Re: Lets talk about something new, please
posted on
Mar 12, 2015 01:58PM
CUU own 25% Schaft Creek: proven/probable min. reserves/940.8m tonnes = 0.27% copper, 0.19 g/t gold, 0.018% moly and 1.72 g/t silver containing: 5.6b lbs copper, 5.8m ounces gold, 363.5m lbs moly and 51.7m ounces silver; (Recoverable CuEq 0.46%)
"
Thanks Calvin and Crazy_like_Afox for trying to get this issue straightened out in his mind. The warrants are only dilutive if the SP is over a dollar. We should all hope they become dilutive... Ernesto wouldn't extend the warrants unless he was confident they will be in the money. My opinion only.
Linsickle, if you want to believe that it means absolutely nothing to twice extend $1.00 Purchase Warrants when shares are readily availabe in the market at $0.15 and there is nothing stoppng Ernesto from funding the company at much lower current SPs if he chooses, then so be it. You are entitled to your opinion which has been stated here a couple of times already.
Can we move on to another subject, pretty please?
"
Of course I hope they become dillutive, but that doesn't change the fact that if they expired I would only recieve more from a buyout... I don't get your logic here, EE would only want to extend them unless he was confident in over a dollar? This is where you're thinking so wrong. It's easy to extend them and EE only thinks there is 1/100 chance to recieve over a dollar why the hell wouldn't he want to extend them? He has nothing at all to lose from this.
I don't see what the warrent extension has to do with shares available on the market for $0.15. If anything that is why they should expire. Once again, we dont NEED money, so EE is not going to be funding the company at the current SP. We can talk about that in 2+ years or when we have no money. SP could be very different then, as I said maybe it's already over a buck and we could have had a smaller PP if we actually end up needing money.
I rather let a subject fizzle itself out when its actually completed something.
Everyone here seems to think I am so negative as of late when that's not the case, but we are being bias out the ying yang and its disgusting. You can't argue against more shares being a negative especially if we don't need them. Those warrents won't be anything but money in the participants pockets if we are bought out pre-production decision IMHO, as we are not going to shoot over a buck without that (unless our other properties can explode so well that they can carry it, but 400mil+ shares is a tall order for that)