Compliance Energy Corp CPYCF

Peabody market cap 6.3B and losing money

[mokita]

2guys, check out your FACTS.  Peabody has a $6.3 billion market cap and is losing money big time which is bad news for investors--prognosis is coal exports will continue to tank and Peabody stock will continue to drop. Read research on the vulnerability of Jr miners like CEC that are most at risk in todays bearish market.

Given the 10% production increase each year, CEC has demonstrated it has big holes in its deep pockets and the missing costs in Feasibility study--compensation to First Nations expected to be in milllions, security bond for contamination that is a given, as with Quinsam that is contaminating Long Lake and now Quinsam Lake and was ordered to pay a $7 million security bond, taxes, and increases in diesel fuel costs etc., CEC finances don't look good especially when you add the 10% a year increase in production costs operating mines are claiming.  .

[jvand]

Additional info from International Energy Association. https://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/coal/

[jvand]

This should work.https://www.iea.org/aboutus/faqs/coal/

[thebaker]

mokita, you really should make up your mind. In your first post you say that Peabody's profit's are down. Then you say they are losing money. Which is it. There is a difference. Since it is their report that says profits are down, I expect this is the case, but that didn't sensationalize your post, so you changed the facts to suit yourself. The fact that coal exports and

[mokita]

instead of splitting hairs, suggest you look at Peabody financial statements, and competing coal mines to determine just how likely it is that CEC will be feasible.

[2guys]

mokita, what coal price does CEC need in order to be feasible, and while you're at it, what is the insitu value of Raven's coal deposit, if CEC gets the necessary permits?   If you know the answers to the above, then I would say you know what you're talking about.   I'll give you a hint.  If CEC doesn't get the necessary permits, then the insitu value is zero

[c0lmustard]

Mokita, The difference between shrinking profits and actually losing money is not "splitting hairs".  Far from it.

[mokita]

source: www.mineweb.com ENERGY Peabody Energy reveals 2012 losses; more losses anticipated in 1Q13 Despite US$1 billion in 4Q losses, Peabody Energy executives insist they see “signs that the coal markets are recovering, though this improvement comes off a lower base.” Author: Dorothy Kosich Posted: Wednesday , 30 Jan 2013 RENO (MINEWEB) - Not only did

[mokita]

Raven feasibility report claims economics for coal is "robust,"  a claim made in 2009.  No evidence for "robust" but plenty for "bust" --coal mine stocks down up to 60%, coal miner layoffs, shutdowns and slowdown of production; plunging coal prices; more competition from third world countires developing coal resources etc. Analysists state Junior miners are

[2guys]

So mokita, you don't know Raven's insitu value, and you don't know what coal price Raven needs to be profitable, so you decide to spin a negative angle in order to deflect from the fact that you really don't know what you're talking about when it comes to relevant information for this "particular" project.   By chance, are you a politician?  lol

[mokita]

2guys, Read the feasibility study--met coal price needs to be  $174 mt to be profitable, but CEC avoids giving a price for thermal coal to be profitable, yet is designing Raven for both met and thermal.  other serious gaps in Raven feasibility study is no budget line for the high finance charges that is tanking Cline Coal currently, and most significantly, no budget line for mitigations