#NYSE #CRL $CRL Charles River Laboratories International Inc. is interesting
#Forex #GBPUSD $GBPUSD is interesting

Members of our Lithium Americas Whatsapp Research group were alerted to the following filing from Judge Du that was filed on Friday, December 2nd and identified by the public this morning (see link below for the court document or further below for the actual images of the document in question):
Bartell Ranch LLC v. McCullough, 3:21-cv-00080 – CourtListener.com

https://preview.redd.it/vz3uxwj3144a1.png?width=795&format=png&auto=webp&s=57b68b7d65739b79e86c5050e9c2296bdb688c88

https://preview.redd.it/jq765pu1244a1.png?width=772&format=png&auto=webp&s=ac93263674a0dff110d1ca8c019252235cb4148d

The most relevant excerpts to LAC, from that filing, are as follows:

In the final paragraph of her filing, and in regards to the Environmental Plaintiffs claim, the Court is interested in the extent to which "Ctr for Biological Diversity vs. United States Fish & Wildlife Serv. 33 F.4th 1202 (9th Cir. 2022)" controls the outcome of this case.
The Court expects the parties to be prepared to address the scope of any relief that may be appropriate were the Court to agree with Environmental Plaintiff's argument based on that case and remand it back to the BLM.

We are not lawyers and do not claim to be, so any opinions expressed in this post are just opinions and can be wrong and you should seek legal counsel to do your own assessment.
While there is no ability to predict with certainty where Judge Du's mindset is, this latest filing seems to imply that Judge Du believes that the case cited ("Rosemont") may be the "controlling" case that would "control the outcome of this case" (as stated in the filing).
This, in our opinion, is the first indication as to where the current mindset is for Judge Du in that she may view the cited case as having merit and relevance and is crucial to the decision/outcome on the case (something we have discussed before as a possibility in our whatsapp research group as a primary and leading factor for concern relative to the tribal and rancher arguments).
The fact that Judge Du has asked that the parties be prepared to address what "relief may be appropriate were the Court to agree with Environmental Plainttif's argument and remand it back to the BLM" is likely an indication of what her bench order and final decision may be as well. We do not think she would ask for this preparation on requested relief solely in the event of a Remand unless there is a reasonable probability of her siding with the Plaintiff on this issue and that there would be a remand as a result.
The claim that she is saying the above statement in order to reduce grounds for an appeal by the Plaintiff or that somehow this is normal course and part of procedure to request something like that does not make sense or hold merit. Our research seems to indicate quite to the contrary. We do not believe preparing "appropriate" relief requests solely for the even of a remand would be related to any appellate arguments by the Plaintiffs nor is it a normal procedural requirement by the Court based on our research.
We believe now that the odds of a "Remand" are higher than not, and the primary question now remaining is whether the Judge will Remand with or without a vacatur or injunction in regards to the Record of Decision.
To gauge that, it will be helpful to understand the Defendant's arguments as it relates to the cited case (aka "Rosemont"):
*********************************
Bartell Ranch LLC v. McCullough, 3:21-cv-00080 – CourtListener.com
Previously Lithium Americas in its August 11th Filings LAC argued the following (we have highlighted below what we think are the relevant segments the arguments):
" A. BLM Complied with FLPMA, BLM Regulations & the RMP.
Based on inapplicable caselaw, ENGOs request a novel interpretation of FLPMA and a judicial repeal of BLM’s regulations that is procedurally barred. The issue before this Court is whether BLM complied with FLPMA in approving exploration and use of lands with known lithium throughout the Project area to develop critical minerals to meet our Nation’s needs. The outcome ENGOs seek would impermissibly repeal BLM’s longstanding regulations that differ substantially from those at issue in Rosemont, where the Court remanded the case for the Forest Service to determine whether its mining regulations apply. ENGOs argue BLM was required to determine claim validity but ignore that BLM’s regulations do not require a validity determination on the Project lands and that the Court defers to BLM’s interpretation of the Mining Law—particularly where that interpretation reflects Congressional intent to refrain from requiring such a determination for permitting decisions. ECF 242 at 4–6. ENGOs do not respond to Lithium Nevada’s observation that they do not directly challenge BLM’s regulations and any such claim is waived. ECF 242 at 4 & n.5. Any direct challenge2 to BLM’s regulations are time- barred under the statute of limitations. Ctr. for Biological Diversity v. Exp.-Import Bank of the U.S., 2014 U.S. Dist. LEXIS 111762, at *19 (N.D. Cal. Aug. 12, 2014) (“facial challenge to the validity of an agency’s regulation on the ground that the agency exceeded constitutional or statutory authority … must be brought within six years after publication ….”).
