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.
If I had to pick a perfect JV partner for Mexus it is definitely Argonaut Gold.
About la mina de Colorada (Sonora):
"The past producing La Colorada gold-silver mine property is located approximately 40 km southeast of Hermosillo, Sonora State, Mexico. La Colorada originally operated as a high-grade underground mine, which closed at the start of the Mexican Revolution in 1914. During the main historic mining period from 1876-1914 the production of more than 3 million ounces of gold was recorded.
In I990, the Mexican Geological Service (SGM) measured 1.5 million tons of tailings that were utilized at the start of the open pit production by Eldorado in 1993. During the period 1993-2000 Eldorado Gold Corp developed a bulk tonnage heap leach operation from several open pits; although the operation was sold in late 2000, production continued by a private Mexican owner until April 2002, yet La Colorada was never shut down for the lack of gold."
You can see how Mexus's high grade property fits in relative to their current resources. It is obvious why Mexus was/is a compelling JV target.
http://www.argonautgold.com/gold_operations/rr/
Now we patiently await more concrete details - anything above a "terrible" deal and Mexus will have completely reversed its fortunes.
I am betting Mexus has something of similar scale but higher grade and near surface since none of this has been open pit mined before. Is the Rancho the best "asset" in the trend? No, but I would say it is the number one exploration play in the area that I know of. If any property has something that will turn into one of the best assets on the trend it is ours. Again, I am not a geologist and I am not an expert I am just trying to make an educated bet, which is hopefully way better than a simple guess.
In general, according to brilliant, famed geologists like Brent Cook they say what I am doing is impossible and that you need to be an experienced professional to even have a tiny hope of deciphering the geological reports. I disagree with this and think are a few common sense things we can look at to at least get a general feel.
Say hypothetically you find an outcropping with a kilo of gold per tonne. it doesn't take a masters degree to determine that this is a good sign. If they drill out 200k oz in a small box, and then step out and the deposit is open in all or most directions and at depth then very rapidly the tonnages start to rise to huge totals, which will need to be further outlined and then infill drilled for clarification.
When I first read GoldSpring's Telesto? reports they showed a couple hundred k oz on a tiny percentage of their property open in all directions. I assumed that what lay undiscovered in the area was comparable to what they had already found with their drilling, so I multiplied it out to a small ~4-5% of their land and I got 3 million ounces of less than one gram gold, which turned out to be astonishing accurate and much more successful than my predictions for lode shareprice.
Lode, like Mexus, has special geology that makes it highly likely that both contain high grade gold deposits. Lode has it's infamous fissure vein and the deep workings and Mexus has the Mojave-Sonora Megashear trend running through their lands. I would feel just as comfortable investing in the Carlin Trend especially if the company had a compelling project relative to that of its neighbours.
My bet would be that Mexus will find 2-3 million ounces that substantially outgrade their peers and probably the same amount or more of lower grade (average) ore. This would probably take 3-5 years of drilling and exploration to outline and get a more accurate sense of what we have.
La Herradura for example is 0.79 g/t Gold 5.3 Moz Gold
La Choya was mined out around 2 grams in 1998 - status depleted.
While San Fransisco is .54 g/t with 1.6 Moz gold
Chanate has about 700k oz @ .74 g/t
Mulatos 4.5 Moz @ 1.11g/t ("Our Mulatos Mine is our foundation having been acquired for $10 million in 2003 and grown to become a consistent gold producer and significant cash flow generator. To date, Mulatos has generated more than $350 million in free cash flow [for Alamos]".
I would guess Mexus has at least 400k oz at 1.3 g/t and maybe 200k at 2g/t and an underground mine that will probably do at least one ounce per tonne - this is the low hanging fruit that could be placed into production with minimal drilling and cost. Many of these mines probably haven't even heard the expression "ounces per tonne" in decades.
Mexus Shear Zone estimate (p22): estimated 3.7 MMt, average width 2.2 meters of 2.52 g/t au 7.1 g/t ag estimated gold contained ~260,000 high grade ounces, even with allowances for dilution that is still ~3 years of heap production that exceeds everything in the area with grade and, theoretically, profitability. And this is literally scratching the surface. I don't know what the drills will uncover but I would be more surprised to see them come up empty than full of gold.
The AMEX doesn't even exist anymore so I am not sure how up to date you are. In a normal debate/ civil discussion instead of just insisting you're right a rational person would post proof, evidence, links etc to bolster their argument. I am aware that the NYSE:MKT and NYSE are different entities but they both have similar listing requirements in regards to share-price.
Lode is on the NYSE MKT and as I have linked before they are listed under section 101 c and must meet their original listing requirements just like every other company on the exchange. The argument that lode doesn't have to meet the standards does not make sense to me.
Mexus Gold Speculation Theory
When you speculate you are making an informed bet. I personally ask myself a series of questions essentially forming a mental equation in my mind. Everyone should do their own dd and make their own appraisals.
I ask myself why should I buy shares or hold the ones I have? Are there compelling reasons to speculate? Why am I here?
Because of Paul Thompson. I personally trust him. Overall one has to decide, has he missed his mark, or, is he an honest entrepreneur who will do his best to do right by his backers? He has been given a lot of flak over the deals that have never materialized, some deserved. But should he have accepted an unfair deal that jilted shareholders for short term gain? Of course not. Ask yourselves could you have done any better in this market? I think PT's performance is well above the sector average but the bar is pretty low at the moment, the majority of companies are just trying to survive. But when the bar is so low it is easy to raise it, just like the expectations for the mining sector - people expect nothing at this point. Giving them something will cause the pom poms to come out.
Because of Don Philips. Make of him what you will but one does not pick what essentially amounts to successive lottery tickets by luck. His endorsement is a strong positive. How many of us would have even heard of Mexus without him? How many opportunities have there been to make vast sums of money off not only his previous picks but also even Mexus itself? There have been numerous chances to make vast sums but not many of us have managed it but Don has.
Because of the quality of Mexus gold properties. Simple question, do you believe there is a large amount of economic gold on the property? Do you think there is a decent or high likelihood that Mexus could drill a large, high-grade discovery with relative ease?
