Greystar Resources (GSL.to): Don't say you weren't warned

How's Greystar (GSL.to) doing this PDAC week? Anyone got word from Nicholas CampbellSoup about his reco SNAFU yet? Is Soupy available for comment on other Political Risk issues? Does he charge for his services at the Can of Corn?

Hmmmm.....guess it has something to do with the post from Tuesday last week which ended....

"Right now I'd rather hold Osama Bin Laden's penis than GSL stock."

...but did you listen? Oh well, as they say in Blighty, you can lead a horse to water but you can't bring that dog in 'ere, mate. DYODD, dudettes & dudes.

UPDATE: 12:50pm EST: Trading in GSL.to was halted a couple of minutes ago, pending news. 


UPDATE 2: The NR is out and here's the moneyline:

"Greystar will only develop a project with the support of both. We will work with the relevant authorities in the review of the project in order to determine whether modifications are possible that address concerns whilst ensuring an economically viable and environmentally sustainable project."

What's the residual value on this thing's cash position again?

Strateco Resources (RSC.to): The intro to yesterday's IKN Weekly

Here's the note that kicked off IKN82, sent out to subscribers yesterday.

Don’t believe everything you read (especially in company news releases)

Reader and regular mailpal ‘MP’ brought a story to this author’s attention on Saturday that wouldn’t normally get picked up by your humble LatAm-centric marketwatcher. On Friday morning, Strateco Resources (RSC.to) announced in a news release entitled “Strateco Recieves (sic) Strong Support at Public Hearings on the Matoush Uranium Project” (1) that public hearings regarding its project in Quebec, Canada had gone swimmingly and love was in the air. Here’s how the NR began:

BOUCHERVILLE, QUEBEC--(Marketwire - Nov. 26, 2010) - Strateco Resources Inc...is pleased to announce that it received strong support at public hearings held in Mistissini and Chibougamau on November 23 and 25 in relation to the underground exploration phase of the Matoush project. Nearly 50 people, organizations, companies and local and regional authorities confirmed their support for the project in letters, briefs and presentations.

One of the supporters who tabled a brief in favour of the Matoush project was the Conference regionale des elus de la Baie-James ("CREBJ"), whose members include Luc Ferland, the Member of National Assembly for Ungava (Quebec), Manon Cyr, mayor of Chibougamau and Steve Gamache, mayor of Chapais, stressing the importance for Strateco to obtain the Cree Nation of Mistissini's support.

A little later, down on paragraph four, this was noted:

At the public hearing in Mistissini, the chief of the local community, Richard Shecapio, indicated that the community does not support the Matoush project. Strateco intends to develop and deepen relations with the Mistissini Cree in order to respond appropriately to their concerns and eventually secure their support. The Grand Council of the Crees did not formulate a position at the public hearings.

Check out the NR yourself (1) to get the whole feel, but what this author took away from reading it was that RSC enjoyed support, support and more support for three paragraphs, but also noted some opposition to the project on paragprah four. In other words, a pretty normal state of affairs for a junior miner that will always have its supporters and opposition for a project but hopes that majority voices in support will prevail. The result of the RSC NR can be seen in this chart, as the stock rose 13.75% on strong volume Friday and closing just under a new 52 week high.

So far so good, but the reason MP mailed me was clued up in his mail title line “Compare and Contrast” because it also featured a report of the public hearings dated Saturday November 27th in the French language media “lapresseaffaires” (2) that paints a very different picture. On reading the report, even somebody with no previous knowledge of the issue can see the key for RSC’s project is approval from the local Cree Mistissini Nation and that the Mistissini have rejected the project in categoric terms. Here are a couple of excerpts (translated):

“The junior company has for three years tried to sell its uranium project to the inhabitants of the Cree Nation of Mistissini. Chief Richard Shecapio announced the response of the community during the public hearing last Tuesday: Mistissini opposes the project.

“The announcement visibly shook Strateco Resources management.

........

“In an era when the social acceptance has become necessary for the survival of a mining project, this announcement is not trivial. “It was a big surprise for all of us”, admitted the President and CEO of Strateco, Guy Hébert.

........

“On the eve of the public hearings, the Chief of the Mistissini, Richard Shecapio, convened a meeting so that his community could provide its views on the project. The participants voted 93% against. This is the decision that the Chief announced to the commissioners during the public hearings.

