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 can always hope that the company will provide official answers; I think the shareholders would appreciate them.
Rumor has it that FGF in La Serena is the lab conducting the assays. Here is their website:
http://www.laboratoriofgf.cl/index.php?to=nosotros
Here is their client list:
http://www.laboratoriofgf.cl/index.php?to=clientes
Codelco Chile is obviously a heavy hitter. San Geronimo seems fairly large as well. Maricunga seems to be affiliated with Kinross. Punta del Cobre is a fairly large outfit. I can't figure out what Cormin is although it may be a mining supplier out of Lima Peru.
Given that most of these are fairly large outfits, I don't see MDMN, LDM or NUOCO being prominently displayed in the near future.
Just a bit more DD for you all to consume. Have a great weekend!
I have a few questions about the recent PRs.
1. Who are the experts that are helping the company? They have been recommended by Enami, why haven't their names been released?
2. What is the grade of copper they are hauling to the mill? Who operates the mill and where is it located? What are they getting paid per ton?
3. As for the "massive arsenopyrite", I'll remind the board that this is an arsenic mineral and it can be hard to separate from the gold. Smelters may penalize the company above a certain concentration level and may not accept concentrates above a certain level. I've heard this level is 0.5% from my sources. What is the concentration that the company is currently dealing with and what is the "tolerance" level of the smelter?
That's all for now.
JP1101
Anyone who would like an independent geologist to evaluate the properties will require access. Will the company grant access to an interested third party who can conduct their own unbiased evaluation? If the company won't provide access, then shareholders are stuck with the company updates and releases.
Here is the latest from Les Price.
I think he is doing ok. Here is a recent post that appears to confirm Les has minor injuries.
Dr. Decosta seems to think it is a joking matter.
I think there was a story about the mining contract being stolen out of a hotel room. There was another story about hit men coming for JJ. I'm not sure if either of these stories were ever verified although I seem to remember that the attempted murder issue was in the Chilean court system but I could be wrong. I guess shorty is so intent on keeping MDMN down that he sub-contracted some Chilean malcontents to wreak havoc on the impending JV(s).
I can't tell if this is a joke from the other board or not.
I have a few more invented terms for you.
(PG/RA) - "prospect generator/royalty acquirer"
I've done some googling...and here is what I have discovered:
http://www.abbreviations.com/PG
122 possibilities and not one of them came back as "prospect generator". OK, so let's do another search for RA:
169 possibilities and not one of them came back as "royalty acquirer". I'm not done yet because I want to give Dr. Decosta the benefit of the doubt.
Here are 9 pages of mining terms:
http://www.minersmuseum.com/educational_resources/Glossary%20of%20Mining%20Termin.pdf
Nary a mention of prospect generator or royalty acquirer
But I suppose that these terms could be construed as "financial" terms in the mining industry so I had to dig a little deeper.
I found the "Glossary of terms used in the trading of oil and gas, utilities and mining commodities" (136 pages long)
http://www.pwc.com/gx/en/energy-utilities-mining/pdf/eumcommoditiestradingriskmanagementglossary.pdf
I did 4 quick searches:
Royalty was found 2 times
Acquirer was found 0 times
Prospect was found 0 times
Generator was found 29 times all of which related to an energy producing device.
Here is my point in all of this - if people are going to use terms to describe what they think a company is doing, can we all agree to use recognized terms that are defined in some scholarly work? Personally I think MDMN is engaging in underground johnson-rod mining aimed at extracting the maximum amount of bobbers and dog bollocks from the buttucks.
One final point: I've copied two quotes from Dr. Decosta below. Admittedly, they are two sentences from a very long diatribe but since I don't want to be accused of "cherry picking", I'm stating this fact before all the hate mail arrives. My purpose in quoting them is to simply show that he is really pushing his made-up term, PLCD. Notice how he has the term in all CAPS. I'll let you be the judge of why he is doing this.
