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.
Yep, long, long trip. But all the ups and downs gave me plenty of room to have a nice chunk of free shares that got sold within past month. I still miss that WDRP spot on my screens !! ! so long I had not noticed how used to having it there to monitor I had become.
Still hoping, but I do agree, most often with the rose smell leaves it is hard for it to return smelling a sweat.
Who is Bruno ??
Seems we have followed a similar path. I got this alias almost the same time as you yours, and by the name of yours, for the same reason. I have been in and out of this board as a lurker for around a year and half, mostly when the stock was doing one of its occasional dives, trying to reassure myself that it was just another opportunity. This time was different, hence I knew I'd need the alias, got it right away and introduced myself soon then. That is about where the similarity ends I guess, as I would like to ride this and see the product if it really "will" be life-changing, but I went on the sidelines in the slide from .06 to 0.4, figuring I can always get back in, and felt no problem exerting pressure up on the pps if the time came. Still watching with very bated breath.
Welcome and good luck charting your course.
We are not going to rehash this again, but this statement is just wrong
I would be surprised to see a product sold in an market before 2012 Q2 jmo but add up all the remaining engineering, parts lead time, mold making, etc and then distibution channel priming, and Q2 is moving fast.
Sure, agreed
Not Brian here, but a couple cents to toss in.
I thought that Wilke (sp?) was attorney for Wanderport in matters of representation to the OTC market.
The statement of authorized shares answers, partly, but does not outline how. Read the last sentence (from the Q2 unaudited filing)
After Sept 13 hearings, I wonder if it will be possible to find out the total of shares, percent of float, that is tied down in the accounts of those restricted from trading WDRP, and perhaps also those in the referenced network of individuals that would trade in concert during the manipulations.
That number seems large given the change to the recent low weekly volume (after the first few days or week from time the AMF news broke). Granted, weekly volume these past two weeks is high compared to a year ago, but it is quite low compared to most of 2011.
And, what happens to those shares when all is said and done?
Any action we could initiate, it seems to me, about cleaning up the company as shareholders from inside, would all be wasted effort if Robert in the end did not agree with the actions.
Look at it this way, Robert has had some funding support to evolve his concepts of this "product" and maybe has some future patent grants. He has contacts that appear to want to arrange production and handle distribution, on a number of continents. He has 60+% sharehold in a company to which he owes use of the IP developed. He has a company working with other products. He looks for most of the realized profit to be from royalty from units sold. He comes out smelling like a rose either way, with or without a surviving Wanderport, provided only that there is a viable product. Would he find it better to clean up the Wanderport ship and sail on within it? or watch it collapse while getting a much done on its dime as possible ?
It seems I recall the AMF saying that publication on their website was their means of notification (I see now Gold covered that). If so, why would anyone expect that they would call Wanderport ? That you did call them and got through shows how easily and inexpensively CEO Martel could have done the needed work to find out about the need to have Canadian representation, or not.
I am puzzled by your earlier statement
Yes, indeed - either way
I just want to install some MCMHU based point of use units that do not require a new wiring cost in the range of the units costs, and just maybe strike that against some of the gain from participation.
I don't really care the label on the units, or the licencee, just so I can follow along in an equity. But, speaking of which, Robert could easily oust the existing management but would have to put up significant fund to go after the float to take this private.
When I heard the good luck with that under CA law comment, first reaction then was "where is that coming from" and later was along lines of how unprofessional and what would CA law have to do with suing a DE corp anyway. The comment still seems a touch defiant.
I think, correct me if wrong, that mention of suite came in context of the corp not acting in best interest of the company, not acting to protect shareholder value i.e. by keeping Andrew. That would be a suite in DE not CA.
on a different front . . .
I noticed last night that the OTCmarkets company info for WDRP has been updated since July 21 so that it no longer lists three officers/directors, the mention of Jean-François Amyot as Director of Communication having been removed.
Man heading to a messy open again. Can't believe Au and Pt were both around 187x and battling for lead when I got up.
