hoov's Profile
hoov's Posts
Give a thumbs up if you wish me to continue posting here as I always have, i.e. when I think it's appropriate to say something.
Lar
I'm barely able to comprehend, let alone express, just how wonderful you people are. I'm overwhelmed by the sheer number of supportive PMs, emails, and phone calls. And then you have the testimonials posted here. I was left speechless (isn't that a change, eh?). Even though it must seem obvious to everyone else, I still feel a bit like Sally Field, when she said in her Oscar acceptance speech: " And I can't deny the fact that you like me... right now... you like me. Thank you." Maybe it's a little bit because I'm so busy being The Hoov that I don't notice peoples' reactions, routinely, but I will do my best to live up to your impressions of me.
Ordinarily, I try to answer every PM I receive, but I'm not going to do that. There are simply too many. I want each and every person who sent me a supportive message during this difficult time to know that your support is a very powerful medicine. And I want JJ and Wes to know that I'm especially touched by your efforts to carry support to me.
I also want to mention a few things that will help with understanding how things are for me. When I came to this board in July '08, I didn't recognize its potential. I knew nothing about junior explorers, or any of the related topics. And I didn't know a soul. I'd started investing in some of these plays, but I realized that there were people who obviously understood more about what was really going on than simply reading news releases could possibly provide. I lurked here for a while, but then I decided to become a member so that I could join in the discussions. I made a lot of newbie mistakes, but people graciously offered me information, and sources of information, and advice, and so on. In my mind, all I'm doing is paying forward what was already paid forward to me. But there's another aspect to the story. When I came here, I could barely function beyond the simplest level of function. The generosity of spirit here lifted me up.
I think that coming here, and being accepted here, has in some ways enhanced the rate of what will surely be a lengthy recovery process. I'm by no stretch of the imagination well, but I'm improving over how it used to be for me. But it's not a straight line upwards, no matter how obvious that increase may be over time. It's a wobbly line. This isn't the first time I've withdrawn from the boards here. It's probably in the dozens of times now, in fact. For a good long while, I just didn't post for some interval of time, but nobody seemed to notice. But after a while, people did seem to notice my absences. So, I started to drop hints, to give a little advance notice that I'd be taking a break, but people often misunderstood the situation entirely. I found myself telling more and more people something about my medical challenges, because specific relationships became meaningful enough to me that a fuller explanation seemed appropriate. E.g. It isn't that I don't want to meet you for dinner the next time I'm in Toronto, I can't manage it. Or whatever. It's not personal, it's me. Ya know?
So, this is a wobble down. Nothing new about it for me. But my relationship with you, all of you, is affected by that wobble. That relationship is important to me, and this is an important time. The Hoov is fine, relatively speaking, but his body is not so fine right now. I must rest. I can't predict how these things go. I've got some important medical appointments next week, and those would have pretty much taken me out, in any case. I'll be around, and we'll see how it goes.
I'm deeply touched by all the support I've received. And it will certainly help me find my strength again. Thank you, all of you. And I'll talk to ya later.
Kind regards,
Lar
I say preliminary because I'll be doing a photo-tour report to give you a feel for the place, once I return home and upload my photos.
I did not sign a non-disclosure agreement, and none was required, as we were not provided with any material information. That said, I know things that you don't, and I'll try and detail those for you now. I'll use point form format.
Drills
- Five were turning yesterday, and by today, the sixth (new deep rig) was hoped to be in use.
- The deep rigs are Big Sue and Big Boy. One is collared right on hole 49, extending it. Information about depth of penetration, core data, etc. was strictly controlled. I was unable to find a chink in that armour.
- Three rigs remain on Eagles Nest doing infill work, to upgrade inferred resources to indicated, for economic projections. New data obtained below ~1000 metres will likely remain inferred, due to the cost of holes at that depth.
- Sixth drill is on AT12, but when that rig's contract with Cyr Drilling expires, the rig will be let go. More on AT12 in a moment.
Regional Exploration
- One third of the budget this year will go to regional exploration, i.e. work outside of the Eagle's Nest Complex.
- State of the art aerial magnetic/EM surveys have been completed on two "sectors" of Noront's claims, with the final two being flown at present by Terraquest. With 100 metre transects on a 60 metre elevation, the data being obtained is already revealing exciting new targets. Approximately 10 have already been given high priority, all within the southern band of the ring that has given the greatest prior success.
- Of the 1/3 of the company's budget for the year dedicated to regional work, about 90% will go into drilling.
- A limited program will soon begin in the NE quadrant of the RoF, near the Ekwan River.
