Seeking Alpha

tripleblack's  Instablog

tripleblack
Send Message
Let's see, Veteran (Vietnam era), Commercial Artist, picture framer, industrial engineer & corporate executive (once upon a time), small business owner and operator, Ayn Rand fan, Libertarian (and no, its not a synonym for "Republican" or "Conservative"), and history... More
My company:
Stan Bruns Illustrations
  • REE/Strategic Minerals Concentrator, Nov. 30, 2011 181 comments
    Nov 30, 2011 9:29 AM

    "Endangered Species" by stan bruns
Back To tripleblack's Instablog HomePage »

Instablogs are blogs which are instantly set up and networked within the Seeking Alpha community. Instablog posts are not selected, edited or screened by Seeking Alpha editors, in contrast to contributors' articles.

Comments (181)
Track new comments
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (5803) | Send Message
     
    Anyone looking at manganese and magnets?
    30 Nov 2011, 09:37 AM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Manganese magnets sound like a good enough reason to pick up some shares of AMYZF, for instance. The market for manganese should improve as time goes on.
    http://bit.ly/t1LQ90-/
    http://bit.ly/v15o3F
    30 Nov 2011, 09:54 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (5803) | Send Message
     
    Here is another link: http://tinyurl.com/crs...
    30 Nov 2011, 10:05 AM Reply Like
  • Gareth Hatch
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    I wouldn't waste your time with this, or putting hopes on projects that claim to magnets from (non-magnetic) cerium.
    30 Nov 2011, 11:51 AM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    The missing link is labeled "EarthFix Conversations: Improving Renewable Energy Efficiency" at earthfix.opb.org. This is in regards to the government's efforts to eventually replace rare earth magnets with those made of in part by manganese alloys.
    I would speculate that the brainiacs will come up with something about that but it is a bit too early to tell exactly what.
    30 Nov 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Thanks for the comment GH.
    I know you have focused on rare earths, but I'm curious, are there other Strategic Metals you take a particular interest in. Do you have a favorite growth story?
    30 Nov 2011, 12:54 PM Reply Like
  • Gareth Hatch
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    @chihawk: I came out of the permanent-magnet (PM) industry, and prior to that did alloy-chemistry research work on rare-earth PM alloys, so my primary focus is rare earths. However, I am starting to look into niobium, tantalum and zirconium in greater depth, again from the supply-chain point of view, but working upstream towards the mine face / moose pastures. Nothing to report on just yet.
    1 Dec 2011, 09:50 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    GH,
    Thanks for the response. I certainly understand the wisdom of focusing primarily on that which you know most. I ask because I think you are a smart guy that I respect. I'll be watching and reading, and thank you for the candor.
    1 Dec 2011, 12:49 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Today's market actions must mean that risk is now back on for buying our favorite oil and metal stocks. I guess......
    30 Nov 2011, 09:40 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    (GWMGF): Q3 '11 Results Released.

     

    http://mwne.ws/uYHUp1

     

    HardToLove
    30 Nov 2011, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Morgan Stanley is still enthusiastic about Molycorp.
    http://bit.ly/tXLJJ3
    30 Nov 2011, 10:36 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    GWMG now reports its results under International Financial Reporting Standards. - Good.
    GWMG President and Chief Executive Officer Jim Engdahl said, "Great Western Minerals Group experienced continued growth in revenue and margin performance on both a '3rd Quarter' and 'year-to-date' basis. With this type of positive financial performance from our alloy processing plants, combined with a stronger cash position than was the case at the same point last year, GWMG is well positioned to move ahead in its development of the Company's number one priority - the Steenkampskraal project. This type of revenue and margin performance is indicative of the capability of our team to execute our Company's business plan very effectively."

     

    When is the call?
    30 Nov 2011, 11:07 AM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    not sure they are going to have a call, Chi. Not that I can find at the moment.
    30 Nov 2011, 12:05 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I can't find anything either. I don't think it is required, but it is always good for livening things up around here.:-) Oh, and I think you know how my home office sounds when I listen to Mr. Magoo (Engdahl).:-)
    30 Nov 2011, 12:59 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » http://bit.ly/sgxNml

     

    Tasman is getting a listing on the AMEX as (TAS). No more pink TASXF. It will be interesting to see what effect this has. Nice timing, too.
    30 Nov 2011, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • ungawah
    , contributor
    Comments (895) | Send Message
     
    Doesn't look like we'll have to take any special action with our TASXF shares because of the move to the NYSE Amex.
    1 Dec 2011, 09:09 AM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Wow, nice rare earth day. AVL up 23% TASXF up 20 % QRM up 13% !
    30 Nov 2011, 07:06 PM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    I'd say that is a sign of risk-on!
    30 Nov 2011, 08:46 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    I'd say it's a sign of US$ tanking: from near $80 4 days ago to $78.19 ATM.

     

    This likely due to the EZ agreement and global CB coordinated attack including reducing certain lending rates and the U.S Fed - protector of the U.S. citizens' money and now, better-than-ever, the world's money - providing essentially unlimited swaps arrangements.

     

    Can it last? In the EZ I think not.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    1 Dec 2011, 11:01 AM Reply Like
  • DM Lanthier
    , contributor
    Comments (47) | Send Message
     
    I had thought that Lynas was planning a LAMP walkthrough with Malaysia gov't officials and others on Nov 30. Has anyone heard if the visit took place, and if there was any result ?
    30 Nov 2011, 08:54 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    The walk did take place. Here is an article on the issue:
    http://bit.ly/vawmoe
    KUANTAN: The International Trade and Industry Ministry has made it clear that the Lynas Advanced Materials Plant in Gebeng here must follow regulations imposed by the authorities in order to obtain its pre-operating licence.

     

    Ministry secretary-general Datuk Dr Rebecca Fatima Sta Maria said Lynas Corporation's application to commence operations was being evaluated by the relevant regulatory agencies, including the Atomic Energy Licensing Board (AELB).

     

    "There were media reports that Lynas will start operating in January next year.

     

    "Let me make this clear, it is important to make sure safety standards at the site are met before any license is issued."

     

    Sta Maria was speaking after her visit to the Lynas site here yesterday.

     

    Also present was Lynas Malaysia managing director Datuk Mashal Ahmad.

     

    AELB director-general Raja Datuk Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan said the agency was still studying the documents submitted by Lynas Corporation in its bid to obtain the pre-operating license.
    30 Nov 2011, 09:55 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5045) | Send Message
     
    An interesting omission in that article: It doesn't mention that any representatives of the demonstrators attended.
    30 Nov 2011, 10:01 PM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    I think the demonstrators (all six of them) were at the AGM in Sydney. Only joking.
    A re-hash of another article (http://bit.ly/sP2uux) reiterates the POL may be 7 months off. While I don't believe this (I think it's a mis-understanding of the Minister's comments), I think the company owes us a proper update of expected timelines. This is similar to the previous headline that Lynas license has not been granted. It is not pre-emptive of AELB, IMO, for Lynas to clarify this statement.
    30 Nov 2011, 11:30 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Notes for Retrenchment Day:

     

    Seeing clear signs of retrenchment from high water marks made yesterday or earlier this morning. Big gainers are giving some back, as would be expected, with perhaps Lynas a noteable exception.

     

    My thinking is that yesterday's euphoria was overdone, and today some fear and loathing is peeking through the party hangover. Now we must question what the greater markets will do for that hangover...

     

    I'm thinking we may see a decision to take a "hair of the dog" route, with another, smaller pop this afternoon. Yesterday's party was led by the materials sector (our favorite, of course) but this time we might see a new sector take the lead, perhaps financials (god help us). I would not touch bank stocks with a 10 foot neodymium rod, but there are many who will.

     

    IBC just sent me a message that they have completed the first phase of their drilling program (no concrete results yet, however). Note that they do mention testing for rare earths in their first 5500 meters worth of samples: http://bit.ly/w38Yz7
    1 Dec 2011, 11:03 AM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Spor Mountain, Utah, where IBC does their drilling, is also noteworthy for having America's best known reserves of fluorspar associated with beryllium.
    http://on.doi.gov/vttW4w
    http://bit.ly/sb90c9
    It sounds like it is probably more economical to mine for fluorspar in Kentucky, as the case may be.
    http://bit.ly/rxLwz6
    It seems like there would be some opportunity for IBC to gain some revenue from fluorspar if they think it is economically worth their while. It would be interesting to find out what the company thinks about this scenario.
    1 Dec 2011, 12:16 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » They mention fluorspar prominently when discussing this topic, and have to be aware that this major byproduct has a market all its own. I believe we will see more projections along this line AFTER they have lab results.
    1 Dec 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    As soon as they finish the resource report, that would be on my "must read" pile.
    1 Dec 2011, 12:44 PM Reply Like
  • robert.b.ferguson
    , contributor
    Comments (10803) | Send Message
     
    Be aware that fluospar/ Beryllium is highly toxic and is subject to heavy scrutiny and regulation. http://bit.ly/sjQQPA
    1 Dec 2011, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    The toxins were part of my thinking in buying a few shares of IBC's neighbor, Brush Wellman, now Materion MTRN, sometime ago because they have the financial capabilities for dealing with the toxins. I could re- evaluate my thought process and buy IBC instead as a ground floor opportunity. I'll just have to pay closer attention to this now that IBC is closer to finalizing their resource report.
    http://bit.ly/tfwgGv
    1 Dec 2011, 02:55 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Most mining involves toxins. Strategic metals have this issue underlying most of the entire sector. If there is an "alternative technology" which we SHOULD be pushing, it is how to have our cake (strategic minerals) and eat it too (processing methods which do NOT produce excessive pollution).
    1 Dec 2011, 03:19 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    I figure that certain metals mining would need some extra financial support for handling the toxicity. I try to remember to factor that thought in when deciding what to buy or sell in some instances.
    http://1.usa.gov/t4NAwm
    1 Dec 2011, 04:33 PM Reply Like
  • robert.b.ferguson
    , contributor
    Comments (10803) | Send Message
     
    Unlike many heavy metals like lead which is also very toxic beryllium is extremely toxic in very small quantities. Inhaling the dust can produce grave symptoms or even death. Most metals including arsines must be ingested in more significant quantities than beryllium. Processing is entirely different in that toxins are used when purifying the ore. In the case of fluospar the ore it's self is very dangerous to handle with out proper PPE and procedures. People won't develop black lung or heavy metal poisoning over time as it kills very quickly.
    1 Dec 2011, 05:19 PM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    So confused...as to Freo's link earlier. I do not understand where the talk of POL 7 mos out comes from??
    1 Dec 2011, 07:30 PM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    Although....7 months from May is...
    December!! ;)

     

    Does anyone know where/how they got that?
    1 Dec 2011, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Rain-
    Here is the original article...http://bit.ly/sjm8uF here is what it says:

     

    KUANTAN (Nov 30, 2011): The International Atomic Energy Agency (IAEA) has issued guidelines to be adhered to by Lynas Malaysia Sdn Bhd to enable the plant to process rare earth.

     

    International Trade and Industry Ministry secretary-general Datuk Dr Rebecca Fatima Sta Maria said the guidelines are to ensure the health and safety of workers and residents in the vicinity before the plant operates.

     

    "I also wish to clarify that Lynas' application to start operation is being studied by our supervising officers in accordance with applicable laws and regulations."

     

    Sta Maria said this after visiting the plant site accompanied by Atomic Energy Licensing Board director-general Datuk Dr Raja Abdul Aziz Raja Adnan and Lynas Malaysia managing director Datuk Mashal Ahmad here today.

     

    She dismissed claims that the plant at Gebeng industrial area would start pre-operation in January next year as mere rumours.

     

    Meanwhile, Raja Abdul Aziz said that Lynas has sent documents when applying for pre-operational licence four weeks ago and it is being studied by the appointed panel before a decision is made seven months later.

     

    He said it is to ensure that the three rare earth materials processed by the plant do not cause radiation to the public. – Bernama
    1 Dec 2011, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    My read of the penultimate paragraph is:
    1) it is not a direct quote and could have been mis-interpreted or mis-reported or mis-translated.
    2) it could possibly simply be a statement that Lynas has sent the docs in and they were received officially 4 weeks ago, but the process of the documents being submitted and accepted has been taking place over the past 7 months.

