SI
SI
discoversearch

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor.  We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community.  If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

   Gold/Mining/EnergyMcEwen Mining


Previous 10 Next 10 
To: wolfgangrene who wrote (14046)12/21/2015 4:17:06 PM
From: wolfgangrene
   of 22897
 
Maybe that NV property has something lighter than precious metals lurking under ground.
Hope there are no smoking signs up everywhere.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: JW@KSC12/21/2015 5:06:25 PM
1 Recommendation   of 22897
 
AFGAN-KOBE PROPERTY DESCRIPTION and NI 43-101 TECHNICAL REPORT FROM 2011

Afgan-Kobeh

Overview The Afgan-Kobeh project is located about 28 miles northwest of Eureka in Eureka County, Nevada, and consists of 109 unpatented lode mining claims. These claims cover an area of approximately 2,180 acres in all or portions of Sections 17-20 and 29-32, T22N, R51E, Mount Diablo Base and Meridian.

NV Gold purchased the Afgan-Kobeh property from Gold Standard Royalty (Nevada) Inc. for $200,000 in cash ($100,000 paid on closing date and remaining $100,000 paid on first anniversary of the closing date (June 14, 2011)), 600,000 shares, and 600,000 share purchase warrants of NV Gold; Gold Standard will retain a 1% NSR royalty on the property and on claims located within an area of interest. Gold Standard is a subsidiary of Golden Predator Royalty & Development Inc.

The Afgan-Kobeh project contains a semi-continuous zone of gold mineralization that lies along the contact of thinly bedded siltstones of the Webb Formation with the underlying Devils Gate Limestone. This contact dips easterly at shallow to moderate angles, with the bulk of the mineralization occurring in brecciated Webb sediments that are frequently altered to jasperoid.

Mineralizing controls beyond the east-dipping Webb – Devils Gate contact are presently poorly understood. It is possible that high-angle structures and/or karstic features influenced the localization of higher-grade areas. An understanding of these controls would enhance both future exploration efforts and resource modeling at Afgan-Kobeh.

The Afgan-Kobeh resource is open for expansion in several areas:

Up-dip (to the west) beyond the present resource limits in the northern portion of the deposit. This target, which includes the largest outcroppings of jasperoid in the project area, was partially tested by Midway in 2007 with positive results; andAlong the poorly defined southern limits of the deposit, which are characterized by relatively deep resources of higher than average grades. These deeper existing resources need to be tested up-dip along the projection of the Webb – Devils Gate contact to the surface.Mine Development Associates (MDA) believes the best opportunity for significant expansion of the existing resource base lies to the southwest of the present extents of the Afgan deposit. The prospective near-surface Webb – Devils Gate contact can be inferred for a distance of approximately 4,500 feet between the southern limit of the existing resources and the southernmost exposure of Devils Gate limestone on the Afgan-Kobeh project, and is likely to continue further to the south beneath alluvial cover.

This southern target area has the potential to provide significant additional shallow and presumably oxidized resources to the Afgan-Kobeh project.

Technical Report (NI 43-101) : June 24 2011

History Lyle F. Campbell originally located claims north of Afgan-Kobeh in the late 1970s and optioned the claims to American Selco, Inc. (“Amselco”). Amselco subsequently identified anomalous gold in outcrop to the south and staked the original claims of the Afgan claim block. The Kobeh claims south of the Afgan claim block were added to the project by Great Basin Exploration and Mining, Inc. (“Great Basin”) in 1991. Exploration has been primarily focused on the Afgan portion of the property, where significant gold mineralization was encountered in drilling in the 1990s.

The property has been explored by Amselco, Hecla Mining Company (“Hecla”), Santa Fe Mining, Inc. (“Santa Fe”), Phelps Dodge Mining Company (“Phelps Dodge”), Great Basin, Cominco American Inc. (“Cominco”), White Knight Gold, Inc. (“White Knight”), and Midway Gold Corp. (“Midway”) from 1980 through 2007. In addition, the Lyle F. Campbell Trust (“LFC Trust”), underlying owner of the Afgan and Kobeh claims for much of the period from 1980 to 2007, explored the project at various times when no leases were active. Westley Explorations Inc. and Castleworth Ventures Inc. also held parts of the property in the past, but did not undertake significant exploration activities. In 2007, Gold Standard Royalty (Nevada) Inc. (“Gold Standard”) purchased all of the properties of the LFC Trust, and NV Gold purchased its interests in both the Afgan and the Kobeh properties from Gold Standard in 2010.