Eagle's Nest
- About 22% of this year's budget, split such that about a quarter will go to infill drilling, to upgrade the resource category in the intermediate depths, and the rest to deep drilling.
- Big Sue and Big Boy are positioned on either side of the ore column, allowing them to drill deep from the east and west simultaneously.
AT12
- There is a lot of excitement about this target, especially in light of new geophysical data obtained from the Terraquest high-res aerial surveys.
- However, the blockade this winter really screwed up their plans for this target, as the most important part of this winter program would have the collection of ground-based data from SQUID receivers. SQUID stands for super-conducting quantum interference device, and these are the most sensitive signal detection devices known. They virtually require frozen ground for logistical reasons, because you need terra firma, solid ground, to stabilize the equipment. They're considering their options at the moment, but AT12 might be on hold temporarily.
- Targetting of the drills is exceedingly important here, as the ground is the most difficult of any they've tried to work from. They have gaps of 300 metres between collars in some instances, but they need good target data before they can commit the resources to try and position a rig. Wait until you see my pictures of what is considered to be good drill conditions, at Eagle's Nest. This is challenging work.
Triple J
- Approximately 2500 assays were submitted, and most of that round have come back from the lab.
- Because of some of the values returned, more samples have been submitted.
- As an analytical chemist myself, I want to make clear that they are not withholding assay results from you. Assays do not come back from the lab in press-release ready format. There is substantial work to compile and analyze the results. I've been given a crude timeline of 4-6 weeks for those results to be available.
Transport Options
- There was a lively discussion on the flight in about the costs of transportation infrastructure. One of the analysts mentioned costing out a similar project recently, and it came in at $3 million/kilometre in fixed costs, plus 40% in indirect costs for the entire project.
- Worst case all weather roads can cost out at $.75 to 1.0 million per kilometre.
- With these considerations, alternatives are being very seriously investigated.
Feasibility/Engineering Consultants
- 30% of this year's budget goes towards a feasibility study of the Eagle's Nest Complex.
- Micon is the lead consultant
- Subcontractors have been selected for many of the required components of the larger study:
- Socio-economic: Wynterose
- Environmental Baseline: AECOM
- Full Environmental: To be determined
- Mining Engineering: Cementation
- Process Engineering, Eagle's Nest: SNC Lavalin
- Resource Definition: Golder
- Process Engineering, Blackbirds: Hatch
- Geotechnical: To be determined
- Transportation: SNC Lavalin
- Wes anticipated making quarterly reports on the progress in these various categories of study, such that the feasibility study will develop sequentially.
First Nations initiatives
- Chief Nolan spoke at length about various initiatives designed to bring economic development to the affected communities. These include doing skill surveys of these communities, identifying the skill upgrading that will be required, and to develop and implement the appropriate training programs that will enable full participation in the jobs of the future.
- Noront presently employs about 15 members of the local FNs.
- A significant portion of the corporate budget for this year will go towards community development programs.
Random comments
- The granodiorite intrusive rock is turning out to be of very good quality, from the perspective of rock mechanics. Noront is therefore considering developing all mine facilities underground. A by-product of such work would be significant amounts of aggregate, which could turn out to be quite valuable to other parties. Furthermore, that would permit underground emplacement of tailings, eliminating surface environmental concerns.
- Due to the high costs of labour inputs, particularly in remote locations, serious consideration is being given to remote operation of mining equipment. Crude estimates are that a savings of 40% of production costs would be possible.
- Yes, that was me in three Twitter pictures from yesterday. Because I sunburn easily, I was wearing my Tilley hat. I love my Tilley hat.
- The food was excellent. But I was told that we did not get anything too out of the ordinary. When on site, away from home and family, working brutal 12 on/12 off rotations, feeding hard working people poor quality food is a false economy. Your best workers simply won't come back.
That's it for the moment. Questions welcome (I might think of other stuff to talk about), but I likely won't see them until later today. I have to get myself ready to check out of the hotel.
Lar
Why do powerful forces want me silenced?
I will tie this post in with Freewest share value down below, but I need to lay some groundwork first. And I'm not avoiding the newer thoughts offered up for debate; this is left over from last week. And I've got another loose end from last week, yet to go. I can't manage a new thing until I finish the old thing(s). I'm managing as best I can.
One powerful group, or more than one, doesn't want me speaking here. As a scientist, I did the experiment, and the evidence for that is overwhelming. The last time I looked, the poll I conducted supported my continued posting here 122 to 7, over the naysayers. And yet, a cursory read of posts here would indicate quite the opposite. How can one reconcile such disparity between two sets of data? My hypothesis is that the silent majority are under intense manipulation by the vocal minority, with me as a principal target.
