Vane Minerals Share Discussion Threads

[combo83] 27/6/2013 20:13

"Our forecasts and price target are under review, but a downgrade is expected as a result of the increased dilution resulting from the subscription." -- Northland

ps - is opaldouglas still around or has he moved on too?

[kiwimonk] 27/6/2013 17:42

4 gods sake its not difficult to get into an agm, buy a few hundred pounds of shares in your nominee account and voila

[freddie ferret] 27/6/2013 17:03

God! Another lurch down.

[martin c-j] 27/6/2013 09:22

Thanks Cerrito. I am remember you and I being the only shareholders at one meeting about 3 or 4 yrs ago. I think Matt is interested only in shareholders because they can take up shares in the subscription whereas CFD holders can't. Fair point. There's no harm in me being at the meeting. I might ask some questions they don't particularly want to answer, but I have been a cheerleader for VML for 6 years, and I would have thought it was in their interest to keep as many supporters as possible.

[cerrito] 26/6/2013 23:47

Martin C-J they are being very defensive if they do not allow you in just because you have cfd's given your long involvement; of course you cannot vote but I assume you have little interest in voting. Sounds rather spooky.
Based on this I would suggest that anyone who is thinking of going without a letter from the broker or paper certificates phones up to make sure they can go.

[martin c-j] 26/6/2013 16:02

I was planning on going to the AGM, but have been told that as I have CFDs, instead of shares, am not allowed in. Despite my going to AGM's on 3 previous occasions as a CFD holder since March 2007. So maybe if anyone does go, why is DN leaving, and why has it gone so pear shaped since the interims last September. Why did they buy the Idaho target if they don't have the money to drill it. And does Mexico really make them any money that can be used to explore with. And why are we back to ground zero again after so many years.

Matt is apparently pee'd off by what has happened, but maybe someone can tell me what has gone on behind the scenes that means we have had to have yet another dilution today. Is anyone doing anything, except lawyers, in the USA. Is Kris Hefton the only one working and how much longer is he likely to stay?

[gazza102] 26/6/2013 15:36

I agree because they have been doing nothing in this last year!!!!!

We have been whitewashed!!!!!!!!

[combo83] 26/6/2013 14:57

"The net proceeds of the Subscription will be used to assist the Company in investigating possible asset acquisitions as well as for general working capital"

Any ideas what assets they have in mind?

Does this mean they are fedup of the Cu porphyry drill permitting process in New Mexico and are -- once again (how many times now?) -- moving onto something else?

Also if they are spending all the cash on acquisitions, how will they fund exploration/development on those new assets?

All seems a little too familiar: - 1) make some acquisitions based on information in the overhyped Freeport McMoran database, 2) proclaim they are a self-funded exploration company, 3) collect some soil samples and drill some wildwells, 4) encounter cash problems requiring further fundraising. Repeat ad nauseum.

Seems like a good deal for the geologists, but not too sure who else.

[rmart] 26/6/2013 14:03

Cerrito , are you serious ? Someone obviously knew the funding was coming and sold out, they will probably be in for some of the 0.4p shares with a massive profit.

I am not too bothered by it, but it is obvious. At least we seem to have some direction. £1.4m coming in and the cash is for aquiring new targets.

I have no doubt they will see a massive profit back on the way back up too.

AIM is a cess pit, but if you are in at a decent price it can work for you. My ave is .52 so I am quite happy to be in at the bottom imo.

[cerrito] 26/6/2013 13:46

With hindsight of course I should have sold when the prelims were published but as Combo 83 says they did signal very clearly the possibility of new funding in the going concern statement so not sure if you can read a conspiracy theory into the selling

[martin c-j] 26/6/2013 08:45

As for gold and silver prices, I don't see a need to panic just yet. VML's cost per ounce are $12.62 for silver and $682 for gold. That put's them in the lower third of all miners. The upper third have costs for gold above $1250 per oz. They are the ones that should be panicking.

[combo83] 26/6/2013 08:29

Shouldn't come as a surprise -- there were plenty of hints in recent statements about their struggle to balance revenues with expenses and their inability to fund an exploration programme. Hopefully this expedites their drilling plans and gives them another shot at finding a porphyry soon.

From 442 million shares in issue to 793 million, about 80% dilution. That's 44.12 per cent of the company now gone for a meagre £1.39 m. Very painful for investors but at least they can get drilling again.

Wouldn't be surprised to see analyst reports adjust their previous targets down to 0.8p or so in line with dilution.

[martin c-j] 26/6/2013 07:59

There's your explanation for all the selling. Funny how all these sells occurred very recently, just prior to the announcement of the subscription. Of course, the FSA aren't interested in finding out who sold and why.