Exploration of the property has included drilling of 160 holes totaling 50,837 feet. Phelps Dodge drilled 63 RC holes on the Afgan portion of the property in 1990-1991, which has been the largest drilling program to date. Gold mineralization was intercepted in 55 of their 63 holes. Geologic mapping, geochemical sampling, regional gravity and electromagnetic surveying, and CS-AMT and other geophysical surveys have been completed on the property.

There has been no gold production from the Afgan-Kobeh project.



The Afgan-Kobeh project consists of 109 unpatented lode mining claims that cover an area of approximately 2,180 acres within Eureka County, Nevada.



2010 drill hole locations

Mineral Resource Mineral resources reported for the Afgan deposit were modeled and estimated by Mine Development Associates in March 2004 and classified in accordance with Canadian Institute of Mining, Metallurgy and Petroleum (CIM) definitions.

Afgan-Kobeh Gold Resources

Indicated Resources

Cutoff

Tons

Au Grade

Au Ounces

(oz Au/ton)

(oz Au/ton)

0.010

3,206,000

0.021

66,000



Inferred Resources

Cutoff

Tons

Au Grade

Au Ounces

(oz Au/ton)

(oz Au/ton)

0.010

3,972,000

0.014

55,000



A cutoff of 0.01 oz Au/ton was chosen to capture mineralization potentially available to open-pit extraction and heap-leach processing.

All of the resources are oxidized.



No Measured resources are reported for the project due to:

the general lack of QA/QC data;some uncertainty with regards to the exact location of a number of the drill holes;the insufficiency of metallurgical data; andthe absence of density data.

Geology and Mineralization Gold occurs on the Afgan-Kobeh project as oxidized, epithermal, disseminated, sediment-hosted mineralization located primarily at the brecciated base of a clastic section identified as probable Webb Formation of Mississippian age. The Webb Formation overlies the Devonian-aged Devils Gate Limestone, which hosts a small portion of the gold resource. The Webb – Devils Gate Limestone Formation contact has been interpreted by previous workers to be a fault that dips at low to moderate angles to the east. The Webb – Devils Gate contact is the principal control of the Afgan-Kobeh gold mineralization, although high-angle east-northeast-trending structures may also be of secondary importance in the localization of higher gold grades. Tertiary volcano-sedimentary rocks unconformably overlie the Paleozoic rocks and are oriented roughly parallel to the Webb – Devils Gate contact.

Modeling by Mine Development Associates (MDA) in 2004 produced a block model of the Afgan deposit in which approximately 80% of the mineralized blocks are modeled as Webb Formation, while 20% are modeled as Devils Gate Limestone. The gold mineralization was modeled by MDA to lie within a semi-continuous zone that extends for over 4,100 feet in a north-northeast direction and 1,500 feet east-west.

The Afgan deposit is similar to other sediment-hosted gold deposits in Nevada, such as the Rain gold mine. At Rain, gold is associated with brecciated, oxidized, silicified and argillized mudstones, siltstones, and sandstones of the Webb Formation immediately above its unconformable contact with the Devils Gate Limestone.

NI 43-101 Technical Report (NI 43-101) : June 24 2011

Source: SOURCE : Link NV Gold Corp.

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: JW@KSC who wrote (14041)12/21/2015 5:28:13 PM
From: labaguette
   of 22897
 
nice answer jw .as to be listed on the Nyse is the core strategy for rob , i think he is able to propel the stock the very last days if necessary ; 7 days to wait .

