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.
The declaration document (number 34) by Marcus Southworth in the restructuring website (WUCC portion) has a partial copy of the Hatch Report attached to it starting on page 8.
http://www.copperkingwesternutahminingrestructure.com/Dkt%2034%20WU.pdf
I don't know if there was any fraud, and like to believe that there wasn't. Right now CPRK is already enjoying the benefits of an automatic stay. It gives them some time by not having to face the NOS which was filed and also suspends the obligations of defending themselves against the PN/NS suit. If anyone could prove fraud by CPRK, there is likely not a judge in the world who would allow the company to reorganize. There would be a relief of stay, and lein holders would proceed with foreclosure. Game over. Earlier on this board there was a solicitation for "victims" of CPRK. Be careful who you make alliances with, unless you absolutely have given up all hope. If that is the case, you might as well sell cause you won't be getting anything from a chapter 7. jmo
slam
Just my opinion, but I don't think it is in our best interest to open up a can of worm as it relates to fraud or malfeasance of the former or current management. If we did, it might play nicely into the creditors hands. We need to be on the side of management to potentially be part of the reorganizational plan rather than a thorn in their side. The last thing we need is for our shares to be cancelled going into this thing, or for the judge to force liquidation based on the accusations of a corrupt management. Think about it, the only way shareholders will ever recover anything is with the help of management and a successful mining operation. What would a judge think if a majority of shareholders suggested fraud? jmo
slam
When someone is a wordsmith (like most IR's) it is easy to get the message misconstrued. How many times in the past has he used a turd to paint a rosy picture?
Even the new CEO needs to answer to the BOD. BOD needs to answer to the shareholders. IMO CPRKSA needs to unite like never before to get some voice that can be heard by the BOD.
It is on record that Money Info (aka Charles Moskowitz) has unsecured debt owed by CPRK of $37,766.63. If any debt is owed to CAM from WUCC, it does not show up in WUCC's filing, probably because it was too small compared to the others. So I do not find it out of the realm of possibility that CAM may have claims for up to $60k for services. Funny though, that number came from somewhere. Reporters don't generally pull numbers out of their ass just to put content into a story.
The filing also states that MD is no longer a member of the BOD. Three man board consists of MS, EB, and DM. It will remian that way until shareholders are able to vote for a new board. That sheds a little ray of hope that there will be (may be) shareholders in the future. Whether or not these future shareholders will be the same ones as they are now is still a mystery though.
may 11, 2010 @ 12:40pm
I don't blame anyone for taking any approach possible in his/her process of obtaining information.
I for one, hold little credence in anything Charles says, yet I cannot place total blame on him either. If he was handcuffed, I respect his ability to walk that fine line which was demanded of him in the past. Now things should be different though. Using Ally's question as an example about whether or not we are producing magnetite at this time, seems like a straight-forward question which would allow a simple response (which she got). If we cannot get that type of answer through the conduit provided, we need a different conduit. Right now, I'm not sure.
Sorry Charles, but when you run around with a pack of dog's, it doesn't take long for others to begin treating you like another dog. He needs to step up to demonstrate that he can act differently now compared to how he was expected to act in the past. jmo
sd
I personally believe the most professional way to communicate with the CEO is through the channels provided through the investor relations department. That is their job. Unfortunately, there has become a credibility problem with the IR currently in place.
I think that CM should be afforded the opportunity to redeem himself, if he was in fact gagged by the previous management. However if he continues to provide non-answers, no answers, or less than factual information, then the new regime should be made aware of the shortcomings in this department. I would expect management to take action at that time.
sd
different companies... our is:
Standard Registrar & Transfer Company, Inc.
the one in the article is:
Standard Transfer & Trust
I had to take a second look too.
Dave was on too, along with Charles.
It was pretty uneventful in my opinion. A couple of key points I took away from it were:
Dave said the mill has been running for a week now and although relatively early in the re-start stage, said the mill was "meeting expectations" in some areas, and "exceeding expectations" in other areas. They will have a better accessment in about a month's worth of operations.
Charles mentioned that the new CFO is working on the financials. He said something to the effect of more than 2 weeks, but likely less than 2 months. It sounded to me like they would be audited when they are released. They wanted to act like a "real company" so rather have them audited than not.
Bill told them to start producing and to "do what you say you are going to do".
A bunch of other jibberish about production numbers which the ihub board has been hashing around for the past year. But when they won't commit on the true performance, it is hard justify the results in my opinion. I think Charles mentioned $18 million after the $800k burn rate was satisfied by the magnetite.
