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.
I have been buying more plm over last several months...have had some orders in on DULMF last day or two from 1.23 all the way down to 1.20...haven't been many takers, and today was especially low volume - 7500 shares. Kind of surprised by the lack of activity. Any thoughts? I
My thoughts are that it will work its way through $3 and and fluctuate in the range of 3 and 3.50 between now and when the EIS is available for review. I am thinking put in some sell and buy back orders. Thoughts? The only factor putting downward pressure on that is the stock market pullback currently underway.
This should be an interesting week...US markets are under pressure, Asian Markets were down considerably and tomorrow is the filing deadline for the Oct 5 EIS publication date...guessing a number of people know whether the fililing has taken place...makes for some volatile moves...
Good deal, gotta sell a handful of shares to pay 2nd half of 2009 taxes! Run, baby, run!
Thanks for the heads up...they always catch me off-guard when they publish it early.
Clearly explains the precipitous drop. Have you ever noticed that even when the EIS comes out with no information, the stock bumps higher even later that day...and then goes for a dive.
Have a feeling it will drop even after todays push up from the lows....but how low?
Corey here,
I had to get away from the yahoo board, it was driving me crazy...the constant cheerleading is wearing.
I don't just want to make money on a stock, I want to make as much money as possible...and sometimes that doesn't mean buying and holding alone.
Almost forgot about the investorshub board; glad I didn't!
With the downward pressure on the open, it tends to have the effect of doubt as to whether the EIS is coming out, only because the pattern has been not to follow through on previous committments and once the dates come and go, to make a statement extending the timeframe.
Having to fight the natural inclination, and hold tight. Certainly don't want to miss a big swing up
You're right, when there is such low volume it makes it difficult to call the turns until the turn is almost complete, and with stock value under $1, there is a disproportionate cost to entry and exit...
Welcome to the board Z
curious what makes you think it'll be up 3 months? I was thinking it would be this month or next at the latest before the EIS is released. Unless there are some people at the state who are moving slow with the intent to delay in hopes that the legislation gets through committee.
Just a note, the verbage in the letter was specific to the house bill; the verbage should be updated to reflect both the House and senate versions
"H.F. No. 916/ S.F. No 845"
Please take the time to reach out to your house and senate representatives to share your support against the current legislation.
House bill is HF0916 (referred to Environment Policy and Oversight Committee), senate version is SF0845 (referred to Environment and Natural Resources Commiittee). Here is the house version:
https://www.revisor.leg.state.mn.us/bin/bldbill.php?bill=H0916.0.html&session=ls86
Here is the link to the indviduals on the House committe.
http://www.house.leg.state.mn.us/comm/committeemembers.asp?comm=86136
Here is the link to the individuals on the Senate Committee
http://www.senate.leg.state.mn.us/committees/committee_bio.php?cmte_id=1006&ls=#members
Thanks to Whaaatsup and Dadoffour for the links.
Here is a letter I typed up; feel free to use all or part of it in your communication to your state officials.
Dear House/Senate Member,
I am writing both as a concerned citizen of MN and an environmentally minded business person. I take a pragmatic approach in balancing community, state, and business interests; believing that we can both support a pro-business/investment community while as the same time balancing environmental impact. As a result, I believe that non-ferrous mining has the potential to fuel significant economic growth and to develop thriving communities within the state; and I fully believe non-ferrous mining can take place in such a way that it balances environmental concerns while at the same time helping to drive economic growth; The growth of the non-ferrous mining industry can build on Minnesota’s heritage of mining AND environmental stewardship. In regard to legislation H.F. No. 916, I am urging you NOT TO SUPPORT the current bill.
• I do not support the current language regarding reclamation and restoration: This verbiage is overly broad; I partially support the concept in theory, however believe it does not take into consideration economic feasibility nor does it take into consideration the fact that many of the non-ferrous mine sites are already disturbed from their original condition. It is also my opinion that the unique landscape resulting from mining on the Iron Range actually creates a community identity and has its own intrinsic beauty found nowhere else in the state.
• I do not support language regarding not permitting mines which need “ongoing water treatment”
1. This is language essentially included as an attempt to block non-ferrous mining projects
2. The definition of water treatment is so broad that, for example, it doesn’t even allow for biological systems: This is ridiculous; it is essentially saying no environmental mitigation is allowed (how environmentally conscientious is that?). Let me remind you that privately owned septic systems use “biological systems” to naturally filter human waste, thereby creating the safe return of water and nutrients to the environment.
