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.
Not a lot that's new in that... other than the numbers and the time line.
Offering closes Dec 26... with 45 days to exercise the over-allotment, if any, it looks like it'll be all done by the middle of February...
We're over the threshold of 5 million shares traded already today... so, not looking like they're going to have any difficulty at all with the market reception, even given what looks like it was a really bad day in the gold market... (which is still looking like it may have a bad week or two before putting in what looks it is forming up as a major trading bottom... at least.) Looking today like they could pretty easily fill the over-allotment tomorrow...
I was a bit late, today, but did manage to participate as a buyer and scooped up a few before the close. I've liked TLR a lot at $0.25 to $0.35, and have to like it all the more now when it's on sale at $0.20. Of course, given the name, I'm also a notorious skin flint, bottom fisher, etc., and generally find it vastly more worth while to wait to go shopping when things are on clearance sale... and, when they are, that's the right time to buy in bulk.
Yahoo numbers not known for being reliable, but it shows they were holding $1 million in cash already, and this will give them a million more.
Otherwise, timing here still looks like it's "mostly" tied to permitting in Montana, and the time lines versus the plans on which they are assuming they'll be able to get production going there, and, then, what the sum in the performance there looks like between the middle of next year and the end of next year.
I like the timing.
Even though its a small project in Montana, it's got nice potential, and a success in establishing a bit of production in Montana could and should enable a sea change in market perception.
Obviously, there is a lot more value in South Eureka than is being recognized now... and given the improving resolution in their modelling, and the new targets they're developing now with an improved model, a little bit more exploration work there pretty clearly will return quite a lot more value than it will cost to generate it...
I'm reluctant to even suggest, now, that a success in Montana next year could enable them in self funding the development work in Nevada... but, that potential should be at least considered, once there's a success under their belt, and a solid enough proof in the performance there.
What that leaves as potential for "wild cards" really boils down to what else they might do in acquiring new projects, or what a potential for finding additional JV partners might do to enable moving some of the other projects in moving forward... and, of course, the underlying elements in the market... that depend only on what happens in the larger scheme of things in the stock market and in the trading in gold...
Of course, I'm also still assuming they're not even going to think about doing a JV on any portion of South Eureka at this point... but, there obviously is a lot more potential there than is being looked at closely in the current exploration focus. I think they have the balance right.
Then, still looking at the issues within that near term focus, the longer term issues, more than six months out, will still boil down to market functions that are related more to this (from Yahoo, again) than it is to anything else:
% of Shares Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 3%
% of Float Held by Institutional & Mutual Fund Owners: 4%
Number of Institutions Holding Shares: 18
Continuing success in developing a resource at South Eureka... still isn't likely to get them all that much attention from the larger players in the market in the next few months... and it won't, probably until they're at and past the point of putting out the completed reports...
Of course, that's also supposed to be happening by mid year, next year... showing that next summer is when there are a lot of interesting things that are supposed to be coming together more or less at the same time.
Pairing success in transitioning from explorer to producer, in the Montana project, along with continued success in defining the potential at South Eureka... may not be the only things they are planning on making happen over the next six months...
But... success in those two things... seems it will be more than enough.
Timberline Resources Corporation (TSX VENTURE:TBR)(NYSE Amex:TLR)(NYSE MKT:TLR) ("Timberline" or the "Company"), announced today the pricing of its previously announced underwritten public offering of its common stock. The Company is offering 5,000,000 shares of its common stock at $0.20 per share to the public. The gross proceeds from the offering are expected to be approximately $1 million, prior to deducting the underwriting discount and estimated offering expenses payable by Timberline. Timberline has granted the underwriter a 45-day option to purchase at the public offering price up to an aggregate of 750,000 additional shares of common stock to cover over-allotments, if any. The offering is expected to settle and close on or about December 26, 2012, subject to customary closing conditions.
Timberline intends to use the net proceeds from the offering for exploration of our Lookout Mountain Project in Nevada, exploration and development of other existing or acquired mineral properties, working capital requirements, acquisitions, or for other general corporate purposes.
Wow.
Did I pick a bad day to sleep in, or what...
Almost missed them...
With only 5 million being offered out there, I "almost" missed out on my Christmas present from the TLR management...
See that there's only a few left now... uh...nope... they're gone.
That was fast...
I haven't even looked at the filings, yet...
Did you see anything new ?
"So know you claim to know the details of how the work the SOE is paying for will be dealt with both if the deal closes and if it doesn't."
LOL!!!
Where did you see me write that ?
I didn't say that... which means you're making it up... trying to put words in my mouth... to create something to argue about... ?
We weren't even talking about that... rather than the FACT that there is an agreement... which REQUIRES there is a consideration... which you deny exists...
Your new fabrication isn't relevant to the argument, either... rather than a canard to distract from your pedantic argument being destroyed... by reason.
IT IS A BENEFIT for SRSR... to have that work in metallurgy proceed...
That's the fact...
That benefit, by definition, is the result of an agreement to enable it...
Hmmm. I wonder what agreement that might be ? LOL!!!
Maybe we should check the latest PR to see what it says ?
But, again, we're still being subjected to your effort to convert every benefit that is generated... into something negative...
This instance does provide a "proof of failure"...
But, what's failing is not the CEO or the company... just your argument, and your "schtick"... that has you posture every positive as negative.
It's a remarkably good thing... very positive...
SRSR has an "exclusive" with a Chinese SOE... while they talk deals.
"the Parties HAVE MUTUALLY AGREED to extend the exclusivity period until February 28, 2013".
So, THEY SAY THEY HAVE REACHED AN AGREEMENT... to extend the period.
That's still very positive... but not surprising...
They wouldn't say that they'd agreed, if they hadn't.
Every contract made has a consideration.
Otherwise, it's not a contract.
Here, that consideration is a nice benefit for SRSR...
You've already said so, yourself...
That's what I said in my opinion, too.
You don't have to reinvent any of this, or announce "how contracts work" as a part of announcing the terms of every deal or agreement that you do announce...
The PR is NOT mysterious...
They've agreed to extend the exclusive...
There is a consideration (a fee) paid that enabled that...
And, they've said what that consideration IS... right there in the PR.
ZERO mystery...
By definition, you would NOT see them proceeding with the metallurgy study work they ARE proceeding with... as the PR announced... if that were NOT a part of the agreement made... that has extended their cooperation.
Note... this is NOT rocket science...
Reading a routine PR about a routine business deal in the context of routine business requirements... doesn't require much in the way of extraordinary creativity in understanding it...
It does require being able to read... and an basic understanding of the requirements in context...
It appears some here must lack either an adequate reading skill, or that basic understanding required to make the words plain meaning clear...
This is EXACTLY parallel to the similarly bogus discussion previously held quibbling in error about the meaning of words and the meaning of the existence of, and the routine in the requirements that are imposed by the existence of, non-disclosure agreements... which ALSO made it VERY clear some had no clue at all what they were talking about...
I think that risk may already be more than fully priced in.
Dilution implies more than "new shares"... but, also, a division in existing value that exceeds the addition of new value being contributed or created. I like the pace at which they're growing the value here... and it looks like a bit of additional $ now will expand that pace in value creation, giving us more, faster... making the raise not really dilutive in the sense of "more shares that are worth less"...
It's not news that they've had the shelf registration out there... or that they'll need money to bring South Eureka along... and, they've not been stupid about it before... or shown a changed tendency lately...
Also appreciate getting a few cheap shares, today...
I don't think its a given you'll get them cheaper in the offering...
