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.
How many MM's now? I thought there was usually just one for the first 30 days of listing.
Can anyone explain this statement: "Additionally, and in conjunction with the credit agreement with Guaranty, TEC has entered into certain commodity hedging transactions representing approximately 85% of the Company's estimated production over the next 42 months. The Company has hedged approximately 500,000 barrels of oil over the period utilizing costless collars with a floor of $40 per bbl and a ceiling of $67.10 per bbl. Similarly, the Company has hedged approximately 1.7 Bcf of gas over the same period with a floor of $6.00 per MMbtu and a ceiling of $9.10 per MMbtu."
Are they getting the present market price for O&G?
http://biz.yahoo.com/bw/050610/105244.html?.v=1
Hey! Also kicking butt with GG and Natural Resources mutual fund. Maybe Tandem waiting for $100 oil and $10 N. gas to release more news? LOL!
It was there in the ZEO PR! "joint venture company United Zeolite Products (UZP).", I missed it, my bad, back to lurking and waiting on PR from FASC.
TRCPA, I just wonder why ZEO didn't mention it in the PR, it is significant info for investors that ZEO has to split the profits (losses), IMO.
"Under the agreement, a new company, United Zeolite Products Ltd. (UZP) will be formed with each party contributing equipment, raw materials, and contractual rights respectively. First American Scientific Corp. will own 1/3 of the outstanding shares of UZP and will manage the operation of the Princeton plant. All profits from the joint venture will be divided equally amongst the 3 parties."
Or is it 4 partners with 1/4 of the shares? Usually these guys pump each other up, but no PR from FASC either.
USGL continues the trend up. No one seems to be spamming gold stocks on the boards, but they are doing well. USGL was $1.31 when I posted last on it.
No mention of FASC or the JV in the ZEO PR? Did FASC get dumped by ZEO? Didn't do much for the price of ZEO or FASC today. Bad weather in a month or so.
Waste of money for pumping. Didn't do anything for the pps and the only listeners are already shareholders, IMO. Maybe just to keep the share price from dropping? Didn't even trade average volume today.
Not much else to talk about. Let's shut the board down until the next PR. )
Huggums, no I didn't and it looks like it's starting to move! Good volume today! No dry powder left! LOL!
Oil now over $62, come on Tandem, tell us if we got screwed or not! Could have done much better elsewhere! LOL!
More on Simba Mines from link in last post,
Outstanding Shares: 18,335,000 as of 2005-05-11
Float: 2,350,000 per May 4, news
by Financials.com
Featured Company
Simba Mines Inc.'s wholly owned subsidiary is the licence holder of a 3615 sq km license area on the coast of Angola. Work to date has established a measured and inferred resource of 58.1 million tonnes at 2.14% copper which is a contained copper resource of 1.3+ million tonnes . The sharing split is Simba 80% and Angolan nationals 20%.
symbol: SBAMF (PKS)
price: 0.80 (0.90 close on Friday)
Corporate Information: Simba Mining Inc.
Company Description:
United States Office
300 Center Avenue, Suite 302.
Bay City, Michigan, 48708, USA
Tel: +1 989 891 1274
Fax: +1 989 509 5904
Operations Office
Rua Josip Broz Tito Nr 54, 2nd Floor / H
Municipality of Ingombota, Luanda, Angola
Tel: +244 9151 0672
Fax: +244 246 0432
Exploration Manager: Elmar Paniev
Outstanding Shares: 18,335,000 as of 2005-05-11
Float: 2,350,000 per May 4, news
Power tariffs are currently us 2 cents / Kwh.
Operating costs are estimated at US$ 45 - 48 c/lb, which includes a contingency of US$ 10 c/lb.
The current price of copper is approximately US$ 1.60/1b.
Mining of the resources will be undertaken through conventional heap leaching plus solvent extraction electro mining SXEW to produce LME grade copper cathode.
Initial plant production capacity
Planned to be 20,000 tonnes per annum (approximately 40 million lbs) with capital costs estimated at US $35 million
Following upgrading confirmation of the geological resource,
it is anticipated that the plant capacity will be increased in Year 3
to 40,000 - 50,000 tonnes per annum (approximately 80 - 100 million lbs of copper).
The mine is located near the coast with much infrastructure already in place.
''Angola is one of the world's biggest -- and least developed -- mineral treasure troves..." The Economist, July 1, 1995
Being an excellent conductor of electricity, copper is used mostly in electrical and electronic products, largely in the IT industry. It is also used in construction and industrial applications, and a small amount is used in the transport industry.
At today's copper prices, the proven recoverable copper reserves of 106,358 tonnes are worth in excess of $350 million.
The mine is located near the coast with access to power and other infrastructure and its operating costs should not exceed US$1,000 per tonne.
Currently, copper trades in excess of US$3,000 per tonne.
ORE RESERVES
Proven reserves : 7.1 million tonnes
Copper Grade 2.14 %
Proven contained copper: 151,940 tonnes
Recovery rate 70%
Proven recoverable copper: 106,358 tonnes
Inferred reserves 50 million tonnes Copper Grade 2.14%
Inferred contained copper: 1 million tonnes
Recovery rate 70%
Inferred recoverable copper: 749,000 tonnes
Simba Mines Inc. is a copper mining company headed by an experienced management team with a strong track record of success.