Because of the macro environment. We live in a world where high grade gold deposits are becoming increasing rare and the global average is about half a gram per tonne for undeveloped deposits. The majors care little for acquisitions at the moment but in a couple of years they will have eaten their lunch and have hungry bellies and go hunting to replace what they have consumed. In the future it is highly likely the properties alone will be worth a fortune even without any production factored in whatsoever.
Because of there is a small chance of a buyout and high chance of other JV opportunities over the years. The property is large and the gold mineralization appears to be extensive. The expansion opportunities and chances to explore other areas and claims are numerous. Mexus has other exciting properties and there is a decent chance there is something valuable on those too.
Because of the potential of additional huge upside if gold appreciates.
Because of the potential for huge cash-flow. It is quite reasonable to see expansion to six figure gold production over time, with long LOM, and obvious world class mine potential. A simple heap leech operation supplemented by the underground and whatever exploration leads us to discover it is pretty easy to imagine some pleasant BOE math.
Because of the potential for eventual dividend yields that are absurd. They have to make money first of course, but initial GORO investors no doubt fantasized about dividends to come, and they got $104 million! So it is possible.
Because of where we sit in the mine cycle, at cyclical lows that have persisted for about the length of previous declines; with profitable companies now being rewarded for news and progress it demonstrates a dramatic change.
Because of the example set by numerous profitable mines in the same trend as Mexus, all are profitable yet have demonstrably inferior projects when compared to Mexus. Does this not make them more likely to succeed?
Because a financed Mexus with only the shaft producing is worth multiples of our current market cap.
Because you do yourself an immense disservice by not averaging down or purchasing precisely when an optimal opportunity presents itself. It sucks if you bought high and sold low in the past but how does ignoring a good chance to do the opposite enhance your psyche or well being?
Because the stock is cheap. It can still get much cheaper and potentially go lower, but on a simple relative value basis Mexus at under 2 cents is cheap and undervalued and meanwhile everyone is sad :( while Mexus at 62 cents was overvalued and expensive (everyone was happy). How much more likely is Mexus to run from .016 to 8 cents than from 62 cents to a dollar?
Because of the entertainment value. At five a dime, more than worth the price of admission IMO.
Because of the crazy ass shareholder base. Subtracting the weak hands who will quickly sell out there are still a lot of, uh, I will politely call them, nuts, who hold the majority of the float and do so with a long term outlook. I think at least 150 M shares "know" it is undervalued. The float could be much smaller than expected and if ~200 million shares are held close very little demand will drive the price higher (if there is a fundamental reason). Just as easily we fell to .02 we can rise to .20. Even with all the extra dilution of life support, necessary in a bear market for most juniors regardless of a CEO's acumen we still are in decent shape. It sucks they print shares but we will live to fight another day and to do so allows a very good chance of reclaiming our old highs. Even 50 cents is ~31x our current share price. If you had a 31 bagger you would be hailed as a genius stock picker and many would frame the certs on their wall. There's a pretty fair chance that happens in my mind so all this depression is a bit comical. Stocks go up and down and it is partially because of how emotional we are.
What percentage chance of success does this all amount to? That is something you should decide for yourself. I would make the argument that even if you placed a 5% probability of Mexus succeeding that would more than warrant a purchase at these prices, since the upside is frankly astronomical. We have recently experienced lots of downside and so our perspectives are coloured by our immediate pasts. Rationally I do not think our chances of success have dipped much since the whole SF saga punched our negotiating clout in the groin. The chance of winning here is still far greater than 1/20 in my opinion.
So have a laugh everyone and relax, this time is like a blip on the decade long timeline of getting a mine into commercial production. We're still ahead of a normal timetable and most of the facts speak to an impressive property that will be worth far more in good times than in bad. The gold has been there millions of years and it isn't going anywhere until Mexus mines it.
Here's some wisdom from Rick Rule:
Dividends are crucial to the long term valuation of Mux. This is a good start! Let's hope they continue to grow. Two or three years down the line I could see them doing 2-4 cents a quarter or about a 10-20% yield from here. Five years down the line we could be looking at a much different metals environment and potentially an even higher yield.
McEwen is a smart man and a good steward of capital. I have heard him refer to dividends as paying shareholders rent while he uses their money to grow the company and generate capital gains for them. A much better strategy and a very different understanding that many mining CEOs don't have. It also takes away some of the risk and pressure of hoping to sell at the exact top.
Never underestimate the power of a miner with a strong dividend. Look at GORO. 25,50 cent share raises in development, it goes to over 30/share for its high and paid out $2/share in the past few years (paying back 104 million of its ~50?M start up costs to shareholders). It is at $2.67 a share currently and still plugging away and if you still held the early shares they are still getting 12 cents per 50 cent share even in this crappy market.
I have posted and discussed the requirements on this board several times. If you have all the answers feel free to post them, instead of just insulting people. I will learn from anyone, even rude sorts like yourself (as long as you have something to teach). Yet your only post is devoid of content.
I read the writing on the wall and I thought lode from $2 to .50 cents was an easy short (which I did not participate in). At this point going long .50 to a buck or $1.50 is probably possible and even likely except for the delisting cloud. Why wouldn't lode get out in front of it like MUX? What's the secret PRO? Why do you defend them? Why not share your PRO skills and outline for this fool why lode is the only stock on the exchange that doesn't have to meet its original listing requirements or even mention it to holders. I posted around 5 links about this topic to your zero. Please shower us with your knowledge and set the issue to rest for fools like me.
My point was only that lode is coming up on its 6 months and we have never been informed of anything, let alone the exact notice they received. Other companies instantly report it as soon as they have the info, but lode has reported not a peep. Defending this shows just how biased you are. Rational shareholders want clarification. Honest communication may mean nothing to you but is important to me, regardless of what company it is or whether I own one share or a million.
Even if I did own no shares at all my decade of experience with this stock should make my opinion worth something, even if you don't believe it or take it with a grain of salt. I couldn't care less what other people do or say about their lode stock, but they should at least try and keep their posts honest (IMO). Many posts here are factually incorrect but I don't have the time or interest to prove them all wrong -- especially when I have so little at stake.
As I have mentioned before I still own a small number of lode shares, having sold most for a slight loss at substantially higher prices. If anyone listened they would have saved 75% of their capital and could now repurchase near a likely cyclical bottom if that is their desire, or buy any other of the countless good deals out there.
I am completely agnostic when it comes to lode, whereas most people on this board are married to the stock and defend it no matter what happens or how poorly it performs.
