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.
Actually Joe you did catch it, just not the why of the new filing
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=68475289
I do not see anything for concern, and I actually appreciate that management did a news release to maintain the trust/transparency level.
While I do wish that the news had been more clear in indicating the need for the update (getting tonnage for an indicated area wrong by a factor of more than 3 times is not common) I can also see how it is diplomatic not to point fingers. All the same, imho, clearing things up now is better than just letting things pass and then have people wondering why all the PR/promo material stops mentioning the older, higher numbers for billions of pounds.
Sure it is a 7% or so reduction of indicated Mn, but as Tim points out this is still a large increase from the earlier estimate.
smart grid, maybe - think of running a large apartment complex
I just hope the app is well engineered so that someone's water heater cannot get maliciously invaded
I found the part about private placements, brokerage, etc. unusual but the further part sunspotter quoted is indeed even more unusual.
Website is nice.
Blog page needs a rethink
- not under company control, or who really is rfizzle (sp)
- circular clicks allowed
go to blogs, use the wanderport website tab in the blog subwindow,
then in there go to blogs, etc. etc
otherwise has a fairly professional look
where's the beef - I mean water heater
I suppose this is just all standard legal protection at this point . . .
Disclaimer of all Representations and Warranties:
In regard to any information, product, or service furnished in connection with “specification sheet”, Wanderport Corporation and Robert Simoneau, doing business with associates collectively known as Pulsar Advanced Technologies and/or Wanderport Corporation, disclaims any and all warranties, express or implied, including without limitation any and all implied warranties of merchantability or fitness for a particular purpose. These specifications are preliminary and are subject to revision and change without notice and as such must not be construed as representation. Wanderport Corporation and Robert Simoneau further disclaims any liability under any circumstance for any loss of profits, investment either in private placement or through broker stock purchases, business interruptions, any loss of business information, or any other pecuniary loss, including any incidental, special, exemplary, punitive, or consequential damages, even if advised of the possibility of such damages.
Hey sonny3 thanks for that. While largely reviewing the known it is still good to see others with the same view and enthusiasm.
And, by comments starting
I believe that as long as the Fed exists currency creation will continue to flow like water over Niagara Falls.
I don't follow why you say the news is not getting out.
example:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=CVE%3AFAU
granted, this is very different from:
http://www.google.com/finance?q=PINK%3AFVGCF
and I am not quite sure why that is so since they do list all the tickers in their PRs
News releases under the FVGCF do get picked up by my main trade account.
What does not happen is little Fire River square inches showing up on Kitco, Minesite, etc. but that is a matter of budget, and it is those that bring new blood to the bid pool.
I wonder why he didn't? If he's a crook?
imho yes of course, one needs to, particularly when stating as if fact. doh ?
Markets open 3 hours and 17,150 shares of WDRP have traded.
That is fact, not opinion
new website not there yet - fact not opinion
report from VT meeting of website by end of this week - fact, maybe opinion, but not my opinion
PRs state X but recent history shows Y - fact not opinion
need we continue ?
Likely some of today is reaction to PR, some may be yesterday's strong buyer(s) not being around.
My own sense on this PR is to heed the info in the recent semi-PR'd email which seemed to be looking ahead to this and mentioned that the dd for normal financing and for the facility underwriting the bonds is not much different but the cost without the bonds is a bit higher.
The recent extension to close on the bond backing is until Nov 21, effectively now unless they are far down the road with some other group, so the this seems to say they are now only able to go into the open financial market as any other junior unless there is still life to the bond backing i.e. further extension. So if underwriting for the bonds was so hard to line up, that seems to say open market funding will be equally difficult but more expensive (per said email)
Question: the new move to establishing US strategic stockpiles might play into this how ?
So, imo this is not good news, but this is not catastrophic news. I am not sure if the PR was saying $58M in the treasury as USD$ or CA$ but at the moment the market cap is CA$48. So if one has cost average down in the recent market I don't see the cause of deep concern. While I do not know how much of the treasury is currently committed to what has been contracted, it seems it would provide some time, maybe even for the global financial markets to play like they are settling down.
weeks to come ? who are you to say (did you omit an imo or something?)
and how about the next few days ?
The website may go live this week or next.. Andrew said they should be able to have some numbers on it.
pretty much the same here, with emphasis on the will be. I had tracked for some time but when the bonding authority part fell in line that changed it from a watch for me.
