but as per the norm, the 'devil is always in the details'
CBMM can produce NB FAR cheaper than can NioBec, much less CBMM 's MUCH higher grade purity
and same considerations apply to an eventual mine operation at Elk Creek
as for scandium (Sc) deposits at Elk Creek, while certainly a positive, the Alaska REE site owned by U (uuraf) Core not only has more Sc deposits, as well as other HREEs (far more valuable than LREEs), but both Alaska gov and well as some federal agencies like the DOD are now supporting with $ UCore's Bokan property site
and to that add U Core's proprietary 'separation technology' for REEs, tested and proved to be produce more than 99% (!) efficiency
one other consideration per future SP direction, etc.- one reason for being positive about Nio stated by the CEO was China will need to markedly upgrade the quality of its produced steel
but China already, as of 2011 anyway, owned 15% of Brazil's CBMM, so why would they have reason to buy Nb from Elk Creek?
another rationale offered by Nio's CEO, was that Elk Creek is the only U.S. source of Nb. OK, but already at least 50% of any mined product for next 10 years goes to the Germans--and apparently (?) undisclosed is what price discount for sale of Nb Nio had to give in order secure that contract
Things to contemplate, anyway
More on possible ongoing volatility, in response to 3-18-15 posting by rkf302
Nb's prime application of course is for steel. But demand for steel, esp. in the oil drilling industry, is significantly down, with some reasoned projections that this trend will continue into 2017.
U.S. steel makers are getting creamed vis a vis cheaper foreign imports.
One sig. foreign exporter of steel is Brazil
Brazil of course has the lion's share of Nb reserves, much less with by far the greatest purity, circa 3.5% or more. it also has the lowest production cost due to the 'lay' of the Nb reserves.
In short, and as witnessed by the recent quick and hyper run up in niobf's SP, soon followed by a quick plunge of almost 45%, seems there has been way too much 'irrational exuberance' regarding the immediate-to at least mid-range- SP prospects of NioCorp, e.g. one poster a few weeks back fantasizing about a SP like the almost $80 once hit by MCP, which now trades below a dollar?
Just my personal opinions, naturally.
Only a real genius like this guy could manage to 'run' this company into the ground.
That is, the SP is rapidly approaching the low of .53 hit in 2008 during the center of the economic malaise.
Thus, more than six years into a big bull market Ragin' Russ has nonetheless come up a wee bit short.
Seems to me that a (or perhaps 'the') key reason for the appreciable plunge in the SP following a recent prior 4-day period when the SP essentially doubled relates directly to the very short hold period on the priv. placement (p.p.)shares
if I recall correctly, the first p.p. shares offered last year had a hold period for Canadians of less than 4 mos. And I believe that scant holding period also applied to the 2nd 2014 p.p. (Whereas Americans are subject, I'm pretty sure, to a minimum one year holding period.)
In brief,, structuring p.p. offerings with such a short period requirement for holding shares clearly encourages short-term trading of shares, as opposed to investing longer term. And that most evidently is what has occurred since last Friday.
So.... if indeed another p.p. is in the offing, presumably the same short-term holding requirements will be in effect--potentially 'great' if you're a p.p. participant, but not so good for those who want to hold shares long term, IMO.
vol. up in Canada, as ncu.to, though, currently per Yahoo anyway, about 133K shares traded
whereas in U.S. a nevdf, a paltry 16K or so--but at least appreciably more than typical daily vol
and probably the same day you bought 'under $1.10,' I tried buying just a few K shares circa 1.10-ZIP
no doubt V' took' H's shares--LOL
One other response to your question, t.h.a.d., clearly implying that a CEO would never ":respond to s shareholder's" email.
Going back just a few years, when the current Pres. of NioCorp occupied instead the CEO spot-- AND at a time when the SP regularly ranged between $.10-$.13 (sound familiar to enzr?) he also had no problem while functioning in that corporate capacity to responding BY EMAIL to shareholder inquiries, comments, etc. Capeche. slick?
I never concluded that one Tesla bear must of necessity be correct in his prognostication. While he predicts a plunge to the $70s, other analysts have a price target circa $280.
My obvious question was that 'if" Tesla's sales decline, and thus a contended commensurate significant drop in the SP, what effect, 'if any'--regarding the overall market demand for graphite to use in making electric batteries--would such a circumstance have on the SP prospects of enzr. Capeche?
Hardly. I'm long the stock in the six-figure territory.
More to the point, I was simply commenting on the expressed frustration of others who had emailed and never received any kind of response. I for one have never sought to contact this CEO. Capeche?
Also, I'm always fascinated by certain posters who automatically construe questions posed/comments made as necessarily indicating 'bashing.' Get a grip.
Lastly, there are indeed corporate 'higher ups' who DO respond--much less consistently-- to shareholder email inquires or comments, e.g., Pres. of NioCorp. I've ALWAYS received responses to inquiries, and promptly at that.
