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.
Thx for clarification PB. There was so much running with the ball type speculation, and implication this was from the I told you so horse's mouth . . .
Did you notice that the new NI 43-101 again lowered the cutoff grade for the underground estimate (from 2.0 to 1.7 g/t - in itself if all holes remained the same would account for a 17.65% increase). The prior estimate at 1.7 totaled 1,152,868 oz all underground with majority inferred. However the big change I pick up on is that the modeling method was changed from inverse cubed interpolation to the much less conservative "Ordinary Kriging" but with offsetting impact from reduction of model composite blocking to 1.5m composites within a 5m long x 2.5m wide x 5m high block model. from 1m composites within a 10mlong x 5m wide x 5m high block model
short interest Aug 15 report data released yesterday shows small decrease in short interest, down to 26,962,465 from July 31 reported 27,311,039, but compare to the June 28 reported recent peak of 36,199,814
rather much my point of view Gmoney
very interesting, but where's the beef
and
who broke the rules is this info is from EXS ?
link to original did not seem to come through in post, so impossible to "read more"
The food is artificial, the news manufactured, the government a pretense, the freedoms held increasingly limited, the thoughts encouraged ever more shallow and irrelevant, the distractions of balancing personal budgets and consumer entertainment all entraining, the value token money manufactured electricity and naught more, the range of personal options and opportunities constrained.
Such it has been, moving from 50% to 100% as such, for decades.
Why is there cause to believe the rigging on the ship will unravel now? Or, to clarify, will unravel in a manner that favors liberation of humanity from the designs behind the decades long progression?
With a multigenerational advance toward personal and governmental bankruptcy, toward centralization of ownership, showing such consistency why believe the end-game has not also been accounted for in setting the table?
Cannot the worst enemy appear as savior in time of extreme crisis?
Just saying.
PS. What a mature singing voice !
Tracking Rabbits in the Sand
In prior posting
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91128421
I did not mention, but absolutely should have, that the lower single dollar 0.3 - 0.8 dual range has been much more important than the higher dollar one, with the higher acting more as an indicator and/or confirmation.
So last weekend silver held with the Friday low/high close straddling the A range 23.3 low boundary.
This Friday closed with silver high/low both below, but marginally so, the A range's upper dollar band, i.e below but near 24.3
If you caught the message in the prior post, what is most important imo is the intraday action, what levels get tested. From what I saw 24.3 or above was never touched last week. Had it, particularly if it had moved above 24.4, I would take that as indication that the dial is set for above (even if barely) the A range. That it did not imo does not mean the dial is not set that way however, and here is why.
Last monday, before NY silver spiked to 23.63 but pulled back significantly before NY open. During the day silver slide back, in fact during trade both Monday and Tuesday appeared like it was going to test the 21s, but both days during trade it spiked back to the 23.6+ level - but did not test the .7-.8 boundary.
I was not free to watch Wed and Thur very closely but from what I saw it appeared that silver was in a pretty stable pattern of testing the A range from below, moving into the 22s and retouching 23.3+/- from below.
Friday was different. When the rapid move came it went straight through the 23-3-23.4 subrange and bounced on the bottom of the 23.7-23.8 subrange for an extended time. In my mind this all reconfirmed the signals of Monday and Tuesday after the week allowing the market to drift at A range entry. When the 23 subranges breached silver was almost immediately holding close below the 24.3 mark for the upper A subrange, pulling back only a little for the weekend close.
The area above the A range was never tested. The confirming uppermost 24.7 - 24.8 subrange was never touched, and from what I saw 24.3 was almost but never touched. The appearance is that the momentum is much unchanged and strong on the part of the dial setting with silver willing to drift lower when left to its own devices (i.e. without dial enforcement).