Here Here ABG - speaking much truth there
I converted to free shares at the end of 2010 H1 when the pps was cresting above 1.1 as things looked pretty good so I held but had already become "iffy" enough financially I wanted to trim. From there as far as I can tell the only reason (properties are definitely not) the pps has not maintained or grown but instead declined so badly (worse than markets avg) is the perception that the company runs on fumes consistently playing with insolvency in a cycle of dilution. It is not sustainable to continue a program of deep drills, even with the wedging strategy, without a cash-flow to support the expense.
Good properties, too few projects for the properties, good geologically skilled people and good work completed to date but that is not enough when struggling to get past that going concern threshold.
JMO of course.
You sound almost as convinced as the CEO who has dogged the lead Co project for how many years now slowly chipping away and now it is almost a reality ! People who do look into FCO see the Co project but tend to overlook the other things FCO has going on. As you know, even after the rebound of the past couple days this is still a bargain.
Imagine if they do make a market in refining REE concentrates at some of the old Silvertown facility as I seem to recall they were looking into the pros/cons on doing
Nice day for FMETF (so far) at +35% post NY lunch
Amazing what a little straight talk in an email can do
When do these options expire?
Options Outstanding Weighted average remaining Exercise price
contractual life
2 650 000 3,5 ans / 3.5 years 0,92
500 000 3,8 ans / 3.8 years 0,92
repricing options from .92 to .32 CD is really grasping 4 cash i pretty well think that u.s cash raising is dead in the water what he got on the canadian one is it
US volume looks like it was 34.65k so probably too light to read too much into the 14% gain - but on a day like today it was nice to see and beside Tsx looks like 111.5k with 11.1% gain
Did I misread but I though when the PR announced closing of the CA placement somewhere there was mention that the money was going to the new drilling that would continue the infill and stepout but that there was also going to be a couple/few holes deepened below the 1000 ft or so limit of the deepest so far. Was I just having a dream one night letting the wishful thinking take me away ?
Shareholders Rights - uurghhhhh !
I supposed they could have spent even more on lawyers and come up with an even more convoluted and obfuscated document, maybe, . . .
So I am not a legal script person, no lawyer, etc. but having read over the Shareholder's Rights Agreement I have a few observations to offer.
First, the agreement ends apparently Dec 16, 2011 or the close of the annual General Meeting for 2011, whichever comes first, unless the plan is proposed for extension, voted on, and passed by then and the "2011" date hardcoded at 1.1 (z)(ii) is amended. I think I also saw one other place where wording something like "three years from the effective date of this agreement" would need to be amended.
So, what does this thing do ?
The plan appears to only get triggered by a flip-in, or a not permitted takeover bid. These eventually get described below, Other forms of takeover (i.e. permitted) and of ways to get 20% or more of shares appear exempted under specific circumstances)
To me it appears to do very little, except maybe for a "flip-in" event, which is when some "party" becomes a holder of 20% or more of the voting rights other than by making a take-over offer. For a flip-in event the rights associated with shares allow for the purchase of two shares per right, instead of one share.
I am using "party" to mean one or more persons or other concerns that are acting in concert. The acquiring "party", that cause the event that triggers the rights plan, do not get the rights that the other shareholders get once the terms of the plan are triggered. That is, shareholders get to buy shares by exercise of their rights, except that the acquiring "party" does not get to do so.
At first it appears that the BOD has ability to alter and adjust the terms of the agreement, but except where required to meet regulations or changing laws, it appears that the BOD must seek shareholder approval of changes, except for some few cases that are fairly tightly outlined in the plan and it seems open to discussion whether those few are or are not backdoor loopholes.
Next, it appears that a "party" can obtain a 20% or greater interest by means of private placements or convertible securities without triggering this plan, but there is a long list of situations where this might happen, and they seem to require that the intent (at the time?? what of later??) is not to take control over the company.
Back up - what are the rights ? The rights are attached to the shares and are really nothing until they become separated from the shares. Once separated they can be exercised or transferred independently from a transfer of shares. The exercise price is "roughly" twice the market price of common shares at the separation date (but it is important to note that this is set at 10 days after the event that causes separation of the rights). The rights each allow for the purchase of one common share.
So, in absence of a flip-in, if a not permitted takeover event causes separation of the rights, then a right allows for buying one share at twice the market price as of the separation date. But, with a flip-in a right allows for purchase of two shares at the same price.
