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.
Here are some thoughts on this issue:
The road issue is a simple one from CMI's perspective- if the BLM decision goes against CMI, then they would simply be required to get a permit to use the haul road across BLM land.
But there is a bigger issue there- and that is the legitimacy of title to townsite lots in the Gold Hill townsite.
It has been said that the federal government never recognized the townsite of Gold Hill (and possible others on the Comstock)... which means that they never formally ceded title to that land. Yet as some point (as early as 1869?) these parcels were considered townsite lots, and people were given title to them and were paying property taxes to the local jurisdiction for them. I've looked at the maps in the vault in the assessor's office. In one old map there are no lots, just mining claims. 10 years later in another map, there are surface parcels laid out all over, but no clear explanation how they came to be, or proof that it was sanctioned by the federal government.
So in other words, if the feds decide that the townsite lots in question actually never had title severed, and that they are still technically owned by the federal government, then they are negating all the ownership based actions over the last 140 years. That means that technically, property taxes that have been paid should be returned to the people who paid them, sales of the lots could be cause for lawsuits, title companies (if they were involved in the sale) would have to pay out damages- and I think that the biggest result would be a lawsuit from Storey County against the federal government arguing constructive ownership. The main impetus behind the lawsuit would be the potential loss of property tax revenue, as well as disruption of quiet enjoyment for the citizens.
Cause if the ruling there goes against CMI, and the BLM determines that the townsite lot(s) in question never had title severed and they are still owned by the feds, that means that ANY AND ALL townsite lots that were not created as part of a patented claim (in which both mineral and surface rights were given from the government to the claim holder) would be invalid- and anyone living on those lots could be kicked off and their land declared the property of the federal government.
The reality of the situation up there is that the land records are so screwed up- the best way to make things work at this point is for everyone to abide by the agreed upon boundaries and just go with it. Roads on the map sometimes don't coincide with roads in real life, but if the property owners on either side agree that that is where the road should be, then everyone just agrees to use it as is and it works.
This is a bigger issue- it's not just as simple as the BLM ruling on one lot. Whatever they rule would affect the entire townsite, minus patented claims, and that would create some chaos.
I really wonder if the CRA has considered the ramifications of their stirring things up with various federal agencies. Don't they see how it could backfire and burn them? What if some of them lose their houses and land because they lobbied to the BLM to get involved? Maybe they don't see the risk.....
Thought I would post this up- for those who can't get up to the Comstock to see, this is a really poorly shot view of the work that has been done. Expanded leach pad, new offices, new preg solution pond, expansion of Merrill Crowe, and new freshwater reservoir.
You're absolutely right. I meant to respond to ppl_first but when I looked at his post, it was a reply to one of yours, and so your handle is what stuck in my head. Sorry....
jt-
I disagree with your assessment of time line to production. They are far closer than 1-2 years. They have all their permits, have ordered all processing equipment that they need (mostly just upgrades in capacity over previous equipment), and have been doing preliminary construction work to prepare for the arrival of the new equipment. This isn't just window dressing- I've been to the mine site fairly recently, and it's busy.
The mine plan is complete- they have blocked out the ore, and will be hiring production personnel over the next two months. They have a very low stripping ratio (less than 1:1), so there isn't a ton of dirt to clear before getting to the ore.
I believe that it is going to creep up on a lot of people- they are so used to the slow plodding of exploration and waiting for permits that has admittedly taken years, that all of a sudden, this will be a producing miner and it will feel like it happened lightning quick.
What does that mean for share price? I have no idea! lol.... I've been surprised before, and so I'll save the predictions and just watch.
Here's an overview of the planning commission meeting last week- pretty accurate:
http://virginiacitynews.com/free-to-explore-mining-company-permit-for-exploratory-drilling-in-gold-hil-p4079-1.htm
No problem, my friend. Nice to meet you and your wife... sorry you missed the presentations and tour the day before, but glad we got to chat til the wee hours, and glad you could make our little mill tour as well....
Cheers-
C
btw... here is the link to the listing of officers of the CRA:
http://nvsos.gov/sosentitysearch/CorpDetails.aspx?lx8nvq=yoZG2nS5GgTpLt6%252f3SNe3A%253d%253d&nt7=0
Interesting that they all list an address in Carson City, not on the Comstock.
Also want to correct some info that was shared that wasn't quite accurate.
First, Dean Haymore is not a planning Commissioner- it would have been inappropriate for a Planning Commissioner to visit the shareholder meeting in their official capacity- their job is to review permit applications and vote to either recommend them for passage or not by the County Commission.