Hope that helps.
slam
Looks like a good fit to me. Nearby and well qualified. Besides the obvious CEO change being announced, this is the thing I feel CPRK has been lacking since the beginning... someone finally is actually responsible for the money!
Can anyone verify if this might be the new CFO?
http://www.davisaccountinggroup.com/index.html
This is only my opinion, and could vary significantly based on a number of factors.
Based on 1.8% copper at the Hidden Treasure Mine.
1 ton of ore contains 36# of copper
If they recover 50% through floatation they get 18# copper (hopefully it is higher than this)
If the copper in the concentrate is 30%, it would equal 60# per ton of ore
Therefore roughly 3% of the tonnage of the ore would be shippable concentrate
example
100 ton of ore yeilds 3 ton of cucon
Using these recovery numbers, simply drop 2 zeros from ore input and multiply by 3.
25--00 (2,500 ton of ore)
x3
75 ton cucon
JIT, Thanks for the report, but could you please verify that that is 3/4 oz per ton of ORE? Or do you mean that after it is processed, it will be 3/4 oz per ton on CON, or maybe 3/4 of a gram per ton. Sorry if I sound skeptical, but holy s__!
.75 x 3500(tpd) = 2625 oz au. per day x $1000 = over $2MM per DAY?
I'm not saying it couldn't happen, but highly unlikely. Someone would most likely have exploited it by now if it is that accessible. jmo
Problem is if we can't get this locomotive started, we're left with one person pulling the entire train down the tracks.
Does it seems odd to anyone that (per filing) that we have 3 directors and a chairman on the BOD?
Let's see, 3 + 1 = 4
2 within the company and 2 outside.
Yet we wonder why we cannot get anything accomplished.
FFF, looks like we have a void to fill, you game?
First off, the company knows what is required for filing as stated on page 7 of its initial filing:
Does anyone have any way of knowing how much volume was traded through NITE today?
dcragun, excellent work.. my thoughts exactly.
Here is another interesting read regarding your synopis.
http://www.counterfeitingstock.com/CS2.0/CounterfeitingStock.html
I drafted a letter yesterday to Senator Bennett. One of the big problems I see is getting Senator Dodd on board, as this would need to go through him also. I will likely copy Dodd on this matter too. I was going to mail mine or drop it at one of Bennett's offices. Do we have any stakeholders/shareholders from Connecticut?
Bennett's floor statement 7/20/2007:
http://bennett.senate.gov/public/index.cfm?p=Speeches&ContentRecord_id=0c9d7162-e177-459f-93cd-f3b51bdad7b5&ContentType_id=245cad09-9482-4f0d-8004-9c5ff620e986&f1e77522-3fb1-4336-9ec8-fb7cc501dba0
Bennett is obviously aware of the issue, but we need to put more pressure on the elected officials to do something.
pw, It is my opinion that MD (et al.) really did not have a choice to forego construction and wait for better times ahead. Under terms of the NS agreement, financial constraints are not a valid reason for force majeure.
Decimating the controlled properties, due to breach of contract does not seem like the prudent thing to do. I would think any Monday morning quarterback would be able to understand that.
Thanks Candy B,
So does this climate (snow and cold) have any adverse impacts to the process, or can they run it year 'round without much problem? Also, is there any automation (pumps, conveyors, etc) or do the materials need to be handled manually?
Thanks, slam
Thanks Candy B for always being such a great source of information. Can you answer a couple of questions about the cementation process for me? Is this a batch process, or more of a continuous flow process? Is the system indoors or outdoors?
I agree it is OK for anyone to give publicity to any entity, however claiming to be a "spokesman" is where the confusion arises for me. Is it possible that O'Hurley didn't know better, or was he maybe directed by WB to continue his role as spokesman without the consent of the company? It would be no different than if I paid a promoter, let's say Peewee Herman, to claim to be a spokesman for General Electric. Without proper consent, it would be just plain wrong. Thus, a C&D would not be out of line, yet if GE liked the promoter, the company could still retain him if it desires. It doesn't necessarily mean anyone intentionally lied though. Granted, the intent and character of WB is still in question, but hey, what else is new? JMO
If I were to guess, I would say that WB did initiate the hiring of JO. After the connection was brought to light, CPRK went into damage control. It would make sense for CPRK to maintain its relationship with JO, if only to save face with a major shareholder, and possibly agreed to maintain him as a spokesman. I would hope CPRK sent WB a cease and desist order to prevent anything like this from happening again in the future. While each of the parties were put in a precarious position by WB's actions, I find this to be an amicable approach in appeasing everyone involved. Of course this is only speculation and my opinion.
