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.
Agree the market isn't giving any reason to hold shares.
But, look at a two month daily chart of SLV and a two month daily chart of USGIF ?
Silver bottomed on Nov 2nd and has reversed... worth noting that miners didn't react on the trend changes for another two weeks...
USGIF isn't the only miner that has trended down with the commodity, or in an exaggerated reflection of it, and then not followed it higher again in the reversal... but, most of those I follow have "leveled off" from mid Nov, with the second leg in the rise in PMs underway, rather than continue lower as USGIF has...
HL and CDE ?
CDE is a least nominally higher after 16 Nov... but, fair to say it's leveled off rather than doing more.
Both USGIF And HL bounced higher mid November... but HL held the bounce... while USGIF is now trading below the point it was where the bounce began...
IMO, that's the sort of "divergence" in performance of a specific issue you should pay attention to...
I've still not seen what looks like an adequate "market based" explanation for the patterns that are apparent in trading in mining stocks...
It may be that the manipulation of metals prices... is only the tip of the iceberg in the market manipulations that are occurring ? Timing issues in trading in the metals prices versus trading in shares might be amenable to a bit of statistical analysis... which might show some market leverage being extracted through derivatives trades exploiting the forced gaps in timing differentials ?
Derivatives are the 800 pound gorilla... that no one wants to talk about... and the vaunted "transparency" requirements of Dodd Frank still don't seem to have made it important for the media to ever actually talk about what does actually "make" the markets ?
Bonds dwarf stocks... in both dollar terms and influence...
But, the risk in and trade in derivatives dwarf everything else...
So, I think there's an argument to be made about miners...
I don't think that argument provides any viable explanation for the divergence between USGIF and other miners...
Yes, this is an ugly market... and it might get uglier... soon... all of which is only more of a reason to be careful in the quality of what you hold...
Things that aren't performing "on par" with comparable issues in the markets now... might give you a reason to pause and consider why that is... ???
Yeah... the jury is out... and they're not coming back.
I have a similar argument with others often enough...
Where I find a $10 value that is trading for $0.25... what should my interest as an owner, prospective owner, or prospective former owner be... ?
The answer is always obvious to me. When I own a $10 value, what I paid for it when I bought it isn't ever the point in how I should address my interest in what I own. My interest is in having the value be realized for my benefit, and my interest is in having the value grow. If I'm not ever going to realize that $10 in value I see... then, clearly it isn't worth $10 ? The issue isn't one of "the trade"... but of the fundamentals that will be driving the future successes... or not.
Once upon a time... I bought shares in an junior oil company for $0.25 because I saw what it owned was worth $10, and more. About two years later, the management agreed to a deal in which they forced holders out in return for a cash payment of $5... while management took jobs with the new owners, at exorbitant salaries, exceeding what the buyers own management were being paid.... which stunk like dead fish. So, I got my $5 and was pissed off... when others were thrilled just to have made such a "lucky" trade... ?
I was right, of course. Five or six years later, the buyer was trading over $100 a share, mostly on the basis of the value in the assets I'd been forced to surrender to them for $5...
So, the DD checklist that results, not without the benefit of other experience (not all equally as "positive"):
1. Can you trust management ?
2. Are the assets solidly connected to the shares ?
3. Are the assets real, valuable, and a realizable value ?
It's not like I'm making up some new set of concerns just to apply it here... rather than applying the same old rule set as I apply in considering any "opportunity"... that is the same rule set I applied in considering USSIF at $0.03 to $0.05 a share in late 2008 and early 2009. What I consider hasn't changed. What I have to consider in looking at USGIF now... very clearly has...
The value of the assets isn't ever the first thing that matters.
Tough markets often and bad management always means assets will be significantly "undervalued"... and they will tend to become more undervalued over time as the quality of management effort declines... because the pricing of value always includes a consideration of the risk in the potential for future realization of the value... or not... a big part of which is that things that have value... are always appealing to other people, too, many of whom would like to steal the value for themselves.
Reality is that there isn't ever much standing between the value we can see and others ability to rationalize their theft of it... other than their personal integrity.
I trusted Parker... and he earned and deserved that trust.
I don't trust Sprott... or those he's brought in to manage the company now, under a plan clearly intended to benefit himself at our expense... because he's proven to me that he IS focused on benefiting himself unjustly at others expense... while enabling others with the same focus.
USGIF fails step one in the basic DD checklist... and that means it IS worth less than it would be if there weren't a reason for that lack of trust that does exist...
The new guys... have started off badly... and have a LONG way to go to restore basic trust...
They don't appear to value others ownership as much as they value their ability to take what others own...
That's a "red flag" issue...
FWIW, I also think the "vote" stunk... and I don't trust it...
There's something "not quite right" about what's been happening here... including the listing issues...
I'll agree with others that any renewed effort in a buyout... will likely find more willing support now, where it was lacking before...
No question "the assets" here are worth way more than they're priced at by the market now... but, that's not saying the market has it wrong... its just the market adjusting for the "issues" being imposed by the cadres of thieves who've been working at pillaging our assets... taking more for themselves ?
Yeah.
The only problem with "the argument that the Tmob system of autoswitching does not include what Calypso is claiming the patent covers"... is that CLYW's seminal patent does include what they're doing.
They've tried to pretend their way out of it... by simply choosing to ignore the fact in what their system does depends on... expecting that if they ignore their own assumptions, it means they're not dependent on them... and maybe others will ignore them, too ?
It's fatuous.
Actually, to be more correct about what contains what... we should note instead of "the Tmob system of autoswitching does not include" what Calypso is claiming... the issue is that the Tmob system of autoswitching "is fully included by and within" the CLYW claims. CLYW owns the concept. TMob might have some refinement of what they do within the context of what CLYW owns...
They knew at the time they made their choice, that the choice of tactics used in claiming they'd avoided any application of '923... depended on winning that (obviously bogus) argument that they just lost. Maybe that well enough explains, all by itself, their reluctance to accept what the judge has said ?
Actually, no, I don't think my posts here are being ignored.
A quick glance at a chart suggests that few are willing to ignore the facts that do matter most, to focus instead on only a particular portion of what matters.
Assets being solidly attached to a share... always matters vastly more than what the assets are.
I read an article, earlier today, addressing investments in Africa, where there is a basic commodity mine under development, already funded by equity committed by the company doing the work, and by loans they'd taken against equity and assets... to the tune of a couple hundreds of millions of $. And, then, the host country government decided it would be a good idea to impose a new requirement, retroactively, that all permitted mining projects must provide a 35% equity stake for the government. Of course, "can't get there from here" is the result. The investment, years of effort, and the loan value have been destroyed, the equity has been savaged, and that's a mine that was going to happen... that probably can't, now...
"Takings"... thefts of value that should be attached to the shares... tends to have that impact.
And, how is what's just happened here any different ?
The whole "I'll take 30% of what you own up front, and in return, promise to make actual investors happy later"... doesn't wash.
