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.
CNBC has been playing an interesting commercials on Corvus Gold which show their expected deposits in a very similar graphic to NioCorp's graphics.
Boilermaker - this is interesting stuff. There are also a lot more steel applications within submarines than the power plant (e.g. hull). Regardless, while this market could be a small portion of NioCorp's portfolio, I honestly don't think it would move the needle much because we don't build that many submarines per year.
This is a great question, but I don't know enough about metallurgy to give you a good answer. Regardless, I don't think there would be enough volume to really move the needle for NioCorp.
We know that Niobium alloyed with steel improves strength and reduces weight - both of which would be a great advantage for submarines.
What I don't know is things like:
- how niobium would react over many years of exposure to a high neutron flux radiation field?
- How does niobium alloyed steel perform after years of cyclical and thermal stresses? Does it perform better, same or worse than current alloys?
- I presume from the use in turbine blades that it can handle the high temperatures and pressures, but I don't know enough about that.
Interesting questions though.
Definitely true in that the shielding for US submarines provides for sufficient protection from exposure to ionizing radiation. The key to this is: minimize time exposed, maximize distance from radiation source, and maximize the shielding between a person and the source.
Some areas of the ship have some time limits associated with them, but all of these are so ultra-conservative that we can spend an entire career at sea and expect no significant health effects due to exposure to ionizing radiation. The crew is monitored and if your exposure levels are higher than average (or expected) then that person is re-trained not to linger in certain areas and/or moved to a different watch station with lower levels.
With respect to radiation poisoning, that is usually referred to as "Acute Radiation Syndrome" which can only happen when a very serious reactor accident happens. Even at full power (i.e. maximum radiation levels produced), the shielding design is such that it reduces the exposure levels sufficiently that radiation poisoning is not an issue, at most it would be long term (thing years) constant exposure but there are procedures in place to prevent this.
Is your question about reactor cladding asking about the reactor pressure vessel and associated components or are you asking about the shielding to protect from ionizing radiation? Cladding would generally be considered materials which are in place to minimize corrosion and not necessarily for structural integrity of the components (although if it aids in that, all the better). The containment system could refer to the primary coolant components (reactor vessel, associated piping, steam generators, pressurizer, pumps) or it could also refer to the entire reactor compartment which would contain material in the event of a leaks from the primary (In civilian reactors this would be referred to as the containment building which Chernobyl did not have. It had a building around the reactor, but it was not designed to contain any serious amounts of pressure whereas US civilian reactors are built with a containment building like Three Mile Island which are designed to contain pressure to prevent the release of radioactive materials outside the structure in the event of a reactor casualty).
You stated "Human fears and our fallibility are factors that can't be dismissed and need to be part of the equation."
I agree that they should not be dismissed, but proper education and not simply fear mongering and (improperly) using technical terms that you don't understand should NOT be part of the equation.
The press is generally uneducated and lazy and scary headlines get higher ratings. So why should they bother to educate the public about news events when they can just screenshot a bunch of Twitter accounts and talk about how "the internet is blowing up".
To bring this back to the original point which started this diversion, the election may have serious implications on NioCorp. One side wants to promote America First, the other is happy to outsource to foreign nations because of the fear of what mining could do to our environment (note, they don't care so much about how "green" the environment is of those nations).
Thus, education about how things can be done (in this case environmentally responsible mining) is important because it will be very easy to get into a junk science debate because people don't understand the terms they are using ... just like what I was trying to relay with nuclear concerns.
I didn't say that there aren't concerns and it is indeed right to be wary of the risks and dangers. I recognize that this was a comedy show, but let me give a couple of simple examples of why it displays complete ignorance of the subject and only serves to scare people. I'll only give a couple of examples.
Half-life of Plutonium - PU-239 has a half-life of 24,000 years as stated in the video. But what does that mean? It is generally considered to be five half-lifes and the original material is considered effectively gone. So is that roughly 125,000 years before Plutonium is gone and safe? No, that's just how long it takes to naturally decay away (let's ignore the daughter products for this discussion).
There are six primary isotopes of Plutonium, five of which naturally decay away via Alpha decay (a Helium nucleus) which is has a very high electrical charge (+2). The high electrical charge means that it requires a very special type of shielding to protect living things such as a piece of paper or dead epidermal skin or any article of clothing.
The sixth decay method is via a beta decay (a proton or electron, in this case an electron), which is also electrically charged & shielded in a similar manner as an Alpha decay particle.
