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.
A right's offering at above market price?
I have been in rights offerings before, and they always were for shares discounted to market price.
Does EXS really expect to sell new shares at a 58% premium to what they are going for on the open market today?
What will it look like when the rights offering fails?
IMO this is a terrible mess and a big mistake on the part of EXS.
Tying a 5-1 rollback with the offering, with the industry history of rollbacks causing significant loss of equity value, and then asking people to pay a premium to loose the money in the rollback?
That it appears there is an attempt to get this done before the latest NI 43-101 needs to be filed also does not give me a warm and fuzzy.
How far will 10 million go in new exploration ? What will be explored? More super long holes at multiple 100k each again, or?
Am I being asked to pay 60% above market, then take a rollback haircut, all in order to fund some plan about which there is and will be zero information provided on which to decide?
What were they thinking ?
Can anyone explain that, explain what I am not seeing ?
no summary of KC effort, no update on East Bay drilling, . . .
International Northair Completes Surface Access and Rights Agreements at the La Cigarra Silver Project, Mexico
Sept 11, 2013
http://www.internationalnorthair.com/s/news.asp?ReportID=602693
Latest INM corporate presentation
http://www.internationalnorthair.com/i/pdf/Presentation/presentation.pdf
19.4% ownership of INM by Coeur Mining, (formerly Coeur d’Alene Mines) following closing of placement in July 2013.
International Northair Mines Closes Oversubscribed Private Placements for $1.8 Million
http://www.internationalnorthair.com/s/news.asp?ReportID=594196
Be very cautious about any conclusions from an analysis based on cash costs per ounce. Arguments based on the new guidelines for a (nearly) uniformly defined "all-in sustaining cash costs" are better, but one must still adjust these. Arguments using cash costs per ounce can be close to meaningless, there is so much cap ex and costs of the company omitted.
Not trying to cast doubt on PVG, just on some views expressed in that article.
JMO
Ha - dateline on that article, Dec 27, 2010, not quite two full months after I left my job and locked the office door for the last time Not a single regret.
I am continuously surprised at this ignorance repeated over and over and over
what's to be said? isn't it all pretty much in how the financing market and cobalt demand evolves ?
why was there never anything more than "THE" test unit ?
sounds like they need to figure out engineering some simple circuits better, or hold Design 1 to the task, before attempting to offer anything with a guarantee . . . 3 out of 4 ruined because operated when not adjusted ?
I am aware of both the meaning and the legal application.
It is for that reason that I stated there is no (zero) importance due to a ruling in Wisconsin about the misapplication of Wisconsin procedures as establishing a precedent of any importance or application under Minnesota law.
"Not yet" ! More like "Not ever". Go back and look at WDRP PRs, back around and in the year after the single cavity device was supposedly completed but then abandoned in favor of the nulti-cavity design. Those PRs were clearly setting up for the eventual admission that they would be able, at best, to license the "heat engine" for use but would not be able to bring out a total-cost-of-ownership successful or competitive consumer household water heater, whether point-of-use or whole-house.
Well, that last one is from Minnesota, but I fail to see how the Wisconsin ruling establishes anything relative to the Duluth Complex in Minnesota.
and this relates to Duluth Metals how ?
Today marks the start of a long, long wait in Wanderport-land
Nothing to move WDRP +++ in how long ?
Hard to say on both AG near future and on ranges for AU. I have not watched and tried to determine settings for algorithmic behavior in AU, some because for my first couple decades in the game AU was out of range except as a buy and hold reserve whereas AG was in range to adding/liquidating (pre-ETF days mind you) but mostly as AG has such exaggerated volatility (opportunity). The ranges you conjecture are certainly familiar, but it would take careful tracking to fine-tune ranges, bands, and thresholds. With silver the frequency of "spikes" is higher, which are a main factor in this whole thesis. Something similar is as you guess probably discoverable in AU but I guess with signals not as easily discerned and also not as percentage-wise large or frequent (?) plays (although I will admit to mostly playing this "info (?)" for moves between ranges than oscillations within a range).
(Why is there a mid-morning 10 minute spurt of apparent not-for-profit selling chopping $0.50/oz off the price? why when "demand" has been floating the price consistently around that half-buck higher mark all morning, and returning it just as quickly as it spiked down? Once or twice I could chalk to random behavior of the market attempting to be rational and efficient - yea, right - but repeatedly? I just have not noticed this with AU enough to conjecture.)
It is imo worth noting that the Friday close did take AG to the space between the low (23) subbands, albeit barely, since much of Friday was spent in the lowest subband and bumping along the low edge of A (23.3), so we had a week starting with falling from the upper side of A to just maintaining A but showing some resistance to giving up the 23.4-23.7 "home ground" despite living mostly around the bottom of A. Seeing the week - if the cusp stuff does not perturb trading too much - tend to A center, at least as you see on the up side of 23.8 would imo solidify the hold on A and making moves to or penetrating an A edge reinforce the "planning" cost testing idea for a push that way when market psychology plus stops/triggers profile is ripe.
JMO
Very much so . . . the world is still at a cusp, and it is looking like it will dangle there. The debt limit must be dealt with in the remaining month and half approx of this session of congress, and oil now seriously toys with putting the brakes on the US consumer economy, coupled with the increase in interest rates in anticipation of QE tapering slowing whatever lending was happening and promising to raise the US annual deficit perhaps enough to show the looming ballon . . .
Oil's braking of consumer confidence and behavior, as well as business activity and hiring as costs spiral higher, combined with a downturn in the housing market data and the phony joblessness data, etc. will very possibly give the Fed room to put very much flex into QE, possibly even some intermissions of "negative tapering" (yes, you heard it here first!) under claim of slow-down in the employment data but actually under need to reduce the interest expense of the US Gov and to fill the gap in demand for Treasuries with them withdrawing.