Simba holds an 80% interest in the Cachoeiras de Binga license in Angola.
Simba's license area is 3615 sq. km located near the coast close to the town of Sumbe where existing infrastructure is in place.
Cachoeiras de Binga
town of Sumbe
A purpose-designed bucket-wheel excavator
is used to remove leached ore from the pads
once the copper has been extracted.
Mark Smyth - Chairman
Mark Smyth has over 35 years of experience in the natural resources sector, which commenced with Selection Trust in 1969 where he was part of the project development teams for Mt Newman iron ore and Agnew nickel projects in Australia. Since 1975 he has co-founded a number of companies involved in the exploration and production of gold, oil, gas and diamonds around the world. Mr Smyth operates from Perth, Western Australia, Dubai and London and is a member of the Ironmongers Company of the City of London. He has a law degree from Oxford University and is a solicitor in England and Wales, Hong Kong and several states in Australia.
Nik Zuks - President
Nik Zuks, from Perth, Western Australia, has in excess of 25 years experience in the mineral exploration and development in Australia, Africa, Malaysia and Indonesia and has a wide commercial background. Mr Zuks was responsible for the development of the Midwest Iron and Steel Project in Western Australia, an integrated mining and processing project. Mr Zuks was also instrumental in the development of the Mambramo forestry project in Irian Jaya, Indonesia.
Paul Kopejtka - Chief Operating Officer
Paul Kopejtka has 18 years engineering experience in the mining industry encompassing technical and financial evaluation, project management, risk analysis, metallurgical and engineering design and commissioning. He has worked on projects in Africa, Australia, Asia and Russia and has a successful track record in a range of mineral processing industries.
Shane Healy - CFO / Treasurer
Shane Healy is a member of the Australian Society of Company Secretaries and the Australian Institute of Company Directors. He has held senior management roles with medium to large corporations and is the Chief Financial Officer of New Millennium Resources NL.
Michael Smith - Exploration
Michael Smith is a seasoned veteran with over 40 years experience in the mining industry. He has held various senior roles and has worked on numerous projects all over the world including Angola, Algeria, Sierra Leone, Liberia, Mali, Mozambique, Zambia, Finland, Ireland, Russia, United Kingdom, , Zimbabwe, Tanzania, Malawi, Mozambique, Lesotho, Madagascar, Ghana, Guinea, Afghanistan, Pakistan, Kazakstan, Bolivia, Brazil, USA, Netherlands, and United Kingdom.
Management:
Recent News Alert
Special Meeting Held
BAY CITY, MI and TORONTO - (PRIMEZONE) - August 2, 2005 - Simba Mines Inc. advises that a Special Meeting of the shareholders has been held on July 29th 2005 and the resolution was passed to transfer the domicile of Simba from Canada to the USA, and to change the company's name to Simba Mining Inc. The required applications are in progress to re-domicile Simba to an American company. It will then be in a position to apply for the removal of the "F" from its trading symbol.
A Pinkie, SBAMF, 90 cents, check it out, opinions welcome, no position yet, click on "More" Simba Mining about mid page, low float:
http://www.positionplays.com/
But Sam, there's such a great bunch of guys here! And the DD provided makes me feel so comfortable invested in conventional energy stocks for now. But I'll be glad to stay away for a while if it will make you happy.
TRCPA, the horse buggy makers probably ganged up on Ford too, the maket of supply and demand usually wins out. Right now though, a large portion of my money is in the oil, oil service, and natural resources businesses. I agree, FASC was smart to target some emerging markets, but can they survive there?
Market says no right now, IMO.
Radiation from coal vs. nuclear power:
http://www.ornl.gov/info/ornlreview/rev26-34/text/colmain.html
Terry, bottom line for now which, IMO, applies to biomass boiler fuels also (except where the material is already available at the plant as with sawmills, palm oil industry, etc.)
Biofuels provide less energy than their production requires.
I expect this article to fuel the continuing controversy over bio-fuels, but it is an important contribution to this ongoing discussion.
A research article just published in a Springer Press research journal states that more fossil fuel energy is required to produce a given amount of bio-fuel than is contained in usable energy in said fuels.
The full reference is:
Ethanol Production Using Corn, Switchgrass, and Wood; Biodiesel Production Using Soybean and Sunflower. D. Pimentel (Cornell University) and T.W.Patzek (UC Berkeley). Natural Resources Research, Vol. 14, No. 1, pp. 65-76, 2005.
I believe the article itself requires subscription, but the abstract is open to the general public:
Abstract:
Energy outputs from ethanol produced using corn, switchgrass, and wood biomass were each less than the respective fossil energy inputs. The same was true for producing biodiesel using soybeans and sunflower, however, the energy cost for producing soybean biodiesel was only slightly negative compared with ethanol production. Findings in terms of energy outputs compared with the energy inputs were: • Ethanol production using corn grain required 29% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using switchgrass required 50% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Ethanol production using wood biomass required 57% more fossil energy than the ethanol fuel produced. • Biodiesel production using soybean required 27% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced (Note, the energy yield from soy oil per hectare is far lower than the ethanol yield from corn). • Biodiesel production using sunflower required 118% more fossil energy than the biodiesel fuel produced.
