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.
I agree. Gang violence has never been reported to my knowledge in the area where CWRN has its mine. Gang activity is concentrated in border cities(mostly mainland)and mainland south(reported to be the area of the article). It IS like comparing LA with Memphis.
Mexico guards an important tourist/cash infusion city like Ensenada carefully and has an army and Naval base there.
As temeku noted the Baja highway one-Baja's main highway is patrolled(CWRN's mine is only ca 5.5 miles from Hwy one) and CWRN is only 60 miles SOUTH of Ensenada -removed from the gang areas-but then it's not my life's goal to destroy CWRN-only to tell the truth after much dd.
repost;Other experts on this board have shot down the perpetual FOB etc argument.
And no, I don't believe shipping cost/ton would equal the total price of iron 6 years ago(ca $37/ton) or exceed price of iron 7 and more years ago(ca $32-33/ton and less)-nobody else has found any evidence for that.
Especially not when the worldwide recession has left many shipping companies hurting for orders and their ships idle-and the Handymax are the most numerous type of ship followed by Panamax,the 2 kinds of ships CWRN will be using.
Pesquero did an excellent mockup of the costs in a previous post(that may be part of ITMD's compilation in the ibox) and he is thinking of going into the iron business himself as an entrepreneur.
Considering the current worldwide shipping recession I was being generous in quoting rates for a time charter-the rates have probably decreased since the recession started in 2008.
Its also ridiculous to suggest CWRN would order and pay for an empty ship to transit to Ensenada empty from China-when there are plenty of vacant etc ships on the North American Pacific coast- but its not my life's goal to destroy/malign CWRN,so I stick to the evidence and logic.
The bottom line-companies were making a profit at $33/ton 7 years ago.
As pesquero pointed out gravel companies are making a profit at $15/ton.
With prices now ca $170/ton and still climbing that leaves a better profit margin than just about any mineral,certainly better than silver and gold the experts say. See e.g a recent post on another ihub mining board re this issue.
Btw,Texas and another nearby state(I just couldn't remember which other state but may have noted it in a previous post)allow triple trailers. I doubt CWRN would use such even though there's only one off ramp turn to my knowledge from Hwy 1 onto a secondary highway a short distance to the port,but it conveys the idea that there are more options than people generally consider.
Other experts on this board have shot down somebodies perpetual FOB etc argument.
And no, I don't believe shipping cost/ton would equal the total price of iron 6 years ago(ca $37/ton) or exceed price of iron 7 and more years ago(ca $32-33/ton and less)-nobody else has found any evidence for that.
Especially not when the worldwide recession has left many shipping companies hurting for orders and their ships idle-and the Handymax are the most numerous type of ship followed by Panamax,the 2 kinds of ships CWRN will be using.
Pesquero did an excellent mockup of the costs in a previous post(that may be part of ITMD's compilation) and he is thinking of going into the iron business himself as an entrepreneur.
Considering the current worldwide shipping recession I was being generous in quoting rates for a time charter-the rates have probably decreased since the recession started in 2008.
Its also ridiculous to suggest CWRN would order and pay for an empty ship to transit to Ensenada empty from China-when there are plenty of vacant etc ships on the North American Pacific coast- but its not my life's goal to destroy/malign CWRN,so I stick to the evidence and logic.
The bottom line-companies were making a profit at $33/ton 7 years ago.
As pesquero pointed out gravel companies are making a profit at $15/ton.
With prices now ca $170/ton and still climbing that leaves a better profit margin than just about any mineral,certainly better than silver and gold the experts say. See e.g a recent post on the wolv board re this issue.
Btw,Texas and another nearby state(I just couldn't remember which other state but may have noted it in a previous post)allow triple trailers. I doubt CWRN would use such even though there's only one off ramp turn to my knowledge from Hwy 1 onto a secondary highway a short distance to the port,but it conveys the idea that there are more options than people generally consider.
Pesquero's pictures of the port and post re dredging were originally
posted Nov 20(post 12304?),and is included in ITMD'S compilation in the IBOX.
Pesquero would be the expert on the dredging since his company is involved in the dredging,as per the stated post.
They allow triple trailers a couple places in the U.S- in the general Arizona-New Mexico-Texas area and up to 52.5 ton by special permit(no bribery involved).
That's why I said earlier it shouldn't be too hard to maximize a 50 ton load when Mexico already allows ca 48.5 ton without any special permit(normal U.S.limit is 40 tons).
But it all depends on what configuration CWRN wants to use for trucking-there are many different possible configurations. They have to consider the most efficient to offload at port.
Somebody else reported there is a system they will have in place to drop off ore into a hopper or something which will automatically load the mineral conveyors(which CWRN bought for the port in exchange for port concessions(e.g reduced loading of barge or ship price)which will fill the 10,000 ton barges in prep for the ship.
One of the 10 largest world ports uses an intermediate barge system like this because that port is only 7 meters deep(in China).
Others have reported laydown yards are available but will not have to be used with this system-I think pesquero has the most info on that and took pictures of those things,which are probably a part of itmd's compilation in the IBOX.
