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.
My understanding is that it was always a possibility that Glencore could force a sale of the final 10% of shares, under Stock Exchange rules. However, I think that after the recent Rights Issue, their total holding is at 82%, so that does not apply. Equally, any formal offer has to be backed by a financial valuation of reserves/assets, something which has not been put forward. One hopes that Cherry, who has been earning millions over the year with Polymet, and any remaining Polymet people, will challenge this opportunism from Glencore.
Bizarre! Are we really saying that Tribes can arbitrarily set their own limits, which are then binding over and above state and federal boundaries? I suspect this is all political. Minnesota Democrats conspiring with environmentalists to pursue Biden's 'green future', where the mining of national minerals is taboo, but it is OK to import from countries like the DRC and Venezuela, where pollution does not matter and human rights are non-existent.
I have picked up a rumour regarding the revocation of the water permit. Although it will will require independent verification, it is that the environmentalists paid off the Tribe 110 miles downstream. If that is true, it is a serious matter.
Apparently, the water permit was revoked because it was not in compliance with the water quality requirements of the Tribe many miles downstream!
As you say, we have yet to hear the reason. Since the business is still not up and running, the only reason must be that they have changed the rules retrospectively. If that is the case, it can be challenged by law. It would be considerate of Polymet to let us know and to hear what they are doing about it, instead of the PR waffle in their statement. It is pointless writing to their, so-called, Investor Relations person, since he never responds.
NewRange/Polymet must have seen this coming, so why nothing to shareholders until after the event? Also, what rationale for the reversal? What has changed to make the 404 permit no longer viable? Until we know that, all the waffle about 'the way ahead' is meaningless. As for the PLM pps, looking at trading thusfar today, I would suggest that day traders have been pumping and dumping to get a movement in price.
Looking at Polymet's latest report, it would appear that the contested case has taken place, but we have to wait until 'late summer' for a judgement! So, it took over a year for this vexatious suit to come before an Administrative judge, who will know little of the technical issues involved, and now we wait for a further half year for him to pronounce. No wonder the stock has tumbled circa 85% in the past few years.
Is Cherry going to wait until the pps is zero before putting out some information on the Contested Case, upon which the restoration of the Permit to Mine rests? Maybe he is too busy?
Not too keen on the 'old timer' label, but good to hear from you. How is life in Germany? I make no excuses, but did keep a chunk of this stock, probably as a result of inertia, rather than proper scrutiny. Also, I could not, and still cannot, believe that a US state could allow a potentially global asset to be sacrificed on the woke alter of eco-terrorism. Frivolous lawsuits like confetti. Legal procedures measured in years. A non-communicative company, still paying its CEO over $500k per year, and for what? Meanwhile, a huge multinational with a poor reputation gobbles up the business, presumably keeping it for a rainy day? A real investment lesson!
The recent Rights Issue was a cheap win for Glencore, who now own over 80% of the company. Still waiting for news on the contested case which was due to start two weeks ago, not least that the Permit to Mine depends upon a successful outcome. The Polymet website still posts an Investor Relations function and I have written to the e-mail address given, but not had the courtesy of a reply.
Polymet bumping along the bottom! If I recall correctly, the Contested Case hearing starts on Monday. Who knows how long it will be for a judgement. Has anyone heard from the Company on the subject?
Having unwisely bought into this project only two years after you, Zenner, I entirely agree. Could never have foreseen that such a huge national resource would be wasted on the alter of 'environmentalism'. Having said that, the sclerotic and prejudiced legal system has a lot to answer for! You allude to the Contested Case, supposedly to be heard this month, having been pending for a year or so for no apparent reason. Such cases are mostly for domestic disagreements and mainly settled out of court. One has to question the ability or expertise of an Administrative Judge to rule on such highly technical issues. It is time to call a halt to the decade plus of frivolous lawsuits, and get on with the business of extracting the much sought after minerals which will free the US from reliance on countries such as China and the DRC.
Thanks for the information. I could not fail to note the projected timescale for the contested case. The hearing in late March 23 will be over one year since the case was admitted into Court. Even then, it should have been thrown out as baseless. That aside, how long until a ruling which will release the Permit to Mine? Another year, perhaps? This is ludicrous!
