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.
Hi JC,
This covers both Hardassets initial post and your response, but I agree, we should get more specific, or technical as you have suggested...
Posted by: hardasset
In reply to: None Date:6/14/2007 8:36:56 PM
Post #of 20520
OK I guess we are about 30-45 days from permits now - have the applications been submitted with the BLM ? Remember the fiasco with DKGR and their mining permits. Supposedly they applied back last year sometimes and its been one constant song and dance ever since. After the permits whats next ? Exploratory drilling, try to get a handle on the U3O8 concentrations, etc. in order to understand better what we have.
The PR Berman released stating that they were 'realistically expecting clearance in another 45 - 60 days', was specifically in relation to a Permit to be issued by the Utah State Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals for Exploratory Mining Operations. The Notice of Intention (the first step to getting this permit) was submitted to Utah OMG on May 29th (which begets the rather curious question of Why Berman would PR Mining Operations beginning in May... but lets skip over that for now...).
A Federal Permit is also a requirement prior to Mining Operations beginning, whether exploratory, small mine, or large mine, but the Federal Agency responsible for issuing this permit, in respect to the portion of the claims that RSDS are currently focused on, is not The Bureau of Land Management (BLM), as mentioned in Hardassets post, but instead The US Forest Service, they are the custodians of the land where these specific claims are situated (This was confirmed by the BLM field Office Geologist Ted McDougall in Monticello). Although the application procedure is similar (Notice of Intention, surety etc), their requirements also include Enviromental Impact Asssessments by the EPA, I dont know the specifics of DKGR's situation, but it is not uncommon for the EPA to stretch out the applications with additional questions and requirements prior to permitting.
The Notice of Intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit from US Forest Service was submitted on or around the 10th of May, information relating to the submission of that Notice of Intention was provided by Joel Nowak (UF Forest Service). There are additional details and an opinion pertaining to the state of an existing mine on this claim, but I am not going to divulge those details until they are corroborated by a separate State agency who may potentially have a role to play prior to the Feds issuing this permit.
I originally began questioning the projected timeline for the issuance of permits (Fed and State) in May. There is still nothing to suggest that Berman is doing anything other than proceeding with his stated plan to reach his objectives, but once again... I question the timeline.
This regulatory process IS NOT as straightforward or cut and dry as many believe it is, and depending on where and from who Berman is getting his advice, he too may need to temper his enthusiasm somewhat for the deliverance of these permits.
In my humble opinion, it is LEGITIMATE DUE DILIGENCE to ask questions of the State and Federal agencies involved in the permitting process, to better understand what is involved and the projected timeline, in general, for the issuance of Permits of this type, and I strongly disagree with those who believe it is not.
Cheers, J.
Petty... remember this...?
Sent By: JohnIraq Date: 6/5/2007 7:14:25 AM
Petty, I hope that you're right... but just remember that Berman has 15 days to file a REGDEX with the SEC... for the sake of argument, if he completed the final sale of securities under Reg D Rule 504 on May 31st that would mean he has until the 15th of June to actually place it in the mail (as long as its date stamped by the postal service the same day... the date stamp on the letter is proof of postage as far as the fifteen day deadline is concerned...) All the TA is doing at this point is relating the last updated figures.
Not trying to piss on your, or anybody elses bonfire here Petty, but facts are facts after all...
Cheers, J.
Hey Ice... nice to have you back, I never adopted the whole 'stockdevil' thing... just for the sake of clarity and consistency you know...?
Janice turned up on the RSDS board concerning an issue unrelated to RSDS, but FYI, I invited her to the board over a month ago in an effort to put the stock through the ringer and focus on some of the issues we were batting back and forth with BHS... but you're right, I dislike bashing and pumping alike, so am pleased to see Janice appear, I look forward to hearing her opinion...
Cheers, J.
Janice,
Since August last year, RSDS has been selling securities under Reg D Rule 504 and recently released a PR stating that as of June 1st, that 504 was complete. Whether those accredited investors have sold those shares back into the market or continue to hold is a matter of speculation on the board right now, as is the activity of flippers etc.
