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.
worth waiting to see how far "they" are going to crush the metals . . .
another nickel and couple pennies off and I will be able to cost avg down !
Thank you for choosing to clearly indicate as your opinion this time.
Perhaps you would want to quantify the eventualities in years to fruition.
To me it is not something probable in my lifetime that TWP will be recognized as containing 30 million ounces of economically recoverable gold, which is one way I would summarize the message put forward by a number of posts over the past many months.
I wish I had "the" answer. I will say that in my last post "possible" definitely should not be read as "probable" imo.
I have never been happy with the way results have been provided, although that has improved. For example, a drill hole with a few small width showings reported; is that because there were no other, presumably lower grade, intercepts ? Or is there only a report above a certain grade with the others not mentioned ? To be economic there needs to be sufficient gold to pay for moving all the rest, and with only a few exceptions have any drill holes seemed to meet that criteria, again, imo. It would be nice to know if a 1000 meter hole that only showed 10 meters of assay also have a larger interval of some low grade, but as reported apparently not.
I also have never been satisfied with the management of the business, its fiscal management,nor comfortable with the shoot-from-the-hip gambler style of the all the eggs in one basket approach. I am very much in agreement with the issues InXS has expressed, and I am troubled that InXS has not received, to my awareness, any responsible communications attempting to address the concerns raised.
That is my two cents, which I will only counter by saying the company has assembled a nice portfolio of prospects, which regrettably have mostly seen too little work.
Glad we can find a point of agreement D. It seems posts outspoken either way draw a firestorm. EXS certainly provides lots of room for such.
No problem 7, all said is/was of course imo to the best of my understanding. We were all drawn to the potential, and we may be today further toward proving up that potential if the financing availability for juniors had not turned so sour. IMO there are many possible surprises waiting in the TPW property to be brought to light. It is just a fact that until then they cannot be monetized.
It can be said the next NI resource update is believed will come in around 1.5m oz and only represents limited drilling into the medium depth area of the south limb. It can be said the update after that will add in results from (apparently) 29 more drill holes, all of which had Au intercepts. It can be said the update after that (apparently) will include results from the shallow, potentially pittable, phase of drilling on the south. Some might speculate this work will get the resource estimate to 3.0m and include a possible ladder down from surface.
It can be said this porphyry is thought 5 times the size of one that has had mines that yielded on the order of 30m oz so far over a century. It can be said the 3.0m would be only half if one believed the north limb is at least equally mineralized, and then there is the believed mineralization yet untouched at the fold nose. So it can be said 5 times 30m, just as it can be said some amount above 6m oz from work through middle of 2012 (with half pure guess), and increases beyond that already in the funded pipe. So it can be said there is some huge amount of resource there. This can all be said. It cannot be proved wrong. It may be right. It might even someday be shown economic to get it into dore.
It is just that it also can be said that anything beyond the current (and future) NI compliant resource estimate(s) is conjecture.
JMO
The FB postings allowed to remain rather sound like postings from some of those posting here, except a couple years ago, when they had only been waiting on the company for a couple/few years and not yet grown so critical as they, deservedly, are today.
Thanks In XS, support appreciated. As with your posts, hopefully my recent posts are also understood as attempts to bring counter-balance to what are considered, at least imo, to be overstatements. It is not that the claims might never prove to be true, just that there is no evidence today showing that they will prove to be true.
I see this much like the causes behind the establishing of the rigorous definitions behind NI compliant reporting. It is easy to state things that have not been proved, and as long as those things have not been contradicted by fact the statements of course cannot be refuted as untrue. In science this is the error of assuming that a hypothesis, unproved, is the fact of the matter.
JMO
There are a number of studies going back decades by professional geologists, with companies and with the government, and budding ones emerging from academia.
Point is, the deep hole only confirmed the theory of the geologic structure involved. The structure, not the mineralization or its geologic history. For the south limb that structure has been shown to have exerted some control over the mineralization. The work done has not even shown that this porphyry is the source of the mineralization, it only appears to show that it has acted as a control (structurally). The source could feasibly be another body or intrusive, perhaps between this porphyry and the syenitic diking thought important on the LSG property. Note that the mineralization associated with Pearl Lake is thought to have been implaced in phases, in some interpretations with the gold mineralization subsequent to the emplacement of the porphyry.
I am sorry, but in my reading the geologic history and chemistry is rather very interpretive, in many ways hypothetical, and open to divergent interpretations.
To state X geologic context mirror Y geologic context, as opposed to saying that there are similarities between the X and Y geologic contexts, are very different statements. These are not glass half empty and glass half full. These are layman playing scientist vs scientist. The claim that they mirror is the optimistic statement of the best possible that is not of necessity contradicted by the current working geologic interpretations. It is not presenting a balanced statement of those current interpretations which could equally result in emphasis on the differences.
as I have heard said, the glass is actually too big when half full or empty
from my readings the Pearl Lake deposit is classified as having a high copper moly silver component with pronounced presence of magnetite
I have not seen Bristol so characterized
having just reread (for the 4th or 5th time) the paragraphs suggested in the PR for the long hole, I only see how the structural geology is confirmed to be a wide felsthic porphyry but I do not see where the alteration seen on the south side was encountered on the north, so the chemistry was not (along the path of a sampling hole) shown mirrored, and from what I have seen everywhere to claim the chemistry of the Bristol and the Pearl Lake are not known to be identical, are known to differ.