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: JW@KSC who wrote (14041)12/21/2015 7:46:52 PM
From: Erie
   of 22897
 
JW or others,

Some of the posts imply that this month (Dec.) is more important the other months in terms of the rules for being listed. I'm not challenging that interpretation, I'm only asking for an explanation in order to understand our situation better. I get the rule about being warned after the 30 day average drops before $1, but is there a provision for getting 'off probation' (or whatever term I should be using) if the most recent month has an average above $1? Even if there is, I don't see how MUX could pull that off in the last few days.
However, if there is such a rule, could January, or Feb. do the trick?
If Rob personally or the MUX buyback program is buying a lot recently, it might explain the unusually high volume on the Toronto exchange. Rather than following the NY lead, it almost seems lately that Toronto is leading the way higher. But it's hard to know, without some more digging, because of the fluctuating exchange factor.

Erie

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


From: Robov12/21/2015 8:09:49 PM
2 Recommendations   of 22897
 
Today was only the 2nd time MUX has managed a close above $1.00 since May 22, 2015. When MUX fell blow that level on 5/22/15 gold closed the day at $1206. The 3 days it managed to close above that level 10/14 - 10/16 of 2015 gold topped out at $1189. Today gold closed at $1077. So that being the case where will MUX be the next time makes it back to $1206 or $1189. I think it is clear the miners have and are bottomed vs POG and that we could be in for some nice % gains into January just like last year. Where we go long term though is still debatable.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: Robov12/21/2015 8:28:51 PM
   of 22897
 
Gradual Rally Into Year End

By Turd Ferguson | Monday, December 21, 2015 at 12:13 pm

"Gradual rally into year end", along with "sell the rumor, buy the news" regarding the Fed rate hike, has been our mantra since we saw that November price smash coming back in October. So far, its sure seems like it's all coming along as planned.

Metals prices are UP again today and gold is now HIGHER than it was when the FOMC rate decision was announced back on Wednesday. Uh-oh. This has to be making some of the big Spec shorts more than a little nervous.

So, whaddayathinkathis?



Perhaps more importantly, how about this?



And what if we looked at it this way?



So, $1080 and $1090 become pretty important this week. It's certainly no coincidence, therefore, that the high of the day (so far) in the Feb16 gold is $1079.80. If we can get through there and head off to tackle $1105 before the end of the year, our plan of a decent January rally will really begin to take shape.



And it's not just gold. Silver, too, is now ABOVE where it was prior to the FOMC fedlines:



So, think of this from the perspective of a Spec short...at least those shorts that are actually held by thinking, logical human beings. You've followed gold all the way down from $1180 in late October, in a plunge that was "caused" by the expectations that The Fed was finally poised to raise rates. On October 27, one day before the October FOMC that The Banks used to start the ball rolling, a CoT survey was taken and it looked like this:

Large Spec: Long 225,985. Short 68,551. NET LONG 157,444 contracts

Small Spec: NET LONG 8,404 contracts

Gold Commercials (Cartel): Long 138,770. Short 304,618. NET SHORT 165,848 contracts

Compare those numbers to the CoT from last Tuesday, one day before the December FOMC that finally produced the first rate hike in nine years and the one which had been promised almost since the beginning of QE3 in October of 2012:

Large Spec: Long 155,934. Short 142,278. NET LONG 13,656 contracts

Small Spec: NET SHORT 5,393 contracts

Gold Commercials (Cartel): Long 151,015. Short 159,278. NET SHORT 8,263 contracts

So...

If over the past six weeks...

You're a Spec short (large or small)...

At what point do you begin to get nervous about your position?

The Fed has hiked rates just as you were told they would. But you were also told that this would cause gold prices to fall even further. But they haven't. Instead, after falling initially, they've completely reversed and are how HIGHER than they were before the news back on Wednesday. "Oh crap", you say, and you begin to cover. Not so much at first as you're hoping that this is just a simple dead cat bounce. But then gold move UP through $1090. Does this make you even more nervous? How about $1105 and the 50-day moving average? Would bursting through there cause you to not only buy to cover BUT also buy to move long?

This is how it works, my friend. And this is why I've repeatedly told you to expect a gradual rally into year end and then a strong rally in January. And this is why I bought that small collection of call options for expiration in late January.

