Fri, Jan 30, 2015, 3:22 PM EST - U.S. Markets close in 38 mins.


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

Great Basin Gold Ltd. Message Board

forwardflash 281 posts  |  Last Activity: 55 minutes ago Member since: May 9, 2003
SortNewest  |  Oldest  |  Highest Rated Expand all messages
  • forwardflash forwardflash 55 minutes ago Flag

    It's 2/3rds not 75%. And it appears the Senate is 5 votes short of what they need to over ride a P. veto. I don't think there is a problem in the House. The article I read stated Congress voted 62 for and 36 against, it appears 2 didn't vote. Give the 2 votes to the pro's leaves them short by 3.

    One D. did say that if the R. gave them some things they wanted he would vote for it, if the R. give enough it is possible the pro pipeline could get a veto proof bill. However, like I have pointed out many times the Nebraska R. Pipeline Posse, has filed lawsuits questioning the Fed's authority to use Eminent Domain to seize private land from US citizens, for the benefit of a foreign corporation According to Mike Papantonio (Ring of Fire TV show, Free Speech TV), he says that does not meet in the Public's interest standard.

    From Wikipedia: "James Michael Papantonio (born October 24, 1953), popularly known as Mike Papantonio, is an American attorney and radio talk show host.[1] A prominent trial lawyer"

    Even if the bill passes with a veto proof majority, I can't see how the pipeline can be built before the legality questions have been settled, and that means it will probably end up in the Supreme Court, and if the right leaning Supreme Court rules in favor of a foreign corporation over the people of the US property rights, then all will see that we have serious problems with the integrity of the R. party, and maybe the next Occupy Wall Street demonstration will be much broader and maybe (now I'm dreaming), a Progressive Party will emerge, a party that will make the interest of the average US Citizen its only reason for being in existence.

  • The 63-32 cloture vote set the stage for passage of Keystone XL legislation later this week.

    Mr. Obama has vowed to veto efforts by Republicans to wrest control away from him on the long-delayed decision about the $8-billion project that environmentalists claim will spur development of some of the planet’s filthiest fossil fuels.

    Significantly, the vote was short of the crucial 67 – or two-thirds majority – needed in the 100-seat Senate to override a presidential veto.

    Keystone XL final approval remains far from certain, despite the new Republican majority in the Senate giving the party control of both Houses of Congress.

  • forwardflash forwardflash 21 hours ago Flag

    Dreamer, dream a little dream for me.

  • Reply to

    bad news about to end

    by pricepershare Jan 29, 2015 1:12 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 29, 2015 2:20 PM Flag

    If the Senate approves the Keystone and a bigger IF P. Obama doesn't veto the bill, then there is matter about Nebraska land owners who have filed lawsuits challenging the governments rights to condemn their property.

  • Reply to

    bad news about to end

    by pricepershare Jan 29, 2015 1:12 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 29, 2015 2:16 PM Flag

    The problem is more oil outside OPEC was being produced than the consumer could use, more than the Saudi's were willing to cut to offset the rising surplus mainly from US shale oil. When OPEC cut production to keep prices high they lose market share, put another way when they cut they don't have as much oil to sell, and other oil producing countries pick up their share of the market. The problem was to much oil not enough consumption.

    Putin is getting punished with low oil prices, but so are many other countries, to name some Saudi Arabia, United Emirates, Kuwait, Brazil, Mexico, Nigeria, England, Norway, Columbia, Canada and the US.

    From that list you should be able to see that more damage is being done to our allies than Russia. Low oil prices was brought on by to much oil not enough consumption, not a conspiracy to punish Putin..

  • Reply to

    When I walked by the vineyard

    by forwardflash Jan 27, 2015 8:26 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 11:35 PM Flag

    It is scuttlebutt from some of the people who work there, sometimes they prove to be correct other times they are not. According to the person I talked to the deal is suppose to be done, so I would say soon.

    That aside of course the real problem for most gold miners is the slump in the price, around fourteen hundred everyone was OK, anything above that was gravy.

  • forwardflash by forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 9:37 PM Flag

    The battle over land owners Vs Enbridge may hinge on Eminent domain. Ranchers say if they sell a right away, the laws leave them liable for oil spills. An example given was if a farmer drove a combine over the pipeline anytime after that event, if pipeline leak occurred the corporation could say the farmer would be responsible for the damage and or spill clean up, a farmer and his lawyer wouldn't have a chance against the battery of lawyers the company could unleash, and in every case the farmer would be financially ruined and the liability of a leak is passed down to the coming generations.

    According to Mike Papantonio (Ring of Fire, on Free Speech TV) the seizing of land by the government does not meet the standard of "it is in the public's interest", the interest is the corporation not the people of the US.

    In any event this has the Supreme Court written all over it. Funny that a case such as this is over property rights, R. want the government to take them away from the individual, the very thing the R. have claimed
    they were vehemently against.

    When money talks, the Right takes a walk. LOL

  • Reply to

    A Republican Plot ~

    by twoblackcats88 Jan 28, 2015 5:57 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 8:57 PM Flag

    I'm pretty sure BC was kidding, and that shows how sensitive you righties are LOL

  • Reply to

    Hedging Question

    by mad_mike_7 Jan 28, 2015 2:54 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 8:54 PM Flag

    I'm sure oil will go back up, but when is the question, I've been saying it will go up to around eighty bucks a barrel in about a year to eighteen months, but gold pushing aside there are a number of others that are saying the same thing, and I added that to the post, he was just one example of many. I would not discount the warnings about oil derivatives, despite the right wing spin that laid the blame on home buyers, the last great gw BuSh recession was caused by derivatives, and some were warnings about them years before they exploded..