My own gut level comparison to history is saying that if we do not see a test of exit of A range to the upside in the coming trading week then we are seeing the setting up for the price to ride in the A range for a while, and if so then likely retesting downside exit in order to strengthen the A range as a new floor, likely in prep for a move upward (which would be presaged by tests of A range upside exits, first showing up in brief spikes days to week+ timelines ahead of the move).
There is much importance sitting on tests of the top of A range at this time. A period of only minor tests to upper exit and back toward lowest A subrange boundary would confirm the dial is to middle of A range for now.
All jmo, and if history repeats itself.
Just for correctness sake
ha - it got even richer than
Sayonara zetsubou sensei
Adios amigo profesor
'nough said, lurk on
and mirror down
for now.
EXS in a nutshell, InXS.
The drunkeness of gold
ought not guide management.
Final "hail mary"s are out,
not reporting well, yet?.
Lunk on, naught else to say.
glta, use the mirror
Get the pull-behind generator/welder rig ready.
Did I get the false impression that testing was to be at a US facility?
If it is, then no clearing of customs, not as long a drive, only a pissed off motel manager at the welding/grinding in the parking lot (and import pricing on that Canadian beer) - plus the unit will be quickly deliverable to the US Intertek facility.
LEX seeing a nice bounce this morning, with volume,
and GEG looks to be doing the same
What I found most of interest was the apparent change as the article implied (or did it directly state?) that the charted behavior is a divergence not seen in a long time. I also was not ready to buy into the conclusion, which I took to be that the recent rapid rise in silver was a speculative driven price move. (I am still of the opinion that almost all moves in gold and silver are intervention driven)
Don’t Trade Last Week’s Silver Story!
http://www.24hgold.com/english/news-gold-silver-don-t-trade-last-week-s-silver-story-.aspx?article=4484132394G10020&redirect=false&contributor=Keith+Weiner&mk=1
an interesting observation, whatever the meaning or conclusion to be drawn
I hope Rob stays away from the Ring of Fire, or if not acquires something only to hold in inventory to age while others resolve all the issues development will have to overcome (remote, poor infrastructure,many First Nations, environmental protection of one of the largest (and last remaining pristine) wetlands.
There are opportunities much closer to moving through permitting and into production which is where I hope the hunt is focused.
Oddly, the more crude declines due to fear of reduced QE (or any other reason) the more likely it becomes that the consumer economy will show the strengths needed to grease the reduction of QE (to the extent such reduction is possible before the US hits the interest rate driven view of looming deficit default).
I sure hope Rob has the good sense to stay away from the Ring of Fire ! Or if not then hopefully just to put something into inventory to age until others have taken on and resolved all the issues any development will face there (remote, poor infrastructure, environment of one of earth's largest wetlands that is currently pristine, etc.)
250k per week, a million a month, does not begin to scratch the 400 million - it would have to seem painful to motivate
OT: putting a little perspective on this Fukushima report
After much international pressure on the Japanese government they finally recently forced TEPCO (Tokyo Electric Power Co.) to begin massive groundwater pumping from under the power plant complex in order to try to create a negative well of ground-water gradient to get water flowing into the the well instead of passing by and into the ocean.
There is a long history that whatever has been released publicly as a measure on the extent of radiation release has turned out to be vastly understated. They are presently saying 300 tons per day has been escaping into the ocean, likely because that is the pump rate they have managed to get to in order to create the initial ground-water gradient.
300 tons is a cube 7 yards on a side, or the amount of water that will cover a property 100 foot by 100 foot to a depth of 1 foot.
Now, notice that the new leak reported from a 1000 ton holding tank resulted in contamination measured at 100 millisieverts per hour. I have not seen public release of the radiation level in the stored water, or of the water being pumped out to create the initial groundwater gradient, but I have seen reports that the ability to store water is continuously challenged with more "make-shift" capacity being added all the time due the inability to scrub the radiation from the water such that all the water that has been continuously pumped into the four reactor remains and the four spent fuel pools is used once instead of being recycled (there are reports of some initial success allowing some hope of reuse). All of this is sitting in ponds on-site, much exposed to the atmosphere, and all unshielded.
