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 can't for the life of me understand (unless the 43-101 specifications for distance between holes was changed in the last year or so) how infil drilling still had holes too far apart for inclusion into the resources.
Agree. PEA seems rather smoke and mirrors at this point to me. Everything I have seen in the NRs looks like what intercepts are there could not pay of the high percentage of waste to strip.
Later next week I get a legal opinion on the activity from 2010 until now.
Thank goodness they saw the need to clarify that. The zero change was there in the NR about restatement if one could see it, but all to easy to get impression that it changed as they did not directly say it did not.
I really cringed where at the end of NR about the shareholder rights plan they said
(All National Instrument 43-101 technical reserve reports can be found on SEDAR at: www.sedar.com)
News: EXPLOR INTERSECTS 3.65 G/TONNE AU OVER 6.0 METERS ON TIMMINS PORCUPINE WEST
https://www.otciq.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=105145
The attached DDH plan and Open Pit Plan view shows the location of three potential Open Pit areas that are located over an 1800 meter strike length and 250 meters of depth. The attached long section “AA” shows the drill target areas “A” and “B” where drilling will be completed in order to
upgrade the resource category from Inferred to Indicated and also to increase the near surface resource and connect the 3 potential open pit areas. This will move Explor to the next phase which will include a Preliminary Economic Analysis of the potential Open Pit.
Hole Meters from Meters to Total Meters Gold G/T Gold G/T
Uncut Cut
TOG 13-25 246.00 258.53 12.53 210.19 14.79
including 257.60 258.53 0.93 2732.64 100.00
Do you seriously think it ever had a plug-in ?
I thought that many amps would always be hard wired (or are they not firing all 4 magnetrons?)
Like I said, link to the patent app containing ?
Please show me that . . . link ?
I have read all the current patent applications and did not see that
any idea when that is?
Standard safety procedure, shield the unknown against worst possible while powered, keep OSHA happy. I highly doubt the unit would have been allowed to be powered by Robert was hanging over it.
That said, for the engine to be in a product accessible to consumers the heat engine likely consumes close to all microwave energy with near zero ambient around it - provided it contains water, so likely a safety mechanism to prevent powering when dry and also when water is static and not flowing.
all just my speculation of course
Anyone else notice the scale of the power supply/conduit to the unit?
Let's keep in mind the difference between spending 100's of thousands, and bringing together 100s of thousands worth of equipment already available.
I expect WDRP to keep close to previously announced release of info from Intertek's interpretation of their analysis of the test data, meaning WDRP will first need to receive that report which will be after the last of the testing.
We would have entirely different ballgame in MUX if revenue could flow from the San Jose JV for El Gallo, and putting Los Azules into the property portfolio would look attractive (to more than just the Chinese where as a gov enterprise holding the pressures/persuasions that could be brought to bear on the issues of export taxes on concentrate and barriers on export of profits are very significant compared to the possible situation any shopping major needs to consider).
Until uncertainties are settled and/or real global growth kicks in to drive interest in expensive copper projects things are as they are. I can still see sense in getting sub-par value out of Los Azules if possible after the new resource estimate, or the next, at least given what it would enable MUX to accomplish in more stable jurisdictions.
Let's hope that blogger carries through with the mentioned active writing once settled by in Argentina. Some more balanced and unrestrained views of what is happening would be welcome. One thing is certain, in any country a political junta does not survive long if it hits the common person in the pocket, and CFK policies have been doing that in a major way, well does not survive unless repressively against the will of the people that is. Of course, what may follow October elections might not be good for MUX given the strength of resource nationalism. I guess it depends on how enlightened about striking a balance what emerges in the opposition is and how well it can communicate this with the population.
IMO the next likely inflection point is in the closing Q of the year, I would guess later half of Q4. But it is so easy to speculate.
the woodwork opened up and enough peeked out to make the posters listed start to look like this board went back a couple years - yes, its been that long ! nice seeing a number of long-timers (even if no longer longs) are lurking and waiting
Interesting Merco article JD, Thx the link
So if only 25% of liquid Argentine wealth is in country per estimate, it is pretty hard to see how a tax amnesty would bring it back to the peso given the inflation and the official exchange rate that would be used. IDK but if I was an Argentine I would already have enough liquid capital in country for working purposes and not looking to repatriate more. Its not like the gov could afford (or have friendly allies in international financial services) to find me if I owned tax on some of it.