To my knowledge pipe financing and CD's are not an issue, there has been discussion about the possibility of another 504 and whether or not it is even necessary, but having taken some time to read the rule, there are a couple of areas that seem contradictory to me as far as the clocks on that rule are concerned. I have fired off an e-mail to Mark Leh asking for clarification, but he's a little busy right now, although he did suggest he would address the question to me when he has time.
Cheers, J.
Agreed, but the bounce could be phenomenal...
Cheers, J.
Off Topic, but an interesting read for those following YellowCake Mining...
Yellowcake's Juniper Ridge: South Wyoming’s Best Uranium Discovery?
Posted on Apr 13th, 2007 with stocks: YCKM.OB
James Finch submits: In yesterday’s conversation with Dr. Robert Rich, we determined he had the credentials and industry knowledge to provide Yellowcake Mining (YCKM.OB) with credibility in the uranium space. But, what about the geology? Many juniors have skated onto the radar by using a ‘big name’ to attract investors. Too often, the property’s geology is lacking the factors which would lead to actual uranium mining. Often, the industry-celebrity name is barely familiar with the company’s property.
To our surprise, Dr. Rich was intimately familiar with Yellowcake Mining’s Juniper Ridge property in southern Wyoming. “I had looked at Juniper Ridge in the late 1970s and early 1980s when it was owned by Urangesellschaft [UG], a German company,” he told us. “At the time there were still fresh open cuts from previous open pit mining there. There was a bit of uranium produced during the last market cycle of uranium, but I was impressed with the potential for it to become a much bigger operation. And then I didn’t hear anything about it for over twenty years.”
Juniper Ridge Bigger Than We Thought
He explained some of the production costs and geology, describing Juniper Ridge. “I think there was a feasibility study that gave favorable results when the market was around $40/pound,” Dr. Rich said. “Its mineralization is in pods. When I was there before, it looked like I was in a giant prairie dog village.”
What kind of mining would take place at Juniper Ridge, then? “I think that’s one of the reasons why people hope it will be ISR-amenable,” Rich answered. “Maybe you put a well field on each of the pods and get out what you can at a low production and low processing cost.” Because of the property’s history, Dr. Rich wouldn’t rule out conventional mining. “We have 2,000 drill holes which need to be re-analyzed.”
So we spoke with David Frank, the Strathmore Minerals (STHJF.PK) geologist who has been analyzing about one-half of those drill holes on behalf of joint-venture partner Yellowcake Mining. “We’re getting above average, reasonably good grades,” Frank told us. “I’m not disappointed.” Frank scrolled through data during our telephone interview, citing some of the exceptional holes: 0.2, 0.3 and 0.5.
“Some are in the percents,” Strathmore Minerals president David Miller told us. “According to the industry, Juniper Ridge was the best discovery made in southern Wyoming. It was the only one with significant uranium mineralization in the Browns Park Formation.” The formation encompasses northeastern Utah, northwestern Colorado, and south-central Wyoming. “It is a slightly younger formation than the Wind River or Wasatch formations,” said Miller, who was recently announced as director of Yellowcake Mining. “This is another tertiary age sandstone formation in Wyoming which contains substantial uranium mineralization.”
Miller rated this formation third in the state. He explained the Wind Rivers formation, with Gas Hills and Shirley Basin, was Wyoming’s most prolific uranium producer, followed by the Wasatch formation, which includes Powder River and the Red Desert.
Historically, Juniper Ridge was the site of 12 small open pit mines. UG nearly brought the property into production in the early 1980s. There were pit designs and it was reportedly permitted. Machinery was ready to break ground. UG had given the project the green light, when the bottom fell out of the uranium market. Later, the Italian company, AGIP bought, hoping for a turnaround in the uranium price. The uranium price drought lasted longer than expected, and it passed through to other hands.