The Rosemont decision applies to National Forest System lands and does not apply to projects on mineralized BLM lands because the agencies have different rules and statutory authorities governing surface uses at locatable mining projects. The Rosemont Court ruled that the Forest Service erroneously assumed the mining claims where waste rocks and tailings were to be stored were valid where that “assumption [was] contradicted by the evidence.” Here, BLM did not “assume” mining claim validity because BLM’s regulations are clear it had no authority to evaluate claim validity for a proposed Mine Plan of Operations (“MPO”) because the subject lands are neither segregated nor withdrawn from mineral entry. 43 C.F.R. § 3809.100. Based on inapplicable caselaw pertaining to unlawful, non-mining uses of mining claims or disputes between rival locators, and a different statutory and regulatory framework governing mining projects on Forest Lands, ENGOs request a novel and incorrect interpretation of FLPMA.
1. Rosemont Does Not Apply on Mineralized BLM Lands
Contrary to the undisputed evidence in Rosemont that “no valuable minerals have been found”—the record here is replete with evidence of widespread lithium mineralization across the entire Project area.4 ECF 242 at 6–10. ENGOs ignore Lithium Nevada’s record evidence of this and focus on a single figure from a 2018 Pre-Feasibility Study (“PFS”) that shows some “known zones of mineralization.” This does not contradict the record evidence showing mineralization throughout the Project. The PFS was prepared under Canadian National Instrument 43-101 which defines how “mineralization” is used for seeking investments in a project (including at the permitting and exploration stages). TPEIS-0234 AR033855. What the PFS identifies as “known zones of mineralization” under Securities law is not equivalent to lands identified in the that and other documents as “mineralized” under the Mining Law. This is demonstrated by the text of the PFS itself which describes drilling results showing “continuous high grade subhorizontal … lithium across the project area.” AR033885.5
ENGOs ignore that even in Rosemont, the Court only discussed some “factual basis upon which the Forest Service can determine rights.” 33 F.4th at 1229. Unlike the geologic facts in Rosemont where lack of mineralization was “[u]ndisputed,” id. at 1221, this Project’s evidence of mineralization is substantial and includes maps, drilling results, and multiple surveys.6 Rosemont does not indicate that mineralization “appear[ing] throughout” is an insufficient factual basis for BLM to recognize mineral rights,7 and ENGOs cite no other caselaw supporting this bold jump. Notably, ENGOs themselves assert that their proposed amendment to BLM’s regulations does not require BLM to conduct “a full claim validity examination,” but just a preliminary inquiry into mineralization. Pet. Attach. 5 at 4–5.
Here, ENGOs rely on inapposite cases determining property rights between competing claimants as establishing a requirement for validity determination,8 ECF 264 at 12, but neither case cited deals with MPO approvals. Chrisman v. Miller, 197 U.S. 313, 323 (1905) (“controversy [that] is between two mineral claimants”); United States v. Coleman, 390 U.S. 599, 600–01 (1968) (claim patent application). And in stark contrast to 1.9 billion tons of waste rock in Rosemont, 33 F.4th at 1207, the waste rock expected here is only 190 million tons, FEIS AR045799, split into two storage sites that will be re-vegetated allowing for similar pre- and post-mining use of the area, id. at AR045562, AR046450. While the Rosemont Court concluded the waste rock there could be stored on mill sites, that “solution” is inapplicable here because Lithium Nevada cannot locate mill sites on mineralized lands, 30 U.S.C. §42, and must mine waste rock incident to its mining operations, meaning under the applicable BLM regulations, the waste rock here must be stored on mining claims properly located on mineralized lands.9
The Rosemont Court did not reach the issue of whether a validity determination or (as the District Court concluded) “some consideration of mineralization” was required on mineralized lands because it was unnecessary in Rosemont where “[u]ndisputed evidence in the record shows that no valuable minerals have been found on Rosemont’s claims.” 33 F.4th at 1212. The Rosemont decision does not authorize, much less require, that this Court rewrite BLM’s permitting and surface use regulations that were not even considered by the Rosemont Court.
