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.
Let’s take these one at a time, so I can prevent the spread of more misinformation.
The USGS publishes current prices once a year. No one disputes these. They are based on the very limited worldwide market of 10-20 tons/year.
Scandium International assumes $2000/kg. They do not support NioCorp’s projections. You continue to (intentionally?) misinterpret an article that discussed Matheson’s projections after the NioCorp media blitz and then listed SCY’s projections further into the article. Why don’t you post it again for all to see.
Have you seen the details of the Traxys agreement? As pointed out already, the PR doesn’t show price. It’s likely risk free for Traxys. At least they didn’t have to trade warrants for the off take like they did the first niobium one.
Thank you. Your post is appreciated. Despite what others would like you to believe, my reason for hanging around this board is solely to spread the word to others that call Nebraska their home state that they have been duped into this investment by a deceitful management team.
Take care, and as I’ve told many others on this board, I wish you well in your investments.
Never said that. Quote me.
Congratulations NioCorp!
You hit the six inch put for triple bogey.
KG, inadvertently you’ve hit the nail on the head here. Only retail investors drive the price up like that on fully expected news. Notice the volume drop off and slow price degradation this afternoon?
Hopefully a few more Nebraskan’s took the opportunity to exit their positions today. Literally nothing in the story has changed. It’s not further derisked because the permitting process was never a significant risk to the project to begin with. The risk profile is entirely what it was yesterday, a month ago, and after PEA2 when they decided to go all in on scandium.
I’m extraordinarily curious to see what the company has planned next. I suspect a pump game with a few fluff PR pieces, followed by who knows what. A simple extension of the MS loans is very likely, probably with a fee. MS isn’t a fool. I’m sure he has an exit plan.
Lol. The directors there have nothing invested and nothing to lose.
The executives are all very wealthy after taking advantage of the Molycorp disaster.
The data referenced is worthless without the accompanying footnotes listed in the proxy. That is beneficial ownership, not shares held. With the exception of MS, the vast majority of what you see are unexercised options that are simply part of these individuals compensation package. They typically have a five year deadline and are ‘awarded’ yearly. Hence they accumulate.
Key word above is unexercised.
As for the permits, there’s dozens still needed. Some significant, some simple. It’s all in the 10k and three feasibility studies that were filed. You’ve read through them, haven’t you?
You want the truth? You can’t handle the truth.
I just hope C.G. Haberman gets some book sales out of his new found fame.
If you really want to cherry pick data, NIOBF was at .564 exactly six years ago today for an 11% loss against today’s .50 price.
CLQ, where it is widely traded on the ASX was .0508 AUD on 5/13/14. It closed at .20 AUD early this morning for those of us in North America. That’s a 393% return.
393% vs -11.3%. Hmmmm.
You are mistaken.
I don’t question their integrity. I’m already convinced of their lack of any. In time, you will be too.
NioCorp does not own any of the mineral rights.
Three straight quarters with less than $60k reported on hand. $3.5M in accounts payable and another million added to the MS loan. No warrants exercised. No noticeable change in the financial statements to account for the land options. All we saw in expenses was the monthly burn financed by MS.
Is it good news that the purchase options are cheap? Apparently no one else is offering much in the way of a purchase option. If one thought this was viable and had some money, there would be a hell of a lot to make on those options. Why no competition for them?
Let’s not forget Molycorp was readily financed yet failed rather quickly.
Your hypothetical situation, assuming these aren’t government funds, should cause any prudent individual to reassess their position. However, without some sort of evidence that supports the scandium projections it is rather unlikely that my position would change. You show me a scandium stream with price terms in the projected range as part of a deal and then we can talk about future success.
Hypothetically.
It's not the first time they've done it. The original Smith loan was in 2015 and they paid most of that back with Lind funds six months later.
Let's not forget that Smith makes pretty pretty good money on these.
In this case I think the loans were plan B. My guess is that they were hoping for warrants to be exercised. They had over $5MM USD in warrants expire in February and March. The February warrants were briefly in the money during most of January, but just barely. They were out of the money at expiration. We won't know for sure if they were exercised until the 10q is released, but given the very slim margin and time period for profitably it is doubtful.