I've never had a problem with the asset quality, here. I've had issues in the past with management sloth in addressing proper effort in fleshing out the value of the assets... have criticized USSIF for too little effort in exploration, and for a lack of proper focus in the exploration effort... Now, we're seeing the results of change that has them addressing that concern. But, even that issue of focus on developing a proper vision of the nature and extent of the assets... is WAY less of a concern than the basic issues in seeing that "assets ARE attached to the shares"...
I've been very direct in addressing the change in management as both an indicator of and a source of problems.
I didn't need the new management to tell me USSIF had good assets... and they sure don't deserve to own 30% of the assets based on nothing but promises of future performance...
The issue here is not that shareholder "don't" trust management... it is that shareholders have very good reason to KNOW that they can't and shouldn't trust a management that has severed the basic connection between the value of the assets and ownership of a share... as their first act...
They don't respect YOUR ownership... and, that isn't going to get better. They stole from you once... and they will again...
"I'm guessing we would need to raise about 200 million. This is not bad at all considering" Market Cap (intraday): $113.18M ???
The problem with the lack of trust... isn't a function of investors error in questioning the bogosity of recent events...
"new loans?"
They will be pissing away your equity...
"The plan" here is not one that enables investors in succeeding.
They have control over a profitable mine... and are going to be doing everything they can to ensure that doesn't matter...
It's "more of the same" in the planned "take down"...
Or, you could simply note that cell phones aren't sentient ?
LOL!!!
The point from Woops' prior post was somewhat in error in noting that the CLYW attorneys most recent inputs appeared that they well agreed with what I described in relation to distance calculations.
The more relevant point appears it is that the judge and his expert understood something much like what I presented, and they crafted a definition that appears similar to and fully consistent with that understanding... or, at least, one that is similar to and not at all inconsistent with it.
The recent statements from the CLYW attorneys appear they address a different subject and issues other than what I addressed in relation to my opinion of the issues in the math, in how you do distance calculations, what constitutes a use of distance, and what constitutes infringement and what does not when you consider "the math" the way I did.
Now, the judge has said what the language means...
I think his opinion is considerably better and more technically correct than what was offered to him by the attorneys from either side...
But, the meaning of the language has been decided, now, and that leaves us addressing a situation in which that bit of language addressing the math is no longer the issue, or the only issue.
What the CLYW attorneys more recent statements are addressing... appears to be a completely different subject than what I'd covered in considering the math issues. And, it appears that their recent statements address what looks to me like it is a difference that is a matter of law that will of needs be addressed at trial, rather than addressing an ongoing effort still seeking a re-definition of the language ?
The T-Mobile attorneys statements, on the other hand, appear to remain focused on efforts intended to enable them in re-litigating aspects of the language usage issues... still trying to establish new meanings through others acceptance of their purposeful misuse of language... even after the judge has said what the language means.
I agree with others posting that the CLYW attorneys appear they clearly "get it" and have earned a solid pat on the back.
I'm not quite sure yet what I should make of the apparent frustration or confusion apparent on the T-Mobile side... and I'm reluctant to read too much into that at this point.
I don't think the puzzle is that hard. So, maybe it's just an effort in posturing... bad theater... or, maybe they're just out of new ideas, at the moment... Maybe it's nothing other than that they were honestly hoping to be able to win the ability to make the language addressing these things be more confusing, thus making the puzzle harder than it is... ?
My gut tells me that what I'm seeing there is perhaps consistent with what I've tended to see in other situations when the attorneys doing the work have not been quite as fully or properly informed by their clients as they might be...
How that potential might play in relation to the impact of the rulings on discovery... ?
I think the judge ruled in a way that he intended to narrow the focus to "the case before him"... and can't fault him for that bit of economy.
I don't see anything in the current situation that suggests any reason that we'll not proceed... so, we should have a couple more months to mull those other things over while waiting for trial to start...
So, in other words, that 20% potential price increase in gold... will cover 2/3 of the recent "takings" imposed on USSIF holders... and maybe three years from now "the market" will have wiped out that loss of value being suffered. But, of course, prices might go up, and they might go down... we'll have to wait and see what happens over the next two years...
That's also the issue with the focus in the shift in the communications effort we see demonstrated here again today. Three years ago, the company succeeded in its efforts and then reported its accomplishments after the fact... and, now, what we're seeing are a whole lot of promises being made in forward looking statements... that may or may not ever happen.
That is obvious in the effort today to use a handful of holes to project some future potential... which required including the disclaimer pointing out there are no resources or reserves defined by the holes reported...
It's positive that they're finding value we knew existed...
I addressed that value years ago in explaining why I though USSIF had more long term potential than was reflected in share prices, then...
It's not at all positive that they've shifted the communications effort from a solid corporate focus to what looks like a fly by nite "promotion mode"... as no longer term potential ever matters more than the fact in the pace of "shrinkage" occurring in the short term...
Here's a stock charts chart covering USA.TO from 2008 through 2010:
What does that show if you compare that chart to yours for silver ? Your silver chart shows silver up by 3X from that time period until now... from $10 in late 2008 to a bit over $30 now...
Should you expect to see USA.TO trading in a linear relationship at that same multiple relative to the charts for USA.TO from the same period ?
If so, then, it still matters what you're looking at as the low. If you use the $0.25 low, then that same 3X would be $0.75 now, and if you use $0.50 as the "average" low, then that same 3X would be $1.50 now...
So, I don't think USGIF has any "catching up" to do relative to silver prices... as that comparison shows USA.TO being somewhat overpriced now in the linear comparison.
What that leaves, mostly, is a need for determining how you should value all the "change" that has occurred since 2008...
The company has continued to make steady progress since 2008 in improving the physical plant... Under Parker's watch, they completed upgrades and a restructuring of the extraction operations... and they completed a couple stages of a planned improvement in the mine itself... increasing the volume of ore able to be moved... working on getting a second shaft fully operational... But, the benefit of all that "physical" improvement is already being solidly incorporated in their financial performance over the time period we're looking at... so discounting it in other terms is reasonable... unless you can point to some future impact in $ terms that is to be expected from what's already in the pipeline...
There will be potential increases in throughput... but, the utility they have will depend on proof in capability that shows them restoring prior management control over operations... costs.
What I see... is costs out of control... paired with a couple of moves that are guaranteed to sustain that negative trend in cost increases... along with a couple other negative factors that are recently imposed.
There isn't a positive meaningful operational difference between USGIF now and USSIF in Jan of 2010 with 2010 costs at $10 an ounce and silver prices at $20 an ounce... ??? I don't think a $10 per ounce margin at $30 silver is worth near as much as a $10 margin at $20 silver. The recent doubling of costs massively amplifies the risks in holding this stock, now.
That's change that has occurred that is all the result of nothing but bad decisions made by bad management...
Other things being equal... if you ignored the implication in the trends, etc., that shift would make something in the range between $1 and $1.50 look like a reasonable price target now... just to have USGIF be priced comparably in relation to silver now as it was then.
It was admittedly undervalued, then, relative to its potential. But, was it really, given the obvious effort in price suppression then was precedent to creating the "potential" we see now, based on the imposition of the management we've seen imposed, since then, paired with the recent stripping of 1/3 of the assets from existing holders ?
