Just trying to make a buck or two!
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.
Hey, 12thman!
Just to confirm some of your numbers, I seem to remember the mill alone has an estimated value of $11,000,000. If the O/S is 22 billion, that gives you an asset value on equipment alone of .0005. The custom milling contracts add at least another .0005 to that, so the .001 number is a very safe figure. And I concur that the next quarterly report (probably 2 quarters of production just to settle things out ) will take this stock into the pennies. The real value will come in to play (as 567 has contended for so long) with the assay results and the actual mining start in CGFI's leases. Where will we be at by then?
Silver wing Mine is historically at $300 million in silver. (probably more) That's another .01 to .02 per share outstanding, (that totals at .03 per share, and with a multiple of 10, the share price is easily over .25 to .30 range. Add in the other mines, such as Brooklyn, (1.3 oz/ton of ore in gold, .6 in silver) and this stock will easily be over the .60 to .80 range.
All these are conservative estimates. The real total will depend, as speculated, on the assay results.
With the MLRB hearing in the next few weeks, the MM's would be fools to keep this from rising on the upcoming speculation. No matter what the results of the hearing, it is an opportunity for them to make money.
What is the old saying in trading, "buy on rumor, sell on news". The way to guarantee a profit for them is to let the price run, sell as the price rises. If the mill is approved, the % skyrockets! Even more opportunity to make a larger profit.
All JMHO, but I believe we are looking at the same numbers and seeing the same future.
Thanks for the alert, Crude.
Perfect timing for me. I happened to have moved a little more powder yesterday. I just placed an order to double my position now I hope it executes in time. I'm not a big trader, but this is too good of an opportunity to pass up. The upside from here is very attractive.
GLTY
ELRA
"No more responses to this debate."
Wow! I guess that has a different meaning in some parts of the world! Obviously that request was one sided. "Declare victory and leave the field" seems to now be "Declare victory and keep on spinning."
The final word is going to come from CGFI and the DRMS.
Not a stupid question at all, Shysurfer!!
The DRMS (Division of Reclamation, Mining and Safety) is guided by the "Hard Rock / Metals Mining Rules" which are legal regulations. They were passed into Colorado law.
Here is the 200+ page document referred to internally as "the act".
http://mining.state.co.us/rulesregs/HardRockRulesAdoptedAug%20122010actcites12032010correction.pdf
Above the DRMS is the MLRB (Mining Land Reclamation Board). They follow that same set of laws.
The laws are created by acts of the Colorado Legislature.
Above the Legislature is the office of the Governor.
So, writing the Governor is "going right to the top man"!
Hope that answers the question. It is a simplistic chain of command, since there are directors and managers in the DRMS and several members of the MLRB.
Quote:
"...this discussion about a certified engineer writing a Cgi support letter to a Governor of his home state..."
The above quotation suggests a lack of understanding of what a "Professional Engineer" title is. A person who understands the meaning of the title would not demean this man's educational background by misstating his title as "a certified engineer".
To become a "Professional Engineer" one must undergo a specific set of education, experience, and testing requirements.
You must complete four steps to become a licensed Professional Engineer:
1. Graduate from an ABET-accredited engineering program. (ABET: Accreditation Board for Engineering and Technology)
2. Pass the Fundamentals of Engineering (FE) exam.
3. Work as an engineer for four years.
4. Pass the Professional Engineering (PE) exam (you cannot take the PE exam without first passing the FE exam).
A "certified engineer" does not have a consistent definition in the engineering profession. That title is used much more loosely and varies from industry to industry.
For example, the Information Technology industry will allow one to use that title, (presented from a software manufacturer, not an educational institute) by simply passing a few tests, There is no experience or educational requirement associated with it. (eg: MCSE)
Actually the whole line of reasoning presented has little bearing on the on the upcoming CGFI review proceedings. The tone of a "non-party's" letter means nothing.
The DRMS is required by law to consider only the information and data presented before it.
This is not and should not be a case of if or how much a letter addressing the DRMS and MLRB, is reverent, irreverent, respectful or disrespectful.
That is a trumped up and distracting argument.
