Seeking Alpha
View as an RSS Feed

Green River Asset  

View Green River Asset's Comments BY TICKER:
Latest  |  Highest rated
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    269,
    You’ll have to ask management for yourself if you want accurate answers to your questions. From my perspective, it’s very easy to understand how a CFO would leave Tampa with the knowledge that a filing was imminent in Mexico, fly to the west coast, wake up the next morning and go to meetings still believing that the filing was imminent. Though the filing occurred in Mexico the day before, I can understand how he would be in the dark. He knew it was just a matter of time for the filing so I doubt he was demanding real-time coverage.

    As for the matter with the SSCA, I can’t fault management for not knowing frivolous appeals would be filed in the future. They have always been confident in theirs and RLP's legal position, and rightly so. As you mentioned, the judge quickly rendered a decision in their favor in July. This judge is known to have a rocket docket. I’m guessing we’ll have resolution before year end (a lawyer friend who is familiar with that court suggested the same to me). OMEX’s position is very secure and I hope that they are able to continue with the salvage after carefully studying the evidence they’ve gathered.
    Oct 26, 2014. 07:09 PM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    269, I gave my opinion and I stand by it 100 percent. I found Wessex's logic to be highly flawed based on information available in the public record. Understanding the circumstantial evidence is what this is all about, and I found Wessex's interpretation and understanding to have some flaws. If you have done research in the area and have anything to add that would help in the discussion, feel free to add it.
    Oct 26, 2014. 06:50 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Scarlet, Your comments don't seem very rational, and you can't get your facts straight.

    Here are the actual facts. My statement about the SS Central America was as follows: "I believe OMEX will ultimately net somewhere between $25 and $100mn from the excavation, but the range of possible outcomes runs from zero to north of $500mn." It looks like so far they have netted somewhere between $16 and $20mn from the operation.

    If you don't like to deal with hope and speculation then you might consider T-bills. I don't know why you ever owned OMEX and I'm not sure why you are here posting odd comments that make us all scratch our heads. OMEX is clearly not a good fit for you.
    Oct 26, 2014. 06:41 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Thank you for your comment, 292. I am extremely confident in the analysis above.

    First of all, you should reread UNESCO’s CPUCH. It clearly states the following in rule 2 of the annex:

    This Rule cannot be interpreted as preventing:

    (a) the provision of professional archaeological services or necessary services incidental thereto whose nature and purpose are in full conformity with this Convention and are subject to the authorization of the competent authorities;

    (b) the deposition of underwater cultural heritage, recovered in the course of a research project in conformity with this Convention, provided such deposition does not prejudice the scientific or cultural interest or integrity of the recovered material or result in its irretrievable dispersal; is in accordance with the provisions of Rules 33 and 34; and is subject to the authorization of the competent authorities.

    Thus, it is clear that selling of trade artifacts (coins) would be allowed under part b of the Convention.

    As to the second point you raise, we know that the trade artifacts are not part of the collection to be accessioned based on the following:

    In the Ministerial Written Statement, the MOD states: “Artefacts transferred under the Deed of Gift that are recovered and accessioned from the wreck and the associated archive, including site plans, drawings and photographs, will form the “Victory 1744 Collection”, which will be managed and curated in line with the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics for Museums.”

    So, the logical question is, “what was transferred under the Deed?”

    To answer that question, you can refer to the Project Design Non-Techical Study that was prepared by MHF, and which appears on the 1744 Victory website. In that Project Design you will find the following statement: “…..a contract dated 12 January 2012, and signed by the Secretary of State for Defence transferred to the MHF: 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).”

    Since we know that the coins/ingots were private commercial cargo, and were personal property, we know that they are specifically outside the Victory 1744 Collection and will not be accessioned. As such, they may be sold per UNESCO’s CPUCH and British Law.