(end abstract)
The article is very well written and provides an extremely intersting analysis, including a review of other recent reports and their divergent findings.
The authors clearly state that some recent reports have found negative energy return, while others have found positive return. The authors provide their own analysis, which is compiled from available and previously published data. They come to different conclusions from those reports stating positive energy return largely because they use a more comprehensive set of inputs (in other words, they consider a larger number of factors required for production that use energy).
For starters, the article refers to previous studies conducted by the US Dept of Energy, that suggest a negative energy return for bio-ethanol (ERAB 1980, 1981). Apparently, these reports were reviewed by a panel of independent experts, and the conclusions were found to be valid. A review conducted by one of the two authors here (Pimentel 2003) of those reports showing a positive energy return, indicated that in those reports many inputs (requiring energy for production process) were omitted.
Nevertheless, I feel that it is important to state that all of these reports and findings are based on estimates and have a range of errors in predicted outputs.
The authors also state that they did not consider all secondary environmental impacts in their evaluation.
The authors conclude that bio-fuel production results in a net negative energy return for a variety of reasons, and that photovoltaics are a more energy efficient way of converting energy from solar radiation.
Bottom line, this is very informative and important reading for those on this board who are interested in various alternatives to fossil fuel based energy production.
http://www.greenhybrid.com/discuss/biofuels-provide-less-energy-than-their-production-requires.2752....
Terry, you mentioned Brazil, this is an interesting history of their energy requirements:
Energy
The unfolding of Brazil's current difficulties in the energy arena constitutes a classic example of distortions arising from misdirected regulation combined with the action of interest groups. When import-substitution industrialization began in the early 1950s, the country's main sources of energy were firewood, charcoal, and bagasse (the dry residue from the processing of sugarcane). Because modern industrial expansion could not be based on these, a decision had to be made regarding the sources of energy to be used. Not surprisingly, electricity and petroleum products received special attention.
Electric Power
In 1950 Brazil's capacity to generate electricity was only 1.9 million kilowatts, and most of the required petroleum products had to be imported. An adequate supply of electric energy became critical, both for production and for a rapidly growing urban population. Petroleum requirements expanded quickly because of the decision to make the automobile industry the mainstay of import-substitution industrialization and because of the heavy reliance on trucks for short- and long-distance transportation. Ambitious road-building programs were implemented, and the domestic automobile industry quickly expanded the stock of motor vehicles, reaching 1.05 million units in 1960, 3.1 million units in 1970, and 10.8 million units in 1980.
Low electricity prices stemmed from the substitution policy and from the attempt to control inflation by restraining the increase in public-sector prices in nominal terms. Thus, the capacity of the electricity sector to generate resources for investment was affected considerably. As a result of federally induced borrowing in the late 1970s and early 1980s, the sector was also heavily indebted. Intermittent adjustments in electricity prices allowed the sector to generate profits and thus some resources for investment. However, on occasion, the government returned to the practice of manipulating consumer prices to contain inflation.
Although the federal treasury initially assumed many of the cost distortions of the energy policy, by the end of the 1980s the virtual bankruptcy of the public sector precluded this approach. In the early 1990s, the government implemented a series of measures to reduce its role. It introduced deregulation, market reforms, and privatization, but these reforms did not change the essence of the energy policy. Interest groups prevented the adoption of measures that would drastically alter the liquid combustible policy, and the agency controlling electric energy continued to lack resources for investments. Thus, the energy price structure was altered only marginally.
Low electricity prices induced a considerable substitution of electricity for other sources of energy and the expansion of electricity-intensive production, such as aluminum. The heavy investments in hydroelectricity of the 1970s and 1980s matured, creating a considerable generating capacity (50,500 million megawatts or 93.3 percent of the total generating capacity of electricity in 1993). One of the world's leading producers of hydroelectric power, Brazil has a potential of 106,500 to 127,868 megawatts, or, according to the World Factbook 1996 , 55,130,000 kilowatts. The country's two largest operating hydroelectric power stations are the 12,600-megawatt Itaipu Dam, the world's largest dam, on the Rio Paraná in the South, and the Tucuruí Dam in Pará, in the North Region (see fig. 3).
In principle, an increase in the generating capacity for electricity should have been easy to achieve. Brazil has enormous hydroelectric potential, and investments in the sector were forthcoming, although with an initial delay. However, until 1995 nationalistic considerations excluded foreign capital from the electric energy sector, and regulatory obstacles prevented domestic private investment. The federal and state governments were therefore left with the task of expanding the generating capacity. As of the early 1990s, the government continued to control the sector's production end, as well as transmission and distribution, although privatization of the sector is under consideration.
Petroleum
The fast-growing requirements of petroleum and petroleum by-products were met initially by imports. However, foreign-exchange difficulties, coupled with strategic considerations, led to efforts to reduce the country's dependence on imports. In the early 1950s, the government granted a near monopoly of the exploration, production, refining, and transportation of oil to the Brazilian Petroleum Corporation (Petróleo Brasileiro S.A.--Petrobrás), the state-owned oil company, and made resources available for investments. Emphasis was placed on the expansion of a domestic refining capacity because world oil prices were low and no problems were envisaged with oil supply. Thus, an important refining sector developed gradually.
