Buy
Sell
Share Name Share Symbol Market Type Share ISIN Share Description
Vane Minerals LSE:VML London Ordinary Share GB00B013M672 ORD 0.1P
  Price Change % Change Share Price Bid Price Offer Price High Price Low Price Open Price Shares Traded Last Trade
  0.00 0.0% 0.425 - 0.00 00:00:00
Industry Sector Turnover (m) Profit (m) EPS - Basic PE Ratio Market Cap (m)
Mining 5.8 0.1 -0.1 - 2

Vane Minerals Share Discussion Threads

Showing 13526 to 13549 of 13750 messages
Chat Pages: 550  549  548  547  546  545  544  543  542  541  540  539  Older
DateSubjectAuthorDiscuss
27/6/2013
19:13
"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?
combo83
27/6/2013
16:42
4 gods sake its not difficult to get into an agm, buy a few hundred pounds of shares in your nominee account and voila
kiwimonk
27/6/2013
16:03
God! Another lurch down.
freddie ferret
27/6/2013
08:22
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.
martin c-j
26/6/2013
22:47
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.
cerrito
26/6/2013
15:02
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?
martin c-j
26/6/2013
14:36
I agree because they have been doing nothing in this last year!!!!! We have been whitewashed!!!!!!!!
gazza102
26/6/2013
13:57
"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.
combo83
26/6/2013
13:03
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.
rmart
26/6/2013
12:46
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
cerrito
26/6/2013
07:45
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.
martin c-j
26/6/2013
07:29
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.
combo83
26/6/2013
06:59
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.
martin c-j
26/6/2013
06:56
Now I know why the price dropped for no apparent trading reasons!
thinking
25/6/2013
22:51
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.
cerrito
25/6/2013
21:07
How long can this lawsuit take?
gazza102
25/6/2013
18:53
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.
icehot2
25/6/2013
12:44
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:)
kiruna
25/6/2013
12:22
Martin, re posting link as yours had hxxp ? http://www.americanthinker.com/blog/2011/08/salazar_loses_lawsuit_american_energy_wins.html
rmart
25/6/2013
11:03
Someone still dumping. Crazy IMO
rmart
25/6/2013
09:41
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
martin c-j
25/6/2013
09:04
Suing the U.S. Department of the Interior?! Haha, forget about it! Have a foreign company ever won a lawsuit against an american authority?
kiruna
24/6/2013
22:20
They are after £80m, Market Cap £2m, a tiny sniff of success and we will see a multibagger here.
rmart
24/6/2013
22:17
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 azajac@bloomberg.net To contact the editor responsible for this story: Michael Hytha at mhytha@bloomberg.net. http://www.businessweek.com/news/2013-06-24/vane-minerals-sues-u-dot-s-dot-over-grand-canyon-uranium-mining-ban-2
rmart
Chat Pages: 550  549  548  547  546  545  544  543  542  541  540  539  Older
ADVFN Advertorial
Your Recent History
LSE
VML
Vane Miner..
Register now to watch these stocks streaming on the ADVFN Monitor.

Monitor lets you view up to 110 of your favourite stocks at once and is completely free to use.

By accessing the services available at ADVFN you are agreeing to be bound by ADVFN's Terms & Conditions

P: V: D:20210123 19:57:07