It is hard to say what they can accomplish on the month+ timeframe, but it seems to me that should certainly allow for verification of the processes with the sampled ores used. But it all depends. Does the hardware run into difficulty when they try to have it move a ton a day working 24/7, causing delay just for mechanicals? How many distinctly different samples are to be tested, or is it all with a homogenized, representative mix? etc. But given all works well, yes it would seem to me that is reasonable to getting results of the kinds they had indicated (especially if they have a portable chem instrumental lab handy for monitoring on site). There will without doubt be much room for dialing in refinements to the chemistry later, but it appeared that here the objectives are the big ticket uncertainties and initial values for thresholds on the solution chemistry, which I would guess they should be able to initially dial in with a 6 week timeframe. It is probably as much figuring flow rate of material between stages to hit optimum yield vs time as it is discovery of factors of the solution chemistry mentioned before.
Nay, if we get there with WDRP this will be one of those trying bumps on the road one looks back on, and remembers, always.
As I have said, I am troubled with management not having done all it can (should) to safeguard, even if just within budget call/email the Quebec authorities. Martel was asked if there had been contact and just said, more than once, no need, its about Andrew not us. A concerned CEO would be running defense, just in case. I am discounting that quick letter by the lawyer on OTCmarrkets - remember he was collecting info from the board that day about Andrew - did he contact anyone in Canada before that letter ? I doubt it. The letter surely did not make clear that it had been established and that Wanderport's (good) name had been mistakenly included.
I am split, vote for Owen or Dave M., but think I want to be fair and know more about what is passed up by jumping on the Dave wagon (even though he came across well in the CC). However, same basic sentiments. Management by one only works with a very, very insightful and experienced one.
Totally agreed, well maybe even a month or two. Clearly this latest failure in mutual understanding not long after Sept 13. It would be really nice to be back at talking water heaters and market penetration. Just too many concerns here on how the MCMHU based product line comes to market. If it does I plan to be there to assess if I am in for the ride
If Wanderport Corp. is only mentioned because the company is victim then the company would not be prohibited from trading the WDRP security, identically as are Andrew, Amyot, et al. Right ?
I mean one does not victimize the victim (although the wording headlined for the intial news surely did).
I have just not ever figured out how I read things so differently.
I think the timeline is that Wanderport (the shell) originated about when they could no longer play with the 3 companies mentioned in that piece you found. Very interesting read on methods of operation, etc.
http://cortellazzi.wordpress.com/
But your question gets us into the history of the origin of Wanderport via Jean-François Amyot, prior to Andrew finding and bringing Robert in to fill the shell and give it something to be.
Lexit gave a pretty decent summary of that starting from Cortellazzi and Amyot, Barry S. and Andrew, etc. some weeks back.
BTW your earlier post about how long the Pulsar effort has been happening, yes, for that long, and notice that whatever was original in that earlier effort is now all in the public domain.
Cortellazzi Consortium - Thanks !!
Great find, thx for sharing it
Those are great questions Brian, please share if Martel responds.
I cannot figure what Richard is getting out of this either.
Did he have shares but sold them all ? Are there unreported promises of future shares (are those still options except not formalized?). Just wondering out load. But if he had some and sold out, isn't he supposed to have filed a statement about the sale (and ditto for Andrew).
I have been trying to recall whether it was Robert or Richard that said during the CC "I am not concerned about the pps, right now my focus is in getting this to product" - a poor memory paraphrase - but without sitting through the CC again I am leaning toward that being from Richard M.
I do recall it was Robert that said - paraphrase - 'remember for me yes there are the shares but I am really looking to profit from the royalties on the units sold"
Sept 13 hearing: everyone prohibited from any transactions in WDRP seems to have asked for a hearing, except Wanderport Corp.
I am still not on board with how Martel defended the company not needing to do anything because it was all about Andrew. Tried to get them to say they had (and so get them to) checked with the authorities in Quebec concerning their need for representation, but got pooh-pooh'd. The company has been listed equally as has Andrew, Andrew's company, etc. all along. To me it is a matter of competence (lack thereof) that the company has not done everything that might be needed, just in case. Not happy with management here (all one of them) for this and other issues (all related to my perception on "fit for duty").
Totally my opinion. Share it with me
This is not bashing. This is discovery, idea sharing, part of dd.
bash the anti-bashers if you have to bash. jmo
released to public a couple days ago, for what it is worth (free)
The TMR Critical Rare Earths Report
http://www.techmetalsresearch.com/2011/08/the-tmr-critical-rare-earths-report/
Agreed those are big, as chemist I see some other very important ones, so
this is all getting confused, seems to me
UL will do two things, efficiency testing and safety testing/certification
Impression I had was first of these ongoing, prototype and final units as they get designed, but second of these, safety/certification only happens with production design units (i.e. as sold).
