus brings to the table is the land rights. That lack of value will be reflected in any buyout offer.
Why not take the blast material over to Herradura's mine processing plant and let them processes it?
According to past PR's our problem isn't locating the high grades it's gettting the gold out of it.
Here's what it being said in this PR, without being said....
Mexus' neighbors are't really sure if there is high grade (mineable) material. Before they enter into any kind of agreement with Mexus, they want to do a drilling program. If the numbers workout, then maybe a JV of some kind. If they don't then nevermind we'll keep digging our own pit deeper.
This is not proof there is gold, this is only another company willing to take a look for themselves to see if there is any gold.
All the 1 million plus and 150 -200K high grade vein being thrown out is Mexus BS that Herradura doesn't trust so it wants to do it's own drilling.
I truly hope you get it.
I don't see it happening, but certinaly won't be upset if I'm wrong.
Wow.... So much wrong with this to unpack and explain, but I stick with the biggest items.
For ADA to be applicable there are three prongs that must be met to establish a prima facie case of discrimination regarding a disability.
#1 The person is in protected class. In this case PT would need to establish a disability (or perception of a disability). A disability is a physical or mental impairment that substantially limits a life activity. Being 80+ years old is not a disability. Having a cold or flu does not meet the standard of a disability. Ergo PT does not have a disability and is not in a protected class related to ADA. What say the judge to Perry Mason? "Case dismissed"! However, for the sake of discussion we'll take the advice of Ernie Banks and "Let's play two".
#2 The person suffered an adverse action based on the discriminatory action. Did PT lose his job? Get demoted? Lose any financial gain or suffer any reputation loss? Nope. Let's check with our judge again, Mr. Mason. Ruling - "Case Dismissed."
Sorry - No ADA claim. Just like the gold, nothing to see here keep moving along.
But keep up with the Red Herring distractions. Again.... I refer to the test mining blabber. Whatever it takes to keep the focus off the fact that no gold and no progress has occurred.
Why would Argo bail?..... Didn't they know about the test mine exemption rule? They could have written off millions.