We'll have to see what Aegis does to earn their %...
And, we'll see what the company thinks "subject to market and other conditions" should mean about "The pricing and number of shares of common stock to be offered will be determined in the context of the market."
Will look forward to seeing the next set of documents, defining the numbers...
Otherwise, if things stay reasonably close to on track given the timelines they've set for expectations re permitting, we'll see them becoming a producer in Montana in mid 2013, and it might not take all that long to have them produce enough to cover the mine development costs and start generating some free cash ?
Right...
China sends teams of experts from China to collect samples and do metallurgical studies... for free... for anyone who calls and asks them to...
They've had the basic registration out there for a while... but, now, seems the results from modeling have made it clearer what they need and are intending to accomplish at South Eureka in 2013.
Will be interesting to see how much effort is going to be focused on expanding numbers with infill drilling in the new high grade zone, how much will be focused on extending the exploration effort along trend or defining limits at the Lookout Mountain property, and how much will be focused on filling in the remaining gaps in the big picture, with work on specific targets defined as part of the larger regional play...
I think the discovery of the high grade zone means spending additional $ now on expanding that exploration effort is a no brainer...
They'll get way more value in return for the $ spent on proving that up than it will cost them...
I note we've not seen numbers yet... or more than generic statements supporting their view of the implications of the work done in 2012.
Haven't been following them long enough to be sure how the announcement of this funding event compares to their prior announced efforts, given they've signed up an agent...
"UNDERWRITING
Aegis Capital Corp. is acting as representative of the underwriters in the offering. We have entered into an underwriting agreement, dated , 2012 (the “Underwriting Agreement”), with the representative. Subject to the terms and conditions of the Underwriting Agreement, we have agreed to sell to each underwriter named below and each underwriter named below has severally agreed to purchase, at the public offering price less the underwriting discount set forth on the cover page of this prospectus supplement, the number of shares of common stock listed next to its name in the following table:"
And, they've not filled in any of the numbers, yet... but...
"Other Relationships. Certain of the underwriters and their affiliates have provided, and may in the future provide, various investment banking, commercial banking and other financial services for us and our affiliates for which they have received, and may in the future receive, customary fees, however, except as disclosed in this prospectus supplement, we have no present arrangements with any of the underwriters for any further services.
Stabilization. In connection with this offering, the underwriters may engage in stabilizing transactions, over-allotment transactions, syndicate covering transactions, penalty bids and purchases to cover positions created by short sales.
• Stabilizing transactions permit bids to purchase shares so long as the stabilizing bids do not exceed a specified maximum, and are engaged in for the purpose of preventing or retarding a decline in the market price of the shares while the offering is in progress.
• Over-allotment transactions involve sales by the underwriters of shares in excess of the number of shares the underwriters are obligated to purchase. This creates a syndicate short position which may be either a covered short position or a naked short position. In a covered short position, the number of shares over-allotted by the underwriters is not greater than the number of shares that they may purchase in the over-allotment option. In a naked short position, the number of shares involved is greater than the number of shares in the over-allotment option. The underwriters may close out any short position by exercising their over-allotment option and/or purchasing shares in the open market.
• Syndicate covering transactions involve purchases of shares in the open market after the distribution has been completed in order to cover syndicate short positions. In determining the source of shares to close out the short position, the underwriters will consider, among other things, the price of shares available for purchase in the open market as compared with the price at which they may purchase shares through exercise of the over-allotment option. If the underwriters sell more shares than could be covered by exercise of the over-allotment option and, therefore, have a naked short position, the position can be closed out only by buying shares in the open market. A naked short position is more likely to be created if the underwriters are concerned that after pricing there could be downward pressure on the price of the shares in the open market that could adversely affect investors who purchase in the offering.
• Penalty bids permit the representative to reclaim a selling concession from a syndicate member when the shares originally sold by that syndicate member are purchased in stabilizing or syndicate covering transactions to cover syndicate short positions.
These stabilizing transactions, syndicate covering transactions and penalty bids may have the effect of raising or maintaining the market price of our shares or common stock or preventing or retarding a decline in the market price of our shares or common stock. As a result, the price of our common stock in the open market may be higher than it would otherwise be in the absence of these transactions. Neither we nor the underwriters make any representation or prediction as to the effect that the transactions described above may have on the price of our common stock. These transactions may be effected on the NYSE MKT, in the over-the-counter market or otherwise and, if commenced, may be discontinued at any time.
Passive market making. In connection with this offering, underwriters and selling group members may engage in passive market making transactions in our common stock on the NYSE MKT in accordance with Rule 103 of Regulation M under the Exchange Act, during a period before the commencement of offers or sales of the shares and extending through the completion of the distribution. A passive market maker must display its bid at a price not in excess of the highest independent bid of that security. However, if all independent bids are lowered below the passive market maker’s bid, that bid must then be lowered when specified purchase limits are exceeded."
Business Overview
We are a mineral exploration company. We acquire properties which we believe have potential to host economic concentrations of minerals, particularly gold, silver and copper. We have acquired mineral prospects for exploration in Nevada, Montana, and Idaho mainly for target commodities of gold, silver, zinc and copper. The prospects are held by both patented and unpatented mining claims owned directly by us or through legal agreements conveying exploration and development rights to us. Most of our prospects have had a prior exploration history as is typical in the mineral exploration industry. Most mineral prospects go through several rounds of exploration before an economic ore body is discovered and prior work often eliminates targets or points to new ones. Also, prior operators may have explored such mineral prospects under a completely different commodity price structure or technological regime. Mineralization which was uneconomic in the past may be ore grade at current market prices when extracted and processed with modern technology.
South Eureka Property
As of the date of this prospectus supplement, our primary exploration focus is on our South Eureka property in Nevada, which was acquired as part of the acquisition of Staccato Gold Resources Ltd. in June 2010. South Eureka is comprised of several projects included within one of the largest exploration land packages in the Battle Mountain - Eureka Mineral Trend. The South Eureka property has identified exploration potential evidenced by historic workings and gold anomalies throughout the district. Our Lookout Mountain project features a defined section of mineralized material within a large scale structural corridor and numerous high-priority targets to test.
South Eureka comprises an area of approximately 15,000 acres or more than 23 square miles. The property’s northern boundary is located approximately 1 mile south of the town of Eureka, Nevada, in the Eureka Mining district within the Battle Mountain – Eureka Mineral Trend, also referred to as the Cortez Trend.
The South Eureka property is composed of 845 unpatented and 15 patented claims and several projects including: Lookout Mountain, Secret Canyon/Oswego, Windfall, South Ratto, Hamburg Ridge, and New York Canyon. Historic open pit mines on the property include: the Windfall pit, the Rustler pit, North and South Paroni pits, and the Lookout Mountain pit. Timberline’s database contains over 484,000 feet of drill information from 1,265 drill holes that have been completed on the property from 1970 through September 2011.
We continue to work toward completion of a comprehensive technical work program at our South Eureka property. A large part of the Lookout Mountain project and Windfall project areas have now been mapped and sampled, including a detailed program conducted over the main mineralization area. The principal objectives of the mapping and sampling program are to characterize offsets along the main mineralized fault zones at Windfall and Lookout Mountain, identify orientations of mineralized cross structures intersecting the main structural zones, and follow up on soil anomalies. The mapping program, combined with surface sampling and acquisition of historic data, has provided a clearer understanding of the structures along the Ratto Ridge and Windfall areas, as well as identified several significant new exploration target areas.