That is for the US (North American?) market.
Dave M mentioned that he had a number of independent labs that are ready to do testing before he does any marketing, and that there would also be field tests.
They said they might form marketing agreements and get sales going earlier in locations where UL testing was unimportant, with the mention of Arab countries. Mention was made that some places did not have standards, and other did but the certification is quicker.
I would have to imagine that the Aussie's and the EU may have a way that the UL work is accommodated into their certification process, but I heard nothing of getting things going in the EU or Australia except that production of Owen's units would be pretty much guided by Owen's experience in the region and who he felt best about working with.
--- just my recollection - take a listen for yourself ----
Speaking of that new (July) PowerPoint deck that had this milestne list for 2011, did anyone notice, or could anyone make sense for me, of the financial models on slide 11, specifically I can't figure, is it a typo, how the right column at 500,000 TPY has a lower IRR (80%) but has a shorter payback. I am guessing the lower IRR is due to the greater cap ex, so it is not as simple as saying more annual production faster payoff (besides to pay off more in shorter time would mean higher IRR right?) I am thinking the IRR of 80 is a typo.
Those number were all pretty nice however, cap ex was less than I had imagined and paybacks in approx 1 yr are rarely seen.
ref to deck is:
http://www.amydata.com/data/Powerpoint/AMY_JULY8_2011.pdf
I think you did mean turn-key but sometimes we say insightful things despite what we intended
So you ended in asking
How did the CC originate anyway ? Too many posts to read as is to go back over those from yesterday morning.
Did someone hear ask them to do this, or did they contact someone here saying we want to do this will you post this announcement ?
(I know, go look for yourself - thx)
I have just caught up on posts since my early morning time on the board. Some comments :
< IMHO ON >
Why did they want our "coordinates" info ? My first email did not have my address or phone, just my state of US. Richard emailed back asking my phone. I ended up using a different phone to call after I saw it was a toll call, but no problem from the different number.
Leaves me wondering WT* was that about ?
I have the same feeling as others expressed this morning, Andrew seems in charge, with much following of Robert's lead. Martel does not impress me relative to business acumen, and at this stage of company potential transition, this does not give me a warn and fuzzy. I am used too an IR guy that introduces and then steps back and let's his employers take over, stepping in only when some moderating is needed (or to remind of the mute button on phones)
There was new material info provided. If nothing else I asked about the $4.7 million accrued deficit and received new info. Also there was mention of operations being sustained from private loan(s) iirc from distributor(s). I would imagine someone hear having a recording to post does not satisfy their imposed need to play fair by providing full public disclosure, ey?
Can someone relinquish a Canadian patent ? and then it gets wiped out of the CA patent database ? It sounded as if the co-held patent at time of original agreement between Robert and Wanderport would be the same as involved in the international coverage application we know was withdraw. But yes, good point, if it did exist and as Robert said it was abandoned then should it not be discoverable ?
On AGM and BOD, someone posted quote from wikipedia was it that all states require an AGM. I can appreciate the comments in the CC that Robert dominates, and that they had not held an AGM because of the costs involved. All the same, where is this heading if management does not play by the rules ? Impromptu CC with new material info ? No required ownership participation ?
I was not at all happy about the response from Richard that Wanderport the company did not need to do anything, that the AMF was all and only about Andrew. Asked if they had done anything to confirm that they did not need to do anything, I got the feeling the response was of course not why should we it is all about Andrew. But that is not how I see it. They could at least make some inexpensive calls and emails to verify their interpretation is correct, but they have apparently not done that.
Oh, btw, why would Canadian law be involved with an investor law suite against an American corp. ?
So, CC left me feeling better about a product, but did not impoove my concerns as to whether it will be Wanderport that brings it to market.
< IMHO OFF>
Gold, after your phone died Robert did respond on
Foolish assumption on my part, but I have assumed that the apparent focus on the patented land is with early revenue stream in mind as the total permitting process has few involved agencies.
Not sure I see the problem. And, I assume you mean negative criticism . . .
Finally I have read through the post-CC posts here.
