Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Colossal Resources - CLPZF - Colbalt in Zambia -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Cornelis van Helden who wrote (435)	1/3/1998 9:27:00 AM
From: kfdkfd	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 501

Cornelis Info I've givin up also, sold majority of my holdings, worst investment of 1997. Dec. 30, Daniel H. Nielsen Q.CLPZF Colossal Res. Colossal Resources was a high flyer at above $4.00 with "billions" in above ground cobalt, smelting equipment and so on. What happened? They are now about $0.30. Did the government take over, key equipment fail, cobalt fall to $15 a pound or what? RESPONSE: Good question! When we initially wrote up CLP, then trading on the VSE, it ran over $5 on expectation that delayed production and revenues were about to start happening. We relied, to a large extent, on the resource and expected production calculations that First Marathon and National Securities had published in their reports. These reports were put out when CLP was trading over $10, with much higher targets. Cobalt was weak in price and production was delayed, and we thought this may have explained why CLP had drifted down to $4. Management supported this view strongly. As far as we know the resource hasn't changed, the political climate is the same and cobalt prices did rebound for a while as expected. This should have meant CLP, then moved to NASDAQ as symbol CLPZF, would make its move up again. Instead CLPZF fell quickly. When we asked why, the company blamed this in part on a previous financing where the subscribers had killed the market deliberately by shorting their own stock. This in itself doesn't totally make sense. We asked for updates on production and could not get the answers we wanted. When CLPZF bounced up over $2 again we dropped the stock from our Stock-Watch Lists mainly because we could not get enough info. to figure out what was really going on. We blame part of the fall on the reasons they gave, some of it on the move to the NASDAQ (which in hindsight was probably a mistake for a junior mining company) and some on the general mining market in 1997. However, beyond this we gave up trying to figure out CLPZF's bottom when we couldn't get the info we needed. It was nice for the company to talk about the resource and how well the stock would eventually do, but we couldn't get the simplest answers to production and financing questions so we gave up.