Citing in particular the long-term effects on the environment and animals, Mr. Shecapio explained that uranium exploration “goes against fundamental Cree values.”

The Chief said he was disappointed by the responses given by the mining company during the consultataion period. “Strateco has failed to engage the community. Strateco has failed to win the trust of the people.”

The Grand Council of the Crees, that groups together 10 communities, gave its support to the Mistissini Nation. In a communique Grand Chief Matthew Coon Come said that the Mistissini decision had not been taken lightly and had been made after years of reflection.

According to Mr. Coon Come, the Cree are open to mining development, “But the Mistissini community has judged that in the case of this project the potential negative impacts greatly outweigh the benefits.”

.........

“We are conscious that the project will not be able to go ahead without the support of the Mistissini Crees” (said the Mayor of Chibougamau and project supporter, Manon Cyr).

IKN back. Now, I know what I know and I don’t know what I don’t. What’s more, The IKN Weekly is not the IKN blog and we avoid as much as possible the pontification and opinionating you see on the public site. In this case for example, I don’t know whether the French language website or its reporter have a political or social bias or a dog in this hunt, I don’t know whether the Mistissini Cree position is one that will never change or whether it’s part of a negotiation strategy, I don’t know anything about the previous track record of RSC, its Pres/CEO Hébert, its team or even its project up there in the cold parts of the world. Et cetera. But what I do know is that if the lapresseaffaires report had been published on Friday morning instead of Saturday, it would have had an effect on the share price action that day.

It will be interesting to watch how RSC.to trades on Monday. It will also be interesting to note how Hébert and his team respond to the lapresseaffaires report.

Rio Alto (RIO.v) in last weekend's IKN Weekly

Last weekend's edition of The IKN Weekly (IKN63) featured (amongst plenty other things) write-ups on several company meetings that happened during last week's roadtrip. One of those was at the nerve centre of Rio Alto Mining (RIO.v) and here's what subscribers got to find out last Sunday. Since then we had the news through that RIO.v has been awarded its key environmental permit and sure enough the stock traded strongly yesterday on that news. DYODD, but also file this one under 'subscribers knew'.

Rio Alto Mining (RIO.v)

The meeting at RIO.v was outstanding. Present were President & COO Alex Black, Peru country manager Jaime Soldi (driving force in the company) and CFO Anthony Hawkshaw (the guy who really knows the purse strings). The main takeaway was the very high level of confidence exuded by the RIO.v team as regards the months ahead as they move to production. We talked about the main points of the project and how they were already doing what they could on a “pre-construction” level before the environmental and construction permits were emitted. On those scores, the company has fielded all observations made by the government of Peru and the company sees no reason to expect any problems. This was as far as they could really go with positive statements on permit timings that are, in the end, out of their control, but I’d like to add that on a personal opinion level and having watched permitting procedures go through the bureaucratic stages in Peru on several occasions, all this permitting procedure needs is a little (and not a lot) more time. Basically, it’s a lock and it’s going to happen.

As for the somewhat delayed resource study done by Coffey, we can expect that to be published “soon”. Again, the delays seem to be nothing of a substantive nature and rather the technical, procedural side of things that have to be waded through before the relevant authorities allow a report to go public.

Community-wise, relationships are reported as good. Money-wise, the CFO looked me in the eye and said that there’s no more money needed and there are no more equity raisings being considered for 2010....they won’t even start considering a strategic placement before La Arena starts operating and in the words of Alex Black, by that time next year “Rio Alto will be a completely different company”. Regarding the timeline to production, the company expects “mid 1q11” to be when the first pour happens and commercial production levels will follow on from that very quickly. Given a reasonable result from the permitting people that timeline will be achieved. Tight as it might seem right now. Again, confidence exudes.

The bottom line is that I trust my own judgment when it comes to juniors and the people that run them. From the numbers, from the people and from the newsflow about to run through the market regarding RIO, this author thinks the current 70c-or-abouts prices for RIO to be an absolute steal. As mentioned in last week’s Flash update I’ve added yet again to my position in RIO.v and it’s now a pretty big one compared to others. But once all the usual caveats are applied (gold price collapse, nuclear war, OhMyWe’reAllGonnaDie, etc) this stock today is one that needs its long argument banged on the table...and hard. I’m very close to upgrading it to a “Top Pick” on the back of last week’s meeting and its expected newsflow to come, but for the moment we’ll stick with the fact that I left that meeting then wrote “I’m buying more” to you subscribers about an hour later....and then did just that.