The video then immediately goes on to discuss "if ingested" which has nothing to do with the half-life that they just discussed. Plutonium is far more toxic causing heavy metal poisoning then the risk of radiation (unless ingested or inhaled, inhaled being worse). A long half-life is often considered to be a "stable" isotope since it has few radio-decay events, but that never discussed.
There are a lot of isotopes which exist naturally with very long half-lifes that are not dangerous such as Potasium-40 (1.248x10^9 years yet no one discusses the dangers of bananas, avacados, yams, or potatoes), Carbon-14 (5,730 years, hence carbon dating technique)
Similarly Granite (countertops?) have naturally occurring impurities of Uranium (U-238 is over 99% of all naturally occurring Uranium and has a half-life of 4.468x10^9 years with alpha decay but it isn't considered a hazard to put into kitchens with food preparation) and Thorium (also crazy long half-life).
Storage - This is definitely an issue, but one that is far more plagued by politics than technical issues. There are different types of waste which require different solutions (i.e. spent fuel vs. irradiated reactor components like Cobalt-60 vs. secondary items like reactor water chemistry test samples). If we activated Yucca, then there is the politics of transporting the waste to the site and every political jurisdiction playing politics.
Mistakes were definitely made in the past but there has also been significant technical advancements. Metallurgy is better for containers. Non-destructive testing for quality controls and quality assurance in containers for fewer faults which could leak. There have been theories not fully investigated such as actively irradiating waste in order to speed up the decay process significantly and render the material radioactively inert in much less time.
Unfortunately, as it is, people are not properly educated about it other than "radiation is bad". Most people do not understand the difference between "radiation" (and the various types), "radioactive" (e.g. bananas are naturally slightly radioactive because of the Potasium), "contamination", "radiation leak", "half-life" nor the difference between the hazard due to ionizing radiation and the toxicity of the element (i.e. Mercury or Lead). However, you can be assured that there is plenty of false information spread by people who incorrectly use those terms interchangeably
douginil - I agree with you generally, but I wouldn't call it junk science, I would call it ignorance. I was a submarine officer in the Navy and used to operate nuclear reactors.
The biggest problem is irrational fear of what doesn't need to be a matter of concern vs. what are real risks. I can't tell you the number of times that I've had to dispute the claims of "there is no safe level of radiation" pointing out bananas, granite countertops, new building materials, MRI/CT/CAT/X-rays, some beaches, airline flights, and so on.
There are numerous other education issues, but I don't want to divert away from NioCorp too much.
I personally care very little how or where we get financed, so long as the deal is reasonable. Considering interest rates, that shouldn't be too hard. IMO the problem will be finding sources willing to take the risk.
The following is just my opinion having watched this for years on end now.
Niobium is fine, but the market could be severely undercut by Brazil so from a lender's perspective, challenging investment to commit to.
Titanium is a bigger market, but also not a big money maker for NioCorp. Thus not worth the investment risk as a lender.
Therefore Scandium is the risk and key to getting this going. There has been plenty of talk about "latent demand" because there has yet to be a reliable commercial source at a reasonable scale. NioCorp sort of offers that (arguable about meeting demand once proven viable) but again, not proven therefore high risk.
What I'm wondering is why hasn't (correct me if I'm wrong) there been a plan to build the mine in phases which are more manageable from a financing perspective? $900M given the above risks is clearly not very palatable to those who might have the interest to help finance this.
For example, (I'm making up numbers for the sake of discussion) why not build out the capability in a modular manner where we could get to say 20% expected full capacity in order to reduce initial CAPEX? Maybe it isn't that easy or would cost 35% of expected CAPEX just to get the initial 20% online and over the long term the total CAPEX may be more.
But that may get the latent demand of Scandium started & therefore encourage additional investment (or buyout). We could at least start generating revenue (any is better than loans from the CEO or further dilution) and prove the viability of a commercial Scandium source.
Then after we have revenues, reduce the risk associated with latent demand, additional capacity build out could be started. Maybe second round gets us to 50% or whatever.
It's fairly clear that we aren't going to get a Solendra type investment from the government, although we may get something. We need something to happen or we'll start running out of permits or cash or something to make all this "progress" to be wasted.
Until something actually is a catalyst for the stock, all news is just more "meh". I've been invested in this stock since 2014. In that time we have a high of $1.04US and a low of $0.35US and currently sit at $0.60US.