This is why you had so many news releases around the annual meeting and through the end of the year. It was a ploy to pump the share price and get the warrants exercised. I think the air permit was part of that plan as well, but obviously that didn't work out due to the delays. They were building a big story leading up to the meeting, MS is dropping these "nuggets" during the call and to the media, they are playing up this air permit and they planned to announce they had it in hand in January. Perfect timing to get those February warrants exercised.
I expect the current plan is now to get the permit approved and then do a PP or Lind deal while investor sentiment is high. The Smith loans are just bridging the gap to this, not a sudden billion dollar commitment.
I'll say it again, the best thing this company can do is find an investor willing to invest ~$20M so that they can legitimately get through detailed engineering. As much as MS and JS want to convince you that this is shovel ready, it's simply not true. Just search "detailed engineering" in the FS for a cursory review of the amount of work necessary. Nordmin even has a list of $3.5M in recommended work study programs, mostly on the process side, that have not been completed. These are considered post feasibility study activities and recommended to be done prior to the detailed engineering phase.
There's a reason I keep bringing up the uranium and DHHS. It's not because there is necessarily a ton of risk in obtaining the permit, it's because it is going to take every bit as long as the air permit if not longer. There has been no announcement that this work has started and no mention of how they plan to pay for and proceed with the necessary engineering to apply for the permit. Don't let them tell you this can occur "alongside construction" as they've tried to convince investors on other issues. There is uranium and thorium in the waste rock. It will go into the temporary waste storage facility. They will need the permit before they start sinking any shaft, which by the way Nordmin estimates won't start for 13 months after the completion of detailed engineering.
If that’s what you think then the logical conclusion is that it’s dead in the water.
No one refutes the local government support. Does anyone think the local government or even federal government is going to fund this?
You acknowledge the company claims it’s not dependent on government investment. If not government, then where will the financing come from? Why hasn’t a single institution outside of Lind, the death spiral financier, shown any willingness to invest in this company?
Do you really think this company is suddenly going to come up with a billion dollar commitment when they have never gotten any financing outside of Lind, MS loans, and private placements from retail investors? Why is that? Why doesn’t anyone else want to invest in this when they can get in so early at this low price?
It’s well documented in the FS, especially the SRK version. Mining and possessing materials containing uranium is a significant issue.
As expected.
My offer to you still stands. I'd be happy to answer your other questions in a different venue.
This is a great question to ask a financial adviser: Is a 20x buyout offer a reasonable expectation?
When do you think that is going to be Walter? Don’t forget our deal.
CLQ has a recent offtake agreement with Panasonic. Neither this offtake or the Niocorp/Traxys deal have any publicly disclosed pricing information so I don't see how one could use either as support for any pricing assumption.
SCY once had an offtake with Alcereco but I'm not sure if it is still in force. Again, no pricing info.
The former owner of Australian Mines SCONI project had a heads of agreement with Bloom. I'm almost positive it is no longer in effect.
https://smallcaps.com.au/clean-teq-panasonic-corporation-scandium-supply-applications/
http://www.scandiummining.com/news/scy-and-alcereco-sign-mou-and-scandium-offtake-agreements/
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20121016/pdf/429dmfh5xynm6t.pdf
I'll start with the trivial debate.
It is a fact that many people once believed the sun revolved around the earth. It is a fact that many people believed Jim Jones was a messiah. This doesn't mean either belief has credibility, but you can't dispute the fact that the beliefs were held.
As far as the relevance to commodity prices, I made the assumption you did not expect anyone to debate your point that no one can predict the future.
My original statement was that only one paid consultant and only one company believes $3500/kg is realistic. While I phrased it in a way that would make it a grueling task to verify, it is indeed verifiable, which makes it a fact.
When I say $3500/kg is unrealistic, that is my opinion. When you say "tedro thinks $3500/kg is unrealistic", that is a fact because I have indeed said it. Many times as you've noted. See the difference? It's no different when I say mining experts think it's unrealistic, because they do, and some have documented it.
Now on the flip side, I have set up my argument in a manner that should make it very easy to disprove my claims. All it takes is one source without connections to Niocorp to prove me wrong, which emphasizes that it's a fact. You can't prove an opinion wrong.