RIO.v is cheap. Buy some or buy some more because you will not regret doing so. Table-banging over, thank you for your patience.

A weird news release from Colossus Minerals (CSI.to)

Returning to the desk, your humble scribe notes this news release from Colossus Minerals (CSI.to) that says:

TORONTO, ONTARIO--(Marketwire - Feb. 26, 2010) - Colossus Minerals Inc. ("Colossus" or the "Company") (TSX:CSI - News) Colossus is issuing this press release to respond to rumours circulated earlier today regarding the status of the environmental approvals for the Company's Serra Pelada project.

Earlier today the Brazilian environmental agency Para State, COEMA (Conselho Estadual de Meio Ambiente), responsible for evaluating and approving or denying environmental impact studies met to consider the environmental application of Colossus and Coomigasp for the Serra Pelada project.

While Colossus anticipates a decision will be made shortly, no such decision has yet been rendered or made public.

Rumours my ass! Why the company says that is beyond me. As noted at 2:40pm on this corner of cyberspace (i.e. 55 mins before the stock was halted) the vote happened and Serra Pelada's enviro permit was approved. Just to make sure, here's the local Pará newspaper with the same news. The vote was eight in favour, two against. Permit granted, end of story. Here's an excerpt (original language)

Aprovada licença para mecanização de Serra Pelada

Em votação, nesta sexta-feira (26) os membros do Conselho Estadual de Meio Ambiente (Coema), aprovaram por oito votos contra dois, a Licença Prévia (LP) para o Projeto de Extração de Minérios Metálicos de Serra Pelada, de responsabilidade da Companhia de Desenvolvimento Mineral (CDI), instalada no município de Curionópolis, no sudeste paraense, a 536 km da capital, Belém.

Maybe Ari just wants a quiet weekend without the phone ringing every five minutes.....

Colossus Minerals (CSI.to) denied permit by Brazil government (info now updated; see note)

Note: Colossus (CSI.to) has had its applicaton for the EIA approved by majority vote. please see latest post here


Thanks due to reader 'NK' who alerted IKN to the original Public Ministry article

According to this report just out, Colossus Minerals (CSI.to) has been denied a key environmental permit for its Serra Pelada project due to "grave omissions" in its application. IKN will get a decent translation of the Portuguese language story asap. Watch this space.

UPDATE: My Portuguese is not as good as my Spanish so please bear in mind that this may not be 100% accurate...but I'm pretty sure it gets the main gist of the situation correctly. I have a call in with a Portuguese expert and if I get a better translation from him later I'll put in a second update, then you can compare the two translations yourself. Mine was done with no recourse to auto-translators, so you might want to run the original note through one of those online things as well. Here's my translation:

Belém: Public Ministry opposes the Installation of Serra Pelada Project

The State Public Ministry, via the two magistrates Nilton Gurjão das Chagas and Raimundo de Jesus Coelho de Moraesc, today manifested itself against the environmental licence application of the Serra Pelada project, in the municipality of Curionópolis, South-East Pará, operated by Serra Pelada Companhia de Desenvolvimento Mineral (SPCDM), whose objective is extraction and sale of gold, palladium and platinum.

According to The Public Ministry, the Environmental Impact Study/Environmental Impact Report (EIA/RIMA) presented contains graves omissions, such as the lack of provision and analysis of environmental impact caused by mining activity. Also, the study makes no mention of the demands of public policies during the construction and extraction phases of the project.

The distribution of profits from Serra Pelada with Cooperativa de Mineração dos Garimpeiros de Serra Pelada (Coomigasp) was another point questioned. According to the EIA/RIMA, the garimperos participate in just 25% of the company as well as a payment for kilo of mineral sold. The Public Ministry wants a more equitable participation for Coomigasp in the company.

According to the magistrates, there is also "non-compliance and non-procedure of the Environmental Laws of Pará as regards the participation of the community in the elaboration of the terms of reference of the environmental study as presented".

