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.
look at post 30440 this board July 25, 2011 titled
Translation of 40 Page AMF French Document
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65545806
Use the original if you read French, I do not.
Down within you will find recount of Cortellazzi saying to effect:
"About Wanderport, it indicates that this is not his project, but the Andrew Barakett, a long-time acquaintance."
Cortellazzi is claimed to have receive 2 million shares for lining up a lawyer and the transfer agent.
It is also of interest to note that, not much further down it says
"Following a transaction with a Quebec company, represented by a
Richard Martel, Wanderport had to have a real asset, a technology
the field of water heaters."
Now this is of interest as it has Richard involved from the time of the beginning of Wanderport's working with Robert. Recall that Somerville was the CEO at the time and Richard then had no (known, public) role in Wanderport. We have always known that Andrew located Robert, but here it says Richard acted as representative in some way, in some dealing in this timeframe.
It is possible (please, notice "possible") that, if this was a scam from day one (as some do argue with some evidence appearing to provide support) then the plan was to profit from up and down price fluctuation, slowly raising the price over time, and to have as an endgame "rumors" of a big player coming in, of a buyout etc. in order to get a final set of bags.
But, along the lines of possible, that was then, back when Andrew found Robert and his kpatent with some PR history that had been sitting unused and apparently not advanced for a couple years, back at the time when Jean-Francois Amyot was actively involved in Wanderport, not just his Advice Hilbroy Inc. and its webservices, back at the time Andrea Cortellazi is said to have referred to (to the AMF) as Wanderport being Andrew's baby
and . . . this is now, so along the lines of possible, can it not be that anything that keeps from building the AMF case and possibly causing loss of wealth and freedom has become the substitute end-game.
Use your heads now - I said (imo) it is possible. That does not mean I advocate this writing of history. It does mean that I do not see a contradiction to this possibility. It does mean that I have factored that into my risk assessment.
Delay ... to do what
Exactly !!!
That has been the question for some time.
What have they done so far ?
I am only taking Lenic at his word, from what he said about the dewatering in the CC today. I am not guessing, other than whether to accept what was said as truth.
and so it does sound like the dewatering adjustments are simply a normal matter of process optimization, a normal part of reaching process steady-state to declare production
this could be as you surmise to achieve better separation of the dewatered pulp, or as I speculated to attain higher water recovery, or a number of other factors
but basically it sounds like no big deal other than finding the right balance for the overall process throughput vs costs
Isn't there a large difference between dewatering a mine, or the exploration/definition drilling done underground, usually with injection grouting and pumping, and reconfiguring/refining 'the dewatering process of the processing plant' ?
I took the statement to mean that they were seeking to reduce total water consumption by adjusting water recovery from the process steps. Big difference.
What would be the point in the company saying all this . . .
I do not want to look simple-minded, but the first answer to mind was "To delay for another month or two" just like all the past PRs for at least the past year.
Pretty much how I have understood it since some announce the news the CdA's claims had been "jumped". Say what? Abandoned.
Seems Rye is correct to me about there being a new and dangerous pattern maybe being set with the most recent action.
certainly the norm with BRD for some time
But I was not intending to sound like this was uncommon, just annoying
Oh course, a bag of hammers can be quite a blessing once one starts to accumulate nails and some chisels
IMO it seems to show Mgmt does not care much about, or remember, fact that they are supposed to support shareholder value.
Market reaction was deserved and should have been expected.
Approx 65 million new (potential) shares overhanging share price at 1.4 for years out in the future.
Great play LSG !
Well, maybe . . . Looks good except for being so range-bound, or maybe better to say capped on the upside. This has not acted like it wants to break out, grow up to a buck stock, not yet anyway.
Well, I guess that shows we all have each our own opinions, assessments of risk/reward and past behaviors, tolerance for pain and optimism over future possile gain.
If they had wanted to remain informative they could have ureplaced the blog link in that page on their website with one to a new blog under their direct control (and started using it) shortly after the big reveal of the nnew website.
Does anyone around here recall how long it to for them to get a website presence after the AMF force closure of the old one?
Does anyone recall the large expenditure to be found in the books of Wanderport for software and website development back before the company hooked up with Robert?
But why should any of these past actions or missed opportunities impact an assessment of the current company?
that is encouraging, that there are watchers or holders of AMY's story that are positioned to underscore positives as they develop
Go figure! indeed
Among the possibilities, like
a) it is cheaper (aka free) so fits in the budget
(ps: why would a guy work as contracted PR person for a company with no way to pay ?)
b) it is actually the people "behind" Wanderport
c) it is someone out to make sure the noose tightens around Andrew's neck by appearing to do PR for Wanderport and planning to promot without any basis for the claims
d) like c) except just out for profit
the one I favor is
e) it has been discovered that AMF/SEC/etc only monitor the mainstream PRwire type new release feed (and it is free)
So is there any linkage to these to be found on the Wanderport website ?
I think much of my buying was in the 0.4 range, just maybe a different time in that range (coming out from the mid to later 2009 doldrums before the spike to above $1).