You can also go straight to the horses mouth:
http://www.scandiummining.com/projects/nyngan-scandium-project/nyngan-detailed-review/
This data is not hard to find. I’m not going to spend the time sourcing every cost assumption in my previous post again. The point is that there is literally only one company in the world and one paid consultant that claims $3500/kg is realistic.
I guess NioCorp is just the contrarian here, right.......?
If it’s a 3:1 reverse split you now have 30 shares at $9.00. Value didn’t change as others have mentioned. It was $270 worth of stock before and after the split. Your $270 turned to $90 for a 66.67% loss.
That's not what he said. He's showing you the actual information. Here's the source of your information. Further down in the article it shows SCY's actual projections, not their reporting of current pricing as you have used.
Both Scandium International and Clean TeQ Holdings (ASX:CLQ) have stated that scandium prices are too high to allow for widespread adoption. They’ve also suggested that, in addition to reliable supply, cheaper prices will be needed for the metal to gain more widespread use.
Thus, it’s interesting to take a look at the scandium prices being used in technical reports for scandium projects being developed by junior miners:
Scandium International’s 2016 feasibility study for its Nyngan scandium project in New South Wales, Australia assumes a scandium oxide price of US$2,000 per kilogram.
Clean TeQ’s 2016 feasibility study for its Syerston scandium deposit, also in New South Wales, uses a long-term 99.9 percent purity scandium oxide price assumption of US$1,500 per kilogram.
Platina Resources (ASX:PGM) uses a US$500-per-kilogram scandium oxide price in a prefeasibility study for its Owendale project, released in 2017.
https://investingnews.com/daily/resource-investing/critical-metals-investing/scandium-investing/scandium-price-need-to-know/
It's been shown many times.
AUZ: $1000/kg
CLQ: $750-1500/kg
PGM: $1550/kg (up from their PFS number of just $500/kg)
SCY: $2000/kg
and the only other North American potential producer, Imperial Mining, assumes $1500/kg.
You continue to take that quote out of context. It's about current prices, which no one disputes. SCY puts future prices at $2000/kg, which is still higher than the majority of projections.
It's out of the scope of the air quality division so it is yet to be addressed by the state.
The evidence is in the core samples and reported in the FS.
ESG? Lol. These guys don’t care about that. Haven’t you researched Sims tenure with the Western Business Roundtable?
Why don’t you ask him about the time Barbara Boxer owned him years ago on climate change?
https://www.c-span.org/person/?jimsims
How about the initial plan to dump brine water into the Missouri River with no consideration for the levy’s, department of wildlife sanctioned sturgeon habitat, or communities downstream that are dependent on the river?
What do you think of Honan’s claim that the brine water directly discharged into the river would be no different than road salt runoff?
Make no mistake about it. Ground freezing was at best plan c. The river discharge was going nowhere from day one based on advice from the Nebraska DEQ, yet NioCorp continued to pursue it for a significant amount of time after they were warned USACOE would not approve it. To get around federal requirements they proposed a plan to discharge into the Little Nemaha instead. All of this with no concern for the environment but simply an attempt to find the cheapest way possible to get rid of the water while spurring permits, which by the way has a significant chance of containing uranium and thorium. But who doesn’t want radioactive materials in their drinking source?
Finally they disregarded SRK’s advice for further study on the subject and found that Nordmin would sign off on a new FS, yet they don’t mention that even Nordmin recommended further drilling to verify their findings.
No there’s not. TP is spot on. This project begins and ends with the Sc pricing. The other debates are inconsequential. One “expert” with unverified credentials in the space wrote an internal report for NioCorp on scandium pricing. The rest of the industry disputes NioCorp’s projections. I have it on good authority that the results used in the FS were likely cherry-picked from Matheson’s confidential report.
If they already had funding lined up it would be a material event and disclosed. This nonsense of NDA’s is just that, nonsense. An NDA can be revised at anytime when both parties agree, and clearly NioCorp would benefit from a PR that financing was conditionally approved. One example of many:
https://www.globenewswire.com/news-release/2017/12/22/1270023/0/en/Nevada-Copper-Announces-378-Million-Transformational-Business-Recapitalization-and-Project-Financing-for-Pumpkin-Hollow.html
Also pretty sure a legit financing partner wouldn’t let them enter the quarter with a measly $50k on the books and full reliance on the CEO’s personal wealth to continue.