The public ministry is part of the State Council for the Environment (COEMA).

UPDATE 2, about half an hour later: I've been trying to find out what's going on. Apparently COEMA is a thirteen person committee and the Public Ministry (PM) people have two of the thirteen votes. The PM were given until today to pronounce opinion on the Serra Pelada permit and were expected to approve the licence. Their decision was unexpected, but it should be understood that they are just two of the thirteen votes.

The current strong PPS action in CSI points to positives for CSi and not negatives. Let's see how this one is announced by the company. Disclosure: no position in CSI.to.

Taking Bets on Ecometals

After the bell today Ecometals (EC.v) came out with this PR that had a lot of words but for those of us that aren't fooled by fluff can be simply translated as:

"We don't have the drilling permit yet".

However it did include this line, talking about the two bits of paper it needs to go forward with the drilling:

The final remaining Environmental Management Plan and Environmental License approvals are expected to be received this month.

So this humble corner of cyberspace is prepared to take bets on this one, folks. Considering the long history of bullshit that comes from this company I say that Ecometals will not receive the necessary permits from the govenment of Ecuador by the end of month and offer even money on the monetary sum of your choice. Any takers?

So what's going on over at Aquiline (AQI.to)?

The company has been tight lipped about things, but according to this Spanish language report from way down Chubut Argentina way and dated the morning of Thursday, 21st May, the Environmental Impact Study submitted by AQI.to to the provincial government of Chubut has been rejected and they have a maximum of 60 days to come up with a better idea.

In the news report, Chubut's Environment Minister Juan Garitano tells a local radio station that "the updated report of environmental impact (for Aquiline) mentioned in the reference is not in conditions to be approved for the environmental aspects it refers to, as it does not comply with the sufficient technical requirements for the stage in which it finds itself."

It never fails to amaze me that mining companies forget to mention these things to their shareholders. I mean, screwing up an EIA, getting a red light from the local bigwigs and putting the whole project at risk is probably something they'd like to know, dontcha think?

Thanks to reader M for the headsup on this.

Petaquilla Minerals and Reuters; what a pair, eh?

CEO Richard Fifer bought 1.5 million PTQ shares last year in
a desperate attempt to prop his stock. He failed.

Ladies and gentlemen, IKN proudly presents Otto's all-time fave news report out of Panama. Here below is the report from Andrew Beatty of Reuters, reprinted in its entirety.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

LA PINTADA, Panama, Nov 27 (Reuters) - Canada-based Petaquilla Minerals will start production at a new Panamanian gold mine in January, a senior official at the project said on Tuesday.

The Molejon gold project will produce 120,000 ounces of gold in the first year, senior engineer Rafael Eysseric told Reuters.

The project has been criticized by some anti-mining groups but Eysseric said the protests would not delay the start-up date.

The engineer said there was "no risk" of the mine opening behind schedule. (Reporting by Andrew Beatty; Editing by Christian Wiessner)

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

So why do I love this report so much? Well, I could dwell on that fact that the content is false and misleading. I could chortle a lot about that "no risk" quote. Or I could even talk about Andrew Beatty of Reuters who has a suspicious track record of pumping PTQ.to and is either lazy, incompetent or on the take (whatever way, he's a poor excuse for a journo and Reuters should be ashamed).

But the REAL REASON to adore and worship this report is the filing date, Wednesday 28th November 2007. Yep, the "no risk January" mentioned in the report refers to January 2008! Here we are over a year later and the company is still lying and cheating its shareholders and the wider investment community. And while we're at it, let's have an example of PTQ.to deeds (for that is how thou shalt know them). Here's a photo from 2005 of the Molejon site.

It was taken by Panama's environmental people ANAM to show the illegal and non-permitted logging that was going on at the site. PTQ had cleared about one hectare of jungle without asking and ANAM slapped a $10,000 fine on the company. Cut to 2008, and here's exactly the same area of jungle.

The company just kept on logging and clearing and now the exposed area is 20 to 30 times larger. Now does that look to you like a company that respects government authority and environmental rules and regulations, or does it look like a company that thinks it's above the law? And to get into context the barefaced cheek of these shits, PTQ.to is currently looking for legal loopholes and appeals to avoid paying the $1.93m fine that ANAM slapped on the company due to its continued illegal, anti-environmental activities.

