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 don't know specifically what's going on with your broker but I do know some brokers handle corporate actions quicker and better than others. After the last GERS R/S a few brokers took a while to sort things out. You could call them for specific timeframes.
GLTY
Pre and post split the value of your position will not change:
example:
Pre split 2,000,000 at .0001= $200.00
Post split 2000 at .1= $200.00
Make sense?
We are all set now. Thanks to Joe and others for the advice on what to do. We keep our original board and all the posting history. ihub admin has changed the ticker to GERSD so we get the price feed.
Sorry for any confusion.
Im sure looking forward to that quarterly report...
All, We currently have 2 boards running- the original GERS and the new GERSD.
I beleive once our ticker reverts back to GERS(in about 20days) the new board will cease to exist. Any posts on this new board would not be moved over.
JOE1979 and I are researching which board is best to post on for the next 20 days. If you have an opinion based on past experience please let us know.
Thanks
We have a GERSD board up and running.
Yes I agree.
I don't think it is a dividend. Im no expert but I thought in some cases RS were called a "dividend". I'm happy to be proven wrong on this.
I think our pre split shares par .0001 were replaced with post split par .001 shares at a rate of 1:1000. That's what I see in my account. I don't expect any additional shares. But, again please feel free to prove me wrong.
Good luck all.
I think that is just another way of saying GERS is doing a RS for shares par .001.
So we likely were able to exploit the best out of MLV for about 4 months (leveraging Friedrich)for what is considered chump change in the consulting world (20k/month). Now we are close to closing on financing for Arizona exploration and we're able to terminate MLV and will not have to pay the success fee. And some say JB is a fool? I say well played.
I've no idea but can't wait to find out!
COURT RULES ON CANTRELL DEPOSITION CONTROVERSY-AWARDS Cleantech one-half of attorney's fees related to the motion for protective order as sanction against defendents.
Although the court has not granted CleanTech all the relief it sought and has found
counsel’s instruction not to answer improper, it has vindicated CleanTech’s position that the
defendants improperly withheld critical documents on baseless grounds. That conduct triggered all the disputes now before the court.
Fantastic. More happy customers.
You keep mentioning ICM but it was a test at Adkins that the judge ruled on and was later completed. There was no mention of results.
As others have already posted, the s/o was volatile for a while when KK converted preferreds to common and then cancelled them. His cancellation was offset by some other debt conversions to common that increased the s/o. A while back I reconciled it all using the filings.
Dhole,the original and ammended 10k both had the s/o at just over 15b as of March 30th.
subsequent to that we have the...
1q11 filing with 11.6b as of May 12th
2q11 filing with 13.9b as of August 8th
so, 13.9b is the latest figure we have until the 3q report is published.
Email response from Tracy
I asked Tracy a couple questions regarding the last NR.
Hi Tracy,
I have a question on the latest news release. Sounds like there is a great deal of analysis work underway.
There is mention of ZTEM being carried out shortly. It was my understanding that ZTEM would only be carried out once financing is received from a partner/investor for the Arizona region(s).
1.)Is that correct? Is ZTEM dependent upon new financing?
2.)IF ZTEM is expected to be carried out shorly, can we infer that Mr Briscoe is confident he’ll have that financing shortly?
Yes and yes
Sent from my iPhone
Im reposting Slash's post about the test at the Adkins facility that was postponed.
FYI this test was subsequently completed. There was a mention of it in a subsequent filing.
correct-i agree very little if any. Any that there was prob not YA, more likely MIF and/or the other minority debt holders. JMO.
As far as the delay in the R/S is concerned, I HOPE the 3q sheds some light. Given thier contractual obligations if massive dilution was continuing they would have HAD to do it. I think the delay/cancellation will turn out to be due to positive factors.
Once these debts are cleared the pps won't be at .0001/.0002 anymore.
IMO before he could begin to execute on a plan to go private so many positive things will have transpired that many of us will be long cashed out with a nice profit.
Contractual debt obligations to YA, MIF and others all have a common share conversion feature. These debts would have to be cleared.
