Seeking Alpha

Green River Asset

 
View as an RSS Feed
View Green River Asset's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Odyssey Marine Phosphate In Very Remote Area [View article]
    Terrestrial phosphate is more expensive to mine because of the significant overburden and innerburden which must be mined and removed. Also, the environmental costs are much higher (see Mosaic's difficulties in FL as an example). The relative energy savings to extract in a low gravity environment are also important. Also, a seabed operation may be logistically advantaged in that the material can be loaded onto low-cost barges for transport while terrestrial sources may have to be carried by rail to a port where they are loaded onto barges. Further, many mine infrastructure expenses are minimized in a seabed operation. There's no need to build roads or housing, or to build new electrical infrastructure, and mine tailings and land reclamation costs are minimal. Some of the equipment costs are more expensive in a sea-based operation, but these increased expenses are more than offset by other relative savings. See http://bit.ly/1qO8RF6 for more info.
    Dec 2, 2014. 04:29 PM | 8 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Preps Excuses For Oceanica Failure, Looks To Recycle Old Projects, Dilute [View article]
    You don't make a lot of sense, 269. I reported the article after it was published. The first article was a paid editorial. There is no disputing that fact. Just because the article was paid for does not mean that it wasn't factual. The second article was not paid for. It ran as the lead story on the front page of El Sudcaliforniano. That's a fact. You cannot prove otherwise because this is the truth.
    Nov 18, 2014. 12:51 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Preps Excuses For Oceanica Failure, Looks To Recycle Old Projects, Dilute [View article]
    That article was not a paid advertisement. It was written by El Sudcaliforniano and appeared on the front page of the newspaper. You cannot provide any proof that this was a paid piece, because it was not paid for.
    Nov 17, 2014. 03:07 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Thanks, OilnandGas. I posted an short piece on hvst.com about the article. SA doesn't deem this information material to shareholders and they won't let me publish here about it. So far almost 9,000 viewers on hvst.com disagree with SA.
    Nov 13, 2014. 08:55 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    GP, note that the hearing was a one day event, in the middle of the day, at a relatively remote location. It is not the multi-week event that you often see in other countries.

    I have heard that it went very smoothly. It was well attended by locals opposing the project, but I have yet to hear of scientific evidence put forth at the hearing sufficient to derail the project. No word from any of the large NGO's who you would expect to vociferously oppose the project following the hearing.
    Nov 6, 2014. 11:40 AM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Is More Dilution Coming Soon For Odyssey Shareholders? [View article]
    I guess the author's prediction of bankruptcy by 10/31/14 did not work out?
    Nov 4, 2014. 06:08 PM | 4 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Hey Gaspains, I have heard they will occur this week. What I have gathered from a consultant who is very familiar with the process is that they can be a bit of circus show as far as the demonstrations. Typically one or both sides bring in a bunch of demonstrators to make a big show. A lot of theatrics are on display.

    What SEMARNAT cares about, according to him, are the facts, empirical evidence, and other data related to environmental impact and societal benefit. I think this sets up well for Oceanica.
    Nov 3, 2014. 08:35 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    You'll get it one day, 269. Just keep trying.

    I'll refer you to an article I published last May which explained the issue http://seekingalpha.co....

    OMEX was told that legal rights were secured and they believed that this was the case when they made the statement in March. As noted in the article, the challenge that was made was frivolous and had zero chance of upending OMEX's deal. Anyway, I'm content with management's statement.

    I am bored with this subject, however. So, you're free to keep posting about it, but I'm likely not going to answer anymore "frivolous" questions.
    Nov 2, 2014. 12:35 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    1) Sure, silver was in demand in the far east. Portugal had massive quantities of gold, however, and was thus paying in gold. When the mines in Brazil stopped producing gold for Portugal, the economy collapsed. The country was dependent on Brazilian gold to finance its trade deficit. That's a fact and there are plenty of research papers out there that attest to this fact.
    2) "there is no fact about the article until there is a peer review"....Hey, have it your way.....short the stock as much as you feel like....I know there's an article but if you're comfortable with basing an investment thesis on lack of peer review, that is entirely your prerogative.
    3) Of course it's circumstantial. Pay attention. We've said from the outset that all the historical evidence is circumstantial. We have a newspaper article that says that premiums spiked, that's what we have to go on.
    4) If you say that you have factual evidence that definitively shows what was on board Victory, we would love to hear about it.
    5) Ask management.