The A hole did encounter 8.5 meters of assayed gold in 4 intercepts within the 456 meters before it was abandoned, which does seem similar to the more shallow gold mineralization seen on the south (i.e. of doubtful economics).
However the B hole, collared only 23 meters away from the two abandoned attempts has only one gold assay intercept reported for 1.5 meters in its entire 2400 meter length.
briefing appreciated, more grist for the mill
at least he is not paid to do IR for the company (or only paid with funny money - no wait, that's part of the problem, right?)
creative excuse, but I was not too worried over the midday friday asteroid event since history has proved that scheduling a date with Intertek takes Wanderport on the order of one month
perhaps we should leave the voice of Wanderport FB without assistance in coming up with the next excuse, which is likely now due around mid-March, after all what has the voice done for us lately ?
I agree with your opinion. As for TPW it may in time prove that D's statements are accurate . . . I just believe people should be guided well on their DD path and understand what is known at this time of the two sides (and btw as I read things some of the critical alteration layering differed significantly, at least where the deep hole penetrated the other interface).
With luck EXS comes up with a (financially sustainable) way to bugger on until one (or more) of the properties prove too attractive to a big buck player.
Yes, valid point . . . but one still needs to name the party to the action correctly . . . maybe that is what "and/or" is used for ???
If there is ever any closure on the AMF thing, finding guilt, that would open the doors for claims by harmed shareholders upon any remaining assets would it not ?
Precisely PB. "Mirrors" can have many meanings so to claim my image on a chrome surface mirrors me is both true and false. The geometric outline seems the same, but try to measure them both in three dimensions. That the north and south sides of the porphyry are mirrors has what meaning ? Is it saying that the sequence of geologic layers approaching the intrusive interface from both the foot wall and hanging wall sides for each, the north and the south are the same? In this case the report from the deep hole shows that is not the case. Does it only mean that the intrusive has two sides ? Well, yes, that is so as it is rather physically impossible to be otherwise. Does it mean that mineralization that is similar has been found everywhere tested on both sides ? There is no evidence that is so.
And, as pointed out, what is important is the echelon stacked veining that is precious metal bearing, of which there is a little evidence on one side with hopes intensification and vein proximity increase might be found, but for the other side there is to date no indication reported.
There is proof of who is the voice of FB ? Remember, there are (at least) two legally registered used of the name "Wanderport Corporation", one that issues WDRP security and the other that is an alias for Andrew's corporation that is subjected to the AMF order.
I wish the strain of mystic in me didn't put such significance on mistakes! what are they called ? Freudian slips ?
has anyone totalled up the funds, indices, ETFs, mutuals that include MUX ?
how much of the shorting that has been happening to MUX for the past year+ is direct as compared to shorting of more generalized instruments ?
someone must have not watched the freezer temp very well during transport of the neat up the mountain . . . darn contractors
imo never to be completed as advertised . . . there may be motions to something being sold/licensed/etc but nothing like what was originally advertised. It might all the same allow for some profit along the way, might not
Well, I am willing to say Robert might be the naive/innocent dupe taken in by forces moving in a larger circle than he realized.
I am also ahead by way of any risk ever taken on WDRP, and I did not need to get the emails leading "the gang" as alleged by the AMF docs.
I also understand the argument about how staying out of prison is without price, money no object.
I took that to mean that Intertek saw it was going to be closed, so emailed or called all parties to cancel anything scheduled. Andrew, as the company (not some distant contracted IR mouthpiece, a function requiring patience with people and stupid questions as well as insightful ones by the way) got word from Intertek, but had not managed to contact Robert.
Now that is even willing to believe there was something scheduled.
But why announce the meeting at next to the last minute, without saying anything of what the meeting would accomplish ? Valid avenues to question.
The point is, as far as I can see, there had been weeks without a word, and then there was this announcement, which sets things up for another couple few weeks waiting for a reschedule (for unknown/undisclosed purpose).
Sorry, that attempt at defense does not hold water. The tests contracted are simple, the equipment simple. The results would be no different from those stated to have been measured in-house. If contracted to measure such and such, and defined the lab space, time, and people to do it, if Wanderport didn't like the results, so be it - full charge. No shortcoming on the part of Intertek.