And what is THE KEY POINT in driving this "unexpected reversal" in gold? Go back and look at that CoT data. While price was falling from $1180 to $1060, the freaking Commercials covered an incredible 145,340 shorts. That's 14,534,000 ounces of paper gold obligations that they were able to buy back. If you figure that, on average, they made at least $70/ounce on the "trade", that's just north of one billion freaking dollars they made by shorting and capping in October and then covering the contracts back up in November/December. Yes, The Bullion Banks work at the behest of The Central Banks in managing and maintaining the gold price. But that's just in The Big Picture. For the day-to-day, they make A LOT of freaking money in the process of doing it, too. It's good work if you can get it and The Banks will do everything they can to protect this CASH COW.

Again, this is why we hope/pray/plan for the day when this entire fraudulent fractional reserve bullion bank pricing scheme comes crashing down. Besides the obvious economic disparities caused by the manipulation, how many untold billions of dollars have been stolen from "regular" investors and traders over the years through this criminal control and manipulation of the paper markets?

What will likely happen now and in January? All of the Spec short-covering and buying will be absorbed by The Banks through brand new short-selling. The Spec NET LONG position will expand as will The Commercial NET SHORT position. Will the "market" begin to break this time, with a higher high and an UPward resolution versus The Nemesis Line? I don't know. We'll have to wait for January and February to find out. In the meantime, however, I am completely comfortable with the forecast made back in October, well before this current selloff began...That, after bottoming in early December, gold (and silver) will gradually rally into year end and then accelerate this move in January. What happens next is anyone's guess.

TF

Turd's Blog Login or register to post comments Print Email

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: Erie who wrote (14051)12/21/2015 10:51:30 PM
From: JW@KSC
   of 22897
 
Erie, understand your confusion and hope to help some. There has been a lot of information posted, but with the lack of recommendations or just a few it's hard to find the information if one does not take the time to read all board posts at some point at the end of the day, otherwise it becomes a daunting and confusing task find important Information relating to MUX especially the Delisting Info.

Even This Post (Link) where I asked for a reommendation on for a specific reason only recieved One, and that was from Curveball, who I had been discussing anot her Stock and it's issues back and forth in SI Mail. Granted it was buried at the end the rate short post for me, but the post was marked URGENT in the Title.
Sometimes I wonder if it's worth it, updating the Board Intro, Find and repairing charts that end in a dead link, the extensive DD (thanks Wolf)! on top of my Own Huge Research Project listed in that URGENT post.

(Opps had to take a break for an important reason, SpaceX launch and then the first successful commerical Landing a of a Rocket Booster back on land, a SpaceX First innovation. It may not sound like much to most, but this innovation will Saves Millions of dollars, in the Cost of being able to refurbish and reuse rocket boosters, Potentially saving up to 70 to 80% of the cost in launching Satellite Payloads, International Space Station (ISS), Resupply Missions, and Astronauts into space to the ISS. OK Boys, Space Stepping down from my Space Soap Box now. JW@KSC

Spaceflight now Coverage and Videos of Tonight's Launch, and landing, which is an amazing feat seeing a Rocket Returning to Earth just minutes after Liftoff and Deploying two an Orbcomm Satellites.


Labaguette posted a helpful LINK in PA post on 12-15 that would helped and I saw you read that by your reply to his post .

I had hoped My reply in a Post to Lab today on Rules NYSE Section 8 Suspension and Delisting and my commentary and Link to the NYSe Rules on Delisting would have either answer most questions, or perhaps Given one a headache trying to figure out the legalese of those Rules.

Sorry I can't answer your question straight out you have to read the rules and interpret them with your own opinion.

Only McEwen Mining Executives and the NYSE could possibly give a good explanation as to the Possibilities of a definitive action going forward.

For its part MUX PR's have been open and honest in giving shareholders a worst case scenario. yet there are a lot of options available, at least in my interruption of the Rules, without having investors running for the hills and redeeming their Shares. If they were to run to the hills, I suggest a good place to start is the Battle Mountain Area in the Eureka-Cortez gold trend of Nevada and let thier voice echo in Support of McEwen Mining !

Ok, let's get on with the main subject at hand and trying to somewhat get an answer.