     

    Obviously, clarification of the above is in order.
    1 Dec 2011, 10:53 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I consider this confusing, and potentially disturbing. Lynas needs to clarify this immediately. The various articles pulling from this commons source are setting the startup date out 7 months (end of Q2 2012), and this WILL have an impact. Perhaps it already has, note the abrupt "all stop" on what looked like a good day for Lynas stock prices...

     

    This one warrants some babysitting on the IR desk at Lynas HQ.
    2 Dec 2011, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    No worries TB,
    My guess Morgan Stanley shorts the hell out of LYC and sticks it to SAG. Then around $1 when those guys get crushed MS places a call to Nic and we get some answers.
    I'm not serious of course, but the amateur shareholder base is my latest annoyance. As far as the 7 month issue, I doubt it. But until the LAMP is 95% built or more, Lynas is not going to be eager to pressure the Malaysian bureaucrats. Like it or not, Lynas has to have their own house in order before they can put the screws to AELB or the Malaysian government.
    I say relax and short UGL as a pair trade. Those clowns are a darn slow build IMO.
    2 Dec 2011, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I suppose setting the new estimate for the POL and starting up LAMP for next June isn't a terrible delay, but it appears to be throwing a damp blanket on the stock at the moment.

     

    This article on the REboard has some updates from NC, some common sense observations about pricing, but ends with (once again) the vague blurb from Malaysia's AELB:

     

    http://bit.ly/uvVGQh

     

    This one makes it look like the 7 month quote is included in the Q&A with NC, which I doubt. At best its poorly written and misleading, at worst it IS an indication that Lynas has been well aware of the "7 month rule" for quite some time and just never told us about it.
    2 Dec 2011, 02:46 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Oh, and Chi, how does shorting UltraShares Gold (UGL) make a pair trade? Were you meaning MCP?
    2 Dec 2011, 04:48 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    No I meant UGL:ASX. UGL is the construction company building LAMP 1, but has been fired from phase 2.
    2 Dec 2011, 06:24 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    So one bureaucrat spits up one comment that RareMetal Blog repeats and now it is the base case? I say BS for now. If I get something clear that confirms the comment that's one thing. But I do not share your read of the blog. There is no 7 month rule that I see. We may well have a wait. But sometimes in research I think it is best to keep researching and keep the point as an unknown until you have a clear answer.

     

    We are all curious about the timeline, but right now I don't feel we know a date. My base case for first feed is February based on the AGM information. But I realize that could be wrong and I continue to research. I think that is all we have right now?
    2 Dec 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5045) | Send Message
     
    If I had stock in a company and I wasn't sure whether they were going to start operations in a few weeks or 7 months, you can be damn sure I'd ask them to verify the timeframe. Just sayin'.
    3 Dec 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Of course I did not say it was the base case. I was critical of the article, not supportive. I also questioned the existance of a 7 month rule, but unlike Lynas, I cannot say one way or the other. Hence this confusion is ample cause for Lynas to stir itself and clarify the situation. The issue is the opposite of clear, which is the problem.

     

    As for a delay or a precise timeline, what Lynas has left on the table as a final word is ambiguous, but still indicates a startup in Q1. Despite this, or the rumors regarding January startup, I agree, we do NOT know a promise date. Even "2nd Quarter 2012" is mushy.

     

    I have been consistent in my belief that they would continue to slip this key milestone. Nothing has occured to alter that belief, for Lynas or MCP or GWM.

     

    For me this latest possible delay has large ramifications, since I believe we may see a major correction (if not a recognition of a double dip recession in Europe and elsewhere) in March. If the new LAMP startup date is slipping to June (or any date past March) my inclination to take profits and sit and watch through March becomes much stronger. I suspect I am not alone in this, and the breaking of this awkward story glued onto various extraneous Lynas headlines and interviews appeared to put a screeching halt to the stock price runup that was just getting started a few days ago.

     

    As an aside, I'm not really beating up on Lynas because they are not going toe to toe with the Malaysian government - I believe this would probably be a big mistake. And once again, I suspect that they may have a POL before June. Lynas has been forced to be quite tough combatting misinformation from the Malay luddites, and this may be something similar or simply some very poor reporting (I hope the later). Hopefully they will address this hodgepodge and give us clarity very soon.
    3 Dec 2011, 02:41 PM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (5803) | Send Message
     
    Well Said! Great post.
    3 Dec 2011, 03:47 PM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (5803) | Send Message
     
    Beautifully Eloquent OG.
    3 Dec 2011, 03:49 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    And if I changed my time frame every time I read one blip in a single story in the Google scroll, I doubt Lynas would take my calls. For now I'll wait for confirmation or further information.
    3 Dec 2011, 10:31 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    There actually is a directive that says AELB tries to complete the application "within 7 months". But it appears to be a directive with no consequences if it takes longer. I do see Q1 feed and H1 production as both mushy and a moving target. I already told Curtis this in the Q & A of the unrecorded Lynas Investor Call. I never like this issue in any stock. But for now the photos and details of the accomplishments in 2011 by Lynas are keeping my patience.
    3 Dec 2011, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Sorry, Chi, but your timeline is not what I'd like to see Lynas address, but the confusion sourced from this vague quote. And yes, we must indeed all wait for confirmation or further information.

     

    And a single quote from an authoritative source is all it takes to torpedo months of hard PR work - all the more reason to stay on top of such things. Poo-pooing this widely referenced quote (and its sloppy inclusion in what may [or may not] be extraneous interviews) doesn't make it go away. I'll repeat, I tend to believe its just sloppy reporting combined with a vague comment joined together with far too much poetic writing license, but this should be something which Lynas management can easily correct. This is still early in this process, but the longer it stands unchallenged, the more solid it appears.
    4 Dec 2011, 03:50 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Well TB,
    I think the board sees it your way. I'm glad I didn't change a thing based on how Lynas is doing tonight. The fact is the note as widely understood to indicate a delay or as widely referenced. It is a vague comment that some have repeated and I think it is a small think worth watching.
    The idea that it can torpedo PR work is an interesting idea. If Lynas were an explorer you would surely be right. But being so close to production I think others facts are overriding the comment IMO.
    4 Dec 2011, 07:54 PM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    maybe referring to may '11...wasnt that about the time panel was formed/active?
    2 Dec 2011, 12:20 PM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    I'm looking to buy. QRM, TAS, NOURF, EMMCF, AVL are the stocks I'm most interested in with a 10 year horizon. What's your top choice and why? Thanks!
    3 Dec 2011, 06:51 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I recently published a list of the re stocks I am tracking, along with buy targets, this is the latest version:

     

    ARAFF .46
    ALKEF .79
    LYSCF 1.06
    GWMGF .48
    MCP 29.81
    AVL 2.46
    QRM 2.40
    HUDRF .49
    GDLNF .44
    MHREF .22
    TASXF 2.03
    UURAF .47
    HREEF .62
    NOURF .38
    QREDF .14
    GOLDF .14
    USMN .085
    DCHAF .43
    NEMFF 4.91

     

    Some are already at or close to these targets. I am long ARAFF, LYSCF/LYSDY, GWMGF, MCP-A, UURAF, and USMN.
    4 Dec 2011, 03:59 PM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Thanks TB
    4 Dec 2011, 04:30 PM Reply Like
  • ungawah
    , contributor
    Comments (895) | Send Message
     
    Of the three RE people, I like TAS. Assuming Europe doesn't dissolve into chaos, I think they will push to have local projects succeed. That same logic is why I think MCP will eventually be a winner. Of course most of my money is on Lynas.
    4 Dec 2011, 06:00 PM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    UNG - I like TAS for their heavy rare earths, and being adjacent to a major highway. No 100 mile roadway construction,etc like QRM & AVL. Also if you recall, Gareth Hatch stated that TAS was getting "excellent" recoveries from their ore,etc.. Norra Karr is a respectful size. The only negative is the dilute concentration, the lowest of all of my choices.

     

    J. Kaiser seems to like QRM over TAS and AVL. The negatives of AVL are the underground mining and being even more remote than QRM. AVL has an excellent long term resource. Has good documentation of its "needs" (1 billion in required funding?) Its resource may be better than QRM.

     

    NTU has no "official" documented resource. NTU is more speculative, but "could" turn out to be a real gem. Some solid shareholders behind
    NTU.
    4 Dec 2011, 06:29 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    I'm a big QRM fan jimp. Chi has pointed out that their timeline is a long way out, and there is no question that he is absolutely right. None-the-less, for under $3, I can't help but continue to accumulate shares. By all accounts at this point, they have a great resource; larger than AVL IIRC. Links below are for QRM's corp presentation from August of this year. I'm no expert, but it seems quite a compelling story to me. Of particular interest to me were pg 5 of the presentation, capital structure, and pg 23, a comparison of the Strange Lake Project AVL, LYC & MCP.

     

    They continue to expand their resource at Strange Lake AND, they are finding that they are able to produce an even higher grade concentrate than they had anticipated at a lower cost. Such developments are music to the ears, IMO.

     

    Financials: I'm not going to go into details. You can check it out and form your own opinion. IMO, both their current financial status and projections seem to be in very nice shape. TB or Chi could tell you better whether or not their CAPEX projections are on target.
    I do believe that whether or not they actually receive the anticipated gov't subsidies for infrastructure development under Plan du Nord is critical. I'm sure they could succeed without it, but doing so would require significant paradigm shifts with regard to both their plans for capitalization and their production timeline. The former would not be a good thing from the shareholder perspective, but to say that the latter would not be good at all would be an understatement IMO. They're talking 4 yrs. to production as it is. People I've talked to, however, whom are close(r) to that process are optimistic.

     

    Science and corporate schmutz aside, one thing I do find particularly appealing, given what we've been experiencing in the RE sector over the last year, is that management seems to be very conservative and straight forward. Not that there have been a lot of milestones to deliver on at this point, but developments seem to be pretty much on target to this point, and they have actually delivered more than projected in a couple of instances. Peter Cashin, the CEO, has a philosophy of "under promise, over deliver" and he has been preaching that right along. I find comfort in that as I read and watch developments. It is very early, but to this point, he seems to run his business that way. Want even MORE warm fuzzies? Pick up the phone and call Cashin. He'll answer the phone. ....and talk to you! NBS! Odd for the CEO of a $1/2B company. Yep! ...but I sure don't have a problem with it.

     

    http://bit.ly/vIazyZ

     

    http://bit.ly/vIazyZ
    5 Dec 2011, 01:38 AM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    My apologies jimp. I thought, when I pasted both of those links, that they would take you directly to pages 5 and 23 of the corp presentation. They don't! :~\
    5 Dec 2011, 03:09 AM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Egg, thanks for your point of view.
    5 Dec 2011, 06:41 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    jimp,
    I will buy Quest and NTU on their 52 week lows if their stories stay very strong. There will be several times in the years before production where both of these stocks will hit 52 week lows so I figure what's the hurry?
    Meanwhile, Lynas is nearing production right now with a great long term business model. For the next few months this will be my only add and focus as such producers are not as common as most think and these run ups in producers have been the largest source of my investment growth in recent years. This is feeling better than Palidin due to the commodity and much like Fortescue IMO.
    5 Dec 2011, 10:21 AM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Europe must be increasingly anxious to obtain rare earths and rare metals of all kinds given its financial woes. They can't take much for granted anymore. Continental Europe is looking at Scandinavia as being a financial safe haven. Scandinavia also has an ample supply of mineral wealth.
    http://bit.ly/skfLMD
    Tasman seems well positioned in Scandinavia for that line of thinking. If they can obtain funds for a processing plant, they should be a winner in the long run. The key factor for now must be obtaining those funds or going with a joint venture with someone in Europe about it. If they ever get into some financial difficulty, they should be able to sell their iron ore properties.
    5 Dec 2011, 10:26 AM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Agreed
    6 Dec 2011, 07:03 AM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Chi, I hear what your saying. Good points. Thanks.
    6 Dec 2011, 07:04 AM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    My above comments regarding "7 month" suggests the following:

     

    I thought the representative who originally used those words may have been saying this as a way of pointing out that they have done due diligence in that the review process is/has taken up to 7 months....meaning the entire timeline from AELB's involvement, receipt of documents/submissions, etc until approval. That could be May '11 to Dec. June to Jan July to Feb...or whatever you wish to take it as. The largest part of the problem is these underqualified politicians/ministers and their vague statements....THEY should clarify and quite pandering to a small minority in the public. Though I realize some of this could be lost in translation.
    I am a bit bothered as a shareholder that Lynas does not have a good enough working relationship with a country and it's representatives (in a country in which their entire master plan hinges on) to clarify confusing items like this as they occur. It is a bit rediculous and they should be able to clarify themselves. I understand it must be hard doing business with baffoons, however.
    My gut reaction to the story was that it was a mis-statement/misunder... That is the problem...We don't really know
    4 Dec 2011, 01:32 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I agree Rain.
    But I would also say our research should discount some of this as well. Politicians are rarely clear by their very nature (Ex: Every time Obama says "Let me be clear...." he never is). And I don't think I need a Lynas announcement every time a politician makes a vague passing comment.