As the uranium price appeared to be heading higher, Strathmore Minerals acquired the property. In mid March, Yellowcake Mining optioned an 80-percent interest in the property, which it will earn by spending $8 million over a five-year period to develop Juniper Ridge. As part of the transaction, Yellowcake issued nine million shares to Strathmore.
Strathmore corporate secretary Bob Hemmerling told us, “This is part of our corporate strategy to monetize our non-core assets so that we can advance our flagship projects.” Others we spoke with confirmed this was likely to become an economic uranium mining operation.
“We are too early days, but I would feel pretty confident in a $60 to $70 (uranium price) market of not having any problem bringing it on-line and making money,” Dr. Rich informed us. “I think it has potential to become a medium-size producer – maybe a couple million pounds a year. The mineralization is not all that deep.”
Juniper Ridge is a near surface deposit with uranium mineralization starting at the surface and running a few hundred feet to depth. “The deposit was discovered by picking up surface rocks with a Geiger counter,” said David Frank. It might be mined by a combination of open pit for the shallow mineralization and ISR for uranium at depth. “Possibly by heap leaching piles of ore, “Rich said. “Or if you went underground, you could heap leach and inflate – like heap leaching ‘in place.’ This was done once at New Lake Mines in Canada’s Elliot Lake region.”
Miller pointed out, “We expect to drill the property, for permitting purposes, in 2007. It was under development to become an open-pit mine, before it was put on ‘stand by’ by UG.” Data compilation is ongoing to analyze more than 2,000 holes previously drilled.
“It’s a real action property,” Strathmore’s John DeJoia told us from the company’s Santa Fe, New Mexico permitting office. “Developing it will bring a lot of new applications to the ISR (in situ recovery) uranium industry.” DeJoia is intimately familiar with the prospects at Sky because he had evaluated the property’s potential during the last uranium cycle. “It’s a fairly straightforward ISR mining project,” DeJoia added. “Sky will be easy drilling because of the formation.”
Located in Fremont County near Lander and Riverton, Wyoming (near Strathmore’s U.S. headquarters), the Sky property is a relatively small uranium deposit – about one million pounds U3O8. Why bother with something this small? “It’s an ideal ISR property to introduce new technologies,” DeJoia said. Uranium mined at Sky would be processed through a small, inexpensive plant. “It would be modular and portable with new technologies,” he added. DeJoia explained this could become a new development for existing remote ion exchange technology.
This may signal a bigger property development. “I think it will be developed in conjunction with other properties in the area,” DeJoia speculated. An April 10th news release announced it would be the first of Strathmore’s properties to begin data collection for permitting purposes. Strathmore has several other Wyoming projects listed on the company’s website.
At first we thought the Sky property was a throwaway, like other properties tossed like doggie biscuits by the higher market cap uranium juniors to barking new uranium junior entrants. We talked permeability with David Miller about Sky. “The Sky property has about eight-fold the permeability of Christensen Ranch,” Miller confided. He would know, because he was chief geologist at this ISR uranium operation for four years. “Christensen Ranch had 300 millidarcy; Sky has 2500 millidarcy,” Miller said.
Millidarcy is used to measure the permeability of a uranium roll front deposit. The higher the darcy (1.0 or greater shows good promise), the more permeable the deposit. This unit of measurement is widely used in petroleum engineering and geology. We discussed the importance of permeability in our basic ISR series.
This may explain why both companies are excited by joint developments in Wyoming. Geologically, both Strathmore Minerals property assets have greater prospectivity than we first thought. These present the significant opportunity Dr. Robert Rich explained to us in Part One of this series.
And what about the hundreds of pesky juniors which have sprung up to rape the uninformed investor? “I think that probably half the juniors are just opportunistic,” Dr. Rich told us. “That’s the nature of entrepreneurial activity—looking for the next horse to ride, like the pony express.” Rich further explained, “You wear out one, you get on the other. I think there are so many companies that probably had gold in their name prior to them having uranium in their name. When the next thing comes along, whether it’s nickel or whatever, they’ll change the company name and do something different.”