CWRN would only pay for days it was contracted to CWRN-my preliminary research indicated 18k to 24 k/day for 35000 ton ship. If the ship is in LA when CWRN calls it in they pay for transit to Ensenada,unless the ship is hauling something from LA to Ensenada,in which case somebody else pays for the LA-Ensenada transit.
They would not be paying for an empty ship from a long distance.
They would find a ship either close by or one already contracted to ship to a close by port. Hopefully ship would be close by to minimize time for ship to arrive but that all has to be coordinated with trucking to the port.
To make sure no operational problem w separator ,they want 2 days of the 3-18 mm separator operation,which combined w already separated superfines(which will be placed in bags on top of the bulk 3-18 mm ore),will provide a full shipload.
Originally the port said the dredging would be done in December,but,as usual in life, that was delayed to a finish in Jan.
Pesquero had an excellent post (a lot of them actually)showing a picture of a ship at the dock-where it off-loaded some bulk material,while 2 different dredges were operating around the ship. So they work the dredging in a rotating fashion to minimize any interference with shipping,but again, to be on the safe side, they want to finish dredging before allowing the larger Panamax ships.
CWRN has enough material stockpiled for the initial 35000 ton ship and very possibly for another ship. The superfines have probably been all separated as the 3 or 4 separators for the superfines(0-3mm)have been on site and presumably operational since November.
The separator en route to site now,hopefully having passed customs as one post suggested,can process 32000 tons in two 16 hour days.
I don't have any inside info but this suggests to me,once the 3-18mm separator arrives,things could get moving pretty fast.
I estimated 12 or 13 day transit time to China one way. They stated intention to do 1-2 75,000 ton Panamax/month,so given 30 days round trip/month(adding loading and unloading times)this could mean using 2 ships once everything gets moving.
Initial shipments are handymax(35000 tons in our case)because their draft is only 33 ft on average and the terminal to be used is being enlarged to better handle the larger Panamax-which CWRN expects to use after the dredging is completed.
Although the port claims 40 feet depth(see the port video posted some weeks back),sufficient for the Panamax class(so named because sized to fit the Panama canal limitations of max 12.04 meter depth), a 40 feet depth cannot be guaranteed during dredging operations-see my earlier posts.
I guess todays activity is what jackg or somebody else described as the mm's walking price up in morning(inter alia,to get people to set their stop losses too high)so the mm's can walk price down in afternoon(as etmm is doing as usual)to trip those stop loss orders,and as a pattern to discourage longs.
Remember on stop loss any BID at your stop loss price is sufficient to trip your order to sell. Longs are holding so etmm is trying to force retail sells in this fashion to cover their shorts.
Btw,excellent post on a large naked short selling lawsuit on the MXGD IHUB board today,explaining how large naked short selling helped precipitate the financial crisis in 2008.
Yes- re itmd being in Europe,not much else for certain quarters to use in present circumstances so his temporary absence is turned into some kind of conspiracy-certain quarters have a great imagination via their channeling.
I only checked on this once yesterday. I know you watch this closely,so why the jump from .0023 to .0028? Did etmm take itself out of the picture temporarily- as they do sometimes-but without normally such a jump in share price.
Have you contacted Valley Equipment lately so getmoreshares can somewhat facetiously ride shotgun,as he volunteered to do.
I assume the board has quieted while people wait for the separator. Either that or they are already on a 2 week holiday bender-but not CWRN fortunately.
A post weeks ago researched legal loads on Mexican highways at ca 48.5 tons,which could easily be optimized to 50 tons.
They(Bullit?) previously announced 16 hour days and half day Saturday.
At 5 loads/day and 50 tons/load and 5 trips in a 16 hr day
with 24 working days/month,each truck could deliver 6000 tons/month,requiring only 6 trucks for a 35000 ton shipment/month.
At 4 loads/day,ca 7 trucks.
Seems so easy given the draconian predictions from the usual quarters.
But w intent to ramp up to 112,500 tons/month would require ca 20 trucks. Already heard from sure.. re this many times.
As noted before in answer to your same questions,Corporations names are required to reasonably reflect operations.
To do so, CWRN(the parent)will change their name to Pan American Mineral Ventures LLC,registered/domiciled in Nevada(as is CWRN),as noted in 11-22-10 PR.
When name and cusip # change is official,as I understand it CWRN name will no longer be used(11-22PR "By consent,the BOD has approved the name change of Cotton and Western to Pan American Mineral Ventures"[noted as a LLC incorporated in Nevada -see rest of PR],and CWRN stock symbol will change to something reflecting the new name.
As 11-22-10 PR says,"the company shall submit to NASDAQ the request for name change together with a new CUSIP # in early Jan 2011".
I.e, from CWRN to Pan Am LLC Nevada(still the parent -still registered/domiciled in the USA).
This has NO EFFECT ON THE STOCKHOLDER except shares will probably have a new stock symbol-same company-just a name change-nothing to worry about.