2. Earthworks—not Rosemont—is the Relevant Precedent
ENGOs ignore the recent relevant precedent from Earthworks v. DOI, 496 F. Supp. 3d 472 (D.D.C. 2020), which considered an ongoing challenge to BLM’s 43 C.F.R. Part 3809 Regulations and held that claims of unknown validity (that have not undergone a validity exam) must be presumed valid. As noted by Earthworks, validity determinations take years. Id. at 493. Imposing such a new requirement on BLM would inject unnecessary permitting delays to producing critical minerals in conflict with Congress’s directives, our Nation’s needs,11 and more than forty years of BLM’s application of its 3809 regulations12 to authorize locatable mineral projects during which BLM has not conducted validity determinations except when required pursuant to 43 CFR § 3809.100.13 Congress has acknowledged its agreement with BLM’s regulations not requiring claim validity determinations for MPO approvals unless lands are segregated or withdrawn—had Congress disapproved, it would have required such determinations when it amended the Mining Law to require annual claims maintenance fees regardless of discovery status. 14 30 U.S.C. § 28j(c) (1993).
3. BLM regulations govern surface use and occupancy at mining projects under FLPMA
ENGOs contend that Rosemont “rejected the same position taken by” Lithium Nevada here, but Rosemont involved a challenge of the Forest Service’s assumption that claims were “valid” absent any evidence of mineralization on those claims. Because there were no known minerals on the claims in Rosemont, 33 F.4th at 1221, the Court deemed claim validity irrelevant. Furthermore, the same requirements do not apply to both agencies, ECF 264 at 9, because BLM only considers validity for MPO approval if the project is proposed on lands segregated or withdrawn from mineral entry. ECF 242 at 3–4; 43 C.F.R. §3809.100. BLM’s 3809 regulations discuss required MPO elements, but do not mandate a particular discovery status of the subject mining claim. Id. Conversely, the Service does not even have regulations governing “claims that embrace segregated or withdrawn lands.” 83 Fed. Reg. 46451, 46457 (Sept. 13, 2018). Rosemont considered whether the Service applied the correct regulation, Part 228A or Section 251. Here ENGOs do not claim BLM should have used a different regulation—they seek to invalidate BLM’s regulations without ever stating such a claim in their complaint (which would be time barred in any event). ECF 1 at 5. The Forest System lands in Rosemont were not governed by specific regulations defining “use” and “occupancy for hardrock mining projects.15 In contrast, under FLPMA, BLM promulgated Surface Use and Occupancy regulations, 43 C.F.R. § 3715.0- 5, which define waste rock storage facilities as “use,” and define “occupancy” to mean “full or part-time residence on the public lands.” The surface management requirements of 43 C.F.R. Part 3800 govern the uses that are reasonably incident.16 The Rosemont decision did not consider and does not apply to BLM’s regulations governing use17 of public lands under FLPMA.
Nor did Rosemont consider or decide BLM’s implementation of FLPMA. FLPMA explicitly notes that “[a]ll actions by the Secretary concerned under this Act shall be subject to valid existing rights.” 43 U.S.C. § 1712(e)(3). Because Lithium Nevada’s mineralized claims are presumptively valid and do not require a validity determination, FLPMA’s application does not impair the Project or BLM’s regulations. ECF 242 at 6, 11. Rosemont did not require a validity determination because it deemed the nonmineralized claims invalid and did not analyze the interplay between FLPMA and BLM’s regulations. The Ninth Circuit recognizes the distinction between BLM’s and the Service’s regulations,18 U.S. v. Richardson, 599 F.2d 290, 294 (9th Cir. 1979), and here the Court’s only consideration (were it to question the regulations) is “whether the agency’s reading of the regulations is reasonable and whether the regulations are not unduly vague.” Irvington Moore v. OSHRC, 556 F.2d 431, 435 (9th Cir. 1977).
