Yea, if you just look at that US Steel chart you posted (or many others) and see where the share was so low before (the fall 2008 and spring 2009 bottoms - no doubt why you choose the timeline) one gets an idea of how seriously the Eurozone problems and US data are being taken by the markets . . .

I always find it of value to note what stocks buck the trend in a rout and which recover fast if they did retreat. Market sentiment really shows (ex. AUN held up well esp considering the recent increase), so I am glad to see the AMY rebound even if it is still low, AMY bid/ask 0.44/0.445 now.

Quite the slam, across the resource explore/dev board.
Maybe the rout is off for now, FOMC/Bernanke in under 2 hours now.

The one thing I did not see mentioned in all the good viewpoints of the trashing of the juniors we have been through is imo the anticipation that the solution to the Eruozone, such as it may be, will leave credit markets tight and squeeze non-cash-flow juniors hard. Remember AMY is not immune based on the last projection of op expenses I saw.

Still, looked like someone needed money, and luckily I have been able to cost average my AMY down with this market.

I just hope for some rebound BEFORE the pilot plant news and the likely needed PP.

Plan was announced Nov 2008, briefly outlined in the PR
http://www.explorresources.com/pdf/PR-081124_Rights-Plan_EN.pdf

According to results of Dec 2008 general meeting doc on SEDAR the plan was passed:

Explor Resources Inc.
Annual General Meeting of Holders of Common Shares of Explor Resources Inc.
December 16, 2008
REPORT OF VOTING RESULTS
National Instrument 51-102-Continuous Disclosure Obligations (Section 11.3)
The following matters were put to a vote by show of hands at the annual general meeting of shareholders of the Corporation:
Outcome of Vote

3. Ordinary resolution to approve the Shareholders Rights Plan
and the Shareholders Rights Agreement dated November 8,
2008
Passed


I however do not find the full plan filed on SEDAR which elsewhere is claimed to be filed there as the Shareholder rights agreement dated Nov 8 2008

Perhaps the question ought to be where that doc is to be located ?

Sort of glad it is gone . . . if any of it was substantiated that would be very different. As is, is not a post like that either promoter hot air or evidence of insider information floating around ? Notice that there is one single interest in iHub, WDRP.

It may make no sense to you, but it is as it is.
I find it helpful to distinguish clearly between Wanderport the company and WDRP the securities.
WDRP and its holders were victimized.
Wanderport is apparently being accused of being one of the parties victimizin the holders of WDRP.

read it again, Sept 13 was to respond, resulting in the hearings for the motions . . . Your statement

Proof of playing ostrich . . .
With eyes open, look.
See they did nothing, while most all others in the list accused of manipulation of WDRP security did.
See those others now have motions scheduled to be heard.
See Wanderport could have a motion (presumably for dismissal) also awaiting a hearing in two months, but does not.
What is not visible ?

I can pretty much live with everything you say.
My main issue is that even if Wanderport is innocent, even if there are no charges filed against the company, this matter will not be cleared up for many months to come. They did not ask to respond, so they have no motion to be heard in November, and it is only after those hearings that the next phase continuing this, with the potential prosecution of charges by AMF, will be known and potentially scheduled.
It will remain a disincentive for any new investors that do some research until it is cleared up.

That patent and employment talk is all garbage - companies do not wait on the patent when there is a market opportunity - the application will allow the patent applied for verbage . . .
What is going on is a bunch of corp lobby driven spin - now the backlog can be cleared yada yada
Not really, the backlog is under the old rules
The new rules will prevent such a backlog because when there is a conflict between applications they will only need to look at the date of the application filing to see which wins
Previously they had to determine which party was actually the first to develop the product, method, process, etc.
So what is really happening is that the small inventor is getting shut out. He cannot freely talk about his ideas, hire scientific/engineering assistance to refine before filing, etc. without fear that someone spoken to will get the patent because they file before he is ready. One hint of something valuable and corps will inundate the patent office with "what do we have to loose beyond filing costs" applications, trying to close out the real inventor from the fruits of his ideas and labors.