OK so a 100 x 100 area 1 foot deep. If it is at the 100 millisieverts per hour level of contamination, in order to bring that level down to the maximum level allowed of 100 millisieverts per 5 years for workers at the clean-up then that would have to be diluted by the number of hours in 5 years, or 43,800.
So if that is the radiation level of water escaping per day (and this has been going on over the past 2.5 years) into the ocean, once it is diluted to merely the allowed maximum level for workers at the plant one day's escaped water would be a layer of water 1 foot deep and 20,928 feet on a side.
That is roughly a 4 mile by 4 mile square 1 foot deep to which a person could be continuously exposed and just reach the maximum annual exposure allowed to workers at the Fukushima plant.
That is the publicly acknowledged PER DAY rate of release into the ocean. It has been going on for around 900 days. AND shortly after the Fukushima disaster the maximum exposure allowed for workers at the cleanup was increased by the Japanese government from, if I am recalling correctly 5 to 100.
If one factors that in, it is equivalent to the top foot of the ocean being contaminated to a degree that would cause the previous maximum exposure rate over an area of the ocean 16 miles by 20 mile PER DAY.
This is only the publicly admitted ground-water rate of contamination the ocean. The out-gas contamination to the atmosphere from the four exposed reactor core remains, from the exposed fuel storage pools, and the make-shift on-site water storage, plus that of radiation carried in steam and evaporates from these is not included.
PS. Areas in the steam stacks at the plant have been measured with contamination levels that pinned the detectors at their maximmum of 1 sievert per second, that is 600 times the level in the ground from the tank leak
Thanks for capturing that for the record here on iHub Gold.
never did recognize meaning in that lion saying
never did recognize substance in a WDRP PR either
Transparency conflicts with
a) telling us tests were done and looked good, just did not get recorded
b) then saying the transformers were being recalibrated, and now that they are being replaced but with different ones
if the testing happened and was good why start changing things? what was the need to do that (on very limited resources)?
Wow, that was a quick response. Thx for checking and sharing.
Can't wait but must.
It is all really so simple to understand. The cancel with Intertek was announced after a week delay simply because it allowed an extra week to be crossed off the calendar.
Drivers ? Multiple ? So that is not some electronic control unit to coordinate the magnetrons or the transformers (or whichever technology is being used to boost the 110 vac to above kilovolt dc).
Is this just more hocus-pokus ?
PS tried to edit the last post but submit was too late
change was to have been adding to last paragraph:
It was the play with the bottom rung of the A range from mid-week to Friday close that prompted me to write that up. A strong clearing of A range virtually guarantees the dial has been reset to the B range, only needing to play out. etc. So it has been anyway. etc. In the case of this move, the indication of upward momentum is very strong, but also very fast and sudden to A range. I could see it moving above A and testing A as a floor before moving on, I could see with catalyst it just soaring past A, and I also can see it pulling back or plateauing below A and if so with more strong tests of A then I would expect it to move beyond A. It is all very sudden. Moving to 25 +/- for a while with retests to A would be a very nice definition of a floor.
No problem JD. With luck these specific numbers continue to hold meaning.
The biggest thing is to watch for touches (at or some cents beyond) a .3-.4 moving up and a .7-.8 moving down showing up very briefly anywhere in the 24 hours of a trading day, sometimes many days ahead and if so then often repeated once or more before a close happens near to that value.
Example: Ag mostly stuck at 20 - 21+, but moves to nearly 23 and back a couple times. From what I have seen, if it does that but never spikes to .3 of A range, even if it does to .2, is very different from if it spikes to .32 and later to .41 or even just .30.
It really makes no sense unless one assumes computers are involved and manipulation controls the show.
It was the play with the bottom rung of the A range from mid-week to Friday close that prompted me to write that up. A strong clearing of A range virtually guarantees the dial has been reset to the B range, only needing to play out. etc. So it has been anyway. etc.