Would make sense. Can't see the point of raising more capital without the Permit to Mine. On that, have you heard anything? Do they still have an Investor Relations person? I gather that 40 people are currently employed, although what they all do I have no idea!
No bother. Exchanging information is what this Hub is all about and I wish there was more interaction. I guess that years of 'same old same old' has induced a form of torpor! How many years behind the original proposal to commence mining are we? As to your question, you may recall that there was a suggestion of another Rights Issue about the time the Teck merger was proposed, some three months ago. My source merely confirmed that it will, in fact, happen. Sadly, I was not informed as to when. My current focus is on the seemingly never-ending legal battles and why the Company refuse to inform us of progress (or not!).
I fear that my information is probably correct and that yet another Rights Issue is in prospect. What I find most frustrating is the lack of communication from the Company. In his Feb 22 roundup, Cherry flagged up the importance of the Contested Case and Wetlands Permits, opining that they would probably be concluded sooner, rather than later. But, here we are with Christmas in sight, and NOTHING! The Company must know what is going on, so why not have the courtesy to share important information with shareholders?
I share your frustration. Still no information on the Contested Case. As I recall, there was a hearing on 24 August to decide how it will proceed. Nothing from the Company! Until that is decided, the Permit to Mine is in abeyance, yet my information has it that the Company is planning yet another Rights Issue, this time to raise $105m. More dilution on what is already a tiny pps! The seemingly endless rounds of vexatious litigation remind one of the Court of Circumlocution in Dickens.
As far as I can recall, it was for the Administrative Judge to set out the procedure for the contested case hearing. Something, in my view and bearing in mind the science and detailed scrutiny over years, which should never have been granted a hearing. Politics! Needless to say, nothing from the Company!
Same old same old with Polymet. A piece of good news and the share price pops up, but rarely holds its gains for more than 24 hrs. Take today, down over 5% on virtually no trading! It makes you wonder whether there will be a sustained rise when (assuming) the three remaining lawsuits are dismissed and permits restored.
No problem. The years we have waited tend to confuse things. Apologies for the double post - the Hub seemingly would not accept the first offering! I agree that the proposed merger looks promising, although I contend we need some clarification from Cherry, since what I read looks to be quite complex. Most importantly for me, the Teck Company is currently merely conceptual and light years behind Polymet with regard to project development. I trust that, if this merger goes through, Polymet will continue towards mining unhindered by the Teck 50%? The thought of effectively starting again would be dire! No doubt the treehuggers are gathering the vexatious confetti as I write!
Where did you get that information? I have seen nothing from the Company to support that. Grateful for a steer.
Where did you get that information? Grateful for a steer.
Another Rights Issue to further dilute share price! No doubt Glencore will be happy, once again, to gobble up the (probably many) unwanted shares at a low price. I will certainly not be throwing more money at this project! What I would really like to hear, however, is when the decade plus of vexatious litigation is likely to be concluded. I have written to the Company, but no response, as usual.
Copper price down circa 25% over the past month.
Within my limited sphere of influence, I have for many years been beating the drum for Polymet within the industry. A colleague and I even wrote direct to the President, stating in the strongest terms that Mn Senators have done nothing to directly support the mining of precious resources in Minnesota or, through legal routes, to limit the impact of seemingly endless vexatious litigation by environmentalists. The consequence of the latter has meant the loss of hundreds of jobs, has resulted in the Company being gobbled up by a non-US business (Glencore) with a dubious track record and, in Biden's green future, ensured that the USA has to continue its reliance upon imported minerals from countries such as China and the DRC, both with terrible human rights records and working conditions.
Despite long awaited good news about the Mn Court of Appeal rejecting the latest vexatious treehugger challenge, the share price continues to go down and no-one seems interested in trading. As you say, with each lost suit, costs and punitive damages should have been awarded against the enviros.
I fancy it is the usual 'no news' drift downwards, on low volumes, in the absence of any news. We have seen it so many times. The Court Case (how many is that??) referred to at 12646 gives no indication of dates and an update from the Company would be welcome.