Sagebrush Gold, Ltd. (OTCBB:SAGE) and Continental Resources Group, Inc. (OTCBB:CRGC) announced today that Sagebrush Gold has prepaid $700,000 of the previously announced $1.7 million loan facility provided to the Company. The Company also announced that a total of 5 convertible note holders, including Company Chairman Barry Honig, have converted their outstanding notes for shares in Sagebrush Gold at a conversion price of $0.65 per share. In total, $600,000 of notes were converted, plus accrued interest of $22,500, with the Company issuing 957,692 shares in exchange.
GREAT post-Thanks Slash
The GPRE production numbers are great news for us.
At the rate they are producing now, income from GPRE annualized is approx 10m/yr! Using 15b s/o and a multiple of 10 the pps target would be about .007 imo just based on the contribution of GPRE.
Of course we all know the factors that are not allowing us to realize this right now but it is still GREAT news.
Waiting on the judge for a number of things..top of mind are...
1. VDG summons(quash?)/can GERS sue him personally?
2. Santions against defendants for not producing the Cantrell email sooner? or were they within their rights to surprise the witness?
3. To allow or strike Cantrell testimony regarding the email to agri-energy?
4. clarification of the markman ruling? does the term "substantially oil-free" refer to all claims?
from Greenshift we're waiting on...
1. 3 qtr report - maybe within a few weeks
2. an update on the R/S
3. proposed phase 2 trial schedule filed with the court
Im hoping the judge makes some decisions today.
Pebble to challenge borough ordinance in Alaska Superior Court
Date : 10/18/2011 @ 2:15AM
Source : PR Newswire
Stock : Northern Dynasty Mnl (NAK)
Quote : 7.27 0.0 (0.00%) @ 4:00AM
Pebble to challenge borough ordinance in Alaska Superior Court
print
Northern Dynasty Mnl (AMEX:NAK)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Tuesday 18 October 2011
By a narrow 280 - 246 (53 - 47%) margin, voters in Southwest Alaska's Lake & Peninsula Borough have supported a ballot measure that, if upheld by the courts, would restrict future development that affects more than one square mile of land within the 31,000 square mile borough. The Pebble Limited Partnership (the "Pebble Partnership" or "PLP") and the State of Alaska view the initiative sponsored by anti-Pebble activists as unconstitutional and unenforceable because it seeks to restrict development of state-owned resources on state lands through a municipal ordinance, and will challenge it in Alaska's Superior Court.
"Given the ballot measure's misleading language, in particular its seeming focus on protecting salmon, it's not surprising that it was supported by a slim majority of Lake & Peninsula Borough voters," said Ron Thiessen, President & CEO of Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. ("Northern Dynasty") (TSX: NDM) (NYSE Amex: NAK). "Certainly Northern Dynasty and the Pebble Partnership are wholly committed to preserving and even enhancing the fisheries resources of Southwest Alaska. Unfortunately, this initiative would also halt economic development throughout the Lake & Peninsula Borough, and represents yet another misuse of Alaska's democratic processes by paid opponents of the Pebble Project, whose goal is to stop the project before it receives comprehensive and objective review by federal and state regulators.
"What's most important is that the rule of law in Alaska and the United States is clear and reliable, such that this unconstitutional attempt by narrow self-interests to restrict economic development in a region the size of South Carolina will not stand. We believe the State of Alaska's constitutional obligation to manage natural resources on its land for the benefit of all Alaskans will ultimately be acknowledged by the courts."
On November 7, 2011, the Alaska Superior Court will begin proceedings to consider the constitutionality of the Lake & Peninsula Borough ordinance. In addition to PLP and the State of Alaska, the initiative is opposed by a broad spectrum of Alaska interests, including a group of four Alaska Native village corporations representing seven Lake & Peninsula Borough communities whose private land holdings would be affected by the ordinance. It is also opposed by the Resource Development Council for Alaska, the Alaska State Chamber of Commerce, the Alaska Miners Association, Council of Alaska Producers, the Alaska Oil and Gas Association, Alaska Industry Support Alliance, among others.
In a previous legal filing with Alaska's Supreme Court, the State of Alaska stated that "the initiative would enact an ordinance that is unenforceable as a matter of law…" and "will inevitably conflict with, and be preempted by, state law." The state's legal brief also notes: "The Alaska Constitution provides that the state has the policy of encouraging the development of resources by making them available for maximum use consistent with the public interest."