The MLRB and DRMS have one task, to answer the questions required by the Hard Rock/Metal Mining Rules.
Emotion and tenor of a letter of comment from a person classified as a "non-party" (as defined by the DRMS) will not and should not effect the decision making process.
If the logic presented by the quoted source were the yardstick used to determine the fate of the ammendment before it, then "INFORM's" letter dictating how the DRMS should do their job and go outside the present laws, would be viewed with equal distaine.
The assertion that harsh words will derail the review process sells the MLRB board members short and demeans their intelligence. I believe the MLRB members are experienced enough to focus only on the pertinent points, and dismiss the extraneous rhetoric.
I suggest the readers here do the same. Focus on what is pertinent for the review and approval of AM-03. Ignore the rhetoric about accusations of imagined unprofessionalism.
"Let's get to work."
CGFIA
Great way to get the straight story, go to someone who is there. A direct source leaves no room for error.
Thanks for the effort.
It's fun doing the direct DD isn't it?
Thank you, Odega. You are absolutely correct about the upcoming events, in my opinion. They are front and center in the sights of our company's future. I, like you, believe that the dry stack process and AM03 will become the benchmark for future mills using the same process. That is why informed individuals in the mining industry are watching the progress CGFI is making. The restrictions and requirements placed on the POW will effect the future of mining statewide for years to come.
I trust the plans that CGFI was presented to the DRMS are adequate and will fulfill the present requirements in the laws that govern the DRMS.
"Let's Get To Work!!"
Cdc53, Remember that Mr. Anderson is responding to the DRMS as a citizen, just like many of us have done. He is entitled to express his opinion during the open comment period. He has made his opinion known on other projects before the MLRB and DRMS in the past.
He has no connection with CGFIA at all, nor does he know anyone at Colorado Goldfields. He has clearly stated this clarification to me in personal emails in the last few days.
And yes, that is correct, he and I have corresponded. I can't repost them due to verbiage contained therein that would violate the TOU's.
Quote:
"No, everyone knows exactly who he's attacking."
I think that statement is disproven by the many voices here that have expressed the exact opposite opinion.
It is self serving statement and only presented to validate the opinion that has been expressed in the many posts attacking a stranger's reputation, experience and professional credentials.
That attack, if anything is the embarrassment.
Hey Odega, my outlook is this. Mr A sees the DRMS playing games with the permitting process. He, as an experienced mining professional believes that the dry stack method of disposing of tailings will be more popular in the future. Should the DRMS require unnecessary procedures in handling the tailings, it will be able to apply those standards industry wide across Colorado.
He is not calling the DRMS names. He is calling the opponents, who have come forward in protest to request unreasonable procedures from CGFIA, exactly what they are, obstructionists.
Simply put, the DRMS is in danger of listening to the wrong people, for the wrong reasons, and setting a dangerous precedent. The only input that should be considered are the laws as presently written.
That's what I read in the letter to the governor.
Here is the Colorado Division of Registration's page showing hie license.
https://www.doradls.state.co.us/alison.php?action=COMPDETAIL&ind=true&soboard=9999&lickey=NTMxNTcy&t_o_p=0
ELRA:
This was posted by "Crude" on the ELRA board. Not trying to steal your thunder Sweet Crude, just trying to help out.
http://www.ludlowresearch.com/uploads/elra.pdf
Projection is .04 to .05 near term and .10 long term.
Robo, I have no dog in this fight, but came across this summary of the rules that pretty well explains what gets messages deleted. I thought it would help you understand the Admins' logic. Hope it helps.
RULES AND HOW NOT TO GET DELETED:
A nice summary from 'illflyifyoubuy'
Quote:
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
STAY ON TOPIC...
IF PART OF YOUR POST IS OFF TOPIC, IT'S DELETABLE..
IF YOU'RE POSTING ABOUT DELETIONS, IT'S DELETABLE..
IF YOU'RE POSTING ABOUT OTHER STOCKS, IT'S DELETABLE..
IF YOUR POSTING ABOUT ANOTHER PERSON AS A PERSON, AND NOT ABOUT THEIR POSTED STATEMENTS...IT'S DELETABLE...