I find the hypocrisy of your comments to be amusing, since you come off like an enormous know-it-all yourself. You even have "pro" in your name. I think you're doing some projecting and should take some of your own advice.
I have never presented myself as an expert because I am not one. It will take me another ten to twenty years of study before I would consider myself an expert, but I will get there one day. I started investing when I was eight years old and will continue to learn and invest until the day I die regardless of what anonymous posters say. I have read hundreds of investing books and learned lots through hard knocks and experience and I share this information freely because many people encourage me to do so. If you do not like what I have to say there is a feature called "ignore," which you are welcome to use and stick your head in the sand.
Here's an example of how an honest company operates:
http://www.benzinga.com/news/15/07/5646601/mcewen-mining-addresses-new-york-stock-exchange-listing-requirements
"McEwen Mining Inc.
MUX 6.78%
(TSX:MUX) announced today that it has fallen below the New York Stock Exchange ("NYSE") continued listing requirement related to the price of its common stock. The NYSE requires that the average closing price of a listed company's common stock be above US$1.00 per share, calculated over a period of 30 consecutive trading days. The Company was advised by the NYSE on July 1, 2015 that the average price of our common stock for the previous 30 trading days was below US$1.00 per share
Under the NYSE's rules, McEwen Mining has a period of six months from July 1, 2015, the date of the Company's acknowledgement, to bring its share price and 30 day average closing share price back above US$1.00. During this period, McEwen Mining's common stock will continue to trade on the NYSE, subject to all other continued listing requirements. The Company's listing on the Toronto Stock Exchange ("TSX") is unaffected by any actions of the NYSE.
"We do not believe that McEwen Mining's current share price is reflective of the true value of the Company's assets. Our share price has been under pressure as a result of the decline in gold and silver prices and a general reduction in financing options that have affected many companies in the mining space. The Company values its NYSE listing and will evaluate measures to bring our share price into compliance with listing requirements." said Rob McEwen, Chairman and Chief Owner. "We have recently initiated a dividend distribution based on our improving operational performance and growing cash reserves, and we beat our Q2 production guidance at the El Gallo Mine, the third consecutive quarter with record production. We expect to continue our production success over the remainder of the year, maintaining guidance for production and costs" he added.
At the end of the six-month remedy period, if the share price has not recovered, the Company's stock will be subject to NYSE suspension and delisting procedures."
PR on the day they are informed of a material event, regardless of whether it is good or bad news. The stock even went up. Note how clear and informative the PR is in comparison to what we received from lode.
Can someone please link me to lode's PR where they publicly explain and address their imminent desisting process and how the company plans to counteract this?
TML.to is on my watch-list but it is a coincidence since I had the name long beforehand. The letters TM are my initials and a long gun is a rifle firearm that has come to be analogous of my style of never shorting and patiently waiting, holding fire until opportunities are firmly in sight, and only then taking long term positions with difficult, yet usually accurate predictions about common sense aspects of a project.
Years ago there was also a massive pump squad ran by J Perez and I watched with excitement as a small group of dedicated shareholders pumped a stock up thousands of percent and then harvested all the "longgun" fan-boys and locked in huge gains while the bagholders were destroyed.
I also kept the longgun name since it ties into a lot of educational experiences I have had like my days at Motley Fool where in 08 and early 09 when I went long publicly at the exact bottom of the market and I made to 8th place out of hundreds of thousands of members with a portfolio outperforming the SP (with only mainstream stocks) up about 300% beyond the already significant market rally. The other guys that were ahead of me just red thumbed junk stocks for easy points. It felt like the top of the world for a while but the vantage soon grew cloudy and even though I got the bottom I completely missed the top and rode down a lot of 10 baggers into losses.
That same portfolio had I think about 8 stocks up over 1000% in 3 years with around 20,000 points (1 point earned for every stock pick above the S and Ps performance). This same portfolio is now deeply in the red, many of the positions went BK over the past few years and I kept the name because it is all part of a learning experience and it helps keep me cognizant of many of the lessons that I have learned over the years.
Commodity stocks will shine again one day, and I wouldn't miss this part of Rubicon's development, things will get exciting over the next three years or so (IMO).
It will eventually though. In 08 to early 09 nobody cared about Rubicon either as they made one of the largest, highest grade gold discoveries in the world. By the middle of 09 we were already well into a new junior cycle and the stock was up four or five fold even though most of that value was apparent in 08. Every piece of good news made the stock go down and every milestone was met with yawns and selling. A year later it was the complete opposite.
Rubicon will be rewarded for their progress - when they publicly post profits and/or a new junior bull begins. When that happens we are going to $10 like an easy lay-up.
Congrats to Rubicon for building a mine and pouring their first gold, hopefully the first of millions of ounces. It has been a long road getting here, but it always is when dealing with mines. Now the path ahead looks like easy walking on gold pavement.
Long term desirable? Yes. Feasible? Yes. Chance of happening? Effectively zero. The costs of imposing such a system on our giant squid of a financial system? Massive.
In principal it makes sense but it gets down into these deep, convoluted arguments I often have with people about things such as healthcare or government size.
Would the best healthcare system (sub government or economic system if you want) with the best quality and technology and the lowest cost be a purely private organization or a public one?
The answer is the private organization almost 100% of the time. Yet in Canada the mere suggestion is equivalent to raping babies. Talking about the babies would probably be more popular and way less controversial in many circles than bringing up healthcare privatization.
So should we privatize the system? No it is too expensive! But doesn't it cost less? Yes, but reforming the system at this point is untenable even if it is a long term benefit. The system is too bloated so everyone assumes its presence is ubiquitous and permanent. This is true of healthcare or fiat currency, people just do not know of or even consider another way.
Wouldn't we be better off with the other system or a compromise in between? Of course! Will we do it? No, never! Because there is no political will to go through a tough period of transitional chaos. Status-quo, big gov prevails.
My friend told me a story about how he got hurt in a car accident and if it wasn't for "free" healthcare he would have gone bankrupt, despite his relatively minor injuries. Even though under a private system he would have been in no danger of going bankrupt at all this point is completely irrelevant to him and he votes every-time for more handouts, more government, and lower rates so he can buy a bigger house that he doesn't need - exacerbating the very problem he complains about (expensive healthcare). Human society doesn't care at all what is "desirable" or "optimal" they only seem to care about convenience. The propaganda is too pervasive and the system is far too entrenched and the vast majority of people (the voters) will never, under any circumstances (baring complete collapse), vote to place themselves back under the discipline of a gold backed currency.