Dean is the Planning Director for Storey County- he is responsible for accepting and reviewing permits for completeness and accuracy, and his department issues a staff report evaluating the application and it's expected impacts. When an application conforms with the principles and guidelines set forth by the County's General Plan and municipal codes, his job is to present it to the Planning Commission and certify it's appropriateness and that it is a proper request.
It is up to the planning commission, (who are either elected or appointed) to decide on whether it should go forward or not.
Second, Storey County only has between 4,000 and 6,000 residents- Lyon County is much bigger.
Third, Lyon County has the incredibly high unemployment, not Storey.
Finally, contrary to what Rickybobby heard, I spoke with Mr. Winfield just after he and Mr. De Gasperis got back from talking with the protesters. He said that they had a nice conversation, and that there were several people that warmed up to him, and that he gave out his contact info to some of them for further discussion.
My feeling is that when CMI refers to 6 people being the opponents, they are referring to the officers of the Comstock Residents Association. There is no formal membership, no dues or membership cards, so there really aren't any "members" except for the officers... who appear to be decidedly anti-mining.
There are certainly other people with concerns, but as has been described, some of these people feel that the company is some sort of shell game- I guess they have a hard time understanding the concept of a "wholly owned subsidiary" (meaning Plum Mining is owned by Comstock Mining, which used to be Goldspring). I don't know how they arrive at this conclusion, given the relative strength of the company both financially as well as in their personnel.... especially when you compare it to previous iterations.
That's an easy one to resolve- in fact, the property owner who let the protesters put their signs up and hosted the BBQ falls into this category- and he's not even concerned about mining (some would call him pro-mining).
The mixed messages were really humorous- half the signs proclaimed LODE a scam, that they were mining investors, called them "Con-stock".... and the other half were anti-mining slogans. But wait a second- if the company is a scam, then they don't need to worry about the mining, cause they will never get there, right?
The fact that they are out there confirms that they believe that LODE has the means and will to actually get into production- they should probably re-think their message a little bit, and get rid of the conflicts.
Here is what I wrote about it- and I spend a good deal of time on the Comstock (I'm up there for 2-3 days every month or so), so I feel I have a pretty good read on the situation.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=128163&tid=531&mid=699&tof=2&frt=1
Regardless of the what the locals think, LODE has all the permits that they need for production (minus two which are being finalized, but are not major).
The petitions you reference are from Silver City, which is in a different county, and really doesn't hold any sway with local government.
MY understanding is that there are about 20 people that are hard core against mining in Silver City, and another 20 who are pro-mining (including employees and contractors who are working for the company). The rest are either on the fence, or don't care, or are concerned, but not "anti". But their big beef is with LODE building a pit right next to Silver City, which would be their second mine, and is years down the road.
Read the entire filing- none of the proceeds are going to LODE. If you read down a little further, you'll see a list of who is selling these shares- they are shareholders, not the company.
As far as I can tell (and I'm not an expert), these folks either hold warrants or restricted shares or something that they want to sell (and apparently are allowed to). Since those shares have not been issued yet, that compels Comstock to issue them so that they can be sold, and hence the disclosure.
My thought is that these are some investors that contributed the money that will get them into production, and they are cashing in some of the shares they were given/promised.
As such, this is part of the planned and disclosed dilution, and not additional or new.
Cause they have plenty of money still in the bank.... so this is not a fundraising sale.
Just out of curiosity, on what are you basing your feeling that gold and silver may move down?
I will point out that oil just shot up, and while I'm not an expert, I believe that there is often a corrolary between the price of crude and gold....
Anyway, just curious what factors you are looking at.
Just thought I would copy my findings regarding the claims about red tags and "cease and desist" letters.... some truth to the latter, none to the former. Nothing to worry about either way:
1. Red Tag- So far, no such thing, at least in Storey County (or Lyon County either). Looks like bashers, trying to blow things out of proportion to pick up some cheap shares.
2. I just got off the phone with the Dayton region building inspector (Lyon County)- he said no legal action had been taken, but in response to a complaint, about 4 months ago, they wrote a letter/gave notice to LODE that they needed to provide adequate structural support for any buildings that they drill under. Apparently they were drilling an exploration hole (at an angle, I'm assuming) that went under an old building in the Dayton Consolidated complex- Lyon County doesn't recognize it as a "historic building" unless it is catalogued in the historic register.... but it's old. Because it was unused, there was no immediate danger, hence no "red tag", but a notice and a requirement that they provide adequate support for the structure. Just a week or two ago, the most recent letter sent was asking them to proceed with the support work, and indicating that no building permits or anything would be required.
