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

North American Gem Inc V.NAG



TSXV:NAG - Post by User

Post by lucci2005on Jun 02, 2010 10:22am
510 Views
Post# 17149888

SLT announcement

SLT announcementIf you look at SLT's news release today, it states that 

"Solitaire continues to negotiate for coal leases with near and long term production potential. Currently the most significant negotiation involves the potential purchase of an operating mining permit currently producing metallurgical grade coal in Kentucky. This project was also selected for the development potential on the adjacent coal leases. If successful, Solitaire would become the operator of the metallurgical coal mine once the permit transfer process is complete, which on average takes approximately one month for completion."

I like the last sentence (transfer of permit take approximately one month for completion).  Wouldn't it be hilarious if SLT actually got their permit faster than NAG? 

I brought this up with the board before.  As an investor with NAG (and not SLT), I'm a bit concerned that Charles did not acquire metallurgical coal for NAG instead.  I realize we are producing a different kind of coal, but still.  Instead of adding future value to NAG, he is adding it to SLT.  Almost spreading his risk and return to two companies instead of one.  Good for him, not so good for just NAG shareholders.  With his contacts, I think he could have easily chosen to bring metallurgical coal on board for NAG instead of SLT.  Especially since its in Kentucky.  These are just my thoughts, take them for whatever they are
<< Previous
Bullboard Posts
Next >>