The oil crises of the 1970s placed Brazil in a vulnerable situation. In 1974 almost 80 percent of Brazil's total oil consumption was imported, and the increases in oil prices imposed a substantial burden on the country's balance of payments. Consequently, reducing dependence on imported energy, particularly petroleum, became the main objective of energy policy. This reduction was to be achieved by large investments in petroleum substitutes, notably electric energy and ethanol, and by a substantial expansion in the exploration and domestic production of petroleum. Although modest oil fields were not discovered until late in the 1970s, investments in the energy sector increased from around 10 percent of total investment in the early 1970s to a peak of 23.5 percent in 1982-83. As a proportion of GDP, investment in energy increased steadily, from 2.8 percent early in the 1970s, to a peak of 5.0 percent in 1982.
The government also implemented the energy price policy in reaction to the 1979 oil shock. The basic assumption was that the price of oil would remain at its high 1979 level. Thus, emphasis on promoting substitution was absolute. The problem, however, was that this emphasis did not change after oil prices began to decline. To encourage substitution, the government set energy prices. The price of gasoline was set at a high level, not only to reduce its use but also to finance Petrobrás's exploration effort and to subsidize other petroleum products. The prices of diesel fuel and propane (extensively used for cooking) were maintained artificially low, requiring subsidies. The low diesel price was intended to keep transportation costs from increasing sharply, and social arguments were used to justify the propane subsidy.
To induce the purchase of ethanol-propelled cars, the price of ethanol was maintained at 60 percent of that of gasoline. To finance this subsidy, a mixture of 20 percent of ethanol in the gasoline was established. The high gasoline prices exceeded the cost of ethanol, and the profits were used to cover the subsidy. Specially low prices for electric energy were established to encourage the replacement of fuel oil and other oil derivatives in production.
The combination of conservation and substitution, along with the expansion of domestic production, reduced the country's dependence on imported crude oil, from around 80 percent in the late 1970s to 45.6 percent in 1990. Domestic output of crude oil increased from an average 165,000 barrels a day in 1975 to some 800,100 barrels a day by 1996. By the end of 1995, Brazil's proven reserves had reached 4.8 billion barrels and potential reserves were at 8.8 billion barrels. About 64 percent of Brazil's domestic oil comes from the continental shelf in the Campos Basin, which accounts for 83 percent of proven reserves. The country's petroleum reserves may actually reach 20 billion barrels if as yet unproven discoveries in deep water off the Brazilian coast are included.
Despite these advances, however, the rigidity of the energy price policy brought about serious problems. The maintenance of the gasoline-ethanol price differential and other inducements led to a rapid increase in the purchase of ethanol-propelled automobiles and to a growing conversion of gasoline cars to ethanol. Moreover, the basic assumption that the price of oil would remain high was incorrect. Although world oil prices declined, the price policy remained in effect for ethanol producers, owners of ethanol-propelled cars, and the motor vehicle industry. Additionally, the real gasoline price was eroded gradually by the government's tendency to fight inflation by tampering with the prices of goods and services produced by the public sector. Also, the substitution of ethanol for gasoline caused a swift reduction in the sale of gasoline in the domestic market. Consequently, the profits Petrobrás obtained initially from gasoline dwindled quickly, and the company required assistance from the treasury for its exploration program and to cover various subsidies. The sharp increase in the use of diesel fuel for transportation, created by this fuel's subsidy, together with technical rigidities in refining, forced Petrobrás to produce much more gasoline than was required by the domestic market. This excess had to be sold abroad, often at below-cost prices. Because the demand for diesel fuel continued to grow and the demand for gasoline to shrink, Petrobrás was forced to invest heavily in changing the product profile of its refineries. In the early 1990s, the government reduced the gasoline-ethanol price differential (in 1993 the price of ethanol was 78.4 percent of that of gasoline). The price of gasoline was maintained sufficiently high to prevent massive subsidies to ethanol. The prices of diesel fuel and propane were increased.
Natural Gas
Brazil meets only 2 percent of its energy needs with natural gas, but the country's natural gas consumption is likely to increase greatly. In May 1992, the state oil companies of Brazil and Bolivia signed an agreement outlining the route for a 2,270-kilometer, US$2 billion pipeline system to deliver natural gas from Bolivian fields to Brazil's Southeast. The pipeline was scheduled to begin supplying 8 million cubic meters a day of Bolivian gas in 1997, building up to 16 million cubic meters a day by 2004.
Nuclear Power
Nuclear energy provides an interesting chapter in Brazil's energy policy. In the early 1970s, nuclear energy was considered to have great potential, but it failed to develop. In 1975 Brazil signed an agreement with the Federal Republic of Germany (West Germany) under which that country would supply eight nuclear power reactors and transfer technology for the complete nuclear fuel cycle. A small nuclear power plant--the Angra I, which has a 626-megawatt capacity--was built near Rio de Janeiro, and work was programmed to start on two larger facilities on the same site (the Angra II and III units, which were to have a combined capacity of 3.1 million kilowatts).