OTOH if they are stretching that far for funds (what? repeat something done only 4 years ago and expect an even better result ?) maybe they are getting ready to review the impacts from other things they have been trying recently - now that could help MUX and the Los Azules valuation/sale.
DXY may have had a good night last night but it has been getting way, way to high given the price of oil. US consumer economy starts slowing noticeably when it stays above 100 imo. The AUD$ CAD$ spread almost disappeared on this USD$ strength and recent Aussie policy move, but when sane eyes are put on it all looks topsy curvy from AU/AG through Fx on these. Won't these players be heading to Adirondacks or somewhere by June?
long way to go, but more near-term catalysts likely, price has been at rarely seen recent lows on the very bearish days for the PMs lately.
I doubt anyone believes the new major will leave this hanging out to dry and shrivel up . . .
Looks like share price is holding up pretty well, all things considered
Time to unsticky the PDAC report from Desti
JMO
Anything unquestionable happen yet ?
I am much more inclined to place the credit/blame on the interventionist dogs on the leashes of the governments (who are on the leashes of some of the interventionist dogs) than on hedge funds. No doubt hedge funds are reading the tea leaves and looking to position for a lower buying point, contributing to the sell-off as the intervention policies trip sell triggers.
I would not be at all surprised if this is a foray in early market before the Aussie and then Hong Kong markets had had enough coffee to actually trade into the opportunity (both of which held the decline and then shortly later boosted the price of silver, and less so also gold), a foray testing the strength of "their" ability to push PMs down in preparation for the more normal take-down pattern that will occur next Sunday in foreign trading into the US holiday.
The important point is of course not the artificial depression of prices, or for that matter the "true" values, but it is when the spring tension becomes too great for "them" to do more than retain the level of depression but not deepne it. By today's action that point is apparently still in the future.
JMO
Silver is being killed after NY Globex / foreign open (down $1.27 usd now)
At 20.98 bid 21.08 ask right now, possibly halted in nosedive at Sydney open.
The powers pushing precious metals lower obviously have strength left
The key to reading the FB posting
No results today but we are working on it presently.
my guess is for a very long time - scale of decades . . . at least as long as the major participant (the government/governments)) is on board
That's for sure ! Why hasn't anyone else thought of this ? Time for a little 2nd level, not even deep, thought. Why hasn't anyone among all those that have thought of this tried to commercialize it ? That is the better first question. Doh!
WDRP, if that is the "Wanderport Corporation" represented by the voice of FB (instead of the other "Wanderport Corporation", the one that is a legal alias for Andrew B's Canadian corporation), or at least the voice of FB seemed to not discourage a PR blitz, but just didn't want any public record. So it seemed to me.
So true PB. Water under the bridge now, but so true.
Thanks for the info and time. "Deferred revenue" sounds like funny money to me however. As I understand it 8% of gold production is sold at a loss (less than production costs) with Sandstorm paying $500/oz (subject to some minor "inflation" adjustment in the future).
So as I see it of the 27,818 oz sold in Q1 approx 2,225 went to SND leaving 25,593 sold at market. Now the news release for Q1 tells that the $1,626 avg price of gold sold excludes impacts on the avg due to the stream.
That is about all the info on Q1 in the news release
http://www.brigusgold.com/file.aspx?IID=4288058&FID=1500048313
with the Q1 financials due for release this Tuesday 5/14, so at the moment costs on a per ounce basis is not reported (per the NR)
BTW, if objective is to view Q1 it is worth remembering Q1 gold production was 1,500 oz less than the oz sold in Q1. This appears to be due to tonnage as grade improved from Q4 and recovery was constant.
Back to Q1 profitability, the ill-defined "cash costs per ounce" was $685 in Q4 and was $762 for the year '12. The guidance is saying the number for '13 will be $700 to $750.
If $700 is used with the Q1 numbers, then one has revenue (before other expenses) of
25,600 oz at (1625 - 700) = 23,680,000 for sales to market
2,225 oz at ( 500 - 700) = -445,000 for sales to Sandstorm
or revenue after only cash cost of production of 23,235,000
While that might seem far from the $45.0M number you have mentioned, I still do not see this $23M as representing the picture I would like to have which is the net from cash flow after all expenses, taxes, interest, etc.