Yes, I have, in fact I've been discussing YCKM in some detail over the past week or so... I appreciate your comment on the drop in price, but surely you're not contending that its as a direct result of Strathmore Minerals conducting a NI 43-101 are you...? Have you looked at the history of these particular claims, do you know how much solid opinion there is that this is a viable concern?
There is a reason for the nosebleed dive in stock price... would you like to flesh that out for us...?
Cheers, J
The NI 43-101 is a reporting standard for 'listed' Canadian exploration and mining companies.
Although it has an obvious anti-fraud orientation, it could be construed, as stated by another poster here, as being expensive, time consuming and an administrative chore. Having said that it has also been hailed (since its inception) as a welcome review of how exploration work should be recorded and reported, it puts the spotlight on words and concepts used in geology, and how they are extrapolated into the world of investment.
NI 43-101 is a (Canadian) Law which sets conditions under which public exploration and mining companies are required to publish techincal reports. The content of the reports and the qualifications of their authors are specified by the instrument. The purpose of the instrument is to ensure that securities commission and investors are informed on technical matters materially affecting the financial status of the listed companies.
I should add however, after reading through the Instrument, that the 'requirement' to submit the technical portion of the report applies ONLY to companies who are listed on a Canadian exchange.
It is a Canadian Instrument, but I dont believe that there is an equally recognizable equivalent available in the US at the moment, so it would seem to fit the bill for a company looking to complete exhaustive surveys which will be received with some confidence by the investment community whether in Canada or the US.
Strathmore Minerals is a Canadian listed stock, they recently completed an NI 43-101 survey on the Sky Project in Wyoming... It should be noted that Strathmore are a recognized Uranium mining company currently trading at $4.29 on the canadian exchange... If its good enough for them to complete an NI 43-101 survey which is accepted with confidence by investors, I'd say its good enough for Russell Industries...
Cheers, J.
I'm right here Ice...
You didnt think that I'd miss an opportunity to watch you post on RSDS again did you...?
Just kicking my heels, couple of cold ones, sitting on the sidelines waiting for this bun fight to turn into a reasonable conversation...
FYI, I no longer post on the RSDS board, I do not and have never pumped RSDS, Righty and I are not the same person (an accusation levelled at me by a former Mod on that board and refuted, at my request, by Matt to him in PM)... I am only interested in the facts, good, bad or indifferent...
Cheers, J.
Hi Mild,
They did indeed and hopefully 'they' will (as permits from both State and Feds are required), not withstanding the details previously discussed in this post http://www.investorshub.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=19777899 to which you responded, also there may be other requirements to which we are not privy at present, although we have heard positive murmurings from the CEO, both the State and Feds are very specific as to the requirements for the issuance of permits and cannot be bypassed... I would like to see these permits granted as quickly as the regulatory process allows, but I will continue to seek independant corroboration of just where RSDS is in the application process and not simply take the word of the CEO as has been suggested to me, (not by you I might add...).
Call me fickle, but it just seems like a good idea...
Cheers, J.
Uranium Mines takes years...
Hi Aries4747,
I'd like to voice my appreciation for you posting this incredibly informative stockinterview.
I have been looking closely and with some interest at the Federal and State application process for permits to explore and mine Uranium Oxide Ore in the State of Utah. Specifically my interest has been piqued by the activities of RSDS (Russell Industries), a pink sheet stock which began accumulating mining claims in San Juan County, near Monticello, Utah, this year, they have amassed 254 claims to date and recently embarked on the Permit Application trail.
In an effort to corroborate their public statements, in which they have stated that they have indeed begun to engage the regulatory process, and to better educate and familiarize myself with the specific requirements for approval, I have exchanged e-mails and phone calls with representatives of the Federal Bureau of Land Management, the Utah State Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals and the US Forest Service.