     

    Lynas has acted quickly with denials in the past when NYT made outright false statements or when statements were very sp negative like the dime drop in mid-October where a government official said Lynas was not approved. But this is less definitive and has had little or no reaction in the market IMO. If Lynas holds their fire and the statement is not further defined or confirmed, I can ignore it till approval.

     

    Anyone calling it more than that is making too much of it right now IMO. I just keep Googling to see if it has any legs. That's enough for me right now.
    4 Dec 2011, 01:50 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    But it fits with something I suggested a long time back: it would take longer than expected as the actual work would have to be done by the grunts that actually work for the departments involved. They have their procedures, protocols and routines.

     

    So the "higher ups" that "meet the press" will cover their butts by hemming and hawing so they can't be pinned down. And that leads us to where we are now - uncertainty.

     

    Normal course of events AFAICT.

     

    I don't even have a feeling if there is a way to ever avoid such when this sort of process is playing out, with all the "noise" and conflicting interests involved.

     

    HardToLove
    4 Dec 2011, 01:53 PM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    HT: I remember your previous comment...and thought it valid. The "officials", however, keep referring to the review process as if it is something which can be done by examining documents (plans).
    5 Dec 2011, 10:36 PM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    "...review process as if it is something which can be done by examining documents (plans)"

     

    Well, that's certainly part of the process. I don't begrudge them that. Justified or not, delays do occur within a bureaucracy and, for the most part, bureaucracies don't operate at an efficient pace.

     

    And there will be inspections at various points, delays over (possibly inconsequential) ... "defects" or deviations here or there.

     

    Orders to correct something will issue forth. All part of proving that the expense for the bureaucracy is justified, that they are doing their job, that they are really watching out for the people, etc. I don't disparage the intent - I'm sure they are really trying to do a good job too.

     

    And the political considerations, due to the recent angst, will probably make this a bit more obnoxious than usual.

     

    TB, and others, have likely run into this sort of thing in the past.

     

    MHO,
    HardToLove
    6 Dec 2011, 05:53 AM Reply Like
  • Jon Springer
    , contributor
    Comments (4152) | Send Message
     
    Question for the Australians (mining, but not rare earths). Can you tell me anything about Matthew Wood?
    Current Chairman of Avanco (AVB.AX), Copper Ranger (CRJ.AX), Haranga (HAR.AX), Signature Metals (SBL.AX), Voyager Resources (VOR.AX). He's previously been a director of Bellamel Mining, Black Range, Elk Petroleum, Hunnu Coal, Iberian Resources, Kasbah Resources, Laguna Resources, and Overland Resources

     

    Curiosity for the Mongolia blog as Haranga and Voyager are in Mongolia (as was Hunnu until sold to Banpu recently). Much obliged, Jon
    4 Dec 2011, 06:16 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    It sounds like he has a definite point of view.
    http://bit.ly/rIZRTX
    4 Dec 2011, 06:34 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    Materials going to lead today TB?
    5 Dec 2011, 03:50 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I'm studying that very topic right now, egg. I think gold may stay soft, and oil get more expensive (and that's not good for miners), although we are also seeing Brent (more important outside the US markets) drawing closer to WTI prices, which will balance some of that price increase for miners. Geopolitical risk factors are, of course, ruling the markets, and they are very difficult to nail down. The European risk remains at nose bleed heights, while the appetite for the markets to price dire events into stock prices is also very high...

     

    My eye is on the Middle East, particularly Israel, Syria and Iran. The sitrep there is explosive, and the question really devolves to WHEN, not IF, it blows up. Other than that, I am spending a lot of time studying Asia, particularly China, this morning...

     

    LOL, if I find an island of insight in the sea of insanity, I'll let you know.
    5 Dec 2011, 07:41 AM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    I think you're right about the ME issue, I don't think its a matter of if. BUT I do think there are still two questions; when and how big is the bang when it pops. I'm not getting the feeling it will be a smallish bang.
    5 Dec 2011, 01:46 PM Reply Like
  • ungawah
    , contributor
    Comments (895) | Send Message
     
    Both Lynas and Alkane up 9¢ in Oz last night. In US$, that would be 1.40 & 1.14. Probably because of the "China Cutting Rare Earth Production to 70% by 2015" report done by the Roskill research firm. http://bit.ly/t8mcqt
    5 Dec 2011, 09:08 AM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Has anyone heard any more about DRA, the mining company selected to develop concentration / separation facilities for Steenkamp? It would seem that there would be at least some news 6 months into the project.

     

    "July 27, 2011 - Saskatoon, Canada: Great Western Minerals Group (“GWMG”) is pleased to announce that it has contracted DRA Mineral Projects (Pty) Ltd. (“DRA”) of South Africa, a company with a strong track record of utilizing world class standards, for the detailed design of the Steenkampskraal processing plant."

     

    Also, I was browsing the web page for the ceramic knife company GQD (potential GWM partner) and noted that annual sales is only $10m. This doesn't sound like a company that will be able to provide any significant cash flow… Are there other suiters?...
    5 Dec 2011, 12:33 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » http://www.jxgqd.com

     

    This is the GQD GROUP company. Hit the translate button. Looking at the GQD knife co. as being the GQD Group is like looking at Mitsubishi Auto. as being Mitsubishi keiretsu. Very different...

     

    GQD is privately held.

     

    As for the lack of movement with the plant(s), that would follow since the jv with GQD has NOT been finalized. Hard to start designing or building until the key source for information is on the team.

     

    Its also hard to move forward on solid funding plans until the jv is set, etc.
    5 Dec 2011, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    Toly
    You have several good points as usual but I really think you ought to stop with the knife maker 10m. dollar point. You have brought that up a few times here and other places and have been corrected by TB and others.
    There is plenty to pick om GW with at this point. But knife maker ain't it.
    5 Dec 2011, 02:26 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » LOL, and its all more grist for those (like myself) thinking that they are no way going to hit their goal for building processing plants and starting them up.

     

    Maybe they have a problem with their very own "7 month rule".

     

    So, MCP is planning to spend tons of money making their plant buildout happen faster, but without signs that the construction has really taken off to match the plans...

     

    Lynas appears to be less advanced than hoped, and perhaps just as well if they can't get a POL until the middle of next summer anway...

     

    Still, I view Lynas as underpriced - GWM as fairly priced - and MCP as also fairly priced until we see some real construction goin' on.

     

    Added LYSDY today.
    5 Dec 2011, 02:31 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    aqwert,
    When I look at GQD and GW the best margins, revenues and profit come from the knives. The rest of GQD is mostly undefined. And GW talks about revenues, margins, and downstream riches while losing their ass quarter after quarter. And now they just tell me about the losses and skip the call with all of the future promises. Maybe it is time to get back to the only thing in GQD and GW that is real and clear- knives.:-)
    5 Dec 2011, 02:44 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    These must be the most recent MCP construction photos found in this presentation.
    http://bit.ly/rKcWSg
    5 Dec 2011, 02:54 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I think these photos are even more recent:
    http://bit.ly/vpcWux
    5 Dec 2011, 03:48 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    I'm glad they are less shy about sharing their photos, chihawk.
    They must be in the early stages of building a sulfur recovery unit, if I'm following the clues correctly.
    http://bit.ly/tynDp0
    The bastnasite concentrate cannot be contaminated with sulfide compounds, apparently, in the processing where the mineral was soluble in sulfuric acid.
    See page 2 of 69.
    http://1.usa.gov/sID4pJ
    See page 4 of 82.
    http://1.usa.gov/sX9lB4
    5 Dec 2011, 10:50 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    toly,
    GW just announced they gave out $2 million in compensation for last quarter in a market cap $200 million stock. Since the compensation is stock based, it would be higher each quarter if the stock price and market cap go up. They missed every deadline in the second half of the year and have no meaningful updates for the last several months (and no conference call to explain the Q3 numbers). If they:
    -Complete the GQD JV (Something I have yet to read about from GQD)
    -Get the NI 43-101 for Steen (which was promised for November)
    -Get the first furnace for LCM (promised in November)
    -Ever make money based on downstream margin promises that have resulted in widening losses for several quarters in a row.

     

    Perhaps at such point there may be a story again. In the meantime, this board is concerned about a Lynas delay. Never mind if Lynas and Moly produce, GW will be the high cost producer of Ce and La which maybe in oversupply and cheaper to buy on market than to produce out of their thorium mine (Steen). Also Mt. Weld has higher percentages of Nd, Eu, Gd, Ho, Lu, Tb, Tm, Yb, and Y than Steen and the Duncan Deposit at Mt. Weld has much more Dy than Steen.

     

    http://bit.ly/rdl62B
    5 Dec 2011, 01:44 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    You hit that nail RIGHT on the head Toly.
    5 Dec 2011, 02:13 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    Frontier signs deal to partner with Korea Resources Corp. (KORES)

     

    http://bit.ly/sG14s0
    5 Dec 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Hi Chi, I briefly read the recent financial statement for Q3 and it would appear that GWM still has some financial concerns…

     

    True they had a net profit "EBITA" of ~$750k for the quarter, the 9 month EBITA was ~$1.75m (2011) compared to ~$300k (2010).

     

    These are OK numbers until you look at the inventory increase which can be interpreted in many different ways, most not good…

     

    Inventories more than doubled from to ~$2m to ~$5m... Also, of the $15m in current assets (money in the bank), fully 1/3 of those is held in inventory. This raises the question on the price paid for the feedstock and questions as to any hedge in place… $15m is not a significant amount in the bank especially when the $17m plus offering was just completed… IMO, Going to the well again will be very difficult...

     

    T.B. you are correct in pointing out the GQD is a much larger company that the knife division and the larger company looks like it would benefit from REE feedstocks. Also as you suggested, they are a private company thus specific financials would be difficult to find...

     

    My question is just how far along the mine / concentration / separation projects are in construction, planning etc. Building concentration and separation facilities is a very expensive and time consuming project.

     

    Also in looking at the relatively low reserve numbers (opposed to resource numbers) there may be a question about the economics of building such a complex facility in SA.

     

    In any event I am wondering why we have heard little from DRA. They are apparently the engineering firm of choice and to this point, apparently they have been silent… Of course I may have missed such a report...
    5 Dec 2011, 02:24 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Toly, its great that we keep an eye on stories like that of GWM, Lynas, etc. I don't see any argument with what you're saying.

     

    Really, the GWM narrative has all been hashed out ad nauseum. Now they have to do the work. This is one of those cases where no news IS bad news.

     

    As for the in-process increase, logically that would follow if they are preparing to launch a new line at LCM and increase capacity 50%. Its also a normal event (and yes, it CAN be a problem if mishandled) for manufacturers who are utterly dependent upon outside suppliers for their key feedstock to take advantage of a temporary surplus in the market (and lower prices) to build up a small stock.

     

    Our reads on that portion therefor end up with different reactions. If anything, I believe they will ultimately wish they had purchased more feedstock during the brief time of plenty. But then again, they really are NOT rolling in cash, so this is probably a good compromise. My view is that the inventory build makes sense and might well benefit from higher prices next quarter when that feedstock is turned into finished product for customers.

     

    In the end, however, nothing has changed much. They need a source which they control and originate, and that is still a long way off.