The key difference... if you're willing to ignore the value implication of sustaining that same element in control... is that each of the shares currently, after the latest acquisition... now has 1/3 less realized/realizable value attached to it... while the shift in focus from "controlling costs and expanding production" to "development of new potentials" imposes future obligations and shifts the value the market is willing to place on the current cash flow... which should result in a reduction of around another 1/3 in price...
My basic sense of value... requires recognizing that USGIF is worth only around 1/3 of what USSIF was...
Not addressing any of the meaning of the shift in management as a shift in value... just looking at the direct market implication of the decisions that have been made as they impact operations... I think a reasonable price target for USGIF right now is down around $0.75 to $1
There is a separate issue, obviously, in any precious metal miner, with variation that depends on the price of the commodity...
Reasonable investors will separate those two issues... and not attribute to management skill the impact that rising (or falling) metals prices will tend to have on the market pricing of mining stocks. Instead, that factor should be considered a part of your own timing in determining optimal entry and exit points in any trade...
So, buying USSIF in late 2008 early 2009 made sense... because the market dynamic paired a well managed company that was improving its market position and moving toward profitability, with a rising price environment in silver that should easily be seen, in hindsight, as creating a leveraged potential. USSIF with costs at $10 an ounce in a rapidly rising silver market... is a no brainer. USGIF with costs more than double that... in a market that has come off a peak and is returning to longer term trend lines ? When "the rest" of what you see in looking at it... is purely ugliness being imposed in the investor led "takedown" and removal of 1/3 of the assets ? Then, shifting USSIF from "an improving producer"... to a company saddled with large and increasing exploration and development obligations that exceed its capacity to fund them internally ?
My bottom line... is that I can't and don't trust the management (and those who control them) with proper care in exercising their fiduciary duties...
They've proven they're not worthy of that trust.
So, I don't see a reason to consider owning USGIF now.
If I had to put a price target on it... for what I think it should be priced at now with the management and operational risks properly discounted ? I'd say it would be fairly priced at something near $0.50 now... only until they prove their intent to load USGIF up on debt... at which point "less".
What I think we'll see in silver market performance is another issue... but, in the short term, I don't think that's going to be a larger driver of "value" here than other things that are driving realization that "value" that exists here is not meaningfully attached to the ownership of shares...
So, call silver in a trading range, bound between $30 and $40 for a while... and shift focus back to a proper expectation that value creation and realization is a management responsibility, not a market responsibility...
So, I'd still advise that investors will be vastly better served by looking elsewhere for better management, seeking companys with management that have demonstrated they've properly aligned their interest with their common shareholders interest... while sustaining a proper focus on controlling costs, etc.
That is not what you have here...
I think there is more potentially beneficial leverage found now in seeking out well focused explorers that are on the cusp of becoming developers and producers... than there is in seeking out poorly led producers that are intent on becoming explorers...
LOL!!!
"The China National Institute for South China Sea, in a statement, disputed the Philippines' claim that what it calls the Huangyan islands (Scarborough Shoal in what the Philippines calls the West Philippine Sea) is within 125 nautical miles of Luzon island"...
A quick check on Google earth... shows the closest point on Luzon Island is 119 degrees 53 minutes east, while the closest of the rocks on the shoal are 117 degrees 51 minutes east... making them right around 2 degrees west of Luzon, or 120 nautical miles...
The minor difference of 2 minutes is more than compensated for by the fact that 15 degrees north latitude means that full degrees of longitude are less than 60nm wide, which they are only at the equator... where each degree is around 69 statute miles wide.
Apparently, China's diplomats failed to note that statute miles are different than nautical miles... which has them overstating the distance between Luzon and Scarborough... making an error of around 15%...
In further news: http://hosted.ap.org/dynamic/stories/A/AS_CHINA_ONION_KIM?SITE=AP&SECTION=HOME&TEMPLATE=DEFAULT&CTIME=2012-11-27-07-38-17
(although the original report was much funnier)
Otherwise, China saying "the land dominates the sea" is correct, but, that still means the Phillipines wins the dispute, given their land is a mere 146 statute miles from the point of Scarborough that is nearest China, and that point is 536 statute miles from the nearest point that is undisputed Chinese land.
Hey, Bob... do you remember off the top of your head what the two reverse splits they've done here add up to in the multiple ?
I'm looking at the old post-reverse USSIF charts...
Back in Oct 08 to Jan 09 this thing traded down around $0.03 to $0.05 on large enough volume that you could buy it easily enough, then... That's when I found it useful to buy shares, but no one wanted silver shares back then, or, any shares in anything... and back then USSIF's costs were higher than the price per ounce, ranging between $10 and $14 an ounce with silver lower than that.
That they were underwater then is why I wanted to own it... betting that higher prices would deliver a leveraged return.
The reverse adjusted weekly chart shows it at an all time low of $0.17 in mid Nov 2008... at almost exactly the point that I'd made an appointment to go up tour the mine. And, then, it started snowing in Spokane... and I never got there.
After that, an very obvious effort in suppression of the price kept it trading down below $1.70 until August of 2010... Sprott accumulating seems it was the reason for that... and then it exploded... hitting $6.16 in November of that same year.
But, there's been another reverse since then... and there's this squirrely new symbol... USGIF... which seems for some reason that it didn't inherit the USSIF chart history, which it should have, given the only change was that USSIF had acquired the Montana operation ? I wonder what that reason is ? Strange that I don't have any problem at all calling up the old charts for USSIF ?
Maybe there's still unfinished business related to that screw up ?
Anyway, I thought it would probably be useful to make the effort to try to construct a complete chart... one that shows the patterns in the continuation in performance from USSIF to USGIF... making the chart actually useful... assuming you can ignore the blank period in the gap of a month when it didn't trade because the "whiz kids" who took over "forgot" to bother themselves with sustaining the listing... ?
All that to say... I'm sort of curious how the current price compares to the pre-reverse value...
I think if you plotted a normalized USSIF/USGIF chart against the price of silver and against the fact of changes reported in their costs of production... the recent trading patterns in the USGIF price performance wouldn't appear all that mysterious...
Of course, each USGIF share also represents around 1/3 less in its percentage of a claim against the per share value in USSIF assets... so, I'll have to think about how to adjust the combined chart for that factor...
Layer in the obvious increase in risk tied to the facts in the vastly, vastly less than impressive early performance by new management... who're also taking a WHOLE LOT more of what we used to own for themselves... while they're moving USGIF far more toward an exploration/development risk weighted versus production weighted price profile... ?
Much more risk to consider still in the "deal making" concern, given the "deal making" we've seen already has been designed to benefit them at our expense... and now it appears they may plan to suck the company's cash reserve dry and load us up on debt to fuel their pre-hyped shift of focus into acquisitions, versus "managing well and producing profits from mining".
So, I don't find the price performance here shocking... save in how slow it appears the market has been to recognize the shift in value tied to the shift in risk being rammed down holders throats...