Wrong Searay53, imo, sunspotter's explaination is precisely correct
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67185536

The list used all along is the list of those investigated, as most recently shown in the response NYRA posted, under Parties
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67179559

of those parties, Wanderport Corp. did not ask to be allowed to respond,
so they were not represented Sept 13, and so there was no time scheduled to hear a motion form them (likely moving to dismiss).
That is why Wanderport Corp is not mentioned in the response to Gold
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=67185237

Any party that does not receive favorable decision to their motion, and the parties that did not request hearing, will advance to the next stages.

So, two months down the road we will know more of how deeply Andrew is in trouble, and also whether, and if so when, those prosecuting the allegations have the next step scheduled for all those continued under investigation, which at this point will include Wanderport in absence of the authorities willfully dropping the matter without hearing a motion to that effect from Wanderport's CA lawyer (who apparently does not exist).

It looks like this is going to hang over Wanderport and hence risk/reward assessments well into 2012.

Thanks so much for the effort and sharing. Looks like we are on hold until at least 2 months for this to (start to) get cleared up.
Not the news I was hoping for - - - and still no way of knowing how many shares are tied up in the cease trade orders against involved parties.

I (and others) have been saying repeatedly that the company is ignoring things, that it is listed equally as the others . . .
but it has been like swimming upstream. Sometimes the cheerleaders seemingly seeing me as a basher have so ignored this statement it felt like being in a vaudeville gig getting peanuts tossed at me.

No one needs to know French to look at that first, "Parties", box in the original and see the "comma separated list" which includes Wanderport Corp..
All of the doc have been this way. To me comma separated lists are naming a set each individually equally. Half this board has chosen to look past this fact.

The notice to all was done by posting to their (AMF's) website.
They did not call, email, mail Wanderport. They posted public notice.

Wanderport poo-poo'd us on the CC saying they were not involved, no need to do anything. Ditto the early PRs.

It could be, as some have mentioned, that the company is listed because Amyot was until quite recently listed as an officer of the company on OTCmarkets, or because of actions back in the Somervail (SP) days, or . . . But they need to look into it and see about the need to defend the company !!!!

Thanks for x-posting those articles.

In the second one I noticed

google finance had that same text until just very recently.
I believe it is from the prior corp, from which the shell was formed, and the company only became able to update it when they started the path toward becoming a fully reporting issuer

It is pretty hard to say what all the plans are it appears there are many different hands in that fire. But yes, infrastructure is a big deal, and the initial link posted describes the need to get rail established.
It appears the study for rail is targeting 2012 Q1 for study results.
http://www.businessweek.com/news/2011-09-14/transnet-sees-manganese-railroad-study-completed-by-february.html

That is not a bad article, not just outlining the small tonnage that may be hauled but also mentioning power issues. The study is about the feasibility of upgrading from 7 to 12 million metric tons per year, and that appears to not be exclusive to the Kalahari area.

It says Tshipi will be using diesel generators until 2013 and does not have any rail shipping slot contracts available until March 2013.

It also appears that they have a bigger refining issue to deal with, at least based on the general description of the deposits.
http://wwwu.edu.uni-klu.ac.at/mmessner/sites/rsa/kuruman/kuruman.htm

Isn't that a horrible background ? It appears there are lots of associated minerals, and this is not ferromanganese ore but does have associated iron deposits.

Also, note that this is not something new, the emphasis on it is new.
http://tinyurl.com/6a94oy5

in a super tiny nutshell . . .
the ore is crushed/milled then mechanical separation is used to divide the heavier from the lighter, and of the heavier some results from further separation as a meltable metal for pour, the rest as heavy concentrate needing smelting/refining. Of the lighter I think their plan longer-term is to perform cyanide leeching on that.

Exactly ! That is the question, along with its numbers.
The first pour we know is coming.
The prior concentrate shipment was from start-up in July through mid-Aug.
So I am looking for the next and its numbers to show continuity in production, that the first was not anomalous including residual from ore stockpiles, mill clean-out, etc..