     

    As for any update as to the design of the processing plants, it would be worrisome to me if they were charging ahead with that without the knowledge they intend to purchase from GQD. GWM is already a company with a nearly complete roof (Less Common) lacking any structural members (processing plants) between the roof and a slowly developing foundation (Steen). The last thing that anyone needs is to start pouring money into a design that will get tossed as soon as the essential data rolls in.
    5 Dec 2011, 02:58 PM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Agreed T.B., I think there are some positive with GWM and there are a lot more unknowns that may or may not prove to beneficial…

     

    The thing with inventory is that we don't know how it is priced… If we take a pile of metal valued (by the market) at $2m, then take that exact same pile of metal 3 months later and use the peak price in the last 3 months for pricing, it is very possible that the new pricing could be $5m for the exact same pile of metal…

     

    This is a cute accounting trick that young companies use to inflate their balance sheet and attract more investors.

     

    Now, look at accounts receivable which is almost $4m, that leaves actual cash in the bank of ~$5m… I'm not saying there is cause to believe these are doubtful accounts but A/R also counts for 1/3ed of the current assets…

     

    One other thing to note, and is my pet peeve (for any company), is that GWM claims $2.5m in goodwill…

     

    I have nothing against GWM, I consider it a good study in investing. I try hard not to be an emotional investor and consider all shared DD I can find. This board is a great resource… That is why I post my opinion and I hope it is taken as just that :)
    5 Dec 2011, 03:35 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I would not expect GWM and LCM to monkey up their books that way. For one thing, LCM is doing value-added work to those raw materials. An extra few million dollars of feedstock SHOULD result in finished goods worth that much plus whatever value is added (else the problem becomes one of waste or inventory shrinkage, which can be a tough thing to fix). Another company I follow and sometimes invest in had that problem, and it took them over a year to shake the high waste-pricing power issue. I am always surprised when this sort of problem is NOT noticed by investors, but I suppose its just another example of poor DD.

     

    Accounts receivable in LCM's business are pretty solid. This goes with the strategic metals sector territory. Its not as if it were a hosiery mill trying to collect from struggling mom and pop's all over the country.
    5 Dec 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    toly,
    Thanks for a great post. The best part is the last paragraph IMO. I fully admit I like Lynas and kick GW and Moly most every chance I get.:-) I hope no one really cares about that. I think beyond some entertainment, the discussions should help us see why the winners produce and the others do not. I think it is too early to pick winners, but we do know some will produce and others will not. I think the discussions will serve as an education at some point. And even if that is too much to ask, the blog is great compared to the old days of Googling and reflecting on it just on my own.

     

    And now that I took my shots at GW, I'm ready to get back into the spirit of the season. And for those that think I just dump on GW, I did wait for them to announce and investor call this morning. When that didn't happen, I was mad. I mean who else reports a widening loss for a quarter and gives no comment? They deserve a kick for that alone IMO. I mean if you are going to pay out $2 million in compensation in the quarter, asking them to get their buns in front of a podium for a call is a minimal request.
    5 Dec 2011, 04:09 PM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Hi Chi, T.B.,

     

    I guessI need to get into the spirit of the season but I have a hard time sitting back knowing we have a company with $5m in cash and only $10m in semi liquid assets take investors for a ride.

     

    Over valuing assets (inventory) makes a lot of sense particularly for a company that needs cash. I have to question as to whether there is a true addition to the inventory or this increase is a result of revaluation… Unfortunately the 10q doesn't need to specify this...

     

    My point is that even if GWM had, say $20m in cash it could not even come close to building a concentration plant at Steenkamp. The infrastructure there is deficient, i.e. no gas for co-generation, unpaved roads, way off the grid, and ground water problems. Also many of the existing buildings are made of radioactive material and unusable...

     

    This information is from the scoping report, a document many investors have not had the privilege to review. I wish I had someone shared DD like this when I was learning the investing game. (Google Steenkamp Scoping Report)...

     

    GWM has lofty plans and a good outline for a business plan but it is the real world truth that the barriers of entry are extreme in this space. I use Lynas as a measuring stick because they are the only ones to actually build and are soon to operate a facility… Lynas has spent years and over half a billion dollars to accomplish what GWM plans to do in a couple of years...

     

    Once again, this is my DD and, of course opinions, that should be shared by no one other than myself. I would encourage anyone to check my sources (I hope I provided all) and make their own decisions based on the fact… OK, as they say in Oz… Cheers!
    5 Dec 2011, 05:52 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Toly, there's no proof and no evidence (just your speculation) that GWM is revaluing inventory fraudulently. In fact the far more likely explanation is the one I put forward earlier.

     

    The point that they don't have funding (or a jv deal with the third party with the key proprietory knowledge) to build processing plants is abundantly clear. I've seen no one indicate otherwise. This lack was exhaustively reviewed here and elsewhere. If you're going to be repeating this on a regular basis, set a schedule that will work like a calendar... "Toly is posting his point that Steen doesn't have a jv or funding in place again, so it must be Monday".

     

    LOL.

     

    Seriously, I'm inviting ANYONE who disagrees with the news that GWM has not finalized a jv or acquired funding for building processing plants to post up and present your facts.

     

    Toly, the location for the plant will be seperate from the mine location. The infrastructure needs of the two locations have, again, been discussed already. And pointing out the deficiencies for building a plant at Steen (where it does indeed lack those things) is a waste of time, since indeed that is NOT where the plants will be built.

     

    This should not be a shock, given that Lynas (for instance) located its LAMP in a different country. Of course they also built the separation plant near the mine, which has the advantage of making the long shipping run to the coast, onto boats, and offloading in a primary port in Malaysia, then back on smaller boats, finally offloaded again in Malaysia, then trucked to the LAMP more efficient since less waste is being subjected to the expensive shipping and handling. Steen would be trucking the whole kit to their processing facility. I suspect that GWM's overall shipping cost will be much lower than that of Lynas, but in any event, it won't be as efficient in the end as what MCP is planning to do, ie, do everything at the mine site.

     

    Each company is coping with the local factors that go along with mining. One has an interstate running right next door, while another is operating a very long supply chain. One day these small efficiencies may have a big impact, but I suspect that day is perhaps a decade away.
    6 Dec 2011, 08:04 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    TB,
    Look at it this way. Without toly's periodic explanation their would be no explanation of GW. GW has long stopped telling us anything new. And posting a few new videos with "Wrangler girl" is not an update. Like many bad juniors they are silent at the time when they should be speaking. And knowing them, which is more likely to be next- real news? or a BS appointment? I'm betting the latter. And when I look at the losers I've owned in the past this is their pattern.

     

    It is a pattern GW can break, but they have not done it yet. And this is now a fair period of time. The stock has struggled like all stocks, but I can see it getting blasted on a bad Euroday if investors lose patience like they should. And not using the quarter call to explain the vagueness of their numbers is gross IMO. If more honest funds owned them they already would be demanding such.

     

    Toly was dead on right when he told you guys the offering was coming. He may well be right about other concerns. I find his guess on par with yours TB, and the silence might even support his fears over your calm.

     

    These are not small issues with GW. They are big issues (the JV, Steen development, LCM development, the widening losses). And why not give an explanation? What the hell makes that tough to do? And it is several subjects. Is deep secrecy required on all of these subjects? If so, fraud is the most rational explanation IMO.

     

    These issues have been lingering for quite some time. GW's words have been the same for a long time now, but the company is operating during this period of silence. It is hard to be optimistic about operation in the face of this much silence. I am not in the stock. But I would at least trim any company that gives this little clarity.
    6 Dec 2011, 09:55 AM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    CHi,

     

    It was Toly not to long before the offering that stated GW what likely go broke, share price hit zero, etc and it was you who pointed out that they could continue to "mine the street' for cash.

     

    He is obviously intelligent, but most of his posts are of a nature that one must question his credibility and limits the impact when he adds something of value IMO.

     

    Best,
    Matt
    6 Dec 2011, 10:25 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » We always review whatever news comes out of GWM, though as everyone has pointed out recently, and as I so succinctly stated in an earlier post "No news is bad news" in this instance. Of course, keeping silent when there really IS no news (rather than emitting regular, if empty, faux news releases) is understandable.

     

    Videos and a gallery of photos is something good to present on your website, but no, it can never replace solid accomplishments that go along with the wallpaper.

     

    I'm not so sure that GWM needs to break a pattern other than to replace potentialities with realities. As you have often pointed out (with my agreement) its time for these companies (all of them) to "get real". Playing games with semantics and sleight of hand serves no one, and is an insult to those who can see through it (which by this time of the winnowing process in the first mover group includes a large number of current shareholders).

     

    I believe GWM does, indeed, represent a stock "...gettting blasted", and its current puny stock price is evidence for that condition already having been met.

     

    Right now, GWM is dead in the water until they move their primary projects forward and acquire funding and/or material backing. The stock price is slopping around, trading in a narrow range and going nowhere fast. All these issues have been examined and its just not very newsworthy. Those who don't like the stock can leap up and down repeatedly on its weary bones, but until something happens its a "...waiting, waiting... still waiting..." topic.

     

    Frankly, my focus HAS shifted to Lynas (after all, it is by far my largest remaining holding, though I have shifted to an extremely cash-heavy stance). There again we have a period of waiting before us, but with some news items which raise questions, cheifly some clarification of just how much waiting we should expect. Its ironic that ALL these front runners (MCP, LYC and GWM) are in similar periods following frantic activity, but there it is.

     

    I'm not asking anything from Lynas which I haven't also sought from the other two. Answers, none of them forthcoming just now.

     

    Waiting, waiting...

     

    Its unpleasant when this sort of dead zone coincides with so much of my central investment focus, and rare, but here we are, becalmed in some version of a rare earth "Bermuda Triangle".

     

    Why doesn't Engdahl just TELL us more details of what must be tough negotiations with joint venture candidates in China and Japan? Aside from making reasonable assumptions centered around the usual danger of disrupting the very goals which drive the desire for information, only he can explain the silence. Speaking from my own experience, such silences CAN be revealing, with the length of the silence being a telling factor. By now I am personally discounting the GQD joint venture, BECAUSE of the long silence and series of delays. Someone in academia has probably contrived a chart with one axis being time and the other representing the steady degradation of expectations slipping downward as the steady march of silent time passes. For myself I have already taken a large chunk off the top of my GWM profits, and as time passes I am considering shaving more - another reality of how long delays and silence is addressed by investors.

     

    Frankly, I see much the same passion spiele playing out with MCP and Lynas. Time is the enemy in any race to market, and most particularly one with the geopolitical backdrop we have here.

     

    Chi, I cannot disagree with anyone who sees GWM's current drifting as a negative. It is, and its reflected in a slowly weakening stock price.

     

    I took a short term gamble on Lynas yesterday and lost. That's OK, I do this sort of thing upon occasion. Those 1.33 shares are now added to my block of trading shares, resulting in a slightly higher average cost. I will be selling them at the first profitable opportunity, of course. Such are gambles - sometimes the expectation that SURELY they would speak out and squash the current crop of muddled reporting and outright snide attacks now that they were getting bombarded with emails asking for details...

     

    But sometimes an investor must cope with the silent treatment. Not fun, not at all.
    6 Dec 2011, 10:49 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Matt,
    I appreciate your comment and agree that the bearishness should be limited at this stage. There is fear but no proof in silence. But while the offering at $0.63 went great for GW, the question becomes how well will the next offering go and how far away is it? This is part of toly's point. If the cash is in inventory and they face more expenses right now, how receptive will the markets be to new GW stock?
    6 Dec 2011, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    For what it is worth I just shot off the below email to Dwight and Jim. Not expecting anything but a standard response but they have typically repsond fairly quickly in the past. I'll post any response I get.

     

    Best,
    Matt

     

    +++++

     

    Dwight,

     

    The silence is becoming deafening. As a significant shareholder in Great Western Minerals the missed deadlines, along with the lack of any communications providing “new” details is becoming a great concern. For instance, the JV was first delayed because of passport issues then the language barriers etc. All of this is understandable – although curious that an experienced management team wouldn’t account for – and once again, after the most recent private placement money is likely to be a concern in the not too distant future. As we know delays happen, and should the route of debt financing or a loan agreement fall through or take more time than is expected (as often is the case) operating cash will be dangerously low in short order.

