Recent

% | $
Quotes you view appear here for quick access.

Thompson Creek Metals Company Inc. Message Board

SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • Reply to

    Interesting climate change views

    by centoh14 19 hours ago
    jimclancy464@rocketmail.com jimclancy464 3 hours ago Flag

    You are a smart guy. Science mag is a very tough read. Not necessary the synopsis, but the body of info sure is. The boobs, you know the ones I mean, on this board have no shot. That is why only 5% of PHD scientists call themselves conservatives. People are usually conservative because they are simple. Simple.

  • Reply to

    Interesting climate change views

    by centoh14 19 hours ago

    "Finally, there is a A LOT of money and fame to had in supporting the current narrative."

    Perhaps. However, isn't it just as true that there is a lot of money and fame to be made in disparaging the current narrative, no?

  • Yes, they are quite criminal.

    Look at the scam they pulled last year with base metals........

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • "While Tuesday’s bond offering was small, at SFr250m ($257m), it indicated that sentiment towards the mining sector was improving as raw material prices rebound. In recent months, most miners have been focused on buying back existing bonds at depressed prices rather than issuing fresh debt."

    ==========

    Let's hope TC is included in that bunch........

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • It's not that you can't trust the Chinese, but you can't trust the Chinese. It's their culture going back literally thousands of years. Everyman for himself. The communist party has just subverted that culture to be every Chinese for China, and the rest of the world can suck grapes. Which is why I shake my head over these American companies falling all over themselves for Chinese "joint ventures" with local Chinese companies. They will be "partners" in name only, and only as long as it suits their "partner", OR the Chinese government.
    Compounding that problem is the fact that the Chinese are the ultimate entrepreneurs in spite of their communist government. Thousands of years of Chinese "anything for a buck" mentality and culture (with ZERO regard for foreign rule of law, and little regard for what Chinese regulations there are) cannot be supplanted by a few decades of communist rule.

    As of 2010, a mind blowing 70% of ALL seized counterfeit goods are from China. It's higher in the U.S., where 87% of the seized counterfeit goods are of Chinese origin. And both the percentage AND the raw volume INCREASE each year.

    In 2010, the EU seized a paltry $161 million in counterfeit goods, and the US seized a whopping $155 million.

    HOWEVER, that was against the UN's total value of ALL counterfeit goods imported into the US and EU from East Asia (the bulk of which come from China) which was believed to be on the order of $25 billion annually (back in 2010).

    The markups are tremendous, the effect on the Chinese economy is huge (there are entire towns and cities that live off counterfeit goods in China), the losses to legitimate companies is astronomical and the Central Govt enforcement is token and strictly for foreign optics.

    Their vaunted crackdown on corruption is mostly for internal Chinese optics. They want to appear to be tough to show control of the party and not let that control slip but it is VERY selectively enforced.

  • Reply to

    Interesting climate change views

    by centoh14 19 hours ago

    I think you're mixing up a few things here. NOAA completed their studies before the Paris summit, and those findings have been released - search for "Possible artifacts of data biases in the recent global surface warming hiatus" as published in Science magazine. The study presents the data showing no "pause" in warming and if you wish you can review the data, the methodology and subject it to your own modeling. What has not been disclosed are the personal emails of the scientists who authored the study.

    If I show you that X + 1 = 4 and state that I believe that X = 3, you can take that data and either verify the result or not - it stands on it's own. Whether or not I may have sent a personal email saying "This is a tough problem" or "I'm not sure my answer is correct" or "Did you get the same number?" is irrelevant to the model and the conclusions. Congressman Smith's request is little more than a fishing expedition which while certain to titillate some, is irrelevant to the issues raised by the study.

  • Had heard about arsenic in their concentrates. I think they are an outright bust on moly.

    There was a time about two years ago when the media was shrieking that this operation would produce "20mm lbs. of moly". I traced this to a misconstrued reference in a Toromocho business plan that was published by the company saying the total weight of the moly concentrate would be 20mm lbs. Not necessarily the moly contained in that concentrate. The media ran with it anyway.

    Their forecasts in the Comp Person reports never had moly output much north of 12-13mm lbs. They aren't even close to that in reality. Less than half and falling. I'll take it.

    Fears of new by-product supply were always a bust. Only saving grace for that hyperbole has been the slump in demand from energy sector. Had oil not been cratered in '14, ......moly would be on fire with or without FCX cuts or SGC.

    At this point, moly demand for steel used in energy sector has probably bottomed, so barring a sharp worldwide recession, I don't see moly demand falling further. Now it's just a waiting game.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Appreciated. Good to know.