When I posted it was bid 0.02 ask 0.03 with volume at 750 and had been since open, almost an hour and a half.

Agreed, seeing them actually filling orders would make this move, and at that point, without dilution I figure this could go to somewhere in the 0.25 area with irrational boosting above into mid 0.30s. But that is a very, very long road from here.

I did not say a PR about sales, or even ready to manufacture.
Remember, one or two units for final testing is far from manufacture start-up. What is the lead time on mold-making and delivery of the ceramic exchanger housings for one example.
A PR as I described will meet with lots of skepticism given the history of news-flow.

And to answer you on the why, for the same reason that I have followed WDRP on a near daily basis since fall of 2009, probably the same reason as yourself, the potential. We however differ in our present assessment of the risk/reward trade at the current moment. I am not worried about recovering my position very likely at less than I sold it for when the AMF junk was not being handled well by the company something over a month back.

In two years watching WDRP I don't recall a 0.01 bid/ask spread.
Apparently the markets are not as concerned about this bolting on a PR.
On the sidelines, but still around, and glad to hold this stance.
IMO the pool of potential investors are at this point so numbed by the company's behaviors that even a PR that the two (?) units exist, are in testing, and one will briefly be shipped to Dave M. for display at trade show X located in city Y on date Z would be greeted by a brief bang from the few dedicated longs, and then by a long slow yawn.

Well so far that was a pretty minor pat on the back from the markets.

Before the restructuring (which included acquiring the rest of Wellgreen) Prophecy Resources had held cycling in a 0.90 to 1.10 trading band.

Now not much has changed actually except time and the markets in general, further advancement of Mongolian projects, and giving out 45% of NKL/PNIKF. That last one seems big, but not really if it you counterbalance the retained 45% with how much lower Wellgreen was valued before the restructuring, with NKL/PNIK even dropping to the 0.60s-0.70s briefly after starting to trade.

So I have to ask, what is keeping this at this level ? The markets in general ?

If you like pure exploration risk, with good property and mgmt, and extremely tight share structure, this is now as close to a low pps as it has hit since going public. One has to figure that, being early to the party they had time to look around and choose their next property well before it was down to bidding on the scraps.

Well, I was an IT guy, oversaw a number of webserver machines virtualizing tons of sites, and have done/advised webdevs along the way, and even maintain my own website account to the day.

Piece Of Cake. For their current needs, very cheap for hosting (i.e $100s / yr), content $0 to as big as their dreams depending on their willingness/ability to work on it or buy into some great plan.

Fact of the matter is, as I thing EarnestDD or Lexit mentioned is that all new website efforts may have disappeared with the computers siezed from Amyoit (SP?) businesses.

If they wanted a website they could have had it long ago after the other was shut down from petty cash (do they have that?).

Hey, I didn't say anything like implied from

Nicely said Citrati, and Value . . . except it sounds way too much like some sort of eulogy - from the pictures of Larry I would think it better to see it as "a whole new level", "the next peak", the new commanding plateau sort of thing from which to seek new challenges and ventures.

That said, there is an economic wisdom to settling for less but much sooner with less effort and energy/time expended. For example, it does allow for more conquests in the same short lifetime.

imo the bigger catalyst than the first pour will be the announcement of mid-Aug to date production and shipment of concentrate.

Great point. The company probably has those levers available even without a shutter it up attempt, which would magnify as you point out.

It also gets me wondering if there is "approval" powers authored into the legislation the US has been coming up with so the gov has a yea/nay say over deals involving acquisitions of strategic resource providers. I had never thought to look at the legislation from that angle.

Interesting. HAT has come a long way from sub dollar since their bonanza (for U) announcements last mid-year. They must know more of what is there than the offer values appropriately.

I can definitely understand the attractiveness of staying in the successful "exploration and development" stage and avoid all the issues (and period of slow valuation change) of transforming into a producer.

I would expect Larry to do similarly as HAT may be and get some bidding war going if possible until an offer is too good to refuse, if that sort of thing happened with AMY. What the heck, can always just keep moving forward into production long-term profitability, which should only increase buyout pricetag (assuming expanding indicated resource, replenishment).