    I appreciate you raising the question to further everyone’s understanding of this complicated subject. Please read the Convention over (completely) and I’m sure it will clear things up for you.
    Oct 26, 2014. 06:21 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Thanks for all the comments, Ship. Your perspectives are always appreciated.
    Oct 25, 2014. 04:20 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    Scarlet, you seem a bit confused.

    What exactly are the “factually incorrect misstated facts” in the article?

    You say, “One of the main facts is that long before Meson (GR doesn't even have the marbles to name him) came along Omex had gone from $4.28 to about half that. Meson's hit job first article did a lot of damage but it only pointed out the obvious to a lot of fools.”

    I think what you are trying to dispute is my characterization of OMEX’s decline being partially due to Meson’s research. If so, you need to understand that this is simply an opinion that I hold. I never represented it to be a fact. So, this doesn’t seem to be a “factually incorrect misstated fact.”

    Note that in the above article (and in past articles) I have acknowledged that Meson is not the sole factor responsible for OMEX’s decline. I believe mismanagement has played a role, and I have stated this before.

    As for not having the “marbles” to name Meson, you are, once again, a bit misguided in your understanding of the situation. If you look at past articles, I’ve not shied away from naming Morris or Meson. In fact, I used Ryan Morris’s name in the title of one report. The only difference this time is that SA has requested that I not identify him or his firm in the body of my report.

    While I can’t find any evidence in your comment of “factually incorrect misstated facts” that I have made, you do appear guilty of misstating facts in your comment.

    You say, “GR has called Omex a "strong buy" since it was $4.28.” Yet, I never recommended omex at 4.28. Can you provide any proof to back your assertion?

    You also say that management, “has consistently lied to us (recoveries guaranteed twice) etc. They lied about when the Oceanica report was filed.” Not only does this appear to be factually incorrect, but libelous as well. First, do you understand the definition of a lie? Someone is lying when they intentionally mislead others. Can you demonstrate that management knew the value of these recoveries were going to be below what they represented at the time? If not, we have no proof that it was a lie. How did they lie about when the Oceanica report was filed? They didn’t give us the information right away, but I have yet to see any proof that they lied.

    If I’ve made any factual misstatements in my article, I’ll happily remove them. I don’t see anything in your comment that would convince me of a need to do so, however
    Oct 25, 2014. 01:31 PM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Victory And Vindication [View article]
    From the MOD release: "All artefacts recovered are to be declared to the Receiver of Wreck in accordance with existing legislation to determine ownership. Artefacts transferred under the Deed of Gift that are recovered and accessioned from the wreck and the associated archive, including site plans, drawings and photographs, will form the “Victory 1744 Collection”, which will be managed and curated in line with the Museums Association’s Code of Ethics for Museums."

    Note that all artifacts from the wreck that are recovered will go the Receiver of Wreck. The NAVAL artifacts will be accessioned as part of the collection of Victory items. Those items cannot be sold. Odyssey would receive its 50% value from that collection from the TRADE artifacts (again, this would increase the cut on the trade goods from 80 %). The trade goods will not be accessioned. The Receiver of Wreck would hold them until it is established that they have no owner, then they would go to MHF (not to the Crown because Victory does not reside in territorial waters - UNCLOS applies) . MHF and OMEX would then split their value per the terms of their private agreement.
    Oct 24, 2014. 01:49 PM | 6 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Henry2B, The only person who claims the firm is going bankrupt has said it so many times he has completely discredited himself. His analysis is consistently half-baked, and he has missed so many fundamental calls that we have all lost count.

    Shareholders have always maintained that this firm has many liquidity levers to pull and it won't go BK. Those levers are related to a few large assets the firm is developing. You saw evidence of one of these levers when they recently secured a $10mn marketing facility (which I'm guessing is related to coin recoveries). The company will monetize the Central America gold and at least part of Oceanica before long and the whole short premise will crumble.