Here is an interesting article which seems to describe the process in a manner understandable to the layperson. The process sounds relatively simple and inexpensive.
http://rotapan.com/rcopper.htm
I was going to bring that up and you beat me to it. Thanks Redvette
If I remember right, DM/CM verified that the ore was from HT mine last night on the radio program. They said the AU content was good, but indicated that the AG content might not be as good. I will have to listen to the program again to verify, but I am about 90% sure that was the jist of the conversation.
sd
F18, I agree, I am not really concerned about the lower recovery rates as it will be recovered later. My major concern was whether there might be a "bottleneck" in the mag line which might limit production into the future while processing ore from the HT mine. Certainly, when other ores are processed, this would become a moot point when mag percentages are lower, (if it were a valid point to begin with).
As it seems right now, we are cash flow neutral (excluding LTD) which is a rather poor ROI based on mill operations only. Yes, I know they are planning to ramp up production, I just hope they can achieve the higher production rates from the HT ore, rather than reverting to a different ore body to achieve their goals. We know there has been some hurdles in the past and I hope we are over them, I was simply speculating to see if anyone else thought this theory was a possibility.
You and On2 are correct though, in that without true mag production numbers, it is difficult (impossible) to predict whether or not all the mag is being captured or if some might be escaping and going through the floatation circuit. My primary question was if the latter (mag running through the floatation circuit)was true, could this pose a problem as I outlined in my previous posts?
People, don't get me wrong, I am not in any way trying to bash cprk, its management, or workers. I am very pleased with all the progress they have made and I have been "long" for over a year and plan to continue to add to my position based on their ongoing accomplishments. I am simply trying to get a little better understanding of the milling process.
On2them, do you have a copy of the open house flow sheet that could be scanned? If so, could I get a copy? Thanks,
sd
OK, but either all the copper would need to go through the mag circuit, or vise versa, right? Regardless after the mag circuit, there is still about 10 parts mag to 1 part of copper.
It seems that the mag circuit is only getting 55% of the mag con. for example
30% mag in ore
1200 tpd ore processed
360 ton of mag in ore
2000 ton every 10 days (per the pr) = 200 tpd of mag
160 ton of mag remaining after mag line???
1.5% copper in 1200 tons = 18 tons copper in ore.
Therefore if 160 tons of mag is not being removed from any point on the line, it implies that 160 tons of mag are going through floatation??? That is where I am wondering if the chemistry and/or reagents are not specific enough to float the copper (easily) without also floating the mag. Since floating the mag would be disastrous to the con quality if it was all to be captured in floatation, con quality would drop to <10% CU. It would make sense that the residual mag would need to go with the tailings, and therefore taking some of the CU with it, which in turn would yeild a lower recovery rate, thus explaining the lower quantity of concentrate being shipped on a daily basis.
Again, I am not prefessing anything here, I am asking, since I don't know, but simply trying to justify why only 25 ton of con is shipping after processing 1200 ton ore. Seems to be only about a 50% CU recovery rate (imo).
sd
I have a question for you or anyone else who might know. Where in the circuit is the mag removed? I am assuming after the ball mills, and before floatation, is that correct?
From my calculations, it seems like they are currently only extracting about 50-60% of the mag from the ore, (per 9-17-09 press release - of 2000 ton mag every 10 days from 1200 ton of ore).
If it is extracted from the ore before floatation, do you know if the mag can potentially interfere with the concentration of the copper? It seems that other heavier metals are floating much more efficiently, from the reports of high content of precious metals in the con.
Since the CU recovery rate also seems rather low (<50%), I was wondering if there was any correlation. It might also explain the unexpected higher levels of AU, since more ore is required to make a limited amount of concentrate.
Even if the above is remotely accurate, I am not suggesting it is a negative situation, since less con with higher values is certainly an advantage when SX/EW comes online. Shipping cathodes is much more cost effective than shipping con, as long as all the other metals are extracted in the concentrate.
Chemistry is not my strong suit, so if anyone might be able to offer constructive feedback, I would appreciate it. Hope this theory (however accurate or inaccurate it may be) makes some sense to someone.
sd
I think CPRK is very clear in what they proffer too, yet you manage to twist and mangle the intent by deciphering every word. It just doesn't seem fair now does it?