So the cusp looms.
This week the rabbit looked timid. While it held the A range it showed more signs of dropping back than of moving on, or for that matter even of holding the range. I counted 3 significant penetrations to below A and the highest I noticed was one test of the uppermost subband (24.7) from below without touching it. Most of the time was oscillating around the mid of the lower subrange of A (23.4 - 23.7) with forays lower.
I here watch for anomalous spikes testing the leverage money spent to move the market has, i.e. how weighted stops are that can be triggered, etc.. My theory is that they play leveraged, much as the ETFs, so if they can push down into the sub 22 area for a bit before allowing the upward pressure to let thing settle back to mid A to upper A, that is an extra 3 to 5% on millions in day or two, more if it tumbles lower should there be a break downward.
IMO the past few weeks have shown there is no problem with silver catching a rising wind, and I would imaging the resistance to be seen between the A and the B when the move happens would not be hard to overcome. So, it is a matter of timing and of how many "milkings" happen before A is history to the upside.
Between "the cusp" and the ability for "them" to draw a semi-daily 10% by oscillations where things have been this past week, it will be an interesting week - and the first "full" week after a couple brief and end of summer away weeks. I will be watching to amount of time spent on which side of the mid of A - if things don't break one way or the other. Lots of powder sidelined here in the meantime.
Cheers
good to see there are one or two willing buyers left - ha
KAM is in that rare group of explorers that can raise funds without offering warrants (in this or prior placements) and also that seems to build resource value beyond the cost of the field work (of the dilution).
EXS does not have a chance (and never did) at increasing shareholder value net of the placement dilution while attempting to slowly build ounces with kilometer long drill holes no matter who was managing . . . well, unless those holes hit bonanza length time grade intercepts.
buying op ? someone wake me up after new years.
Thanks TT, I suppose that will slightly delay the resource update that was to have been late this year, but as for sake of more assay inclusion I can live with that. Nice to see a company that does not need to add in warrants in its placements.
ha - if Pebble ever finds its way through the environmental/species protection swamp it has been stuck in
We have new "latest news from Wanderport" which maybe needs to be stickied as the newest latest news, for whatever it is worth.
These magical drivers however were apparently, well at least the ones used in the testing at Intertek were apparently adjustable. Remember the PR about them having to be recalibrated ? Not sure how that happens without them being adjustable. Then again, given how a monkey experiments trying to get an idea, perhaps they finally figured out they could not get calibrated and so the need for new ones (need as far as recalibration was needed that is).
Whatever. I do not see the PR as negative either.
I do see WDRP behavior that way however.
It is so simple to say, although the testing was completed at Intertek and appeared to indicated positive results, it was determined that prior to retesting the drivers needed to be replaced because . . .
The lack of transparency combined with how what WDRP has stated appears as a 2 + 2 that does not add up to 4 is a negative.
jmo
I call it real, even true, but you see it as negative, it is what it is imo due to how WDRP is and so you see it as it is.
This is not the update I wanted, which needed to include why the working unit (per PR of tests at Intertek) apparently was not working (per need to make all these modifications).
If this PR fits the pattern imo the prediction of 2014 is accurate.
News: imo this PR is only because of the talk about going after them, imo this PR say nothing except to expect continued delay until at least 2014 (given problems with blizzards, etc.)
As was just asked, as it has been repeatedly before, why is the replacement of the drivers needed in the first place . . . we were told the darn thing worked well at Intertek and it was only a data-logging issue that went wrong.
Next thing to expect is that the new magnetrons, once delivered in late December, will cause some kind of problem with the chamber such that it once more is unable to withstand the rigors of municipal water pressures.
Sheesh - does it never end?
No disclosure as to why all this cause for new seemingly endless delay is needed! WDRP: have your ears been closed?
Don't you have all the proof you need already assembled in the database of PR's and the trail of unfulfilled claims of what is, something most people would call lies, that those PRs hold ?
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/WDRP/filings
So here is the part I don't understand . . .
If Malmyzh is supposed to be so huge then why did Freeport-McMoRan option off a controlling interest (51%) in Sept 2009 to Fortress Minerals, with no back-in provisions, for a total option cost of $10,000 cash and 12,000 meters of drilling after having worked on the property for 3 years from 2006 on ?
Also unclear is why, after completion of the 12,000 meters of drilling, Fortress Minerals sold in Dec 2010 its 4 remaining properties in far eastern Russia, including Malmyzh and two Cypriot holding corporate structures for only $500,000 cash.
Somehow this does not sound like a find of a lifetime.
So what is your take on this?
Brd has been very quiet. I am just hoping it is the effort winding up the spring
You may be interested in a post I am elsewhere today, marking the death throws of Fire River
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=91651311
back ey? pretty good job (apparently) cheating only once
I am likely not your author, but consider anything I post here contributed either in concept of word.
Here is the thing, I got stuck at
" it isour belief that not providing this information would . . . "
which is the sort of area where I turn adversarial to the point of appearing confrontational, etc. which likely would not be good in this case - but my patience was getting very short with WDRP over a year and a half (or more) ago, and my patience broke and totally disappeared around a year ago.
IMO they are incompetent putx's with whom I would struggle to seem polite. I would just as soon give Bubba a call.
except diluting is not the only way to profit from a scam listed company
Mining News: Fire River shutters Alaska gold mine
Mining News North of 60
Vol. 18, No. 34 Week of August 25, 2013
http://www.petroleumnews.com/pntruncate/613336972.shtml
And yet today a double bagger in one day on the OTC, up 214% on 60k volume
go figure
and there is this bit of info from the article that I do not recall ever seeing in a disclosure from the company
ask why the patent applications are not being kept up to date, i.e. fees not paid, requests for reviews not filed