Pulling Rabbits from a Hat
I am going to share here my observation on one key aspect of silver motion that has held true over the past 2+ years.
I am only a person that has been a silver bull since when silver was still being minted, not an analyst, not an anything, but you should pretend at least as far as the normal "past performance is no guarantee of future results" disclaimer.
There are the two key ranges:
A)
23.30 - 23.40 and 23.70 - 23.80
24.30 - 24.40 and 24.70 - 24.80
B)
27.30 - 27.40 and 27.70 - 27.80
28.30 - 28.40 and 28.70 - 28.80
( ( (
although there is a further one which with regrets we probably won't be dealing for at least a little while
C)
33.30 - 33.40 and 33.70 - 33.80
34.30 - 34.40 and 34.70 - 34.80
Except to getting stuck in the C) range during the fall from the 30s-50 for a while the C) range mostly has operated as a gateway telling whether Ag would go back to 35+ or drop to the B) range. However, given how long this C) was a home range for Ag in the final stage of the post $50 consolidation before Ag finally moved to the B) range I am expecting this C) range to be more important in the future compared to just being a gateway visited over maybe a day or week testing whether Ag should be 35+ or in B).
) ) )
on the way down it is the .30-40 that resists most
on the way up it is the .70-.80 that resists most
the length of time caught in one of these single dollar .3 - .8 ranges is meaningful as is the time within an adjacent two dollar .3 - .8 range
over the past couple years major moves always had pause at these, usually for a noticable time (days to weeks)
once passed moves that direction of approx 20% were fast, although not necessarily in a straight line
once past the B) range one would see, in very short time, Ag change
to upside
first to the C) range pretty quickly, but usually either moving through or bouncing back off of it (all prior to the final consolidation residence in C)
breaking above this C) has too few instances for pattern, but 35-37 was common, and 40 and 50 resist
to downside the fall is to the A) range pretty directly
for the A) range, once past, again pretty quickly one would see
to the upside the B) range
to the downside the resistance seems at the 20 and 18 areas
but the key part imo is not so much what has happened when breaking to the upside or downside of these ranges, but the behavior shown when approaching and at these ranges.
one has to look at the minute by minute charts to really see this, but as far as I have seen there are tests, maybe only for a few minutes, or hours, or just touches or momentary punches through lasting only long enough to not show on the charts but set intraday highs or lows, etc.
An example is this past week silver was delaying in 21 and 22 but overnight briefly punched 23.3 by a few cents. Very briefly. Friday overnight (before US open) it was pretty strong at 23.3 +/- for a while but most important is that it punched past 23.4, then it fell way back into the high 22s etc and during US trade it hit stride for a while 23.33 or so bid 23.43 or so ask, but it punched clear to 23.53 (.5x iirc .53) briefly after having earlier set an intraday high at .44 before falling out of the 23s for a while prior to regaining the saddle between .3 and .4 (which it when it tested into the area above the 23s part of the A) range, i.e. hit 23.5+ briefly).
That punching of .4 repeatedly following a trading day when it was significantly below in 21/22 area but touched 23.3 indicates to me that there is a good chance we will be playing with the 23.8 upward
If we move through that fast, instead of bouncing around 23.7-23.8 or sitting in the 23.3-23.8 saddle for a while, then behavior at the 24s in past has indicated if we are moving to 27-28 or if we are going to be 23-24 rangebound for a while when strong, or fall if weak and not breaking past the .8 at all or with any strenth.
Now mind you, you cannot look at graphs of London spot, or US close, etc.
Example, suppose ailver is 23-24 range bound. That might mean over a couple weeks it drifts back and forth between mostly 23.3-23.4 and 24.7-24.8 mostly between them, rarely hitting outside. But prior to breaking out in a move you will see the edge of the range in direction of the break tested, sometimes a few times before a brief punch through it, but once that has happened there is a good chance it is not very long before that range is turned to a resistance against reversal. The punches past that fail are usually pretty obvious with the pull back to well within the range quick and far with little motion back toward the penetrated boundary.