• I do not support the language on the “financial assurance of operator”: This is essentially asking an entity to pay in total for unknown costs up front, leading to the potential for inhibiting fiscal viability of new projects, even before they start. I am in support of businesses and enterprises being responsible for damages they cause, however this is redundant in that companies already have liability policies; perhaps this needs to be addressed in that at the time of mine closure, liability insurance would be secured/prepaid for a period of X number of years. That way the company is only incurring the cost of the relative risk. Analogy: It would be like requiring your 16 year old son/daughter to personally prepay $1,000,000 cash in order to have a fund assuring liability against future unknown/possible accidents just in exchange for getting their drivers license; that is the purpose of Insurance.
I believe many of the environmental concerns for non-ferrous mining are addressed in current processes, i.e. via the EIS and current mine permitting process. As a result I am asking you to advocate on behalf of myself and the citizens of Minnesota, by showing your support AGAINST H.F. No. 916.
Respectfully,
Name/City
Thanks for the link; I was having trouble locating it!
I spoke with Alex Macdougall of Macdougall Consultants, ltd 866 364 6625. He was very informative, and welcomed a return call at any time. Of course, the questions everyone wants answers to, are by default often the answers noone has. When is the EIS expected in the Environmental Quality Review Board publication?...sometime in March is the consensus. What is the status of the legislation being proposed?...the exact language is not yet known as the bill hasn't yet been proposed to committee. Is there support for the draft verbage of the bill (draft is not even public knowledge yet)? Limited support by legislators; the majority, including range democrats, support the projects on the range, and they largely understand the legislation which is being proposed is redundant and/or meant to intentionally block non-ferrous mining projects speicifically, and contrary to public statements of the environment groups behind the legislation. He mentioned the author of the article in the Duluth News Tribune has an environmental slant to his articles (his opinion). As a result of the conversation my takeaway was that he seemed very positive...essentially no different information than we already largely knew, except giving clarity to some information on which I had ambiguities. The clarity was helpful on a few points including why I couldn't find a draft/copy of the bill in committee (as it hasn't been formally introduced yet). Also he gave some clarity to the process by which they will be managing the potential acid run-off during the project and the resulting impact once the project has run its life cycle. (the is the only question where I feel I still need greater clarity, and it may be a matter of needing to read the eis for myself to make sure I am not imposing my own understanding as the facts). The project piling are really the portion of rock which has less than 5% sulphur; this is the rock which is unfeasible to retrieve the metals from as it is too cost-ineffective. All other rock with greater than 5% sulphur content will endup being broken down for the metals and the resulting sulphuric acid which results from the breakdown of this rock will be recycled into the project for breakdown of other rock...essentially the sulphuric acid will end up being used and will not end up as trapped in surface waste rock. (the only waste rock is the rock that doesn't have economic potential) he additionally shared that even post project (30-50 years), once the runoff is not being recycled into the project, it will only result in very mild acidification such as that of milk or equivalent to natural decomposition of leaves in a forest...as this is because the only rock exposed would be the lowest possible sulphur containing rock of the project. This project will really being a model for how other projects are done. In my mind, I had thought that low sulphur containing rock potentially meant a greater volume of rock would be created, which is not the case based on my understanding now.
Good information, which makes me more comfortable with the project status.
I had sent a question by email to polymet earlier in the week, and received a referral to McDougal and Associates (an entity Polymet is working with to help with investor communication).
I called and spoke to the firm, however the primary contact was out till this afternoon. I'll share a summary after when I hear back.
Some interesting feedback from posts on the yahoo board referencing some conversations from legislators...anybody have information of a similar nature which supports or contradicts this information?
I just got back from vaca...and didn't have much access to internet. I was hoping news might have been released while I was gone - not the case =(
It just meant I bought some more today at .80
I agree, I have been biting my tongue and curbing the inclination to sell on peaks but have ultimately been buying and holding as I'm afraid to miss the big upswing. I had been buying and selling PLM in the past (prior to the major declines) and kicked myself for it when it made some big swings up. Granted, this would have fared a better strategy over the last several months. I have sold and repurchased at a couple points during the decline, but largely I have been averaging down and now buying and holding. (my acct has a break even of 1.70 and my spouse's acct is closer to $1.00) Currently holding just shy of 60,000 shares total.
I woud be curious to hear other peoples strategies on how they will trade PLM once the EIS is released for public comment. I am withyou on the accumulate and hold strategy until then. Personally I am thinking to put in a trailing stop in on half of my shares at 2.00 +
Comments appreciated.
btw, thanks for the posts in general. I check the board every day or two, but don't necessarily make posts often as I usually don't have much of significance to share.
It looks like the number of shares increases with successive payments from Glencoe. I recall there being 105 M shares not too long ago. Seems that with each payment the share price would essentially get diluted. First, I don't know if my memory is correct or not. If dilution is occurring as payments are made, how will this affect the relative prospective target share price based on expected earnings...seems that the earnings/share would be diluted if the shares are being diluted.