I'm happy to provide research to those who have an open mind. Generally speaking when pink sheet companies start promising cash dividends (something MDMN has NOT done yet, this is only a dental fantasy at this point), the end is very near and by end, I mean the SEC is about to come calling. Personally, I don't think the SEC has MDMN on their radar screen which is what they want, so why play with fire and promise dividends when they know it will only bring the scrutiny of the SEC. I don't see cash dividends in the future; it's a stupid move for a non-SEC reporting pink sheet company.
I'm sure 0.05 will be such a relief to all those who bought at much higher prices when the deal was "done done done".
If you google it, you come up with this:
http://acronyms.thefreedictionary.com/PLCD
According to Dr. Decosta, it meand Progressively Larger Cash Dividends. I think most shareholders would settle for a single cash dividend before embarking on the quest for progressively larger ones.
Bottom line, the term means nothing except in Medinahland where is is symbolic of champagne wishes and caviar dreams. A term full of sound and furry signifying nothing. Thank you Sir William.
I'd tell you but you won't believe me so why should I waste the time and effort.
If I tell you that I have facts A, B, and C from my sources and those facts don't jive with what Dr. Decosta's is saying or the narrative on MP, what will your response be? Don't waste your time answering, the question is rhetorical. Why should I waste my time imparting my information when it's simply going to fall on deaf ears?
I'm ready to discuss MDMN with those who can handle DD from other than the "standard pro-MDMN" sources. What I'm not willing to do is identify my sources and by doing so, unleash a barrage of harassing emails from shareholders who want nothing more than for their reality to be correct and will use any means to do so. Respectfully worded emails of phone calls are perfectly legitimate but I have a feeling that harassment will be the general tone. That is unacceptable.
I believe my sources are reliable however, I nor they are infallible. As of now, they have a significantly better track record than the mining echo chamber. I'm sticking with my sources, you stick with yours and let's discuss in 3 month and see where things stand.
What am I saying that isn't adding up? Please point out my inconsistencies and I will address them.
Thanks for your insight - we need all sides on this board. Information-sharing and intelligent debate are welcome.
As is the comedy of the MDMN shareholders who won't reveal their sources. I've already stated in previous posts why I won't reveal my sources. I suggest you go and read them again.
I'm not asking anyone to trust me. It is a fool's errand to try and convince anyone who has money sunk into a pink sheet pit to change their mind about their investment which is why I don't try. I impart information that I dig up. You and others can draw your own conclusions. If you want to discount what I say, that is your choice.
I wasn't implying that Borkowski is in any way credible nor that he is pure as the wind driven snow, nor was I insinuating that JJ or any of the people associated with MDMN were crooks. I was simply providing some information. Anyone who reads it can draw their own conclusions.
For reasons I have stated in the past, I cannot be more specific.
Here is an old post by one of the best DD hounds regarding MDMN and the still unresolved Bogdan Borkowski matter.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69170377
I'm fairly certain this is Bogdan Borkowski's FB page although I may be mistaken.
https://www.facebook.com/bogdan.borkowski
All the information should be analyzed with an unbiased eye. I find that having no money invested in MDMN helps me to divorce myself from all emotion when researching this stock. I'm currently trying to reconcile all the DD from those who own shares in MDMN with all the information I have been able to acquire on my own. The two sets of data do not add up. Either someone is misleading me or someone is misleading the shareholders. Based on the credentials of my sources, I think I have a fairly complete picture of what is and isn't happening in South America.
Here is some publicly available information:
http://www.healthgrades.com/media/english/pdf/sanctions/HGPY8C53065FEA9A41BF908272009.pdf
This one is a bit dated and is one man's opinion:
http://garyweiss.blogspot.com/2006/02/news-from-world-of-baloney-sorry.html
Here is a piece on another fraudulent stock that DeCosta "analyzed the NSS":
http://cmkmdiamonds.wordpress.com/2011/09/13/reactive-and-proactive-links/
His name is mentioned 7 times as a "naked short expert from Oregon with 25 years experience". I don't want to resurrect the NSS debate on this board but it gives you a good idea of what he is passionate about.
You "invested" money in two non-SEC reporting pink sheet companies. Flushing money down a toilet would have net you a better rate of return; at least that's mildly entertaining. NPER will never trade again and as for the other mining company...good luck but get ready for a drop kick square in the family jewels.