     

    Furthermore, Jim has repeatedly said his conference calls and Q&A sessions would be routine going forward, yet it has been sometime since the last one, particularly as the most recent financials have been released with no follow up as has been the case in the past. I understand the need to keep certain information confidential while it is being finalized but if you are familiar with Frontier Rare Earths and their recent agreement with KORES, details of that agreement have been public for some time preceeding the actual finalization. Yet, all we know about GQD and the potential JV is that “it is on track”.

     

    I hope you find my email as that of a concerned shareholder and expeditiously respond in kind.

     

    Best,
    Matthew
    6 Dec 2011, 11:06 AM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    Keep in mind Frontier went with KORES on July 13 and did not announce the JV until yesterday. Maybe they never said when it will be done but it took awhile. Did GW make a mistake by putting deadlines on it that they ultimately could not meet? Obviously. But companies (lynas included) make up deadlines and don't meet them. LAMP anyone? But to jump to GW is a fraud, etc. it just plain silly. There is plenty to pick on with them but since they have not gone to zero as Toly had previously suggested or they did not got for a raise of 100 mill as Chi had suggested, I think we should all stick to facts.
    The jury is still out, imo. They have misjudged the timeline to form the JV with GQD. I think GQD is also needing GW as an outlet here and things have changed for them. ("The loss of domestic investment opportunities is forcing more companies to look outside of China for survival. Qian Dong Group, which is still the largest rare-earth separating company in Ganzhou, told the paper the rare-earth quota assigned to the company is far short of its smelting capacity." http://bit.ly/shZGGT Dates from August but one can assume it has gotten worse)
    So what then? Chi hates them, Toly hates them. Doesn't seem much has changed from August really. LAMP aint open, GW did not sign the JV deal and MCP is ...still MCP. On a YTD chart GW is still leading although LYSCF is making a move on a three month chart. Since August (when Chi wanted to bet with Fatfretter) GW and Lynas are tied at -34% given the bounce off the bottom for Lynas.
    To me... not much has changed at all. Same story different month for all of them. It seems that most folks let their particular stock's missteps slide while harping on another's. Like I said.... same story different month.
    6 Dec 2011, 11:11 AM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Aqwert,

     

    All I would add is that I read the essential outline of the agreement that was signed yesterday months ago. If I compare them side by side I am sure some things changed but again, this shell, which is infinitely more detailed than anything we have seen from GWG was provided I would feel a lot more comfortable.
    6 Dec 2011, 11:19 AM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    I agree, I can't see any next offering without significant progress as being anything less than a disaster and cash once again is already a concern for me. So I won't argue with bearishness, its more well I think everyone can see for themselves......

     

    Best,
    Matt
    6 Dec 2011, 11:23 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    OK TB,
    You've got some good points here. GW without a big move in the next few weeks will hit a 52 week low around year's end. I say this because the stock rose last December due to the H1 2011 quota. And in a sense that annual low is a blasting of sorts.

     

    As for the front runners I think the clarity issue is faced in three different ways. Moly has the worst approach. They change their story and remove information off the web at an alarming rate. Examples: I mentioned the LTI free hours and they dropped the slide in the next presentation. The photo angles and titles constantly change making it hard to judge progress. And no estimates or benchmarks are given to gauge progress. And of course no itemization is given to funding since the Sumitomo loan failed. So the government did not loan, Sumitomo did not loan, but they are fully funded through phase two? Supposedly Silmet provides the funding. That's odd since they told us they would produce 5,000 tons without Silmet in 2011 last November; then it was 6,000 tons for 2011 when Silmet "doubled production"; And now we find out it will be less than 5,000 tons for 2011. So how does this all support full funding (on an accelerated project) through phase two?
    (BTW, Moly produced more in 2010 from Mountain Pass then in 2011. Imagine knowing that this time last year?)

     

    GW is facing the issue by continually selling the macro story and ignoring the current period. At first they gave specific assurances (GQD just needs their SA visas); Then they went to more general statements (things are great, it just takes time); And now we are getting no information (no investor call). This sucks, but it really is only the last part that is awful and a call could be set by year's end and the situation would be much improved.

     

    Then there is Lynas. This blog feels they need to clarify every comment a government official makes even when we don't know what the official meant. But Curtis has said he has no comment because he does not want to preempt the AELB review. This seems reasonable since the opposition has already said several times that Lynas is wrong to give a timeline for the LAMP while the AELB review continues. And while I think Curtis is right to give a timeline and I would like more details, sticking to what he has said already seems reasonable for now.

     

    Curtis said what he could at the AGM and he has a track record of disclosure. He started his Investor calls when Lynas was at risk to be sold to the Chinese. The deal was super unpopular and without any ASX requirement he started his Investor calls and still does two each quarter on both sides of the ASX trade to accommodate global investors. I've never had a Q go unanswered or dodged either. I do wish there was more certainty in the AELB review. But the unknowns are common for this type of issue; available disclosure has been given and unavailable issues have been limited and defined; and Curtis has earned the patience through a history of great disclosure.

     

    So while I agree these leaders face clarity questions the three approaches provide a key lesson in junior ownership IMO.
    6 Dec 2011, 11:47 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Let me correct myself to be fair. Moly just added the November Mountain Pass flyover to their website. I think if an investor uses the photos with the flyover, there is sufficient clarity in the pictures. But all of this looks very far from completion IMO. And my critique of Moly clarity is unaffected by the fly over.
    6 Dec 2011, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    Sorry Chi, while I agree that Curtis' desire to not "preempt the AELB review" is wise, I have to side with TB on this issue. I don't think anyone is asking Curtis him to do anything here that would be preemptive. What we're asking for clarity on is the "7-month issue". Did the comment in last week's article refer to the past seven months or does it refer to a required 7-month review period that just began? And if it is the latter, why were investors given expectations that things would be moving in the LAMP by this time when that clearly could not have been possible? I don't think it would be preemptive of Curtis to give some clarity on what was meant in "the article", or even what he believes was meant. Although I would be glad to hear it, I don't think anyone here is asking him to lay down a definitive timeline. We're asking for "what the hell was the article referring to?". I sent IR an email yesterday. We shall see how productive that is.
    7 Dec 2011, 03:13 AM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Hi Eggwis-
    I could have saved you the trouble! I emailed IR last week and got a message "Lynas is aware of the article and is not prepared to comment on the interpretive journalism of a publication.". I thought, fair enough, the report was not a direct quote, so, Lynas won't comment (or clarify) the statement. In addition, I thought, I trust this company and their project management. If they believe the license will be granted prior to completion of the LAMP in early 2012 (as stated, twice, in the 1 Nov conf call) that's what we have to go on. Presumably, if there is a change to this (and NC's statement in that call that they expect to have product to sell by the end of Q1 2012), it would be considered material to the share price and they would update us accordingly. Personally, when I look at the AELB's time frames for license approvals, I am a little sceptical, but, hey, what do I know?
    7 Dec 2011, 06:18 AM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    Good morning Freo,

     

    I read your post last week. I guess I can agree with your train of thought there. On the other hand, if Nick knows that his shareholders are legitimately concerned about something and he can help to put their minds at ease without stepping on anyone's toes, then why not do that? Maybe just something as simple as "I don't have any idea what was meant by ....., but our position with regard to operation of the LAMP remains unchanged." Just a little reassurance on his part that all is well. I'm with you, "what do I know?" I'm just a geek!
    7 Dec 2011, 06:50 AM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    Good morning again Freo,

     

    Ms. Rogers of Lynas Corp. did reply to my email yesterday. It read nearly word for word, I think, the same as the reply you received. So in trying to set a good example, I attempted to clarify what it is that I seek. That letter read:

     

    Dear Gloria,

     

    Thank you for your kind and timely reply. I certainly do understand that Lynas Corp. isn't allowed to disclose specific bits of information to me alone. I also understand why Lynas wouldn't want to open a can of worms by attempting to interpret the writings of another individual and clearly, being respectful of the regulatory process in Malaysia is in every one's best interest.

     

    It seems that I was unclear with regard to what I seek. The paragraph that I cited from the article makes reference to Lynas' application for the POL as having already been received. It then states that the application "is being studied (presently) before a decision is made seven months later (future). As you can see, the article refers to three distinct periods of time within the same sentence. Therein, I believe, lies the source of confusion.

     

    I think it is well accepted that Lynas' application has been submitted to the AELB for approval and that the AELB has accepted the application and is putting it through whatever process(es) they may require for approval. The specific item raising concern is the reference to a decision seven months in the future. In addition to the obvious grammatical errors in the paragraph, the question it raises is, was there a simple journalistic error in the article, or is it, in fact, accurate, that the AELB will take seven months to make a decision on Lynas' application. This is particularly relevant and material information because Lynas' recent disclosures have led it's shareholders and the public at large to believe that all expectations were that the approval process would be complete during or prior to the first quarter of 2012. If the AELB approval process does, in fact, take seven months from the time the application is submitted, then it could not be reasonable to expect a decision before the end of Q1 2012.

     

    In my opinion, the whole matter could be put to rest by Mr. Curtis making a public statement that "I don't have any idea what was meant by ....., but our position with regard to operation of the LAMP remains unchanged." Just a little reassurance on his part that all is well. Without that, we are left to ponder whether, perhaps, Lynas was unaware of the seven month review period or is it possible that Lynas was aware of it, but never disclosed the fact. With a simple statement such as I have suggested, everyone gets to hear that if there is a seven month review period, Lynas was not aware of it and there is no danger of stepping on any one's toes in Malaysia because he would make no reference to what may be expected or anticipated from them, or to any specific time frame in that regard.

     

    Many of us have significant sums invested in you and the Lynas team, as we believe in you and the tremendous job(s) you are doing. That said, sometimes even the smallest bits of reassurance in such tenuous times can go a long way toward reducing anxiety among the shareholders. I hope you will give my suggestion appropriate consideration and try to the best of your ability to put our minds at ease.

     

    Thank you so much for your kind attention and assistance with this matter. It is sincerely appreciated.

     

    Best Regards,

     

    Gregg Lewis

     

    I considered using the phrase "peeing in any one's cheerios" rather than "stepping on any one's toes". It is one of my favorites. :-) I find it much more colorful and to the point. But then, I wasn't sure how good a sense of humor Miss Rogers has, so I opted for the more mundane, sore toes.

     

    Let's see if they get the picture now...
    8 Dec 2011, 07:43 AM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Good on ya, Eggwis- I agree we don't want to pee in anyone's breakfast food at the moment. Mind you, if they don't update shareholders and 7 months turns out to be true, she'll be hearing worse. I do wonder if the buoyant sp is helping the company stand pat on this at the moment, though.
    8 Dec 2011, 08:50 AM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Very interesting article on the up and coming Innovative Metals, the company co founded by Gareth Hatch:

     

    "TORONTO, December 5, 2011 – Innovation Metals Corp. (IMC) today announced the initial results of a technical study on the production of separated, high-purity rare-earth oxides (REOs), from a mixed concentrate derived from several mineral types."

     

    "IMC’s plans to provide end-use consumers of rare earths with the opportunity to own production capacity for the specific rare-earth products that they need, without being locked into fixed prices. IMC also plans to reserve a portion of its future production capacity to assist governments with stockpile programs."

     

    Not sure if they are in the VC stage but it is worth keeping an eye on it should it go public…

     

    http://bit.ly/sN8j9d
    6 Dec 2011, 12:16 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    It all sounds so good.

     

    We just got to the point of realizing that security of supply is iffy, at best, when we let ourselves become totally dependent on China.

     

    So now we should do it again by placing our dependency on another China-based, and (potntially) China-controlled, entity that could be restricted or shut down at the whim of some new 5-year plan?

     

    "Fool me once ..."

     

    I'm afraid that I've decided that "Global Trade" ain't all its cracked up to be.

     

    I wonder what they'll do with all the thorium until a new market for it is developed. I see the possibility for restrictions arising for environmental reasons.

     

    HardToLove
    6 Dec 2011, 06:19 AM Reply Like
  • Gareth Hatch
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    @H. T. Love - some comments:

     

    1) The separation facilities planned by Innovation Metals Corp. (IMC) will NOT be located in China, nor will they be controlled or owned by China, or Chinese entities. The research study was conducted in China because IMC had access to rare-earth specialists there, with extensive expertise in the processing of rare-earth minerals.

