The information on this Website is not reliable and not intended to provide tax, legal, or investment advice. Nothing contained on the Website shall be considered a recommendation, solicitation, or offer to buy or sell a security to any person in any jurisdiction.
CEO.CA members discuss high-risk penny stocks which can lose their entire value. Only risk what you can afford to lose.
@DanO@CriticalInvestor Your handle says critical. I do the same :) It's just that as promised I will give them time to develop the project and then I will take another snapshot to see how it goes. In a couple of months most likely. Until then no comment.
@DanO$dbl released their PEA based on inferred. The press release only. The report follows (within 45 days). I don't like when they do that. Cos that are completely transparent and professional (and respect the investment community) would post the tech report right away. $idm is doing that for example. My opinion. If I will find enough info in the PEA I will comment/write about the water issue.
@CriticalInvestor@DanO Of course, but stating certain things and seeing the opposite happening afterwards shows the need for taking into account different scenarios/possibilities when you can't be sure.
@Brandon@DanO: it is commonplace to release the PEA results as a press release first and for good reason. The idea is that if a company knows the headline results of a PEA (which they will long before the report is finalized) they are basically obligated to make those results public as it is hugely material information and very risky to just sit on. This is not done out of disrespect for the investment community, but out of necessity under securities regulations.
@fl@DanO$idm announced their latest resource Jan 23, 2017 and filed the tech report on Mar 1, 2017. Last PEA was announced Jul 12, 2016 and filed Aug 25, 2016. Not exactly a fair comment toward $dbl...
@DanO@Brandon I understand the reasons but you can tell that they are holding onto it if they release it close to the 45th day. Why would they hold it? It's simple. To avoid scrutiny (if there are flaws) and get some traction on the market meanwhile. Using inferred in a PEA is OK. I highlighted that because they already have problems in trying to mine that deposit (hydrogeological problems) and those would only add to the cost. If you add the possible problems created by the PEA's accuracy level (which is +/-30%) to a low confidence level resource (inferred) and water problems (increased costs) then in some cases you'd get that the PEA is wrong. Not saying that $dbl 's PEA is wrong. We would have to study it first then provide an opinion. And we would also like to see how long it takes for them to post the report.
@fb@DanO I am struggling to understand what you're trying to imply. Reading what you wrote I can only interpret that the PEA could be wrong but since you didn't study it yet you don't know if it is wrong. "in some cases you'd get that the PEA is wrong. Not saying that $dbl 's PEA is wrong. We would have to study it first then provide an opinion."
@BrandonNo worries, @DanO. I'm talking at the next MIF which I imagine you will attend? Then sometime after I'm happy to run through everything with you. I'm pretty honest about the project's good and bad points, and like to think I'm fair about it.
@DanOOK. Outta here. Gotta help this guy with his #lithium + beryllium pegmatites. Over 10 Mt they say. Open pit & underground. I like beryllium. Gotta write something for him to help him market them. He sent me almost 40 pages. Btw if interested in diversifying into something like that let me know.
@Excelsior@lukejackson - I'd highly recommend reading over the piece that @DanO put out last year regarding Zgounder for $MYA.
I contacted the company via email and phone several times last year about these concerns and never got any response back, so I said Buh-Bye.... I don't want to be part of something that could endanger the downstream water supply of the locals, when the 3rd party consultants advised them to handle the clean up of the cyanide and they just threw a membrane over things. The consultant also recommended they recover the mercury fumes resulting from the processing of ore.
There are other #Silver and #Gold companies to choose from that don't have these concerns.
@tommy@DanO thanks for taking the time and sharing a bit of backyard history. Good disclosure feedback and I appreciate learning about your potential $MRL concerns. Dont agree with all of the conclusions but have a better feel for risks from reading your comments and enjoyed the writing. Margaux is still figuring out what they have and the best path forward. Significant work programs this Spring and Summer will help. Thanks again
@DanOI ran my Passive Solar Evaporation Ponds Lithium Production Calculator again this time by using $nlc provided data (report) of 2,000 mm/yr pan evaporation (i.e. according to a local study because they have not done one yet) and I added the elevation, brine density, final grade of 4.6%, I set the recovery at 60% and obtained 23.5 tonnes of lithium carbonate (LCE) per year from 1 ha of constructed solar evaporation pond. Which is close to their intended 25t LCE per year. For the rest you'll wait until I will make another assessment of their progress. #lithiumhttp://www.miningandmoney.com/solar-ponds-production
@DanO@HRA-Coffin on $adz "Turned out the government maps and previous references were wrong. They found brecciated limestone with widespread iron staining rather than the volcanics the govt. map said to expect. All the prior operators in the region, including Kinross, focused on a specific limestone unit and if they didn't see or expect that they ignored the area. Mark said they were partially guilty of that as well." That's exactly what happens most of the times. One or two govt geos do some regional mapping i.e. a few important traverses but they cannot cover the huge swath of land that they have to map so back in the office on the map they join (draw) faraway observation points/types of rocks in order to be able to produce the map. It is obvious that the map is not that accurate and you could still make good discoveries in between their traverses. Next Kinross or a jr look at the maps and say 'no, not interested because we don't see the target horizon that could host mineralization in there on these govt maps'. This is what it takes to make a discovery: a few prospectors that don't care about those maps and go in there against what it is perceived as general wisdom, or a junior co with an inquisitive geologist that generates targets and wants to see the ground for himself. This is exactly how Newmont has discovered the Carlin Trend deposits back in the '60s - read this piece http://www.miningandmoney.com/single-post/2017/03/30/Discovery-of-the-Carlin-Deposit In this case John Livermoore had to ask his Newmont bosses to let him go on the field for a few weeks to test the ground and his ideas. The rest is history. @HRA-Coffin: prospecting you say? I am interested to see that area. I'll open a channel to discuss a few things.