IF YOU'RE POSTING ABOUT SOMETHING THAT'S NOT MATERIAL TO [Stock of the applicable Board], IT'S PRODUCTS, PEOPLE IN SOME SIGNIFICANT/MATERIAL WAY..IT'S DELETABLE..
AND IF YOU'RE ABOUT TO WRITE THAT ANY PARTICULAR "SIDE" IS FAVORED...SAVE IT...READ THE ENTIRE DAY'S POSTS...AND SEE WHAT REMAINS ON THE BOARD...EVEN THE MOST OFFENSIVE, IF NOT AGAINST RULES, THEN IT STAYS...SO SAVE TALK ABOUT FAVORITISM.
THANKS,
--------------------------
[please read and understand]
HOW NOT TO HAVE YOUR MESSAGE DELETED 101
1. If 90% of your message is about the company, but 10% is about the poster, it will be deleted. So, as soon as you write, "You post lies or you post false information...," or "You have a negative agenda and only post opinions, I have facts," the message is gone. Just post the opinions or facts about the company without engaging the other person. You simply don't need to include the extraneous flames on the other person.
2. Don't accuse a poster or a group of posters of having motives or are trying to manipulate the stock. If they post something you don't agree with, simply write what your thoughts are or what facts you have. As stated, if the post questions the previous poster, it's zapped. Simple. So don't say, "You're bashing this stock...," or "You have a personal problem with the company," or "You are a liar", or "Which market maker are you working for," because your message will be deleted. Just state what the information you have is without regard to the other person.
3. Don't include comments like, "This will probably be deleted," or "my messages were deleted," or "why aren't the basher's posts deleted", because if you do, they are required to be deleted. The proper way to appeal deletions of your posts, is to click TOOLS then MY REMOVED POSTS. You can appeal unless Administration deleted it.
4. Don't attack or question the mods because you had a post deleted. Understand that if you want to discuss something with a mod, send a PM. If you can't send PM's because you have a free membership, then buy a membership.
5. Don't send messages that should be private through the public board. Don't say, "contact me on Yahoo," or "I need to talk to you in private here's my email." If you can't send a private message because you're free, pay for a membership. Or, sneak it in on a non-stock board. Don't clutter the board with invites to share info privately.
6. Don't repeat the same thing over and over. Don't post about other stocks. If you repeat the same thing, or post about other stocks, it's considered SPAM. I'm all for dialogue and debate, but posting duplicate messages just to annoy each other or intimidate, will be deleted as duplicates.
Here is the link to IHUB Rules for Deletions
http://ihwiki.advfn.com/index.php?title=Handbook#Deletion_of_Posts
Everyone should read them before posting so they understand IHUB Rules. You don't have to agree with them, but you have to follow them.
--------------------------------------------------------------------------------
Again, not my logic, iHubs.
GLTY
MT
Enjoy the trip, Borgon! And thanks in advance for the recon.
Nice research, sem1!!!
Licensed Professional Engineer
Thomas C Anderson
First issued: 3/31/1977.
That's 35+ years.
And if you check the Colorado School of Mining's alumni magazine's back issues, you can see his employment history as far back as the 1980's. A little research in that publication shows his progression up the ladder from mining engineer to chief facility engineer at various mines throughout his career.
It looks like someone should be apologizing for the disparaging remarks made about the gentleman and the aspersions cast on him.
It is obvious Mr. Anderson is the genuine article.
What are the chances that apology will be forthcoming?
Read the excerpt. It is his claim to have been in the mining industry since 1968.
The Colorado School of Mining shows him as an alumni from the class of 1985.
It's a simple concept.
He worked. He also went to school, and has multiple degrees. One of them is from CSofM.
His stationery also shows the CSofM's logo on it. That is the starting point for the search.
You will also notice a University of Colorado insignia on his stationery. His MBA maybe?
Public information. Just a little searching is all it takes.
44 Years of Experience!
Don't take my word for it, it is right here in an article quoting a letter by Mr. Tom C Anderson, PE.
