Larry Reaugh answers Trevor’s questions.

Big Al
August 13, 2012

Click download link to listen on this device: Download Show

    Aug 13, 2012 13:19 AM

    Hi Al, did Larry seem confident of a JV deal? Did you get the feeling it was a short timeline for ? I am a substancial shareholder of AMY. When Larry laughed a little in the audio, was that in your opinion a feeling of confidence?

    Thanks so much

    Aug 13, 2012 13:19 AM

    Hi Al, I don’t mean to bother you too much; however were you able to reach Del regarding PEM?

    Aug 13, 2012 13:12 PM

    Just posted. Thanks Al. Appreciated.

    Aug 13, 2012 13:18 PM

    Hi Al.

    Thanks for doing the interview with Larry, it certainly supports my view on the ‘battery side’ interest intimating priority on getting that program further developed (flow sheet), to be included in the feasibility study going forward as a contingency to a partnership deal.

    I thank you for taking up my questions directly with Larry and certainly appreciate that he is bound to keep his statements constrained , not only in a forward looking aspect, but due to non-disclosure arrangements with the strategic parties currently in talks with the company.

    Larry had told me a few weeks ago that the company is currently awaiting battery powder purity analysis. I would contend that the back and forth Larry spoke of today would be inclusive and highly focused on this purity/quality analysis.

    I would venture to guess that the battery side player would come in on an off-take type of arrangement, whereby, the partnership is a two-fold deal. One based on JV terms and the other tied to off-take. I think it would serve investors very well in that scenario. Not sure if you follow what I’m suggesting, however, I see it unfolding in that manner.

    Thanks again.

    Look forward to you more in depth piece on the company in the coming days.

      Aug 13, 2012 13:41 PM

      Look for it on Saturday, Trevor.

      Big Al

    Aug 14, 2012 14:15 PM

    I still really like AMY.V, even with the higher costs to mine (due to lower purity manganese) in the project, particularly at 9.5 cents per share. However, there is a risk of whether the project will go ahead. Add that to longer-term date to start mining (2015 nominally), and perhaps 9 cents/sh isn’t too far off where it should be. However, that means huge dilution or a major partner in order to raise cash to build the mine. That, of course, is what Larry is working on right now. If I had to make a hunch, I’d say they’re going to do it because China exports less and less manganese, and we need the metal in both US and Canada, particularly the electrolytic form which is used in electronics (EEM), not just steel production. It also would be a more secure domestic supplier, something the military and certain commercial users smile upon.

    It’s also hard to say where the economy will be by 2015. Things could be a real disaster at that point. If it weren’t for all this lousy national debt…

    EEM manganese could develop a premium due to supply issues, or the nasty economy could impair demand for several more years. Too bad we don’t have a crystal ball. Still, at 9.5 cents, taking some kind of a position probably isn’t a bad idea. I’ll have to analyze it again when I get some time, but the project makes sense even with a $250-300 million mine. $400 million, the current estimate, becomes untenable, IMHO.

    Aug 25, 2012 25:10 PM

    I hope that T-mobile doe’s not get bought out by at t. I feel that we shluod have more choices than just 4 service providers. The more people that can have nation wide services means more choices and lower prices so more people can pay there bill and I feel that if you like a carrier you will stay with them not because there the cheapest, because you like the services they provide you. I would rather have 500 providers with nation wide service at 10 30 dollars unlimited min text web + choices