You did mention me by name, but I will accept this as a truce.
Personally, I don't see the value in reading charts on a thinly traded stock of this nature, but then again chart reading does not interest me even in the areas where I acknowledge value in the task. Hence I ignore those posts.
It is quite clear there is a lot of frustration and concern among shareholders. I think Mark Smith has made numerous off-hand comments during the last two investor meetings that has fueled enthusiasm and later disappointment with retail investors, which I assume makes up most of this board (myself included).
My singular request of the management team is to put out a quarterly letter to shareholders. This is rather simple and I have noticed that most other junior miners do exactly this, both North American and Australian companies.
It doesn't have to be long. A simple this is what was completed the last three months and here is what we are working on the next three months. Investors shouldn't have to go a full year without hearing from the CEO of the company. Nebraskan and I debated yesterday as to whether or not Zachry has started detailed engineering. I see no reason why Mark couldn't put simple things like this in a letter. Scott Honan mentioned they had gone over a schedule with the various engineering firms involved in putting together the PSD schedule. This is information that I believe should be shared with investors. Finding out that issues with the federal permitting process was one of the reasons they switched to the ground freezing method via the Senate testimony instead of hearing it direct from Mark was disgraceful. I could go on, but I think you get the point.
I do not buy the argument that they are keeping everything as quiet as possible so that the "environmentalists" don't screw up the project. First of all, it does the company no good when posters refer to those who care about the environment (that do come from both sides of the aisle) "nut jobs", "tree huggers", or "wackos". I'm not saying you've done this but these terms have been thrown around numerous times. That's a great way to rile someone up that may have previously been indifferent.
One thing that I think this entire board agrees on is that the local and state support for this project is tremendous. It also appears that federal support is not required. The proposed mine is not going in an area of significance, and it will not disturb native habitat. Any native habitat in that area has long been disturbed by cropland and Nebraska farmers tendency to continue to till on a yearly basis. If I recall from my drive by the area, there is also some pasture land with non-native grasses that may be taken over by the mine. The point is, a mine very well may be LESS intrusive to the environment than current agricultural practice.
The above ground portion is relatively small, all things considered. I would actually encourage the company to plant many of the outlying areas of the mine into native grasses. There are many benefits to doing so, not the least of which are some bonus points with the conservationists of the area. I'm sure the Johnson County Conservation District would love to assist in this. I'm also confident UNL and nearby seed producer Stock Seed Farms would be valuable resources. This would be a tiny gesture on Niocorp's that would go a long ways in proving their commitment to a green project and further preventing disruption to the schedule.
Back on point, if you agree that the company could afford to provide more information to shareholders via a quarterly update, I encourage you to respectfully voice your frustration and make this request to Jim.