Quote:
"I am proud and grateful to be employed at the Oxbow Mining, LLC, Elk Creek Mine at Somerset, Colo. Having been associated with the mining industry since 1968, I have been witness to cycles in the industry, such as when the mines in the North Fork valley closed in the mid-1980s."
http://www.westerncoloradojobsalliance.com/supporters.html
This also appeared in the "Daily Sentinel" as a copy of a letter to the BLM.
YES, 44 YEARS OF EXPERIENCE!!
Much more than any one of the readers here have, I'm sure.
I'll take Tom Anderson's 44 years of experience, his MBA, PE, and diploma from the Colorado School of Mining, (Class of 1985) as a better indication of his knowledge and experience than the fallacious contention that the letter was "sub par for a professional". Anyone with 44 years of mining experience is entitled to express his opinion regarding mining operations. What makes it "sub par"? A simple missing letter in a single word does not negate the decades of experience he evidently has.
If that is the basis for the posted opinion, then the "sub par" judgement is "sub par" in its evidentiary value. I also include the accusation that he is a "friend of Guyer". Absolutely no basis in fact for that accusation. "Sub par" contentions for sure!
Somehow I don't think I would get 1 second into the trading day before it would be corrected! Well, at least I'm a millionaire for a night!!
I also found this about Tom Anderson, of Paonia, CO. And the Western Colorado Jobs Alliance.
http://www.westerncoloradojobsalliance.com/supporters.html
I'm not sure how old this is, but it seems like the same writing style.
Scottrade is showing WLGC @ 10,000.00 price on the ask. Do you think that is real! If it is, I'm paying off the house next week!!! No, come to think of it, I'll buy a new one, maybe two!!
Scottrade is showing the same, .2502 ask for CGFIA.
Wouldn't it be nice?
Double? Let's not be cheap. With his PE and schools of mining credentials, his letter carries much more weight than any other letter of support I have seen submitted. I think we can scrounge up a Jeroboam (4.5 liters) of the good stuff for him!!
Local support! Whom was it that said letters to the Governor didn't mean "didley squat", since the Governor has no say so in these matters? Obviously the author of this letter thinks differently.
POW is about creating jobs, one of the things all Governors are judged on, particularly during an election year.
Thank you Mr. T. C. Anderson, PE.
I concur Biowise. Right now the merger is secondary to all other concerns. AM-03 is of primary importance.
Keep your eye on the prize; POW & removal of the C&D order.
Good call, Bio!
GLTA
Good question, RKY. My opinion is all energy and attention is going toward the POW. That will be and is the quickest source of working capital. Once CGFI has income then it makes sence to proceed with the uranium mines.
I also believe Mr. Guyer sat on the results from Brooklyn. There was no upside to releasing the information earlier. It also could have been a question of funds. No need to rush results if you are short on the cash to pay the bill.
JMHO, and only a guess.
See, I knew if I started posting numbers, things would get confusing. I expect CGFI to be at a higher PPS than it is now. The numbers were only for illustration purposes. Of the price of CGFIA doesn't increase, then I doubt the merger would take place. It would be postponed at least.
Absolutely 100% true. My error. I intended to type .01 and .001. That's a prefect example of my dyslexia and late night hours meeting to instigate a numerical transposition nightmare!! <= (red face with embarrassment)
Let's hope it is not as I have written!!
Thanks LAMBSHIFT! You get the late night error correction award.
Not the O/S, sem1, just the A/S. The "Authorized Shares", or total shares CGFI IS ALLOWED TO SELL, is 35 Billion. The O/S or "Outstanding Shares", (stock already in the hands of someone other than the Corporation) is estimated at about 22 to 24 Billion. We will know the exact figure soon when the 10Q comes out. (roughly July, since the last one was released in April).
The number of shares of CGFI needs to cover AMNPD's O/S will depend on the agreed upon ratio detailed in the merger agreement. That has yet to be seen or suggested. It will depend on each stock's PPS at a decided "date of record". (FOR EXAMPLE & ONLY AS AN "EXAMPLE":
if AMNPD is priced @ .10 and CGFIA is priced @ .001, then to complete the merger, the ratio of CGFIA shares for every AMNPD will be 10:1, or put another way, 10 CGFIA shares to 1 AMNPD share.)