    I watch China Moly that way, but didn't think to look for Chinalco on HK listing. Thought they were only an Shanghai A share. Real tough to get good data on them. Thanks.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Hmmmmm

    by privatesurfing12 8 hours ago

    FCX is down 11% on the day too. Traders are back to their 'CHINA COLLAPSING' spin again, taking oil, base metals commodities down across the board.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Interesting climate change views

    by centoh14 19 hours ago

    jimclancy464, ask your son-in-law if the attached statement has any merit?

    "Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent!"

    The above was extracted from the following:

    The most suspicious “97 percent” study was conducted in 2013 by Australian scientist John Cook — author of the 2011 book Climate Change Denial: Heads in the Sand and creator of the blog Skeptical Science (subtitle: “Getting skeptical about global warming skepticism.”). In an analysis of 12,000 abstracts, he found “a 97% consensus among papers taking a position on the cause of global warming in the peer-reviewed literature that humans are responsible.” “Among papers taking a position” is a significant qualifier: Only 34 percent of the papers Cook examined expressed any opinion about anthropogenic climate change at all. Since 33 percent appeared to endorse anthropogenic climate change, he divided 33 by 34 and — voilà — 97 percent! When David Legates, a University of Delaware professor who formerly headed the university’s Center for Climatic Research, recreated Cook’s study, he found that “only 41 papers — 0.3 percent of all 11,944 abstracts or 1.0 percent of the 4,014 expressing an opinion, and not 97.1 percent,” endorsed what Cook claimed. Several scientists whose papers were included in Cook’s initial sample also protested that they had been misinterpreted. “Significant questions about anthropogenic influences on climate remain,”

  • China stats bureau halts some commods data amid probe
    Reuters
    Tue May 3, 2016 2:03am EDT

    Excerpts:

    China has suspended the release of output data for several key commodities amid a crackdown on the illegal sale of state statistics by government officials, raising further concerns about transparency in the world's second-largest economy.

    With Chinese economic growth at a 25-year low, the lack of such data makes it increasingly difficult for economists to gauge the strength of local demand as Beijing tries to avert a faster slowdown.

    Key monthly output numbers for several oil and metal products over the first quarter have still not been published, and the National Bureau of Statistics (NBS) has also failed to release regional data for products like coal, steel and electricity since the turn of the year.

    Officially, the NBS only releases a few key commodities statistics through its website (www.stats.gov.cn), though more detailed numbers have been made available through unofficial channels, including third-party distributors and industry consultancies.

    Most of those numbers have now dried up after China's corruption watchdog, the Central Commission of Discipline Inspection (CCDI), launched a probe into "disciplinary violations" at the NBS last October.

    The bureau head, Wang Baoan, was removed from his post in late February after being put under formal investigation.

    CCDI said last week that hundreds of staff working for the statistics bureau had been using official data for personal gain.

    It said "individuals were not permitted to receive any royalties, editorial fees or labor fees" for the publication of NBS data, and 313 officials were now in the process of being indicted.

    An official at the National Bureau of Statistics said the data releases had been "temporarily suspended", adding that it was likely that the amount of data made available to the public would be restricted.

    ========

    No doubt selling non-public info to hedge funds in China.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Interesting climate change views

    by centoh14 19 hours ago

    centoh14, took a look on youtube, that was a funny, thanks.

  • Reply to

    Hmmmmm

    by privatesurfing12 8 hours ago

    Nope, 350% increase in 6-7 weeks, 10-15% fall back. not bad, not bad at all.

  • One further note, in their 'moly commentary', they dropped their reference to "other projects' in Q1 (p. 30) as well.

    Probably because Constancia has no operative moly circuit (they were supposed to be producing up to 3.6mm lbs. by now) and Las Bambas likely won't produce any moly this year since the construction of it's circuit is not complete, and when exactly it's going to be operable isn't entirely certain. They'll have other fish to fry this year at Las Bambas instead and won't have time to dork around with moly, honestly.

    Someday, SCCO will drop reference to Toromocho and Caserones moly "supply", as being any real "threat" to the market.

    On another note, SCCO believes the 800k mt announced production cuts to the planned copper industry worldwide, will offset all the incremental planned production from Buenavista, Las Bambas, Torromocho, and Cerro Verde this year, and they doubt some ramp-up will go according to plan. First time any major copper miner has admitted that before. Have to give SCCO some credit for that one.

    Wonder if Buenavista is on their short list....?

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Carl:

    Buenavista moly additions won't flood the market. Grades for moly at site are low, too.

    In 2010-2012, the operation produced no moly. In 2013 they completed a re-build of their old, defunct moly circuit (after having idled it for a number of years), and started producing moly again at site.