With a gold backed currency on the same peg as the 1930s our world would look dramatically different. The city skylines would have less structures and there would probably be less people existing on earth. Even though it is perhaps "better" in some metrics it still is not likely to happen. Our world would be more stable but less economically developed because the western world has lived on the excess of fractional reserve banking for nearly a century.
I think I am optimistic when I say there is a one in a million chance we live to see a gold backed currency and if it happened I would almost guarantee that all those holding gold will be demonized and charged huge, arbitrary windfall taxes.
If you want a gold backing the best way is to do it yourself, everyone acting as their own personal central bank. That way we benefit as the system continues its gradual devaluation and have a lot of bullion as insurance should a significant crisis hit.
I don't know if a gold backed currency is desirable but it is definitely feasible if there was the political will to accomplish it. A fiat currency managed with discipline and honesty would probably be just as good but the words fiat, politician, honest, and discipline are never found in the same sentence and a well managed fiat currency may very will be an oxymoron or a pipe dream since the managers will always have far too much power and be susceptible to immense corruption. The gold backing is good because it imposes discipline upon the system and the politicians and acts as a restriction against money printing and credit creation.
Yes, gold and silver are manipulated but so is every single market and commodity. Gold and silver are more controlled than say the soybean market because gold and silver are competition to a system that desires all transactions be in dollars which they control and manipulate. The way the exchanges work shuffling paper gold help facilitate this mandate which benefits both the banks and the government. It is the most obvious conspiracy in the world but they still do not set supply and demand nor are they capable of defeating the market.
I would attribute most of the decline to cyclical overproduction but with any world wide market there are so many factors influencing its price and I don't pretend that I know the answer for certain.
You have to understand nearly 100% of all gold mined in human history still exists and is theoretically for sale at the right price. There is almost 200,000 tones of gold and we add about 2500 tons a year. Anyone that talks about a gold shortage does not seem to understand how abundant gold is in human society. Price, not the supply of gold, is the only thing that needs to change if anyone wanted to buy lots or back a currency with it.
http://www.marketoracle.co.uk/images/2011/Dec/WorldGoldProduction.png
The manipulation angle should weaken over time due to the increased number of foreign exchanges and greater eastern wealth which will drive more accurate price discovery, with a focus on physical metal. It isn't just a few guys in NY and London setting the price anymore. What is its effect on the gold price? IMO it is a negative one of indeterminate strength. Eventually the western exchanges will default and pay in paper instead of metal and then the whole thing will be bypassed by real consumers and just used as paper hedging mechanism (basically like it is now). I think the western metals exchanges have been marginalized over the years. They have way power in 2015 than they did five or ten years ago.
I had Temex and Corona. Rare to see so many juniors merge at once -- maybe they will combine to make a super junior...or not. They definitely have a few good projects though and Osisko as the lender is a good sign.
This is the case because of the following reasons:
1) Cyclicality of the mining industry. The valuations alternate between periods of being over and under-priced and both of these points tend to be hit in the extreme, ie, a multi-year period of obvious extremes will eventually, one way or another, bring about a reversal. It is important to note that either extreme (the high or the low) never reflects truly the value of the mine. Mines are seldom valued fairly and never for long. So a company may have traded for 10x what they currently does regardless of value; this is a reflection of market perception that is molded by the prevailing environment, either a bull or bear.
2)The metal's price was rising for a long time. This is an important one, when gold begins a 10+ year bull from $250/oz to $1900 the mining industry transformed itself and the type of mines that produced most of the world's gold. In 1999 most of the producers are high grade and efficient but by the time 2005 has rolled around they could not care less about efficiency, focusing on increasing production and the number of ounces becomes priority instead of the margin on those ounces. All the big miners follow suit and this trend continues until about 2012 with a minor blip in 08.
Gold continues to rise and compound this effect, deposits that were low grade and marginal are now put into full production, a huge amount of worldwide supply comes online seeding the reason for our current metal's downdraft. Gold has now risen for so long most assume it will rise forever and that as long as the price is higher than their rapidly increasing costs they will make money. They wasted billions and shot themselves in the feet by funding marginal projects. By 2013 it is obvious the "production at all cost" model sucks and the entire bloated sector pukes its guts out with a very modest historical decline in gold. Which kind of makes sense because they are, as a whole, levered up, totally tied to the gold price, and in a constant need of new capital to sustain themselves. When that capital is gone they wither and die.
Now it is has been a few years of a different course, cost cutting, management shakeups and a surprising amount of M&A this year. The focus of miners has returned to margin and AISC. Companies like Claude that once sucked are now profitable, and even more importantly are finally being recognized in the market place for their success. This is a very bullish signal IMO and the way the last bear in 08 turned.
3) The average mined grade has fallen precipitously the past 15 years while only minor efficiencies have been gained (such as in UG mining methods). Mining itself has not significantly changed, only that more truckloads tend to be used to get the same amount of gold. Grade and depth are probably the two most important metrics for judging a resource and if you look at the sector as a whole you will see us mining lower grades at much greater depths.
A good visualization is this:
http://www.nps.gov/parkhistory/online_books/yuch/golden_places/images/fig19.jpg That is a picture of a 3 ton pure copper nugget laying at surface. Now we mine fractions of one percent.
Look at this novagold slide:
http://www.novagold.com/upload/mining-matters/WhyGold_grade_cost.jpg
You can see how the proportion of some costs have changed since 2002.
http://www.kereport.com/wp-content/uploads/AverageGradeGoldMines.jpg
http://www.theaureport.com/images/Berlenbach%20chart%20rev%20570.jpg
The mysterious 1-2000 share buys every two minutes have returned. No one buys shares like that unless they are trying to get a bad price per share or walk the stock up. Same thing happened before the last recent run.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=110871209
I am taking this as a bullish signal this time around.
I also noticed CLQ has doubled in the past month, hope everyone has their scandium basket because if you've paying attention you've already doubled your money or more and had a good, yet artificial, pullback in SCY to add to your positions.