Hey Sem1, how is the new job working out? Still slaving away? Hope you are making some real coin!
Huntewr7, no additional shares of AMNP will be used for the merger. You have the concept backwards. Although the details of the merger are still unknown, the PR stated that AMNP shares will be retired for an amount of CGFIA shares. That will make AMNP a wholly owned subsidiary of Colorado Goldfields. The OS count of CGFI will increase to cover the exchange of shares.
Hope that clears things up for you.
Rey RKY, flattery will only get you some chips with your grog!! (and maybe a better place in line for rations!)
Everyone always blames someone, as long as I'm not stuck with the check, I ok with that!!
Showing 0/0, with a last price of .0375.
LJ, make sure you are looking for the new ticker name "AMNPD".
Sorry, no LII.
I checked my Scott account for it. It was under that new symbol.
Can't promise anything, but the POW approval is the first step to recovery of this stock's price.
Some interesting stuff going on over at AMNP now AMNPD, the reported merger target. That is step 2 in the recovery, IMHO.
Then we look for assay results for the Brooklyn, Silverwing and other mines.
See, bigone, that's a lot to fit in before the end of the year. But I'm pretty sure it will be interesting, at least.
As long as the PPS climbs, I'm staying for the ride! That is exactly why I bought my ticket!
GLTY & us all!
Great way to view things.
And don't forget, 'Po boys for breakfast. Great hangover food!
July 20, is the start of our upward move. Mark your calendar!
AM-03 and POW!
You know the last guy standing usually gets stuck with the check!
I can't drink that much in a lifetime! It's the thought that counts, so thanks to all you "First Rounders".
Now, off to the pre board conference and approval of AM-03!
Good Luck to you all!
CGFI
The future of AMNP is closely linked to Colorado Gold Fields'. The merger will make these companies part of each other. If you wish to see AMNP become part of the larger GOLD PRODUCING corporation by merger, then please consider signing the petition linked in the sticky on CGFI's board.
The issues in that petition are common to and effect ANY mining company trying to conduct operations in Colorado.
Please read the petition at least, not because I worked hard stating the case in writing, but just to inform yourself about the environmental and economic future of mining and milling in Colorado.
THANKS TO YOU ALL who have already signed!
MT
AMNP
Howardsville elevation: 9747 ft.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Howardsville,_Colorado
Only off by 1,253 feet, or almost a quarter mile (.237 mile). NOW that's a "BIG difference"! Sorry, that's not the number you stated.
QUOTE:
"Howardsville is almost 11000 feet up a mountain. Big difference."<<<WRONG!!!
The change in elevation is only 115 feet!!!!
And WOW!, they are all pretty much in the same valley system.
Silverton: elevation = 9314 feet.
http://m.eb.com/topic/764350
Eureka: elevation = 9862 feet.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/Eureka,_Colorado
Numbers don't lie unless you misstate them.
It was optimiss who first mentioned writing the Governor, ficoce's idea to take it to the Internet, and he asked me to do the actual writing. Team effort, all the way around. Thanks for the kind words of appreciation. It's all for a common cause, our collective wealth and profit.
I see your point and concern.
A third voice with multiple projects under their belt is always a good thing to have. The engineering firm who designed the facility can be viewed as having a vested interest in the project, since they will build or supervise the building of the facility.
A third party, even though they are being paid for their advice and opinion, will be viewed as having less interest in the completion of the project since their pay is not directly connected to the dry stack method's approval.
I believe this is mostly being done to provide the DRMS a source of working, verifiable projects using the dry stack systems and the consultants can also speak to seismic and avalanche concerns.
Using the dewatered tailings for backfill in the existing mines may also be something to consider further down the road. Stopping water leakage from one working to another seems to be another use for the tailings when mixed with binders. (It is used to backfill existing shafts, with a high rate of success.) That will stop Hennis's arguments about the source of the water quickly.
JMHO