The Angra I plant, which has a reactor supplied by Westinghouse Electric Corporation, was completed and trial runs were made in 1982, but reactor defects delayed operations until 1983. Moreover, technical problems allowed the facility to function only intermittently. Regarding the Angra II and III plants, construction was started on the first. However, the fiscal crisis, a slower than anticipated growth in the demand for electricity in the 1980s, the adverse United States reaction to the Brazil-West Germany agreement, and a growing environmental militancy in Brazil led to slowdowns in construction.
In 1985 the agreement with West Germany was revised, and the construction of the other reactors was postponed indefinitely, in part for financial reasons. Moreover, growing fiscal difficulties led to an interruption of construction on Angra II and further postponement of Angra III. In 1988 it was estimated that the completion of the two plants would require US$2.8 billion, which was not available. In the early 1990s, there were no indications of when the two facilities would be completed. Despite the delays, the technology transfer clauses of the agreement have been maintained, and Brazil has continued to receive West German nuclear technology.
In 1990 Brazil's uranium reserves were estimated at 301,500 tons, or the equivalent of 2.1 billion tons of petroleum. A yellow-cake (see Glossary) factory and a plant to produce nuclear fuel elements have been completed, and additional processing facilities are under construction or planned. These will allow for the enrichment of uranium and the reprocessing of spent fuel. However, as was the case with the power reactors, lack of resources has slowed down developments in this area. In early 1997, the Brazilian nuclear energy program was being supplied by the only uranium mine operating in Brazil, in Poços de Caldas, Minas Gerais State. That mine is being deactivated and replaced by the Lagoa Real/Caetité Mine in the Caetité District in southwestern Bahia State (see Nuclear Programs, ch. 6).
http://www.country-studies.com/brazil/energy.html
Terry, great idea! Use Ironwood trees for fuel instead of sawgrass to cut down on the number of trucks required! Oak would be a second choice! Walnut or cherry would be great too, but oil may have to go to $500(?) a barrel to consider those.
Mitsui Babcock made the negative comments and they are in the biomass biz, I think they have plenty of energy between their ears. Biomass and other alternative energy sources will get going when they get competitive as oil goes up. Most of the major oil companies already are doing R&D and projects on wind and solar power, they will still be in biz as oil and natural gas are depleted.
Unfortunately(?), our grandkids and their kids may have to learn to live more efficiently and maybe a bit less comfortable thanks to our generation and those past. Nuclear power will be a major factor in the future if we stick to the smaller plants like in Europe that are safer and easier to operate. We built large nuclear plants because the site permitting was so expensive and large plants had to be built to justify the initial approval costs.
ptrey, they state what most "naysayers" have said all along, the economics aren't there plus more:
"but continues to find that project development is hindered by issues of economic viability, long planning approval timescales, uncertainty of fuel supplies and poor performance of flagship projects such as ARBRE. Biomass needs a long-term commitment and adequate subsidy and assurance on the supply of energy crops.
The restriction on this market is the price and availability
of fuel."
Just consider transport, one truck may haul 20 tons of coal to a plant, 10 trucks may be required to haul 20 tons of biomass to the plant (due to density).
Dang! BIDU Chinese IPO: Market Pulse: Tech stocks close lower overall, but Baidu skyrockets
Friday August 5, 4:18 pm ET
By Michael Paige
LOS ANGELES (MarketWatch) -- Technology stocks closed lower overall on Friday, sending the Nasdaq Composite Index lower by 13.4 points, or 0.6%, to close at 2,177.9. However, Baidu.com Inc. saw its shares rocket higher as the Chinese Internet issue debuted on Wall Street. Baidu climbed $95.54, or 354%, to $122.54, leaving its initial offer price of $27 far behind it. Elsewhere, Computer Sciences Corp. shares lost $1.87, or 4%, to $44.97 after its quarterly results and outlook failed to spark enthusiasm. Network Appliance Inc. shares lost 94 cents, or 3.7%, to $24.56 after the firm warned on its upcoming quarterly results. Meanwhile, chip stocks eased overall, with the Philadelphia Semiconductor Index edging down 1.35 points, or 0.3%, to 471.19.
USGL.OB $1.31 Rob McEwen Becomes U.S. Gold's Largest Shareholder
Friday July 29, 4:05 pm ET
DENVER--(BUSINESS WIRE)--July 29, 2005--U.S. Gold Corporation (OTCBB: USGL - News) is pleased to announce that Rob McEwen has purchased by way of private placement with the Company, 11.1 million shares for $4,000,000 becoming the Company's largest shareholder with 33.3% interest. It is planned that Mr. McEwen will be assuming the role of Chairman and CEO shortly following the planned resignation of current management.
"Rob McEwen is one of the noted visionaries and entrepreneurs in the gold-mining sector. As my brother David and I close out our last chapter in the U.S. Gold story, a company we founded 28 years ago, we are very pleased to be turning the next chapter over to Rob. Rob's vision for building U.S. Gold is exciting," said William Reid, U.S. Gold's outgoing President.