Over 400 drill holes have been re-logged along Ratto Ridge to ensure geologic consistency with surface mapping, and based on this work, new geologic cross sections and plans have been constructed for the entire Lookout Mountain deposit. Geologic grade shells have also been built, and construction of a 3-D model of the geology, based on the results of historic drill re-logging and mapping efforts, is ongoing. This new work has led to an updated mineralization estimate that resolves past technical issues, and provides us with a plan for advancing the property into the scoping/pre-feasibility study phase following one more round of drilling.
An exploration Plan of Operations has been approved by the Bureau of Land Management and the Nevada Department of Environmental Protection for the Lookout Mountain project. The Plan of Operations calls for approximately 246 acres of disturbance that can be accessed for use in a phased approach, and covers the entire Ratto Ridge structural zone. The Plan of Operations will allow us to complete additional infill, metallurgical, and exploration drilling necessary to advance the development of the Lookout Mountain project.
S-1
We are of the opinion that the South Eureka property has excellent potential for continued exploration success both at the deposit scale and on the regional scale. The current Lookout Mountain mineralization is defined over a relatively small area at the north end of a mineralized structural corridor that extends for several thousand feet across the property, and up to 4 to 5 kilometers (2.5 to 3 miles) in strike length. This structure hosts several areas of drill indicated mineralization and the exploration potential in this corridor is strong, as evidenced by historic drilling, and soil and rock geochemical analyses. The Lookout Mountain mineralization itself is open for expansion at depth and along strike, especially to the south. Regionally, several other target areas also exist where historic production and exploration have occurred, but only limited systematic exploration has been conducted.
Lookout Mountain 2012 Program
With success in the 2010 and 2011 programs at South Eureka, we initiated and completed approximately $4,200,000 of follow-up work in 2012. The 2012 program focused on advancement of mineralization, metallurgical, geotechnical, and permitting studies in preparation for a preliminary economic analysis and included:
• 16,965 feet of RC drilling directed at resource in-fill and definition;
• 9,175 foot diamond drilling program focused primarily on obtaining drill core for process metallurgical and geotechnical scoping studies;
• Drilling and construction of additional groundwater monitoring wells for hydrological characterization;
• Initiation of geotechnical pit-wall stability, and heap leach pad alternative studies; and
• Initiation of additional baseline hydrology and environmental geochemistry studies directed at State and Bureau of Land Management (BLM) permitting.
Key successes of the 2012 drill program include demonstration of strong continuity in mineralization at the Lookout Mountain Project, and initial identification of high grade gold mineralization down-dip of the current mineralization.
The favorable results of the 2012 program dictate that we will proceed with a preliminary economic assessment of the Lookout Mountain Project which is planned for completion in 2013. Ongoing metallurgical, geotechnical, and environmental studies will be included in this assessment.
The South Eureka property has no known reserves, as defined under Guide 7, and the proposed program for the property is exploratory in nature.
Butte Highlands Gold Project
We are nearing production at our Butte Highlands Gold Project, where we have entered into a joint venture agreement with Highland Mining, LLC (which we refer to as “Highland”) to create Butte Highlands JV, LLC. Under terms of the joint venture agreement, we will be carried to production by Highland, which will fund all mine development costs. On September 17, 2012, Highland was purchased by Montana State Gold Company, LLC, a privately-owned Montana limited liability company. We continue to own a 50-percent carried-to-production interest in the joint venture. Both our and Highland’s 50-percent share of costs will be paid out of proceeds from future mine production.
Activities at Butte Highlands during fiscal 2012 focused on advancing mine permitting. Supplemental baseline data to support the operating permit application was collected and provided to regulators. This data included characterization of wetlands, faunal study, surface water hydrology investigations, geochemistry, and an initial project water balance analysis. In addition, a Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permit application was submitted and officially accepted by Montana regulators. This permit is a critical requirement for further underground exploration and mine operation; permit receipt is anticipated in 2013.
Permitting has also advanced during 2012 with submittal of a Special Use Permit application with the United States Forest Service for ore haulage road use. The United States Forest Service completed site investigations and continues processing the application, which is anticipated for completion in 2013.
Once the operating and Montana Pollutant Discharge Elimination System permits are approved by the state of Montana, we expect Butte Highlands to transition directly from exploration to gold mining operations.
As of September 30, 2012, we have incurred exploration costs to date of approximately $1,600,000. During the 2013 fiscal year, we do not plan to undertake any significant exploration work on the property. The focus at Butte Highlands in fiscal 2013 will be the completion of the permitting process, completion of geologic model and mine planning, and the commencement of mining operations by our joint venture partner, Highland, upon the receipt of the Hard Rock Operating Permit from the State of Montana.
S-2
The Butte Highlands Gold Project has no known reserves, as defined under Guide 7, and the proposed program for the property is exploratory in nature.
Recent Developments
On December 10, 2012, we announced that we had received a draft Hard Rock Operating Permit for our Butte Highlands Gold Project from the Montana Department of Environmental Quality (MDEQ). We also received a Compliance Determination setting forth the MDEQ's determination that the completed application for the operating permit complies with the substantive requirements of Montana's Metal Mine Reclamation Act.
As noted in the draft permit, the final operating permit is expected to be issued upon the completion of the MDEQ's review pursuant to the Montana Environmental Policy Act and its determination that the project bonding is sufficient. Based on current projections, we expect that the reviews will be completed and the final operating permit will be issued in mid-2013. We expect to receive the water discharge permit and road use permit related to the Butte Highlands Project prior to the receipt of the final operating permit.
Corporate Information
We were incorporated in the State of Idaho on August 28, 1968 under the name Silver Crystal Mines, Inc., to engage in the business of exploring for precious metal deposits and advancing them toward production. We ceased exploration activities during the 1990s and became virtually inactive. In December 2003, a group of investors purchased 80-percent of the issued and outstanding common stock from the then-controlling management team. In January 2004, we affected a one-for-four reverse split of our issued and outstanding shares of common stock and increased the number of our authorized shares of common stock to 100 million with a par value of $.001. Unless otherwise indicated, all references herein to shares outstanding and share issuances have been adjusted to give effect to the aforementioned stock split. On February 2, 2004, our name was changed to Timberline Resources Corporation. Since the reorganization, we have been in an exploration stage evaluating, acquiring and exploring mineral prospects with potential for economic deposits of precious and base metals. A “prospect” is defined as a mining property, the value of which has not been determined by exploration. On August 27, 2008 we reincorporated into the State of Delaware pursuant to a merger agreement approved by our shareholders on August 22, 2008.
In March 2006, we acquired Timberline Drilling, Inc. (“Timberline Drilling”), formerly known as Kettle Drilling, as a wholly-owned subsidiary. Timberline Drilling was formed in 1996 and provides mineral core drilling services to the mining and mineral exploration industries primarily in the western United States.
In July 2007, we closed our purchase of the Butte Highlands Gold Project. In October 2008, we announced that we had agreed to form a 50/50 joint venture with Small Mine Development (“SMD”) at the Butte Highlands project. In July 2009, we finalized the joint venture agreement with Highland Mining, LLC (an affiliate of SMD) (“Highland”) to create Butte Highlands JV, LLC (“BHJV”). Under terms of the joint venture agreement, development began in the summer of 2009, with Highland funding all mine development costs through development. Both Timberline’s and Highland’s 50-percent share of costs will be paid out of net proceeds from future mine production.