    Design capacity for this rebuild was supposed to be around 2,000 mt/ annually. Production was small in 2013 as they were starting up this new line, but by 2014, Buenavista produced almost 4.9mm lbs. Output backed off in 2015 to about 2.1mm lbs.

    The new Buenavista mill adds 2,600 mt annually in theoretical moly output to the operation, or about 5.7mm lbs. annually. In theory, of course.

    That's not going to cause any lasting impact to the supply/demand balance of the market, esp. since moly grades are slipping (reverting back to reserve avg.) at much larger moly by-product producer, La Caridad, and Buenavista avg. moly grade is low.

    Output is slipping at La Caridad, and will also trend down at both Toquepala and Cuajones in Peru (all things being equal) after a period of experiencing higher grades in 2014-2015. Any meaningful growth in SCCO moly output is over for the next several years, and they'll struggle to keep overall moly output stable. They are guiding overall moly output down, out to 2018 by almost 4mm lbs. (from 2015 levels), irrespective circuit capacity additions to Buenavista.

    As for the present, SCCO had added this to their commentary on molybdenum shrieking in their recent Q1 release (p. 30):

    "Even though the current scenario for molybdenum prices is not positive, it is important to note that we have had three quarters with market deficits in molybdenum. This has given support to its price at a level slightly higher than $5.00 per pound."

    They still reiterate 'shrieking' (their 'outlook') about more supply coming from Buenavista, Sierra Gorda, Toromocho, and Caserones.

    Only SGC will produce anything real.

    The swamp still drains....

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • You can get information about the operation from the Hong Kong securities exchange. They have a similar reporting system as SEDAR. The companies report on a semi-annual basis not quarterly. The level of disclosure is not as good as in the Western world but it's not bad.
    They have issues with zinc and arsenic in copper concentrate but I think this will impact profitability more than copper output.
    They will have a hard time going over 37 mtpa of throughput. The moly issues are significant and the moly prices are low so there's no incentives to fix it. They have a note about this in their latest disclosure. They said they hired a Chinese company to fix this. My take is moly output won't ramp-up quickly or at all.

  • Ok, good to hear some doubts about them.

    Toromocho's production schedule, as part of their 'Economic Analysis' [part of their Competent Person's report] (for whatever that's worth) has them producing around 225k mt in the first five years of operation (if that is to be believed). It actually goes up in yrs. 5-10, to about 250k mt before tailing off. All with about 43mm tpa to mill. Not that I necessarily believe any of their forecasts, but it's what was written. Good to know you feel otherwise.

    I know past stories in the media about their presumed moly by-product was certainly hyperbole (20mm lbs.), and their forecast numbers looked optimistic, too. They have not produced (moly) at even a half of those forecasted levels since commencing operations in late 2013.

    Yes, they are putting in a mill expansion. Supposed to be 45% bump to output, but it won't be complete until 2018, thereabouts. That got approved by Chinalco late last year, apparently, supposedly. When works starts ? Who really knows outside the operation.

    They have some grade issues so far this year, it appears, but beyond MEM output data, real news on this operation is hard to come by. Reports are they threat their employees poorly. Much has been written about Chinese companies in Peru's media recently, but little else. So who knows what's going on, the only thing that is known with certainly is their production stinks for 2016. And for that, I am pleased.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

  • Reply to

    Gold

    by do_lo_when 6 hours ago

    I know he doesn't pick the horse that just plopped.

  • Reply to

    Gold

    by do_lo_when 6 hours ago

    Speaking about betting and horse races, which horse does Do like in the Kentucky Derby?

  • Reply to

    I had a dream!

    by gatr55 May 2, 2016 12:00 PM

    Milken was blamed for some of the blowouts in the S&L crisis, along with the failure of a few insurance companies. Some (not all) of those S&L's loaded up on Drexel-floated paper, and Drexel caught a lot of flak for it. But most S&L's just got hit with bad loans in the Sun Belt. Wall Street had deep connections, and Drexel was a bit of a cocky upstart, who didn't have deep connections. They were not liked, hence they had few political friends, so the SEC hammer came down hard on them. It was the fines on the firm that pushed Drexel over the edge, not the insider trading charges against Milken, personally. That was 'just icing on the cake' to create the villain, as the regulators had their marching orders to punish Drexel directly.

    A roommate from college who I kept in touch with after, worked for them from '87-89, at their CME desk in Chicago. Drexel was active there too, and used to sell 10 yrs. bonds to hedge their inventory of junk debt they underwrote, and were holding in inventory while they were trying to sell off. The activity was really designed to give Drexel a credit to offset the out-of-pocket on underwriting while debenture inventory was held, and allowed them to capture the net interest spread.

    Sentiment: Strong Buy

Must Watch