Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Mosquito Consolidated Gold Mines Limited V.MSQ



TSXV:MSQ - Post by User

Post by junior_mineron Dec 25, 2009 8:36am
391 Views
Post# 16618862

There's fatal flaw

There's fatal flaw

MSQ in their economic assessments and assay reports (MoEq grade) are confusing Molybdenum price with moly oxide price. The truth is MoO3 price is for contained Molybdenum in the moly oxide. Nobody in the MSQ management believes it and nobody on this board believes it either. But I have checked it from multiple sources and that's how it is. Moly concentrates start to trade at LME in February. That's when I will be ultimately proven right. In the meanwhile this link will support my view (Just like all the producing moly companies financials do):
https://www.metal-pages.com/metalprices/molybdenum/

Look at the Mo price chart. Moly oxide price is per lb pure Mo contained in MoO3.

Cumo is not bad project, but certainly not the best either. Several others will be able to enter markets with lower Mo price projections e.g. Climax or Mt. Hope.

I wanted to say this once again since this is material information and people have right to know.

Bullboard Posts