You two, FL girl and Wrinkles, have pretty much summed up my stance. Lots of air and samo samo time passed by, little change in sight. I really do not like playing from the sidelines, but have seen no reason to get into the game or for that matter to walk away and forget about it.

You would think they would be finding a way to PR if the news from the hearing did show they are not being furthered along to the next stage.
Of course, if Andrew is and they are not being continued into the next leg of this, they really could (should) not use their existing IR arrangement.

So, looks like they quoted the audio CD as it is cheapest (too bad they cannot rip mp3 and email). The cost is not much, but what is actually being covered and in what language (French I assume).

If there is any detail of the complaint(s) (more clear than that google translation of the findings detail) and who is under the magnifying glass for what, etc. the info would be cheap.

As I have said before even just knowing how many shares are locked up and for how long . . .

Well, there is that saying about a bird in the hand. And immediate sale would bring an immediate return, right? Sure, to investors not what the project to full term would, but there is that present value of future money thing, and other opportunities. It seems like your scenario would be a shareholder approval action, and it would have to make economic sense. The problem would be in knowing, to be out before the mothballing of the project, or to have decided the newco had a winning gameplan by shelving it.

So I think I see what you say. But I also have a hard time wrapping my head around the situation a company would be in to do that, that is, for it to be of benefit to them and also within their financial means. That said, there could be a lot (did I emphasize that enough?) A LOT of value in the IP for the process (but that all depends on how the patent apps are done to capture novelty, given how much prior art from the US Gov work back in the 40s era). But, yes, there could be that incentive. So you need a financially well-off newco that could afford to mothball the project and also see that the investment improved their bottomline. (And the buyout would need to value the IP appropriately.)
The eye of the needle is how narrow ? Don't know the answer myself. There are companies out there in the MN price/supply vs cost of production squeeze that are sitting on much larger MN resources. Makes you curiosity an interesting investor risk to consider, doesn't it?


No problem on the Scottrade info. It comes from Casey's Research list of brokers for CA
http://www.caseyresearch.com/brokers/
They say they question the claim, have not updated the list for a while, etc. and give a way to check out the claim in their writeup on issues about CA stocks
http://www.caseyresearch.com/pdfs/1260905364-ABCsofCanadianStockInvesting.pdf
If you ever do check it out for Scottrade would you let me know? I have been shopping for a better place to use some of my Roth funds for CA and ASX trades and it is a pretty narrow field of choices.

Do you mean buy it a) for the IP, the process, but use that elsewhere, and/or b) to get rid of a competitor; and in either case just keep the project property on ice ?

Wouldn't they need to be paying the NPV less cap ex of the project as determined by bankable feasibility, plus value of the IP, plus value of the other projects ? Surely that would be a fair gain from here.

Scottrade, from what I have read, says it buys on the Toronto exchange and just uses the OTC tickers for display.

OMG open 1.5 hrs now, ask below 0.03 and no takers yet

Some here are much less concerned over whether this product will come to market than concerned over by whom it will be brought to market.

Hi Tarquin, Focas ? did you mean Focus as in graphite? beem watching them and other graphite/graphene opportunities. I agree U really was killed off, I am sort of wondering if we have seen the last of it however as the way I am hearing things the story of the Japanese radiation release is in no way a fully open book at this point. Makes me cautious near-term, long-term looks like there are not a lot of alternatives so U and providers are underpriced. But right now what isn't underpriced if you believe in "recovery".

I like the optimism Larry showed in those recent comments about the AMY project is more exciting than any of his priors.

I have been looking lately and wondering whether AMY has researched in situ leeching of MN, thinking about the deep beds their wildcat holes saw, about the rapid leech recovery, and that it is only acidic water just as is already used in Arizona copper mining in situ processes.

Maybe for pinks the rules are different, but AIUI Gold is right, IR is supposed to be available to any potential or actual investor but is only supposed to dish out info that has already been publicly disclosed.