OK - up front, jmo, imo, IMHO etc. applies to all below
Confirmed - Martel did say he does not own WDRP shares
Confirmed - the 30m float that came out earlier '11 was said to be from Sommervail
Confirmed - Andrew answered that he had sold WDRP shares, then in followup he first said yes, then realized need to be more clear, and said he had not traded WDRP, but the he also needed to support his family (i.e. I took as reference to sale)
Note: detractors can/will say that can be true but his company could have . . .
I absolutely loved the fact that Dave found it important for him to take the time to be in on the call, all 1.5+ hours of it. His clarity of confidence did not go unnoticed.
Robert was Robert, no change there. I guess most everyone here has had a decent impression of him and his efforts and intentions all along. I am still willing to assess implications that Wanderport might end up with product without patent protection. What is not done is not done, right? Patent grants are needed for the company to have a leg up more than from time to market.
Andrew and Richard . . . A number of people here would probably prefer I not say this . . . I was disturbed at how a number of times when there were questions directed to Mr. Martel, or that one would expect to fall into his camp, the voice handling the answer was Andrew's, sometimes ending in such as Anything to add to that Richard?.
There were direct questions to Mr. Martel, about the plan for moving WDRP (the security) to the next level (QX I assumed) and about bussiness plan into the future (marketing, production, etc.) and I definitely did not come away with the feeling that I was hearing from a seasoned businessman or that there has been much in the way of forward looking analysis and strategy. (remember folks, jmo . . .) The one time I did "feel" Richard in his response was when he said *(paraphrase "") come on, remember we are just some R & D guys trying to move this to product on a shoe string" Nothing new there, but in that answer I did not hear him stumbling over how to respond as seemed to me the case in other of the few times he spoke.
Timelines: The impression I had was parts soon, a week to assemble prototype from the parts, then UL needs time for both roles, safety testing/certification and efficiency testing. I did not get any concept of the UL timeframe, and once I had impression that safety certification could not actually start with the prototype but needed a unit as would be produced. Just how I heard it.
I was left half-way thinking they were going to license production of units to the distributors, and half-way thinking some production would be under Wanderport contract probably in Asia.
Maybe someone can fill in some blanks on that for me ?
From having a product unit, again no timeline that I heard, then Dave clearly indicated that field testing and independent lab testing, was necessary, as he explained it the last thing one could want to happen is to have a recall needed after the product introduction started. So more time. Then possibility for foreign marketing in parallel with completion of UL certification.
Dave said he intended marketing / PR efforts via his outlets / website. If I had to guess I would be looking at sale mid-1012 earliest. IMHO as a guess.
OK so I tried to cover what I had not seen in the posts up to now, what I had seen but with expressed uncertainty, and what my impression was.
All in all, Wanderport should have done this three weeks ago !!!
I still have reservations (go to market without IP protection ? how to fund production/distribution etc., at what ccst ? oh, and at what cost the private loans they mentioned saying they were not free to discuss, etc)
. . . but I am feeling much more like I did while holding long position for over a year . . . just not quite back there at present.
Cheers
PR guys being active in the boards does not seem to be unheard of on iHub. I've only been exploring iHub under a month and already two boards have regular presence of their IR and identified as such.
On a shoe sting indeed seems like a no brainer, as long as the IR person knows what lines cannot be crossed (not yet public), but heck even then with Google search appearing to cover all iHub posts an arguyment might be made that the boards are a means of dissemination to the public.
In the WDRP case however, at least for now, it would probably be best if it were someone other than Andrew.
Scottrade claims that it does exactly as you speculate, at least according to the review of brokers for trading CA shares by Casey's Research
C:\Data\Finance\Research\CaseyResearch\Casey Research Brokers Review.htm
Another EOD pps killer for the AMY ticker today
So, on Value's comment about AMY vs AMYZF volume isn't it true one needs to remember sales to/by a retail investor of AMYZF can often show up as a volume change under both tickers ? depending on whether a change in total number of actual AMYZF issued happens. Seems it happens very frequently with some thin securities.
Hi Value, thx for the clarification (and re-posted material, always into a good geological read).
I guess I was being too Aristotelian, the old law of the excluded middle, something either excludes or includes. I question whether warrant exercise could cover the rest (what is that 10% or 99%) of the cost, but a feasibility study is not cheap and as I last looked there are not that many options/warrants with near-term expiration, although there are a number in the money if someone really needed.