CWRN is now de facto Pan Am-USA,a U.S. corp registered in Nevada and is the largest shareholder w 1.75 B shares(I'm guessing these are either Bob's shares[in a sense Bob is CWRN-all insider shares are held by Bob,his wife and family members]or a combination of Bob and his wife's shares.
As I understand it, until the name and cusip # change is official w the SEC etc, the new name-Pan Am [of Nevada registry] is conveniently called an affiliate.
Pan Am of Mexico(S.A.de C.V.Baja) is a wholly owned subsidiary owned by CWRN(through Bob and his wife's shares),as I understand it, in and through a corporate trustee agreement between Bob and his wife.
This may be confusing to people without business or law experience-and thus you bring it up-but there is nothing unusual(except Bob and Sharon are happily married and work together) or out of place.
You've said several times you won't post anymore but continue to raise questions designed to raise doubt. Most of your questions have already abundantly been answered by my and ITMD's etc posts and you are confusing the issues.
Regarding questions in PR about buyback and retirement of shares,which have been twisted to mean something negative.
In the PR's,"buyback" applies to buying back ca 60% of float, whereas RETIREMENT applies to retiring possibly the same % of BOD(Board/insider) shares.
This is a rather common procedure when companies make the transition to substantial revenues. The best companies in the 1 to 2 dollar price range reduce shares to ca 20-50 million because otherwise shares are undervalued vis a vis book value and revenues and thus prevent hostile parties from buying the company cheap on the open market etc.
There are 2 different things that will be occurring
1)BUYBACK of 60% of the float
2)RETIREMENT of a % of BOD shares-they don't "buy back" these because they already own them-thus the wording STRUCTURED PLAN COMBINATION of buyback [of float] AND RETIREMENT [they retire BOD shares in a structured manner as % of float is retired]
Examples of structure:
1) for every share of float bought back,one BOD share will be RETIRED
2) for every 10% of float bought back, 10% of BOD shares will be retired
They also say they don't see themselves on OTCBB past 2011-this is an important clue-because,in the calculations I and ITMD worked out, the only way they will have sufficient share price to move to major index in next 12-18 months is to retire a significant % of shares held by the directors also.
The PE ratio could easily be 50% or more higher on major exchange because pinky land penalizes revenue producing companies(who are no longer speculative,while usually-but not in CWRN's case- ridiculously rewarding speculative future income w share price 20 to over 100 times book value)-which is one reason they would want to move to a major exchange ASAP.
By RETIRING BOD shares in a STRUCTURED ratio IN COMBINATION w BUYBACK,they increase share price sufficiently to move to a major exchange(w one dollar min share price) in possibly 15 months-otherwise perhaps twice as long or more.
So retiring BOD shares in COMBINATION w buyback of float actually increases BOD (and float)valuation because they will get a higher PE ratio on major exchange and thus insider shares AND float will be worth more than they retired.
Nov 22 PR:
2. Review the issued and outstanding public share structure and vote on the number of common shares that will be made available to the public[that is,decide how many shares they want available in the float, for]. The Company is contemplating a treasury BUY BACK program for sixty (60%) percent of the public free trading common shares[FLOAT] in year 2011.
Officers, Directors and Affiliates [all of which are insiders] currently hold over sixty (60%) of the outstanding common shares . The B.O.D. has voted to incorporate a STRUCTURED Plan that will provide for a COMBINATION of BUYBACK and RETIREMENT of COMPANY[i.e,BOD shares] common shares that will balance[probably keep the same % of insider shares vs the float] the control of voting shares in favor of the Management. At this time all of the Officers, Directors and Affiliate company Pan Am, each holding more than ten (10%) percent of the outstanding shares and are subject to SEC rules regarding trading of said common shares.
3. Review the common share count percentage held by affiliates and insiders[w a view toward retiring a % of such shares]....
By consent; the Directors of LLC., U.S.A. shall RETIRE by deleting a percentage of common shares now held[by Board] as[at the same time as float is bought back,company shares will also be retired in a structured plan COMBINATION] new common shares that are accumulated through the public market[i.e,buyback] beginning in the later part of the first quarter of 2011.
This is referring to retiring a % of insider shares.
If they buyback 60% float,they may also retire 60% of insider shares to maintain same % ownership by insiders vis a vis the float.
The PURPOSE is to REDUCE TOTAL SHARES ASAP to raise share price to facilitate the earliest possible move to a major exchange ,where the games played by certain negative special interest groups will not be efficacious.
PR points on the subject:
9-30 PR: 'item #3 Review share count held by affiliates /insiders"-what for-Bob and his family are the insiders -they already know # shares they have, so in context of item 2, see:
11-22-10 PR item #2 talks of buyback and then says BOD hold over 60% of common shares.
"The BOD has voted to incorporate a STRUCTURED PLAN that will provide for a COMBINATION of BUYBACK AND RETIREMENT OF [the companies-that is insiders] common shares[i.e,BOD shares]......
The previous ref to 60% ratio implies they will keep same ratio(make sure BOD has voting control-normal)
BOD voted to retire BOD shares in COMBINATION w buyback.
The ingenuity of people w ulterior motives to misdirect/destroy is amazing.