     

    2) The mixed REO concentrates that will go into these facilities will not contain thorium, since thorium and similar materials will have been removed at the initial processing stages, by the producer making the concentrate.
    6 Dec 2011, 11:32 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    All that is great to hear!

     

    Thanks for taking the time! I feel much relieved all around.

     

    HardToLove
    6 Dec 2011, 11:45 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    GH,
    Most of all, good luck in this endeavor. I have high confidence in you and Patrick Wong is good too. Any chance Innovation goes public? Also, I have read the IM non-Chinese separation facilities are considering Southeast Asia. Can you offer comment on that or is it too soon to say?
    6 Dec 2011, 12:34 PM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Hi Gareth, glad to see you have recovered from Toronto, once again it was well appreciated...

     

    I am happy to see you are filling a much need space in this emerging technology and It seems that it would compliment most of the miners coming on line…

     

    Gloria Rodgers of LYC was asked about Lynas plans to process Heavy and Scarce REE and replied:

     

    Dear XXXXXXX,

     

    Thank you for your recent emails. Phase 1 of the LAMP is expected to produce 480 tonnes of unseparated HREE. We will probably sell this product to a toller to separate them out. For such small tonnage it was not deemed economic to build additional separation facilities at the LAMP. The fact is the CLD at Mount Weld does not have a high distribution of HREE so there’s little point in building greenfield separation capacity for these products when we can utilise spare capacity elsewhere.

     

    Kind regards
    Gloria Rodgers

     

    Also, do you have any plans to bring Innovation Metals public in the near future?

     

    thanx...
    6 Dec 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • Gareth Hatch
    , contributor
    Comments (132) | Send Message
     
    @HardToLove: you're welcome :-)

     

    @chihawk: thank you for your kind words. Development of capacity in Southeast Asia is well underway. We'll be releasing more detailed information on this in the not-too-distant future, including specifics of where in Southeast Asia that we're talking about.

     

    @toly: thanks for the note regarding Lynas.

     

    @chihawk & toly: yes, we will probably look to take Innovation Metals public at some point, but we won't be rushing into that process. Our business model incorporates a variety of means of generating near-term cash flow for the company, through trading and other activities, which will allow us to do what we need to do to move things forward.
    6 Dec 2011, 11:32 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    nice gap closure on GDX. Glad that happened as that gap was too big not to close.
    6 Dec 2011, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Northern (NTU) to explore for rare earths on Toro tenements..

     

    http://bit.ly/uRS3Rx
    6 Dec 2011, 09:22 PM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    Found this on the IMC website. Interesting concept in an ever complex investing world...

     

    "In the near future, Innovation Metals Corp. (IMC) plans to introduce its Rare-Earth Investment Certificate™ (REIC™) program, an attractive alternative for investors who are looking for rare-earth opportunities with less risk than the junior-mining sector."

     

    http://bit.ly/uSvJtN
    7 Dec 2011, 12:31 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » As speculated last month, it would appear that MS/Mitsubishi have completed their round of stock sales and closed out short positions, and are quickly rebuidling toward their original near 10% holding.

     

    http://bit.ly/vSP6th
    7 Dec 2011, 08:00 AM Reply Like
  • FocalPoint Analytics
    , contributor
    Comments (5803) | Send Message
     
    Hmmm they bought 1.4M shares on Dec 2nd. That explains the pop.
    7 Dec 2011, 08:57 AM Reply Like
  • toly
    , contributor
    Comments (191) | Send Message
     
    From the Innovative Metals website I am reading that IMC will be constructing a major separation plant to provide SEPARATION services for the juniors (or others) that can't afford to build the expensive circuits for the SREE's of HREE's. They plan on providing this service with the following conditions.

     

    From the IMC website:

     

    "IMC has a few key requirements of producers that wish to participate in the IMC Consortium:

     

    Rare-earth projects under development should have at a minimum, an inferred mineral-resource estimate, per NI-43-101 or JORC guidelines;

     

    Participants should be well on their way to understanding the metallurgy of their project, and to the development of an initial pilot plant for the deposit;

     

    Rare-earth concentrates should contain at least 50% total rare-earth oxide equivalent;

     

    Rare-earth concentrates will need to be free of thorium and other similar contaminants."

     

    Also, I am wondering what time frame will be to construct such a facility? This could be a great development for the under capitalized juniors like GWM and others.

     

    IMO it sounds like the facility will provide the same service as LAMP… Comments?
    7 Dec 2011, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    toly,
    I don't' think this would be a LAMP style process. I think they will be like an "ion-exchange/solvent extraction specialist. The LAMP does ore cracking and thus has the Th and U from concentrate. This looks more like a chemical company where the floatation and cracking are done and the material is ready for the chemical level. Based on this I think it is the step after what GW is planning for Steen.

     

    My guess is they toll process things like Lynas SAG products or the HREE's at Mountain Pass. Moly bastnasite is 0.05% Dy. Even if they are doing 40,000 tpa it will be hard to justify processing those levels of Dy.

     

    IMC could also separate for an ALK type of mine. ALK has the zirconium but they do not plan to fully process the rare earths at first. So the first three non-Chinese plants could be customers for several years. If the model is better than a big cap ex spend the customers could be long term. And if not then if one of them started doing their own processing, new minds as new customers could replace these three in the future.

     

    Also the idea of putting the plant in Southeast Asia suggests IMC wants to go where the experienced separation employees are located. If they use accepted technologies, this location may be influenced by the potential Australian customers I mentioned and/or the Chinese knowledge desired for project success.

     

    Lastly, there is a question of whether these products could come from Korea, India or slip through the quota from China. Overall, it seems like a new animal with big barriers to entry. That makes for a good entrepreneur model. I guess my concern would be Rhodia competition and the like.
    7 Dec 2011, 01:20 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I agree, Chi.

     

    I also think it likely that they are looking for a location in Vietnam. Several major Japanese companies are pursuing rare earth ventures there.

     

    This appears to be a business model designed to avoid the hard issues, and skim the cream. Given the general near-total lack of processing facilities ex-China, it might work.

     

    One has to wonder how much more trouble it would be for an Arafura or a Frontier, once having met their preconditions, to just go ahead and build the other 20% of the infrastructure to perform this work for themselves...

     

    I would want to see how MolyCorp's system works first. If there really is a new way of doing things which can handle many different types of ore and produce at a very low cost basis, that would be something to see. For the record I am very doubtful of some of MCP's claims, but since this new endeavor is past the likely point where MCP will be producing, it would seem to be prudent to just wait and see.

     

    Of course, IMC is still private and not soliciting anyone, and very new.
    7 Dec 2011, 01:40 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    TB,
    The reason Arafura or Frontier might not want to spend for the module is volume. To justify the separation of their HREE's they will need to process more lights. Gloria over at Lynas already indicated in an email that Lynas will toll out the SEG as the amounts don't justify the processing build in phase one. That may not be the case after phase two for Lynas (and it might never be the case for a smaller LREE mine). But IMC might even be a first step to positive cash flow for HREE mines. We need more information to know for sure, but I can see this filling a need in the industry.
    7 Dec 2011, 09:17 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Yes, adding these processing modules presents a considerable expense. It is something the titanium guys have looked at and passed upon - the costs are just too high, plus they would then incur the problem of acquiring operating licenses to process, store and discpose of radioactive byproducts. (One of the potential advantages to GWM's setup at Steen, of course).

     

    Processing and/or low volume issues have cast a long shadow over the HREE juniors since the beginning. No doubt about it, processing is where the real bottleneck lies. China's large cottage processing industry is rapidly vanishing as the Cartel takes over, and of course this same event deprives the ex-China juniors of a ready market for concentrate (and that assumes Beijing would modify their stance on rare earth exports, which seems unlikely).

     

    Lynas will be creating considerable high-percentage HREE byproducts (though we don't know yet their plans for the thorium), though I agree that It appears their plan is to store it for later processing by their own facilities. Even so, there are other rare earth startups in Asia which are much less advanced than Lynas. If agreements can be cut with them, IMC could become a functional reality. Its a bit of a "which came first" puzzle. Without advanced mines already digging ore, separating, concentrating, and pre-processing to remove thorium (or uranium), IMC has no function. And its entirely possible that many of the projects which might be customers cannot achieve lift-off because they lack a going concern IMC to complete their bankability study.

     

    Best would be the scenario that immeditely flashed across my mind, where they are built in tandem with a major corporation entering the rare earths picture from scratch, with a partnership with IMC a fundamental component of the business plan from the start.
    7 Dec 2011, 10:39 PM Reply Like
  • eggwis
    , contributor
    Comments (769) | Send Message
     
    TB,
    MCP hasn't really given us many reasons NOT to be doubtful of their claims IMO.
    8 Dec 2011, 02:41 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I disagree.
    If you have ever watched an industrial construction project before, and you think this thing is a few months away from the pictures I'd say you are ignoring information. I even think they know this thing is way into the future. The main construction has all been on the CHP (in particular two gas turbines were installed). This was done first even though Kern has said the gas line will not be approved till the summer.

     

    I think they are dragging this out to use the power from the gas and to allow Silmet's small cash flow to have enough time to fill their clear funding gap.

     

    http://seekingalpha.co...
    (Last Slide)
    8 Dec 2011, 09:39 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I agree with your take on MCP Chi. There are other ways to crank up the gas turbines early (tankers) should they choose to do so, but given that they won't be ready until after the line probably goes through, its moot anyway.

     

    Who are you disagreeing with?
    8 Dec 2011, 10:11 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    The comment is in response to egg say "MCP hasn't really given us many reasons NOT to be doubtful of their claims IMO." And in fairness to egg, Smith continues to say they are on time and on budget and he even said phase one construction completes in March in their last webcast.

     

    In any other business this should be what matters. The problem is with juniors "on time and on budget" is not the promise it sounds like. The definition for juniors ought to be more like: "We are working and we are not announcing an offering or delay at this time."
    8 Dec 2011, 10:23 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Chi, you might want to parse egg's statement again. "..NOT to be doubtful..." means he doubts their promises too, just like we do.

     

    I need another good cup of coffee, I don't know about you...

     

    I really like the "We are working and we are not announcing an offering or delay at this time" definition a lot!
    8 Dec 2011, 10:29 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I assume when you and VB talk about tankers you mean LNG right? It seems another approach would be way too inefficient. This also would require temporary equipment to convert the alternative fuel and the new industrial equipment would be running on a second fuel before converting to the pipeline later on. All of that seems not worth it especially when I see the CHP is by far the most advanced part of the Phoenix construction.

     

    Also, knowing California, I can't imagine they could do this without a sizable permit process that would make the whole approach pointless. Does that make sense?
    8 Dec 2011, 10:35 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » LNG would be an alternative, but so would CNG, which would require little in the way of extra gear or permitting. Pricing would be higher of course, but the decision would hinge on a lot of factors, such as the potential earnings or efficiencies gained by shifting load to the new facility. Either way, its a minor issue - I believe that they still have a considerable amount of work to do before this decision fork is reached.
    8 Dec 2011, 11:31 AM Reply Like
  • H. T. Love
    , contributor
    Comments (17297) | Send Message
     
    But until connection to the pipe is done, LNG is better because of transport cost vs. energy density of each load. The problem is that there's no liquifaction plants close by so the cost might be a wash.

     

    LNG should also be safer during and after/transport. But if you can't conveniently/inexpensi... get it on-site ...

     

    HardToLove
    8 Dec 2011, 12:27 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » CNG is not as energy dense, but its easily found, easily transported, and requires minor modifications to adapt the existing turbine plumbing for its use. It also will be easily permitted compared to the other options.

     

    LNG would make more sense if the anticipated time between pipeline access and startup was longer.

