InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 11
Posts 1763
Boards Moderated 0
Alias Born 01/07/2010

Re: None

Sunday, 03/21/2010 8:55:16 AM

Sunday, March 21, 2010 8:55:16 AM

Post# of 160
If the company makes the decision to explore Uranium assets they have,thats fine with me .However ,I would like to know what reason they have to keep the coal properties when they badly need funding.You cannot keep trying to advance The Coal Prospect or The Uranium Prospect. One should be sold. If management believes the Uranium properties can be explored and proven then a shareholder has to rely on their expertise and wait but I see no valid reason to dilute any more.If they do ,then they are just the same as a lot of other nanocaps that will not survive.A good example is Tournigan Energy which had Uranium properties in the U. S. and Slovakia as well as Gold properties . They took their most near term asset (Uranium in Slovakia ) and advanced it with funding from The sale of EVERYTHING ELSE. It was a good shot for a dying company and it all would have brought the share price back,unfortunately a ruling that Uranium mining should be voted on locally will most likely kill the project. In this case the environmentalists were wrong. The point is Tournigan did what Cash should do as far as focusing on one project,they just picked the wrong one.All the more reason why management should outline HOW,they will succeed with the Uranium prospect,Southpen
Day Range:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y
Recent CHXMF News