3. Apparently Storey County had asked Comstock (CMI) to move some drilling equipment so that it was at least 1000 feet from a residence, but again, there was no formal action taken, and no "red tag". CMI has volunteered to keep their drills more like 1200-1500 feet from residences, just so they don't get close to the limit. I talked to both the building department, as well as community services (which handles non-building code enforcement), and that is the sum of it.
4. So I called NDEP about the "cease and desist" letter- the mining regulation division knew nothing about it, but mentioned that the Water Pollution Control Bureau might have had something to do with it. Turns out that they did issue a cease and desist letter on May 11, 2011, because some of the grading work related to drilling had filled in or blocked a water course/drainage beside Highway 342, about a half mile north of Silver City. CMI has been given until the 24th of June to resolve the issue... if they don't, then we can assume further enforcement action will be taken. If they do, then we can assume that they will be free to proceed. Needless to say, I completed the loop and made sure that Mining Regulation was aware of the current situation.
5. Planning Commission Meeting Cancelled- I previously listed the two reasons that I thought this meeting was cancelled. I'm now leaning towards the second one (that I previously thought was unlikely). I believe that they postponed the hearing for both reasons, with the primary being that Mr. De Gasperis is otherwise occupied in New York and elsewhere, connecting with investors and market makers and getting ready for the switch to AMEX. My guess is that he will then head straight to the investment conference that they PR'd early next week, and so his plans did not allow him to be present for the hearing, and so it was postponed. Combine that with changes to the permit scope, and it was natural to add more time into the mix.
So, long story short- yes there's a cease and desist on the drilling, no there are no red tags, but none of it is a serious or unfixable issue. And I really think we are getting close on the AMEX listing, which would explain the frantic attempts to drive the price down and discredit the company.... in the long run, I don't think it's going to work.
I'm looking forward to seeing what happens with the AMEX move- I'm expecting it to happen in the next week or two.
That is a good deal, considering that the previous owners orginally listed it close to $2.5 million. They knew that it was too high, but wanted to just put the word out that they were interested in selling, and so I think they did well over all. Hard to say exactly without seeing their balance sheet and P&L, but if it's managed decently and they can keep the vacancy rate down, I think they got a good deal.
First off, I'll say that each project has a ton of variables, and is a complex equation. That's what makes it difficult to compare one project to the next, and why feasibility and scoping studies are needed.
Allied's Hycroft is a major, high volume project. Their scoping study anticipated annual production of 600,000 ounces... LODE is starting at 1/30 of that at 20,000.
From their PR from a couple years ago:
"....indicate that overall average mill recoveries are expected to be 87.2% for gold and 81.7% for silver.
Based on current performance of the heap leach pad, heap leach recoveries of gold and silver from run of mine oxide ore in the scoping study are assumed to be 56.6% and 12.0%, respectively."
I imagine you caught that dismal oxide recovery on the heap.
I don't know how to factor a 30 times economy of scale, but I believe that would probably drive the price per ton down quite a bit.
So to be honest, I don't really know how one would compare one project to another when they are so different. And I don't find it particularly useful to try to compare these two... my interest is more turned to the specific variables concerned with the Comstock project.
Why yes, yes it does. That's my little deal I've got going.
There are no near-term plans for a mill. They will have two-stage crushing going onto the heap- which will definitely help. I think last time they were only crushing to a 4" minus, and this time they will be taking it down to a 1" minus or smaller... and that will definitely help leaching. That is not finalized- at least not publicly. That was the plan that they used to apply for permitting- two stage crushing to the heap.
The tertiary crushing that is in the permit modification app is the ball mill, leading into the rest of the milling circuit. As far as I can tell, they have put plans to build the mill on hold for the short term- they have not budgeted for it, and most likely will be stockpiling their high grade ore until they decided to build it.
So to answer your question, yes- a mill would definitely recover more, but they won't have a mill operating at first. We can expect a finer crush to yield better heap recovery, but it has not been proven, so I tend to remain conservative and use the recovery level that we know that they can achieve (because they did so in the past on Billy The Kid ore).
But realize as well that the more intensive the process, the more expensive it will be. So 2-stage crushing will add power, labor and maintenance/equipment costs to their processing, and will push the cost to process up slightly. Running ore through a mill is substantially more costly- as a point of comparison, we've calculated our costs at the CP Mill at $45 per ton.... theirs will most likely be less, as they will run greater tonnage (economy of scale).