I've carefully chosen my words here. They have ME as their principal target. Not the data I've provided, nor my ideas about the data, but they're attacking me. I'm being told I said things that I never did, that my character is poor, that my motives are false, that my circumstances are lower class, that I'm flat out lying to you, etc. etc. One even questioned my scientific credibility. (Sorry, but that cuts close to the bone. I hide in plain sight here. Look me up.) But these are nothing more than lies of distraction, based on logical fallicies. They're nothing more than attempts to change the subject away from factual examination and discussion, and on to something else entirely. Moreover, the shift is also away from cool reason towards hot emotion.
Logical fallacies (loosely, "false thinking") are so inherently part of the human condition that the words that we use to describe the different types of these fallacies generally derive from ancient Greek and Latin. They are easily traced back to Socrates and Plato in the Agora of Athens, and I'm sure that the ideas themselves are more ancient still. Critical thinking demands that you learn to recognize the existence of these fallacies, at least in simple terms. By their very definition, they are false. Once you label an argument with this sense of falsehood, it becomes easy to dismiss the argument entirely, and return to more reasoned thought.
There are three loose categories of people who use these types of arguments. The first are the naive. They don't know any other way of arguing. It's also very difficult to convince such a person that they're even doing so. The second type is the negligent debater. They know about these fallacies, but they don't care to avoid them. Things appear to be moving along nicely (i.e. civil debate), and then suddenly off you go on a tangent, usually when the going gets rough for them, when they realize they're losing the debate. The third type is really problematic, the intentional user of these fallacies. They know the power that they embody. Theirs is malevolent manipulation. Political speech writers are of this third type, for example, but they use subtle forms of it. And we have all three types on this board, IMHO. There is, however, one thing that is true for all three groups. They never use logical fallacies if they have a truthful and realistic argument to make. When they have no such argument, they distract you. Bait and switch.
I have no intention of providing an exhaustive list of some of the logical fallacies used on this board, but I will try to show you some examples so you can see what I'm talking about. I have no intention of pointing the finger at any individual who is posting to these boards, and I'm sorry if you can identify yourself in what I have to say. I prefer to use real examples, because you've seen these used here.
-
ad hominem That means literally, an argument "at the person". There are many variants of this, but I'll just give a single example, ad hominem circumstantis, in which the person's (assumed) circumstances are used to raise doubt about the real point of debate. Because I accepted the hospitality of my friends and associates at a social gathering following the Noront AGM, I was labelled as being destitute, and my credibility was challenged. On a logical basis, what possible connection could there be, even if it was true, between the amount of money in my wallet in the evening in question, and the correctness of the chromite market data I presented here? The correct challenge to one person's data presentation is the presentation of contrasting data, and even then, it must be shown that the alternative information is more credible. -
ad populum Literally "to the people", but the inference is "to the emotions of the people". There's a lot of this one going on here. It can be good, or it can be bad. Benevolent or malevolent. When Winston Churchill spoke to Londoners under siege in the Battle of Britain, to raise their spirits, he was speaking ad populum. When JFK said, "Ask not what your country can do for you, but what you can do for your country", he too was speaking ad populum. But another form of this is racism. Pick any -ism, and you embody this fallacy. You've been asked, by a number of posters here to dismiss any statements made by "NOTaddicts" (sic), or more generally by anyone with substantial points who has ever posted over there. Does that argument have any validity at all? I've always posted to many boards, and I continue to post to many boards. If anything, I'd say that gives me balance. And the 122-7 vote invalidates this sort of argument altogether. Inciting a riot is an ad populum act. -
false dichotomy This one happens here all the time, too. Somebody creates an either/or type argument, and then attempts to "prove" that their intended choice must be true, by arguing against the alternative. However, falsifying the alternative does not prove that the remaining option is correct, nor the only right answer. Whenever you're presented with this type of argument, you should first consider if there are other ways of seeing the same situation than merely the two that are presented. Usually, once you do that, the whole thing falls apart before it even begins. For example, we were told that Noront's Eagles Nest project is uneconomic, and thus the Freewest project must be economic. I would need evidence to support the latter conclusion, even if Noront's project was uneconomic. But in fact, Noront's project is economic. The whole argument is nothing more than a distraction from the yet unprovable contention that the FWR chromite is economic. And, there are more ways to look at the situation than this simplistic either/or proposal. -
petitio principii (Sorry about the Latin, but if you want to google or wiki any of these things, this is the proper terminology.) In the vernacular English, this would be a circular argument, or preaching to the choir, but more literally, "begging the question". In simple terms, you have to believe the premise in order to believe the conclusion. There is no hard evidence provided. An example was one post that said the chromite was worth $50 billion, therefore the shares were worth $15. I've seen some mathematical "evidence" used for these kinds of arguments, but when I've challenged the assumptions, I don't see evidence provided. I see more assumptions. Petitio principii can be simple, or quite complex. I've seen whole books that are nothing more than elaborate forms of it. What I haven't seen, in even one lone test of the underlying assumptions, is the sale of a chromite deposit, and the percentage of the in situ value embodied in that sale. I have looked, and it ain't no 10%. The most critical variable in the valuation is not the tonnage, nor even the grade. It is the in situ percentage value. This isn't gold we're talking about. -
modus ponens This is a literal failure of deductive reasoning. This is a challenging one to understand. Symbolically, it looks like this: If p then q, p is true, therefore so is q. But that's a false assumption. There may be many other factors, other than factor p that influence q. If this, then that, is only an hypothesis, not proof. For example, we know that Cliffs has invested in the ROF. We even know that they're invested in FWR. That does not prove that they will invest further in this project, at this time. I'll believe it when I see it. And not just offered. Closed. Only then will q also be true, IMHO.