  • Reply to

    pgh wizards

    by william_thomson34 Jan 28, 2015 3:39 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 4:25 PM Flag

    No doubt putting more money in the consumers pocket is a plus, but that isn't the problem. The problem according to some, is in our financial institutions. Oil of course as well as all commodities will get cheaper during a depression, but in this case price collapse may be a harbinger of a recession or even a depression, depending on how the powers that be handle it..

  • Consider a house purchased with a liar-loan, no-down payment mortgage. Since the buyer didn't even put any cash down or verify stable income, there is literally no collateral at all to back up the mortgage. The slightest decline in the value of the home will immediately generate a loss of capital.

    Now pile on derivatives, CDOs, etc. on the inverted pyramid of risk piled on the non-existent collateral, and you have the perfect recipe for financial collapse.

    Like home mortgages, oil has been viewed as a "safe" asset. The financialization of the oil sector has followed a slightly different script but the results are the same:

    A weak foundation of collateral is supporting a mountain of leveraged, high-risk debt and derivatives. Oil in the ground has been treated as collateral for trillions of dollars in junk bonds, loans and derivatives of all this new debt."

  • Reply to

    I am so bearish, I am growing fur!

    by forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 2:26 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 3:58 PM Flag

    I think it is pretty clear that some are predicting a market crash, which of course means people go bankrupt, which means they can't make their commitments, and like falling dominoes others to default.

    Like I said I'm not an expert on this, just repeating what others say, but I will say I think the doomsayers will be correct, just not sure of their time line.

  • Reply to

    Hedging Question

    by mad_mike_7 Jan 28, 2015 2:54 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 3:53 PM Flag

    Greg Hunter: Gold and derivatives expert Rob Kirby thinks crashing oil prices are going to lead to a 2008 style financial meltdown. This is not a maybe–a market explosion is going to happen in 2015.

    Kirby contends, “Oh yes, without a doubt, it will. It must because the income crude oil sales generate are used to pay the interest on the debt.”

    “If you have a mortgage payment of $5,000 at the end of the month and you only have $2,500, you have defaulted. That is the position they are in right now.”

    “We just need to wait for some coupon dates to come and go because these guys won’t have the money. They don’t have the income.”

    Kirby also thinks what is happening with oil prices being cut in half in a matter of months is no accident.

    Kirby explains, “I look at what is transpiring in the crude oil market as yet another engineered or financial trickery on the part of the financial elites. What this breakdown in the crude oil price is going to spawn another financial crisis.”

    “It will be tied to the junk debt that has been issued to finance the shale oil plays in North America. It is reported to be in the area of half a trillion dollars worth of junk debt that is held largely on the books of large financial institutions in the western world.”

    From the article: Rob Kirby: Oil Derivatives Explode In Early 2015

    That is just one article from one person, there are plenty more.


  • Reply to

    Hedging Question

    by mad_mike_7 Jan 28, 2015 2:54 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 3:43 PM Flag

    I'm not an expert on this and I hope someone with deeper knowledge will chime in.

    What I think could happen, if the worlds economy goes into the dumps and there is plenty of signs that it will, mainly due to conservatives insistence on austerity. Banks who bought the hedge's because they use derivatives that are highly leveraged up hundred times, simply put will not be able to pay their commitments. It is about the same thing that happened during gw BuSh regime, banks ran out of money, hence the loans from the FED to save them. This dove tails into the doomsayers predictions that 2015 or 2016 will be the year of the stock market crash, which of course will shrink the world's economy, and bring on a depression.

  • forwardflash by forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 2:49 PM Flag

    has delayed plans for a gas-to-liquids facility in Louisiana in order to conserve cash in response to tumbling oil prices.

  • n London after a trip to the World Economic Forum, he said that the Davos event had helped him understand that there is not just pessimism about the global economy, but worry.

    "There's this increasing fear of technology, information technology, artificial intelligence, robotics, 3-D printers, the internet and all these different forms," he said. Technology, he added "seems to be changing life in such a fundamental way and what it's leaving people thinking is 'where will I be in 30 years? Look how fast everything is changing now. Where will my children be? I want to leave something for them because they could be in terrible straits"

  • Here are four observations about this market:

    1. Institutions are not buying. Without big institutional support, this market is in trouble.

    Using the CCT, I can see that on the days the market goes up, institutions aren’t participating. This is reflected in the low volume numbers. Lack of institutional buying is bearish.

    2. There were more minus-1,000 NYSE ticks than plus-1,000 ticks. This demonstrates that the rallies are hollow and short-lived.

    3. The stock market is now at lower prices than just before the European QE was announced. Positive news has no lasting effect on rallying the market.

    4. The volume, the lower highs, and now the lower-price highs are all indications of a price pattern deterioration.

    Conditions today remind me of a speech I gave in February 2000 to some traders in New York. I was direct: “You who are in the stock market, get out now — you will get killed.” Two dozen people walked out on me.

  • Reply to

    When I walked by the vineyard

    by forwardflash Jan 27, 2015 8:26 PM
    forwardflash forwardflash Jan 28, 2015 1:47 AM Flag

    We'll see.

  • forwardflash by forwardflash Jan 27, 2015 8:26 PM Flag

    a grape told me Goldcorp will buy out ANV.

  • Nebraska's, "Pipeline Posse" who consists of plaid shirt wearing, dirt under the fingers, dyed in the wool red R., claim even if P. Obama approves the KXL, they can stop it by using US property right laws. Some have turned down offers of over four hundred thousand for their right away.

0.0011-0.0001(-8.33%)2:50 PMEST

Trending Tickers

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.