Thiessen said the Pebble Partnership will continue to invest in the State of Alaska with the goal of finalizing a Prefeasibility Study for the Pebble Project and initiating federal and state permitting under the National Environmental Policy Act (NEPA) in late 2012. He said PLP's legal challenge of the borough ordinance will advance in parallel with efforts to design an environmentally sound and socially responsible project that co-exists with clean water, healthy fisheries and traditional ways of life in Southwest Alaska.
"The Pebble Project has the potential to create substantial economic and social benefits for the people of Southwest Alaska for decades to come, in a way that enhances commercial and subsistence fisheries and ensures the long-term sustainability of Alaska Native culture," he said. "Pebble simply has too much potential for the region and the state to allow special interests to forestall its development before an optimized mine plan is proposed for the consideration of federal and state regulators and the people of Alaska."
About the Pebble Project
The Pebble Project is an initiative of the Pebble Partnership to responsibly develop a globally significant copper, gold and molybdenum deposit in southwest Alaska into a modern, long-life mine. The project is located 200 miles southwest of Anchorage on state land designated through two public land use planning exercises for mineral exploration and development. It is situated approximately 1,000 feet above sea-level, 65 miles from tidewater on Cook Inlet and presents favourable conditions for successful mine site and infrastructure development.
The Pebble Project consists of the Pebble deposit, surrounding mineral claims and a stream of financing provided by Northern Dynasty's project partner Anglo American US (Pebble) LLC. The Pebble Partnership was established in July 2007 as a 50:50 partnership between a wholly-owned affiliate of Northern Dynasty and a wholly-owned subsidiary of Anglo American plc. Both Northern Dynasty and Anglo American have equal rights of management, operatorship and control in the Pebble Partnership.
Under the terms of the Pebble Limited Partnership Agreement, Anglo American is required to elect to commit $1.5 billion in staged investments in order to retain its 50% interest in the Pebble Project. Funds provided by Anglo American are currently being invested in comprehensive exploration, engineering, environmental and socioeconomic programs toward the future development of the Pebble Project.
About Northern Dynasty
Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd. is a mineral exploration and development company based in Vancouver, Canada, which holds indirect interests in 650 square miles of mineral claims in southwest Alaska, USA. Northern Dynasty's principal asset is a 50% interest in the Pebble Partnership, owner of the Pebble Copper-Gold-Molybdenum Project. The Pebble Project is an advanced-stage initiative to develop one of the most important mineral resources in the world.
Ronald W. Thiessen President & CEO
Sole Responsibility
No regulatory authority accepts responsibility for the adequacy or accuracy of this release. Northern Dynasty is solely and entirely responsible for the contents of this news release. No other party, including any parties which have an interest in the project, are in any way responsible for the contents hereof.
Forward Looking Information and other Cautionary Factors
This release includes certain statements that may be deemed "forward-looking statements". All statements in this release, other than statements of historical facts, especially those that address estimated resource quantities, grades and contained metals, are forward-looking statements because they are generally made on the basis of estimation and extrapolation from a limited number of drill holes and metallurgical studies. Although diamond drill hole core provides valuable information about the size, shape and geology of an exploration project, there will always remain a significant degree of uncertainty in connection with these valuation factors until a deposit has been extensively drilled on closely spaced centers, which has occurred only in specific areas on the Pebble Project. Although the Company believes the expectations expressed in its forward-looking statements are based on reasonable assumptions, such statements should not be in any way construed as guarantees of the ultimate size, quality or commercial feasibility of the Pebble Project or of the Company's future performance. The likelihood of future mining at the Pebble Project is subject to a large number of risks and will require achievement of a number of technical, economic and legal objectives, including obtaining necessary mining and construction permits, completion of pre-feasibility and final feasibility studies, preparation of all necessary engineering for underground workings and processing facilities as well as receipt of significant additional financing to fund these objectives as well as funding mine construction. Such funding may not be available to the Company on acceptable terms or on any terms at all. There is no known ore at the Pebble Project and there is no assurance that the mineralization at the Pebble Project will ever be classified as ore. The need for compliance with extensive environmental and socio-economic rules and practices and the requirement for the Company to obtain government permitting can cause a delay or even abandonment of a mineral project. The Company is also subject to the specific risks inherent in the mining business as well as general economic and business conditions. For more information on the Company, Investors should review the Company's annual Form 40-F filing with the United States Securities and Exchange Commission and its home jurisdiction filings that are available at www.sedar.com.