It's a simple math problem- If processing yields one ounce of silver per ton, then (at today's lower prices) they get $35 to offset the costs. Their average silver grade is 1/3 ounce, and then there is a recovery loss factor as well. Even with a mill, I would not count on better than an 85% silver recovery- I would be very impressed if they did better than that. On the heap, it will be lower.
So here is my math- average M&I silver grade is .36 opt(if I remember correctly). I use a conservative 50% recovery for now...
So .36 opt X .5 (50%) X $35= $6.30 per ton in silver proceeds.
That's maybe enough to pay for half of the processing cost. Even at 100% recovery, it would barely pay processing costs....
As I mentioned, chances are good that they will front-load profits by cherry picking richer ore in the beginning, so the silver content will probably be higher to begin with. Then again, it would be imprudent to heap mill-grade ore, so that will probably NOT be processed first. My feeling is that it will need to be near an ounce to pay for all processing costs.
In response to the question about oxide vs. sulfide ores, most of the ore within 300-400 feet of the surface in the Comstock is oxide- the deeper stuff is usually sulfide-based. Theoretically, oxides will be cheaper and easier to process with better recovery.... but again, I feel it is more prudent to calculate based on passed performance... as in, what they recovered in 2004-2006.
On the high grade stuff, the silver pays for it, but on average, the silver will only cover part of the cost. Remember that their silver recovery on the heap isn't wonderful- could only be 50%, or even less. Average silver grade for measured and indicated is about 1/3 opt.... clearly it will be higher for the ore they cherry pick up front, but 1/3 at $45/oz at 50% recovery only gives you $7.50 per ton.
When someone who has never had an interest or made any commentary on a company suddenly comes out with a strong pronouncement about their prospects, it is natural and proper to search for some context and background on the person. Just remember that it's YOUR closet that the skeletons are coming out of.
As for a rebuttal- here is mine- feel free to respond to the critique.
http://messages.finance.yahoo.com/Stocks_%28A_to_Z%29/Stocks_C/threadview?m=tm&bn=32059&tid=332666&mid=332719&tof=14&frt=1
For me, your review is kind of a tekel situation, if you will.
I was cleaning out my bookmarks, and I came across this one that I had, as instructed "marked".
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=51036281#
Interesting...... someone was pretty confident about something that didn't come close to happening.
I guess next time I'll save my bookmark space... cause that was kind of a waste of time.
There seems to be some confusion about "a mill".
If you listened to Mr. De Gasperis' response, he confirmed that they had acquired "components".
A ball mill is just one component of "a mill"- you can grind all you want (which is what a ball mill does), but that doesn't extract anything.
So it is a bit of a non sequitur to ask them if the bought "a mill". I've seen the plans for their mill (meaning a complete mill circuit)- they were submitted with their permit modification. It is quite a bit more extensive than just a ball mill- in fact, the plan is to eventually have two ball mills running in parallel as part of the circuit.
A used ball mill may cost between $50,000 and a couple hundred thousand dollars. A complete mill is going to run you more like $5 million to $15 million.
They still have the ball mill- still sitting out there in the field next to the heap, along with the tankage and the agglomerater that they also got from the Gooseberry. Beyond that, no progress on the mill, and no short-term plan to build it.
He said August as the longest that it would take for the permitting. May be sooner... I think he was being conservative (and wisely so).
Right now, the bigger thing that is holding them back is waiting for those column tests to finish. They will finalize their process plan based on the results of the column tests, which are slated to be finished in early May. Then they will acquire the equipment, then they start mining.
The air and mercury permits are not really as crucial, cause they deal specifically with the last stage of production- the smelting. And it will take time (probably 1-2 months) from the time they start digging until they are ready to smelt anything.
I know that what I posted is not news to anyone, but it is fact-based, and hopefully gives a clearer picture of what this company is... and isn't.
I've seen several people post that there is no facility- technically, that's not true. There is a physical "facility"- it just can't be used for milling.
Anyway, it may be obvious to you, but several people were asking for more specifics, so I provided what I could.
Cheers-
goldbarren-
I don't own any stock here (way too sketchy), and don't know alot about them, but have followed their mishaps for a year or two now.
My interest was two-fold- first, last year I met the owner of a Construction company in Arizona who had constructed and operated the COD Mine years ago, and so I found them through researching it's history.
The thing that really caught my attention was their "processing facility"... as I am working on a mill project in the Virginia City Nevada area, I was curious about potential competition.
I've never had any contact with any of them, but the "facility" does exist.
