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.
All of the information you shared is technically heresy. You don’t need permission to share a conversation when sharing is within your moral compass, provided there wasn’t a previous agreement to keep it private, ie an NDA. That is the type of potentially valuable information that needs to be posted to this board more often. It is certainly more valuable than the worry warts that come out during every price dip.
It’s 4 am in the UK. It should be obvious I’m in NA.
The difference between me and Worstall is I’ve said numerous times you shouldn’t believe me. Worstall is a self-proclaimed expert. I just told you I’m a self proclaimed master of nothing.
Jack of all trades, master of none.
The suggestion was clear.
Your assumptions on my professional background and relationships are incorrect.
I don’t believe that is a European problem. It’s a common retail investor problem. Those that can least afford to lose money are the ones most likely to over invest in speculative stocks, hence those are the same ones to fret or jubilate over price swings.
I didn't say at depth. I said to depth.
If you are talking about ground freezing during operation then you may have a point. It could be feasible that this is done with horizontal drilling as the ore is actually mined. In that case the depth wouldn't matter much. But this is not a capital expenditure as we are discussing. That would be opex, and it may not even be necessary as Nordmin as indicated "water encountered during production may be less than originally assumed," or something along those lines.
We are talking about the capex to actually sink the shaft. You can't sink the shaft until you take care of the water. You can't drill horizontally without access. The groundfreezing will be done from the surface with vertical holes. Groundwater for those first few hundred feet may or may not be present in large amounts, but with the freezing it's not an issue. Your refrigeration lines run the entire length one way or another, back to the refrigeration systems that will be on the surface. If this moves forward that is going to be some of the first equipment you see on site.
I didn’t understand what you were asking then and I’m not sure I understand now either. Drilling is more expensive the deeper you go. The train tunnel example was shallow in comparison to the elk creek ore body. Are you suggesting that depth isn’t a major factor in the cost of drilling?
I also don’t understand why you mention the water is not free flowing. No one has suggested otherwise. Your costs in ground freezing are from the drilling (deeper means more money), lining the bore holes, and finally the refrigeration equipment.
I don’t know what it will cost and I haven’t claimed to know. We should find this out in a relatively short amount of time. I am confident it will be considerably more than the train tunnel example, which is all I said during that exchange at the time due to the inherent differences between the two applications.
I have provided a binary answer to this question in the past. My position has not changed since the last time I answered the question, but I'll tell you this:
I'm the type of individual that reads through all 88 pages of the MD&A portion of a 10k on the day it was released at the beginning of a holiday weekend. Post 40988.
I'm also the type of individual that doesn't believe one's investment status lends more or less credibility to an informed opinion shared with the intent for discourse.
This is why I like post references, it makes things a lot easier.
When the groundfreezing was initially confirmed as an option this spring, I wondered if it wouldn't cost more than the pipeline, but result in a quicker construction schedule for a net benefit to the company. I also mentioned again, as I had a year earlier when the Ricketts letter was released, that the 408 permit may be facing challenges. Post 38928.
When the Bloomberg article came out, I admitted that it appeared that Sims statements contradicted my suspicion that capex may increase. Post 40097.
A few weeks ago a comparison was made between mine shaft groundfreezing and groundfreezing for a horizontal train tunnel. I pointed out this was not a good comparison. Post 40752.
Can you reference which post I said it was more expensive at depth, and which post you asked for proof? I'd be happy to clarify any previous comments I made, or revise them based on new information if necessary.
I don't think you understand how this works. I'm not the one making unsubstantiated claims about others. I've been accused of all sorts of outlandish things on this board. I cannot defend my comments if I don't know which ones you are referring to. Posting "10 things I like about Niocorp" does not afford me the opportunity to defend my positions.
Furthermore, this is the Niocorp message board, but it is for investors and non-investors alike.
I've done that in the past. I'm not the one making accusations here. If you believe I am trashing Niocorp, I'd like to know which posts have led to that conclusion.
Please reference specific posts where I have "trashed" Niocorp. I would like to make sure I respond appropriately.
Below is a link to one of Matheson's articles on Scandium.