In June 2010, we closed our acquisition of Staccato Gold Resources Ltd., a Canadian-based resource company (“Staccato Gold”) that was in the business of acquiring, exploring and developing mineral properties with a focus on gold exploration in the dominant gold producing trends in Nevada. As a result of this acquisition, we obtained Staccato’s flagship gold exploration project (“Lookout Mountain”), and several other projects at various stages of exploration in the Battle Mountain/Eureka gold trend in north-central Nevada, along with Staccato Gold’s wholly owned U.S. subsidiary, BH Minerals USA, Inc (“BH Minerals”).
In September 2010, we closed our drilling services operation in Mexico which was operated by our wholly owned Mexican subsidiary, World Wide Exploration, S.A. de C.V. (“World Wide” or “WWE”), and moved substantially all of the assets of WWE to the United States to be available for use by Timberline Drilling.
In September 2011, we announced that we had entered into a non-binding letter of intent to sell Timberline Drilling to a private company formed by a group of investors, including certain members of the senior management team of Timberline Drilling. In November 2011, the sale of Timberline Drilling was completed for a total value of approximately $14.5 million.
We currently maintain an administrative office at 101 East Lakeside Ave., Coeur d’Alene, Idaho 83814. The telephone number of our administrative office is (866) 513-4859 (toll free) or (208) 664-4859. Timberline also maintains a geological staff office at 1112 River St., Elko, NV 89801.
No matter where you go... there you are.
"There is no mention of a further fee"
and then
"to extend the exclusivity... the SOE is completing geological and processing tasks"
Making "So there is no set new fee for the extension" obviously just as wrong as "There is no mention of a further fee".
If they didn't mention it... how is it we are discussing it... ?
If they didn't "set" the requirement and define the performance required... they'd not know where to begin, what to do, what was expected in performance, or how to perform.
Clearly, those issues don't exist... each of the elements is OBVIOUS... making the confusion some are trying to inflict not worth the effort in responding to... and CLEARLY not worth trying to VALIDATE the effort made trying to craft a conspiracy theory out of a lack of ability to comprehend the language...
The company wrote the PR in English...
It's meaning is not unclear...
That they've not provided details re the quid the pro or the quo in each aspect of the arrangements made, or diagrammed their sentences to explain them fully for those with an impaired ability to comprehend, isn't a reason we should address others postured cluelessness about the content as reasonable, rather than recognize it as calculated.
The opinions of the "professionally confused" should be dismissed.
There's nothing confusing about it...
China isn't providing benefits to SRSR by doing the work in the metallurgy studies... coincidentally now... just because they're nice guys, and "it seemed like the thing to do at the time"...
They're doing the work because it is a contribution of value that is a part of a business arrangement...
LOL!!!
I think the bad actors here are going down... hard...
It's such fun watching them struggle with facts... that don't align with the crap they've made up...
"some one is trying to perpetuate a fraud and cause concern for people to question their holdings"
Seems there's very little point in being that shy about it... AFTER its been made so blatantly obvious...
Clearly, what we see exposed now is "an" answer... to some things.
Obviously, its not the only answer... to all things.
Just another one of those issues re something we see that has clearly meaningful market impact, that also seems it is a thing that the management aren't close to being responsible for controlling ?
I appreciate that their recent PR... did expose all that it did...
I think it is clear enough that SRSR doesn't need to re-write the basic industry standards of performance in conducting basic tasks... just to make an excuse for your feigned "confusion".
I don't think China has any need to do that work... to determine their opinion about it.
I think China already accepts the historical work done by Gulf Dominion as valid, including the results of drilling, and the prior metallurgy studies... only more given all the prior work done by SRSR, and others, validating the historical effort, has resulted ONLY in that. I think that is NOT what the Chinese experience has been in addressing prior reports on other prospects, including the IAMGOLD "opportunity", and the prospects in Africa.
That's clearly "allowed" under the rules that China applies in their process of evaluation.
I think if that were not true... you'd not see any discussion now of them proceeding in negotiating deals... extending the exclusive, etc.
I still don't think it hurts anything to enable "additional validation" of prior work... and the proofs we see that have validated prior work already, do nothing to suggest any greater risk exists in relation to the metallurgy studies than any other facet of the project. It looks to me like that work being done now is likely to prove consistent with other work done validating the historic effort previously. The reason for that... is not just that "SRSR has the rocks"... but that Gulf Dominion was routinely CONSERVATIVE in their approach to defining the meaning of the the results provided by the historic work.
Among other things, the case proves the folly of Canada's approach to dismissing the value of any and all prior historic work... only because the Canadian REGULATORS failed in preventing Bre-X... and find it useful to blame their egregious failure on others...
In any case, I think China probably already HAS everything that they'd ever need to make a decision... and there is almost no risk the current work program even relates to any additional need, like that, much less that the result will drive any "re-negotiation"...
I think the delays that have been experienced have other sources entirely... more political than practical... which pose almost no risk to the relationship that has already been formed between SRSR and their partners...
It's still a reality that human nature requires that "work expands to fill the time available"...
China is inordinately unlikely to "feel" any of the time pressures that apparently are commonly experienced or manufactured by "SRSR holders"...
So, we'll probably not see anything about "the deal" being resolved before February... and, it's always possible "politics" which aren't controlled by SRSR management or the Chinese SOE's might take longer still... without that altering the focus of the partners or the value of their cooperation, the value of the rocks, or anything else that matters.
That still makes the company PR exposing and exploding the arguments of the "pessimists" flogging fraudulent arguments... noteworthy... and fun. Who knows. Perhaps those same "pessimists" are even responsible for the "politics" that are the source of delays ?
FWIW, I think China is enabling the work in metallurgy now... ONLY because it is a required part of the feasibility study... which they're working on with SRSR now as a part of their cooperation with SRSR... ONLY because SRSR requires that effort made in completing the feasibility study... in order to have the project comply with Canadian rules on reporting...
That isn't a necessary part of cooperation in "getting to a deal"... rather than an element in performance anticipated by "the deal"...
That we see that performance occurring... is far more positive, IMO, than you would ever determine from most other opinion posted here...
And, it's still true that no deal is a deal until the deal is done...
But, that doesn't alter how obviously stupid it is... to have SRSR negotiating a deal to enable the development of Nemegosenda, that will have them carried to production for a 20% interest, and probably retaining a 49% interest... when the price of a share right now reflects a "value" LESS THAN what Shining Tree alone is worth... ???
I think the "risk" is vastly over stated...
Events this week make it clear enough that some aspects of the risk ARE being wildly overstated by market participants... on purpose...
I appreciate the company exposing those making that effort...
I also think a deal is likely to get done...
But, we're still obviously not talking about the proper risk premium on a deal that is in the process of being done... when the future value of that deal being priced into a share now, or, the future value of the current 100% interest owned being priced into a share now if a deal is not done... is zero ?
SRSR owns the property outright... has a 100% interest, and no debts that might apply as liens against the properties. etc., so rationalizing or justifying the obvious extreme in the market... seems it requires looking for explanations other than "basic market inefficiency" ???
"no one knows who the SOE is"...
First, who cares... and why... ?
Then, it's also pretty obviously untrue...
The SOE clearly knows who the SOE is...
And, the S knows who the OE is... or we'd not be having the conversation.
The company clearly must know who the SOE's they're talking to are...
And, investors know at least "some" of that too, given there's clearly not been very much interest apparent or much effort made in keeping any of that a secret, from the Chinese side...
At least, investors who've bothered themselves with caring have been able to find out who in China has been talking to who about SRSR, Nemegosenda and niobium.
That doesn't mean investors do know for certain that the photos of company visits occurring with particular companies in particular locations in China, or that the presence of particular persons from those companies in visits to Nemegosenda, provides any solid proof of which SOE or SOE's will be signatories in any deal that is completed...