McCarran Nevada (which they list as their address) is a tricky place- it doesn't show up on most maps. Technically, the zip that is listed with it is attached to Sparks Nevada.
The old McCarran Ranch lies east of the Reno/Sparks metro area... parts of it have recently been developed into the Tahoe-Reno Industrial Complex (known as TRI). It's a very extensive industrial park in Storey County Nevada.
There is a building at the address that they have listed for their facility. I drove up to it, and around it.... it looks like any other manufacturing/warehouse building in the park. It is not labeled with their company name, and there are no signs of anything mining or milling related on the exterior. Most of the windows are tinted, so I couldn't see in. I peeked in the front window/door, and saw a mostly deserted office space.
I am highly doubtful that this "facility" has any milling equipment in it.
They were also playing games with the permitting, and there are inconsistencies. I noticed that they PR'd their supposed "permits" from the County- mentioning a "temporary business license" and a construction permit.
I'm dealing with Storey County right now- they are actually quite easy to deal with. That being said, they require a Special Use Permit for any mining or milling activity- without it, there is no way this "facility" could operate, and it would be foolish to build or assemble it without this permit in hand.
It also looks, from public notices, like they received their Water Pollution Control Permit from the NDEP- this is the major environmental permit that they would need. The notice, however, stated that it would become effective in May of 2011- I think this is a mistake, and it was supposed to be May of 2010, based on the time frames.
Anyway, I just wanted to throw this info out there. While the building is real, I am thoroughly skeptical that it is a "beneficiation facility" of any sort, or that their permits are in order for operation.
Given my past experience with "mining" companies like this, I'd stay far away.
Cheers-
Clay
Met with the CEO and one of the directors late last week- I feel very confident about the situation, progress and direction of this company. The corporate culture has changed dramatically with current management, and they have outlined very clear paths to clearly defined goals on both the exploration/resource building side, as well as resumption of production.
They are well capitalized (meaning they have more than enough to continue exploration AND ALSO get back into production... which leads to self-sufficiency and no more dilution), and continue to present a exceptional technical team. They are also armed with extensive historical data from past exploration and production (which has come through their acquisitions primarily), which will make their "exploration" more a matter of definition and development, rather than trying to find previously unknown deposit. This is a major plus- less "hit and miss" drilling, and faster resource development.
My feeling is that the company is fairly valued for where it sits right now. The market is treating it like a producer, as they have production facilities and permits (mostly) in place.
This is, IMO, a double-edged sword. The positive is that it makes the company much more stable, and the share price will be tied more closely to actual progress, as opposed to speculation and shorting. Also on the plus side is that the conversion dilution is already priced in as well, so I don't expect a big hit when the preferred convert to common.
The negative is that it is not as undervalued, meaning (barring unforeseen bonanza strikes or another boon) we will probably see slow and steady increase in value as they work their plan, rather than big jumps.
For me, I'm thoroughly comfortable with that- I'm glad that this company is shedding it's speculative mantle in favor of an identity as a solid explorer/near-term producer.
Realize as well that their resource calculations so far are based on $1150 gold and $18 silver, so there is a bonus built in there already, which should be reflected in feasibility calculations, and carried onto future 43-101's....
Speaking of which, I look forward to their next 43-101, which SHOULD (IMO) include both updated resource numbers and some reserves (which means feasibility calcs) and should be released early next year.
I will not be selling my position any time soon, and will (as I can afford to) acquire on the dips.
I've spoken with him as well, and feel really good about where they stand and their plans moving forward.
There has been some good press and interest starting to increase in this company and it's project.
Here's an interview with Carrington:
http://www.wallstreetreporter.com/2010/05/general-metals-corp-otcbb-gnmt-frankfurt-gmq-ceo-interview/
Here's another write up about GNMT:
http://www.stockhouse.com/Columnists/2010/March/26/Silver-gold-junior-s-drilling-could-show-multiple
With their newly completed 43-101, I feel that this company is greatly undervalued.
fsailing-
We each have to do what we feel is necessary, and right to protect our interests. So if trying to get the SEC to launch an investigation, then go right ahead.
That being said, I would encourage you to really think it through.
I don't know if you've ever been audited by the IRS, but it's not a fun process. If you are a business owner, and even if you are clean, and there is nothing out of line, it diverts substantial time and resources from your main goal of making money, just to jump through the hoops and satisfy their standard of proof.