These representatives have been enormously helpful and kindly related both general and specific information pertaining to the application process and Russell Industries activities to date. Although both Federal and State referred to the potential for environmental assessments they certainly didnt relate anything close to the amount of information contained in your post... it certainly does cause me to raise an eyebrow (roger moore style...) at the degree of regulatory approval required... with one caveat however, and if anybody can confirm this question, I'd appreciate a heads up... I am wondering if the Environmental Protection Agency (when conducting their environmental impact assessment) and the Department of Natural Resources (when examining the full body of collated data), operate something of a 'sliding scale' for the requirements to be met... In otherwords, are the requirements quite this stringent in every case...? I pose this particular question because the Federal Officials I have spoken to, indicated quite specifically, that in the case of Russell Industries the environmental requirements for certain of their claim areas, may not be quite so rigorous... the reason...? They have purchased a number of claims which were 'previously' mined commercially for Uranium Oxide Ore, mostly back in the 1950's, this in and off itself does not mean that the EPA wont scrutinize their application I'm sure, I'm equally as sure that the requirements to be met in the '50's were certainly not as restrictive as they are now, but as commercial operations were once in effect, it seems that a precident may have been set for their reinstatement.
I found the following paragraph from your post most interesting and I would heartily recommend anybody interested in the Permit and Approval process for Uranium Mining Operations (...I'm sure theyre just queuing around the block..!) to give this a couple of good read throughs.
The next step would be how long would it take to get the permit after you submit it and get all this information in your applications. That is a little more variable and, again, it depends upon the agencies and who is involved in it whether you’ve got the Federal agencies like NRC, EPA (which typically you are going to have EPA anyway), whether you are have BLM involved or the forest services. These are all contributing factors on how long it’s going to take. StockInterview: What is the general procedure: how much paperwork is involved, and who reviews it? Richard Blubaugh:It will be several volumes by the time you are through. You could be looking at anywhere from four to six of those 3-inch binders. It would all go to the NRC and the state agency. You wouldn’t send all of that to the EPA. They are just focused on the groundwater so you pull all the groundwater stuff, and they may have some additional requirements that go to EPA. StockInterview: And what if the accumulated data is incomplete? Richard Blubaugh:All agencies have what they call their completeness review so when an application comes in, the first thing they do is do a completeness review and make sure that everything that’s required is in the package, in the application. That’s before they even look at any of the content. They simply look to see that all the pieces are there. Then, NRC has indicated they are going to take a closer look during the completeness review, which they said could last up to 90 days. But it’s more than a completeness review. It’s a completeness and adequacy review, which means that at the end of that period, if your application is complete and adequate, then they are going to continue to review the application for licensing. If it isn’t complete, then what they are going to do is return it to you. They are going to be a little more explicit in why it isn’t complete and where the inadequacies are which will give you a good idea of what else you need to do. At that point then, they go into the EIS (Environmental Impact Study) process. The EIS process has been noted to take anywhere from 18 to 24 months, and longer if you have strong opposition. StockInterview: How much does the environmental permitting process cost? Richard Blubaugh: It does cost a small fortune. The costs are going to vary again depending on the project, area and whether or not an EIS is required, all those different factors will come into play. (Editor’s Note: We checked with Strathmore Minerals’ John DeJoia and Uranerz Energy’s Glenn Catchpole, both of whom confirmed that environmental studies would likely cost in the neighborhood of about $1/pound of uranium mined on a company’s project.)
Your post certainly offers much informtion for consideration, the application process for mining permits may very well be considerably more complicated and time consuming than it seems at first glance.
Cheers, J.
Nice assessement Brikk...
Youve piqued my interest with that post, I'm going to take a look at that... thanks.
Cheers,J.
Thanks Sue, yeah I already set mine to 500 and I'm becoming quite good at trawling for them using the search functions now.. I just had a bit of a blonde moment and thought that a deletion was just that....
Cheers, J.
Hi Petty,
the following is from the first paragraph of the following page on the SEC's website, if you would like to fully regale yourself of all the facts pertaining to Rule 504 of Reg D, this is an excellent place to start.
http://sec.gov/answers/rule504.htm
Rule 504 of Regulation D
Rule 504 of Regulation D provides an exemption from the registration requirements of the federal securities laws for some companies when they offer and sell up to $1,000,000 of their securities in any 12-month period.