So thanks for answering my first question, would you care to continue?
Your response seems to need a little clarification
"...and indeed, they may very well be interested in looking into financing/partnering with a start up copper company"
How would you know that?
You say you "know some guys that are" (affiliated), yet you were "given a few names as contacts......"
So which is it, do you know anyone there, or not?
With you "hoping to speak to them about cprk/finance possibilities..."
It makes me wonder a few more things.
1. Who made you spokesman for the finance arm of CPRK?
2. Why would you link CPRK and TPG as a possible match? Why not use a different equity firm... I don't know, but maybe one which you "know" some of the principles might be a good place to start.
3. And why would you put your reputation on the line to TPG by introducing this POS (in your opinion) company and crooked (IYO) management team to this group. After all, what did they do to you to inflict that sort of punishment unto them?
4. And why do you think CPRK management would take YOUR recommendation to partner with any equity group you might bring to the table?
From my understanding, Aera Energy is a jv between Exxon and Shell. It is the largest oil producer in California. GGRN has a signed contract with them and and has a commitment for $3M from them to construct a pilot plant. Once this plant is "proven", GGRN will have ten more plants to build out to fulfill its contract. This could represent cash flow in 2010 if all goes well.
On the longer range, the Vertigro "algae" process could develop into something of significant value, but I don't expect that to come to fruition for another five years (give or take), unless GGRN decides to sell its postion to raise capital for the Greensteam process. Algae is still in the development stages, but holds great potential.
The new cap and trade legislation could be a huge plus for this company, as biomass will play a significant role in GHG reduction. I cannot think of a better contract to have than one with two of the larger oil companies in the world.
JTF,
Thanks for the info. If true, it is very exciting that concentrate is being produced, regardless of the amount at this stage. Once the initial "bugs" are out of the system, volume should increase significantly (imo). Do you know whether they are producing through both lines at the mill or are they commissioning one at a time? If this has been only one line, the other one should be a little easier, I would think, as they have a better idea of what areas will be giving them potential problems.
FFF, The way I understood the royalty payment, I thought it was for the copper. I was actually quite impressed with the creative way CPRK (presumably) honored its contract by selling copper.
The way it looks to me, CPRK pre-sold the copper that sits in the ore. I don't have the numbers in front of me, but XXXXX ton of ore would produce XXX tons of concentrate with a recovery rate of (I think) 70%, copper being sold at $2.xx p/lb, and 1% or 2% of that amount equals the royalty payment.
Simply put, it is a formula to valuate the copper content of the ore after it is concentrated.
If you reread the formula, it seems to make sense (to me anyway). I think by doing this "pre-sale", it accomplishes several things.
1. Shows intent of meeting contractual obligations
2. Formulated a fair market value of the ore, and generated cash for CPRK and thus PN.
3. Claims "copper" is being sold as required by the contract.
4. "Production" is happening (according to CPRK) since it has a saleable product... after all, the ore (in its present state) was sold (for later delivery) after it is concentrated.
5. The magnetite production was brought up to satisfy the 300,000 ton per year obligation.
This would explain the reasoning why PN would desire a clear explanation of what "production" really means. It seems that PN's idea of production is quite different than that of CPRK's.
This "Smallcap" publication describes it pretty well even though it is a paid promotional piece. The facts seem reliable, but you can take any forward looking statements with a grain of salt, of course, as they are only expressing an opinion.
This is why GGRN had the desire to sell the algae portion of its business, to raise capital without diluting the company. Cash flow from Greensteam is on a much closer horizon than commercializing algae. (imo)
http://www.smallcaps.us/SCompanies/GGRN/Introduction.pdf
This board has been pretty quiet, but the stock has made quite a move up. I feel I should clear up a couple of things (as I understand them) as it relates to your previous post.
GGRN is NOT involved with jatropha farming. I don't know where this myth comes from, but I have seen nothing to indicate that is true.
Also the deal for the sale of the algae technology has fallen through since GGRN's JV partner, Valcent could not come up with the funds and failed to exercise its agreement. So GGRN is still involved the development of algae technology.
I find it interesting that there is little to no discussion about the potential this company has with its Greensteam project. GGRN has a signed contract with Aera Energy, and Aera has even put up $3M cash for the construction of the pilot plant which is scheduled to be completed around the end of the year. Obviously, a lot rides on the success of this pilot plant, but if it is successful, we should be golden going into 2010. (My opinion of course)