Thanks HR. For some reason my browser was indicating that the images were from 2014.
Took a quick peek at the ADL location on Google maps.
https://goo.gl/maps/25VfS
The imagery is from 2014. I can't see anything on or around the plateau that looks like a mining operation.
Here is where JJ lives.
https://goo.gl/maps/fIQSJ
Here is a business listing for JJ.
http://chl.bizdirlib.com/node/32323
Not sure if I buy the 40,208 employees.
There was some shareholder speculation that Antofagasta may be involved. I can guarantee that they are nowhere near this deal. I have some rock solid sources and Antofagasta is NOT courting MDMN so we might as well put that one to bed.
The way I read it, Risk's only comparison to the other company was based on share price (i.e. the company was a PENNY stock). He was also highlighting the possible terms that MDMN could potentially get.
I'm sure HR has read the listing document/brochure for the TSX
http://www.tmx.com/en/pdf/Guide_to_Listing.pdf
The document encourages possible companies who would like to list on the TSX to ask the following questions:
Steve,
Discussing other posters or why posts were deleted is off topic. Posters are free to express their opinions in any way they please as long as they adhere to the iHub TOU. What you may view as negativity is simply the views of a poster. That same poster may view other posts as unbridled optimism. Both are allowed.
Dr. Decosta does not post here and could be viewed as "affiliated" with MDMN given that his work is prominently displayed on their official website. Until those circumstances change, posts about him (positive or negative) are entirely on topic.
This is probably not what you wanted to hear but this is reality.
Have a great evening,
JP1101
Steve,
Dr. Decosta has a paper published on the official MDMN website. In addition, he is not a poster on this board or on iHub. These two facts allow discussion of him, his analysis and his posts on other forums. I have spoken with iHub admin about this and this is their position. If Dr. Decosta feels that he is being libeled, he can take legal action and show that the posts about him on iHub are damaging to his character or his business. No post on iHub can be permanently deleted so if he wanted to pursue legal action, a judge could subpoena iHub and gather all the offending posts. Until something changes with regards to Dr. Decosta's posting or published paper, I'm afraid you will have to endure the repeated posts about his character. You can always use the ignore feature of this website and forever be free of the posts you disagree with. I am no fan of calling people names (although I admit I am not perfect and the occasional jab does slip out) but others may not share my desire to engage in intelligent debate that does not involve ad hominem attacks. If I could ensure the debate was civil at all times, I would but since the posts you are referencing do fall within the iHub TOU, there is precious little I can do. Again, I suggest you use the ignore feature or simply do not engage the offending poster in a debate.
Have a great evening,
JP1101
HR, a well-placed source told me that MDMN had a slight misspelling in the latest PR.
COMPANIA NUOCO MINING CHILE S.C.M. should actualy read
COMPANIA NUNCA MINING CHILE S.C.M.
That should clear the whole PR up.
HR,
Any insight into what "NUOCO" stands for? I've tried to translate it from Spanish to English, Dutch, Finnish, Portuguese, French, Bosnian, Russian and Italian with no joy.
Could it be the last name of someone involved with the deal or could it be that each letter stands for something? Not trying to stir up a hornet's nest, I just found it odd that the new entity name included a word that didn't translate to a common language.
Have a great day,
JP1101
I hear the twitter office is back on alert and the latest rumor is that les will be travelling for a month and closing mutiple JVs with mutiple partners that pertain to multiple properties.
I'd recommend trying to get it right once before embarking on multiple trips to consummate multiple deals.
It only cost them $96,774 to tell us that. Our legal beagles are on the job!
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/pdf/Financials-December312013.pdf
On the bright side, it cost $173,273 to tell us that in 2012 so I guess they are getting more thrifty. I still submit they are overpaying Hackney the bankruptcy lawyer.
http://www.medinah-minerals.com/shareholder.html
Shareholder Update
February 25, 2014
Dear Medinah Minerals, Inc. Shareholders:
We are pleased to report that Medinah Minerals, Inc., has been officially notified by the compliance section of OTC Markets that the 15c-211 filings, with all required attachments for the year ending December 31, 2013, have been accepted as filed.