The best avenue I see at a surface level is to use the "Net income and comprehensive income" number, which for Q4 was $4,390,000 or $157.81 per ounce of gold produced.
Thanks for the heads up on getting charged a reorg fee, I will have to check with the broder where I hold AUNFD. I think I could have initiated a sell trade but there was no market activity yet.
We will see. There are some real differences in your pencilwork and mine, which I assume we both base on the recent financials.
The gold stream is NOT a loan, and they do not make any cash payments on it.
The cost is
0.08 * OZ * (AU - 500) in lost revenue
and
0.08 * OZ * (C - 500) in non-recovered cost of production
where AU is the average saless price for gold during the period
OS is the number of ounces produced in the period,
C is the per ounce cost of production during the period
(and where all production currently comes from areas covered by the stream agreement, which I believe is the case)
Well, I see 1.73 million shares have traded hands in the last two weeks (11 trading days actually, from Apr 27 to date) while I have not been here.
The most recent thread (Apr 30) on the ya hoo msg board for WDRP is about filing a law suite.
I am guessing we must be about a month away now from the FB word skew about how expected date is now sometime in H2 (with the year carefully omitted).
Hey, isn't that a line on that hook and sinker ?
glta, sort of looks like it will be needed
imo buyers are holding back for the quarterly numbers, particularly to get tight idea on the threshold gold price that would impact current guidance and impact pace of development of the project pipeline to production.
There is some difference of opinion on the board and probably among pundits/analysts over the sensitivity of BRD to the improbably future gold market.
I do agree with those on the board voicing "eventually" about higher gold and therefor clearly also about BRD once lean times for development, if that are to be any such lean times, have passed.
For what it is worth Otc ticker shares held with Fidelity showed as AUNFD the day of the change in Toronto with trade activity on the new ticker the next day.
Google's Chrome browser blocks that link, with warning:
The Website Ahead Contains Malware!
My guess also on this is that a wholesaler of electric would be in a position to invest more in pulling high kilovolt lines to site, in prep for expansion at the two future mining projects proximal to Black Fox, and sell the excess in the meantime to smaller nearby ventures.
but a drunken maritimer never walks straight, even when sober
and PB sorry to add that there are no signs to lead one to expect good news from KC. glad you are back safely.
IMO obvious answer is that it is not being heralded that way simply because it is not so, or, if maybe someday it is to become so that is just not a known and this is not that day which at best is far, far away.
or is it scheduled for mid to late June ?
Not really a surprise is it, why lead a horse with only one of the reins ?
More good investigative reporting by Matt Taibbi and hats off to Rolling Stone for continuing publishing
Have you ever read into the ownership of the Fed ? Odd (not) how it is ultimately the same owners of the big banks that either were bailed out or were "forced" to buy the other failed financial institutions at pennies on the dollar.
original doc: http://adabyron.net/FederalReserveDirectors.pdf
digestion of: http://www.scribd.com/doc/12866710/The-ownership-of-the-Federal-Reserve-as-exposed-by-Congressional-Committee-1976
sidelight: http://www.globalresearch.ca/who-owns-the-federal-reserve/10489
and a fun quote from this weekend's reads
Let me see if I am understanding the "read between the lines" manner that you have written this monumental revelation.
Are you saying the FED and the British East India Company are owned by the same people?
Are you saying that the very corporation from which the colonists rebelled now not only controls our money but controls us as eco-slaves?
Are you saying that Kellogg, Brown and Root and Halliburton are owned by the same people that own the FED and who owned the British East India Company?
If this is what you are saying, you should say it LOUDER!!
check their NR back when first announced around April 12 as they explained their thinking there-in
you will find much disagreement with their reasons here
My prediction for gold is that for the forseeable future the interventionists will continue to show surprising capability and skill in keeping a lid on things with any moves being within the boundaries of their planning.
Thanks for pointing to the news release, which I had not noticed either.
The statement
"consultant to the Company as it actively assesses additional projects for acquisition or opportunities for a business combination"
really is not a surprise, but I guess it does make this public.
Odd that iHub did not pick up the news, but Stockhouse did, and addest that Google does not find any webpage or new release based on searching for title/phrase of the NR.
I also noted that late day penny uptick today, but otherwise don't know what is driving this