That anti-mining groups hate Petaquilla Minerals is clear. However the point here is that pro-mining people should also hate PTQ.to and call the company out for what it is. It's companies like PTQ.to that give the whole industry a bad name and offer fuel to fire the illogical extremes of the anti-mining protest community. Not all miners are the same, and the majority that are socially and environmentally responsible should rise up, point their fingers at the PTQs of this world and run them out of town.

Related Post

Petaquilla Minerals: Dissecting the press release of a rogue miner

Petaquilla Minerals: Dissecting the press release of a rogue miner

The Molejon Mess

A gold mine is a hole in the ground with a liar on top.
(Benjamin Disraeli, though often mistakenly attributed to Mark Twain)

Press releases are the lifeblood of junior, exploration-stage mining companies. With no meaningful production these companies rely on PRs to keep shareholders interested and wave a "hello! look at me!" to the rest of the investment community.

PRs from straight-shooting, upstanding companies with good reputations and honest management can be read quickly and, for the most part, be taken at face value due to the respect and trust earned previously. Off the top of my head, an example from a company I follow but don't presently own is Chariot Resources (CHD.to) that only releases a PR when it has something to say and gives plenty of factual detail when it does say something.

However, there are also companies like Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to), a company with top management under charge of embezzlement in Panama and with a history of issuing PRs full of deception, doublespeak and lies wrapped in evase legalese to make them technical truths. When PTQ.to issues a press release it can only be taken at face value by people with more money than sense and must be examined closely, else you risk falling into the traps laid by its devious owners and believing something that may cost you dearly at a later date.

Here's the link to PTQ.to's latest offering and below I've pasted it out in full. However by way of an example I've also added my own comments in red between the lines of the PR in italics. So here we go with today's episode of "Spot the PR bullshit":

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

VANCOUVER, BRITISH COLUMBIA--(MARKET WIRE)--Jan 16, 2009 -- Petaquilla Minerals Ltd. (the "Company") announces that, further to the Company's news release dated November 28, 2008, the Company has established a working group to collaborate closely with the Autoridad Nacional del Ambiente ("ANAM"), the environmental agency of the Government of the Republic of Panama.

The news release dated Nov 28 is the one I pulled apart on this link. It's the one that PTQ.to used to imply that it had received its Environment permit and was commissioning its plant, with the first pour due in the latter half of December. Obvious BS as it's now January and no pour was made, but for further reasons why the Nov 28 PR was a pack of lies check the previous post.

On November 26, 2008, ANAM issued a resolution (the "EIS Resolution") approving the Company's Environmental Impact Study Category III (the "EIS"). The EIS essentially brings up to World Bank standards the environmental impact study prepared by the Company and approved by the Panamanian environmental agencies in 1996.

No it doesn't! The Cat 3 study is only one part of the full approval needed to start production. Also, 1996 regulations are a light year away from what is needed now; the 1996 approval may as well have been written on toilet paper and used by CEO Fifer for toilet paper's intended purpose.

The EIS Resolution sets out a number of conditions to be satisfied before the Company can attain full commercial production of the Molejon Gold Mine, which forms a small part of the overall project area.

Here we have the first number fudgery. When PTQ.to says "a number of", that actually means 45 requirements that have to be complied with before the EIS is approved. As for "a small part", that's a silly thing to say. Since when has a production plant taken up anything more than "a small part" of the total area of any mine?

On detailed review of the EIS Resolution by the Company, it became apparent that some conditions are inapplicable to the Molejon operation, and others have already been satisfied by the Company.

More number fudging. Of the 45 requirements, all we know is that "some" and "others" are not a problem. Is that 3 requirements? 27? 14? 42? We don't know, but given the history of deception and lies you can bet your sweet bippy that it's at the lower end of the numbers scale. And I've mentioned it before but I'll mention it again; just one of those 45 requirements is to locate, design and build a tailings dump at Molejon. To understand just how amateur this company is, consider it was seriously thinking of going into production without a place to put its waste. A tailings dump is not something you can whip up in the space of a couple of weeks; it's a complex piece of engineering and it will take a long time to get EIS approval, even once the mine gets it act together and submits a plan. These people are the Keystone Kops of junior miners.