So not knowing how big of a "start" is in budget I in reading (hence remembering) err on the conservative. While on the topic, it looked like option/warrant overhang could be a pps depressor for some time, iirc a couple years, not a pps killer by any means, but not insignificant either.
Even with good deep penetrating mapping of paleosurfaces, one issue is that heavies, black sands, etc. seek the lowest points to accumulate. With that in mind I liked but discounted the wildcat findings. Encouraging, yes. Discouraging, maybe - all depends, it seems to me, on how the paleosurfaces can be understood over time to locate higher depressions imo.
But, that $7 million on hand and its coverage is good to hear.
I came to this story from my screens for new AZ project startups, and watched quite a while before getting in (darn) but agree.
However, I do think there has been over the past 6-12 months a widening awareness of "strategic" or "critical" resources developing with those first awakened by the rare earth story. That momentum is already there and building.
One thing I very much liked in the new drill release PR is the statement at the end that the $7 million cash on hand is sufficient for most of the known to me activities up to (excluding) feasibility study. That was good news, included pilot plant studies and pre-feasibility.
I am taken two directions by the wildcat holes. I am glad they were done to establish the alluvial fans in the other directions are resource bearing. It always seemed probable that there would be numerous other pipes buried in the deeper sediments. And some of the intersections are very nice by grade. Where I am not too excited is the depth, amount of overburden. All the same those few holes are indicative that widespread decent grade layers are likely of the area, just too be seen if they are economic, i.e. is depth uniformly so deep ?
Still value territory, just hard to assess how the general markets might drive things in the coming weeks, imo.
I could not agree more, particularly on the long-term outlook here. I had seen the holdings elsewhere while researching PCY but it was their presence with results in Mongolia that drew me to them.
While I had not heard of the possible IPO in Hong Kong that is great news, not just for exposure to an investor base more aware of the growth and modernization of the investment environment in Mongolia, but that also potentially answers one of my concerns with PCY, namely funding as they ramp up. There is the cost of the power plant, the electric lines, the rail spur, the initial overburden strip, further mine fleet expansion, etc.. Granted, they seem on the way to developing offtakes to build revenue stream, but a faster pace would only improve positioning in the evolution going on in Mongolia.
The company seems to have pretty good relations with the government agencies, even though they were not in the recent grants to the major coal bed (Mongolia seems to be trying to spread their risk and the rewards). The timeframes within which they have been granted resource licenses and especially the permits for moving on the second coal bed and electric plant are amazingly fast by world standards.
IIRC the direct stake retained in Prop. Pt. is 45%, but it is actually a little higher as PCY holds something like 10% of Victory Nickel, which in turn holds 10% of PCY and did before the Prop. Pt spin-out. I have not seem anything of either reducing their mutual holdings. So I guess that raises PCY direct + indirect ownership of Prop. Pt to 46%. If this stake in Prop. Pt is retained then we have three active forces to push the pps here: the Prop. Pt value growth, the coal business in Mongolia, and the development as a (the?) major electric supplier to the Mongolian region.
The only thing that bothered me most in the dd arena on this is that I have not seen where there are downsides, beyond the common need for more capital. The demand in the Mongolia area is going to be insulated from general world economic downturn, governed much by regional momentum.
Cheers, still picking up more on punishing days here.
Well, first off I am not conversant in French and so have had to puzzle through the Google translations also.
Second, you are correct, being named, and being called to defend self are different.
But IIRC the AMF doc named Wanderport the company (and its directors, employees, etc.)and blocked them each from trading in WDRP shares, but then that the subsequent body in Quebec listed a long list of defendants, including financial institutions, Wanderport Corp., Andrew, etc..
So I do not know who the "we" is that you closed speaking on behalf of, but I would suggest that you review that second mentioned (French / spotty translation) doc, from around 3 weeks ago, and for that matter look at the one lexit posted today.
In all of these as far as I can see the charges are not detailed, but every entity seems to be spoken on in one stroke as alleged to have attempted manipulation of WDRP (the security).
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66202460 and then follow the included link
excuse me immensely for not putting an imo or jmo
seemed rather obvious
But it is true that Wanderport the company has been named all along, called upon to defend itself, but all "news" from the company seems to make them believe it is entirely Andrew's problem. Wrong.
And yes, to say "this board" has been blind to that fact is over-generalization, so make that, many on this board have been, even to the point of repeatedly claiming Wanderport is not in need of defense.