I did not find the word probation or probation period in those Rules, but in and amongst the words there are various ways to preclude a Delisting In my IMO, especially when it comes to a Company such as MUX and with the on going projects and company initiatives and cash balance Mux has, not to mention the infamous man behind the Company.

I would not like to be on the receiving end of the NYSE Commission that Delist's Rob McEwen's Company, with the Flack that might be received and outed as being unfair from the Gold Mining Industry, Industry Commentary Writers, Mining Executives, the TSX, Retail Investor, Fund Companys with a Stake in MUX, ect.

Not with all the positives McEwen Mining has done this year.. This is not the Typical Company that would recieve a Delisting even with the PM Market Conditions.

There are many ways in the Rules that give the NYSE leeway (wiggle room) to avoid that embarrassing situation. As long as MUX provides the Letters Required.

At worse it would only heightened the ongoing precious metals manipulation and the obvious shorting strategies going on in PMs and Jr. MINING Stocks in general, as well as what has seemed like a long standing and serious shorting attack against a high profile man in the industry, going back to the days of OTC USG.
If you want to make money shorting, there no better scenario than Shorting a stock that is in small to medium company that has a High Profile with lots of investors trying to push the stock higher, in a market with so many Bears ànd Bearish Tones seeming winning the Gold Bear / Bull Game in this Rigged Stock Market Casino.

Of course that all IMO, and this couldn't possibly be happening in an Honest American Stock Market.

Not waving my American Flag literally and in speech much these days, even being a Proud 10 year Veteran of the USAF.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


To: JW@KSC who wrote (14043)12/22/2015 6:00:10 AM
From: labaguette
   of 22897
 
That gives us the price payed for the Oz in the ground : $6.80

( at first glance , nv gold was struggling for life ; but the price payed by mc ewen is 50 K above the first asked price 400 K -on the nv gold website ) but that is unimportant .

nevertheless a good bet for mux , able to increase the Gold Bar LOM.
Waiting for more news ;
nice find for jw .

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (1)


To: JW@KSC who wrote (14041)12/22/2015 8:56:08 AM
From: Erie
1 Recommendation   of 22897
 
JW
Thanks for all your work and the helpful reply to my question about the significance, if any, of the end of the year-end date in regards to potential delisting. I think I now know the answer and will state it for others who may have been as fuzzy on this as I was.
First, I should clarify my original puzzlement. I had read the earlier posting and posted rules, but then I saw posts that implied that somehow it was important for the MUX price to close this month (Dec.) at above $1 and with an average above $1. Since we were too far into the month to hope for a $1 average, I couldn't understand why one or more posters were paying special attention to the month or year end. I thought maybe I had missed something in the rules. And hopefully so!
But I had not, at least according to my reading of the rules. MUX needs to have a calendar month in which it both closes and averages over $1 over the previous 30 trading days. [USD of course; the trades on Toronto do count, but since they so closely track the exchange rate adjusted US listing price, the TSX price only figures in the volume].] The month of December is a lost cause re the consolidated average of course, so I'm hoping for that January will be our magic month in which we emerge successfully from the 'cure period'.
Note that the average is over the previous 30 trading days rather than the calendar month. That makes a big difference. The start of the 30 trading days period ending Friday Jan 29 is approximately Dec. 17 (I may not be getting the holiday close days correct). So we only have 2 or 3 days 'under $1.00 to counterbalance. I'm cautiously optimistic.
Here's the relevant rule, with my bold added to the key parts:
"The company can regain compliance at any time during the six-month cure period if on the last trading day of any calendar month during the cure period the company has a closing share price of at least $1.00 and an average closing share price of at least $1.00 over the 30 trading-day period ending on the last trading day of that month."

I agree with JW that the rules are written with a lot of wiggle room, and Rob has share consolidation as the 'cure' if needed. I don't think it will be.

Erie

Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last Read


From: wolfgangrene12/22/2015 11:58:23 AM
2 Recommendations   of 22897
 
We're sneaking up to the double top danger zone, 1.08.

If we're forced back, hopefully MUX does a MUSK and we land gently upright at .96 and our booster is reused for a shot to 1.37.


Share RecommendKeepReplyMark as Last ReadRead Replies (2)
Previous 10 Next 10