Seemingly positive that SP (ask anyway) has now exceeded the prior 2014 high of briefly reaching .73
hope may be the key word-- for three X previously after the SP hit .70 or slightly above, we saw the SP plunge into the .40s area, twice near .40, the other time circa .47. The last drop precipitated by the announcement of a planned #$16.5 mil private financing. And that factor in my main concern. That is, what happens to the SP if and when presumably really significant share dilution occurs as a result of some type of mine financing arrangement
re: vol. today in Canada down from yesterday's 330K shares (for NB.V)--Yahoo shows current vol of about 110 K, whereas if one goes to the Canadian exchange site, it shows current (with 15 min delay) vol traded today of about 217K
Two short points. I recall posting, with not so enthusiastic thoughts, when the company declared it'd increase the # of available shares by almost double- to something like 660 mil. If I recollect accurately, you responded with words akin to: 'just means they have more shares to sell (to interested investors). Well, the co. has clearly has been doing just that, except for progressively lower prices. Seemingly not a positive indicator for the future?
Second, I see that some B of A 'analyst is 'predicting' a SP crash for Tesla. Anybody care to chime in and offer an opinion as to the overall importance of Tesla to the future business prospects of enzr?
well, as you have already determined, the price 'shares' via the 'private financings' keep going down
converting from $.12 Canadian to U.S $ put them circa 9.5 cents
whereas, the one announced (right after the very brief run to about .25 U.S last year) was something like $.14 (U.S. was it not?)
so hardly encouraging, to say the least, coupled with the evidence 'disinclination' of the CEO to respond at all to questions you and others have recently posed
in short, UGH!
Do you perhaps recall how many 'wait til next Q' assurances Russ et al have released? With this outfit is just another version of Beckett's 'Waiting for Godot.' Or perhaps even more applicable, the Myth of Sisyphus by Camus, as the long projected pattern of 'profitable Q after Q' courtesy of the fabulous Gibraltar 'upgrade' has gone the same way as Sisyphus repeatedly trying to roll that ball up the steep incline, only each time the ball returns to the bottom point!
No one of course should doubt management's commitment to bring Elk Creek to the production stage of development
However... let's keep in mind some fundamental realities
1. On 9-3-14 the SP closed at .71. Then soon came the announcement of an intended $16.5 mil private placement, to be facilitated by Mackie. Some investors obviously were not thrilled by the anticipated share dilution by means of the then largest amount to date priv. financing deal.
2. By October 15, 2014, the SP had plunged and closed that day at .43.
3. Mackie itself, in the end, was only able to attract about $6.5 mil (excluding what (primarily) CEO Smith ponied up, plus $ from the sale of other NioCorp property which included provisions for that buyer also to participate in the priv. financing--and in the end, the goal of $16.5 mil came up short by about $6 mil.
Most recently, in consecutive days, the co. announced that Mackie first anted up about $1 mil, then the next day another $900K or so. Thus, in all, about $13 mil in priv. financing has been generated since beginning in the fall of 2014.
4. This figure pales, though, in comparison to the anticipated between $300-400 mil needed to construct the Nb mine. And whether--or if-- that needed capital comes from more priv. financing, debt loans, or a combination thereof, one has to ponder what the possible impact--at least shorter-to-intermediate-term-- will be on the SP courtesy of presumed share dilution and the likely concomitant drop in the SP.
5. Just something to consider before expectations become too excessive.
Up vol. today, and brief move on ask to .13, but back circa 10 cents
evidently announcement deemed total 'ho-hum'
Thanks for your post info
given that the transaction was "private as opposed to open market buys,," that means even less to me
at what price and possible added 'considerations?
too, appears to be just another person ponying up more bad $ chasing the already bad $ , as SP continues to drop
One other point, V. I don't deem total trades (buy and sell) of 1.2 mil at a SP at or a few cents below $.80 is particularly significant-- just my opinion
and that was about one month ago
too, evidently one this one fool has been buying?
too, isn't this the same genius who has been plunging into the shares before while spending MUCH more $, and all the while the SP continued to drop like a proverbial hot rock?
or to cite the tried and true phrase- good money chasing the bad?
Or perhaps the better question to ask is: what have they not yet realized--or still refuse to accept-- about this dismally run company?
Or maybe they are hoping for some EPA approval per Curis, but neglecting to keep in mind where in the world will Russ and his corporate minions get the projected nearly $300 mil for a mine, added to the current 1/4 BILLION in debt--OR the fact that of the to-date total financial bust of the $300 mil 'sunk' (pun intended) into the misnamed "upgrade" at Gibraltar?--etc..
But hey, expressed loopy-based hopes' for a SP turnaround are always out there- and buena suerte to those who do so
or also, possibly Russ et al, using some of their stashed $ ripped off from 'outside' shareholders have been buying for any number of devious reasons?
only thing for absolute certain is the SP is LOWER than it was SIX years ago at this same time and before the bull market that commenced in March 2009 had begun