Time & again, I've read about "we just need ..." only to have that happen but nothing happens to the stock. We just need the Feasibility Study, which we got & the stock tanked because the CAPEX was about $950M. Then we got the revised FS. We moved to the TSX. We sold off takes to Thyssen Krupp. Deutsche Bank guarantee loans, water permits, don't need to build the pipeline to the Missouri River, air permits, we present at this conference or that one, testify before Congress, breakthroughs in the refining process, got on the critical strategic materials list, yada yada yada.
Yet nothing happens for investors except Mark keeps loaning the company money at 10% interest.
I'm still overall bullish on the opportunity if it can ever get financed and begin construction, but this has been dead money for non-traders for over six years now. And I don't want to trade it because I don't want to miss on a big payday only to try to cash in on that move from $0.60US to $0.65US and moving any significant amount of shares to make that trade worth while is dicey anyway given the usual volume.
Happy to hear good news, but I've heard plenty of good news and milestone events that has resulted in no real results for investors that I don't get excited about news. I'm really disappointed in how long this venture has taken to materialize. GLTALs
I don't post often, but read periodically as I have been in this stock for many years. I don't know when I will sell, but a big thing would be if they become sufficiently cash flow positive to pay a dividend. (Disclaimer: I'm not predicting they will or will not nor do I have any information that they will or will not)
Mark Smith has plenty of motivation to pay dividends with all the stock that he has. Then again, never hurts to cash out some and have that bird in hand. GLTA
Dropping below US$0.50 with above average volume is really discouraging with an 80,000 bid on the OTC as well. Not sure I understand why this is happening.
The 60 yard line? :)
I think everyone should calm down. We've all been asking for the high level FS numbers. We got them. Comparison to PEA 1 or 2 IMHO doesn't matter because those weren't really bankable.
Positives:
1. FS are released within the time frame promised by MS
2. We now have thorough numbers of plan that shows this is a profitable project
3. FS is set conservatively with lower production rates & product pricing as well as high tax rate. Any of those can change and more likely with a positive effect than a negative effect (Anyone really think corporate taxes are going higher in the next few years?)
4. Solid project that just needs money to build. But strong evidence to show that the investment would produce more $ than it will cost.
5. Early enough that if the US government decides to do any infrastructure investment, this looks great. (How did the shovel ready stimulus bill in 2009 work out? How attractive was that Solyndra investment compared to this?)
Negatives:
1. Disappointed that CAPEX went up significantly after PRs stating lowered CAPEX/OPEX.
2. IRR lower, but still very attractive
3. Timing looks bad, but in the long run, won't matter except for a few days of trading
You did. I reread "Titanium (kg) 7.75 7.75 7.75 (US$ bid per lb unless stated)" and focused on the part in bold and overlooked the kg part.
Regardless, my point was to ask if the $7.75 for titanium or titanium dioxide. It looked like Ti and not TiO2 and I didn't know where you got the information and thus didn't see if there was a separate price listed for TiO2.
I suspected that was the answer. I just wanted to point out that the numbers used in PEA2 was for titanium dioxide and not titanium. Titanium is what was listed in Landmark's post as US$7.75/pound and then stated that PEA2 used US$2.10/pound.
I did not see TiO2 listed in the prices he copied down there and wanted to be sure we were talking about the same material.
I'm not trying to be critical of Landmark, only trying to point out that I don't think the US$7.75/pound is the same material as the US$2.10 used in PEA2.
For clarity, is there a price difference between titanium and titanium dioxide?
If I recall correctly, NioCorp plans to produce titanium dioxide and not metallic titanium. Anyone please correct me if I am mistaken.
The Ohio replacement is in the works, but "near" future in terms of ship building can be a decade. The Ohio class is expected to remain in service until 2029. I also don't think there is enough mass in submarines to really affect NioCorp's bottom line, especially not titanium. But some niobium could be used.
I am long and hopeful but frustrated with this slow glideslope downward.
A significant disappointment IMHO is the number of PR emails that I get from Jim Sims regarding IBC compared to the number of PR emails on Niocorp.
I understand to an extent, but it makes me frustrated. Are we doing anything at Niocorp? I believe the answer is likely "yes", but investor relations sure isn't telling us much.
You both are right, I'm not sweating a US$0.01 and yes that 6500 share is my remaining bid. In the past I have been able to pick up shares without having to adjust my bid.