BLM’s regulations harmonize FLPMA and other applicable Federal statutes. When Congress amended the Mining Law in the 1955 Surface Use Act, it did not limit the use of mining claims for just the mine pit but expressly allowed uses reasonably incident to mining. ECF 242 at 8.19 The Ninth Circuit recognizes BLM’s post-Surface Use Act regulations (which did not require validity determinations) as allowing any activity on BLM lands “directly related to mining.”20 Richardson, 599 F.2d at 294. BLM developed its Surface Use and Occupancy regulations under FLPMA and other relevant Federal laws to implement Congress’ directives regarding allowable mining uses on public lands and encouraging development of critical minerals.
Under FLPMA, BLM has distinctly defined “occupancy” and “use.” While the Surface Use Act (“Section 612”) did not expand rights under Section 22 of the Mining Law, Section 612 clarified what surface uses are allowed under the Mining Law—anything “reasonably incident” to mining, 30 U.S.C.S. § 612(a). BLM thus properly applied its 3809 regulations to this Project’s waste rock storage sites, as uses that are “reasonably incident and do not involve occupancy.” Use and Occupancy Under the Mining Law - Final Rule, 61 Fed. Reg. 37116, 37118 (July 16, 1996). On BLM lands, occupancy is defined as “activities that involve residence” and BLM explained that occupancy in this Project would consist of a process facility, administration office, and wells—not waste rock storage. FEIS AR045839. Thus, waste rock placement on mining claims constitutes “reasonably incident” use for mining operations. Cf. Koenig, 4 IBLA 18, 19, 21 (1971) (roads necessary to mining activities needed “no authorization” from BLM to build); W. Shoshone Def. Project, 160 IBLA 32, 55–56 (2003) (rejecting plaintiff’s argument that “claim validity” must be part of BLM’s analysis of an [MPO]” the Board noted “BLM generally does not determine the validity of the affected mining claims before approving a plan of operations”).
4. The Plain Language of the RMPA FEIS Exempts “Locatable Mineral Development.”
ENGOs re-argue that BLM must apply every aspect of the RMP without regard to “valid existing rights”—ignoring that the 2015 RMPA FEIS itself21 states that its “[s]tipulations do not apply to locatable mineral development” consistent with BLM’s longstanding regulations. ECF 242, Ex. 1 at 3-139 to 3-140. ENGOs do not respond to Lithium Nevada’s argument that where the RMP defines “valid existing rights” as including “mineral rights,” the RMP does not equate “mineral rights” to “valid claims.” ECF 242 at 3. ENGOs instead argue that this language represents an incorrect view of the Mining Law and point to Rosemont. But Rosemont does not address FLPMA, BLM regulations, BLM land, or RMPs at all. Nor did ENGOs bring any claim in this case challenging the RMPA, meaning such challenges are waived. ENGOs argue that BLM must enforce the RMPA, but then disregard specific portions of it they don’t like. The RMPA is valid and controlling because this Court did not vacate the FEIS in Western Exploration LLC v. United States, 250 F. Supp. 3d 718, 750 (D. Nev. 2017).22
5. ENGOs’ approach contravenes Acts to Address the Domestic Needs for Critical Minerals
ENGOs’ novel mandate that BLM determine claim validity for MPO approvals is unfounded in statute, regulation, or caselaw, and would frustrate Congressional directives to eliminate delays in permitting critical mineral projects. In December 2020, Congress amended the National Materials and Minerals Policy, Research and Development Act of 1980 to require Federal agencies such as BLM “minimize delays in … the issuance of permits and authorizations necessary to explore for, develop, and produce critical minerals.”23 30 U.S.C. § 1602(8). This recent Act confirmed prior directives to “promote an adequate and stable supply of materials necessary to maintain national security, economic well-being and industrial production.” Id. §§ 1602; 21a. The Project’s importance in producing lithium to meet National security and energy needs is undisputed.24 BLM’s regulations properly implement FLPMA, the Mining Law and Congress’ repeated and recent directives