I tend to believe Robert has always wanted to build the unit, but gradually came to understand that the vision of a consumer unit for houses that would provide never before heard of convenience and economy was impossible. There could still be possibility of hitting other market niches however, so Robert ponied on. All the time however, the company founders could care less whether there is ever a product of not. Such was not a requirement for their plan for the shell. However, when it started to appear that there were believers willing to invest the company focus on actually getting a working unit going shifted. After all, other companies set up by the same bunch apparently had last round milkings centered on rumors of buy-outs, etc..
All the same, for what we were told was going to be measured, as provided in the contractual mandate to Intertek, only rudimentary instrumentation is needed. To halt the tests for reasons you imagine, and then tell the public some completely different version of things would just be a continuation of the same old behavior. To expect that halting the tests and tweaking the unit would make it so that results to their liking could then be obtained simply overlooks the physics and the fact that they had indicated a couple times that they had in-house results (which they must have known would be what they are when Intertek measured).
Try again. You might find a way to make it add up. Not yet imo however.
Indeed, the simple fact that it doesn't make sense is troubling.
And, to be counted as part of that "not making sense" is what is needed to do the testing and get the results that their own PR stated was the mandate given to Intertek. Very simple overall performance data collected in multiple manually configured settings, all of which needed nothing more than measurement of water rate of flow, water inlet temperature, water outlet temperature, electical power consumption, and time. Equipment for those measurements would be readily available. So, that brings focus on the "why" which caused the abrupt termination of testing.
a scam that they have not financially benefitted from
That is an assumption which the post supposes is supported by indicating one means of profiting apparently did not happen.
What is not seen is not seen. Is it there?
The theories you present are interesting, even entertaining, but I am not buying into the conclusions
Your posting again makes assumptions about "my" beliefs/opinions where "you" has been used to so indicate. The comments miss reality.
I did not say there was an active investigation, just an active (unresolved) case. I have no clue how these wind out over time.
I do recognize the events I have witnessed over a number of years are in no way inconsistent with the claims made in the AMF case.
Perhaps you need to read once again the information released by AMF. The claimed network of buyers and sellers of shares of WDRP in coordination with the string of, now fully seen as false, PRs is what is stated to have been a means of profiting from the promotion. No dilution required.
I once again will overlook your use of "you", and there is no need for ABC when there is already AMF and we have been told SEC with active cases.
Whether something or nothing results is a matter for the future. It being future does in no way whatsoever change the fact that saying "There is no Case" is simply not true.
Fits like a glove, with very little assumed, whereas all other scenarios seem to have some missing pieces.
That is pretty much what pushed me over the edge.
At one point I felt these guys really didn't understand physics and had not questioned why the many related, granted patents had not yet resulted in a consumer product, but all the same that they were trying to do it.
But as time passed with nothing to show (that was sufficiently complete to make hot water in front of people) except for a continuing flow of "we are almost there" PRs it became clear that more was going on than just scraping up a few dollars for more parts (and trips to China?).
Once upon a time there were many speculators willing to believe the product concept could result in a marketable product, a world-shaking, revolutionary, product with unlimited stored up household demand just waiting to save money. That fact itself was then sufficient incentive to keep up appearances, even if it was by then known how the physics works out. As long as there was a crowd of believers there was incentive.
Except... there is no Case against WDRP, or Robert or Richard or Andrew here
As I understand things that statement is simply untrue. There is a case (if not also one in the US). Whether anything ultimately comes of it is yet to be seen. But there is an active case.
It will all (some of it anyway) come out over the next 4 months.
I stopped tracking at the detail level some time back, but it seems like they got an expensive (around a million cost) extension on repaying some of the short-term borrowing that only gave them a 6 month breather until the increased amount comes due.
hmmm, will have to think on that, but off hand other than rudely dressing down questioning investors I can't think of what the company really has gotten done lately
almost sounds like you are forgetting that massive option/warrant overhang and the likely not to be met debt deadlines
reverse split doesn't toss any magic pixie dust on those
Dang, some sort of shortage of mellow cognac across the pond this weekend ?
seems not really much of (or if) anything about Wanderport that qualifies as "real" lately
might be I missed something (?)
I sense no real bidding on Los Azules until after the mentioned October election results.
We are on the same page then PB, and the resource update supposedly in the works for mid-year (or thereabouts?) appears to include those 29 holes of the 3 NRs in addition to what is in the update we are expecting "sometime soon".
imo that post is simply far too riddled with "maybe"s
It is possible to come up with lots of "maybe"s, and string them together, to paint either a dismal or an upbeat view.
What's the point ?
This is a sinking ship until the company manages to present something tanigible, in a way people will believe. It might still sink then, depending on what is presented. It might not. But the choice between those is now a maybe, perhaps it can be an informed maybe, but the road is definitely uphill for the company at this point.
If so then there have been assays reported as received from 29 holes PR'd in those 3 releases that are after the last resource update announcement.
Of those, assayed intercepts were given for all 29 of those holes.
That is, as I understand it, part of the next (not the currently awaited/overdue) resource estimate, which estimate will not include the results from the current, on-going, shallow, near-surface potential pit exploration.