As part of the transition, four of the six current directors of U.S. Gold have agreed to resign from the board. Pending regulatory filings, the current board intends to replace the resigning members with nominees of Mr. McEwen.
Over the past twelve years, Mr. McEwen turned Goldcorp Inc. (NYSE: GG - News; TSC: G) from an investment company with a market capitalization of $50 million into a mining company with a market value of $5.4 billion today. He has been honored with such awards as the Northern Miners Man of the Year Award, Ernst & Young's Ontario Entrepreneur of the Year Award in the Energy Category, PDAC's Developer of the Year, and under his leadership, Goldcorp was named one of Fast Companies 50 Companies of Innovation and Business Week's selection as one of the 50 most innovative companies on the web.
"U.S. Gold's Tonkin Springs property is exciting. Its 36-square-mile property position, strategically located on the Cortez Gold trend in Nevada, is in the heart of a promising exploration play. Tonkin Springs has an existing gold resource of 1.4 million ounces within the upper 250 feet over a relatively small area of the property. The exploration potential of this property has increased over the past few years as Placer Dome, which adjoins our property to the north, has continued to discover several multi-million ounce gold deposits, some of which have reached to a depth of 2,000 feet. Tonkin Springs is a great asset, and I intend to aggressively explore this interesting property," said Rob McEwen, U.S. Gold's incoming Chairman and CEO.
The previously announced merger with Romarco Minerals has been terminated.
Certain statements contained herein and subsequent oral statements made by and on behalf of the Company may contain "forward-looking statements" within the meaning of the Private Securities Litigation Reform Act of 1995. Such forward looking statements are identified by words such as "intends," "anticipates," "believes," "expects" and "hopes" and include, without limitation, statements regarding the Company's plan of business operations, potential contractual arrangements, receipt of working capital, anticipated revenues and related expenditures. Factors that could cause actual results to differ materially include, among others, those set forth in the Company's Annual Report on Form 10-KSB for the fiscal year ended December 31, 2004, under the caption, "Risk Factors." Most these factors are outside the control of the Company. Investors are cautioned not to put undue reliance on forward-looking statements. Except as otherwise required by applicable securities statutes or regulations, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update publicly these forward-looking statements, whether as a result of new information, future events or otherwise.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Contact:
U.S. Gold Corp.
William Reid, 303-238-1438
Fax: 303-238-1724
billr@usgoldmining.com
or
Robert R. McEwen, 416-865-0326
TRCPA, that looks good! But maybe the KDS wears out after a week of use on coal. Got to be some downside or they couldn't keep up with the orders! How about a power plant trial! Call the DOE!
b9molecule, for the life of me I don't know why you give a flying f*** if I post or not if you are comfortable with your investment! LOL!
chambers, coal grinding equipment has been around for many years. Ball mills are usually used and can be sized as needed, the final product is like talcum powder. I think waste heat from the boiler is used to reduce moisture. I can't see that it's practical to use a KDS except for extremely small operations. Static electricity may be a problem with the KDS since the coal powder is explosive. Just my semi-educated opinion! LOL!
Sam, the BDI group tracks shipping of raw materials (not finished goods). They are saying shipping of those materials have really dropped off worldwide so we are looking at an economic slow down. The charts they show at the link are for different time periods. The number of ships for those products are fairly stable, but they do add a disclaimer. This is the first time I've seen their report, so I don't know their track record.
"Unless the BDI has suddenly become skewed by something which is not apparent, like an undocumented large supply of new bulk shipping tonnage, the collapse of the index since April is predicting a drop in global economic activity and trouble ahead for investors."
Terry, I had a friend tell me to dump Enron years ago and I did. Get new friends! LOL!
tallboy, I don't post on RB, it's a joke. If you made money, you must be trading it, good for you. The "mom" comments show really what a POS sleeze you are. Do you work for a stock promoter? LOL!
Terry, this article gives a good pro and con on stock promoters. IMO, most of the cautions mentioned apply to most OTC promotions, especially third party. Do you bother to check out the promoters?
Did you just delete a great stock tip?
Most of us should delete e-mail promotions without a second thought. Active investors, though, may find a gem. Here are 5 tips for sorting your inbox.
By Michael Brush
With all the e-mail crowding your inbox these days, the easiest thing to do is hit Delete every time the spam arrives. Especially annoying recently are promotions promising 1,000% returns on stocks you've never heard of.
But is it really wise to whack every single stock idea that hits your computer screen?
The answer is mostly yes, but, sometimes the answer is no. Just consider an e-mail from a few months ago promoting a tiny Houston networking company called eLinear (ELIN, news, msgs). With greater than 70% sales growth, eLinear saw its stock shoot up by 400% over the past year as the company gained admission to the American Stock Exchange. For those seeking new investment ideas, deleting this promotional e-mail from a company called InvestSource would have been a costly move.
The eLinear example underscores a key question: In today's e-mail-happy world, how do you separate legitimate prospects like this from the scores of scams that shakedown artists across the world are pushing on you?