to encourage domestic mineral development, especially for critical minerals such as lithium. ENGOs’ requested relief would repeal BLM’s valid regulations and frustrate past and current Congressional directives to encourage domestic mining.25 ENGOs’ requested relief would undermine Congress’ directive to BLM to find efficiencies in permitting and instead bog down the process with needless delay to satisfy a judicially-created rule to determine validity prior to approval, a process that would add years of delay. BLM acknowledged in a 2007 Notice of Proposed Rulemaking “validity examinations” for all mining claims were impractical and that declining to do so was consistent with the Mining Law and FLPMA, “[b]ecause Congress authorizes mining claimants to locate mining claims under the Mining Law and maintain them by making annual payments to the BLM while the validity of the claims is unknown or undetermined.”26 Earthworks, 496 F. Supp. 3d at 483. "
In separate filing from August 11th, Lithium Americas had a footnote #58:
"While this Court remanded the ARMPA for NEPA violations, it did not vacate the ROD. W. Expl., LLC v. DOI, 250 F. Supp. 3d 718, 750 (D. Nev. 2017). "
*********************************
On the January 5th, 2023 hearing, we will likely hear arguments and counterarguments to those noted above (which center around claim validities and procedures/duties to validate/verify. Should Judge Du not be swayed by the Defendan'ts arguments and continue down what we believe is her current path of thinking, then she is left with the decision to Remand with or without "vacatur" or "injuction".
*********************************
In that latter event, in an August 11th filing, Lithium Americas Requested the Court to Remand without Vacatur or Injunction:
"Any Remand Should Be Without Vacatur or Injunction.
ENGOs make no attempt to save any injunctive relief request. ENGOs agree that vacatur is “not automatically applied” under the APA but argue remand without vacatur is “rare,” so the Court should vacate the ROD. But the Ninth Circuit observed that “[r]emand without vacatur is common,” Nat’l Family Farm Coal. v. EPA, 966 F.3d 893, 930 (9th Cir. 2020), and the frequency is irrelevant: vacatur “depends on how serious the agency’s errors are and the disruptive consequences of an interim change.” 350 Mont. v. Haaland, 29 F.4th 1158, 1177 (9th Cir. 2022). The Court must consider the “environmental, economic, and energy-related consequences of vacatur.” Id. Remand without vacatur is appropriate in circumstances beyond undesirable environmental consequences. Pac. Rivers v. U.S., 942 F. Supp. 2d 1014, 1018 (E.D. Cal. 2013) (it is “not correct” to withhold vacatur “only in situations where environmental harm is likely to flow from” vacatur). The disruptive consequences and harms to Lithium Nevada, its employees, surrounding communities, and the Nation would be severe, ECF 242 at 38-40. The alleged errors are minimal; BLM could substantiate its decision on remand. The economic and energy-related concerns at stake are grave: current and future jobs, financial investment, and lithium our Nation desperately needs.53 Id. The ROD should not be vacated because it would create “a disruptive,” “expensive” consequence harmful to the public. Pac. Rivers, 942 F. Supp. 2d at 1022. "
The BLM as Defendants also reiterated the same request as LAC on one of their August 11th filings regarding a "remand without vacatur":
" Even assuming that Rosemont applied here and BLM was required to assess the validity of Lithium Nevada’s mining claims in approving the Project, the record here contains evidence supporting the potential for valuable minerals—lithium— throughout the Thacker Pass basin. Bartell acknowledges the FEIS’s recognition that there is “[l]ithium mineralization” in the “lacustrine sediments of the McDermitt Caldera.” Bartell Reply at 37 (citing TPEIS-0384 at page 579, which is the same as TPEIS-0702, FEIS App’x G at AR-065693). Even if the record contained conflicting evidence about the viability of extraction, at most, that the Court should not make a determination—as the Ninth Circuit did—that Lithium Nevada’s claims are invalid. Rather, if it finds any error on this basis, it should remand the decision to BLM to make the appropriate findings and determinations in the first instance. "