2015 is going to be a hell of a year for the scandium shares even if gold continues to languish and paralyzes the rest of the junior market.
Caledonia mining (CAL / CALVF) is another good producer like Claude that pays a large dividend.
There is a bunch of good deals out there on low risk producers and there are super bargains on near producers like Rubicon. Even LODE might stop sucking over the next year and will probably go up as they become profitable and if metals pick up... the whole sector, even the crap companies will rise. If you pick good juniors still in the exploration stage but are capable of near term production they are priced at absurd levels and you can probably buy some 10-50 baggers if you're picky. I got lots of Mexus (mxsg) for example, when they produce from their high grade shaft the stock will go up just like Claude has once they turned around their operations. Investors love profits and if Claude (and others) keep delivering their stocks will eventually rise.
You guys seem to have good taste though, my compliments.
SCY has finally responded to my email requests and issued a clarification for the BCSC issue. As I suspected it had nothing to do with a late filing. We were talking about apples and oranges here and on SH.
"Vancouver, British Columbia, May 14, 2015 (Filing Services Canada via Comtex) - Scandium International Technical Disclosure Review Vancouver, British Columbia (FSCwire) - Scandium International Mining Inc. (SCY) (Scandium International or the Company) announces that as a result of a review by the British Columbia Securities Commission (BCSC), the Company is issuing the following news release to clarify its disclosure. Review of Technical Report The Company advises that the technical report entitled NI 43-101 F1 Technical Report on the Feasibility of the Nyngan Scandium Project dated October 24, 2014 (the Report), as filed, does not comply with certain requirements of National Instrument 43-101. As a result the Company submitted on May 12, 2015, an amended technical report (the Amended Report) to the BCSC, for their review and comment, prior to filing on SEDAR. The Amended Report corrects items of the original Report, including the following: Removal of reliance by the report authors on information prepared by third parties and the Company, as well as removal of disclaimers that are not permitted under NI 43-101; Removal of the term Feasibility as improper, in the title of the Report; Inclusion of additional information on the procedures for sample preparation, analysis and security; Inclusion of additional information supporting the estimate of mineral resources, including how the data and information was verified; Clear identification of exploration work conducted by the Company, versus exploration work conducted by others; Inclusion of additional information supporting assumptions and parameters used in the economic analysis, and disclosure of the annual cash flow forecast; Replacement of the QP supporting the mine design with a QP that has a mine engineering degree, and Inclusion of additional information required under NI 43-101 rules, including identifying the property location on the title page, adding illustrations, augmenting the description of the deposit, and adding information on environmental and permitting matters. The BCSC may provide additional comments based on their review of the Amended Report, which will only be filed after all Commission comments are addressed. Review of Corporate Presentation The Company has amended and updated its corporate presentation, available on its website. The updated corporate presentation removes previous disclosure that did not comply with NI 43-101, including the following: Reporting combined measured and indicated resources, without also reporting them separately, Reporting gross in-situ metal value, Including statements in investor materials regarding PEA economics that did not include adequate cautionary language required under NI 43-101. The Company notes that a preliminary economic assessment is preliminary in nature and should not be considered to be a pre-feasibility or feasibility study, as the economics and technical viability of the Project have not been demonstrated at this time. Qualified Persons Mr. Willem Duyvesteyn, MSc, AIME, CIM, a director and Chief Technology Officer of Scandium International and a "qualified person" as defined in NI 43-101, has approved the technical information contained in this news release."
Looks like it is cleaned up. A good buying opportunity that will probably be gone quickly.
So everything is just great?
Lester just so I am clear you're arguing that the exchange will suspend its rules like after 9/11 and the 2008 crisis just for LODE... even though the market is at all time highs because... why? LODE is not special and their non performance is mostly their own fault and is not due to some external factor or crisis.
LODE had to do a R/S to get over $2 in order to list in the first place. The listing requirements are clear, check the section lode is under (there are many sections). Being under a dollar for a prolonged period is not a good thing for the prospects of being a long life NYSE share. If they are still under a dollar by the end of summer I would be very concerned because this is going back the bulletin board and it will be a disgraceful event and bad PR for the company. Either that or they meander barely above that level and tread water or do another RS. None of these outcomes are good.
Yeah I saw that but I did not repost it because I don't believe it is correct.
Survival Guide for the Mother of All Bear Markets from Veteran Bottomfisher John Kaiser
"TMR: What juniors are having the most success moving scandium projects forward?
JK: The two most important ones are Scandium International Mining Corp. (SCY:TSX), which owns the Nyngan deposit in New South Wales, and Clean TeQ Holdings Ltd. (CLQ:ASX), which is acquiring the Syerston deposit from Ivanhoe Mines Ltd. (IVN:TSX). The Syerston deposit is bigger than the Nyngan deposit and has a slightly higher grade. That project was originally a nickel-cobalt project, but Robert Friedland, a substantial stakeholder with a keen understanding of China’s self-imposed environmental mandate, recognized the value of scandium enrichment at the periphery of the subeconomic nickel-cobalt deposit. Ivanhoe is selling Syerston to CleanTeQ because CleanTeQ’s management has experience with flowsheet processes related to scandium recovery. Incidentally, China has become the world’s biggest aluminum producer with 47% of 2014 global supply.
Scandium International is more advanced. It has been working on the scandium potential of Nyngan since 2010. It published a PEA in October 2014 for a 36 ton per annum operation with a capital cost of $78M. That’s about four times what is currently supplied to the market. The company hopes to have the feasibility study done and the mining permit in hand by Q1/16. Then it has to raise the capex. I think it will be able to do it because the proposed mine is in essence a pilot plant study designed to be profitable if the company can attract buyers for its output at the $2,000/kg base case price of the PEA.
If the mine is operational in 2017 and demonstrates that it can deliver the scandium at a profitable price, the aircraft industry and the automotive industry will get serious with long-term planning for deployment of aluminum-scandium alloy components. For these two companies, scandium is a potentially extraordinary growth story where you go from a market that’s almost nothing to a market that could end up being worth $2 billion ($2B) annually.