The buyback and retiring of perhaps 60% of TOTAL[both insider and float] shares is an EXCELLENT thing that will greatly BENEFIT ALL SHAREHOLDERS.
There is no cancellation of all shares as somebody intimated.
I agree,and as others who have worked with startups have noted,there are always complications and delays as there are in our own personal lives where something unexpected comes up.
If you had foreknowledge sufficient to see all of the future you'd be a lot richer than Buffett or Gates. As CEO of a startup you need a "can do" attitude of cautious optimism-otherwise you would be defeated at the first few hurdles.
Buyer either changed or had a change order,thereby necessitating the 3-18mm separator.
The separator manufacturer experienced problems THEY didn't foresee in putting sep together-so how could Bob-relying on the expertise of the manufacturer-foresee things they-the specialists -did not foresee?
Surprisingly,despite being the only deepwater port in Baja and shipping millions of tons of bulk agricultural goods and N.Baja being covered by mining concessions,the port didn't have mineral specific conveyor belts,so CWRN had to buy these in exchange for a discount by the port.
The timing of the dredging is not something controlled by CWRN.
And so it goes on and on.
You have to be an indefatigable problem solver foreseeing the unforeseen.
We're almost there. Some of us have been holding for years so day to day hand wringing is ridiculous.
The separator should arrive,absent further unforeseen events, within a week.
The ore piles are ready for its 1000dmt/hour capacity,which can handle the 35k shipload in a couple days(remember there are piles of 0-3mm ore presumably separated by now,some of which presumably will go with this shipment also).
So 2 days after it is operational,Bob calls in the ship,which may take 30 days to arrive,depending on the ships schedule and location,or may take 30 days lead time period-I don't know-I hope its the former but we are very close in the macro viewpoint either way.
It is extremely rare for a penny stock to transition to revenues as we will soon see. I haven't seen any junior miner make that transition since this recession started.
And was the recession-with banks afraid to lend anymore,thereby making it extremely difficult to find a financial backer-Bobs fault also?
Took a closer look at the weather,which has been much milder than average in last 2 months at Goose Bay,with very little precipitation from Nov 19 to last date investigated for this update-Dec 14. I apologize for all temps noted here being Fahrenheit,with 32 F equal to freezing.
Using the topo map referred by Cee-it's earlier reference,Wolv property is ca 430 meters elev(ca 1400'- 161' elev of Goose Bay weather station leaves an elev difference of ca 1240' divided by ca 1 degree F for every 182 feet equals 6.8 degrees and adding 1.2 degrees for Wolv's prop being 75 miles inland from the Goose Bay station(farther from oceans moderating influence)for an assumed 8 degree temp differential.
As such,average temp last 10 days of Oct was 28.6; 1st 10 days Nov 27.2 degrees; 2nd 10 days Nov average 23.9 degrees; last 10 days Nov avg 20 degrees;1st 10 days Dec avg 22.3 degrees.
I compiled from wunderground.com,Goose Bay,Newfoundland,history,which says records may vary from official NWS records.(Had previously assumed much less elev difference prior to Cee-it's cite).
The recent 5 day period of my last post happened to be the warmest 5 day of the period.
With 3 separate grids I assume they would be closely monitoring the area of primary concern to capitalize on the best weather conditions for that area-where high % surface samples were collected-not far-yet too far- from the drilling to date.
So this is a 50 day period(Oct 22-Dec 10) w avg temps 3.4 to 12 degrees F below freezing,which may be cold enough long enough to freeze the shallow max? depth of 2 feet pond near the surface showings-at least in the shallower portions. That is the question,since Doubloon said they wanted that pond frozen so they could do the IP on it also without personally experiencing 600 volts electricity.
The ground temp a few feet down is usually a constant 55 degrees-thus it takes a considerable period below freezing at the above temps to freeze more than the top few inches or at most one foot of soil,so I assume they could thaw electrode entrances on land w just top few inches frozen? I know Doubloon said they'd get it done- citing other places far north conducting IP during winter.
Just responding to your assumed 1 billion shares after buyback and retirement of BOD shares,using calculations by company same as itmd.
The calculations can't be challenged-just the uncertainty of the timing in the twilight penny world.
112,500 dmt/month at full production and current 168 spot is 225 million/year revenue,with 50% net profit(once full production is achieved)times a typical PE of 15-do the math.
My post is positing the price 18 months out,after at least 27 shipments-not "a few shipments".
Also there are many companies w a lot more shares than CWRN,but whenever I list them-up to 50 billion shares and more you and the snowman mark them as off topic-preventing a broader relevant comparison to other companies.
Can you explain why companies in the very preliminary stage of exploration-at least 2 years from production,with no PR's for 10 months ,little or no discernible activity,with many billions shares more than CWRN,have a share price as high as one dollar?
That puts things in perspective,confirming the simple math of itmd and myself,based not on fancy but growing production and equipment specs,is very reasonable.
As usual,your announced all consuming hatred and goal to destroy the company has prevented you from getting the point of my post.