Now, it is not that simple (of course). The separation date, as already mentioned is ten days after the event that causes separation of the rights from the shares. The market price on the date 10 days after the separation event is key to figuring the cost to exercise the rights. However, the market price is defined as the average of the 20 trading days that come before the date. So, the way I am so far understanding this, if separation event is on day X of some month, then the separation date is on day X+10, and the market price on the separation date is the average share price on the 20 trading days that end with day X+9. The exercise price of the rights is twice this, or twice the market price on the separation date
So, I am still headworking whether a not permitted takeover bid, not a flip-in, that triggers the rights would be of any benefit to shareholders. That is, what sort of offer to buy is needed to make it an advantage to be able to buy 1 share at the exercise price which is two times the average defined earlier ??
So, flip-in has been described, but I have been using permitted compared to not permitted take-over. As I see it a permitted take-over offer is one that is made to all shareholders, and that meets certain requirements relating to how shares are tendered and the ablility to withdraw a tender to the offer. A not permitted take-over would then be one that is not made to all shareholders or does not meet the other terms required (ability to withdraw, etc.).
If a flip-in triggers the plan, such as some "party" buying shares in the open market so that they come to hold 20% or more, then for the cost of the exercise price each right could be exercised to obtain 2 shares. Here, possibly one would be buying these shares at less than their then open market price (assuming the price had gone up and remained up due to the flip-in), but it is not clear it would result in buying shares at a discount.
In either type of triggering, the effect is that the shares issued due to exercise of rights would force a "party" attempting to obtain a 20% or greater interest to acquire more shares due to whatever amount of increase in O/S exercises caused.
So what is my take ?
First, again I am not a lawyer type, and second, these are observations after an initial read only.
It appears to me that the effect is not very much.
At first glance it appears like it would force an acquiring party to buy possibly up to 2 or 3 times as many shares as they had planned (or would have been needed in absence of the plan). But that depends on whether rights are exercised, and it is not clear to me that they would be exercised. Also, the amount raised from the exercises would be in the company treasury, so although more shares would need to be acquired, these would be offset by increased value of the company due to treasury growth.
Also at first glance it looks like the exercise price could easily be more than the price on the open market at time of exercise (unless there happened to be multiple competing, and not permitted, offers raising the price to around twice or more what it had been before the offers started). If that is correct, it seems the effect of making shares available to all except the acquiring "party" is fairly minimal. Also, if the cost per share at exercise is so unfavorable, what might be the effect of shareholders electing to sell their rights and transfer them to the acquiring "party" and perhaps also selling their shares ?
I have some stock where the rights plan is much easier to understand and which provide shareholders with windfall gains. It does not appear this is the case here. One plan had terms where a hostile takeover attempt triggered ability to buy two shares per share at half the market price, and I seem to remember on plan where when triggered shareholders could get 1 for 1 shares at 20% of the price on the open market. Here it is not even clear that the exercise price would not turn out so that shares cost more than the price then current on the open market.
Please, do your own assessment. I could easily be mistaken.
Please share how you see things. Please do not hesitate to point out my errors in reading this monster.
Finally, we need to find out if this is going to be extended, if the terms are going to remain the same if so, etc..
Good luck - now back to the roller-coaster of renewed risk-off markets.
I pretty much agree with your comment but I also notice that in saying
The fact they've promised so much and delivered so little is of far more concern.
You did notice that has a dateline just as the US financial sector was driving the 1st world economic house of cards into collapse did you not ?
I don't see how what Hilbroy did should automatically make everyone who contracted for or received services guilty. Am I missing something?
As I recall from back when the Kalahari ramp-up was first posted here, it was found that somewhere early 2012 the final decision will be made on the upgrade to the rail line, to add 12M ton/yr capacity, and then the line upgrade must be built. As it is now there is something like a year backlog to book capacity to ship on the existing railline.
I looked at a number of the companies of the area and came away with the uncertain impression that some was disseminated so not all just massive hardrock ore.
I have been watching more the developments in India where the country has been pushing MOIL to ramp up production - but even at that it sounds like India will still possibly be a net importer due to projected increase in steel production.
As Tim is often quick to point out, even if mine production in other countries came online and flooded the market, AMY has a number of things going for it, very important of which is being domestic (and also protected by the import duty and reduced transport costs) and then also the projected costs.
I have been wanting to get a handle on the terms for months now, but will only get to it after EOD, well maybe given Holloween tonight.
I will post what I manage to understand also.
I had once asked ByWisdom to include that as a question, but I think that was in a batch that got put off by EXS due to financing trips to NY.
Anyway, PR of Nov 2008 said it would be voted on that Dec shareholder general meeting, and it was and passed (PR no on EXS website but on Sedar). Those PRs claim the "Shareholder Rights Plan" is filed on Sedar and available from the "Rights Agent" but the agent is nowhere named.