Note this phrase in regards to Niocorp, Scandium International, and Clean Teq:
While one might view these projects as competitors for a small market, is it more realistic to see them as symbiotically creating a new market, akin to the rise in the US of microbreweries in the 1990s. Each is likely to benefit from the success of the others, and it is not out of the question that scandium prices could move up as well as down, in the light of reliable supply from several credible sources. And if these early developments succeed, the cost of red mud recovery will be attacked and driven down.
https://www.linkedin.com/pulse/second-look-scandium-andrew-matheson/
The more your revenue source is dependent on scandium, the more dependent you are on other future scandium producers.
Please reference specific posts.
No.
https://www.themainstreet.bank/ (I didn't even check this one earlier. Looks like my agricultural assumption for these types of banks was spot on.)
https://research.fdic.gov/bankfind/detail.html?bank=18528&name=Mainstreet%20Bank&searchName=MAINSTREET%20BANK&searchFdic=&city=&state=&zip=&address=&searchWithin=&activeFlag=&searchByTradename=false&tabId=2
Whether it's a joke or not is irrelevant to the point that I disputed the post with factual information in the same way as I do every other inaccurate post that I am able to identify. After reading Advocate's original post, I was simply surprised to see other's taking it seriously.
Agreed. I was being honest when I said there could be a token investment though. It's good PR for both companies. Perhaps something as simple as updating the store front of Elk Creek Resources on short term financing or something.
I'm pretty sure Advocate posted it as a joke. If Mark and Jim are working with small local banks on an actual financing package then this team has been egregiously overestimated.
This bank only has $10MM in tier 1 capital available. That is only $2MM above their required capital amount. I don't see a hometown bank hiring a mining expert to do a risk analysis for any significant investment here. In addition to typical personal banking needs, these banks tend to be agricultural specialists.
No I’m just laughing. It’s great that the communities behind this, but that’s just a nice comment to market a new bank location. This projects going to take large institutions, not small local banks. The bank has a grand total of $80MM I’m deposits. An FDIC insured bank is not loaning a quarter of their deposits to a junior miner. Maybe they get a little in there just to say they were involved and as a token of appreciation from Niocorp back to the community, but don’t get too excited about it. It’s literally just a token.
dylan, I lived in South O and Bellevue long ago. Still visit the area from time to time and am familiar with the Tecumseh/Elk Creek area as well. Thank you for the kind words.
Do you follow Australian Mines too? Main property is adjacent to Sunrise. They should have an FS this month. I still think CLQ is necessary to jump start the sector, but AUX is also intriguing.
You miss the point. You posted a reference that applies to all Canadian listed companies in regards to their affairs. It was irrelevant to the discussion. Nebraskan and Maxz posted relevant content that is specific to the requirements for miners that are listed on Canadian exchanges. The latter was debated as a matter of intellectual discourse. The former was not relevant to the discussion and has the potential of stirring confusion amongst future investors that lurk this board.
No. The topic was whether or not a material change requires an update to the FS. There is no dispute that material changes or new information must be disclosed. Per Maxz apparently the change also needs to be reflected in the FS. My understanding was that only changes to the resource reserves would require the FS to be updated, but apparently Jim suggests differently so we will go with that. Bottom line though is that capex changes to the FS are secondary to contract negotiations with EPC firms, i.e. Nordmin, presumably. That deal will be done before financing occurs and institutional investors care a lot more about those hard numbers than any +/- 20% numbers in the study.
That is just a requirement to disclose information and not specifically a requirement to update a previous technical study.
The source Nebraskan provides is the appropriate one.
Technically (haha) the FS isn't required by anybody, but good luck getting funding without it.
The requirement is that when an FS or PEA is done is that it is done to NI43-101 standards for Canadian listed companies, but my understanding is that it has become an industry standard throughout most of the world.
Did he say that investors will want an updated FS or is that you talking? I do not see a reason to update the FS. A firm EPC contract gives a much clearer picture of the capex than a number in the FS.
I think you are exactly right about tomorrow. Unless something truly unexpected by management happens, they would not put out major news with an open PP.