The BLM then also goes on to say in a separate August 11th filing:
" III. The Court should not vacate the ROD and EIS
As explained above, the record demonstrates that the Project’s approval complied with applicable law and was not arbitrary or capricious, so no remedy is called for here. But should the Court grant Plaintiffs’ motion for summary judgment and conclude that the Project’s approval was insufficient in some aspect, the ROD and FEIS should not be vacated. Under the APA “[t]he reviewing court shall . . . hold unlawful and set aside agency action, findings, and conclusions found to be . . . arbitrary, capricious, an abuse of discretion, or otherwise not in accordance with law.” 5 U.S.C. § 706(2)(A). Ultimately, however, “[t]he decision whether to vacate depends on the seriousness of the order’s deficiencies (and thus the extent of doubt whether the agency chose correctly) and the disruptive consequences of an interim change that may itself be changed.” Allied–Signal, Inc. v. U.S. Nuclear Regul. Comm’n, 988 F.2d 146, 150-51 (D.C. Cir. 1993) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted). Thus, “when equity demands,” the challenged agency action can be “‘left in place while the agency follows the necessary procedures’ to correct its action.” Cal. Cmtys. Against Toxics v. EPA, 688 F.3d 989, 992 (9th Cir. 2012) (per curiam) (quoting Idaho Farm Bureau Fed’n v. Babbitt, 58 F.3d 1392, 1405 (9th Cir. 1995)). Equity so demands, for example, where vacatur would “lead to impermissibly disruptive consequences in the interim.” Standing Rock Sioux Tribe v. U.S. Army Corps of Eng’rs, 282 F. Supp. 3d 91, 97 (D.D.C. 2017) (citing Williston Basin Interstate Pipeline Co. v. FERC, 519 F.3d 497, 504 (D.C. Cir. 2008).
Vacatur is also “not appropriate” where “nothing in the record indicates[,] that on remand the agency will necessarily fail to justify its decisions . . . .” WildEarth Guardians v. Zinke, 368 F. Supp. 3d 41, 84 (D.D.C. 2019) (quoting Fox Television Stations, Inc. v. FCC, 280 F.3d 1027, 1049 (D.C. Cir. 2002), opinion modified on reh’g, 293 F.3d 537 (D.C. Cir. 2002)); see also Standing Rock, 282 F. Supp. 3d at 97 (vacatur inappropriate when “there is at least a serious possibility that the [agency] will be able to substantiate its decision on remand” (alteration in original) (internal quotation marks and citation omitted)); WildEarth Guardians v. U.S. Office of Surface Mining, Reclamation & Enf’t, 104 F. Supp. 3d 1208, 1232 (D. Colo. 2015) (finding that “the benefits of immediate vacatur [did] not outweigh the potential harms” and allowing the agency a period of time to complete corrective NEPA, while deferring vacatur pending timely compliance), order vacated and appeal dismissed on other grounds, 652 F. App’x 717 (10th Cir. 2016); Black Rock City LLC v. Haaland, No. 19-CV-3729 (DLF), 2022 WL 834070, at *8 (D.D.C. Mar. 21, 2022) (remanding without vacatur when requiring BLM to determine whether assessed fees were reasonable under FLPMA).
Thus, should the Court conclude that remand is appropriate on any basis here, whether vacatur is also appropriate should be illuminated by a factual discussion in the context of the particular errors (if any) that the Court identifies. It should thus afford the parties an opportunity to address those specific questions through further, focused briefing."
*********************************
From the Plaintiff's perspective, per Bartell's July 12, 2022 filing, the Plaintiffs will likely continue to argue that the BLM permitted LAC to occupy areas outside of the McDermitt caldera where lithium is not found:

https://preview.redd.it/7sd9cakhf84a1.png?width=975&format=png&auto=webp&s=1d67d3aa50df04487f60fed45a675ccae9ab80e9

*********************************
Conclusion
Based on all the above, if we believe there is a higher probability than not of the court remanding, (which we do based on Judge Du's most recent filing and the technical arguments made), then the primary question that remains is whether the court will remand with or without vacatur or injunction.