I don't think you'll be seeing the USGIF price recovering without some solid reasons in proof in performance... starting with showing they can control costs and can get the operation back on the solid footing in actual operating performance (including costs) that it had in Parker's day. I think the "proof in performance" out the gate has largely destroyed any reserve of good will, or any potential for trust within the existing shareholder base. If the management did already have their own investment focused crowd of enthusiastic supporters capable of sustaining them... "they" would not have had the need to attach them like leeches to our much better situated USSIF ? Squandering the little remaining goodwill among USSIF holders doesn't appear to me to be an overly convincing demonstration re their "value oriented" focus... or the value they add to what we had.
That, or you have to question who it is they're working for... who they're seeking to provide with a benefit (other than themselves)... since it sure as hell isn't us crusty old USSIF shareholders...
So, I do think it would be useful to have the "continuation" chart assembled as a tool for correlating the recent changes in market price with the fact of changes occurring in other things... some of which at least it seems we know about... on a properly split adjusted basis ?
USSIF's final quote was $2.03... and we're back down to and below that now.
The market really doesn't seem to see a reason to value the new assets all that much, and clearly is insisting on a much larger discount in the need for accounting for the obvious new risks...
In Parker's day, the company was already well along in the process of finishing the development of the second shaft... and had done some decent work in finding some higher value ores that would enable making good use of it...
Now, we're hearing that instead of getting those higher value copper ores put in production, they're going to go back to addressing higher production from the lower value lead zones... ?
Why does that look like the opposite of progress, to me ?
I still think the patent is truly solid.
I did the DD on the patent, and all this stuff being argued now (and more) as the first step in determining if there was really a reason to consider having an interest...
I'd not ever have wasted any time here if I didn't think the patent was solid... and defensible... inspite of the efforts made to undermine it. I've not seen anything presented in the arguments recently that changes my mind about that.
T-Mobile has been trying hard to make stuff up about what the patent says, intends, or requires... trying to undermine the reality that it is solid... doing that in any way that they can that will tend to make it "fail" or that will tend to "create limits" that don't really exist, narrowing it.
The judge clearly saw through that effort made in the context of his court... which we've seen solid enough proof of in the definition the court provided... as opposed to what was presented to him.
The recent exchanges seem to make it clear CLYW isn't particularly confused about any of it, in the context.
That T-Mobile appears stuck on stupid in continuing to mindlessly repeat their own blather (even after rulings are made dismissing it) instead of addressing the content in what others are saying when that isn't what T-Mobile wants to hear... appears to be an instance of "that's my story and I'm sticking to it"... and nothing else, at this point.
Of course, perhaps that's an overly charitable way of seeing it...
How tolerant the judge will prove to be in addressing T-Mobiles' various efforts to ignore what he's saying... I guess we'll find out... but its good that the CLYW attorneys don't appear to be confused by it.
"It is common knowledge among the computer community that wifi only covers a certain maximum distance and in fact the FCC has requirements regarding these technologies and they are widely known."
So, the way the patent was written... is not limiting in scope, but is a way of stating that it applies to "any device that is allowed to be used".
The whole distance calculation thing is solidly fixed as a preset requirement... in any device that is allowed to be used ? Who'd a thunk it. If you haven't done the calculation... then you can't get FCC approval for use of your device. So, T-Mobile's claim they're "not doing distance calculations" would mean... ???
LOL!!!
CLYW owns the seminal patent awarded in this area. It isn't supposed to be interpreted narrowly. And, because of the way it is written, even if you wanted to narrow it inappropriately, defending it requires properly addressing the full breadth and scope of the argument based on those fundamental facts... and the language that was used.
I thought we'd pretty well beaten that horse to death already.
Apparently, CLYW is fully aware that they didn't patent "how to use your cell phone to measure distance"... but, seamless switching in the exact case of "every device that can be used."
So, maybe useful to consider that in context while noting that "a range" is not "a fixed point"... ?
Not that tough a question... given the history of the First Gold effort...
The First Gold folks had already loaded up the leach pit with reprocessed ores from the new mill investors bought... based on the theory that Pegasus hadn't milled the tails they'd left behind finely enough to enable proper extraction...
They sampled the ores before doing the work and projected X amount of gold would be produced when they put the solutions to the ores... but, when they went to collect the gold... it wasn't there ?
Go figure.
Re-sampling of tails is notoriously risky... easily spoofed...
First Gold went broke because of it (in part, as planned)... but, then, what happened to the leaching solutions and any gold they contained after that ?
Easy answer now is that "it's already been done" so there aren't any "tails" left. Relief Canyon has always been a low grade operation, so there never were any high grade ores, much less high grade tails left from the old days... and, the 1980's aren't that far back that the processes in the 1980's couldn't extract what there was to get ?
Not really...
The volume moving SRSR in the last three or four months... isn't close to enough to have it mean much.
What the chart shows is mostly a hugely disproportionate effort being expended in "directing the trade"... with that not having much impact.
Looks like the difference between $0.02 and $0.06 now really boils down to only a couple of trades... with the effort in the "shake" going on now still not having much impact...
The "trade" clearly hasn't had more than 5 to 10 or 15 million shares total in "flux" for a long time... including the non-mythical shorts necessary to foster the illusion of liquidity.
The fact is... there's not much of a trade happening...
Way more "holders" than "traders" here...
All the negative blather is about "hoping" to shake shares loose at prices way below where the market does value them...
And, it's not happening...
Scott has not failed at all... much less failed purposefully...
But, YOUR CHOICE to lie about that... is your choice...
"They would have taken the money from you if offered."
LOL!!!
You think they'd have taken any money on any terms ?
I think you know better...
And that's why you're bending over backwards now trying to label "success" resulting from the FACT of their patience as a proof of "failure"...
There is no element of what they've accomplished here that can be labelled as "failure"... without that effort being knowing fraud, in my opinion...
Otherwise, your argument boils down to the obvious logical fallacy inherent in discussing looking for anything... as the effort in looking naturally requires you keep looking until you find it...
You keep looking for your car keys... until you find them... which doesn't make your effort in looking a "failure" because you're still looking. And, it doesn't make everything else you've done while looking a failure... because repairing the car, repainting it, putting new tires on it... didn't make the keys appear as if by magic...
For SRSR, it wasn't their car keys they were looking for...
So, they turned down other deals offered by others... which you know for a fact to be true... while being patient in order to get the keys they needed... rather than the useless crap being offered to them by others... that wasn't good enough.
SRSR refused to give their project to the guy offering to tow it away for free to "take it off their hands" ? LOL!!
Instead... they've made steady progress restoring and upgrading that 1950's model...
And, hey, lookie there... someone's made them an offer... that they're not laughing at...
Yes. But, I'm not just "trying" to change the argument... I am changing it... from being completely ridiculous and obtuse... to being reasonable...
And, I've thoroughly beaten that stupid argument you've been posturing, and its as senseless now as it was at the start... only it is obviously so now...
Yes, they have purposely allowed others to spend and prove those other properties inferior... because, that's a natural consequence of CHOOSING being patient... and their plan includes being patient... holding out for "the right deal" instead of doing any old crap deal anyone sticks in front of them... just because "it's there"...