The point was the PE of 15-do you understand what PE means(I do-I have accounting/economics degree summa cum laude etc,plus doctoral degrees)is unlikely or significantly delayed on OTCBB-hence the reason for 60% buyback coupled w presumed similar 60% retirement of BOD shares to facilitate share price sufficient to move to a major exchange ASAP,where a PE of 15 is very reasonable.
The equipment and its specifications show that 112,500 tons/month is possible. If achieved the rest is simple math and PE,hobbled only by the vagaries of the OTCBB market,as I noted-a hobbling which is eliminated when a major exchange is achieved.
5-Day Forecast
Tuesday Overcast
41° F | 35° F
Wed
Rain 60%
41° F | 35° F
Thursday
60%
39° F | 35° F
Friday
Rain 60%
41° F | 37° F
Saturday
Rain 60%
39° F | 28° F
Overcast Rain
Believe Doubloon reported line cutting done about Nov 27,so the IP could be done by now as far as we know(est to take 2 weeks)-but as Doubloon said ,could take up to 2 weeks to analyze the IP.
These were my calculations,after removing anything from the post that could possibly be construed to be off topic.
The poster I was replying to was using a figure of 1 billion shares after buyback of 60% float and similar structured RETIREMENT of % of BOD shares. This would speed movement to major index where revenue producing companies are more fairly valued-w higher PE ratio.
Obviously at 2B shares and only half the share price would not be sufficient for major exchange,so everybody would benefit from a STRUCTURED plan -a combination of buyback of float and RETIREMENT of company(BOD)shares,as noted in the Nov 22 PR.
The PE is also higher because that's appropriate for major exchange, wheras itmd'S asumed PE ratio of 10 is appropriate for OTCBB.
I'm not contradicting itmd's calculations in any way-I am supporting his valuation contention,just using a different # shares (as explained) and different PE.
I was told last Feb OTCQX(the highest OTCBB classification-often used by foreign blue chips as well as companies such as Adidas) lowered its min price to .10/share.
That would be 100 million cap,adopting your(the post I was replying to) assumption of after buyback share count of 1 billion. Once they get to the OTCQX,which is scouted to a much greater degree by institutional investors,they can decide further on a course of action.
If they begin to be valued on a price earnings basis of 15 to one(price earnings often rose to 30 or even 40 to one before the recession)the price/share,based on yearly net income,would be 1.695,based on 50% net profit,at 112,500 tons/month ,calculated below.
113 m net income/yr times P/E of 15 equals $1,695,000,000 divided by 1 billion shares equals 1.695/share. That's how the rev producing co's are usually valued. And that's very reasonable considering most pennies are spec valued at 10 to 50 times book(with no income at all),with some at hundreds of times book.
The best mid level penny companies in up to 2 dollar price range have reduced their share count to 20 to 50 million via buyback because penny share value usually lags true worth in a revenue producing company,so by then its possible CWRN will have reduced shares via buyback much further. I then gave an example of a company.
And yes it might take a couple or even a few months to get up to this full production schedule,but based on their estimated production,this would answer your question of a share price of min of one dollar to qualify for a higher exchange.
Not immediately but after a full year of full production.(And this does not include any buyout options which could accelerate this schedule).
One reason to go to higher exchange is a valuation more closely approaching the companies worth than can be obtained on the OTCBB.
Once they get everything going,they estimated up to two 75000 ton shiploads/month. At 1 and 1/2 ships of 75k tons/month thats 112,500 tons/month or 1,350,000 tons/year. At current spot of ca $168/ton thats over 225 million revenue/year.
Itmd has estimated these things w slightly different figures-see the IBOX. Once initial bugs are worked out there should be a net of 50%-see itmd's stickies,or about 113 million net/year in this scenario.
Remember iron prices have skyrocketed from ca $37-38/ton in 2004 to spot of ca $168 now,resulting in a very high profit margin and the quantity of iron ore being demanded has also risen rapidly.
Why would somebody be so constantly upset by and censoring dd?
Btw,my detailed calculations(removed)showed,assuming 1 billion shares(the # shares posited after retirement of %BOD shares and % of float and buyback by the post I was replying to)
after buyback of float and STRUCTURED RETIREMENT of BOD shares
and assuming 1 and one half 75k shiploads/month and spot of 167 and PE of 15, a share price of 1.69.
Perhaps 18 months out-because share price for revenue producing companies lags value on OTCBB-one reason they would retire company shares in addition to buyback -to increase share price sufficient to move to major exchange ASAP-probably in 2012.
I remember why separator for 3-18mm not ordered earlier.
The original contract was for 50-125mm iron(Sept 30 PR).
Then by Nov 9 PR contract had been changed to 0-18mm.
At that time I speculated that a magnetic separator was not required for the 50-125mm iron.
Bullitt confirmed that in a post by saying such large iron would just fly off a separator...
The point being-there was a valid reason the separators weren't ordered earlier-there was a change order in the iron size specs.
Nov 9 PR says 3-18mm shipped via bulk cargo carrier,whereas 0-3mm shipped via container- 2 different ships(as implied)or same ship?