     

    Its all a number game. Move the timeline around and the numbers yield a different answer.
    8 Dec 2011, 12:38 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    Transporting LNG by truck would be the lesser choice so long as there is the possibility of a gas pipeline being built to the mine. There can't be any gas spills or leakages into the groundwater, in any case.
    http://1.usa.gov/sBvLIQ
    Perhaps Competitive Energy Services and Lyntek might be willing to offer more information about the construction projects by now.
    http://bit.ly/sXwDGq
    http://1.usa.gov/vUH5LJ
    http://www.lyntek.com
    8 Dec 2011, 12:40 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Thanks VB,
    But am I wrong to think California would have a permit process for those volumes of LNG use? My guess is they are stuck with the current So Cal Edision power and on the end of the grid till the gas line is in.
    8 Dec 2011, 02:36 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    I would think that since the mine is a large scale operation, they would probably need a permit for that specific purpose. I'll do some research or contact somebody and get back to you on this, chihawk.
    A couple of other nearby energy projects should help the Mountain Pass Mine increase its production during the next couple of years.
    http://bit.ly/viEyUX
    http://bit.ly/sHoTqN
    8 Dec 2011, 03:25 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Thanks VB.
    You do come up with a remarkable number of links. I appreciate all you offer.
    8 Dec 2011, 04:16 PM Reply Like
  • Valley Boy
    , contributor
    Comments (2192) | Send Message
     
    OK, on further review, it looks like MCP has that possibility covered given the current situation. They hold a certificate of reported compliance from the Mojave Desert Air Quality Management District, a hazardous materials certificate of registration from the U.S. Department of Transportation and have a necessary hazardous materials business plan filed with the County of San Bernardino.
    According to their Form 10-Q filed on Sept. 3, 2010 with the SEC, "California also may establish GHG (greenhouse gas) emission regulations pursuant to its Global Warming Solutions Act. If made effective, any such regulations could require us to modify existing permits or obtain new permits,..."
    Since MCP obtained all necessary permits for operating the mine on Dec. 13, 2010, any shipment by truck of LNG would probably only require modification of permits and- or more environmental monitoring of the activities.
    For instance, an air monitoring station might be added at the pass for stricter air quality enforcement.
    http://1.usa.gov/tubCav
    Or the company might have to monitor any spillage which would alter the hydrogeologic situation.
    http://1.usa.gov/tXIKF2
    But the possible situation is still a concern, environmental considerations aside. The same SEC document states that "If the co- generation power plant is not installed, or is significantly delayed, we will remain subject to the effects of occasional power outages and brownouts and could experience temporary interruptions of mining and processing operations..."
    Then there is the safety aspect. If the co- generation plant comes online with the desired natural gas, according to Form 10-K for the fiscal year ended Dec. 31, 2010, "We may be required to prepare a risk management plan in connection with the storage of ammonia for use at the planned co- generation power plant."
    Their current permits are good until 2042. But the permits would be subject to modification as the years go by. It is hoped that no permit will be revoked for what could be a successful example of bringing an old mine back to life.
    8 Dec 2011, 09:19 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    Heads up.... over on the SH board , someone who heard it straight from Jim said that there will be a webcast next week.
    Maybe they have something to say or maybe they are going to rearrange the deck chairs and say the same thing.

     

    On another note, some of the REE stocks are starting to look very very good. (AVL) is a great looking chart at the moment. A buy for sure. (LYSCF) looks good. Even (GWMGF) looks ok. (MCP) looks ok-- filled the gap here so this could be it on this down leg. Lots of shorts in that.
    I have to say, I am getting a little excited here.
    7 Dec 2011, 02:02 PM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    (GWMGF) According a poster on stockhouse Great Western will announce a webcast in the next day or so which will take place next week.

     

    If this is termed "Corporate Update" I think the writing is on the wall, JV finalization will weigh on the company into the new year.

     

    Best,
    Matt
    7 Dec 2011, 02:03 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » http://bit.ly/uNgEaB

     

    Here is the gist. Sounds defensive, and my reaction when the topic shifts from "where's the jv?" to "we have charts comparing us favorably to the stock prices of our competition" is to expect a lot of verbiage about everything BUT funding, joint ventures, and material participation by major customers.

     

    Depending on how this is all received by the long suffering faithful, it might even help a little.

     

    What I DO expect is a slippage as to when they expect to start building processing plants, or when those plants will start producing. Given that Lynas and MCP are both facing similar situations, we might even hear some bald honesty in this area, with 2012 turning into 2013, etc.

     

    I would love to be shocked with good news, but I don't expect it.
    7 Dec 2011, 03:02 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » http://bit.ly/ujdu8p

     

    Siemens/Lynas jv writeup. Not brand new, and I may have missed it here, so if anyone else already posted this, just ignore me.
    7 Dec 2011, 04:50 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    TB,
    I had not read that. It says much of what Lynas told us but it is of some value as it comes from Siemens. That's what I was hoping for is an article or comment from the GQD side to support the GW Head of Terms.

     

    I share your view of the Engdahl's webcast comments. I think the webcast idea is good as the silence is way too much right now. If GQD is dragging their feet and this thing is going past Chinese New Year (a season rapidly approaching after our holidays) then I see the webcast as necessary for investor confidence. No one likes the JV taking so long, but a good CEO puts himself out there when times get tough. That act alone would be a plus for GW IMO.

     

    I do think there is a risk the webcast is mostly puff based on the SH post. But if you own the stock you have to try to approach this with an open mind. I don't own them and I will still try to do the same.
    7 Dec 2011, 09:03 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    haha. Chi and I disagree again! Who would have guessed? I think GW should NOT have a webcast if they have nothing worth saying at this point. If they do- and they have nothing new to report (like JV, oven, drilling)- and they come out with "we are making good progress"- I think it is a mistake. It just highlights that they have nothing new to say. The silence is deafening - that I agree with- but to just get out there and say the same thing " we are working on it" with no details would not be of comfort to investors, imo.
    8 Dec 2011, 10:32 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Aqwert,
    Do we ever agree? What are you my mother-in-law under a different handle?:-)

     

    But seriously, if we assume this thing is pure puff and they answer no questions or concerns, you might be right. And I know I rarely give these guys a chance, but I really will try to be open minded. The list of potential catalysts is long enough and hitting even one target would help GW right now.

     

    I think something has been going on since the annual meeting. And in my mind even a summary of the last several months that says "we had a tough stretch, but 2012 will be better because..." would be a step in the right direction now. Right now the silence is too long and more of it is not going to clear the air IMO.

     

    Full disclosure: I love my mother-in-law. Just don't tell her.
    8 Dec 2011, 10:50 AM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    ok. that is certainly one way too look at it. And believe me, I would love for them to say SOMETHING. If they want to announce some drilling results or the oven is in great. But my fear is that they have nothing to say except "look at all we are going to do in the future..yay for us" and that is not going to be helpful. The stock is building a nice base here in the.5xxx s but it could also be a ledge to fall off of into the .30s. Since they have not announced it, they could still pull it. Which would then signal that they have nothing to say. Ok.... now I have convinced myself that they should hold one! haha...
    8 Dec 2011, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    I tend to agree with you aqwert from a "shareholder's" perspective, I see this as a disaster. On the other hand I guess they are trying to solicit new investors or the naive media with these types of events and keep their stock within these depressed ranges until they have something of value to say.

     

    Keep in mind we still haven't heard anything official and I would assume they would give at least a week lead time and would not hold it on a Friday, so we are close to being two calendar weeks away from any such event.

     

    Also, this is the first time ever that an email to Jim and Dwight has not solicited a response. Not sure what to read into it, but the big picture IMO seems to be adding up to be bleak.

     

    I am also thinking that if their is nothing new to share, those who took place in the recent placement - that went surprisingly smooth - are going to be on the call. My experience with these things is that while not inside information, aggressive forward looking statements are made to sell these offerings. Now whatever these investors were told, they are probably going to pretty upset and is Jim prepared to take their questions. Of course all just speculation.

     

    Best,
    Matt
    8 Dec 2011, 10:57 AM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    that is the problem with all of this Matt-- all of this is speculation. And clearly the sp performance leads to speculation that is negative. The street likes information. It can deal with alot but no one knows how to price this since there are no details. I know plenty of people who have stepped aside waiting for direction (and with Lynas too) . Obviously, I am kicking myself for not selling at .90 whatever. Not that I feel bad for holding GW but I could have 2x as much or I could have played other things. It is the lost opportunity cost that bugs me.
    As far as not hearing, I agree that is unusual. I don't know what to make of it anymore. I would love for it to be better than expected and totally worth the wait, of course.... but.....
    8 Dec 2011, 11:25 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    I say hold the webcast so we have something to talk about.:-) I mean Lynas is giving us nothing; Moly is full of it; and pretty much every other REE stock price is in the tank needing either funding, years or both. C'mon Jim, we're bored. Entertain us man. Hell, I'm down to reading annual reports.
    8 Dec 2011, 11:46 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Some things to think about while we all wait for the Malaysian government...

     

    Mt. Weld is the richest rare earth resource on the planet by my numbers. Such a resource is a fantastic foundation for any investment. And in the most complex mining business models I have ever studied I would say this basic fact grows in importance with each layer of complexity.

     

    I believe Lynas will be first with modern production of the critical rare earths. But I further see Lynas' Duncan Deposit producing significant Dy well before "heavy mines" and at a much smaller cost of production IMO.
    http://bit.ly/vLIM72
    (Table 5- Page 5)

     

    I think many forget with Lynas that the overall impact possible with the LAMP. Once it is ramped up, with all of Lynas' other project assets and the cash flow they will have, it will consistently be less cap ex, shorter timelines and greater production rates for Lynas to expand than for any other mine to start up. This may lead to consolidation as well.

     

    But what analysts keep missing in the Lynas/Moly stories is Moly has cash flow, but it is all committed to Phoenix right now. The cash flow is too small and it is all committed through Phoenix phase two in a best case view. And looking at Lynas LAMP construction photos side by side with Moly Phoenix suggests Moly may well be a year or more away with phase one. Industrial construction is complicated and will take much longer than what Moly says right now. I simply can't imagine how Phoenix construction is anywhere near the current promises.

     

    Lynas on the other hand, has richer resources, true full funding, and is nearly complete in construction to ramp up to 11,000 tpa. If that happens in Q1 2012 it is downhill sledding for Lynas while the rest of the companies are still climbing. So you can see how Lynas may have a big first mover advantage. Combine that with the delays I see in Moly and the challenges H2 2011 has thrown at Great Western and Arafura and this starts to look like a wide gap IMO.
    7 Dec 2011, 11:34 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    How low is rare earth sentiment right now? Tasman lists on the Amex and drops 5% today. Ya, Jeb is right, we are way overdo for a rally. Someone tell the market REE prices have been stable for the last month. Geez.
    8 Dec 2011, 10:59 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I'm still buying, though not TAS (yet) at this price.

     

    My view of the soft prices is that they are composed of two factors:

     

    1. Unsustainable levels which HAD to drop eventually, so long as there is ANY available supply.

     

    2. Additional supply flowing to the ex-China and China domestic markets from small rare earth producers gettting squeezed out of existance by the Cartel.

     

    It doesn't take alot of effort to add these two together and see where this brief relative abundance is likely to go away just as soon as those little guys close their doors or empty their re stashes.

     

    The market is still trying to treat the rare earth reality as a "normal" supply and demand market, with expectations of reliable supply matched closely with steady demand. The reality is that the supply is just about as unreliable as it can get, and the steady demand shows clear signs of continuing growth, not to mention doubling over the coming years.
    8 Dec 2011, 11:39 AM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9597) | Send Message
     
    PriceWaterhouseCoopers warns of ticking time bomb in REE supply chain.

     

    "The chemical, energy and auto industries are in ‘red alert’ over the future disruption of rare earth metals supply, according to PwC."

     

    Full article below, including which REs are on the red alert list:

     

    http://bit.ly/vn8imJ
    8 Dec 2011, 11:55 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Interesting read, Maya, many thanks.