The Company therefore established the working group to cooperate with ANAM to ensure that all conditions are satisfied or waived, so that full commercial production in 2009 will take place without delay.

Notice that flourish at the end, "without delay"? Laughable. This is the same company that promised production (and check these links cos I'm not making this up) "in the first quarter of 2008" then "in fiscal year 2008" then "in the latter half of December 2008" and then "in the first three months of 2009". As each deadline passed, the production start was booted forward. And now the company has the brass neck to say it will start production in 2009 "without delay". Are you beginning to see why these jokers can't be trusted?

The working group has met with the ANAM representatives on four occasions, and the Company is very pleased with progress to date. ANAM has received the Company's presentations in a spirit of cooperation and the Company is committed to working with the agency to resolve all outstanding issues.

Yeah, so what? Want to tell me what the alternative to this is?

ANAM has recommended that it, the Company and the Republic of Panama Ministry of Commerce and Industry ("MICI") work on a tri-lateral basis to fulfill the terms and conditions of the EIS Resolution, and this collaborative effort is underway. MICI is the Governmental organization with overall jurisdiction over the Molejon Project.

This is where the interesting political angle raises its head. On May 3rd 2009 Panama has its Presidential election and Fifer's friend Torrijos loses his job. One of the hot issues in the election will be the environmental mess caused by dirty miners such as Fifer at Molejon and its very likely that the new President (whoever he or she may be) will not let Molejon move ahead (after all, it's only got this far due to the 'close relationship' between Fifer and Torrijos). With MICI in on the decision process, politics is about the get difficult for Fifer&Co.

The Company has advised ANAM that it has reached the stage of pre-production testing and equipment calibration at the Molejon Project Site and, at ANAM's request, has provided ANAM with a comprehensive data package describing such testing procedures, which will include the production of gold. The Company anticipates that its on-going consultation with the Governmental Agencies will result in a smooth transition into full-scale commercial production in 2009.

Check those links above and remember how many times PTQ.to has 'anticipated' things that have not come to pass. Also note "include the production of gold". How much gold are we talking here? Otto wagers about 5 to 10 ounces as part of the test runs, but whatever it is it's about as likely to be commercial as a flying pig.

The Company has been advised that ANAM has rejected a reconsideration request by the Company and its subsidiaries and Minera Panama S.A., (formerly Minera Petaquilla, S.A.) against a US$1 million fine imposed by Resolution dated November 13, 2008, for alleged violations by such companies of environmental laws that took place on the main Petaquilla Copper Concession in 2005. The Resolution also assessed damages in the amount of US$934,694.54. The Company has been advised by Panama counsel that there are several grounds on which the validity of the Resolution can be challenged. The Company is currently assessing the situation to determine what action, if any, should be taken. Consequently, the amount, if any, that may ultimately be payable by the Company cannot be determined.

This is the bonus prize, removed even from the ongoing EIS compliance procedures. What we're supposed to believe is that ANAM fine PTQ.to $1.93m, then ratify and confirm that decision, but then PTQ tries to make believe it can get out of paying the fine and get final EIS approval from the same people at the same time! Anyone who thinks this is remotely possible knows nothing about Latin America.

xxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxxx

And here endeth the lesson. Why you should believe a single word of what this company says is beyond me. It's run by an accused embezzler, has a loathesome environmental track record, refuses to pay its fines, can't design a paper aeroplane correctly let alone a mine, its share price is constantly propped up by CEO Fifer's insider buying and has a proven track record of delays and deception when informing its shareholders. Nuff said.

Related Post
Petaquilla Minerals: "Oops, we forgot to tell you that we're a bunch of lying shits."
Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to) update: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
More Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to)
Top of the Props
Petaquilla delays its first pour: surprising for Reuters readers, not for IKN readers

Petaquilla Minerals delays its first pour: surprising for Reuters readers, not for IKN readers

When we last caught up with Panama's answer to Madoff, Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to) was claiming to all and sundry that they had all their environmental permits in place and that they'd be making first pour in December. They even got the local Reuters patsy reporter to publish that PTQ would "start production before the end of the year". Hmmmm; it seems that since then the PTQ.to IR dep't has forgotten to update its valued and loved shareholders on the latest developments at the company, so allow me to fill in the details:

• In a bizarre twist, PTQ.to is now appealing AGAINST the environment permit that it was so loudly trumpeting just a couple of weeks ago. The Panama News reports how PTQ is appealing against 14 of the 40 extra requirements that this blog mentioned in previous posts. Remember this was the same piece of paper that PTQ.to trumpeted to the North as its ticket to production and riches. Funny how they've been keeping knowledge of its own protests against the ANAM permit away from the investment community, innit?
  