That's true by definition, and is equally as true of both sides, just as long as there isn't a signed deal... which doesn't make it crazy wild speculation for us to guess that it might be Scott Keevil who signs for SRSR... oops... I mean, Scott Keevil who signs for Niostar ?
The information already available does make it clear enough that the "corner liqueur store" issue is a created and wholly bogus canard.
There is plenty adequate transparency to prove that Scott Keevil didn't travel to China just to meet with "some guy" at the corner liqueur store...
That clearly appears it is another instance of a wholly "manufactured risk" being flogged with the intent of fostering the perception of risk when and where it is not warranted...
I'm not saying there isn't risk...
I am saying THAT risk re "it could be the corner liqueur store"... is very obviously wholly bogus...
Then, it appears that the Canadian federal government granted VISA's to a pile of people over the last while, to facilitate the conduct of the negotiations that have occurred... so, it seems they must already know well enough who those persons were, and etc. ?
We know the government of Ontario has been actively promoting the effort to enable foreign direct investment in early stage projects... and have particularly focused on enabling and encouraging Chinese investment...
That puts them right there along with most others around the globe seeking to win that sort of investment... but, in context, the point is that it suggests the government of Ontario knows what's going on, too ?
"In an efficient market the price certainly would be rising, however its isn't efficient..."
"Once we see some real volume sustained that will indicate some successful deal probability."
LOL!!!
So, which is it... you think the market is efficient... or not.
I think we agree that it is not...
And, if the market is not efficient... and that lack of efficiency results, as you suggest, in dramatically under-pricing SRSR shares relative to their current known value... why would you ever think that "sustained volume" or any other market metric... would anticipate or "indicate some successful deal probability"... or think that any change in any market metric would ever anticipate or indicate anything ?
Either the market is efficient... or it is not ?
Maybe it's a matter of degree... with change that matters in relation to "how efficient" the market is on any given day ?
FWIW, I think the probability of a success in closing a deal... is not dependent in any way, shape or form... on the behavior of market participants that is apparent in the charts and reflected in their choices in trading.
I think the opposite is clearly true... that the charts do reflect choices in trading seems it is beyond dispute...
So, what market behavior is it... that is the source of inefficiency that creates obvious mispricing ?
And, by that, I don't mean to imply that there are any particular limits in the behavior of market participants... that means market behavior is limited only to those choices that are reflected in trading data ?
Posting opinions on the internet... is a "market behavior"... ?
Why do you think it is not clear ?
It seems clear as can be, to me, and I don't see anyone else being in the least bit confused by any aspect of it...
Why are you claiming the company "retested" any sample ?
Where did you see the company saying they "retested" any sample ?
How did you determine they have "retested" any sample ?
I don't see any evidence that they have said that, or done that ?
So, why are you saying that ?
I think the PR was well worth the cost... ONLY because it provides such a clear proof of the flagrant errors being flogged in the market...
I think it proves that you are incorrect that the company is not "concerned about their investors" or focused on addressing the problem with fraudulent propagation of negative messages.
In this case, we clearly see a fraud being practiced in the propagation of negative messages... and we see the company correcting the errors being propagated... in just the first line of their PR...
It's clear enough even that the PR has forced a correction in your own errors, in things which you admit today had "confused" you before...
It seems it may be worth it, just for that ?
And, that's all still just the impact of THE FIRST LINE...
I don't see that there's been much proper consideration of the content, meaning, and impact of the rest, yet, and I've not seen any real analysis here... that goes beyond addressing the nature of the errors being flogged in fictionalizing the issues with "metallurgy studies"... ?
Right. The perception of risk... is naturally conditioned by the nature of the efforts being undertaken in the market to foster that perception, and to enlarge the perception of risk...
That's true, even when the "risks" addressed are fictions fabricated out of whole cloth.
The recent PR clearly pulled the rug out from under a couple of the bogus arguments being flogged... that have been posturing obvious errors in relation to the risks and the perception of the risks.
The PR handily reveals that, showing that those SPECIFIC arguments were being created out of whole cloth by market participants posturing as "insider" experts.
Strange that some would be "confused" about routine issues in mining, while you see mining neophytes who admit they are not close to being experts... who aren't in the least bit confused by the company's communication.
Have you checked that opinion with Merle, too ?
I think the PR accomplished exactly that... handily exposing the source of the claimed "failures" as a pathetic fraud...
The problem was that IAMGOLD's feasibility study showed it was NOT feasible to mine their deposit using lower cost open pit mining methods... which was what they'd hoped spending the $$$ doing the work on the feasibility study would show. Instead, the work they did showed some they have some higher grade materials in much narrower zones at depth... but, the lower grade materials were much lower grades, and together they didn't average out well enough, with the higher grades in narrower intersections, to justify open pit mining.
The difference... first, is that Nemegosenda has larger intersections, with higher grades in the lower grade ores, resulting in better AVERAGE grades overall, and with those better average mineral values beginning right at and near surface, open pit mining is practical. IAMGOLD's ore surface is a couple hundred meters deep... meaning they'd have to pay to dig a really deep hole... a big cost imposed even before getting to the first rock containing ore.
Basically, looking at the original work done by Gulf Dominion... it appears to show that most of the known historic resource in the Hawke Zone at Nemegosenda would be mined out... before the hole being dug doing that got as deep as the one IAMGOLD would have to dig just to reach their first ore...
You are completely wrong in every aspect of thinking the metallurgy work the Chinese are focused on doing... is still about looking at the basic assay values that matter when you're doing basic exploration work focused on proving a resource exists.
It's just not about that.
The metallurgy work the Chinese are focused on doing now... is about the chemistry and physics of processing these particular rocks, and about the requirements that result in engineering design of scaling up the extraction processes that work best, and the facilities and other inputs required to support those processes, as they will need to be used to extract the minerals... from the rocks... at a commercial scale.
Having somewhat higher or lower average values in the target minerals in the samples that they're testing now to determine how to design the best possible extraction processes... won't make any real difference, one way or the other, in the things you quite wrongly claim they're focused on.
The value of "the rocks" and terms in "the deal" aren't going to change, one way or the other, based on the results of a couple of assays of rock samples being tested, now... when the focus of that work doesn't relate in any way, directly or not, to determination of a resource.
Where there is a resource... the metallurgy studies will tell you how much of that resource is able to be extracted, how easily, using different methods, at what cost, etc.
They will want to see some variation in samples of different content and grades, to see how the efficiency of extraction processes depends on and varies with the mineral content...
The results of the metallurgy studies do matter a lot... as an element in feasibility... as the proven ability to extract valuable minerals from the rocks is a significant factor (and it is a major driver of costs in development and production, and the profitability of operations) but they don't matter at all in the way you're saying they do...
They're not focused on testing the rocks to see "if there is value" or to see "what the value is".
Period.
They're focused on finding the most efficient processes for extracting the minerals they already know are there, from the rocks, while planning on enabling doing that on a commercial scale...
"you can actually quantify the market's drop in confidence"
Based on the 99.9% that held, last week... or the 0.01% who sold ?
Seems this board has become an information vacuum.
It's not that there isn't information out there...
It's just that you won't find it here.
LOL!!!!
That's curious...
"While he doesn't control the JV I see no reason why he can't spinout ST"
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=82215806
We've had that exact same discussion multiple times, with increasing frequency and intensity over the last two years or so...