We agree with Lithium Americas that a Remand with a vacatur or injunction would be disruptive.
As such, we have exited our position in Lithium Americas for now and will likely reinvest at some point in the future pending the results from the January 5th, 2023 hearing or possibly after a final decision is rendered to allow the opportunity to understand if a vacatur or injunction is pending or not (or even if we are right or wrong about a Remand).
While we believe the probabilities of a Remand is higher than not, we also believe a "Remand without vacatur" is possible. We will continue to discuss this matter in our Whatsapp chat group (which we invite all LAC investors to join for free).
We also believe that LAC is trading near its floor value based on the anticipated Cauchari Olaroz production, but we do not believe that a Remand to the BLM with Vacatur will provide support for favorable movements in the stock price for some time to come until the deficiency is fixed.
A remand with vacatur or injunction, in particular, has the potential to significantly delay the construction start of Thacker Pass (e.g., pushing the construction start date out to 2024). It would would reset the timeline, open up the doors to potential further appeals on Thacker Pass, and possibly disrupt any loan applications that may have been in process with either or both the DOEs and/or any agreements/negotiations that may be in play with Strategic Partners.
We look forward to the possibility of a "Remand without vacatur" or even a "Remand with injunction" (which may delay things a little while deficiencies are cured) and to returning to our investment in LAC someday soon in what we still believe is a great prospect for this country and a potentially great opportunity as an investor.
While we realize that this perspective may be upsetting or in opposition to other shareholder's perspective, we try to remain objective in our stock analyses in sharing both positive and negative news on Lithium Americas and choosing to publish our views to this to that extent. We believe it was the right and transparent thing to do, and we hope you respect (if not agree).
IRR
(If you like what you read, feel free to:

"Like" this post
Share these posts with others to spread the word,
Join our reddit subgroup for free if you haven't already,
Attend our next Stock Talk on Sunday, January 22nd at 7pm CST (details pinned on our reddit), and/or
Message me directly if you would like to join our Lithium Americas Research Whatsapp chat group)
Feel free to follow us at www.facebook.com/InTheRuffResearch for more stock ideas and research)

https://preview.redd.it/x2lh8xpo526a1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=c5fae9eee2b2cdc261346e210c872e6d34079ade
Toronto, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - December 15, 2022) - Moneta Gold Inc. (TSX: ME) (OTCQX: MEAUF) (XETRA: MOP) ("Moneta") is pleased to announce assay results from seven (7) resource infill and step-out drill holes on the Windjammer Central gold deposit at the Tower Gold project, located 100 kilometres ("km") east of Timmins, Ontario. The drilling was conducted as part of the current expanded 160,000 metres ("m") infill and resource upgrade drill program on the 4.5 million ("M") ounces ("oz") indicated gold ("Au") and 8.3 Moz inferred Au mineral resource estimate (see September 07, 2022 press release) at the Tower Gold project.