They COULD have done some other crap deal... INSTEAD...
But, they DIDN'T do some crap deal... rather than CHOOSE to be patient...
They were perfectly willing, still, to do an ACCEPTABLE deal on terms that properly recognized the value the rocks have...
But, the market is full of stupid people... who value things improperly... thinking they'll be able to convince others to surrender more value for less money and value...
SRSR management WERE NOT impatient... like you've obviously wanted them to be...
So, as a result, they're doing a better deal with better partners... because they were patient in working with those partners... because they valued "patience" and those partners more than what others advocated...
And that has you boiling your error down to the essence...
They HAVE been patient... BY DESIGN... because they weren't ignorant about their choices or the market reality... or about the BS propagated here about how the CEO should make others decisions for them... and direct the Chinese government when and how to expand their steel production... etc.
That you are ignorant of the fact... is not because it hasn't been made clear enough to you...
"Patience is their only choice"... is a truism in mineral exploration. So, why pretend it's "an accident" that they were prepared to be patient ?
And, what should we make of your errors in advocacy for the opposite ?
And, that you're claiming, at the SAME TIME... that "patience" is required... that "patience" is failure... and that the SUCCESS THEY ARE ACHIEVING AS A RESULT is "luck" ?
LOL!!!
There a fork sticking out of that turkey argument of yours...
They'll get the money... because the rocks have the value... and because they have the right approach to addressing the problem... rather than the approach you've advocated...
"they would have closed" if they "could there is no plan not to"...
And, you are the only one saying there WAS "a plan not to"... meaning they "intended to make less progress than they have"...
That still leaves you mis-characterizing both the FACTS in the situation, and what others have said about it...
SRSR did not START with a plan that assumed they'd be able to make others decisions for them... the way you've been claiming they should...
That also does suggest a couple of fairly obvious issues that it will be useful to consider as probably generating milestones in timing...
"The market" may well not find it useful to think about things to deeply... while there are disputes pending that will tend to distract focus from things like... demand growth... relative value... niche aspects that define inevitable winners ?
Nice one, thanks.
Still don't see anything happening in the REE markets I find particularly surprising. I find he's often either unaware, or quite a bit behind what I'm seeing when he's on reporting the events occurring in relation to specific opportunities, but, I think anyone who's followed Jack Lifton's musings on the "big picture" in the REE market is probably not missing much, or being surprised by much...
The supposed "market glut" that is coming... may not ever happen if prices won't support it ? That's what typically happens when you see wildly irrational pricing driving short term break outs...
But, "markets work" will still end up being the reality that shakes out at the end of the pipeline in development... They don't work particularly efficiently, of course...
So, I expect there will be a very obvious glut that develops in the light REE's...
Otherwise, talking about REE's as a group isn't more useful than talking about "monetary and precious metals" as a group, while ignoring that copper and rhodium have remarkably different drivers in demand, and remarkably different dynamics in supply...
Lifton has it exactly right... in considering HREE's separately from "REE's" in general... and in considering specific values in specific elements as important...
He has it exactly right, again... in considering that value resulting from effort in development isn't going to be determined "only" by having access to decent quality rocks that have proven values in REE or HREE in them... All of the elements in basic "feasibility" will determine which rocks are more useful to mine than others, still, but it will be the value added in SEPARATIONS processes that determine the overall value of the effort made...
And not all rocks are equally amenable to separations processes as others... which matters when the cost of the separations is the largest cost component in the effort made creating the products that are made from the rocks...
What you need to find, optimally, will be a combination of things....
A polymetallic deposit that has obvious economic viability on the basis of more than one mineral... so that you're not dependent on one or two esoteric elements for your success... would be nice.
Having specific metals in that mix that are each likely to be experiencing long term demand growth, paired with long term shortages being likely... because they're not easily substituted at prices that make sense... would be good...
A heavy REE component that is a large enough mass of HREE to make it matter in meeting market needs would be good...
But, the Light REE component isn't just a "throw away"... as not all Light REE's are equal. Having a dominant presence of light REE's that DO have value that won't be gutted in a "surplus"... the way some others will... would be good.
And, that is the mix I see here...
GOMRF has a decent sized deposit (3rd largest known outside China, will a bullet) in a good location that is obviously feasible to develop... It's big enough to make it worth bothering with the location, location, location.
It's a polymetallic potential with economic concentrations of Iron, Niobium and REE's. The REE have an excellent distribution, with a higher value distribution in the light elements, and an useful distribution and increasing definition of quantity in HREE values...
It probably wouldn't be developed "only" for the niobium or the iron... but, it appears it would be profitable to develop it for those, with 20% iron being economic, while the niobium provides very solid secondary values... with the solid REE values being "gravy"...
It already makes more sense to develop it than not... which is a threshold it's useful to have crossed...
That they're also participating in a consortium arrangement to enable toll based separations of their REE's directly into high purity finished products... completes the trifecta... and it answers concerns about the lack of partnering arrangements as they close in on completing their feasibility study.
What that leaves you with... is that now is an excellent time to be figuring all this stuff out... and picking future winners in REE's, given there are a lot of people in the market who aren't making the distinctions they should between various potentials...
The lesser known but vastly better opportunities... are improving rapidly in value... at the same time the market is providing some really excellent opportunities...
Price is not value.
Steer clear of anything being promoted...
It's worth looking for a couple solid opportunities that haven't been promoted... that also beat the pants off the basic value of those that have been ? The value will out, in time... but, it will take some time for the market to sort itself out... still a two to five year time horizon on most of them...
But, if they have assembled the right elements... there is an inevitability factor working for you... that should give you confidence in accumulating when you know what you own.
I know of maybe half a dozen the market hasn't really taken much note of yet... that have been quietly minding the knitting, improving position, without having participated in the frothy market excess...
That some of those that are most roundly ignored now... appear best positioned to be future market leaders... is, in my experience, not particularly unique.
I'll agree Scott has been subjected to five years of clueless blather fostered by those who clearly don't know what they're talking about...
But, there's still a difference between a basic lack of awarenesss in things that matter which reflect as cluelessness... and deliberate error...
The critics are wrong... on the facts. They're welcome to their opinions, of course, but there is still a point at which the effort in fabrication of "facts" crosses lines...
Reality is... niobium demand growth requires "more"...
But, it's also true that the changes in technology that are creating the demand for more... also requires "better".
So, there are two arguments that need to be addressed...
One addresses the "threshold" issues in basic feasibility...
The other addresses the total cost of production versus the quality of the end product...
Hmmm. I wonder if CBMM might have an incentive to overstate the quality of their product... and understate their costs, or their prices and profitability ?
Yeah, right...
SRSR has no plan...
Their "world class" niobium project has magically advanced to the point it has... through a steady progression showing that happening, and showing how it has...
But, really, it's happened all by itself and purely as a matter of luck... ?
Speaking of things worthy of ignoring and laughing at...
The overly obvious...
Things management have accomplished as a function of following their plan... are things they have achieved on purpose.
