HIGH-GRADE NI-CU-PT-PD-ZN-CR-AU-V-TI DISCOVERIES IN THE "RING OF FIRE"

NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)

Free
Message: From Northern Miner

Yup, could very well be. The longer this goes on, the whole RoF story, that is, the easier it is to put the pieces of the puzzle together. What was once an impenetrable shroud of mystery is more easily guessed at these days.

Something I pondered in a past post was BMK, the gang of 4, and their presence at the RoF. Although things seemed chummy between Nemis and BMK early on, that was rather quickly snuffed out. I think Nemis figured out early on they did not have honorable intentions, and had no intent whatsoever of making their own discoveries, but instead plans of RoF domination. They, having ties to Temex and also participating in voting against Nemis in the ensuing dissident proxy further refutes this argument.

Not to mention it could all be a well-orchestrated plan to contribute to shareholder attrition. They bought in at 40 cents ( BMK, that is) and also into Noront, else they would have had no voting power down the line. And since then, it's been a long, slow, demoralizing grind for a lot of shareholders. Even BMK makes it seem as though they themselves have lost interest in the area.

Why?

There's an old trick in real estate acquisitions as well ( another real-life analogy to the RoF). If you, as a business person, real estate mogul, or plain old ruthless investing money-bags, had your eye on positioning yourself in a particular neighbourhood in a city that you thought had real potential to move up in land value in coming years, what you'd do is this: You get yourself a couple of houses in that neighbourhood, maybe some of the more rag-tag ones, and you rent them. Except you don't fix them up, you don't charge much rent ( bringing down the market value in the area) and you most CERTAINLY don't rent them to decent folk.

This might seem counter-intuitive, but stay with me. You'd rent them to folks who perhaps have a penchant for loud motorcycles, who don't cut the lawn, who drag down the resale values of other homes in the area. By and by, the decent folks who live there will sell at a loss just to get away from the all-night parties and overall urban decay of the neighbourhood. Then you buy THEIR houses and you rent it to more of the same. Then comes a day you own ALL the homes, and your objective completed, you tell your renters to "Scram" because you're selling the land to a major corporation.

This is kind of what I think the big guys had in mind from the beginning...but they misjudged the stubborn nature of a lot of shareholders here.

JMO

Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply