rdpsims:
A good friend, who continues to post to this thread, called me and suggested I read your post. I did and found it to be erroneous and rude.
First of all, I have not posted to this board for a significant period of time and in my last posts, I made note of why I was losing interest in the company (note that I have been a serious investor and close follower of the company for roughly two decades). I learned a long time ago that maintaining an investment in companies where there are high continuing outflows of cash and where the only source of new cash is via further under-writings, is not a wise investment strategy.
Go back to my comments of February and you will note that I viewed the 180 degree turn in the Colombian Government's negative attitudes as a wonderful opportunity for the company. I also noted that the company should concentrate on only two goals,............... partnering with a major or selling itself to a major. I pointed out that most major producers were busy repairing their balance sheets, so the list of possible partners/buyers was modest.
Five years ago, before the environmentalists threw EOM under the bus, I met with the CEO of EOM and proposed a contract that would see me approach certain Chinese major gold companies in an effort to secure their interest in EOM and a possible partner/sale deal. The deal I proposed was that I would spend my own dough (including expenses) in so doing, but that if successful, I would receive an excellent return for my efforts. The follow-on contract was for a 2 year term.
The Chinese proved to be extremely interested and completed a great deal of due diligence. In the end, they stated that they were interested in acquiring a minimum of 51 percent of the company or more. Meetings were arranged for PDAC of that year, that witnessed EOM's CEO, the Chinese Minister of Mining and the top officials of the Chinese major producer meet, to thrash out the details of a deal. Unfortunately, the environmental issues erupted in April and their interest in EOM (wisely ) evaporated. "Close but no cigar"
At PDAC of 2015, I attended EOM's presentation and learned that the company would complete certain studies. HMMMMM......... expensive, time-consuming, redundant (see David Hughe's superb business plan and studies done when he was COO) at a time when EOM's treasury was minimal. I suggested to EOM management that I would be interested in contacting the Chinese again and pointed out that with their due diligence largely completed, their previous interest might be re-ignited. The company was not interested. From this, I surmised that perhaps the company had other deals in the works with other majors. Alas, over time, I concluded that such was not the case.
Many EOM investors came to believe that a deal might be consummated with the new owners of the AUX property. I did not share this point of view as I had done a great deal of research on the AUX deposit and concluded that it was not economically viable.
In the company's recent news release, a rather tedious, expensive and time consuming "route to production" has been proposed. Given the current gold environment, it still makes more sense to me to pursue a "sell or partner" deal. Recently, we are seeing the emergence of well-financed, superbly-led "gold asset accumulators" (check out "First Mining Finance Corp.” or “Newmarket Gold Inc.”, as examples of the breed) . Yes, these companies are buying up "gold-in-the-ground" at modest prices but at least they represent survival for the shareholders of their acquisitions.
As a consequence of the above, and as EOM continued to burn cash (roughly $0.5 M per month) my interest in holding a continuing investment in EOM flagged and I posted as much.
Note that I did not post any negative comments, but simply ceased posting.
Larry