They have a plan.
They are executing the plan.
We see "more" in the result than you believed was possible.
Management don't control others choices... which doesn't make the natural result of others choices into a "lucky" wholly random element of the environment... as those choices they have to make only occur in a context that is created by management. The context in which others choices are enabled... ensures the company benefits from those choices that are made by others... whatever choice is made. And, management still aren't responsible for making others choices for them... but they are responsible for structuring what is possible as a result, whatever choice is made.
They do control their own choices...
And the result of that I see... is that they're NOT talking about deals, or doing deals, that don't advance the project... and they're not talking with or doing deals with partners that they've scrapped off the bottom of the barrel... or, the slime from the bottom of the market pool.
I'd rather have them talking to and cooperating with the Chinese as partners/customers... than talking to and working with those "others". There's a reason IAMGOLD was pursuing China as a partner... as have Wildcat, Globe, the guys in B.C., etc., and it's meaningful that China seems to be choosing to move forward with SRSR and not IAMGOLD ?
SRSR management didn't make that choice for China...
But, they did make the right choices... to enable that.
So, why does that make it time to stop being patient ? LOL!!!
Whoever they're talking to, the things their contracts "make happen" no matter the choices that are made by the other party ? Those things are not "an accident"... the result of which is "luck"...
Instead, that's a result of properly recognizing the value... and properly and patiently advancing the effort in development of that value... without listening to the advocates of error...
"They haven't sat back and allowed other properties to spend as prove inferior as you suggested"...
Yes, they have. They've... been patient... instead of stupid.
That's inherently a part of the plan they've followed... including that it's an inherently an AWARE part of my own advocacy for patience as the best approach ?
I have faith in "the rocks" and confidence in management...
You don't.
And, again... the management STILL don't control others choices... which doesn't mean they're ignorant of them, or the relative utility of them... as they make their own choices ? Having the right plan... being patient... which you CAN do when you're confident in what you do know... and when you know what it means ? "Patience" means EXACTLY that...
So, you've constantly criticized them for being patient... when that's PROVING NOW TO HAVE BEEN EXACTLY THE RIGHT APPROACH ?
SRSR has the rocks. The rocks DO have value... whether others are, choose to be, or posture as ignorant of the fact or not...
It is SRSR management's choices that are responsible for the "luck" SRSR is having now in advancing this project toward production... whether that will happen through partnership with Chinese SOE's or others... in spite of the effort you've made to undermine the management, dissemble about the facts, disparage the company, the management, the value in the rocks, while dissing and dismissing the value in their effort, etc.
That doesn't mean there wasn't "risk" inherent in the approach to choose being patient while holding out for the right deal with the right partners instead of the "quick" deal with crap partners ? Maybe IAMGOLD, Globe, or Wildcat, the guys in Nebraska, or the guys in B.C. could have gotten "lucky"... even "luckier" than SRSR ? It's possible, of course, but, the expectation mostly suggests a serious lack of awareness of the "issues" with "the rocks" in market context more than it does anything else...
The value is there... in SRSR's rocks... and in the management effort, in their patient approach... in the plan... whether you accept it or not.
On each of those issues...
You're simply wrong.
The value in the rocks matters more than you admit... which makes you wrong on the value issue... instead of making others demonstrated awareness of the fact into "luck" rather than purpose in their choices.
I've consistently advocated here for management having and sustaining exactly that sort of patience in their approach as you see them demonstrating, and have consistently supported them in the approach they're taking... which is proving a vastly more useful choice now than the alternatives that you've advocated... ?
And, I've consistently addressed the issue as "SRSR has the rocks" while noting THERE'S VALUE IN THE ROCKS... while you've denied that there is, or that it matters ?
Now, we're seeing that FACT proven in the price tag applied to your errors... in terms of $, %'s and intangibles in the deals they're working ?
Now, SRSR management are getting close to delivering on "deals" that are very much along the lines of what I'd said was reasonable and possible, five years ago, if they sustained a properly "patient" approach ?
Go figure.
There's value in the rocks... that matters whether the critics like yourself recognize it or "get it" or not.
There's MORE value in adopting the properly patient approach to developing that value... than there is in the alternative "approach" that you've taken, or in what you've advocated... ???
What we see being delivered, in the aggregate, over time, in the result... is not "a fluke"... or a product of "luck"... but a result of a vastly better awareness of the situation, and a vastly better plan for addressing the value that exists... than what is apparent in your own advocacy, or that is even possible as a result of what you've advocated ?
The right rocks and the right plan... matter more than purposeful error adopted in addressing "the rocks" or "the plan" ?
And, then, of course, listening to you, you'd think SRSR having advanced the project ahead of competitors, to the point where they're working on deals with Chinese SOE's that will ensure funding it through feasibility... without our depending on crap financing from your hedge fund buddies to "fund" us ? LOL!!!
So, Dolphin Tom may be right... that we're all longs...
But, that doesn't mean we have a shared, common interest... as some shareholders clearly may seek to benefit themselves more, at other shareholders expense...
Fortunately for us, management have not been listening to your opinions, considering your advice or following your recommendations...
And as a result, we're all vastly better off.
It is clear to me... you're not focused on facts in your opinions... rather than self interest...
That's your right, of course... to be as negative as you want... just as it is mine to not respect your choice.
Of course, if SRSR's preferred partners don't come through, I'm sure you'll still be there offering some horrendously crappy alternative intended to screw everyone else over with some deal based in your postured negativity and purposeful inability to properly recognize value... that you clearly do recognize...
However, whatever China chooses, I still think that won't happen anyway...
The approach is deficient in value...
Try reading what I wrote instead of making things up.
I'd not think it useful to read too much into it...
Should note up front that I've not re-read the latest filings or anything... before posting this. Have they suddenly become profitable without my noticing ?
/sarcasm
Can't spin it as overly positive to have the company taking on more debt, now, and with that, given where the share price is, and what that amount of debt will convert into, etc. ?
I'd say it likely means the banks risk managers have determined there is some need for a change in the balance in the risks... that will mean they've determined there are diminishing "risked" returns likely for them from sustaining the stranglehold on cash flow they have imposed... without enabling some flexibility.
But, they didn't look at that and then relax the stranglehold on the directed conversion of cash into accelerated payments on the liabilities... they instead added to the liabilities ?
LOL!!!
What does that tell you ?
It's basically pairing a bit of additional flexibility in the company's use of the checkbook... with forced dilution...
Basically... they determined that if they continued strangling CPIC the way they were... they'd kill it too soon. They don't want the cow dead, yet... so now they're trying a bit harder to keep it alive while they continue working on stripping the meat off of it...
What they're doing and the way they're doing it... is WAY worse than actually declaring bankruptcy. In bankruptcy, there ARE protections. Here, there are NONE... and that's what you should see a proof of in what is happening in the changes being allowed.
I have proven, three times now, that yes, "Management have a "masterful, purposeful plan of patience"... that is responsible for SRSR's success in advancing their niobium project.