What I've been talking about is a formal overview of some of the components of critical thinking. I would never try to convince anybody else to think a certain way. I've only ever asked you to think about your thinking itself. One poster has even gone so far as to suggest I'm biased because of what I've presented to you. More on that in a moment, but what it tells me is that he's challenging his earlier thinking, within himself. I didn't do that, the information did. There is no right answer to any of this. Two experts can look at the same information and come to very different conclusions. I'm providing information, with a very clear distinction between that, and any opinions I personally hold.
Now, I'll finally discuss the reason for this whole essay, the debate about the value of the FWR chromite, and the derivative value of shares in the company.
Very soon after the verbal offer was released by news release, I was asked to provide my opinion on the relative valuation of shares in Freewest and Noront. My assessment of the implicit value was 5:1 or greater. That's the only opinion about value that I have expressed. On the face of it, the first stage of the takeover attempt seemed fair to me. Beyond that, I have decided nothing. I don't yet have the information I need to decide anything. I'm neither for nor against the deal because I don't for a moment think that the final version of the offer(s) are even yet known. What I've been doing is background research, at my own expense, and sharing some of that with you. When further details about the negotions come down, I hope to be ready with everything I need to understand the context, and to make a quick decision.
In my view, the philosophy of the world according to The Hoov, the science is the data. Science means "the knowledge", and the only things we know are things we measured or observed, subject to any questions about how well we've measured or observed them. All the rest is interpretation and opinion. I have offered some minor interpretations of the data I collected, but I have not even got an hypothesis yet about what is going to happen with Freewest. To presume that I have a conclusion in mind is quite false.
If the data I have presented seems to lead to a certain way of thinking, then that is in your mind. That's your critical thinking at work. And when I question some of the other posters about how they got to their thinking, that's my critical thinking at work. There is no right answer.
I want to remind you of something I said earlier, but I'm going to say it very pointedly here. In civil debate, the correct reply to data is other data. If you question the information someone has presented, then find better information, and be prepared to show why you think it's better. If your reply is a logical fallacy, then you already know you've failed to counter the argument presented. The truth is in the data, not in the presenter. That's why I've always said, "I don't want to be right, I want to get it right." I want science.
Lar
P.S. To the mailroom poster with the minus points score who PM'd me last night: Your calling me a lying a-hole didn't intimidate me in the slightest. In fact, you shot yourself in the foot. Good luck with your investment decisions, and your interpersonal relationships.
I'm getting old. Or I should practise drinking more often. Or get more sleep. I'm just now getting my thoughts together after the luncheon. I only got a couple hours sleep each night, and I need my beauty sleep.
Some random thoughts/stuff I liked:
1. Noront will make all drill hole data and assays linked thereto fully accessible by anyone. Utilizing an interface format more familiar to users of CAD software, or building trades costing, you could select a hole from a menu, an image of its location in the deposit would appear, and a drop down menu would allow you to look at assays or ranges of assays at any depth along it. They already use similar software, of course. What would be novel is allowing access to it in real time, online. I can't wait to take it for a spin.