The specific terminology used is "in any 12 month period" which suggests that they can most certainly run end to end. RSDS began selling securities through 504 Reg D on or around Aug 14th '06 if I'm not mistaken, which gave them 12 months (ending Aug 13th '07) to raise $1m through the sale of securities using this tool. If they so choose, according to this statement by the SEC, they may begin again to sell another $1M of securities through 504 Reg D on or around Aug 14th '07, one year after the previous start date.
I may be off by the few days on the start date, but thats the date of the first Reg D filing with the SEC.
Cheers, J.
Thank you Makes, I appreciate you posting that.
Cheers,J
Hi Laser,
I appreciate the opportunity to discuss this with you on the board, but first of all... why hasnt your post been deleted... It is as off topic as any of the other dozen posts that have just been erased...?
That said and if my response survives long enough for you to read... Am I the only person who saw StockKGangsterRZ post multiple times about the impending retirement of RSDS shares...? A number of other posters picked up on it, and I was not the only person to call for somebody to deal with the situation... do you consider those posts to be an expression of exuberance..? or reasonable speculation...? To me, without any kind of fact, it is most certainly contentious and smacks more of a sensationalist attempt to pump the stock and mislead people, is that not a problem for you laser? are you comfortable with people being misled in that manner?
I'm not suggesting that anybody has to agree with the DD that I bring to this board, but to suggest that it can only be passed on by PM...? To suggest that it is questionable when it comes from State and Federal employees who are personally responsible for the permit application process... whilst others on this board are drawing conclusions about whether permits have been issued as a result of the omission of words in a PR, and yet it goes unchallenged...? Are you surprised that I am taking issue with this...?
2 weeks ago, Makes was asking me to consider an Asst Mod position on this board, and now I am public enemy number one... can you show me where I have lacked consistency since I began posting on this board Laser...? I have not changed my MO. If makes is too busy to spend the afternoon overseeing this board on a day when we saw 350M volume and huge interest in the board due to the fact that he is a Mod on dozens of other boards, then why is it such an unreasonable suggestion that somebody who can commit the time to doing the job, do so...?
No offense taken incidentally, I just appreciate the opportunity to discuss this stock, in which I have a vested interest.
Cheers, J>
Well I can only presume that theyre all busy with their real lives, or on other boards, RSDS must be a low priority... Another Asst Mod who has been fairly consistent here has been removed from his position so we are left Mod'less so to speak.
Its a pity really, there has been a vigorous debate over the past few days about what is and is not appropriate to deliver to this board, my posts have come under particular scrutiny for delivering DD not released by the company... Not sure where this rumour of share retirement came from, I have asked for corroboration, TOS'd it to Admin and requested assistance via the board from the Mods, but so far no action.
It leaves me with the unfortunate opinion that we (the regular board participants) are deemed to be more damaging to the board than this type of poster... curious...
Cheers, J.
Thats great news Petty, wheres that from..? The greater the volume the quicker we'll eat through the remnants of the 504.
Cheers, J.
Actually, that should be more like 'uprooted' but I wont split hairs with you...
Cheers,J.
Thats the spirit abe... lol...
seems like old times again all of a sudden..
Cheers,J.
Come on guys... this is just ridiculous, reposting that garbage does nobody any favours here, if he cant produce evidence that this is going to happen, then it should be given the same weight as any other outrageous speculation here...
Cheers, J.
Hey Bri,
more exposure the better... got to run for an hour, no doubt I'll have the phone book to flick through when I get back...
Cheers, J.
lol... the old hands are appearing once again, *sigh...* memories...
Cheers, J.
I'm laughing because I've been accused of bashing RSDS over the past couple of days... then of all people Blue returns... too Ironic for words...
Cheers, J.
I dont suppose it occured to you to post the source WITH the claim...? Novel concept that...
Cheers,J.