@DanO@teevee@ocotilloredux Block caving has its own share of risks and seismicity it's one of them. Newcrests' Cadia was shut after a minor 4.3 earthquake indeed. We don't know the damage if any (shouldn't be that much damage other than some equipment like conveyor belts, crushers that are being inspected for damage)) but I see that the workers were not hurt and were able to get into refuge chambers. The 1999 Northparkes, Australia airblast killed 4 workers (big chunk of roof collapsed in the void) http://www.mineaccidents.com.au/mine-accident/186/northparkes-airblast-1999 so the risks are real. This is what I wrote on block caving back in 2013 https://goo.gl/6Lt5i2 It was edited, shortened, might need to be updated but still some good info for investors. Cheers.
@ocotilloredux@danO@teevee Seismicity and air blasts in block caves are why I contend Rio Tinto will not increase their stake in Oyu Tolgoi until they see how the block cave is working there first in a few years time. They got burned at Northparkes and Palabora but have done well elsewhere with the method (Argyle Diamond, Grasberg etc.) The understanding of stresses and rock qualities is much better than it used to be but it is still not perfect. 4.3 is one of the bigger ones so, yes, it is prudent to conduct inspections of all infrastructure to assess the damage. Hopefully, things are OK. I have friends working there. We used to get the odd 2.5 bump in potash and it would make a heck of a noise underground and the farmers would call up complaining about their beds shaking but there was never any damage on the level since it was the Dawson Bay limestone higher up that was shedding stress. It did upset the workers though. #index~roughingit
@DanO2010 bush work. Cutting a path through impenetrable very old & 4-5 m tall alders. No one was able to see the veins (overgrown) and other types of gold, silver, polymetallic mineralization in over 30 years. Hope to get the funds and a few chainsaws/ppl/geophysical eqpmnt to get back there this fall and try my hand at it with my new geological model. Not my property. Private co. http://cdn.ceo.ca/1cfql79-alder.JPG+
@Brandon@DanO: working in that type of bush is a nightmare. Similar, but perhaps not quite as bad, is the buckbrush in Yukon. You knew it was going to be a bad day when your traverse took you below tree line and into that crap.
@DanOSecond that Vancouver Island thing. Got more bruises hiking 2 hrs thru that rain forest than in a month or two hiking in the interior. Step on those rotten logs and things that you cannot see being masked by vegetation and you're sinking and your ankles would be hitting god knows what. And humid like in a good old deep mine - see pic. That's sweat not rain drops http://cdn.ceo.ca/1cfs855-Vanc%20Isl.jpg+
@drilltracker@Brandon et al. I often found the transition between the tree tine and the bush the worst. 1983 at Trapper lake fly camp with young Gernot we were soil sampling compass lines that were put in over a magnetite scarn. If we ever found the lines, we had to crawl down through 5-6 feet of juniper to try to scratch out a bit of soil out of the surface (no decent B horizon). All the time also in the transition zone between black bears and grizzlies. I have to agree with @Dano, west coast salal forrest in a pick up stick array of deadfall is brutal.
@DanO@adz I talked to Mark on Fri. I talked groundtruthing as you cannot drill blind targets w/o trying to figure out the reasons for the existence of those geophysical anomalies. He has already done that on many of his targets. Some of the targets are atypical maybe. I will talk to them again at MIF. By then I will know more about this project as I will read a few more things. Anyway exciting times ahead for $adz.
@DanO@stargate2 On $nrn. I have never bought they hype. It was an if. A big IF. When I finally had some time on my hands I had a look at their projects and BEFORE $nrn releasing their drill results (at top of the craziness) I published this https://goo.gl/NwjQxF As you can see my geophysicist friend I do not believe in Idefix (i.e. developing a mine there). A few better intersections maybe. But you recommend it. Good luck with it.
@Stargate2Not a bad write up @DanO...Still, from our perspective, Idefix is being modeled as having more capacity to be a pure PGE play rather than a massive sulphide story, with supporting evidence coming our own system returns.
@Stargate2Not a bad write up @DanO if i say so myself...Still, from our perspective, Idefix is being modeled as having more capacity to be a pure PGE play rather than a massive sulfide baseline setting with supporting evidence coming our own system returns over the region. Lac des Iles model comes to mind here.......
@DanOGave @drilltracker a couple of thumbs up. I think the same. Listen, you drill and you find something. You're happy and finish the 1st year on a high note (sp, easy to raise capital). You owe it to your shareholders to do met work no later than the second year. Why raise and spend more money (drilling etc) on something that cannot be economically recovered? You have to find that out ASAP. If you're not doing that AND you are dealing with a type of deposit or mineralization that might pose problems down the road then this is a big red flag imo. This is a general comment. I have not have a look at $CZX.