A couple weeks ago, Company Focus reported on the extent to which e-mail stock scams have multiplied. Today, I'm offering five warning signs that serve as legitimate triggers for hitting that Delete key when stock-touting e-mails arrive in your inbox.
The promoters are paid by a large shareholder
Most likely, these shareholders are hoping to create a rally and generate some volume in a thinly traded penny stock so they can dump their position on you. When you see this kind of “third-party payment” revealed in the fine print -- and by law, it has to be disclosed -- hit the Delete button right away.
In early February, a stock-promotion outfit calling itself Daily Double Stock Reporter helped rev up the shares of the tiny digital animation company Cyper Media (CYPM, news, msgs) with a blast of e-mails. The promoters admitted they were paid with 800,000 shares of the company, supplied by a “non-affiliated third party” called JJ Consulting.
We couldn’t track down Daily Double or JJ Consulting to ask if they actually sold in early February, when the promotion campaign sparked interest in the stock. But if they did, they made a profitable move. The stock rose to 18 cents from 13 cents at around the time of the promotion -- but finished the month at 10 cents a share.
Not all e-mail stock promoters can be dismissed out of hand simply because they're paid by the companies they're promoting, whether in stock or cash. Fact is, there are plenty of reputable stock-promotion companies that have solid track records despite getting paid by the companies whose stock they tout. So if you're game to give these guys the benefit of the doubt, there are some more guidelines to follow.
If you must track the advice of newsletter writers with built-in conflicts of interest, stick with promoters who take the high road of accepting only “restricted” shares. That means they can’t sell the stock they're touting for as long as a year or more. Or go with those that have some sort of internal policy that prevents them from selling into any rallies they create. WallStreet Research, for instance, one of the more prominent suppliers of paid research in the micro-cap space, waits two or three days after releasing a report before selling, says Alan Stone, managing director of Alan Stone & Co., a Los Angeles investor relations firm, which owns WallStreet Research.
Jody Janson, a former broker who offers paid stock research from his Investors Stock Daily in Rochester, N.Y, accepts stock as payment. But he does so only with the intention of holding it for the long-term, he says. InvestSource, based in Irvine, Calif., leaves a little more room for potential funny business, with a policy that allows sales of 5% of the 10-day average volume, per day. So far, they have never done so, says the company.
(But I should add that the companies’ Web sites so far don’t state their policies on how they disposing of stock they receive. You may find that you have to call or write the promoter and put the question directly to him.)
And what about those bad guys running the straight out "pump-and-dump" campaigns? Can’t the market cops just lock them up? Oddly, as long as they disclose what they’re up to and play their cards right, they may just stay within the law.
“It is extraordinarily hard to prove fraud for people who do this,” says Bill McLucas, a former director of enforcement for the Securities and Exchange Commission and now a partner in the Washington, D.C., law firm of Wilmer Cutler Pickering. “Disclosure is not an absolute pass,” he says. “But it gets you 90% of the way down the field. The only lever the government has is if the trading itself is manipulative. And most of the people who do this are more sophisticated than that.”
No Web site, no phone number, no response to e-mails
In four words: Head for the hills.
“That’s a big red flag. I mean, these guys could be in the middle of Bangladesh somewhere,” says Janson of Investors Stock Daily. Curiously, you can’t track down many of the stock promoters who disclose that they will sell into any rallies they create. These include outfits going under names like Stock-Market Spotlight, Galaxy Stocks and Daily Double Stock Reporter.
Rest assured that regulators can find them, no matter where they are in the world. After all, the promoters leave tracks, not just on the Internet but also when they buy or sell to reap their profits. “They leave a money trail or the trading trail,” points out John Reed Stark, who has hunted down more than a few overseas scam artists as the chief of the Office of Internet Enforcement in the SEC’s enforcement division.
Sound-alike names
Friedland Capital in New York distributes stock reports under the name of “Herd on the Street,” which, of course, is strikingly similar to the title of the widely read Wall Street Journal stock column called “Heard on the Street.” While this is bound to cause confusion for at least some readers, Jeffrey Friedland of Friedland Capital doesn’t believe it’s a problem. “No, definitely not,” he says. “It is sort of cute. When you open up the page you hear a moo and there is a bull on top.”
Another stock promoter bills itself as the “Investor Financial Times Report,” no doubt a play on name of the well-known European business newspaper, the Financial Times. And in promoting the tiny electronics components maker MB Tech (MBTT, news, msgs) last December, an outfit called “Stock Market Today” managed to work the name of a well-known broker, Merrill Lynch, into the header of the e-mail in capital letters. That may have left the impression with some that Merrill somehow endorsed the tiny stock. (The stock has lost 50% of its value since then to trade recently for 15 cents a share.)
Bottom line: When you see tricks like these, go ahead and hit the Delete button. Or report them to the SEC. The three examples cited are actually within the law. (The Wall Street Journal challenged the use of “Herd on the Street” and lost.) But SEC regulators watch these kinds of tricks closely and nail the bad guys when they can.
Last January, the SEC convicted an Oregon man for using the moniker “AOL Investment Snapshots” in stock-touting campaigns that helped him rack up $1 million in trading profits a few years back. “Anytime somebody is trying to pretend to be someone they are not, it should raise a red flag for the investor,” says Stark. “And it could be a violation of the law.”