Pull up some charts and you will see the A) and B) areas have been pause points for virtually every swing over the past couple years.
What I have tried to pass along is what I have seen by watching daily charts as days go by over the those same years.
My assumption is that the banksters' computers and the quants algorithms have something about the 23-24, 27-28, and 33-34, and also the two ten cent ranges centered on those dollar ranges' x.55 +/- .20 (i.e the .3-.4 and .7-.8) just as they seem to key in on the AU/AG ratio and let AG pull AU along when needed to keep the ratio from decreasing too fast (as imo has been happening this past week+)
I have not seen this with .5-.6, .2-.3, etc. I have not noticed this frequent pausing with other dollar figures.
Example, think back to the long slow decline after the fall from 50.
At first Ag spent a lot of time 35+ trying to regain 40, but it bounced off C) many times doing so, then Ag spent a lot of time sitting in either the C) or B) ranges, and moving between them, with a few drops to A) and back to B), but finally got stuck in the C) range, then fell to the B) range, and when the takedown came there was a pause, but only barely at the A) range that actually extended to include 22, but there was a pause, and once that breached Ag was below 20 in no time, just like it covered the ground from the B) to the A) in no time. (Thankfully that takedown did not test the low 18 area)
Cheers, and knock on wood, as now that I am posting this probably everything will be different - ha.
If not I can only say that there is no confirmation as the move from below 20 has been so fast and direct to the 23.3-23.4 but it has already tested and retested moving toward the 24 ranges in A).
It would not be surprising at this point to see it pull back and make sure of its move into the A) space, in which case how long it takes to reconfirm would be a key factor. With the speed for the rise to the bottom of the A) and the testing of entering within A) also would make it no surprise to see us in there or even into the ground between A) and B) very soon. We have only had about 18 or 24 hours of trade action where A) was in play so this is early but breaking fast right to what has been my touchstone for a couple years, and I do take the Friday close with bid/ask straddling the very base of the A) as highly important (first close back at a touchstone in a long time, plus a Friday close at that). Seeing a move to barely above A) and bounce back on it and/or into it and back above would not be abnormal either. Once it is clear Ag is moving above the A)range in the past has virtually always meant Ag would be at B) in short order.
That attempt to press AU and AG down that was mounted a week plus ago didn't manage to do much -% change or hold it there except very briefly so it is looking like it may be time to get the thumb out and catch a ride.
Cheers, and knock on wood
glta
You well could be right on your broader suppositions. You certainly are right in saying "Something just doesn't add up.".
I years past I used to see the news reports about some horrendous crime and say I did not understand how anyone could do such and such.
But then I had a minor epiphany.
Now when I am talking with people and someone says of some crime that they just can't understand how . . . blah blah
I simply say
"It is an irrational act. Of course you can't understand. It is irrational."
Perhaps we are watching cornered animals but attempting to interpret as reasoning creatures behaving sensibly?
You humble me. I am glad you are still here and willing to offer your insights. IMO you are correct about management, i.e. CD.
Also IMO mention here is not pulling the shareprice down. The shareprice will go up with significant new money, but any such would find the management problem by using even a half-baked DD and without ever touching this board. If anything, mention here might pull things up if enough here come to understand how badly the present management and style is dragging EXS down and acts on the understanding. This I understand as the underlying motive. etc. Mirror down
JMO
Go East Bay, the only current hope.
In normal course it is smart to bite ones tongue about the non-positive and not gleaming and shiny. This is not normal imo.
InXS is one of the few left here, not banished or self-vanquished from disappointment, who along with myself and those now gone were willing to speak out that something was not right and going down the tube fast, and faster all the time. I was saying diversify exploration work on other properties and stop or curtail the high dollar deep drilling what was not paying off (drilling should increase value in terms of market cap by more than its cost), and that placements for deep drilling would kill EXS.