It’s a net reduction in purchase options. As of FS3 there were 21 options covering over 4000 acres. Now 15 covering 2100. The mineral resource and reserve is located beneath less than 450 acres.
I guess you can’t completely rule out financing, but it’s a moon shot.
Construction won’t happen. A review of the FS confirms that. The company never commenced the recommended 2019 drilling program that was needed to, among other things:
1. Confirm shaft location. Page 517.
2. Confirm the hydro geology supports ground freezing. Page 523.
3. Test and confirm the suggested grouting technique. Page 61 and 524.
4. Further identify the characterization of the radioactive materials that will be unearthed in order to apply for the appropriate radioactive material permits. Appendix D.
5. Further evidence to support the mineral resource estimate. Page 38 and 255.
Not to mention the additional scandium market analysis that SRK recommended on scandium and the lack of detailed engineering that has been completed per the project schedule in FS3. If you read nothing else in the FS at least check out the project schedule. The dates are irrelevant - all juniors make an immediate assumption for dates. It’s the timelines that matter and in this case specifically the amount of detailed engineering that is required for the project to advance but at this point has not even commenced.
There’s also the great point that Mr. Haberman brings up as far as surety bonds and reclamation.
Your air permit is a nothing burger, and was only vaguely mentioned in the SRK study. It was a checkbox created with the sole purpose of marking off to further market the project. In no way is it a sign that construction is imminent. It’s rather pathetic that they would abuse state resources in this manner.
Time will tell. It won’t take long.
I sold a long time ago when I found out they do not operate in good faith.
Are you attacking me or the argument? Sims has said multiple times that financing is not contingent on the permit. Why would you think NDEQ working from home then has an impact?
You don’t think it’s controversial that the company fraudulently applied for a government backed loan? Other companies are making headlines for this.
I doubt they went on a spending spree. Payroll, rent, and utilities is all they can use it for and since they filed it under Elk Creek Resources and not NioCorp they were only authorized to use the funds for direct ECRC expenses. I.e not the salaries of management except for Honan and not rent at HQ.
Point is that it was an incredibly brazen maneuver and the integrity of every single one of these public companies that took funds under the program should be deeply questioned. NioCorp’s a special example because they have zero financial impact from this virus. If anything the liquidity that the fed has injected into the economy would be a benefit to a company looking for financing that won’t produce a thing for 3-4 years in the best case scenario.
I’d also think investors would wonder why, if financing is so close and they have commercial terms agreed to, the company would apply for a government bailout of a measly $200k.
Good old Bloomberg. Glad they got them on their list when Morgan Stanley didn't. By market cap they are the 13th largest company to apply for funds. Everyone of these companies that does not pay the loan back by May 7th is seriously risking legal action. As the SBA said, they better be ready to demonstrate the basis for the certification.
RE: Airlines - you are confusing PPP with other programs.
This isn't about the airlines. This is specific to PPP loans. Other publicly traded companies that took advantage of it are already paying it back per the SBA's new guidance.
They are publicly traded. That's literally the definition of having access to capital markets. What do you call the TSX, FWB, and even OTC?
Their market cap puts them in the top 15 of the list of publicly traded companies by value that have abused this.
The lack of cash flow doesn't help them. They didn't have cash flow before coronavirus so it's kind of difficult to claim the virus has impacted that. They need further dilution to raise funds anyways.
The fact that it would cause dilution is irrelevant and addressed by the SBA. They took a loan with a value of 0.17% of their market cap. An equivalent equity offering couldn't hardly be considered "significantly detrimental".
Specifically, before submitting a PPP application, all borrowers should review carefully the required certification that ”[c]urrent economic uncertainty makes this loan request necessary to support the ongoing operations of the Applicant.” Borrowers must make this certification in good faith, taking into account their current business activity and their ability to access other sources of liquidity sufficient to support their ongoing operations in a manner that is not significantly detrimental to the business.