Followers | 142 |
Posts | 5891 |
Boards Moderated | 0 |
Alias Born | 10/27/2003 |
Friday, April 25, 2014 2:37:37 PM
After reading today's update several times, I came away with two diverging reactions. These reactions are based on everything I've come to understand based on public, and yes, non-public information regarding the developments at ADL, including LDM, over the past 10 months or so and then comparing my understanding to that which was described in part in today's update. I don't think it's fair for anyone to say that anyone who doesn't see what is going on with ADL based on this update (or the last 3 updates for that matter) is ignorant or doesn't understand what is going on. To be honest, I was left scratching my head, though not necessarily in a bad way because the company is apparently moving forward from whatever delays have occurred over the past few months or so.
So I went back and I reread every update since May 11, 2013 and compared it to what was stated today. I strongly suggest others do so as well to get a perspective of where we've been, where we are heading and where we might have been misinformed along the way, both publicly and privately. I also considered all of the "clarifications" and/or rumors that have been sourced back to Les or other entities close to the situation in Chile. People can read through my weekly updates on MP over the last several months to gauge what the rumored state of affairs were. I didn't post all of the rumors at the time, but the ones that were publicly disclosed. These weren't rumors dreamt up by shareholders. Most of the rumors could be tied back to e-mails or conversations shareholders have had with Les or others close to the goings on of the company.
So let's not rewrite history and say shareholders are being ignorant as to what is going on or what has been going on as the tale of the tape has clearly changed to anyone who has read all of the updates in succession and anyone who has read e-mails from Les or at least read what was posted in various forums that are sourced back to Les. It has been pretty clear that since September 2013, Medinah was dealing with a single entity, a mining company, who was driving the JV process and who was in the "final negotiations" (Medinah's public words, not mine) for a JV, and that all of the changes to Medinah and developments along the way were by their (the JV partner's) requirements, not Medinah's or not by some heretofore unknown consultants. That situation has obviously changed and this update is Medinah's attempt at explaining the change using guarded vagueness, excitement about the future, and statements that simply contradict what has been stated previously. There isn't so much a disconnect between what shareholders do not understand now as much as there is a disconnect as to what the company has reported to shareholders in the past and what they are reporting now.
With that being the backdrop, here is my take on the entire update:
Then the company states today that after this (December, 2013 as reported by the company) negotiations began with various mining conglomerates. However, in that same 2/21/2014 update they stated the following:
"This communication will serve as the official Company release with regard to our completing the Joint Venture Agreement (JVA) with the major tier mining company concerning the 1,573 Altos de Lipangue breccia properties."..."Any Company disclosure would result in the entity vacating the deal. We will report the issues and produce the contract(s) publicly when completed."
There is no mention of opening up negotiations with "various" mining conglomerates in the 2/21/2014 update, but now today they are saying they began negotiating with various mining conglomerates at that time? I don't know, but to me this appears like revisionist history on the company's part or they are trying to cover something up. The notion of negotiating with multiple mining conglomerates was first mentioned in the summer of 2013 where they were dealing with 4 entities and then 6 entities, but those had, by all accounts public and private, been whittled down to a single entity up through the 2/21/2014 update. Recall these statements by the company in the Fall of 2013:
"[The consolidation of claims under one entity] was necessary as a condition of final negotiations with a major joint venture partner." - 9/4/2013 Shareholder Update
"This was necessary in order to position the company for the Joint Venture agreement that included the stipulation that Medinah Mining Chile own 100% of the Altos de Lipangue mining properties." - 10/18/2013 Shareholder Update
And anyone close to the situation, or who has communicated with Les, or who has read this forum that denies the notion that Medinah was clearly dealing with a single entity through the Fall of 2013 is simply not being intellectually honest...and that includes the company itself.
Note: I have subsequently been corrected that this is not the case and that the primary negotiator is not Les.
I honestly don't have any problem with them opening up negotiations to multiple parties and I'm glad they are doing so with an apparent deadline for a potential decision on one of them by June 9. The problem I have is that it is clear to me based on what they put in their updates, that they are rewriting their own history and it appears they are trying to hide or backtrack from the single "Partner C" focus and momentum that somehow changed I'm guessing around Febraury 2014. It would serve the BOD much better if they simply came out and told shareholders what happened with "Partner C" and state how they are moving on from it by doing such and such. If I'm wrong about what I'm reading, then the company's historical updates are wrong unless someone can show me where I'm misinterpreting what the company has stated historically versus what they stated today.
FEATURED BNCM and DELEX Healthcare Group Announce Strategic Merger to Drive Expansion and Growth • Jul 2, 2024 7:19 AM
EWRC's 21 Moves Gaming Studios Moves to SONY Pictures Studios and Green Lights Development of a Third Upcoming Game • EWRC • Jul 2, 2024 8:00 AM
NUBURU Announces Upcoming TV Interview Featuring CEO Brian Knaley on Fox Business, Bloomberg TV, and Newsmax TV as Sponsored Programming • BURU • Jul 1, 2024 1:57 PM
Mass Megawatts Announces $220,500 Debt Cancellation Agreement to Improve Financing and Sales of a New Product to be Announced on July 11 • MMMW • Jun 28, 2024 7:30 AM
VAYK Exited Caribbean Investments for $320,000 Profit • VAYK • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM
North Bay Resources Announces Successful Flotation Cell Test at Bishop Gold Mill, Inyo County, California • NBRI • Jun 27, 2024 9:00 AM