Please be advised that a number of us on this Hub have been invested in PLM for a decade, or more. During that time, we have endured seemingly endless vexatious litigation by so-called 'environmentalists'. We still await the reinstatement of vital permits which will allow the Company (Glencore now being the majority shareholder) to move forward. Even if (when?) permits are restored, the Company has to raise the finance for construction and beyond. There is a way to go.
Over $4 in pre-market trading. Circa 3m trades. Robinhood again?
Hopefully, this will go the same way as the previous suit(s). It should not delay the restoration of the Permit to Mine. Note, though, the tenor of the final paragraph. No mention of the six challenges which were dismissed, or the nature of the final equivocation, namely a perceived need for a functional-equivalence analysis.
Thanks, again, this time for the useful information on both the Water Permit and the Permit to Mine. Pity we shareholders do not get this sort of stuff from the Company! Slightly irritating that the Appeal Court could not reject all of the objections, but 'zero risk' seems to be the order of the day. After all, the US can still import precious metals from places like China and the DRC!!! Do you happen to know whether any construction or drilling work has taken place during the years we have had to wait for the sclerotic court processes? I am still trying to ascertain how the Company intends to fully fund construction, assuming all the permitting hurdles are eradicated. Finally, I would be interested to know whether it has recovered its legal costs for the dismissed cases.
Thanks for the useful information and let us hope that we can record another court victory at the end of the month. That leaves three? Regarding Talon, one has to admire their optimism, especially in Minnesota! I felt equally upbeat when I invested in PLM over 10 years ago, little imagining that, like Trumpcard, I would be staring at a considerable paper loss in 2022.
Took just over a week to get back to near $2.50!! Never a day goes by without the pps dropping 2-3%. How day traders are making money, I have no idea!
Premarket down yet again! Either the message is not getting out there, or institutional investors are bored with the Groundhog Day which Polymet shares have become, thanks to the seemingly endless frivolous lawsuits and the sclerotic court processes. If my memory serves me correctly, the original aspiration was to be mining five years ago!! As you say, punitive costs should have been applied to the failed cases. In addition, it is painfully clear that the politics underlying the court process is too willing to give credence to frivolous claims.
As usual, nothing directly to investors! From the statement, where did 22 lawsuits come from? Unless I misread things over the years of achingly slow legal proceedings, there were 11. Also, it would be helpful to know what the remaining 4 are and when they might be concluded, rather than the broad 'in 2022'. Would that be in January, or as is more usual with Polymet, a year away? In addition, it would be instructive to know why it has taken so long to get to where we currently are. Timelines in years seem to be the norm! How about a Christmas statement to investors, Cherry?
Yes, the eleven lawsuits to date take 'frivolous' to a whole new level! Why is the Company not awarded punitive damages and costs each time a suit falls? There have been six so far. More importantly, why are the House and Senate representatives not putting a stop to this nonsense? They are, supposedly, the lawmakers. Had Glencore not gobbled up Polymet, it would long since have ceased to be in business. Presumably, the Minnesota lawmakers are happy for it to fail, preferring instead to import the minerals essential for Biden's 'green future' from countries like China, the world's biggest polluter, with an appalling track record on human rights?
I agree. Five months just to initiate proceedings for what looks more like a criminal action, rather than a justification of science! What the hell will witnesses and cross-examination prove? Either the science supports the use of Bentonite, reinforced by years of experience, or it does not. It should not be a platform for subjective opinion. The same applies to the other issue of timelines, where the convoluted process even involves public comment. What will subjective public comment add to the equation, other than creating yet more delay?
What is there to say other than 'still tied up in frivolous litigation'? And it looks likely to remain so until craven politicians, and their equally craven judiciary, do something other than woke virtue signalling over minority causes. They talk about a 'green future', but seem happy to ignore the massive homegrown potential of the Northmet Project. Presumably, they are content for the precious metals buried in Minnesota to stay in the ground while importing from the biggest polluter on the planet, namely China?
Presumably, the Mn Democrat Senators will be happy for the US to source the minerals required for Biden's 'green future' from places like China and the DRC, where pollution and the absence of human rights would escape the attention of our litigant treehuggers?
I am confused! It is described as the Air Permit. Why should there be two?