    The shorts misjudged this situation - thinking they could scare shareholders out of the stock so that the company couldn't raise money and survive. They didn't do adequate research and they misjudged the value of the firm's key assets (thinking that value was zero).
    Oct 23, 2014. 08:46 AM | 7 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    Thank you, Tincup, for the helpful information.
    Oct 22, 2014. 10:59 AM | Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    So you're going to propose a Greenpeace article that is completely based on hypotheticals to contradict a fact-based, scientific paper that relies on empirical data from real, live seabed dredging experience?

    Over $50mn has been spent researching the impact of marine aggregate mining in the UK over the last thirty years. This work has guided the way the industry is run in the UK today, and it has likely played a role in guiding the Oceanica environmental filing. All those facts point to a reality that seabed dredging can be accomplished with minimal environmental impact. We also know that the societal benefits of this project are enormous. I thought Meson was all about fact-based research?

    Speaking of Greenpeace, you may find this article on "holding Greenpeace accountable" interesting http://bit.ly/1tJEVLT. The author argues that Greenpeace is guilty of crimes against humanity when it terrorizes developing nations into following the arbitrary standards it sets for wealthy, green industrialized nations. Greenpeace focuses exclusively on citing problems with developments and does not pay attention to projects' societal benefits (which is probably why the organization has become marginalized). This biased, one-sided perspective leads to many poor decisions with very real consequences. The author believes Greenpeace is responsible for malnutrition, death, and disease on a fairly large scale.
    Oct 21, 2014. 08:25 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    Blue Ridge, you need to do more homework on marine aggregate dredging. There's a zone of direct impact which is the area that is dredged. There is also a much larger area impacted by tailings and sediment plume in an indirect impact zone. The fact that the increased biomass occurs in the indirect zone is a distinctly positive benefit attributed to dredging. Many organisms in the direct zone are killed, but there is evidence of positive impact on sea life outside the direct zone.

    Incidentally, an environmental scientist has speculated that removing phosphate from the sediment while adding topographical variation may have a beneficial impact on the direct area as well. As you know, this site is said to be very inhospitable to benthic fauna right now. This may be due to the high concentration of phosphate rock. Getting rid of some of that phosphate while adding more variability to the floor could be a very good thing for sea life.

    The MIA is backed with a tremendous amount of historical data and modeling that shows this and more. I'm looking forward to hearing the SEMARNAT decision.

    Oct 21, 2014. 01:54 PM | 3 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    You're free to conclude whatever you like. It's in the report, but I'm not going to spoon feed you research. Figure it out on your own. If you can't figure it out, feel free to short some more stock. Best of luck.
    Oct 20, 2014. 01:45 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Local Government, Fishing Coops Oppose Oceanica Don Diego Project [View article]
    Here you go, pal.

    Hitchcock, D.R., Newell, R.C., Seiderer, L.J. (2002) “Integrated Report on the Impact of Marine Aggregate Dredging on Physical and Biological Resources of the Sea Bed” U.S. Department of the Interior, Minerals Management Service, International Activities and Marine Minerals Division (INTERMAR), Washington, D.C. OCS Report Number 2002-054.
    Oct 18, 2014. 12:22 PM | 1 Like Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Not a business plan but a valuation framework. The business plan will likely be drawn up by the purchaser of Oceanica. Thanks
    Oct 17, 2014. 02:10 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
  • Odyssey Marine: Support For Oceanica Builds In Mexico [View article]
    Tildon, you'll find answers to just about all your questions in this piece - http://bit.ly/1qO8RF6

    The current market price of phosphate is approx $110 a ton. This translates to around $140/ton shipped to Mexico. I believe Oceanica's costs will put it at a competitive advantage relative to most terrestrial-based sources as you will see in the above link. My guess is that Oceanica will ultimately be operated by a large company that has experience mining, processing, and selling rock. It's all in the report.
    Oct 17, 2014. 01:34 PM | 2 Likes Like |Link to Comment
COMMENTS STATS
309 Comments
556 Likes