Nov 22 PR "mag sep's for 0-3mm are on location and the installation of these units will begin next week"
Normally,inspections would not occur without a permit,let alone 5 inspections. If he didn't have a required permit,he would be so told at the first inspection and certainly have it by now.
There's a lot of misdirection employed re this permit.
The land usage was approved years ago-that's the tough part -when public hearings are usually held and there is an environmental review and many govt agencies,including environmental,sign off on the land usage before the land usage is so zoned.
Concomitantly,CWRN or predecessor obtained mining concession-all done long ago.
In western countries which recognize private property rights and legal doctrines,once company has expended funds in reliance on land usage and concession,any further permitting is a matter of red tape and bonding as has been noted before.
Its ridiculous to imply some problem re this permit when the land usage and the mining concession(the 2 tough hurdles)were accomplished years ago.
Any subsequent permit is just to make sure streams /river are not unduly fouled by construction/production activity. This is not a big hurdle as implied by some.
Yes and there's a much better view of this permitted on-site fuel depot posted in pictures by itmd Oct 29(see itmd history sticky).
In November I believe another picture of this permitted fuel tank with three of the magnetic separators for the 0-3mm iron ore fines are seen in the same picture.
I think all the production activity puts the burden of proof re permits on those who would deny the same. They(ulterior motives) keep contending millions have been spent on equipment,workers,production just for show. Nobody does that.
Thanks for keeping us updated and for your work. When is happy hour for PM? Lowest short share count in a while? Think its been 75-90% for quite some time til now.
Repost re earlier post by the snowman.
Its ridiculous to ask proof of ownership when you've had on site operations for many months as shown by the pictures which your buddies initially indicated were fake and has no more relevance than me asking you to show proof of ownership of the abode you live in.
Is somebody going to do all this work and spend millions on equipment and labor without the necessary mineral rights?
We've been over this ad nauseum-you only need the mineral rights/concession, which they have,which entitles them to do anything necessary to extract the minerals,as you well know.
You in your abode,like most homeowners don't even own the mineral rights so an oil company could put an oil well in your front yard and there's nothing you could do about it.
Now it shows etmm on the ask at one hundred dollars/share as it did the other day. I've wondered why they are taking out their own ask also-I don't know if anybody understands their persistent presumably illegal manipulation but pesquero and jackg(worked for mm before)have had the best answers in their previous posts re this manipulation.
The shorts(no matter how they are calculated) remain in 75 -90% range for weeks -I've never seen this before.
In all other cases with shorts even close to this percentage it has resulted in a massive short squeeze, for example raising price from one half cent to twenty cents over several days. I've never shorted-would rather bet on success than destruction.
Can somebody explain the rules re how much time these shorts have to cover. Etmm seems bent on bringing this down so shorters don't lose their shirts,which again brings into question rules requiring cover within either 1 or 3 days.
I agree w itmd. What you are asking is confidential-more at a question that would be asked by an adversary or competitor who wants privileged information-for what purpose? So you can challenge the agreement in court?
To give this some balance research 1000's of penny stocks like I have and then make a decision as to which has the best risk/reward ratio. Despite unprecedented manipulation(in my experience)by etmm(which is probably illegal and complaints have been made to the SEC re etmm's manipulation),which can't continue much longer,my dd indicates CWRN has the best risk/reward ratio.
The dd posted on this board is unprecedented in my experience, for we've been answering devils advocates(most of whom have ulterior motives and some whose clients are buying cheap while they trash the company so they can get cheap shares)for a long time and have done just about everything except count the hairs on Bob's head.
Understand that this very situation indicates some big boys know this is a terrific investment and are doing everything they can to get in cheap before shipments begin.
Boards without bashers are companies without near term promise. The greater the promise the greater the ulterior bashing. If bashing concerns then find a quiet stock without promise.
One of the major brokers told me in 2009 that Scottrade had made a decision not to trade pennies anymore.
So starting in fall of 2009 there were hundreds of message board messages by people noting Scottrade wouldn't allow trading in their penny stocks anymore.
So this has nothing to do w CWRN in particular-it is an across the board decision by Scottrade re penny stocks-though they may allow some and for many you may have to call in. But why deal with a non-friendly house when there are brokers without these restrictions.
Choice trade will allow you to transfer your penny stocks to them.
Some brokers won't accept a transfer of penny stocks even if you already own the same stocks at that brokerage. They just don't like pennies, are condescending re the same,and know very little about the OTC world.
I don't understand your questions import except they seem to be designed to raise doubt.
Bob,his family members(loyal to him)and Sharon(married to Bob) own everything not in the float. This has already been answered. Look up "wholly owned". The Mexican subsidiary is wholly owned by CWRN.
Say you own property on the San Diego/Mexican border,w contiguous adjoining parcels-one on both side of the border. Your main house is on the U.S. side and you have a cottage or business in our case on the Mexican side.
You can't legally make the 2 parcels into one parcel because they are located in 2 different countries but you,who live on the U.S. side,still own the Mexican parcel.