I've consistently noted I saw no reason they couldn't decide to spin ST whenever they're ready to... and saw no reason that it had to be tied to the sequences of events re Nemegosenda or financing... and you've consistently maintained that it would never happen prior to the completion of a financing event for Nemegosenda...
And, now, you've suddenly changed your opinion: "I do think he will deliver a ST spinout prior to the news on the JV" ?
So, what's changed ?
Or, are you thinking the deal they are working on is "as good as done"... and aren't willing to say that ?
Their PR's are written in English.
"Like many have posted, if billions of dollars of assets are in the ground, the PPS should not be hovering around .02"
I agree "it should not be"... and, it appears increasingly likely to me that it will not be... for too much longer. The critics are rapidly running out of viable arguments re risks. And, the fictional arguments aren't working any more.
Timing issues in the market still exist... even if they don't come close to justifying the scale in the error... and, markets are often enough irrational... that corrections of those errors are a common experience.
But, all that still requires explaining why it is what it is... if it "should not be"... ???
And, that requires explaining whose interest it is in, to sustain effort enabling errors in market pricing that do not reflect the KNOWN FACT of VALUE THAT EXISTS ? It's clearly not "retail investors" who are setting the price in the market ? What IS reasonable in price also should be addressed in the same conversation ? And, while that has been discussed here often enough, over the last five years, SRSR isn't the only mineral development company out there... that is experiencing similar "disconnects" in the market behavior ?
It's a common enough subject among investors in precious metals stocks: http://www.zerohedge.com/article/will-junior-mining-stocks-be-investment-2011
Niobium prices perhaps aren't following the trend in gold linearly, but, then, the pace of growth in demand blows away the charts for gold ?
It appears there's not as much of an issue with real shortages in the actual natural resources... as much as there is an issue with thresholds and purposeful disruption of market functions that should be but are not working to enable FREE MARKET access to capital. I've addressed many aspects of that problem... as a natural consequence of enabling banks in practicing market fraud.
So, now you're joining Alan C in recognizing the problem with pairing the efforts made in market manipulation... with efforts in disparagement ?
It's a puzzle... why the same people who deny the FACT that the assets exist and have value... also claim that the share prices resulting from their effort, are a proof the value doesn't exist... when that price really reflects the effort made in lying about and denying the facts ?
First, the detractors wrongly claimed the rocks didn't exist... but that failed.
Then, they wrongly claimed the rocks don't contain what they do... but that failed.
Remember "they're not drilling"... compared to video of them drilling ?
They were proven wrong... and the argument failed.
Then, they wrongly claimed "rocks don't have value"... but that failed.
It's worth noting that "rocks do have value" and that that value is established by and recognized BY LAW... making the effort advancing that claim here a practice of fraud...
You can layer in instance after instance of the same pattern... including the obvious disconnect apparent in the need for critics to explain how their claim of years and years of "persistent failure" have enabled SRSR in taking a bare bones prospect from a concept in 2008... to the threshold of doing a major deal in 2012... in a market that famously has made it harder than it has ever been before to raise capital... ???
I need to find a lot more "failures" of that sort...
Now, the claim is... the PROOF they're negotiating a deal with Chinese SOE's, and are cooperating with them now in advancing the project... currently... with China contributing to the effort in doing the metallurgy studies... isn't a proof that the SOE's must recognize the value of the rocks ?
LOL!!!
Why do you think China would ever discuss doing a 51%/49% JV deal... for a property they think has no value ?
The share price seems it mostly reflects the EFFORT being made in the market... to have that impact on the share price...
That effort to disparage the company, its assets, the CEO... has been ongoing since I've been aware of the company...
It has been unrelenting...
It has frequently crossed lines in the law...
And, it has proven consistently WRONG...
Reality, however, is not determined either by substantial effort made in posturing false opinion... or by market prices...
Price is not value...
Never has been.
Never will be.
For now, the price MOSTLY reflects the impact of that effort being made... denying that there is value... and disparaging the CEO, etc., far more than it reflects the FACT in reality of value in the assets...
Those who've done the due diligence... appear more willing than ever to ignore the noise in the market... and continue holding shares.
As I've noted, today... that accounts for 99.9% of the shares, this week.
Clearly, 99.9% of share owners didn't find the share price this week interesting enough to induce them to sell shares...
That seems it leaves almost 99.9% of the opinion... being generated by those with an interest in influencing pricing of that 0.1% ?
But, then, you still have to consider what portion of that 0.1% might be "air shares" ??? LOL!!!
"I wonder why they have been unable to convince any potential financier of the intrinsic value of their "rocks"?"
LOL!!!
Why do you think a company that clearly IS deeply engaged in the process of negotiating a deal with a Chinese SOE... "have been unable to convince any potential financier of the intrinsic value of their "rocks"?"
The voluminous evidence suggests otherwise.
SRSR appears to have multiple willing suitors... and no shortage of ability to choose who they'd prefer to work with.
China has the deepest pockets on the planet...
They appear to think SRSR's rocks have value...
I don't think other opinion matters at this point.
The scam that "rocks don't have value"... failed long ago... and is dead.
Anyone who bought 5 years ago and held is UP by 100% or better...
My own initial purchases here, when I called the bottom in posts here in October of 2008, were in the range of $0.007 to $0.008...
There've been relatively few opportunities to add more shares below $0.02 since then... but, along with others, I've been able to take advantage of those opportunities to average up, when the opportunity has arisen...
Many of the same bottom fishers who were buying shares at $0.007 in 2008 are still here and buying shares at $0.025 now...
Others may have different experience... but, as is always true in markets, in buying and selling, each person is responsible for their own decisions in timing, etc.
Holders from back then have had 5 (extended) opportunities in the last five years to sell a few of those shares they bought below a penny, at something between 4 times and more than 20 times greater than their initial investment... ? Some clearly have traded a few, in that time, and then bought more back at the interim lows... while others have had confidence in their due diligence, and have held...
Traders have had predictable enough opportunities as you note... which doesn't mean they're not the ones "bitching or complaining about this stock" while talking their trade... and that includes holders who may be more focused on their trading than their holdings when posting.
Yet, the most obviously consistent opinion you see posted by those who have been here that long... shows they're continuing to hold and continuing to accumulate more shares ?
Even those who are persistently negative... continue buying shares ?
LOL!!!
The lack of volume in the trade... clearly is a function of the choice of holders to continue holding... with many TRADERS also purposefully choosing that option to hold and not trade shares now, as the most obviously appropriate trading strategy, given the fact of others market behavior.
Looks like we're on track to end this week with less than 0.1% of the outstanding shares having been traded this week... ??? So, for the week, 99.9% of holders have opted for holding as the best strategy ?
Whatever it is you see people saying in what they are posting...
The vote and opinion that actually matters in the market... seems it is often somewhat different than what is being said...
The one year weekly chart shows accumulation continuing... with buys outpacing sells by better than a 2 : 1 margin
LOL!!!
You say I'm "Completely Incorrect"... then post a link that does more to prove me right than the opposite ?
CHINA DOESN'T NEED OR USE 43-101 STANDARDS IN THEIR EVALUATION OF MINERAL PROSPECTS.
PERIOD.
THEY HAVE THEIR OWN STANDARDS THEY ARE REQUIRED TO APPLY.
They will apply their OWN rules, not Canada's, in determining what they think of the prospects they consider. Why that puzzles anyone is a mystery to me...
"So in short, they will be required to complete the feasibility if they plan to public list this JV. "
No.
As your own post points out... if they opt to list in Hong Kong, they could choose to apply JORC or SAMREC standards instead of NI43-101... which still assumes, without any evidence I'm aware of, that they've announced that they intend to list the JV ?
