Wed, Jul 23, 2014, 2:40 AM EDT - U.S. Markets open in 6 hrs 50 mins

Recent

% | $
Click the to save as a favorite.

Southern Copper Corp. Message Board

SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • even if it goes back to 29 which i don't think it will depending on the price of copper .

  • Reply to

    Trading Volume, July 3

    by rnomava Jul 6, 2014 3:59 PM

    Copper demand is robust and warehouse storage numbers are very low. Also, rumors about Chinese break-down were slightly exaggerated, as it always happens with the rumors propagated around time of Chinese New year. Hint: China has vested interest to keep major commodity prices low.

    SCCO runs on positive momentum now and it can be sufficient to get in mid-to-high 30s around time of next earning release.

  • Reply to

    Trading Volume, July 3

    by rnomava Jul 6, 2014 3:59 PM

    It's nice to see that others notice these things.

    Higher than average volume actually started 7/1 and has continued to climb. Why? Maybe a leak in the BMO upgrade or maybe SCCO is just catching up to its peers.

    Whatever the reason, I'll take it.

  • No end in sight for bullish traders looking to capitalize on PETV

  • Volume of both SCCO and FCX was 150% of average on July 3. I would have expected volume preceeding a long holiday weekend to be pretty low. Someone besides you and me has decided its a good time to be buying copper.

  • Reply to

    Just sold

    by xcheesehead Jan 30, 2013 8:37 AM

    Great call cheesehead. I'm looking at your post 18 months later . I read some of your other posts and checked your call on MWE too. I wish I had your insite.

  • Reply to

    Mining tax stability in Peru

    by warmcamp Jun 21, 2014 10:34 AM

    New law proposes, besides other mining incentives, to limit EIS (environmental impact statement) approval time to 30 days. It takes now about a year to get such approval in Canada, and it can take longer than human life in U.S.

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    nope...pure measurable evidence...output from coal plants with modern pollution controls is CO2 and water...neither of which are detrimental (unless you are in the Al Gore pseudoscience doomsday death cult, lol). They fight tooth and nail because older plants are being forced to pay for pollution control upgrades themselves instead of being heavily subsidized like wind and solar, despite coal being a more abundant, throttleable and energy dense energy source. Low nat gas prices have also hurt coal as they don't need all of the expensive pollution control. Up until Obama, old coal plants have been allowed to be grandfathered in. But new build coal plants MUST have pollution control devices installed and this has been the case for quite some time. Engineering/physics background here...been studying this problem since the 80's. and have friends working in the clean coal research biz for the Chinese...Chinese smart and practical...American enviro-nuts well-meaning, ideological but DUMB. We will be a third world country within 50 years and the Chinese will rise again with our current course...watch.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    no...no he hasn't, the only thing that has got us off the "addiction" to foreign oil has been the oil companies fracking the tar sands in places like North Dakota and Canada. He continues to block offshore oil drilling in California, and environmental legislation blocking coal and making nuclear permit prohibitive continues to be a thorn in the side of energy independence. The fact of the matter was we were never "addicted" to foreign oil anyway, and it doesn't even matter if we were. Most of the foreign oil we import comes from Canada and Mexico anyway, not the middle-east, and a huge portion of our oil we use has historically always come from the US. The foreign oil bandwagon is a farce as is Obama.

    Sentiment: Hold

  • Reply to

    Not Looking Good

    by chuckkings May 1, 2014 9:33 AM

    It's fun reading some of these older threads.

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    Have you been living under a bushel basket?

    Obama has openly stated his intent to reduce coal as a source of fuel for U.S. Power plants. He even stated “this would necessarily significantly increase the cost of electricity” (look it up). His stated intent is to lower emissions but it's really to curry favor to his base environmentalists and get their dollars and votes. The unintended consequences are that China and India continue to build coal fired power plants at a rate of about one per week and gain a further competitive advantage on U.S. manufactures by virtue of lower coal and electricity costs. Since global warming is a global problem (and a myth IMO) what has Obama's position on U.S. coal fired power plants really done for this “global problem”?

    As to your statement that wind and solar are more efficient methods power generation ….. why don't you tell that to China and India so that can understand that they're spending billions on old less efficient technology or maybe, just maybe, they're not a stupid as some believe and they've done their own cost/ benefit analysis.

    Did you happened to notice that in late June Obama, by executive order, opened the door to the 40 year congressional ban of the export of U.S. crude oil? Some say the unintended consequences of this action could bring the cost west Texas crude more in line with Brent and result in higher gasoline prices in the U.S., higher profits for U.S. producers and lower margins for U.S.refiners. Ask yourself why would he do this when we still import more than 20% of our oil from people who hate us and help fund people who want to kill us?

    Obama is an empty suit and the people who tell him what to do are ideologues who couldn't run a car-wash. They do not have the best interests of this county at heart or …... they're just plain incompetent or worst evil.

    Always remember ….. it's an undisputed fact …... that before you can re-distribute wealth someone by virtue of their hard work, sweat, risk and ingenuity has had to earn that wealth. This then enables the government(s) to confiscate a portion of that wealth to give it to others who have not earned it. But alas, both the earners and the takers get one vote ….. if they're citizens. Which brings up the question why do non-citizens get ANY unearned benefits from our government?

  • CVSL improves growth potential with addition of Uppercase Living

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    Solar and wind will never be anything but a small add-on to the power system. Really just a pipe dream.

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    You're kidding, right.................

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    DAR......Your Idea is about 30 years to late.... Carter got this started back in the late 1970's on farms nationawide.........but has many set-backs(including Reagan that backed BIG OIL))

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    Condo, that is your problem, you are not "thinking"... I'm no Obama fan, but he has done more than any President to get us off the addiction to foreign oil ....like it or not, faacts are facts

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    You lost me when you blamed Obama for killing our coal fired plants.......coal and other fossel fuel are not the fuels of the future...sure we will alway have them, but its time to go to more efficient solar and wind prodution.......considering the cost of pollution and waste problems with fossel fuels, Solar and wind is already alot cheaper to produce

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    I think the idea that "modern pollution controls render it innocuous" is a bit of an overstatement. In addition the industry has fought and still fights tooth and nail to oppose any and all attempts to impose pollution controls, If they would stop fighting pollution controls and seriously attempt to clean up their act we would all be better off. Remember how hard Detroit fought fuel efficiency standards? what happened was they went broke and Toyota and Honda ate their lunch with fuel efficient vehicles.

    Ken

  • Reply to

    Efficiency

    by rogluther Jun 3, 2014 12:25 PM

    Already being done at feed lots and dairies

    Sentiment: Hold

SCCO
32.63+0.19(+0.59%)Jul 22 4:00 PMEDT

Trending Tickers

i
Trending Tickers features significant U.S. stocks showing the most dramatic increase in user interest in Yahoo Finance in the previous hour over historic norms. The list is limited to those equities which trade at least 100,000 shares on an average day and have a market cap of more than $300 million.