2. Secondly, there was a 3D rotating image of the Eagle's Nest deposit (Eagle 1A, 1B, 1C and any other (hopefully) pods have now been collected together as Eagle's Nest) that didn't get displayed in the Powerpoint version online, so at some point I expect that you will be able to see a rotatable image of the deposit on the website. What was not mentioned by anyone who's reported on the luncheon is that there were a number of core holes plotted on the 3D image (what Jelle/roos called the cartoon) that have not been reported. Hole 49 was straight down through the heart of it. There were around a dozen more faint lines from surface, penetrating pods B and C at depth, holes with the more typical 50-60 degree dip angles (giving width intersections, and thus internal grade variations). I don't think it was a mistake they made, revealing more information with that image than was verbally stated. I think it was a heads-up to people such as myself about just where they were at. JJ said that some of those were planned holes. Mmmm....maybe. Maybe some of those are completed. I think they KNOW they've got a boat-load of nickel down there.
3. I think Wes's denial of knowing the drill progress was nothing more than plausible deniability. By not being updated the morning of the presentation, or within minutes of it, or whatever, he could deny that he knew the progress precisely. I note that he did not put John Harvey on the record, although he could have done so.
4. I'm unable to cut and paste images from the slide presentation for some reason; I just get the background. If you'll refer to slide 22, you'll see Eagle 1 going from uneconomic at 30,375 to economic with pods B and C at ~90,000. It's important to recognize that the units being represented here are metric tonnes of contained nickel, perhaps even recoverable nickel (i.e. accounting for losses in processing). The indicated nickel in the 43-101 resource estimate is nearly 40,000 metric tons. As such, this is an exceedingly conservative economic valuation metric. It gives no value whatsoever to the copper, let alone the PGE and gold.
5. I came out of the room a lot more comfortable than when I went in. A lot more comfortable. I don't care if this is all just posturing before a take-out. If you are going to production, there is a check-list of things that need to be done. The more items you get ticked off on the check-list, the more of that blue-sky value is being capitalized, with respect to NAV. I foresee items being checked off of that list in an efficient and timely manner, going forward.
6. What an amazing bunch of people we have in Noront. I cannot even begin to count the number of people who greeted me so very warmly, beginning with JJ, who greeted me as "The Hoov". I couldn't help but smile at that. I am very grateful for all the kind words that came my way. It was a pleasure to meet every single one of you, some for the first time, and some again. And thank you Mr. Voisin for buying everyone dinner.
Lar
I try to wait until I form an opinion about a person's choices. First off, I stand back and let them make their own choice. And then I try to see their choice is going to work out, before I firm up my opinion.
This is what I said Oct. 29 (45 thumbs), immediately following the AGM: "The new board members have a massive amount of information to process. It takes time to come up to speed, and I want them to have a chance to perform their due diligence, and to do it well. Deciding anything about the performance of the board, or their future potential performance, at this point of time is not prudent."
On Nov. 14, after the large flow-through financing was announced (56 thumbs), I said: "The newly constituted Board said they would look at the books, assess budgets, and set priorities. And that's just what they've done. And the details will be revealed to us in due course, as required of them by law."
On a number of occasions in December 2008, I posted my wish to cut them some slack with respect to tardy assay results, even though Freewest and Spider could get assay results to their shareholders much faster. By late January, I began to question that delay. I began to question other choices, too.
There are many ways to take the measure of a man. One is to see what they do. Their leadership. Their vision. Another is to see what they don't do. Both doings and not doings speak to character, to integrity. And then there's a whole new category, watching to see the sort of thing that upsets a person.
Apparently, some of the subjects discussed here have upset Mr. Hamilton. I recall that he told Glorieux that some things said here are false, but he was legally prevented from addressing those subjects. Well, Mr. Hamilton, opinions are never false. They may be more or less founded in fact and/or law, but they are never ever false. That you would even use such a criterion tells me what kind of a man you are. Your opinion counts, but other peoples'? Apparently not.
And Mr. Parisotto. Hanging up the phone. Really, sir, I hope you have the dignity to apologize, but I don't expect that you do. At PDAC, when I appeared at the booth, you turned away from me. It may have been a coincidence, but I am still free to conclude otherwise, as I would not expect a CEO to turn away from an investor or potential investor approaching your booth. I think I'm getting the measure of you, sir, as well.
You come up with an absurd 110 day assay turnaround, and yet you don't stick to even that. You say you'll wait to let the new CEO decide Agoracom's fate, and guess what. That wasn't true either. Hmmmm.
It's nearly been five months since this new Board was elected. I'm still waiting for a vision, for the leadership I reasonably expected to see. In that vacuum, I now begin to see the lack of making choices as a choice itself. And that is what is playing out today. My starting position, with any person, is never disrespect, nor distrust. Those take time to develop. Those seeds have sprouted already. I fear they are in fertile soil.
Lar