They have options... including choosing to not list the JV... and, your posting of a link doesn't address what it means that Hong Kong accepts multiple standards ? If they do choose to list the JV in Hong Kong, it might make more sense to apply JORC standards than Canadian standards ?
What Hong Kong does in changing their rules while trying to encourage more foreign mineral exploration companies to list their shares in Hong Kong, which effort includes enabling the application of multiple standards (43-101, JORC, SAMREC) really has nothing at all to do with what the Chinese SOE's have to consider in working to meet their own future needs for imported minerals ?
http://chineseculture.about.com/library/china/whitepaper/bl2003mineral05.htm
There CLEARLY is a rational process being applied in considering the priorities in the sequences of events that are apparent in the effort advancing the development of Nemegosenda. That process is clearly vastly more rational than most IHubbers posting of irrational and irrelevant garbage. That process INCLUDES prioritizing the work required to report the resources under the 43-101... but, it doesn't appear to prioritize that work ahead of doing the similar work that is required to enable the Chinese partners to evaluate the project under Chinese standards...
The Chinese standards have different requirements than NI43-101.
The work we can see SRSR doing over the last five years... appears to be vastly better correlated with the Chinese requirements than it is with the NI43-101 standards.
That makes perfect sense, too, given that SRSR's preferred development partners... are Chinese industrial mineral CUSTOMERS (who apply Chinese standards in their evaluation) and not Canadian retail investors... whose needs the 43-101 is designed to address. So, seeing SRSR applying their limited resources mostly to addressing the information requirements and the needs of their Chinese partners... first... instead of addressing the requirements of retail investors under the NI43-101... seems that it makes perfect sense.
Having made that choice... appears it is going to result in SRSR completing a deal with Chinese partners, addressing Nemegosenda on the basis of Chinese standards... that seems it will both enable accelerated development of Nemegosenda, and result in SRSR retaining a 49% ownership interest in the project as it moves from exploration and development into production... all BEFORE they begin addressing the different issues that the NI43-101 standards require they address.
China will be participating... and is participating now... in enabling work advancing the project, prior to the JV completing work on an NI43-101 compliant feasibility study...
That doesn't mean they're "guessing" about how the project measures up against other potentials evaluated under relevant Chinese standards...
And the aggregate impact of all of the above STILL makes it VASTLY better for SRSR shareholders... to have the company management ignoring the issues with Canadian standards under the recently revised NI43-101... while prioritizing efforts addressing known Chinese standards instead.
I agree with you that it is plausible that the JV will intend to seek and obtain project financing in its own right as a corporate entity...
But, we don't know if that will happen, yet...
And, there's always potential that there may be some minor advantage found that is related to control over some portion of the financing... so, I'd not be surprised to see a "mix" of sources... although I'd much prefer to see a clean approach to structuring a package deal... rather than one done in piecemeal fashion...
I agree again that I don't see "financial institutions making deals secured by a minority ownership of a project". I don't think our senior partner will have much reason to want to surrender interest to others... which doesn't mean there aren't stupid people working in the markets, causing problems, thinking that they might be able to force their way into a deal somehow by proving they're stupid... I've seen it happen often enough.
Agree again that there has to be a deal in place... before speculation about the form of financing is relevant... but, that speculation still won't be overly relevant AFTER a deal is signed, either. It will not be our opinions that define what happens... once they're in position to start making those things happen... and plans are always "the concept from which you begin to enable the deviations necessary to succeed"...
And, yes, they're not completing work on feasibility now and wrapping it up, rather than beginning that work...
There's going to be a lot of $ spent on a lot of interesting work that needs doing, still... I expect there will be more drilling... likely a significant amount done in a fairly short period of time... and have no clue what sort of "range limits" will be applied in focusing that effort... but, I'll be surprised if the effort doesn't do a LOT more to develop and reveal the full extent and scope of the potential. The last few holes they drilled were certainly eye openers...
I've still not found it useful to care, very much, about how the postured arguments about the legacy shorts prove to unwind. It's merely a curiosity. We'll find out what the actual short position is, at some point. I've never seen that dirty secret be revealed... without it being forced to be revealed... and don't disagree about what that will require, here...
Otherwise, the intensity (and flagrant error) in the discussion about it here seems to me driven more by purpose than reason, as discussed in the first two lines here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/414151-quadra-fnx-when-the-shorts-got-slaughtered?source=yahoo
Some (wrongly, IMO) think that discussion, or persistent subtle negativity in concert with it, will discourage buying and shake holders out... and they craft arguments they intend to drive that result. Others, think the opposite (also wrongly, IMO)...
While I'm not tolerant of the dishonesty and flagrant efforts in manipulation... I tend to focus my own concern on what the article suggests is more rational:
So, I don't choose to CARE that much what others opinions are on those issues... or what influences them...
The link says: "Some of us are also guilty of not doing our home work"
I'm not planning on being one of them...
Doing the homework yourself easily shows you well enough who's telling the truth and who is not...
And, SRSR has a solid (and amazing) crew of DD monsters...
Unfortunately, the utility of the board, here, has been highjacked by those with other agenda...
So, it's nice to see a post now and then that's neither damning with faint praise, or overtly disparaging the CEO... who's succeeding in bringing this project along from not much but an historical afterthought in 2008... to far and away the most interesting niobium prospect on the planet, currently... while pinching his pennies hard enough in the process to make Lincoln and Elizabeth squeal...
A lot of error fostered here... comes from effort enabling that error by considering SRSR as if it really existed in an IHub opinion generated bubble, instead of in a dynamic market place...
Vastly more useful to note that SRSR exists in a market place that is both dynamic... and full of potential for "reality checks" based on comparisons with OTHERS EXPERIENCE...
We've been through all that with other niobium potentials... with Nemegosenda proving far and away those others superior...
SRSR still isn't the only company out there doing this mineral exploration and development thing.
SRSR isn't the only company working with China in generating supply of minerals that will be supporting infrastructure for the steel industry...
Scott Keevil doesn't call the shots on every driver of timing... and he doesn't make others decisions for them...
And, I could painstakingly describe, in detail, what exactly is relevant in context of our discussion, in these links:
http://seekingalpha.com/article/347131-abacus-mining-exploration-may-have-a-partner-with-deep-pockets-backing-its-project
http://ironinvestingnews.com/category/feature-articles
But, "Some of us are also guilty of not doing our home work"... and those are probably the ones who should read the damn links and figure it out for themselves...
The last comment here might be most relevant, in context:
http://silverinvestingnews.com/14877/cftc-lawsuit-multimillion-dollar-metals-scheme-fraud.html
But, while HSBC has the same issues with their failed and failing practices of fraud as most of the other banks (they're all doing it, after all, and have to try to stay competitive):
http://www.bloomberg.com/apps/news?pid=newsarchive&sid=aXGHk_IncBoQ
It's really NOT hard to follow the same story line at any of the major banks: http://www.innercitypress.org/dbbt.html
Just don't expect to see that in ANY of the "mainstream" media.
The guys committing fraud in commodities... are the same guys screwing us over with the monumental fraud in mortgages... are the same guys generating problems LARGER THAN THE OTHERS in derivatives... are the same guys manipulating rules enabling fraud in trading, like they do in everything else...
That's the INEVITABLE, PREDICTABLE result of repealing Glass-Steagal...