My comment was intended to be more of a reflection about how tight things are right now. Even though there is almost no volume, no one is really willing to sell much either.
Trying to add to my position but having a hard time getting it filled because no one will drop their ask US$0.01.
Walterc (post #22845) & Husker1854 (post #22863) made well reasoned posts. Personally I've had a minor adjustment of my opinion about the late FS. While disappointing in one aspect, it may also be a benefit in another aspect.
I have been following this intently since the Quantum days and bought in my first round when we were at US$0.38. Having grown up in Nebraska about an hour north west of Omaha I have a fondness for the area & appreciation about the type of people the locals are. I played high school football against Humbolt & Stella just east of Elk Creek.
I was a submarine officer while on active duty & maybe that gives me a somewhat different perspective. When submerged, there are many unknowns out there. You can't see anything. We don't usually send out active pings (like in the movies) but rather passively listen for things. There are always unknowns. What if I just can't hear the foreign submarine that's following me? Have I checked my baffles sufficiently? What if I can't hear the sailboat with nothing running when I come to periscope depth? What if everything is fine & I'm just being overly cautious? If I do hear something, I know what direction it is coming from, but the range is always a question. Is it a faint sound because it is loud & far away or close & a quiet faint sound?
Most of the time you have to work with what you know which is an incomplete picture. Trust in what you know you know. Be wary of things you don't know and prepared to react to them when they become known. Make decisions based upon your knowledge and best judgement. Understand that not everything will blatantly obvious & you will have to infer things based upon dispersed data points.
While I share the frustration of the FS being late here are some things that give me faith:
1. People with much more detailed information than I have through their DD are investing much more than I have in the company based upon the response of the recent PP. Even more than the company anticipated.
2. MS has consistently invested his own money (granted, the loans were at very friendly rates) and his best reward is the success of the company and not his salary alone. He's motivated to make the company succeed and not to just collect a paycheck.
3. The mine should be cash flow positive from niobium alone & 75% of that is already under contract. Scandium & titanium are bonus money.
4. CAPEX & OPEX reductions from the nearly US$1B has been reported from: no longer need railway, recycling many processing materials, & reusing tailings. How much reduction may be debated, but still a positive sign.
5. Environmental concerns have been greatly reduced which derisks the project.
6. Similarly permitting risks seem to have been reduced (due to the above) as well as a more friendly presidential administration lowers the risks to the project as well.
Finally, my reduced concern about the delay of the FS is based upon the question: If the FS were released and positive, what is the next step?
Financing the nearly US$1B (in stages as MS has stated). How are we going to do that? While there are several options, some are better than others. I work in government contracting so I understand how nothing happens quickly with government money. There is currently no program to fund the many projects that the Trump administration says they want to support. So maybe this FS delay is a blessing in disguise. Yes I would like an update on the FS, but that is a frustration and minor concern. There are lots of pretty solid reasons to still believe in the positives of the project.
A U.S. government loan with business friendly terms could seriously reduce the cost of financing the mine construction without dilution. I can't state how huge I think that could be for the shareholders.
If no loan program happens, then nothing has changed with respect to how Niocorp has been operating and we continue on with the same plan. Therefore no additional risk if there is no government loan program and we just carry on with business.
So for me, there are enough positives to outweigh the concerns I have about delays to FS and lack of news. So I'll continue on the mission because it seems to me that the long term rewards are far more significant than the risks and short term frustrations.
GLTAL
I think that Trump's speech last night derisked NioCorp. Maybe not completely and not necessarily anything that green visor types can point to in a ledger, but the push for American products in the infrastructure projects that they will be promoting is a very positive thing for us longs.
I still think that this is a prime target for any government backed loans to begin mine construction. Think about it. What real risk is there for the US government to put up money for a project which can be cash flow positive on niobium alone with 75% under contract? The only downside may be that 50% is to Thyssen Krupp as a non-US entity.
I also think that this increases the potential for a buyout from a larger player. I'm not necessarily hoping for that but buyouts are usually pretty positive for shareholders.
Purely hypothetical question: What hurdles would NioCorp have if they got the $1B financing from the US government? Or maybe 50-50 between US & German governments?
A business friendly loan from the US gov't to finance Niocorp? Now that's a REALLY interesting prospect to think about. Obviously I'm not saying that it is going to happen. But think about all the investments that the Obama admin gave to "green industries" like Solyndra at $535 million, so it isn't unprecedented.