    I've had enough of this back and forth because it's going nowhere. You see it your way and I think you're wrong, while you think I'm wrong. Time will tell who is right.
    Nov 2, 2014. 12:33 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    1. The coins could have stayed in the UK as London was the financial capital of Europe and Dutch merchants could have kept balances there to facilitate trade. Money could have also later been brought to Amsterdam.

    2. There is a newspaper item that mentions the shipment. This is a fact and there is really no other way to explain it to you to make you understand it. Just because you haven't seen the article doesn't mean that it doesn't exist.

    3. You need to pay closer attention. There is evidence that the cargo was insured. That evidence comes from the newspaper which reported a spike in the premium when news hit that the ship was missing. You won't find records from merchants because they were in Portugal and very little survived the earthquake of 1755.

    4. I keep saying gold because that is what the historical evidence suggests. Portugal was making more gold than anyone in the world at the time. They were mining it in Brazil and shipping it home in vast quantities. Gold coins from Portugal were the de facto currency in the UK. If the shipment contained silver, it would increase my estimated value for the salvage due to the exchange rate at the time.

    5. The Courant specifically mentioned pounds sterling so I wouldn't feel comfortable assuming Dutch currency.

    269, you can believe whatever you like. We are all used to short sellers telling us stories about the fact that omex's projects will produce nothing and that the company will keep nothing, or that the govt or courts will get in the way. I am very confident that the Victory will be an extraordinary recovery for omex. Time will tell.
    Nov 1, 2014. 08:43 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    269, Obviously it was not illogical for Dutch merchants or their intermediaries to place gold cargo on the Victory, because a Dutch newspaper reported it as fact.

    It would be seen as highly risky to put a large commercial shipment on two Dutch vessels that were traveling alone in wartime. Those vessels would have been at great risk of attack from the French fleet which was known to be in the area. They would have made a fantastic payday for Rochambeau, who would have become wealthy almost beyond measure had he taken them with a large commercial shipment on board. No one would have been comfortable putting the gold on those vessels.

    The commander of the British fleet, Balchin, would have taken the payments on board the floating armored car called Victory that was traveling with an entire British fleet. Victory was the strongest ship in the world at the time. Balchin also had private profit motive in mind, and as Admiral of the fleet he would have been in charge of the commercial shipment.

    The Victory wouldn't need to call at Lisbon to receive commercial cargo from that port. We know that vessels from Lisbon were received by the fleet while it was stationed off Lisbon.

    I like the comparison with the Mercedes. In that case, OMEX salvaged somewhere near $500mn in coins from the wreckage, but was not allowed to keep the coins. Omex learned its lesson from that experience and has applied those lessons to the Victory recovery. The company has secured the full support of the UK's Ministry of Defence ahead of the recovery in this case. That will make all the difference in the world.

    The Mercedes was a fiasco in court. But with the US government surreptitiously operating against the company to help Spain, it is no wonder the company was made to look like a villain.
    Oct 31, 2014. 08:15 AM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    It is not my wording, my friend. It is the wording of the Project Design Non-Technical Study that MHF prepared for the Ministry of Defence. You can find said document here http://bit.ly/1pHCWkc .

    In that document you will note the following statement: "the Secretary of State for Defence transferred to the Maritime Heritage Foundation:
    a) "every part of the said vessel; and
    b) all that is connected with her which is situated in the immediate vicinity of where she is lying (save insofar of personal property not belonging to the Crown)."

    When you cite the Project Plan, you misunderstand the definition of Collection. That Collection is everything that is transferred to MHF from MOD as per the above statement. It is clear from the statement above that personal property will not be transferred, and is not part of the Collection.

    I agree that everything will be turned over to the ROW. Items transferred under the agreement would then go to MHF and be accessioned (as part of the Collection). Items not transferred are considered personal property (which would include coins as the government has specifically not claimed any). These would be subject to normal legal channels in the UK which the ROW is charged with upholding.

    The Balchin's heirs have been heard already, plenty. They vehemently protested the salvage and were very vocal in perpetuating all the same falsities that other bloggers voiced. Logic and reason carried the day, however.