If I recall correctly InXS was adding that management could not see beyond the end of its nose if it wasn't something that fell out of its own head.
Personally I think we have both been proved right. Management has finally started to look at cheaper work programs and diversify among properties, but regrettably it is not because it wants to but has to as it finally had the fact that it cannot afford TPW at depth slapped it in the face.
The problem is, along the way management has alienated too much of the investor community with appetite for juniors and cut too many ties, burned too many bridges. IMO there is reality behind InXS's message and its happening would be better for shareholders than would doing the ostrich trick and hiding the head in the sand. It will be new money that might turn EXS around, and a lot of that will be scared off by analyst calls for a change of management.
InXS, I have no doubt about it, that mgmt has failed shareholders. At one point I started to wonder whether retail investors aren't just a little extra for EXS where the main game is transsfer of ownership to a select few in placements, with warrants, a viewpoint from which dilution is a good thing in so far as retail investors are diminished and percentage-wise ownership gets transferred to placement participants are ever reduced cost per incremental amount of ownership.
No, I have not seen concern for investors' interests, shareholders value, or even investing shareholders ideas and opinions out of the current management group (or group of one)
on the other hand in recent past MUX has traveled through some fairly regular ups and downs, partly in sympathy with the precious metals, and a number of people here have built their positions up by selling the highs and rebuying plus some at the lows
anyway good to see you are still here and not bemoaning the loss of your gain as when the last low came around
obvious that someone has faith in the future here, but looking at insider activity and at filings I do not come up with any hint of a why or wherefor
Yep, afaik they have not much happening except likely scouting for opportunity. G Freeman's leadership previously did me well so I am down to wait and see, plus if it matters or is true Greg McCoach, for whatever that is worth, who has said he goes back pretty far with ECC CEO Freeman also once said Freeman is pretty good acquaintance with Shaun Ryan. So far it has just seemed to be extreme cash conservation but I bet it is not all vacation.
The NR seemed to spell out some promise in terms of their understanding of the probable geologic structure coincident with the indicators . . . and the depth info MUX has determined. It all says more has been going on there than I had been aware of happening.
not really, like I said people do need to be paid, but I do wonder how much compensation they have received in addition to this potential gain and what they have delivered of value to shareholders to deserve it . . . I mean for every penny they might be able to push the share price beyond a dime over the next 5 years is $90,000 in their pockets per penny
I am sorry, I must have misread. I thought you were wondering what their initial plan for an end-game might have been. Yes, I certainly agree it does not seem like they are at present hoping for anything so grand. Now, prior to July 2011 and the AMF, with Dave M and the big Aussie distribution plan, etc. I can see how (assuming there is today nothing close to operative and astounding) they were positioning for the end-game that I outlined. Right now I have know idea how they are thinking (and imo they is a group of one person) or if they think much or just wing it if and as possible, but otherwise just duck out of sight until forced to surface and wing it some more. Why? To find a way to make themselves look upstanding to investigators is the only thing that comes to my mind (assuming they have zilch in any way resembling all the years of claims(.
If I correctly understand the history of some of the other shell scams of the syndicate proposed as operative in this case, one end-game play involved a frenzy of retail buying as success is so near and rumors start flying of a buy-out or takeover. That rumor times out and the shares collapse as people realize they have been had and no one is home any longer.
Hi, First, they have to be paid somehow, but is this in addition to cash ? Don't know as frankly have been so disgusted with EXS haven't read the financials for some time. Second, 9 million units at 0.10 for 5 years, well 9 million is pretty small compared to total issuance (maybe not, what 5% of company?) but a 5 year overhang. Finally, is there anything performance based about the pay structure ?
That is my reaction, along with initial "Hh, how slimmy, after close on a Friday" thought.
JMO