Is anyone else getting an error when trying to open the niocorp.com website? I haven't tried in a while, but this morning it seems down.
That's a good point. Someone (forget who or when) posted a nice list of remaining 4 or 5 items to be completed before BFS. It may be a good idea to make that list a sticky note at the top of the threads.
We appear to have something of a spike over US$0.60.
With Spana and others getting "rewarded" with stock the other day, wouldn't one have to think that they would be motivated to start caring about the share price going up?
Good points about the difference between PP and public offerings. I was trying to answer his question without getting too far into the details. The net effect is the same, even if the process, costs, and size may not be between the two.
I agree as well that with roughly 185m shares outstanding a PP for a low single million shares isn't a huge dilution. But with a stock below $1, every few pennies difference in stock price feels more significant.
I'm not a complete expert on this, but this has been my experience in the past with other stocks that have done this.
You are correct that the PP will add to the total overall outstanding shares - this is generally called dilution. The short term affect of this is that the current shares are worth a little less because the company theoretically has the same value, but more shares.
The effect of this though is a cash infusion to the company to execute on whatever plan they are trying to raise the funds. If they execute well, that plan increases the overall value of the company by more than the drop in price caused by the dilution.
In the short term, it stinks for existing shareholders. Hopefully in the longer term it works well.
Bottom line though is companies need money. They can get that through revenue (we have none at the moment), increasing debt (may be good or bad depending upon why and how much), or issuing more shares (i.e. PP). Remember once shares are issued to the public, the company doesn't receive any additional revenue from those shares as they are traded in the markets. Even if the stock price skyrockets, that only helps existing shareholders, not the company until they issue more shares (unless of course the company has existing shares that they are simply selling).
I am hopeful that in the case of Niocorp, this PP is a necessary step to get past the FS. It is encouraging that there was enough positive response to the PP that they offered an expanded one. If they had done the PP and there was little to no interest, then things would be very bad because they company needs money & no one wants to invest in them.
GLTAL
Correct me if I'm wrong, but I believe the 45 day limit was the maximum time to release the FS after release of the numbers. So they could release data and then the FS the next day or any day up until the 45 day limit. At least that was my understanding. GLTA
Took a while for the first trades this morning. Seemed odd considering last night's PR which I think was very positive. GLTA
Is there something going on? Like a halt or something?
PR release that a significant part of the project is no longer needed and we have 0 volume? I know we are thinly traded, but zero?
FWIW, I read the PR CAPEX/OPEX decreased in some areas and increases in others as a net decrease ... but that they had to include clauses that some areas may increase as a result of these changes. Otherwise they could be criticized for not stating that costs in some areas may increase.
A while back there was a PR which stated there would be significant decrease in CAPEX/OPEX. I think this is stating those areas, but just not including the numbers.
Just making up numbers, if they release a FS with a $200M decrease in CAPEX/OPEX in areas A, B, C, & D, but a $50M increase in area E, they would be hit with "you didn't tell us that E would increase by $50M!"
I think this is good news & hopefully the share price stops the bleeding & we finally start moving up again.
Thanks to everyone who replied. I checked SPAM before asking. The last email I have from them is the 12/16/16 Seasons Greetings email. I will double check that I am still on the email list.
Thanks again & GLTL!
How did you receive this? I usually get PRs emailed to me but I don't have anything from them today.
Thanks & GLTL!
This is great news which I hope helps boost the share price. However, I was expecting the PR to be more about this than the niobium pilot plant.
Something doesn't make sense to me in that article. They clearly describe how they define the energy efficiency rate (which is what I expected), but they don't define how they are using the term Power Factor.
From my electrical engineering education, power factor was the cosine of the angle of real power divided by the apparent power which was caused by reactive power. Reactive power is the power consumed in the creation and destruction of magnetic fields as a result of alternating current and measured in KVAr (Kilo Volt Amps reactive). The smaller the angle, the higher the power factor and lower reactive power. But the range of power factor is -1.0 to +1.0.
So how do they determine a power factor of 106? What does that mean?
Additionally all of those are a function of AC electrical power. But thermoelectic generators create DC electrical power. So the reactive load would be a function of the conversion of DC to AC if needed (for example automobiles may not require this as they are primarily DC systems).
So either I misunderstand something or the article is missing something.
Is this the previously announced reduction in CAPEX/OPEX?