You live and you learn
Yes, I guess I do, but sometimes it seems very slowly and with much repetition. lol
Perhaps they feel that, with the coach they had on board, there was a chance the minions were in training ?
Remember, Jean-François Amyot was listed as a director (the only one) in the company profile on record at OTCmarkets at the time the Autorité des marchés financiers (the "AMF"), the Bureau de décision et de révision (the "Bureau") issued their decision on July 11, 2011 which was the cease trade orders.
What is "fluff" about chemical analyses ?
The numbers are the numbers and they seem to compare well.
Fluff? So the earth circling the sun is also fluff?
Low volume ? Fairly above the recent trailing average volume.
But yes, low compared to the "good ol' days" aka a few years back.
You might have bought some from me then.
I see nothing wrong with assessing with dd that includes "paid advisories" taken with proper measure of salt added, and also nothing wrong with critiques of the value of the produce paid for.
lol - good to see someone else with an opinion similar to mine
When Argentex disappeared from his list, straight off the top 10 to nowhere to be seen I emailed to ask what happened. Never heard. That lead me to believe the list displayed for the history somehow manages to show the few that turned out to be good calls, with others lost in the bookkeeping.
I don't believe that any of their prior planned end-games remain viable. The AMF thing, which is more real for the named parties than many here seem to want to acknowledge, threw a giant wrench into the works, forcing a reorganizating of all plans and activities on the part of those named.
Four weeks, right . . . almost a year since we were told internal preliminary numbers would be provided. Yet still, apparently nothing that can be tested to provide those numbers. How else does one explain the failure to carry-through with any promises?
Are we all talking about the same thing Tomberry? As I have understood it the tern "naked short" is not meaning one shorts an equity without having the cash to cover it, but rather means one has sold shares that one did not have and did not borrow/margin.
The first does not inflate the O/S but the last one does effectively increase the float/outstanding shares.
Not sure of this Wrinkles but I think I have been neck and neck with you, if not at times a step ahead, on being skeptical about Wanderport and the product project. You just wrote
Over the past year plus a number of posters to this board have said how Arizona is so mining friendly, that AZGS and USGS are so "on-board" over the AP project, that permits will not be an issue. I have at times advised that this may not be so true.
One only needs to take a look at the issues Curis resources has been having with their Florence Az project to solution extract copper, and that is in an area near the operations of a number of large copper mines.
Today, in the discussion with the financials for the Oracle Mining return of an underground copper mine to production. Now yes, this is county-level and in a different county than AP, but all the same
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=53821405&symbol=OMCCF
No problem Slim. Maybe someday if TPW gets respect then people will look around and wake up about the rest of the property portfolio ! One has to wonder about McC sometimes, as example he stated that EXS has drilled 95 holes in TPW this summer ! Oh, saying naked shorting should be illegal . . . well it is, but how is it known that naked shorting is happening ?
Oh well.
Overall I found the McC comments tepid but hopeful for later in the year, despite saying the price is unrealistically low.
Slim, yes, I have a little at risk with EXS, nothing like it was however. I have followed/owned EXS since 2009, but on some of the spikes have sold down to free-share holding now. I still call it money at risk, albeit unrealized (and now, let's hope not, but maybe gone) gain. After having held long through a couple of hard down-turns for EXS, averaging down with it, I decided on this course as I did not like the business/financial model but did like the geologist, portfolio of prospects he has assembled, the possibility TPW presents, etc.
Seems like this mine may also be innovative
It better be, seems that is a requirement to be economic.
further correction
Monday Aug 13 (was 12)
I've owned companies that have been taken out having resources less than $3M
Sure, so have I Slim . . . but these are different times with many companies recently getting burned by escalating cap ex inflation on new developments, and also seeing contracting margins from higher fuel/energy costs.
For a couple/few million in at least indicated resource, preferably in proven/probable reserve lately it probably requires their belief in a lot of blue-sky upside still hidding in the prospect AND a low cap ex risk due to low-cost development (open pit, reasonable to low strip ratio).
These are times when companies do need to replace their depletion, yes, but they are also very shy about tying up capital in a long-term development before any return gets shown.
jmo
Think about Seabridge for a second. They have in one of their project 6.4 M oz reserves, and a little more than that indicated resource. All the reserve is within the defined pit boundaries. But the project is almost not economic because of the high cap ex and/or op ex due to the poor infrastructure way up north. That is 12 almost 13 M oz in that project per most recent NI 43-101 . . . that Courageous Lake project is said to be one of the largest known undeveloped gold deposits in Canada, but they are back to trying to find ways to improve the economics - more drilling, alternatives for energy, building a port to ship out concentrate (i.e. more cap ex) etc. The stock sold off fairly steeply when the prefeasibility came out, and that is despite the fact that it is the lessor/smaller of their projects.
Thanks for the added info PB. So it sounds like nothing was really said of what resulted from the first, motivated the second long hole.