Yeah, give Shakerrrz a nudge and see if he can knock something up for you...lol.. last time I asked him for documentary evidence of financial data was about 8 weeks ago... still waiting for that... so I wont hold my breath.
Cheers, J.
WHERE ARE THE BOARD MODS TO DEAL WITH THIS....?
Produce evidence of projected RSDS share retirement or please refrain from posting this kind of horses**t... there, I asked nicely... now how about it Boyzzzzzz.
Cheers,J.
Now hold on a second Blue... you and I are on opposing sides of this coin dont forget... if you came here to bash you're going to have to deal with me bud...
Cheers, J.
I agree, I have TOS'd the previous post related to the retirement of shares, but one of the Mods needs to take control of this board and quickly IMO...
Cheers,J
BLUE... hahahaha....
There goes the neighbourhood... for all of you out there that thought I was here to bash the stock...lol...
Cheers, J.
StockKGangsteRZ....
ShakerrrrrRZ...?
PumperrrrRZ... anybody...?
Unless you can provide some kind of evidence that supports this claim it should, In my opinion be completely disregarded as what it quite obviously is... BS Pumping..
A well reasoned response, thank you. I for one appreciate that.
Cheers, J.
Is it appropriate to mention that the PR states that the 504 will be complete June 1st...? 8 Days (6 trading days from now).
In other words, could we expect to see further heavy selling into the expected peak of volume that will undoubtedly now occur...?
Cheers,J.
RSDS - Announces Completion of 504
Russell Industries: Closes 504
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
10:46 a.m. 05/23/2007
HOUSTON, TX, May 23, 2007 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Russell Industries, Inc. (RSDS.PK) announces that its sale of securities pursuant to Regulation D, Rule 504, of the United States Securities and Exchange Commission will be concluded on June 1, 2007.
"The response from accredited investors was overwhelming and the equity capital raised has enabled Russell Industries to operate, acquire uranium mine claims and build a foundation for future mining, acquisitions and validation of proven and probable reserves of the assets", Rick Berman, President and CEO.
About Russell Industries, Inc.
Russell Industries, a Nevada Corporation, was incorporated in 1997. Russell Industries is a holding company that will acquire assets in the energy, mining, healthcare and financial industries. The Company owns a majority ownership interest in 254 Uranium Mining Claims as of May 23, 2007.
Solid, solid news..
This is a great PR, so many positive aspects its hard to know where to begin, but I particularly like the following statement...
This project was offered to Allenergy Inc. exclusively as a result of the Seller's acknowledgement of the Company's proven and innovative results over the past 12 months.
This speaks volumes of how ALRY are viewed amongst their peers in this area, in geographical as well as business terms, and bodes well IMO for the future of ALRY's operations.
Cheers, J.
Yes Abe it is,
The sale of securities must be filed no later than 15 days after the first sale in an offering, the notice is deemed filed with the SEC on the date receieved by registered or certified mail.
Measuring the sale of securities under 504 Reg D any other way is purely speculation, but that is entirely acceptable on this board as confirmed by the board Moderator yesterday.
Cheers, J.
I take it youre referring to the standstill arrangement mentioned... yeah, agreed, but remember Zimmerman is supremely positioned to pick the cream of the up and coming crop through Sbarro... could be next month, could be next year... but I think the board have faith in his approach to this... I just hope he gets around to it before he pops his clogs... he is in his 70's after all...
Cheers, J.
yeah, its the picky part I like... and the share structure... and the board holding a shit load... and the Presidents background... and...on and on...
absolutely no idea Brikk... I think this is best bought and tucked under the matress so to speak... when alarm bells start ringing on my alert scanner, i'll revisit it... otherwise I'll check SEC filings as they appear just to see whats up... If you havent had an opportunity to do so I'd recommend you read through the last 10k get a feeling for how the company is structured and what they might have in mind...
Cheers, J.
damn... we couldnt actually start a board that comes close to having a sense of humour here could we...? heaven forbid... nice one centurion...
Cheers, J.