For legal purposes CWRN has to have a Mexican affiliate but that has no effect on CWRN's ownership anymore than you living on the U.S.side of the border owning land in Mexico-and lots of U.S citizens own land in the Ensenada area(including my best friends brother who got me into pennies and this stock) and rules for foreign ownership of land in Mexico have been relaxed/eased over time.
The affiliate is totally owned by the parent and the parent is owned by Bob,his family and Sharon,who is married to Bob and works closely with him in the business.
Nothing to be afraid re this issue-you seem to want more info than is available or possible for a penny stock or a blue chip and a blue chip(who knows what a blue chip is-where is the old GM or Circuit City or LEHMQ OR WAMUQ) has only a small potential for any significant increase in value in the present enduring recession-factor that into your decision making process.
In all the hand wringing about the mag sep for the 3-18mm ore,people forget there are already FOUR MAG SEPARATORS ON SITE for the 0-3mm fines.
Three of these mag sep's were shown next to the approved onsite fuel depot in pictures back in November-I presume these are in the IBOX.
Presumably they are using those mag sep's now though nothing has been reported to my knowledge re that.
I don't know the details of their contract but it includes those 0-3mm fines which are bagged in maxibags for apparent container shipment,and if there were enough delay re the 3-18mm,it might be possible just to make a shipment w 0-3mm iron ore fines.
Just throwing this out to give some HONEST BALANCE to the discussion.
I'm not in the iron ore business but this promising company has been nitpicked ad nauseum,ignoring the big picture of actual production and soon coming shipment.
I don't know of any junior miner w price under 50 cents/share anywhere close to production-they are usually years out,waiting financing and permits and doing preliminary prospecting w very little communication w the stockholders.
CWRN has better communication w stockholders than any company I know.
There have been discussions previous as to legitimate reasons why the mag sep may not have been ordered earlier,but I would have to look them up to refresh my memory as I'm not paid to do this-this is not my job. So it is not fair to bully the company in ignorance of those previous discussions and the fact there are already 4 mag sep's on site.
I suspect this was the operation in which somebody previously posted that in a previous venture ,the JV company turned out not to have the funds necessary to execute production and supposedly had misrepresented the funds they had. That was reportedly the fault of the JV company ,not CWRN.
At any rate ,not relevant to the current operation where the financial backing is obvious in the many production pictures/activity supplied by independent sources as well as the company.
CWRN is the parent and stock symbol and all shares are CWRN shares.
There are no shares in the wholly owned Mexican subsidiary,which is required by Mexican law to be headed by Mexican national(Sharon).
Sharon and Bob? own a significant amount of the CWRN shares.
For our purposes it is irrelevant whether some of the BOD CWRN shares are held by BOD of subsidiary(same people-Bob and Sharon),since sub is wholly owned. Can't teach a semester of corporate law in a sentence.
CWRN changed name to the LLC company to better reflect operations-same company still domiciled in NV-this has no effect on and changes nothing for the stockholders. Companies are required to reasonably reflect operations in their name.
Panamerican Minerals Ventures, S.A. de C.V. Baja California,is the wholly owned sub domiciled in Mexico,as required by Mexican law.
To my knowledge the LLC Nevada domicile is merely a name change as noted to better reflect operations-at any rate does not change anything for stockholders.
I meant benefits of incorporating in Nevada obviously.
CWRN,the parent,is domiciled in Nevada,as are many companies due to benefits of incorporating in TX (and also Delaware).
Corporate offices are still officially in Texas,since the BOD rejected a possible plan to move HQ to San Diego.
However,as noted in previous postings the operational arm of the BOD has been encamped in Ensenada de facto operational HQ.
CWRN is the same Co irregardless of any name change to better reflect the Mexican oprerations.
CWRN owns and is investigating several concessions-e.g. see pictures posted by itmd showing Bob/Sharon on a break/working lunch? while investigating other concessions or possible concessions in S. Mexico.
The shares apply to the entire company and are not parcelled out among diferent concessions.
The Mexican Sub is a wholly owned subsidiary of CWRN domiciled(legally registered as per Mexican law)in Mexico.
This is all normal-nothing unusual-typical organization and law.
The only unusual thing is that the Presidents of the 2 domiciles are married to each other and get along(which benefits the stockholders,and Sharon has investigated mining opportunities in many countries as per Bullitt and has related degrees-she is not just a pretty face),besides the legal agreements that tie the 2 companies together.
BOD(CWRN) owns 60% or so of shares and plans on retiring a significant amount of the float(and commensurately CWRN BOD shares to keep the same 60% ratio as per PR)once there is operational revenue.
Nothing unusual. The sky is not falling,as nellies are always apt to believe.
I don't think there has been a publicly noted buyout offer. The company was reincorporated in Wyoming w a lot of authorized preferred shares,presumably w reference to plans by the huge neighboring mine to expand w some of the 83 million line of credit earmarked for expansion of the neighbor mine and another mine.
As if MXGD plans to raise a lot of money.Why and how? Possibly as part of MXGD's bid for a joint venture that would keep royalties rolling into MXGD,whereas a buyout is a one time thing.