That is, of course, what has happened to niobium, which was in a similar situation as scandium until the Araxá deposit was discovered in Brazil and developed during the 1960s. That has grown to a $2.5B market today. It makes steel stronger and raises the melting temperature for use in all sorts of applications. Niobium is what you might call an energy efficiency driver for the steel industry because niobium-strengthened steel gets the job done with less weight."
http://countingpips.com/2015/05/survival-guide-for-the-mother-of-all-bear-markets-from-veteran-bottomfisher-john-kaiser/
It would depend. In general a geologist should have an idea of what types of minerals and geology to expect but miners do not search for everything, all of the time. That would be... inefficient and costly to say the least. Sc assays are acid leached and a traditional fire assay would probably have provided no, or very little information on Sc content (I am not certain on this). Geology is partially about chemistry, which makes up the building blocks of everything on Earth and leaves clues for geologists to find and interpret. So in this manner if a company is focused on gold or diamonds or whatever they often end up with something else entirely as was the case of Voisey's Bay nickel discovery. They only cared about South African diamonds but yet when exploration geologists found obvious clues that pointed to a nickel deposit they followed them and made a large discovery. Explorationists want to find something economic, regardless of what it is, and so they tend to be well versed in any by-products or associated minerals with whatever it is they are looking for. Most mined ore (of any type) probably has around 20 parts per million or 20 g/t Sc but for the sake of most mining projects it is functionally irrelevant.
Sc is well known by chemists and geologists because it is very common (just not in economic deposits).
There are definitely overlooked scandium deposits all over the world but the most advanced and likely source at this moment will be laterites in Australia but in 30 years I imagine there will be producing scandium mines (byproduct or otherwise) peppered all over the world. The interest in Sc will definitely lead to more discoveries of scandium and other things.
http://www.hardassetsinvestor.com/features/2917-scandium-a-rare-earth-thats-not-really-rare.html
As for your other questions the BCSC is a silly organization. In Canada we have a SEC for pretty much every province. I appreciate that they try and keep companies honest but a single, unified organization with slightly updated priorities would probably be immeasurably more effective.
Scandium International Mining Corp. 2015-04-29 OT
2d.
No No
http://www.bcsc.bc.ca/About_Issuers/Reporting_Issuers_in_Default_List/ You'll note that it says there is no CTO, cease trade order. If it was serious it would be. Even Rubicon had their trading halted so, again, this part of the reason I am leaning towards it not being a huge issue. It might actually be a gift from these idiots and allow me to buy some more for less than management's option strike.
I just rechecked sedar and still do not see the latest management options mentioned anywhere.
It looks like the BCSC is involved now. This is a big negative for SCY. I lost around a hundred grand when the BCSC came after Rubicon and said their accurate, conservative report reported too much gold and would have to be downgraded to make it believable. The geologist even did several similar deposits and had a lot of experience in the same kind of high nugget effect stuff Ruby was in, yet the government, with no expertise, comes in to "save everybody" from Rubicon's awesome geology. Ruby never recovered from that, and the BCSC cost investors hundreds of millions of dollars, delayed the project, and increased the dilution significantly. Rubicon will be mining this year and it will prove their original report correct (IMO) and the government will never be held to account because it is better to err on the side of caution rather than focus on accuracy or protecting investors.
According to the BCSC SCY is now 2D, "the reporting issuer's technical disclosure or other reports do not comply with the disclosure requirements of NI 43-101 or NI 51-101" and as of April 29th is in default.
This could be a very minor or very significant issue. There is probably thousands of things they could take issue with. I read the reports and I think they are well done, professional, believable and conservative, but I thought the same thing about Rubicon's and several other legit projects the BCSC has taken issue with over the years. Personally I lean towards it being a minor issue because even if it was a Rubicon repeat the effects would be a severely mitigated because SCY is barely followed and cutting a 6 billion dollar resource (of which they get no credit for) to 3 or 1 or whatever makes no difference because it is a completely arbitrary number at this moment in time.
A comment from greekphysique on the matter:
"it's because the PEA is not NI43-101 isn't compliant. I'm not sure what exactly cause it. Maybe they didn't file all the paper work. It might be because the qualified person is not a Canadian PENG. It might be becuse they need more test work to refine the flow-sheet. I will look into it this weekend but I don't think it's that big of a deal ATM."
Or it could be a million other things or just bureaucrats being bureaucrats saving everyone from the next Bre-X.
SCY added some options for management at .14 as well, so that might very well be the next baseline price until we get some news.
CLQ is promoting the scandium market:
"Research over many decades has confirmed the enormous value that scandium can deliver as an alloying agent for aluminum.
Aluminum-scandium alloys exhibit unparalleled performance across key functional properties, including low density, excellent corrosion resistance, improved weldability and increased thermal conductivity. These attributes make Al-Sc alloys one of the most promising candidates for use in high performance, light-weight materials across a wide range of applications in aerospace and other industries.
Yet, today, Al-Sc alloy remains a material used in only niche applications, due to both supply constraints and cost. The presentation will examine a number of features of the global scandium market that have hindered its development and resulted in extremely high costs of production and a fragmented supply chain.
The presentation will focus on a number of scandium projects announced in Australia in recent years and their potential to redefine the global scandium market. Clean TeQ’s Syerston Project in Australia will be presented as a case study to demonstrate some of the development steps required to bring these sources of supply to market.
The presentation will demonstrate that these large, high-grade and geologically unique resources provide the global aerospace sector with an opportunity to secure reliable, long-term and low-cost scandium oxide from developed world sources for decades to come, and at prices that make Al-Sc alloys readily substitutable with current generation alloys. To achieve that outcome both customers and suppliers will need to work collaboratively to deliver a value proposition that is compelling for the aerospace sector. "
https://asm.confex.com/asm/aero15/webprogram/Paper40675.html
New informative interview. http://www.resourceinvestor.com/2015/05/04/why-everyone-talking-about-scandium
It has some detailed summaries of SCY and their competitors. The author seems to favour Metallica, although I don't agree that they are the most advanced nor do I think they will beat SCY to production.
I'd like to note too that the intercept lengths at Nyngan are exceptional and in many cases many times their peers. We need both grade and length to map out large tonnages and SCY has both in abundance, low costs, and an ultra conservative economic estimate.
I was interested DNI too, it's up a couple hundred percent the past couple months (added to my watch-list at 6 cents) and is based in Alberta so I might go check them out in person. $400 billion in scandium in my backyard might be something worth looking into.
I think the best way to play the coming scandium bubble is to own a basket of the most advanced scandium companies with an overweight ratio of SCY and then trade out on the spikes and use the volatility to accumulate more of the plays that are most likely to succeed and hold those long term. I believe it will be SCY leading the pack and that there will be a horde right behind them.
Rapier,
A short sell is just the other side of a long trade. For example, I bought some shares yesterday and so the market maker would likely short an equal amount and it would display as a short sale. They (the MMs) try and stay as neutral as possible while taking the smallest amount of risk and this is accomplished by hedging their activity and focusing on profiting via the spread. It is highly unlikely that there is a nefarious individual or individuals shorting Mexus stock. If someone is shorting Mexus they probably need to wheelbarrow around their massive balls.
http://www.reddit.com/r/weedstocks/comments/1xydch/market_maker_speaks_out_ways_of_a_market_maker/
Big range, big volume, volatile penny stock... pretty much sums it up. Someone sold a large block of about 250k which brought it below .15 for a bit but it went right back up on lower volume and I still got zero fills the whole day under .15.
I doubt there is that many stop loss orders set on SCY so trying to knock them out is pointless. Just someone taking profits and a host of others buying and selling. You got to remember the stock was at 2 cents a year ago, although almost nobody cared and there was very little interest there are still no doubt a number of people with even lower averages than even myself and I was here pretty early.
All fairly normally activity in a junior miner. The only remarkable thing is that we continue to show strength while continuing to trade large volumes of shares. I've learned from people smarter than me that volume precedes price.
We could finish the week at 18 cents or 12 cents but either way a short term move over the next few months to 25 cents is quite likely in my opinion. Just be patient and set your buys 20-30% below market and you'll hopefully get some fills. It will be even harder to stay disciplined when it makes its eventual move and a lot of people will chase it right up even though that will probably be an excellent time to take profits and recoup your initial investment depending on your average.
Hitting the scandium motherload
http://investorintel.com/technology-metals-intel/scandium-international-big-ambitions/
"Scandium International has clearly found itself an interesting niche with an excellent deposit. Right-sizing is going to be the challenge. Its rated production is higher than the perceived global consumption, but that global consumption number is suspect and more likely to be upwardly revised than to be an over-estimation. The dynamic of “build it and they will come” also seems to have promise here with Scandium having a potential for expanded demand if only end-users could be sure they can get all they need if they tool up for greater production of lamps or whatever. The challenge is getting financiers to stump up funds for the project build in what is a tough financial environment for any mineral let alone one with Scandium’s obvious attractions.
Certainly Nyngan moving into operation would also drive down prices making the metal more accessible to potential users with the potential to create a virtuous cycle of affordability and enhanced supply driving widened applications. Beyond all this it creates a market for a specialty metal, in a safe Western jurisdiction, which the Chinese do not have a stranglehold."
Niocorp scandium interview:
SCY hits yet another multi year high of 17 cents and I can still hear crickets. We're just getting warmed up here.
That's kind of odd too, normally they go until all questions are answered. The answers might be BS but at least you would get an answer. I have even listened in the past to CCs that went to almost 2 hours just so they could answer every common shareholder's question. Now they won't even publicly answer us? This has been one of my complaints with lode, the common holders do not appear to matter that much to management.
I can see why C would be hesitant though since the stock has been below a dollar since Feb 4th. Being below $2 is bad enough but being below $1 is worse since they will be delisted eventually. Normally you get a notice after 30 days and it is a material event so they have to PR it but lode is coming on 90 days below $1.
By actively talking about delisting the stock will probably stay under a buck. While ignoring the delisting and hyping the stock above a buck has a chance that it would reset the clock. It is not explained how this timer works, so it is unclear whether we are "safe" if we have a single day above a buck. If we just need to periodically poke above a buck to avoid it, lode is in okay shape in that respect.
The exchange can make exceptions and hold off on delisting like they did after 9/11 or 08. I don't think this applies to or helps us now since the stock market (sans lode) is at all time highs.
I did some more reading about this process and apparently it works like this: Lode traded below $1 for 30 business days feb4- mid March. LODE definitely received a notice near the end of March. From the the date of that notice they now have 180 calender days to get above $1. So they have approximately until the middle/end of September before they are delisted. Which is way more time than I would have first guessed.
Long ago I posted about how some juniors experience huge price increases when they uplist, but lode has only languished and paid a premium for being there. Profits have always been much more important than a listing. I would rather lode be profitable on the OTCBB than flounder more publicly on the NYSE.
If they produce profits they will probably be above $1 and if not it is quite likely they will be delisted or, perhaps even more likely, will use another reverse split to keep its price above the listing threshold.
"As a shareholder, you should seriously revisit your investment decision in a company that has become delisted; in many cases, it may be better to cut your losses. A firm unable to meet the listing requirements of the exchange upon which it is traded is quite obviously not in a great position. Each case of delisting needs to be looked at on an individual basis. However, being kicked out of an exclusive club such as the NYSE or the Nasdaq is about as disgraceful for a company as it is prestigious for it to be listed in the first place.
Even if a company continues to operate successfully after being delisted, the main problem with getting booted from the exclusive club is the trust factor. People lose their faith in the stock. When a stock trades on the NYSE or Nasdaq, it has an aura of reliability and accuracy in reporting financial statements. When a company's stock is demoted to the OTCBB or pink sheets, it loses its reputation. Pink sheet and OTCBB stocks lack the stringent regulation requirements that investors come to expect from NYSE and Nasdaq-traded stocks. Investors are willing to pay a premium for shares of trustworthy companies and are (understandably) leery of firms with shady reputations.
Another problem for delisted stocks is that many institutional investors are restricted from researching and buying them. Investors who already own a stock prior to the delisting may be forced by their investment mandates to liquidate their positions, further depressing the company's share price by increasing the selling supply. This lack of coverage and buying pressure means the stock has an even steeper climb ahead to make it back on to a major exchange."
http://www.investopedia.com/articles/02/032002.asp
https://usequities.nyx.com/listings/list-with-nyse/nyse-mkt-listing-standards
What are the rules behind the delisting of a stock?