SOURCE Northern Dynasty Minerals Ltd.
Its tough to estimate when we don't know ramp up (where each client is in terms of its implementation), performance of each system which would vary by plant, and price received for corn oil. I think the margin for error is high until clients signed are fully operational and optimized.
My very rough estimate is that revenues come in at about 20-25m this year and maybe close to double that next year from coes royalties alone.
We're drifting off topic, it's not about us or the S's. Best of luck to you.
The poster was Slash as we all know. He offered Valero with an IMO and now is suggesting Flint Hills as a possibility. He is very good at tracking the clients and the numbers and I think most of us greatly appreciate his work and insights. I think anyone, no matter how hard they try, would have a hard time turning this board against Slash and or Skunk without it back-firing on them.
As far as the 20ll targets are concerned, on GERS website they state that they currently have 20% of the industry under contract. I take that to mean they met or exceeded their goal - that's jmo. Others may interpret that statement differently.
Good luck everyone - lots of info via the litigation filings coming at us now.
The names of the 2 investors are in the last quarterly filing.
The numbers work as you point out. Could be!
Im very curious about the R/S delay. Im interested in everyone's opinion what is going on.
I think Skunk said if it does not happen within the next couple weeks we might see a 14c revision OR if something bigger is happening behind the scenes.."all bets are off".
Others suggested KK trying to time it with good news, possibly in the 3Q
Its curious though if the main driver was to not default on YA debt, which could occur IF there was further dilution, how could it be at their discretion when to time it?
some things are just not adding up but they appear to be positive..unnamed licensees, delayed RS, quiet on the litigation front. I am very curious as to what is going on.
GLTA
I agree with you on what's needed. As to the question about whether he can relinquish control to a governance board and the common shareholders:
- I think it will be VERY hard for him (speaking from personal experience as a control freak) but i do believe he can and will do it.
-I don't expect a flip of a switch and one day we're in control. I think he, through viridis, MIF or some combination, will maintain majority rights for some time to come. I do think we'll see a more equitable distribtution of contol in stages.
- It has to be done when the time is right (which is not now, but soon IMO)
For me, this is where the greatest risk lies with this investment.
No biggie but I think i said "relatively" minor. By that i meant in comparison to the suit against the infringers. Given the revenues in 2011 and projected 2012 i think GERS could handle it even if they lost.
There is a lot going on with this company and that lawsuit just does not warrant a lot of my attention. I did a little research on it, enough to discount it as a major factor in the future success of the company. That's JMO on it.
I wasn't asked for my opinion on the current capital structure. if you want it here it is: IT STINKS and leaves common shareholders completely exposed.
That being said, I AGREE with the steps the company is taking to move forward and I don't believe it can be done any other way
1.defend patents
2.sign new customers
3.increase revenues
4.pay debt
5.cancel preferred convertibles
6.I believe that KK will then ultimately rectify the issues with the cap structure fairly (for himself, inventors and investors).
points 1-5 are in progress and verifiable
point 6 Is a pure trust issue and is ultimately what i have my money riding on.
GLTA
Interesting that the Skunk, Slash, and Ollie that follow everything GERS have not weighed in on this.
Just read it. Privileged work product? total BS imo.
Willful Infringement?
As we all know, the infringers defense relied almost entirely on Prevost prior art. The judge shot that down with the markman ruling.
If the court ultimately rules willful infringement, damages could be trebled.
