There's no news in the "news release". It says in the title: "Copper Fox Provides Corporate Update on Project Activities". But there isn't any update, really, just a re-hash: "The technical information contained in this news release has been previously disseminated to the public by way of earlier news releases".
There's also no new claim I see saying that they're "looking to buy a large or potentially large copper deposit in North America". The only thing close to that I saw was a meaningless generic statement at the end saying "Going forward, the Company will continue to focus on large or potentially large copper project in North America." Since they've already bitten off way more than they can chew, and do generally seem to be pretty confused themselves about the differences between "large" and "potentially large"... perhaps it makes more sense to read that "continue to focus" statement as saying they're going to spend the next year plus hoping they'll be able to afford to continue staring at what they already "have"... if they do "have" anything...
The only thing close to news I saw in the entire thing was an announcement that "The management committee meeting for the Schaft Creek joint venture has been scheduled for the third week of January 2015".
Other things I noted in a quick look were eye opening, however, and disturbing:
There is one instance in which they mis-spelled their own company name as Coper Fox. Apparently the burn rate doesn't pay for the luxury of spell checking.
The disclaimers cover 1/3 more lines than the re-cycled "information"...
Probably this should cover it (and maybe they should have actually read it themselves, much more carefully, and should have just stuck with this): "investors are cautioned that except for that portion of mineral resources classified as mineral reserves, mineral resources do not have demonstrated economic viability. Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be upgraded into mineral reserves. Additionally, investors are cautioned that inferred mineral resources have a high degree of uncertainty as to their existence, as to whether they can be economically or legally mined, or will ever be upgraded to a higher category. *United States investors are advised that current Mineral Resources are not current Mineral Reserves and do not have demonstrated economic viability."
Do note, that the high level of uncertainty about the existence, economics, or practicality of inferred resources, doesn't convert statements made about inferred resources into "forward looking statements". Claiming that simple statements of fact about the existence of inferred resources that have been established ARE "forward looking"... only operates to give them far more substantial predictive powers than they can reasonably have, which predictive powers they don't have, by design, in the definitions the rules create.
Their very existence is an uncertainty... so they are not capable of being predictive of anything more... when they are not even to be relied on in predicting their own existence...
If you own shares, or are considering owning them... after you read the 47 lines re-hashing prior news releases... you should probably read through all 61 lines of the disclaimers with a fine toothed comb to see how they DO apply to what the company is saying. Since Coper Fox has recently begun going to quite a lot of effort in the "more must be better" school of disclaimership.... it's probably for a reason.
I skimmed the disclaimers and noted three obvious oddities.
One is that they try to define quite clearly what items in the content they cover actually are forward looking statements. That seems a good idea... except, incredibly, it seems they're trying to use that in an attempt to try to redefine that everything, including things they've clearly stated as solid fact previously, are still really only forward looking. It looks like they're seeking cover to redefine things they HAVE ALREADY told you are facts... as if they are still only "forward looking" speculations... even after the fact. In other words, by telling you that what they told you was a fact... should still be considered as forward looking... it means they're telling you that they're probably lying... that all their "facts" should always be considered subject to revision ?
First, in touting the Van Dyke Project they say: "The resource estimation completed by Moose Mountain Technical Services has defined an inferred mineral resource of 261.7 million tonnes at an average grade of 0.25% total copper containing approximately 1.44 billion pounds of copper (see news release dated December 19, 2014)."
Then, they say "Forward-looking information in this news release include statements about... the inferred resource estimate for the Van Dyke project."
Is that the estimate... or isn't it ? If it is true that "The resource estimation completed by Moose Mountain Technical Services has defined an inferred mineral resource of 261.7 million tonnes"... then, that is not a forward looking statement, but a statement of historical fact... and the disclaimer doesn't change that. Instead, the disclaimer being applied has a different effect.
They're trying to re-label everything they say, that way... to try to make it protected as "forward looking" and thus speculative... as if they didn't mean it when they said it, you know, as it was just speculative... and you shouldn't be surprised if it turns out not to be true. Since they label their "facts" as forward looking... you should have known they were lies ? But, of course, that doesn't really work.
Claiming resource estimates are "forward looking information" as they are trying to do... so that you can't expect to hold them accountable for them... appears to me that it violates the NI43-101 rules, in spirit and intent, at least.
Another problem with that:
"Information concerning inferred mineral resource estimates also may be deemed to be forward-looking information in that it reflects a prediction of the mineralization that would be encountered if a mineral deposit were developed and mined."
That's EXACTLY wrong... the exact opposite of the truth. That "disclaimer" itself seems to deliberately run afoul of the NI43-101 rules... deliberately undermining them... as what it is saying in calling the lowest grade resource estimates "forward looking predictions of mineralization that would be encountered"... is that they really are and should be considered by investors as forward looking statements about reserves... which is not close to being consistent with the clear intent of the NI43-101 requirements... or the definitions it applies. They're using their "disclaimers" about forward looking statements... to try to redefine low grade resources as "forward looking reserves"... which is exactly what NI43-101 intends to prevent, by requiring the companies to NOT imply that resources have or predict economic value.
More of the same problem on trend in converting resources into reserves in this one:
"Elmer B. Stewart, President and CEO of Copper Fox stated, "We are very pleased with the technical progress of the Company over the past year. The establishment of an inferred mineral resource at Van Dyke (1.44 billion pounds of copper) and the acquisition of the equity interest in the Carmax (Copper Fox share equals 278 million pounds of copper) has added a total of 1.72 billion pounds of copper as well as molybdenum and gold all contained in the inferred resource category to our balance sheet at minimal cost."
Hmmm. Given that resources do not have demonstrated economic viability... what fictional values, exactly, do they have assigned to them when they show up as values on the Coper Fox balance sheet ? Do equity interests with a "current inferred mineral resource" add reserve values directly to the company balance sheet ?
Claiming the company added 1.72 billion pounds of copper (inferred resources) to the balance sheet ?
Does making that claim have the CEO restating resources as reserves, in violation of the NI43-101 ?
Again... the language used seems it intends to convince you to think about resources as reserves... so, what should you make of the warning that "Investors are cautioned not to assume that all or any part of measured or indicated mineral resources will ever be upgraded into mineral reserves"... even though the company is repeatedly trying to induce you into making exactly that error... even in their disclaimers... while they are themselves making exactly that error in their own assumptions, for you, in their PR... while addressing even lower grade inferred resources?
|