To me, as much as I'd like to know exactly what has happened and why, I don't really see the wisdom in potentially piling on a greater regulatory and compliance burden.... especially for a company that clearly already has some compliance issues they are working through. Cause for a small company already spending a bunch of time, energy and money to update filings from the last two years, having to submit to the SEC version of an IRS audit may just put them under... or at least slow down any progress they might be making towards getting their projects moving.
Anyway, just something to think about. btw.... this is nbclay from the other board.....
Yep- he's the one who made the announcement. He is CEO and Chairman of the Board.....
It was Carl Harz who was acting as president, and will move into the role of VP Business Development....
Congrats Mr. Perez, on the promotion.
Looks like some people here think that Mr. Perez has done something other than "tell lies"......
Excited to see which direction Mr. Perez takes the company....
Well, I hope you don't have to wait that long for a good price move that is sustained.
Time will tell- early stage companies like this are somewhat unpredictable, and things can fall into place very quickly, or they can drag out.
I think I'm averaged about this level with my position.... we'll see what happens.... good luck to you!
Cheers........
Thanks for the good advice. I have conducted my own research, and continue to do so. Although I find it a bit odd that when I share some of the things that I've found, it's insinuated that I'm an insider or something. Seems to me a poor excuse for lack of research to support opposing viewpoints. And I am not, btw, officially connected with this company beyond being a shareholder.
But that doesn't really concern you.... it's mostly your compatriots.
And I don't marry a stock (especially a pinky penny)- I stick with it as long as the risk-reward equation is acceptable to me. And I never commit more than I'm prepared to lose.
I find it a little hard to accept your assertion that you simply post facts- saying that Perez "has done nothing but lie" is subjective at best, hyperbolic at least, and marginally supportable by the 'facts' you provided.... especially when contrasted with the progress this company has made since he came on board.
Forgive me if I'm wrong, but I've seen plenty of posts with the same general tenure as yours on various boards, and the motivation of the poster was suspect. They had some ulterior motive to bash the stock and try to drive the price down.
And I didn't ask you to provide more DD links about this company- I asked you to clarify your motivation for making the claims you did. Cause what I saw in your posts was a mixture of observations, opinions and conclusions, more or less supported by facts that you provided.
You certainly don't have to state your motivation- you don't owe me anything. I just hope you understand if I discount your posts as garden variety bashing without receiving a bit more context.
Cheers......
No, if anything, I would call that a 'dump'..... the 'pump's' annoying cousin.
I think that there is a relatively small pool of investors here- there just isn't that much notoriety yet. That being said, little delays are magnified if a few people get impatient and don't want to wait out the news.
I certainly wouldn't complain if this was the new support, and we stair-stepped up from here.
I, for one, am glad that the cheerleaders are gone. They probably rode it up to 2 cents, sold out and are looking for the next quick buck.
I'm interested in solid fundamentals that build value, and I'm okay waiting a few months to get it.
Oh, and not trying to be contrary, but Dr. Abbott is NOT the CEO of USAU...... I'm just sayin.....
While I didn't really follow TOGI, this is what I've been able to reconstruct from looking into their history.
1. Earl Abbott and one other gentleman acquired an option/rights to Jack Creek. It looks like now Dr. Abbott has sole control of that contract.
2. Abbott came in to TOGI and brought Jack Creek with him.
3. They tried to raise funds by doing alot of paid promotion. It apparently didn't work.
4. TOGI fell apart... for what specific reason, I don't know why.
5. Earl Abbott, who holds the underlying right to Jack Creek, took it with him into USAU, who is trying to make a go of it.
Seems pretty straightforward to me... not quite sure what exactly you are insinuating, but I don't see any cloak-and-dagger, bait-and-switch stuff going on here.
Regarding Perez' background- from what I can tell, he is relatively new to the role he is playing. In the past, his work has been on the investor side- managing and investing money for individuals.... maybe doing some freelance PR work. As far as I can tell, his first job as an official PR/Communications guy was back in February of last year for BESE, which led into this job with USAU.
Take it for what it's worth- if he was a politician, I'd be happy that he was new to the field and not a lifer.....
I guess my point is this- you've got some pretty strong accusations about Perez, who is admittedly fairly new to his role. So far, nothing you have brought up has convinced me that they are not on the "up and up". Inexperienced? Maybe. Overly optimistic? Perhaps.
Nothing but a liar? When you come with statements like that, it makes me wonder what your real motivation is, especially since you claim to have sold and moved on.
btw.... did you notice that shares were used to acquire properties, like Dama and Occidental/Pasadena? Is it not likely that some of these were sold into the float?
Would that not explain both the increase in O/S and larger float?
