News Focus
News Focus
Followers 160
Posts 14046
Boards Moderated 2
Alias Born 02/27/2008

Re: dmbao post# 127194

Friday, 12/14/2012 3:51:28 AM

Friday, December 14, 2012 3:51:28 AM

Post# of 165875
I agree with you that it is plausible that the JV will intend to seek and obtain project financing in its own right as a corporate entity...

But, we don't know if that will happen, yet...

And, there's always potential that there may be some minor advantage found that is related to control over some portion of the financing... so, I'd not be surprised to see a "mix" of sources... although I'd much prefer to see a clean approach to structuring a package deal... rather than one done in piecemeal fashion...

I agree again that I don't see "financial institutions making deals secured by a minority ownership of a project". I don't think our senior partner will have much reason to want to surrender interest to others... which doesn't mean there aren't stupid people working in the markets, causing problems, thinking that they might be able to force their way into a deal somehow by proving they're stupid... I've seen it happen often enough.

Agree again that there has to be a deal in place... before speculation about the form of financing is relevant... but, that speculation still won't be overly relevant AFTER a deal is signed, either. It will not be our opinions that define what happens... once they're in position to start making those things happen... and plans are always "the concept from which you begin to enable the deviations necessary to succeed"...

And, yes, they're not completing work on feasibility now and wrapping it up, rather than beginning that work...

There's going to be a lot of $ spent on a lot of interesting work that needs doing, still... I expect there will be more drilling... likely a significant amount done in a fairly short period of time... and have no clue what sort of "range limits" will be applied in focusing that effort... but, I'll be surprised if the effort doesn't do a LOT more to develop and reveal the full extent and scope of the potential. The last few holes they drilled were certainly eye openers...

I've still not found it useful to care, very much, about how the postured arguments about the legacy shorts prove to unwind. It's merely a curiosity. We'll find out what the actual short position is, at some point. I've never seen that dirty secret be revealed... without it being forced to be revealed... and don't disagree about what that will require, here...

Otherwise, the intensity (and flagrant error) in the discussion about it here seems to me driven more by purpose than reason, as discussed in the first two lines here: http://seekingalpha.com/article/414151-quadra-fnx-when-the-shorts-got-slaughtered?source=yahoo

Some (wrongly, IMO) think that discussion, or persistent subtle negativity in concert with it, will discourage buying and shake holders out... and they craft arguments they intend to drive that result. Others, think the opposite (also wrongly, IMO)...

While I'm not tolerant of the dishonesty and flagrant efforts in manipulation... I tend to focus my own concern on what the article suggests is more rational:

So, I don't choose to CARE that much what others opinions are on those issues... or what influences them...

The link says: "Some of us are also guilty of not doing our home work"

I'm not planning on being one of them...

Doing the homework yourself easily shows you well enough who's telling the truth and who is not...

And, SRSR has a solid (and amazing) crew of DD monsters...

Unfortunately, the utility of the board, here, has been highjacked by those with other agenda...

So, it's nice to see a post now and then that's neither damning with faint praise, or overtly disparaging the CEO... who's succeeding in bringing this project along from not much but an historical afterthought in 2008... to far and away the most interesting niobium prospect on the planet, currently... while pinching his pennies hard enough in the process to make Lincoln and Elizabeth squeal...

A lot of error fostered here... comes from effort enabling that error by considering SRSR as if it really existed in an IHub opinion generated bubble, instead of in a dynamic market place...

Vastly more useful to note that SRSR exists in a market place that is both dynamic... and full of potential for "reality checks" based on comparisons with OTHERS EXPERIENCE...

We've been through all that with other niobium potentials... with Nemegosenda proving far and away those others superior...

SRSR still isn't the only company out there doing this mineral exploration and development thing.

SRSR isn't the only company working with China in generating supply of minerals that will be supporting infrastructure for the steel industry...

Scott Keevil doesn't call the shots on every driver of timing... and he doesn't make others decisions for them...

And, I could painstakingly describe, in detail, what exactly is relevant in context of our discussion, in these links:

http://seekingalpha.com/article/347131-abacus-mining-exploration-may-have-a-partner-with-deep-pockets-backing-its-project

http://ironinvestingnews.com/category/feature-articles

But, "Some of us are also guilty of not doing our home work"... and those are probably the ones who should read the damn links and figure it out for themselves...

























Volume:
Day Range:
Bid:
Ask:
Last Trade Time:
Total Trades:
  • 1D
  • 1M
  • 3M
  • 6M
  • 1Y
  • 5Y