This is an interesting read regarding how the determination for willful infringement is made.
http://www.irmi.com/expert/articles/2008/warren05-intellectual-property-law.aspx
exactly...What can you say...all that prevost bravado..
on a separate note, ICM reps are at the Kansas Energy Conference
Dates:October 4-5, 2011
Title:Kansas Energy Conference
Website:http://www.kansascommerce.com/index.aspx?NID=334
Description:We hope you will plan to join us for the 12th annual Kansas Energy Conference in Wichita, October 4 and 5, at the Century II Performing Arts & Convention Center. ICM is a platinum sponsor of the show this year, and will be at booth #35 during the event.
Who should attend?
Representatives of energy-related industries, utilities, cities, counties, state agencies, colleges and universities, community colleges and technical schools, and unified school districts, as well as the interested public.
Check out skunk's blog
Looks like GERS has served a summons to ICM David Vander Griend
News for SAGE:Sagebrush Gold Commences Drilling at Relief Canyon Gold Project
Date : 10/05/2011 @ 7:00AM
Source : GlobeNewswire Inc.
Stock : Sagebrush Gold Ltd. (SAGE)
Quote : 0.7 0.0 (0.00%) @ 7:30AM
Sagebrush Gold Commences Drilling at Relief Canyon Gold Project
print
Sagebrush Gold Ltd (OTCBB:SAGE)
Intraday Stock Chart
Today : Wednesday 5 October 2011
Sagebrush Gold, Ltd. (OTCBB:SAGE) and Continental Resources Group, Inc.(OTCBB:CRGC) announced today that Sagebrush Gold has commenced Phase One drilling at the Relief Canyon Gold Project, located in the Antelope Springs mining district, Pershing County, 15 miles Northeast of Lovelock Nevada. The first phase of core drilling commenced on the Deep North Zone in late September and is being drilled by Carpenter Drilling, a private core drilling company, of Benton City, Washington. Sagebrush Gold staff has designed an initial drill program to further test this area consisting of 11 HQ diameter core holes ranging from 500 feet to 1500 ft. The total Phase One core program is planned for 14,300 feet of core to be drilled.
The Company plans to conduct up to 18,000 feet of core drilling to test the North Deep target, located approximately ½ mile to the north of the existing resource at the Relief Canyon Mine. The objective of the drill program is to further test mineralized zones found by previous operators. Mineralization has been identified in the North Target Area using Reverse Circulation and Core drill holes but insufficient information was collected from the drilling to determine the continuity or stratigraphic alignment of the mineralized material. Following phase one, the Company plans to conduct a 10,000 ft drill program in and adjacent to the current in pit resource to expand and upgrade existing resources.
Company Chairman Barry Honig commented, "We are excited to have started Phase One drilling at the Relief Canyon Gold Project and are especially pleased that we were able to begin the first stage of an extensive drill campaign less than one month after closing the acquisition of Relief Canyon. As previously stated, the Company hopes to add shareholder value by increasing our gold resource and we believe that we will be able to do so at Relief Canyon."
The Relief Canyon Gold Project is located in Packard Flat, which is located in the Antelope Springs mining district, Pershing County, 15 miles Northeast of Lovelock Nevada and is a past producing gold mine. The Company acquired the Relief Canyon project on August 31, 2011 (please see News Release of that date for further details).
About Sagebrush Gold, Ltd.
Sagebrush Gold, Ltd. is a junior gold exploration company focused on searching for world class resources and seeking out potentially significant gold exploration and development targets in Nevada's leading gold districts.
Legal Notice and Safe Harbor Statement
This press release contains "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of Section 27A of the Securities Act of 1933 and Section 21E of the Securities Exchange Act of1934. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, including, without limitation, those with respect to the objectives, plans and strategies of the Company set forth herein and those preceded by or that include the words "believes," "expects," "given," "targets," "intends," "anticipates," "plans," "projects," "forecasts" or similar expressions, are "forward-looking statements." Although the Company's management believes that such forward-looking statements are reasonable, it cannot guarantee that such expectations are, or will be, correct. These forward-looking statements involve a number of risks and uncertainties, which could cause the Company's future results to differ materially from those anticipated. The Company assumes no obligation to update any of the information contained or referenced in this press release. This press release should be read in conjunction with the Risk Factors contained in the Company's filings with the Securities and Exchange Commission ("SEC"), including the Risk Factors set forth in the Company's Current Report on Form 8-K, filed with the SEC on June 10, 2011.