That aside, again this is depressing news. The reversal in progress since the interims last September has just been immense. And to cap it all with one more massively dilutative round of fundraising is very tough to take.

[thinking] 26/6/2013 07:56

Now I know why the price dropped for no apparent trading reasons!

[cerrito] 25/6/2013 23:51

Doubt if I will make the AGM as it is too depressing especially with silver at under $20 as at the moment.
Morgan Stanley has just lowered its 2013 silver price forecast by 14 per cent to $23.39 an ounce and its 2014 estimate by 29 per cent to $21.01 an ounce.
As per my June 5 post with these further reduced silver prices one has to ask oneself how much cash is being generated even if there is a margin between the current silver price and the 2012 average direct production cost of $12.62.

[gazza102] 25/6/2013 22:07

How long can this lawsuit take?

[icehot2] 25/6/2013 19:53

Vane remain a bargain and it's a one way trade if you accept the risk. Unlike many others the downside is clear, near and specific - nil value if bust.

[kiruna] 25/6/2013 13:44

Ok, but I wrote a foreign company like our Vane. Foreign companies have always great difficulties winning against american interests.

Well, I hope we are the exception to the rule then:)

[rmart] 25/6/2013 13:22

Martin,

re posting link as yours had hxxp ?

[rmart] 25/6/2013 12:03

Someone still dumping. Crazy IMO

[martin c-j] 25/6/2013 10:41

It's no win no fee as far as I understand. So little cost to VML.

Just did a wee google for lawsuits against the US dept of Interior and found this. It appears there are lots of lawsuits against the DoI. Could go either way, but it's pretty clear to me that VML had spent a lot of time and money securing targets in the Grand Canyon area. An area historically mined so why should they expect a moratorium. The DoI has effectively taken those assets away without compensation, and for a few million dollars, they should be pay up.

hxxp://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/salazar_loses_lawsuit_american_energy_wins.html

[kiruna] 25/6/2013 10:04

Suing the U.S. Department of the Interior?! Haha, forget about it! Have a foreign company ever won a lawsuit against an american authority?

[rmart] 24/6/2013 23:20

They are after £80m, Market Cap £2m, a tiny sniff of success and we will see a multibagger here.

[rmart] 24/6/2013 23:17

Time to get some more Vane Minerals ?.... $123m lawsuit !... 20% of mining claims in withdrawn land ! WOW!


Bloomberg News
Vane Minerals Sues U.S. Over Grand Canyon Uranium Mining Ban (2)
By Andrew Zajac
June 24, 2013

Vane Minerals Plc (VML) challenged a 20-year ban on new uranium mining near the Grand Canyon, arguing in a lawsuit that the decision was based on political positions rather than scientific evidence.

The U.S. Department of the Interior's decision to bar new mining on about 1 million acres of land "effectively deprived Vane of its investment in mining claims for uranium deposits," according to the complaint filed in the U.S. Court of Claims in Washington. The canyon in Arizona is the second most-visited national park.

The ban also won't do anything to advance the department's goal of protecting the Grand Canyon watershed, lawyers for U.K.- based Vane wrote. They seek $123 million.

Then-Secretary of the Interior Ken Salazar signed the ban on uranium and other hardrock mining in January 2012 at the National Geographic Society headquarters in Washington.

The withdrawal of lands from mining was part of an effort to protect the $3.5 billion spent annually by visitors to the park, Salazar said at the time.
Previously Approved

Grand Canyon National Park was visited by 4.5 million people in 2010, second to the Great Smoky Mountains.

Jessica Kershaw and Emily Beyer, spokeswomen for the Interior Department, didn't immediately reply to an e-mailed request for comment on the suit.

The ban doesn't prohibit previously approved uranium mining, according to an Interior Department statement accompanying Salazar's announcement.

Vane Minerals has 678, or 20.2 percent of the 3,350 mining claims located in the withdrawn land, according to Bureau of Land Management figures cited in the suit.

All of those claims are frozen by the ban, said Gary Urman, of DeConcini McDonald Yetwin & Lacy PC, of Tucson, Arizona, a lawyer for Vane.

Vane contends in the lawsuit that uranium mining can occur without harm to water supplies or other environmental damage.

The decision to impose the ban "disregarded the views of state and local governments, the public and scientific evidence," according to the complaint.

The case is Vane Minerals LLC v. U.S. Department of the Interior, 13-cv-00413, U.S. Court of Federal Claims (Washington).

To contact the reporter on this story: Andrew Zajac in Washington at [e-mail]

To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at [e-mail].