The criteria to remain listed on an exchange differs from one exchange to another. On the New York Stock Exchange (NYSE), for instance, if a security's price closed below $1.00 for 30 consecutive trading days then the exchange would initiate the delisting process. Also, exchanges charge annual listing fees that companies must pay in order to stay listed.
http://www.investopedia.com/ask/answers/09/stock-delist.asp
"You can buy stocks that cost $1 or more per share on the New York Stock Exchange. Stock prices fluctuates throughout the trading day, and can be checked on the NYSE website. However, for a company to keep trading on the NYSE, it must meet the exchange’s minimum stock price rules. As long as a company’s stock price remains at or above $1, the shares keep trading on the exchange. However, if the price falls below $1 for too long, the company risks having its stock delisted."
http://classroom.synonym.com/happens-stock-falls-below-1-nyse-10639.html
Already at 16 cents with well over 100k traded.
Another "researcher" has picked up on SCY. Here's another article by a Mr T Maverick, who shares both my initials and some of my opinions on SCY:
http://www.wallstreetdaily.com/2015/04/12/scandium-market/
"Estimates are that a single-aisle aircraft could use up to 70 kilograms of scandia. Just using the alloy in the rivets for a plane would cut the craft’s overall weight by 10% to 15%."
The first sentence is interesting and I've heard similar estimates but the second seems... impossible. I don't see how reducing a rivet's weight cuts a jet's total weight by 15%, are rivets not a small percentage of an aircraft's total mass? I'll let someone with more aircraft experience determine how ridiculous that claim is.
Other than that nothing new, but I do note the amount of outside recognition for SCY and scandium is growing daily.
Newest update:
Mexus Gold US Placer and Negotiation Update
April 20, 2015
CARSON CITY, Nev., April 20, 2015 (GLOBE NEWSWIRE) -- Mexus Gold US (OTCQB:MXSG) ("Mexus" or the "Company") announced an update on its placer operation and ongoing negotiations for underground mining at the Julio. On April 8th, a $10,000 payment was received from its Mexican corporation (Mexus Gold Mining SA de CV). The placer is not yet running at full capacity but is starting to pay the bills. Vice President Julio Baltazar added, "We are working hard to get the mine to full production and each day we are moving closer to accomplishing that goal."
Mexus has been negotiating with the Mexican government concerning the recovery of the IVA Tax which is currently owed the company. A resolution of this matter appears to be forthcoming.
Mexus continues to negotiate with a private company to begin underground mining at the high grade Julio mine. Upfront monies and funds to begin the mining will enable the company to mine 25 tons per day. The agreement would include plans to upgrade to 300 tons per day within 24 months. The company believes, using its current drilling studies along with historical data of the Julio, that 1 ounce of gold per ton is obtainable. Past history shows that the Julio produced 2 ounces per ton gold average. "Mexus has seen assays as high as 6 ounces per ton. In addition, there is visible gold and we would expect the assays in those areas to be even higher," said CEO Paul Thompson.
Welcome to the board. Please feel free to contribute when you can and congratulations on your purchase. When this stock was at 2 cents it was pretty risky but now the story and marketplace awareness has advanced along with the project and the off-take agreements etc that even though the stock has gone up 700% it is still cheap (and much less risky) because SCY's value has been increasing faster than its share-price. (IMO)
I am quite confident we will eventually get something that rounds up to a dollar here, even if it takes a couple years to get there.
I am going to start purchasing at the ask since I am more than comfortable with my horde. I might have to report to IIROC someday at this rate. When it comes to SCY my greed knows no bounds and I am having more difficulty staying disciplined than I have in years. It just speaks to the caliber of the company and the uniqueness of the project.
Take care everyone, and put some scandium under your pillow if you can. There's a good chance the market fairy will eventually replace it with so much cash you'll wake up one day and be wearing a permanent neck brace.
Lots of competition today to buy under .15. Lots of volume too. We'll build a base and zig and zag, but the general direction will be up. Watching level 2 closely I got a feeling today should be a strong close above .15, and when that happens the next couple weeks will be set up for some fun as it maybe makes a run for .20. Throw in an Airbus off-take agreement and we will have liftoff.
This stock has surprisingly little promotion and the more it gets the higher the share-price will be because scandium and SCY is one hell of a story.
I bought a few days ago since I believe the current share-price relative to the low end of my estimates to be a compelling bargain even if it just Rancho sólo. Lots of people seem quite demoralized at the moment, which means it is a great time to purchase as long as you believe in the value of the project.
Wow. Mr. McEwen is usually not so careless with his words.
'Is it a dangerous part of Mexico (at our mine site)?'
M: "I answered: 'It hasn't been. I mean the cartels are active down there. Generally we have a good relationship with them.
Unfortunately, my use of the words, 'good relationship', was careless and has created the entirely false impression with Mexican media that we have regular contact with criminal elements in their society. This is simply not true. I wish to apologize sincerely for any misunderstanding my words may have caused."
Here's an older Kaiser interview from March that I don't think was posted here.
Starts at just over 10 minutes in. Some good junior resource commentary as well.
http://www.bnn.ca/Video/player.aspx?vid=559230
He mentions a 15% (!) weight reduction as well. I'm not sure if that is for the entire aircraft or just the aluminum component (likely the latter) but either way that, plus Sc's other characteristics make scandium a very compelling upgrade feature for use in the aerospace industry.
I also learned that SCY has hosted Airbus at its Nyngan property numerous times over the past couple years and the companies have an established relationship and previous agreements. Airbus has recently probed CLQ and they turned over their data and some samples without committing to anything. Airbus will do their DD and then eventually do an offtake agreement with the most advanced project(s), namely SCY. That would be a huge PR and it is pretty likely IMO. The current offtake agreement with Alcerco is also hugely underrated as well and should take us up to 20 cents as things percolate. An Airbus deal and the final bankable study by year's end should see this stock at around 30-50 cents easily and things haven't even gotten started yet.
I already own a ridiculous amount of this stock but I think I have convinced myself I need just a few more shares under 15 cents. SCY is just too unique and too perfectly poised to emerge from this bear market and mature into a strong mining company over the next few years.
P.S. When I was writing this I made a typo, scamdium. But maybe it wasn't a typo. Beware of scamdium! There is now a huge number of companies bragging about scandium that have nothing to do with it and no hope of ever recovering any. Just like the hundreds of mining companies that magically became pot companies or graphite or lithium companies or whatever the flavour of the day mineral is. The scamdium companies are coming.