As I understood things, the first long hole was mainly to prove up geological structure. Yes, there was a chance that they would have good assays at either footwall on the porphry's borders, and there was also the chance of finding grade of potential value within either disseminated in the host or collected in fractures if such exist. The other part was that it would possibly provide information about the nose fold. No doubt much info is to be attained from the nature of the host, its degree of alteration and where, chemical composition and where, etc. that might help indicate which in direction things happened and in which prospects might be better.
You describe the problem with proving up a resource in this model well. Lots (one hopes) of veins, many of which might not be economic to mine . . . consider following a vein a few inches across, even if almost pure medal, when the minimum cross-section one needs to excavate is maybe 6 foot by 4 foot . . . lots of tonnage that is waste and all at the same cost per cubic volume to excavate. It is when a major vein is found. Following that, and side excavations on the "tree" of veins found connected to it, is what is done. As you said PB, with a drill hole one could pass close, but miss, and not know it. Underground drilling obviously is much cheaper as one can put out many shorter closely space holes from a drill turnout for the same cost as one drill from surface, giving a much better chance of getting info on the deposit structure for the same money (after the decline to depth is paid for that is).
Cheers
Nice tidbit JD, thx the post.
I particularly noted the part about being out shopping for M&A.
Now, it was assumed, given the market, but now it is confirmed.
Indeed, the resource nationalism is rampant (and not just Latin America, consider Indonesia and some African countries). It almost seems that Argentina has become one of the more well-knowns in this regard, with the repatriation and local sourcing to use capital (and build Argentine industry) perhaps being the worst (now that we are seeing other Latin American countries backing down or backpeddaling). What I still do not know however is the cost for the exchanging, given the in-country rigged official exchange rate on the Argentine peso. Otherwise, for now, it seems things have calmed. Will we hear calls for co-ownership and participation, for higher taxes and/or royalties? With so many project already halted or redesigned and reduced into more modest staged development, I would imagine the government in Argentina is trying to not rock the boat, just get it bring in more benefits for the ccountry.
Let me guess . . . with nultiple placements (counting shares in the various financings) ballooning the warrant overhang into the distant future at (for FAU) historically low exercise price . . . when I got out I was not just seeing the downhill, and the uncertainties of non-delivery by the prior mgmt, but I was also seeing what looked like lining selected holdings with large numbers of disposable (in future with not much for a share price boost) shares/warrants. That is sort of the form of set-up one might expect from one of the past CEOs.
Looking at the "news" from FAU over the past year there is very, very little other than obtaining more funds and/or debt - but there is some, and much more is needed soon (besides, it could help explain this sudden jump we saw to start the week)
Thanks for passing that along PB about the second long N-S drill.
Also, perhap you had me mixed up when in your prior you mentioned SH inbox, as I don't post there, just visit/lurk.
Anyway, any news about the first long hole that prompted a second?
You really believe that 2,000 shareholders stuff lol
BTW it is not MY timeline . . . it is what they promised, so I guess that would make it their timeline, which has long passed.
imo also. For a silver producer with a history of tracking along guidance and continuous growth EXK has been hit unduely hard in the PM/resource downturn. As much seemed to happen after the deal for El Cubo (and the rest) with AuRico, I rather expect to see a rebound when they have shown they have turned things around at that mine (production, labor relations, resource/reserve growth from the new conservative base).
Of course getting the governmental interventionists out of the PM markets would help also. As a long hold it is hard seeing EXK getting much cheaper short of some incredible PM buying opportunity coming along.
It's like being at a steak house and you've been waiting for 2 hours
I don't quite see it that way.
When I get put off so long, and am hungry, I might just insist on getting an appetizer to keep me interested in eating there.
In this case . . .
N U M B E R S ! ! !
I have nibbled to add some on the bigger dips. Things will change as results from the summer start coming in through end of year, not to mention if they get a decent initial NI 43-101 together per plan.
Afraid I am closer to your view PB. We have seen nothing in assay results to provide confidence of hitting a 1.5m oz mark in the next NI update. Majors are extremely shy of anything that stinks of high cap ex requirements, and there are literally hundreds of projects, good, better, best, bad, and worse, all sorts, out there at bargain prices now and companies begging for capital if not beyond hope of continuing. A rebound in AU will not immediately impact values on projects just in the prospect and early development stage as the costs of mining are changing so much that there needs to be a shake-out before larger money can get put on what might become mines. Etc.
I realize you addressed your question to JD and by responding I do not mean to show no interest in JD's reply, when it comes.
What I wanted to point out is that with Tri-Valley bankrupt, that means they will miss their payment schedule on the senior notes that their former and long-time chairman of the board had extended to them. The terms of those notes as I understood when researching prior NRs is that he holds as collateral a senior claim on all shares of the subsidiary that holds a number of the Tri-Valley properties, including Richardsom. So, if Tri-Valley is liquidated, unlike a number of junior exploration bankruptcies in the wake of the late 2008 to mid-2009 (and later) my guess is that the properties will not be up for sale as part of the bankruptcy proceedings. Rather, the subsidiary, a private company, will be wholely owned by the ex-chair, who might be looking for a new partner or owner; but that would be the same individual with whom US Gold had struck the prior deal.