    They are perfectly within their rights to make claims as well. Assuming that they have proper documentation, they could even win a portion. Understand that the portion would be very, very small. Balchin would have been entitled to one percent of the commercial cargo, and 80 to 90 percent of that one percent would likely go to the salvor (at least that has been the case in historic salvages in the past). You may also note that Balchin's direct heirs may number in the hundreds or even thousands, so a small group of people cannot presume to represent that entire class without proper authority.
    Oct 30, 2014. 05:34 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    But this doesn't support what you have claimed.

    Nowhere in this parliamentary dialogue does it state that the UK is a signatory to UNESCO's Annex. Nowhere in the parliamentary dialogue does it say that the commercial terms around the recovery will be bound by the UNESCO Annex. All that this dialogue indicates is that the management of the site will be compliant with the Annex's rules.

    This idea is in accordance with the quote that I cited above where the MOD said, "Though NOT CURRENTLY A SIGNATORY to the UNESCO Convention, the UK Government has adopted the principles set out in its Annex (reproduced at Appendix C) as best practice in the archaeological and cultural management of underwater sites and artefacts.”

    Again, can you please furnish proof that the UK is a signatory to UNESCO's CPUCH Annex?
    Oct 30, 2014. 05:07 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    CAUTION READERS: The above article is premised upon the fact that the UK is a signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex. The author argues that because the UK is a signatory to the Annex, OMEX is not allowed to earn a percentage on the gold found in the recovery operation. While this is untrue, as the Annex does allow for commercial sale under certain circumstances, the more important point is that the UK is NOT a signatory to the UNESCO Annex.

    Though the author claims that "it is a fact" that the UK is a signatory, he has not been able to provide any proof of this "fact." This is because proof of this fact does not exist.

    According to the UK's Ministry of Defence "Though NOT CURRENTLY A SIGNATORY to the UNESCO Convention, the UK Government has adopted the principles set out in its Annex (reproduced at Appendix C) as best practice in the ARCHAEOLOGICAL and CULTURAL MANAGEMENT of underwater sites and artefacts. (my caps)

    Thus, according to the Ministry of Defence, Odyssey would be expected to adopt best practices as far as the archaeological and cultural management of the wreck site, in accordance with the UNESCO Annex. To suggest that terms of Odyssey's commercial arrangement with MHF are subject to the Annex appears to be false.
    Oct 30, 2014. 11:37 AM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Jettisons Lottery Ticket Upside With New HMS Victory Deal [View article]
    Ryan,
    Because the premise of this article relies so heavily on the material “fact” that the UK is a current signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex, and you have yet to produce any form of proof of this “fact” after three days, I am going to suggest that you add a disclaimer to this paper. This disclaimer is for your protection.

    As you know, the US has rules pertaining to the “Employment of Manipulative and Deceptive Practices,” (rule 10b-5) which state that, “it shall be unlawful for any person to make any untrue statement of a material fact or to omit to state a material fact necessary in order to make the statements made, in the light of the circumstances under which they were made, not misleading….”

    I believe that your research note is in direct violation of rule 10b-5. Note that this is not an allegation of bad faith, rather I am letting you know about this for your own protection. Perhaps this is just a mistake on your part. Perhaps this was a simple grammatical error that resulted in a full-blown investment thesis. Perhaps after the error was pointed out to you, you meant to acknowledge the “mistake” and correct it, but you made another grammatical error and typed “this is a fact” instead. We will give you the benefit of the doubt because you have been so straightforward with shareholders in the past.

    After three days of searching, I cannot find any reference to the UK as a signatory to any part of the UNESCO CPUCH or its Annex. So, for your own protection, you might add the following to your disclaimer: “Investors should be aware that I have no reason to believe the central theme of my report, that the UK is a signatory to the UNESCO CPUCH Annex, is actually true. I cannot find evidence that it is true. While I have claimed it to be a fact, it does not appear to be so. As such, my research is presented “as is” without warranty of any kind as to the veracity of my central thesis.”

    I am not a lawyer, so this is just a layman’s suggestion. You may need to consult a professional to sort out this complex situation.
    Oct 30, 2014. 10:20 AM | 5 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
309 Comments
553 Likes