Seems like a likely explanation- but if you have a better one (and hopefully one that does not automatically assume dirty dealings and foul play), I'd love to hear it.
Rigatoni-
Would you mind giving us a little background as to where you are coming from? Cause the energy you are putting into complaining about this company makes me think that you are a short-term trader, looking to make a quick buck.
And that is completely antithetical to my play on this company....
But if that's the case, it would explain alot.
A couple of observations about your rant(s)-
1. First, I'm having a hard time understanding why you are upset by statements from the IR/PR guy from a company telling you his company is No. 1...... what did you expect? Was he supposed to tell you it was a mediocre company with a fair to middling chance of succeeding? Normally, you'd just take that in stride, and discount it as optimism from the guy walking the party line, and do real DD.
2. Were you really convinced that he was sharing insider info with you regarding timing, so that you could make a few bucks on a quick in and out trade?
I mean, I understand your point about predicting timelines, and agree that he should be more cautious with giving specific timelines if they are not going to stick to them, but really- was your investment strategy built on statements like "You will be getting early Christmas presents"?
3. Are you really trying to blame Perez for gold price performance? Really? I mean, do you really take one guy's opinion as gospel? Do you think he actually has the ability to move the price of gold? REALLY?
I'm just trying to figure out where you're coming from, because you seem to be long on criticism, yet some of the things you say just aren't adding up for me.
I mean, if I were to take exactly what you have posted here as quotes from Perez, and say to a normal and reasonable investor, "This is my case for investing in USAU".... that person would say I'm nuts, and wouldn't spend a penny on it.
So help me understand where you are coming from, and what the though process is here. West says you're a class act- I'm trying to give you the benefit of the doubt......
fsailing-
Here's my take-
Abbott is a geologist. Geologists are scientists- I know several. It's rare that they are ideal business people. Good geologists are usually good because they love rocks, and spend alot of time with them, and not so much because they love investors, and spend alot of time with them.
The job of a junior mining/exploration CEO is to raise money. Mining is a cash-intensive business, and exploration is even more expensive. While I don't know Dr. Abbott personally, I would guess that he was not the best fit for CEO.
Most of these companies are shells- they are publicly traded entities that are used as a fundraising mechanism for mining projects.
My speculation is that TOGI was simply that- a shell that was used as an attempt to raise funds for a project or projects (in this case, probably GSPG). For whatever reason, it was no sufficient to launch the project.
Dr. Abbott owns the option on Jack Creek.
http://www.victoriaresourcecorp.com/index.cfm?pagepath=Projects/Jack_Creek_Nevada/Property_Location_and_Ownership&id=9908
He put it in Tornado, but that didn't fly. I'm not surprised- I don't know who else was involved with TOGI, but if the fundraising relied on a geologist, I'm not at all surprised that they weren't able to make it happen.
Now Dr. Abbott is an integral part of USAU, and has (I'm assuming) his JV option/interest to USAU. He is in a position that is more appropriate for most geologists- a VP of Mining Operations. They have put together a team of people, including Carl Harz, Ken Berscht, Dr. Montgomery and John Perez.
Overall, this is a team that is more balanced between fundraisers and financial types (as well as the mining professionals), which bodes well for their chances of success.
That's my take on Abbott and TOGI.....
Hi Ed-
I've been a lurker on several boards here for a long time, and just decided to set up an account recently. I'm much more active on the Yahoo Boards..... right now USAU is the company that I am following the closest, and so it's the one that I have a reason to post on.
I've known Perez a while, and speak to him on a fairly regular basis.
This is only the second company (to my knowledge) that he has taken an official communications position with- the other being BESE, which he signed on with in February of last year. As I understand it, they were not ready to move as quickly as USAU, so most of his attention right now is on USAU.
Before that, Perez' job was not to manage information, but to manage investments for others. His public communication was based on what he wanted people to see or perceive.
But take a look at the PR's that are coming from USAU. Virtually every one of them combines two elements- usually announcement of a property acquisition or development (like the Biological Assessment at Dama, or the Occidental acquisition), as well as another item relating to personnel or financing. This is not haphazard- there is a definite pattern. Watch as more news comes out, and I think you'll see this pattern continue. There are other patterns to the company's communications, which aren't as obvious, but also aren't by chance.
I don't think that this format is a hard and fast rule, but I'm quite certain it's intentional.
I was a communications major in college, and so these are the kind of things that I pay attention to.
Seems like just a month ago they acquired a new property, as well as concluding a private placement. That's a pretty decent chunk of news, don't you think?