Still, the current issue with HSBC makes it look to me a whole lot more like they're treading that line the way that BCCI did. Not that the other banks or the powers that be really care about a couple billion in illicit profits here and there... The illegal trade is lucrative enough they can easily afford the fines and choose to pay them, and still come out WAY ahead... which is how the Nightly Business Report analyst wrapped up her discussion of it, yesterday:
http://www.huffingtonpost.com/2012/12/11/hsbc-fined-record-money-laundering_n_2276879.html
Basically, they've been enabling money laundering by Mexican drug lords, financing sanction busting trade by rogue nations, and pretty much been behind financing or conducting all sorts of nefarious activity...
Now, you can see the links to some of the better stories on the core bits of it, and the implication, disappearing... but, the web is still flooded with the now WAY too obviously ironic in the "spin" applied contemporaneously not all that long ago:
http://www.businessweek.com/globalbiz/content/may2009/gb20090528_478957.htm?chan=top+news_top+news+index+-+temp_global+business
The sale of the card division actually looks like a part of the penalty being applied, not a benefit they've created. It will mean they are going to transfer control over the card divisions' data to "others"... who may be able to make some bits of sense out of some transactions that HSBC would rather not have anyone making sense out of... ???
The point, for SRSR... is only that most "banks" and "banksters" resemble organized crime families and figures more than they resemble anything or anyone that deserves our respect...
You think a bank that is knowingly engaged in fraud in mortgages, that is enabling crime in the drug trade, and in subverting U.N. imposed trade sanctions, facilitating trade in illicit weapons... will get cold sweaty hands worrying about the risk in cheating while shorting a pink sheet stock ?
LOL!!!
"Short selling a security is neither inherently fraudulent nor in itself is it a form of manipulation in any way, shape, or form"
Of course not... and I didn't say it was...
Which doesn't mean that a thing which is not INHERENTLY fraudulent can't be MADE INTO THE SUBJECT OF AND SOURCE OF FRAUD... which is EXACTLY the issue with the fraud that IS practiced as routine in short trading now... NOT by retail... but by the brokers and the banks that employ them...
Retail are the VICTIMS of that fraud... not the perpetrators of it...
Any short trade in which the lenders of (forcibly taken) shares are not compensated for the lending of their property... IS FRAUD... by definition.
They'll probably have to approve it just to sustain niobium demand, now that the leading (secret) market application is going away:
http://theweek.com/article/index/236538/death-to-the-twinkie-the-funniest-eulogies
"IF there was a N/S attached to the stock prior to Keevil coming on board that covering WILL be obvious"
Which still doesn't mean that the OBVIOUS occurring will be easily recognized by those who choose to remain ignorant of it...
The CSTI trade WAS FLAMINGLY OBVIOUS... ???
But, without anything remotely resembling adequate transparency... you still don't know what it MEANS... ?
Short selling... as it is practiced in our market now... is fraudulent in its design and primary operation. That's true BOTH because there is a fraud practiced in enabling "legitimate borrowing" based on purposefully enabled fictions about "having a locate"... and because borrowing that does occur is forced and WHOLLY INVOLUNTARY.
It doesn't require accepting that there is a large accumulated legacy in a naked short position to accept the FACT of short selling being a routine part of trading in every corner of the market... which FACT in itself has significant impact on share prices...
Everything traded in the markets IS worth less... because the shorts are being enabled in their practice of fraud... and that purposeful imposition of officially tolerated fraud makes basic market participation worth less...
Short selling... as it is and has been practiced... is DESIGNED and INTENDED to enable imposition of significant undervaluation...
It doesn't exist without a purpose and an impact that is enabling of that purpose... which is a specific function of what the rules ARE, which has nothing to do with the legitimacy of "trading" that is not fraudulent... when the illegitimate scheme being applied instead IS fraudulent.
"Trading" profits of the market actors who write the rules... fully depend on enabling that particular sort of market inefficiency... and the rules we are saddled with, in result, including the rules that enable the fraud in shorting as is practiced now, are intended to enable and enhance that inefficiency...
The markets COULD be vastly more efficient than the rules allow them to be now... and, if they were, we'd all be better off... and we'd see much less purposeful effort applied in mis-pricing shares as one part of that...
The imbalances in the rules we have... enable error not only in the trading of stocks... but it results in markets that are inefficient in supporting development of REAL competition in the market place, broadly. Skewing the capital raising function of the market to disadvantage raising capital that enables the development of new competition... pairs with an ability for existing competitors to manipulate markets which is extremely anti-competitive in the broad sense, not just in terms of error in the market pricing of shares.
The primary negative impact shorts have on trading... is NOT only a function of "accumulation" in shorts, but of basic error in enabling market manipulation through the trading schemes shorting enables... as well as of that basic error in enabling shorts to conduct a trade that is based in fundamental fraud.
Of course, that impact is grossly amplified in lightly traded issues... meaning that a very, very small number of market participants trading insignificant numbers in shares... can "set the price"... while the fraud tolerated in shorting means they can accomplish that without actually owning shares...
Whatever specious argument is employed in justifying the fraud as it is practiced now... the interest in facilitating trading profits of banks clearly does not outweigh the larger public interest in fostering robust market competition, including in defending the PRIMARY function of the market which is ENABLING CAPITAL FORMATION... not enabling wilful destruction of the investment value of publicly traded equities...
The justification for tolerating the function of the market as it now exists... is that the institutional members of the market assumed responsibilities in enabling capital formation... which is a trust they are grossly violating...
Dishonest trading strategies... are enabled by the rules... and, when the rules themselves are based in and enabling of a fraud... ???
The "normal" operation of shorts in the markets... and the operation of shorts in the accumulation of large naked short positions... are different things.
And, they've rewritten the rules recently ? The new rules work to make what WAS intentionally being tolerated before, in the specific fraud of counterfeiting securities by accumulating large naked short positions... much harder to accomplish, now... without it being revealed. The rules don't prevent that fraud in short trading... but (unless the banks lie and cheat... which we know they do) the new rules "should" enable a small improvement in transparency. So, in theory, at least, now you'll have a better idea when a NEW fraud is being perpetrated... although, the new "rules" didn't force unwinding known frauds, and they still contain loopholes that basically mean that anything the banks don't want to report... isn't reported.
The result is that the new rules operate only as a tool to telegraph what they want you to think is happening in the trade... without actually providing any real transparency on what the trade IS...
The new reporting scheme... is a tool to ENABLE manipulation, by reporting what they want to have reported, and withholding what they want to withhold... and it is not a tool that provides transparency sufficient to prevent it...
Those rules changes have NOT... as is touted here... made the short trade transparent...
"Finra daily numbers are not a reflection of short interest"
The short interest here could be zero... or it could be 400 million shares or more... and there isn't anything that happens in the daily reporting done by Finra that will reveal which is correct.
Finra's numbers do not include the impact on existing short positions that would be revealed only in the full and proper accounting for transactions in the sales of foreign brokerage houses... who participated in short transactions conducted overseas prior to the recent rules changes...
So, you don't know what the short position is... and Finra's reporting doesn't prove there are no shorts...
Claiming the Finra reporting proves there are not any shorts... is fraud.
China doesn't need to do a feasibility study...
They don't have any obvious reason to care what 43-101 says.
The only reason they're helping out with DOING the work to advance us on the feasibility study... seems it is that doing that is a part of their agreement, which facilitates SRSR in financing their share.
SRSR will need to have the feasibility study... and China has agreed to provide them with it...
SRSR focused their effort on providing China with the data they needed to do their part in determining their interest, under Chinese rules... and now we see proof that China is helping SRSR with getting the data SRSR needs...
This is NOT a mystery...