     

    IAALF, MCP, Lynas, GWM, and many of our favorite ree/strat. companies passed through my mind as I was reading that...
    8 Dec 2011, 12:07 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Added IAALF, UURAF and MCP-A today, on the dip.
    8 Dec 2011, 04:25 PM Reply Like
  • Mayascribe
    , contributor
    Comments (9597) | Send Message
     
    Nice, TB. You're getting MPC-A for a lot less than I did. Well done!
    8 Dec 2011, 09:14 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    http://bit.ly/w248Fn

     

    Got this from Fatretter on SH.... the thing is that if you watch the lifton thing through, then is shows a bunch of other snippets from other people that are interesting to watch!
    8 Dec 2011, 12:42 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    from the poster at SH regarding Jim/webcast:

     

    Well I almost hesitate to post this reply from Jim with regard to the Webcast he suggested would be held next week. Last night I sent an email suggesting the substance of the Webcast needed to be comprehensive (as others on this board have suggested). Most specifically, the Webcast should contain specifics on the signing of the JV, drilling results, etc. I just received a reply ... which indicates they have decided to postpone a webcast, in favor of selected news releases. I understand their reluctance to piecemeal announcements from both a legal and from market sense, and I take some encouragement in his comment with respect to "given the material nature of current and expected events". Let's let this percolate some more and hopefully we will get some more clarity in the media releases they will be releasing. Here is Jim's reply to me:

     

    Hi Bill,

     

    I am following up on our email conversation of a couple days ago when I indicated we were looking at a webcast in the next while. Our company evaluates the opportunities to do webcasts on an ongoing basis. Every couple weeks, this comes up in our discussions - that is, should we look at doing a webcast to communicate to the market? That's how the four CEO Conference Calls that GWMG has done in the past year originated. We looked at this again, partly in light of the delay with the GQD announcement, and partly in light of initiatives that are proceeding right on schedule. We concluded that there are many significant and material events that will need to be announced. But it has to be in the right format, meaning that when events are material, they must be, according to securities regulations, announced to the entire market concurrently. A webcast doesn't fit right now as it puts the company at risk of selective disclosure. So, given the material nature of current and expected events, it is most probable that any announcements in the short term will be in the form of media releases to ensure full disclosure.

     

    Jim Engdahl
    President & CEO
    Great Western mineral Group
    219 Robin Cresc.
    Saskatoon SK.
    Direct line 306 659 4508
    Cell 306 262 4964
    Www.gwmg.ca
    8 Dec 2011, 01:01 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    sooooooo.....you can take that as they have nothing new to say. But he is right that they cannot announce news through a webcast (I presume he knew that already).

     

    any thoughts?

     

    if the stock bounces off that low, I would consider it a mild positive.
    8 Dec 2011, 01:03 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » So, issue the news releases and THEN hold a webcast to flesh out the news, and give the company the opportunity to hear the stockholders (and have to tell them that they can't comment on all those annoying questions because it would be against security regulations)?

     

    GWM has been trading in the $.40's again today.

     

    Euro fear and loathing surging again.

     

    http://yhoo.it/v4ytOa

     

    "...waiting, waiting... still waiting..."
    8 Dec 2011, 01:08 PM Reply Like
  • dallasmatt
    , contributor
    Comments (174) | Send Message
     
    Jim knew security's law yesterday and he certainly knows if something material is forthcoming. This sounds like nothing more than an attempt at providing a reason why no webcast is coming after thinking about the questions they would be fielding.

     

    Logic:
    A webcast was poorly received because it meant nothing material. Jim knows the laws. Jim knows about material developments. Would he ever suggested a webcast yesterday if something material was forthcoming?
    8 Dec 2011, 01:17 PM Reply Like
  • aqwert
    , contributor
    Comments (934) | Send Message
     
    Matt: exactly. I think they got tons of blowback about the "plan" and decided to cancel. The question is is when "material events" will be coming?
    8 Dec 2011, 01:29 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    Matt and Aqwert,
    I agree. I think you guys know your stock. I hope it works out for GW holders.
    8 Dec 2011, 02:42 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5045) | Send Message
     
    TB- Finally, Greenland made a decision regarding Uranium!
    Put Greenland Minerals back on your watch list!
    "In what is perhaps the most important announcement in the company's five year history, the Greenland Government in introducing a uranium licensing framework for Kvanefeld looks to have delivered a blue print for the company to move ahead with a strategic partner and ultimately move closer to heavy rare earths production."
    http://bit.ly/t8jLLE
    8 Dec 2011, 08:59 PM Reply Like
  • Jon Springer
    , contributor
    Comments (4152) | Send Message
     
    Greenland's population: 58,000

     

    Imagine the possibilities for a population that size if they have natural resource wealth that is capitalized upon.
    9 Dec 2011, 01:34 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » Thanks, OG. I have a thousand shares that have been languishing in the sock drawer which I will have to dust off...

     

    I recently posted a list of the stocks that I am tracking in this sector, and GDLNF is definitely still on it. My last buy target for the stock was $.44, but I would have to upgrade that price given this news. I would think that the $.55 price is now a good place for entry.
    9 Dec 2011, 09:16 AM Reply Like
  • jimp
    , contributor
    Comments (670) | Send Message
     
    Tasman's updated resource...

     

    http://bit.ly/tdTB9P
    8 Dec 2011, 09:44 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » TAS touched briefly on my $2.03 buy target yesterday, but I had no buy program in place. Now I do. I anticipate picking up some shares soon.
    9 Dec 2011, 09:18 AM Reply Like
  • RainH2O
    , contributor
    Comments (1354) | Send Message
     
    [LYSDY] vs LYSCF some days good some days not so good
    LYSDY annoys last day or two...trailing LYSCF
    LYSDY at 1.25 this am...LYSCF at 1.32
    Ask me another day...and the advantage/leverage may be reversed
    9 Dec 2011, 09:38 AM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I am slowing moving from LYSCF to LYSDY, particularly on days where I can sell LYSCF high and buy LYSDY low. When its the reverse, I don't do it. The arbitrage opp here is small, but real. I don't usually list these trades on this blog because they are inherently confusing.

     

    Today I added GDLNF, TAS, QREDF and GOLDF. Trades for now, though I anticipate adding GDLNF and TAS to core holdings in the future.

     

    Lurking for ARAFF, AXPW, IAALF, MCP-A, TAMO and UURAF.
    9 Dec 2011, 10:14 AM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    TB,
    I appreciate the Greenland Minerals news provided by OG. The news is good news, but do you think this thing will produce?

     

    I think the infrastructure cost and timeline make it a challenge. It is in a milder enclave in Greenland, but building the infrastructure, getting the labor, and getting the services to make this mine work are tough. The mine numbers are good but not special IMO. The size of the resource is the best news about it, but if Avalon and/or Quest beat them to production their size should not matter.
    9 Dec 2011, 12:21 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » I am treating it as a trade for now. I like it as a combined investment (uranium plus rare earths) more than just for rare earths, but that pushes it out beyond the inevitable recovery of the nuke industry plus the lag until Greenland decides to mine for it.

     

    I would think it might be a 2nd tier producer (past 2015+).

     

    It is one that, like QRM (which also has a strong Uranium portfolio if they ever re-activate it) offers more than just a rare earth pitch.

     

    I will want to start trading out of part (perhaps most) of these shares should it grow 20-30% or more.
    9 Dec 2011, 01:04 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5045) | Send Message
     
    Nuke industry is doing just fine. Even though Germany is planning on closing their reactors, the build out of new, safer nuke projects around the world is going full speed ahead, especially in China and emerging markets.
    This is not to minimize the China Syndrome effect in Japan ( lord knows what the long term impact will be), but the impact of the Japanese disaster did not have as much influence in stopping new projects from coming online as had been anticipated by the media.
    In the US, it has hastened the decommissioning of older plants and some permits for new plants were stopped dead in their tracks. Of course, now that the EPA is getting its tentacles around fracking and the nat gas industry, pretty soon we will have to resort to picking up sticks and chopping firewood because we aren't allowed to drill for oil or gas, run pipelines or mine for coal! But, that's the US, not world-wide.
    9 Dec 2011, 01:16 PM Reply Like
  • chihawk
    , contributor
    Comments (2099) | Send Message
     
    TB and OG,
    I can respect that view. I think (eventually) you guys will be right about uranium so the trade logic makes sense to me. The stock(s) are cheap and the downside seems minimal so I see your points. Good luck to both of you on it.
    9 Dec 2011, 01:24 PM Reply Like
  • optionsgirl
    , contributor
    Comments (5045) | Send Message
     
    If you take a look at a 3 year chart of uranium prices, you can see it hit bottom and has been rising steadily with lows that are climbing higher.
    http://bit.ly/tOu7iP
    9 Dec 2011, 01:39 PM Reply Like
  • ungawah
    , contributor
    Comments (895) | Send Message
     
    I'm still trying to figure out how LYSCF/LYSDY will work in the future. While LYSCF outsells LYSDY by 4 or 5 to one, I guess that will eventually reverse -- causing the LYSCF to be less valuable.

     

    ETrade seems a little unclear what is going on also.
    10 Dec 2011, 03:00 PM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Hi Ungawah-
    Yeah, I was wondering the same thing. Does anyone know of any other stock that has traded in two places like this? I'm surprised there is no mechanism to amalgamate the two.
    10 Dec 2011, 09:43 PM Reply Like
  • Mercy Jimenez
    , contributor
    Comments (1886) | Send Message
     
    Rain, ungawah, Freo, et.al.

     

    I recently had a deep dive conversation with a trader on Fidelity's international desk about the differences between LYSCF (which represents 100% of my current Lynas holdings) and LYSDY the more recent ADR listing for Lynas -- and this is what I heard:

     

    1) The spread differential between the two securities (on average) has not been a huge key driver in his opinion.

     

    2) The huge differential in volume liquidity is something some investors weight heavily in choosing one security over the other.

     

    3) Trading costs do carry a big differential because LYSCF trades are largely manual and the middlemen brokers can charge up to a $50 settlement cost in the transaction -- whereas LYSDY ADRs carry less expensive settlement charges because the transaction is more automated.

     

    4) An extra cost to factor into the LYSDY ADRs is an annual 1-2 cent maintenance charge per share annually. For shares which cannot net out this cost from dividends -- the investor sees this direct debit passed through on the account holding the ADR annually.

     

    5) Companies at their option can facilitate a conversion of shares held from one form to another (and from one listing exchange to another) by charging anywhere from 1-4 cents per share for the trouble of doing the conversion. His historical observation was that the amount charged tended toward the higher range when the individual share had a relatively higher price. He did not know if Lynas was facilitating this or not.

     

    I personally decided not to pursue this any further -- because in this volatile market I place an extraordinarily high premium on volume liquidity (#2 above) in case I want to get out quickly on any position I hold domestically or internationally (Friday's volume for LYSCF was 326,000 shares vs. 73,000 for LYSDY.) So for my own portfolio strategy (at this moment in time) it makes more sense to keep my LYSCF shares. But, I thought some of the details above may help others in arriving at their own conclusions for their own porfolio strategies.
    11 Dec 2011, 11:38 AM Reply Like
  • ungawah
    , contributor
    Comments (895) | Send Message
     
    MJ, thanks for the input. E*Trade didn't go into much detail. E*Trade also pointed out that it was less costly to process ADR orders, but since they don't charge me any extra so that's not a concern.

     

    Lynas had told me: "You will need to contact that broker / financial
    institution in order to convert your securities to LYSDY," but E*Trade didn't address that aspect.
    11 Dec 2011, 03:26 PM Reply Like
  • FreoDoctor
    , contributor
    Comments (112) | Send Message
     
    Thanks Mercy-
    Great input. FYI, I did contact Lynas IR and asked if there was any plan (or mechanism) to amalgamate the two and was told currently no plan to do so (and, as far as she knew, no mechanism to do so). That was a little over 1 month ago.
    11 Dec 2011, 07:21 PM Reply Like
  • tripleblack
    , contributor
    Comments (13440) | Send Message
     
    Author’s reply » http://seekingalpha.co...

     

    This REE insta is worn out, new one awaits!

     

    See you there.
    9 Dec 2011, 10:33 AM Reply Like
Full index of posts »
Latest Followers

StockTalks

  • REE/Strategic Minerals Concentrator, March 18, 2014 http://seekingalpha.com/p/1n9hd
    Mar 18, 2014
  • SIlver. (FRMSF.PK) up 8.50%, (SLW) up 7.16%, (GPRLF.PK) up 11.83%. Also (PLG) up 6.19% for the platinum group.
    Nov 4, 2010
  • Conviction picks this week: (NVAX) and (NATUF.PK).
    Oct 24, 2010
More »

Latest Comments


Posts by Themes
Instablogs are Seeking Alpha's free blogging platform customized for finance, with instant set up and exposure to millions of readers interested in the financial markets. Publish your own instablog in minutes.