I am a little surprised about your late ‘19 prediction. I think it’s clear by now the project doesn’t stand on its own free market merits in the immediate future. Lucky for shareholders we don’t live in a free market. I expect US government policy to propel this forward prior to calendar Q4 2019.
Yes. I’ve gone through it thoroughly since I posted about it, but my primary takeaways are unchanged. Check my post 40988. The state permit may be substantial as it was widely accepted amongst shareholders that the state and local permits were formalities.
They telegraphed this information last summer under the disguise of a letter from Pete Ricketts, but it is certainly an issue that shareholders should hold them accountable for.
All I’ve ever asked for is a quarterly letter to shareholders. I understand the update will be thin at times, but the simple correspondence goes a long ways in building a rapport with current and potential shareholders.
Don’t confuse the loud opinion with the common opinion.
Well I lied. I read through the MD&A. Here’s a few things that standout:
1. They expect $6MM for continued operations in FY’19. So plan for a $500k/month burn. This suggests Nordmin, Rockwell, and Rockies Express are not currently being compensated for any work they may be performing to this point.
2. I noticed they listed their corporate tax rate at 35%. This should have been changed to 21%.
3. This is a big one. “Perhaps one of the most critical approvals likely to be needed by the operation will be a radioactive materials license from the Nebraska Department of Health and Human Services (“NDHHS”), Office of Radiological Health. Because of their limited experience with hard rock mining in the State of Nebraska, much less mining that includes Naturally Occurring Radioactive Material, the NDHHS may require additional information and more time to approve the Elk Creek Project under a Broad Scope License. Early and frequent engagement is a necessity with respect to this regulatory agency.”
Uranium mining does exist in Nebraska, so hopefully this is not as difficult to obtain as alluded to.
4. The company has a $4.4MM balance with Lind as of 8/30/2018. This equates to roughly 10 million shares that Lind can convert at any time. Could be viewed as a positive that Lind does not feel rushed to convert and is content with the 10% interest payments. Could be viewed as a negative as Lind expects a further price drop and attempt to manipulate to further their gain.
That’s all I have with this cursory review. Didn’t expect much but there’s a few bullet points.
Don’t expect a revised FS. The banks will have the information they need to make an investment decision. Nordmin obviously has the information they need. The next logical step would be a fixed price EPC contract with Nordmin, contingent on financing of course. That dollar value is a hell of a lot more relevant than the CAPEX figure for the underground portion that is in the feasibility study.
I assume you are referring to the 10k. It’s a Holiday weekend so I probably won’t bother going through it until next week. I don’t doubt that it may say $100k cash on hand. That would have been as of 6/30. It did not include the million from Lind that closed the first week of July, and obviously does not include the open PP.
According to my memory you are correct. I was wondering if anyone else noticed that. I don’t believe it means anything in how close they are to a larger financing package, but it does suggest they are optimistic about the placement.
EPC firm selected the same month the full feasibility study was released. Company is making quick progress.
I can’t believe there have so many posts over the news the last few days. The news Monday, while likely required to be disclosed, was fully expected. Tuesday’s news is an event that has happened in the past and should continue into the future - post financing even.
Yesterday’s news may have surprised some and would certainly be disappointing if you thought financing was near. Otherwise it was necessary and should have been expected. It shouldn’t be spun as positive until a large institution steps forward for a placement. As Advocate keeps referencing, the $20-$30MM that MS wanted in early 2019 would have made this and the June Lind transactions unnecessary.
Facts speak for themselves. Any company can issue a private placement when they need money. The proof is in the pudding and the pudding was pretty thin the last time this was attempted. Why wasn’t there better bridge financing available than more dilution at this share price that also includes warrants for future dilution?
The private placement from last summer was announced nine business days before its close. It was undersubscribed. This one has seven business days until close. How much of a difference is two days?
The post I replied to specifically said we are buying Niobium from China. That’s not true. The entire world supply of Niobium comes from Canada and Brazil. A small portion of that Brazilian supply is owned by CMOC, a publicly traded Chinese company without Chinese government ownership. CMOC also owns mines in Australia and Congo.
The misinformation on this board is sometimes rampant. I’m just glad I’m able to dispel some of it.