Last Friday I sent to the info@ address of EXS asking of this, and this morning received a time-limited link to download the plan, 20meg pdf, and have so far only scanned the contents list (too much motion back toward risk off this morning).
What I had asked is where is it to be found, but I only receive an email from some third-party document sharing company, so I do not know where it can be located. I see no reason not to share this with the board, but it is a time-limited link set to expire Nov 7
https://rcpt.yousendit.com/1271281814/2c608a0a7f0055ebcae4a46ced814634
Wasn't Nixon Fork fully permitted at time of purchase by FAU ?
Are the AMF hearings in a couple weeks
I would prefer the info be "out there" so any doing their DD would have the counter to the blog readily available. But what you suggest might be a way to see that does happen.
Hey, Phx area here.
Actually the two methods are underground and liquid injection/extraction.
The second is obviously much cheaper even though the depth here is said to be comparatively shallow (hard to believe at kilometer plus). The in situ extraction has issues you are likely familiar with due to our newer copper mines in AZ.
Later
What I am asking - are there positive strategic reasons that would be in the company and Shareholders' best interest for NOT putting the hole information out there for all to see?
Yep. My bigger concern is why FAU has not released sufficient information, imho, about water management to totally vacate any concerns that blog, extensive as it is, raises in (potential) investors' minds.
I have been aware of that blog for a long time and have watched the info flow from FAU and am still looking for non-speculative evidence that the water issue is under control. NI43-101 should discuss under risks.
baffled why the shares have had this recent sell-off with the news we've had, but of course we only know the news we're given
GM Beers - hope its snowfree enough of a chill day for a walk to the neighborhood pub later
Let's hope the website comes, and has sections for
a) two-way Q & A
b) weekly updates in a very transparent manner
If a) I will surely ask why preliminary numbers (with tons of disclaimer accepted) cannot be released
When I said 6 months that is based on impression that the numbers would be for actual production unit, representing facts for what one can buy.
That is what I have been under impression Robert feels should be released, numbers that represent the actual product.
Good point, and I also remember the ceramic nature being mentioned. I am not sure of the nature of the apparently most commonly used sulfone (SP?) compound for absorption chambers, which is supposed to have very good behaviors relative to passing but not absorbing microwaves that are tuned for water, but it may be cheaper and/or easier/faster to fab. But chamber material, even if further improved, has not previously been a show stopper. Hot beverage is similar to some industrial applications (that do exist) of microwave based heating of flowing liquids in that cost differences are not the lead objective, but rather getting the liquid heated as needed at the flow needed with "reasonable" costs and risks is the objective. Here, for market advantage, minimizing total overall cost over unit life (i.e. 7 years with some huge volume of heated water supplied at some temperature) is the main objective. An incremetal gain in chamber design or material, in control of power applied due to better feedback circuitry, reduction of total parts due to novel sensing design, are all good, but do they overcome the inefficiencies of powering the magnetrons, or is that also being adressed ?
I do not mind risk, when I can assess its magnitude. I am just not being given a handle on it, and cannot see why I am being kept in the dark. From all I have seen claimed it may be another 6 months before Robert has numbers of the type he has previously said are what he wants to wait to be able to release (i.e. 3rd party, for final design, etc.)
I do not want to seem disrespectful of Robert, and I am glad he feels things are "competitive", but I would like evidence and not a statement of "feeling" which is subjective and based on someone else's (and to me unknown) criteria.
all jmo and prejudiced by my background as a scientist and engineer
So eDD then by extension, since CTO was also issued against Wanderport the company, we are to see you are stating equally clearly that the AMF has INFORMATION concerning Wanderport (the company) being involved ?
Yep - pretty much sums up my understanding of the state of the development project also. I have never seen mention of the apparent key issue (i.e. power loss due to need to drive the magnetron/magnetrons) in anything from the Company. Talk of cavity geometry (hence h2o flow, etc) optimization I have seen, but this part is not what appears to have been the stumbling block keeping this product concept from reaching market to date (and the patents appear to go back for over 20 years for microwave water heating).
These third party efficiency numbers will be certified by someone like UL which mean the numbers are real because the product is real!
That will be the end of the skeptics including me.
There is also the question as to whether there is valid, usable paperwork. Recall, the claims against the TA included failure to keep records.
I think I saw US patents for that application of microwave heating, i.e. hot beverage dispensing
Perhaps you need to look at correcting your broker, or rather changing it
If the issue is this chill list then why do I have zero issue opening a new position with Fidelity ? (and their trades are what 20% cheaper than TDA ?)