There's nothing extraordinary about it... as that is exactly the same basic "game plan" as is routinely applied in advancing many mineral exploration projects... with JV partners funding the effort enabling progress.
Of course, that plan won't work... if there isn't the value there to support it... and not everyone who tries to apply the "game plan" is as successful in the effort as Scott has been.
But, SRSR has the rocks... the value is there... steady progress has been made, advancing the project, increasing its value... with the change that has occurred recognized by SRSR's partners (and those "shareholders" who don't routinely find it useful to dissemble about the facts)... all proving management DO know what they're doing... while all you've proven, thus far, is that you fail to understand why and how that success is happening ?
Clearly not understanding what they're doing... or why it works... you claim their success in the effort "must be luck" ?
LOL!!!
You have clearly failed to prove the opposite while persistently flogging SRSR's steady progression in successes advancing the project as "failure"... and that just isn't working any more.
You have failed even in making a valid argument ?
It's a fact that "stuff happens" in the market. Stuff did happen, and in the result, HKHE realized the risk. SRSR didn't realize the risk HKHE did, but, instead, SRSR advanced their project handily, if less than they might have otherwise. That is hardly the "management failure" you claim proves any success that occurs must be the result of "luck" ?
I've yet to begin addressing the comparison that should be made between the RESULT we are seeing from Scott's "masterful, purposeful plan of patience" now... when that is compared against your own inputs re your own "expectations" and "management recommendations" ?
That should be fun.
I don't think there is any real need for a 43-101 at all...
China doesn't need it to condition their decisions. They have their own standards to consider in validating their participation in deals, and China's standards don't appear to include any silly bureaucratic "ass covering" requirements in exclusions of the historical data, etc. The 43-101 standard intends to protect retail investors... not corporate deal makers.
The requirement for the 43-101 work exists in prior agreements they've made... as was apparent in the HKHE deal...
But, the requirement that existed there seemed it was there mostly as a benefit for SRSR... not as a "project" requirement... and in part as a polite nod by China to the Canadians... showing respect for their process, etc.
It's clearly more of a benefit for SRSR than anyone else to have that be a part of the effort... as is apparent under the deal structure being discussed now...
SRSR is "carried" for a 20% interest... but, can participate to sustain their 49% interest ? To enable SRSR in sustaining the 49% interest, SRSR will need the utility of the BFS to enable them in seeking the funding... ? Even if Niostar were going to borrow the money from China to sustain that interest... they'd still need or want to have the 43-101 to support them in doing that ?
The work SRSR has been doing... appears it is more focused on meeting the Chinese requirements than 43-101 requirements. I think that makes obvious sense... given its a cheaper, shorter path to meeting Chinese standards than Canadian standards... so they should do the work to meet Chinese standards, first, do their deal with China, and then come back to doing the work on meeting Canadian standards...
Completion of the metallurgy work in China... will likely have the project exceeding Chinese "BFS" equivalent requirements ? So, its possible the need for doing that work may be a pop up 'requirement' coming from the bureaucracy on their side... that has to be addressed before they sign the deal ?
Pure speculation, of course... and still not a reason to be concerned about what the rocks have in them. The metallurgy studies aren't about "double checking assays" and they aren't really the "source of risk" that has been postured here, either, IMO. The rocks taken from the adit, won't be that different from the other rocks taken from the adit previously. Gulf Dominion reported on their work sampling the adit, including the metallurgy work done on those rocks... and that work has been checked at least twice, already... and repeatedly validated by independent reports, etc. Improved technology alone means there may be a couple of nice surprises reported from making the effort...
Having the work done will advance the project... and it will contribute to meeting the Canadian BFS requirements...
It may also be the last "check in the box" required to enable China in signing the deal that's being discussed...
I don't find either the sequence of events or the timing of them particularly surprising...
There is no conflict between the two instances...
It's inherent in the structure of the deal... with the design of the deal structure resulting in big steps forward and rapid progress with "success" in making the deal work, or "slow and steady wins the race" type of progress without it.
If the deal structure didn't contain that potential as a guarantee that the projects are being advanced in the entering argument, then Scott wouldn't agree to do the deal... ?
They had a plan to enable them to succeed if HKHE's plans moved ahead, and they had a plan to enable them to succeed if they didn't...
The design... always puts the little steps first... as the payment for the option is applied to advancing the project...
So, the HKHE deal funded a nice bit of progress... and then didn't succeed in delivering on more. The end result... is that they advanced the project... but didn't advance it as much as they might have, if HKHE had come through with more... which they might have, if the market conditions hadn't changed, etc.
The current deal... follows the exact same pattern... again showing Scott doing his job, agreeing again to do what he has now, that keeps the project moving ahead right now... whatever it is that happens in making decisions before February.
Progress is occurring... right now... with the work being done on the metallurgy, while you (and others) choose to ignore that (others even fictionalizing that "only" advancing the work on metallurgy... is really just "double checking the assays" to see "if" there is really any value). And, ignoring that steady progress, you carp instead because they're not making more progress, fast enough for you ? And, if they don't take the next "big" steps forward, in February, you'll ignore the steps forward occurring now, and all those before them, while claiming that not taking the next big step forward... means taking a step back ?
Of course, that's wrong...
But, the "vastly better" deal they're discussing now... is purely a product of "luck" and nothing else ?
Of course, that's how the fact in steady progress being made gets explained away as "Scott delivering a string of failures"... that then requires you to explain away the NATURAL result of a steady progression being delivered... as a "fluke" resulting from "luck"... instead of the obvious result of the company executing its plans, a step at a time, as a function of the design in how you do exploration, and as a function of the structure of the deals being done... that has that element of the plan as an inherent element built into the structure of the deal.
You are fictionalizing that there is an "either this - or that" choice to be made between success and failure somewhere... when there just isn't. The ultimate decision others make on taking the "big" step... isn't ever Scott's to make... but, the price being paid to enable the partners in considering taking the big step, requires their performance in delivering the little ones.
So, YES.
Management have a "masterful, purposeful plan of patience"... that has them hope for the best and working to enable it... while not allowing that effort to distract them from the need for planning to benefit from the worst in any case. The result... is that they've steadily improved SRSR's position over time... exactly as I've said... because of a "masterful, purposeful plan of patience" to enable exactly that...
It's been clearly demonstrated, repeatedly, over the last five years...
It's the same "masterful, purposeful plan of patience" that is THE ROUTINE in mineral exploration... which has management proving they're not being stupid about putting their projects at significant risk of failure... rather than advancing them with others help while allowing others to take and realize the market risks.
THAT IS HOW ITS DONE... WHEN ITS DONE RIGHT....
SRSR's been doing it right... and succeeding as a result.
HKHE wasn't able to overcome the threshold in risk reduction that was a negotiated part of their arrangements ? They didn't pull the trigger on the big steps ?
So, HKHE realized the risks... and SRSR didn't. HKHE didn't get the deal... and SRSR did get the project advanced to the next stage as a result of HKHE's participation... which is exactly what planning for that failure in mineral exploration should enable.