The Company will therefore remain in the OTC PINK Current Information reporting tier status. The corresponding 15c-211 Statement/Annual Report, Financial Statements, and Attorney Opinion Letter, relative to calendar year 2013, are attached hereto.
We cannot emphasize the significance of this major accomplishment too strongly, especially due to the fact that Medinah Minerals, Inc. operates in an environment that requires substantially increasing expenditures, time and efforts in order to comply with ever increasing regulatory supervision, documentation and oversight.
Annual Report - 15c-211 (a) (5) Ending December 31, 2013
Annual Report - Financials Ending December 31, 2013
Attorney Letter with Respect to Current Information Report Ending December 31, 2013
Dennis B. Tenney
CEO– Medinah Minerals, Inc.
Cautionary Statement – Forward-Looking Information
This news release may contain certain “forward-looking statements” within the meaning of the United States Securities Exchange Act of 1934, as amended. This forward-looking information includes, or may be based upon estimates, forecasts and statements of management’s expectations with respect to, among other things, the completion of transactions, the issuance of permits, the size and quality of mineral resources, future trends for the company, progress in development of mineral properties, future production and sales volumes, capital costs, mine production costs, demand and market outlook for metals, future metal prices and treatment and refining or milling charges, the outcome of legal proceedings, the timing of exploration, development and mining activities, acquisition of shares in other companies and the financial results of the company. There can be no assurances that such statements will prove to be accurate and actual results and future events could differ materially and substantially from those anticipated in such statements. Mineral resources that are not mineral reserves do not have demonstrated economic viability. Inferred mineral resources are considered too speculative geologically to have economic considerations applied to them that would enable them to be categorized as mineral reserves. There is no certainty that mineral resources will be converted into mineral reserves.
** Medinah Minerals, Inc. wishes to advise that this is our official Web Site. Medinah Minerals is not responsible for the presentation of any Company information made available on any other site.
Krak, I'm no fan of Dr. Decosta but let's ascribe the right words to the right people. He is not the author of the quote you cited, those words were penned by another shareholder (mariner78) in a missive he sent to the MDMN BOD. Dr. Decosta was merely responding to his post and quoted his letter.
Context and facts good sir.
There are probably more than a few shareholders who will bail on MDMN if they do not consummate a JV deal this time around. The share price will take a hit when these folks finally throw in the towel since I would assume there would be very few buyers sucking up their shares as the ticked off shareholders head for the exits.
The longer this gets drawn out, the heavier the selling pressure will be. Those with large positions are not going to want to be caught trying to unload their positions as everyone heads for the exits if the company does not deliver. I am in agreement with HR on this one, the news will be the defining moment of MDMN. They either deliver or they don't. If they do, folks stand to make a good chunk of change. If they don't, look out below.
If the partner was Codelco, the shareholders pushing the JV deal would have mentioned their name by now. I base my statement on the fact that Volcan is mentioned several times per day by shareholders whereas Codelco, Barrick or any other reputable major is not. Therefore, if the partner is NOT Volcan, my guess is that it isn't a "major" and therefore, the share price will suffer.
If the partner is anyone other than Volcan, then I would be questioning the DD by all those shareholders since they obviously got it very wrong.
The fun never ends. Here is another email to a shareholder from Les:
There is another conclusion.
Good points HR.
However, if they fail at attaining a JV, canceling the AGM is all they have to do to keep the shareholders at bay. Regardless of what happens, I think this is the final inning for MDMN. Either it happens or it doesn't. I don't think even the long-term shareholders will hang around IF there is no JV and the AGM is subsequently cancelled.
It will certainly be an interesting 3 months.
They scheduled the AGM on Mother's Day?
That is either intentional so no one shows up or really poor planning. I'll cut them a break and go with poor planning on this one.
At least you can get rooms for $45 a night.
https://www.bconnectedonline.com/resnetf.php?TOEHOTEL;051114;01;01;;010;
The 10th will cost you $120 a night.
https://www.bconnectedonline.com/resnetf.php?TOEHOTEL