I'm just guessing and there are mining experts who jumped on this thing when the announcement of the neighbor mine to expand came out and have since disappeared.
I don't why, since MXGD surrounds it on 3 sides and I don't know how the big mine will expand without some agreement w MXGD.
Who does MXGD expect to buy the large number of preferred authorized shares,unless it is investors banking on some JV/royalty agreement? Or the big mine could easily buy the preferred- I didn't notice whether there was a poison pill to prevent a hostile takeover(to the company but not necessarily MXGD investors)but there most likely is.
The mining engineer/CEO put a LOT of effort ,including some unusual formulas into the lengthy stock configuration -didn't spend a lot of time on it. A previous post many days ago provided a link to the Wyoming reincorporation.
Is that a mistake on level 2 showing etmm suddenly asking 100 dollars/share? Did their attorneys or somebody else warn them about their illegal manipulation?
vert and vndm, at .2553, where they have been for some time,have had the right idea.
I haven't talked to him since Aug 31 since he is busy and many others are reporting back from him on a regular basis.
When I talked to him he said he wasn't even thinking about pinksheets or the stock. He said production will take care of that.
Which of course is a professional attitude,though an increasing number of companies are suing certain groups for libel because people absolutely violate the standard for libel on these boards- falsely thinking their contract w the adversary will give them immunity..
The standard for libel for this situation is somewhere between simple negligence and reckless disregard for the truth.
These are both much easier to prove than the higher standards of clear and compelling evidence or beyond a reasonable doubt etc used for other situations.
Fortunately CWRN has financial backing and is beyond the stage where they have to issue stock to raise funds. Many companies buyback stock as CWRN will do once they start posting net income.
CWRN was .0071 last spring before any production activity and without promotion.
CWRN jumped to .0061 recently without promotion. The big boys/mm saw that and upped the manipulation/boxing the stock as itmd etc have noted. Without this possibly unprecedented manipulation this would be in the pennies.
The shorting is the highest extended shorting I've seen(often 80-90%,though one person questioned how those numbers are calculated,that does not affect comparison among stocks).
Absent the incredible mm etc manipulation(which some have noted as illegal),this alone could've sent the stock to over 20 cents. Another well known company went from one half cent to over twenty cents on less shorting.
When their game is done and/or a larger pool of investors sees the revenues etc,not to mention the buyback,this should be in the pennies.
Ive researched 1000's pennies and this has the best current potential I can find.
Our group contacted scores of pennies as part of our dd and only 2 responded(ironically many pennies ignore the stockholders).Bob was the only CEO to respond...
That Bob continues to respond to numerous inquiries in the midst of all this startup production activity is amazing and signals a good honest work ethic.
The dd posted on this board,showing this is the real thing, has been unprecedented in my experience,and is therefore an excellent test of whether people will believe the truth.
You obviously did not read or understand my or pesquero or itmd's etc posts.
The point is not whether ports can accommodate Panamax now-they are looking to the completion of deepening etc of Panama Canal so they can accommodate the new class of Panamax built to new Panama Canal standards-due to the worldwide(except in China and perhaps India)depression the ports want to keep up w the Jones so they don't lose any business.
And dreging of the new terminal does not take years- it was earlier reported by the port to be finished in December and pesquero now indicates will be finished mid Jan,but will not interfere w Handymax shipping. If you are talking about maintenance dredging that is different but is not relevant to the discussion.
Did you see the ship docked next to the off loaded pet coke in pesquero's photo?? Normal Handymax shipping was continuing while dredging works around it. When no ship is at the dock they can concentrate on that area. Not too difficult to figure out.
They work the dredging on a rotating basis so as to minimally interfere w shipping-thus the ship that unloaded the pet coke is at dock while 2 dredgers work behind it.
So THE DREDGING SHOULD NOT INTERFERE W HANDYMAX CLASS VESSEL w average drafts of 33 feet.
Officially Port depth is 40'-see the port video link posted by somebody a few days ago. And Panamax vessels are limited to a draft of 12.04 meters (ca 39 feet),for shallowest part of Panama canal(thus the Panamax class of ships) is ca 40 feet.
So Panamax could negotiate channel NOW unless there has been a significant drift since the last dredging-- and depth cannot be guaranteed in the vicinity of the actively operated dredger. I presume they are using an abundance of caution.
Reports indicate they intend to dredge up to ca 15 meters(ca 49 feet)which would place them among the deepest ports(deepest west coast I could find was Long Beach extending terminal to increase depth to 53 feet).
The dredging is a forward looking operation looking toward the time Panama Canal deepening is finished(target date 2014)at which time draft and width of Panamax class vessels will be increased commensurately.
So ports are deepening from the previous normal deep water standard(determined by Panama canal depth) of 40 ft depth(another more loose standard calls any port over 7.5 m or 25 feet deep water-the 2nd busiest world port is only 7 meters and has to offload to shallower vessels as the barges will do for CWRN until the new mining bulk loading terminal is finished)to a future standard of 50'. Future 5th and 6th generation cargo vessels are expected to have a draft of 50 feet or more.