Watch for silly or exaggerated claims
Sometimes the mere name is a tip-off. Titles like "Daily Double Stock Reporter," "Winning Stock Alert" or "Homerun Stock Alert" should at least get your defenses up. Others promise spectacular gains and generate a sense of urgency that you have to buy right away. In February, a shareholder of Global Explorations (GXXL, news, msgs) paid for a promotion campaign projecting 3,000% revenue growth and a 400% price increase in the stock.
Some promoters, like Stock-Market Spotlight and Stock Market Today, state straight out that they are providing independent research. But they later disclose in the fine print that they were paid by the company or a large shareholder to produce the report. Call the company getting the coverage if you have doubts about the research. After all, these are small companies interested in building a shareholder base, so someone will find the time to call you back.
Look for a track record
Virtually all of the mainstream stock market newsletters provide some sort of long-term track record, or they submit their picks to a service like Hulbert Financial Digest, which publishes a review their performances. There’s no reason you should expect anything less from paid-for research outfits. “If you can’t get an objective assessment,” says Mark Hulbert of Hulbert Financial Digest, “then the better part of wisdom may be to ignore the advice.”
WallStreet Research, for example, lays out the performance of all its picks at its Web site. (As of Jan. 9, the company says it has returned 60% over the 30 days after distributing a report for a client.) This kind of disclosure should help dispel the natural reluctance you have to trust research that was bought and paid for by a large shareholder, or the company getting the coverage. “I always question the objectivity of any research that is paid for,” says Stark. “In those situations, I am always going to be a little suspicious.”
At the time of publication, Michael Brush did not own or control shares in any of the companies listed in this column.
OT: This is interesting, the BDI an index of raw material shipping worldwide:
"The BDI provides an assessment of the price to move the world’s major raw materials by sea and insight into the global shipping market. It is an accurate barometer of the volume of global trade. A large demand for shipping means rising rates, and slack demand means lower rates. The BDI doesn’t deal with ships carrying finished goods. It only deals with precursors to production, so the index seems to be a better indicator for economic growth and production and is devoid of speculative content. No one books an ocean freighter on a hunch! When bulk shipments of cement, grain, iron ore, etc. are arranged with a shipping company, there is economic activity planned at the end of the line where the raw materials are delivered."
Link to full article and charts:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Downs/aug042005.html
This is interesting, the BDI an index of raw material shipping worldwide:
"The BDI provides an assessment of the price to move the world’s major raw materials by sea and insight into the global shipping market. It is an accurate barometer of the volume of global trade. A large demand for shipping means rising rates, and slack demand means lower rates. The BDI doesn’t deal with ships carrying finished goods. It only deals with precursors to production, so the index seems to be a better indicator for economic growth and production and is devoid of speculative content. No one books an ocean freighter on a hunch! When bulk shipments of cement, grain, iron ore, etc. are arranged with a shipping company, there is economic activity planned at the end of the line where the raw materials are delivered."
Link to full article and charts:
http://www.kitco.com/ind/Downs/aug042005.html
S-8, 12 million more shares., suck 'em up!
http://www.pinksheets.com/quote/print_filings.jsp?url=%2Fredirect.asp%3Ffilename%3D0001002014%252D05...
How much money did they make on that deal?
I sure hope WalMart and Home Depot don't start turning customers away.
Terry, how many stock analysts are paid by HD or MSFT to promote their stock? HD and MSFT promote their stores or products, but can you show me where they pay stock promoters?
I have NEVER seen a research report on those companies that disclose money or stock payments by the companies for those reports. Only on the OTC or Pinks. Can you show me any company paid stock promoter reports for any Nas, Amex, or NYSE listed companies other than IPO's?
$5.00?? $7.58?? Did I miss a PR? Or a reverse split?
palacian, OK, some third party paid $60,000 to get the word out on BIPH because they really like Mike. But I can't prove that either!
Gold could be breaking out and mining stocks seem to be following this time. Hardly any gold stock spamming on the boards, strange.
"COMEX GOLD (DEC) 08/04/2005: Rising stochastics at overbought levels warrant some caution for bulls. The cross over and close above the 18-day moving average is an indication the longer-term trend has turned positive. If yesterday's gap higher on the day session chart holds, additional buying could develop this session. Since the close was above the 2nd swing resistance number, the market's posture is bullish and could see more upside follow-through early in the session. The near-term upside objective is at 445.4. With a reading over 70, the 9-day RSI is approaching overbought levels. The next area of resistance is around 444.4 and 445.4, while 1st support hits today at 441.0 and below there at 438.6."
b9molecule, so what's your estimate? BIPH product on the market ___________??????
palacian, not a very good example. If I know I'm going to have a party in two weeks, I'll pay to send out invitations. I doubt I'd pay to send out invitations with party date not determined! Better yet, if I throw a party every weekend for any and all that show up, pretty soon the word will get out and hundreds will show up with no advertising expense! LOL!
Bottom line, good companies aren't promoted by paid pumps. They gain notice from investors with increasing revenues and profits. Third party paid pumping is even worse, they are paying $60,000 to pump so they can dump!