I could be wrong, but negotiating acquisitions is not something that happens overnight. Especially when you are running a skeleton crew... you may disagree with the wisdom of that decision, but that is the business model for right now- keep the cash burn to a minimum, and have the principals of the company do a lot of the heavy lifting.
I would like to see more progress towards production and further development of their projects, but that as well takes time.
I mean, getting assays takes at least a 2-3 week turnaround. And when you acquire new property, there are a multitude of issues that need to be dealt with. You've got a ton of due diligence to do- title search, feasibility, reviewing historic documentation, etc.
I know this personally- I've reviewed several properties/projects in the past, and there is alot of leg work to be done- to prove or disprove what the seller is telling you is there.
If you bought in looking to make a quick buck, this may not be the right stock for you. They are laying groundwork for substantial growth and development, and that just simply takes time.
I like this post, which is from the Yahoo board:
"Rome wasn't built in a day! yes...it's an old cliche, but like most cliches, it has has a good deal of truth to it. i -- and others -- asked you a few weeks ago to just give this situation a few months to develop. that is the very least time it takes for a company to "constitute" itself...i.e. clean up legacy issues, get management in place, find money, do legal documentation, identify and act on opportunities which might present themselves, etc, etc, etc. it's just a s**tload of real work which takes real time and energy.
when some here tout mindlessly that "we have already won" and the like, sure...go ahead... complain and make accusations about pumping if you must. i agree that too much of that is tiresome, begs credibility and is a bore.
but...when people say they hope for or expect news, or otherwise just express hope or a little bit of their "dream" for the company, it is equally boring/useless and inane to immediately post with a comment about why there is no news yet or the like. you don't need to do it...and we don't need to read it. it serves no purpose and is just a waste of your time and the reader's."
Found this on the Yahoo board....
As a resident of 'The People's Republic of California', I have been somewhat concerned about the regulatory challenges that USAU would face, specifically for their Dama and Occidental properties.
So I picked up the phone and made a couple of calls. I've come to realize that doing so is a wise way to get some return for my tax dollars- public employees are there to serve us, and usually they prove quite helpful in helping me understand the regulations.
As a frame of reference, the lead regulatory agency in Nevada is at the state level- the NDEP (Nevada Department of Environmental Protection).
While California has two departments that deal directly with mining regulation (the State Mining and Geology Board and the Office of Mining Reclamation.... both in the Department of Conservation), they are not usually the lead agency.
In California, usually the county planning/land use department is the lead agency, and they then coordinate with the state.
Additionally, if the claims are on public land (unpatented claims), you need to get approvals from the Federal government. If they are on patented claims/private land, then you don't need permission from the Feds.
I left a message with Imperial County (where the Occidental property is), and will report when I hear back.
I had a nice conversation with a man named George- he's a geologist who works for the County of San Bernardino Planning Department. San Bernardino County is where the Dama property is.
I expressed my concern over regulation in his county, and he assured me that they consider themselves a "mining-friendly" county. He stated that there is alot of open space in San Bernardino County, and there usually isn't much public comment or push-back to proposed mining operations.
He laid out the basic steps to get permit approval.
If the proposed mining operation is a surface mine (open pit), then it will need to comply with SMARA- (the SURFACE MINING AND RECLAMATION ACT OF 1975). This is a state regulation. It deals mostly with reclamation and minimizing the impact of the mining operation. There must be an acceptable reclamation plan in place, along with "financial assurances" that the reclamation will be done.
If the mine is underground (as Dama is), it is exempted from SMARA- you will still need a Conditional Use Permit from the county.
I asked about chemical processing on site- he said that is it definitely possible, and there are no standard guidelines, but it is dealt with on a case by case basis. He said that the concerns there specifically deal with making sure that chemicals are contained, protecting endangered species, ground and surface water, and possibly air quality concerns.
I will be honest- I was quite encouraged by the results of my call. It seems that some counties are more reasonable than others in California. As long as the State signs off on the reclamation plan (which will be minimal for underground work), the county seems very reasonable.
Substantial buy from someone who moved out of a position in GSPG and increased their position at USAU. The volume from this buy triggered volume alerts for quite a few people, and you had a cascading effect on the buys.
Add that to pending news, and it makes for a really good day.
In my experience, Perez knows how to manage information. They will release in time to sustain the momentum and use this move (which I see as a vote of confidence for the company and their projects).
Links:
http://tinyurl.com/yzrl6xp
http://tinyurl.com/yes8g3s
http://tinyurl.com/yhxhw9m
If you check the time stamps on these posts, I think they match up quite well with the move on Friday.