I note you've consistently expressed your frustration at Scott's properly persistent patience... including blaming Scott for "the failure" that HKHE experienced... as if the risks were realized by SRSR, because of Scott, instead of by HKHE... because of things well beyond SRSR or HKHE's control ?
Well, Scott got it exactly right... and you've got it wrong... Scott's had it right all along... and you've had it wrong all along.
And, as the posts today prove, it appears you've had it wrong all along... because you still don't understand the basics in the business... which results in you thinking its "an accident" or "luck" when things do work out exactly the way they were PLANNED TO WORK OUT... in the case that things didn't go as perfectly as they might have preferred ?
Scott apparently understands well enough that success in exploration always requires structuring the option on JV deals as "heads I win, tails you lose" arrangements...
That's exactly what we see here is "Heads SRSR wins big, tails SRSR wins less big"...
Now it appears SRSR's persistent effort enabling success in advancing the project... in spite of the persistent effort made touting SRSR's "failure"... have a couple of SRSR's detractors coming unhinged...
Seems to me that was exactly one of the bones of contention that was disrupting one of the African projects.... that the South African partners wanted to spend JV money on creating a new capability to perform the bulk sample testing themselves, on site... rather than using existing off site capabilities at a much lower cost.
The separations work done in the 1950's cost Gulf Dominion a lot of money... in large part because they had to fund the school's development of the capacity to do the work ?
Using existing capabilities is faster and cheaper... than having to build them from scratch...
The value of the result will still depend on a lot of things... including how well matched the "existing" capability used is to the "optimal" capability that a specific set of rocks might require to maximize the value of the effort in extraction...
Feasibility means demonstrating the basic economic viability... first... and not necessarily proving up all the things that might be requirements in enabling what might be optimal processes... after decisions have been made to proceed ?
Getting this work done quickly using existing capability will save a lot of time, and a lot of money...
HKHE had previously funded some related engineering work ?
SRSR looks like they're already solidly engaged in collecting "parts" of the feasibility study...
It might surprise some how little time it takes them to get the "rest" of the study done... when they fund the rest of the work ?
You have not shown any element of mine to be wrong... because mine is not wrong.
The company has the right approach...
That approach works... even when the things they'd prefer to have happen... don't happen.
Where's the mystery ?
This is not hard.
The company's plan and approach... ensured that "progress" occurred whether HKHE was able to follow through or not...
It's not that the company wanted HKHE to fail and planned to make that failure occur...
It's that the company wanted HKHE to succeed, enabled them in their effort, and still planned to ensure that if they didn't succeed, the project still made progress and moved ahead without them.
This is not rocket science...
That IS HOW EXPLORATION WORKS... as owners of valuable mineral properties enlist others assistance in advancing them...
The risk of failure... was borne by HKHE... and realized by them... while SRSR's interest was advanced rather than harmed... because management have the right approach to mineral exploration.
The result is not "dumb luck"... but management 101...
Perfect. I'm fairly comfortable disagreeing with you.
Your lack of agreement... doesn't make the CEO responsible for controlling others behavior.
LOL!!!
No. That's completely wrong.
The rocks have in them what they do. That's just fact.
The work being done now won't alter that fact.
Metallurgy work focused on optimizing value in extraction... doesn't alter the values revealed by prior assay... any more than putting steak sauce on your steak "uncooks" it.
The persistent effort made pretending (hoping ?) that SRSR's rocks don't have in them what has already been proven to be in them a couple of time over... is simply THAT ridiculous.
However, the work being done now is additional progress... that may easily improve on the value of the fact in what the rocks do contain.
Decisions that are made... for whatever reason... still won't change any bit of the fact of what the rocks have in them.
HKHE opted not to complete the deal they were working on... for the reasons they did. Those reasons included that China tightened control over the money supply, throttling the prior pace of growth, slowing their economy, to fight inflation. The IPO market, in Hong Kong, had been frothy... enabling HKHE in thinking they'd be able to succeed in doing an IPO there. But, the timing issues and market reality meant that HKHE wasn't able to follow through as they'd liked to have done ?
The reversal in HKHE's fortunes... didn't change what the rocks have in them... ?
It's ridiculous to posture that it would.
Throughout the HKHE "exclusive" period, SRSR management properly maintained their focus on "advancing the project"... and the result was that HKHE's efforts, in spite of their inability to complete the work they'd intended, enabled SRSR in advancing the project...
Market fluctuations do happen. Decisions get made... timing works out, or it doesn't. But, progress made in advancing the project is "sticky"... and the improvement in value resulting from progress made... isn't altered by the market variables.
And, it isn't altered or undone by pretending it will be.
The deal SRSR is working on now... is a better deal than the HKHE deal was, in part... because the company sustained their focus on "advancing the project"... and did advance the project... in spite of HKHE's difficulties.
That's the right approach. The approach works.
Now, SRSR has made a similar deal with a different partner, that again advances the project in return for the grant of an exclusive right for a period of time... which now has them doing additional work in metallurgy that will contribute value as a bit of progress being made in doing the feasibility study... again without surrendering much of anything... but at the minor cost of enabling an extension in the exclusive period...
Neither that extension... nor any future decision made... can or will alter the fact of what the rocks do have in them ? The work in metallurgy being done now... will contribute some added knowledge... and that will improve SRSR's position, again.
They didn't haul a ton of rocks from Canada back to China to add them to their collection.
Your is incorrect.
The company has the right approach... and that's why progress has occurred, in spite of deals being discussed not getting done... even though the company would clearly prefer the deals get done, and have persistently worked toward enabling that to happen.
There's no rocket science involved in that... and its not some unique bit of brilliance in strategy that is exclusive to SRSR and SRSR management, that has them doing what they have been.
That's exactly what exploration companies are SUPPOSED to do...
Every "failed deal" has resulted in others funding improvements in SRSR's position... in a pattern that persists and has SRSR improving its position through that pattern in "failure"...
It's not some random fluke that SRSR "got lucky" and turned HKHE's failure to complete the deal THAT HKHE WANTED TO COMPLETE into an improvement in SRSR's position ?
In exploration, the price of admission to participating in the discussion about doing a deal... is funding advancement of the projects...
If the deal doesn't happen... the project was still advanced in spite of that...
Progress is made whether the deal gets done or not...
So, its simply a choice to be myopic to claim that progress that is occurring... the proof of which is undeniable... isn't progress because it's not enough for you... ?
The company would still rather take bigger steps sooner, than advance the projects in a series of smaller steps... which doesn't mean progress that is occurring isn't progress ?
Why anyone would find that confusing is beyond me...
Yes, the deal they're discussing doing now is VASTLY BETTER than deals they'd discussed doing earlier... that didn't get done. The reason for that isn't luck... it is that the price of admission paid by those who were participating in trying to make those earlier deals happen... generated improvements in SRSR's position...
The error addressed in our exchange... isn't my error in noting that there is value in the company's approach... applying tried and true methods in advancing an exploration project.
The error is yours... in claiming that the pattern the entire mineral exploration industry is based upon... reflects "dumb luck" rather than purpose in the design when it works exactly the way it is supposed to...