• It's not December any more, folks. According to PTQ's Engineering Veep on December 12th, the first ounce is now going to be poured "in three months' time". Shareholders of PTQ shouldn't be too shocked with this "unforeseen delay", though; we're talking about the company that assured everybody it would be producing in the first quarter of 2008.

All this doesn't take away from the basic facts, not least of which is that PTQ at Molejon doesn't have a tailings dump and a tailings dump is not something that you can just whip together in a couple of weeks, or even a couple of months. But the good news is that if you're still holding PTQ.to in your portfolio you still have time to dump the stock, as CEO Richard Fifer continues desperately to prop up his stock with multiple buys. Here are the latest trades as per Canadian Insider:

Dec 15/08	Dec 12/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	27,500	$0.440
Dec 15/08	Dec 12/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	17,000	$0.440
Dec 15/08	Dec 12/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	2,000	$0.435
Dec 15/08	Dec 11/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	4,500	$0.450
Dec 15/08	Dec 11/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	24,000	$0.450
Dec 15/08	Dec 11/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	5,000	$0.440
Dec 15/08	Dec 11/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	2,500	$0.435
Dec 15/08	Dec 10/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	500	$0.500
Dec 15/08	Dec 10/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	20,500	$0.500
Dec 15/08	Dec 10/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	9,500	$0.500

At this rate Fifer will be able to OPA the company before it ever produces gold, as by that time he'll be holding all the shares himself!

Related Post
Petaquilla Minerals: "Oops, we forgot to tell you that we're a bunch of lying shits."
Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to) update: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire
More Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to)

More Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to)

Richard Fifer (white stubble, invisible hair) posing with Mel Gibson...or is it
Noriega? Or Don Winner? Uff, I get confused....

Y'know, after fanfaring to the world that your gold mine was about to open and your gold mine was going to produce 100,000 ounces of gold in 2009 and your gold mine was wonderful and cheap and everything (and even getting local Reuters lapdog to regurgitate your BS for the wider world), you would have thought that it might drum up a bit of interest among the investment community.

Not at Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to). It may have something to do with the fact that the management are liars and the statement aboout PTQ.to having the necessary environmental permits is 100% false, misleading and fraudulent. It might have something to do with CEO Richard Fifer's dubious past as a local politican now under embezzlement charges. It might have something to do with the total and utter rejection among locals of his mining project that is screwing up the quality of life in the area. Hell, it might be due to this humble blog getting the word out about these shady characters and their, "Pssst! Wanna buy a gold mine in Central America?" marketing techniques. But for one reason or another, the dreams that PTQ.to might have had of buyers queuing up to get a slice of their action has not materialized.

So what to do? Well, you can always prop up your own stock price by buying every single bid on any given day. For example, note that of the eight trades completed in PTQ.to on Monday 8th December, eight (i.e. all) of them had a certain Richard Fifer as the buyer (and note the cute little 500 share tape-painter at the end of the day....you go girl).

Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	500	$0.500
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	9,500	$0.490
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	1,500	$0.490
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	11,000	$0.470
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	500	$0.470
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	5,000	$0.450
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	5,500	$0.450
Dec 09/08	Dec 08/08	Fifer, Richard Glenn Fifer Carles	Direct Ownership	Common Shares	10 - Acquisition in the public market	20,000	$0.450

At least Fifer has the morals of a ship's captain and has decided to go down with this sinker. Must be looking out (from the concessions picked up in 1986 and never developed in the last 21 years) to the Panama Canal that does it.

Related Post
Petaquilla Minerals: "Oops, we forgot to tell you that we're a bunch of lying shits."
Petaquilla Minerals (PTQ.to) update: Liar, Liar, Pants on Fire