Drilling Highlights:

MGH22-328 intersected 278.00 metres "m" @ 0.43 grams per tonne "g/t" Au, including 100.00 m @ 0.68 g/t Au, and 35.10 m @ 0.72 g/t Au, and 15.00 m @ 1.18 g/t Au
MGH22-325 intersected 464.55 m @ 0.30 g/t Au, and 5.35 m @ 1.23 g/t Au, and 30.50 m @ 0.51 g/t Au, and 24.50 m @ 0.63 g/t Au
MGH22-326 intersected 103.50 m @ 0.49 g/t Au, including 43.70 m @ 0.84 g/t Au, including 24.50 m @ 1.00 g/t Au, including 0.95 m @ 5.71 g/t Au, and 1.50 m @ 5.40 g/t Au
MGH22-314 intersected 220.00 m @ 0.34 g/t Au, including 35.00 m @ 0.62 g/t Au, including 11.00 m @ 0.99 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 3.49 g/t Au
MGH22-306 intersected 150.00 m @ 0.40 g/t Au, including 16.00 m @ 0.96 g/t Au, including 7.00 m @ 1.48, including 1.00 m @ 4.21 g/t Au
MGH22-326 intersected 209.00 m @ 0.32 g/t Au, including 11.80 m @ 0.93 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 5.79 g/t Au

Gary O'Connor, Moneta's President and Chief Executive Officer commented, "These Windjammer infill assay drill results continue to confirm the continuity and extensions of the current mineral resource estimate, updated in September. These results support significant gold grades across wide widths of continuous gold mineralization within the economic open pit mineral resources at Windjammer Central as defined in the recent Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA"). Extensions of good gold mineralization have also been intersected outside the resource and pit, highlighting the potential to continue to grow the mineral resource and to expand the current mine life of the project. As we continue to de-risk and advance the Tower Gold project, we look forward to completing the current resource infill and upgrade drill program in preparation of a mineral resource estimate update for the planned Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS")."
The latest assay results are from seven (7) drill holes for 4,248.50 m of diamond drilling completed as part of the expanded 160,000 m drill program of resource infill and upgrade drilling for the PFS as defined in the positive PEA completed in September 2022. Drilling is being conducted on 50 m centres as step-outs and infill of previous drill holes.
Figure 1: Tower Gold Project - General Location Map
https://preview.redd.it/nee5cx1p526a1.jpg?width=1299&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=21060e6f1162f1ee063265f8a4d04130fa5430cf
Table 1: Windjammer - Selected Significant Drill Results
https://preview.redd.it/kc5s3tfp526a1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=b86f495b3c81702d4d77cce2d1be3e7895ee9183

Note: Intercepts are calculated using a 0.20 g/t Au cut-off, a maximum of 5m internal dilution and no top cap applied. Drill intercepts are not true widths, are reported as drill widths, and are estimated to be 75% to 95% of true width.
Discussion of Drill Results Infill drilling at Windjammer was focused on infilling and extending the mineral resource located within the current open pit gold resource from surface to vertical depths of up of 500 m below surface at Windjammer Central. The drill results confirmed continuity of the resource estimate and extended gold mineralization to the east and at depth by widths of up to 200 m. Drill holes MGH22-318, MGH22-314, MGH22-328, and MGH22-306 confirmed good continuity of the resource within the open pit as well as extensions of the resource below the pit with MGH22-306 intersecting wide zones of continuous gold mineralization up to 400 m to the east and below the pit. MGH22-325 and MGH22-326 extended the resource within the pit and have confirmed extensions near to surface as well as extensions below and to the east of the current pit constrained resources. Hole MGH22-319 confirmed new extensions to the resource within the pit to the east as well as extensions outside the current pit boundaries. The Windjammer open pit currently hosts an indicated resource of 42.05 million tonnes ("Mt") @ 0.78 g/t Au containing 1,058,000 oz gold and an inferred resource of 34.46 Mt @ 0.97 g/t Au containing 1,074,000 oz gold at Windjammer South and 28.50 Mt @ 0.63 g/t Au for 581,000 oz gold indicated and 77.83 Mt @ 0.64 g/t Au for 1,595,000 oz gold inferred at Windjammer Central (see September 07, 2022 press release). The drill holes predominantly tested the areas north of the regional banded iron formation units ("BIF") within altered clastic sediments hosting wide stacked extensional quartz vein sets in the Windjammer Central area, located to the south of the main splay of the regional Destor Porcupine Fault zone ("DPFS").
Figure 2: Windjammer - Tower Gold: Infill Drill Location Map
https://preview.redd.it/bhimmptp526a1.jpg?width=1114&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=e9922ffe8c9c7cb028e353ef2054cdaf7bf06833
Figure 3: Windjammer - Tower Gold: Infill Drilling Cross Section
https://preview.redd.it/sg2akp7q526a1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=f59794cfe7645719251dcca231cd5c5081bfacf1
Table 2: Windjammer - Resource Infill Drill Hole Details
https://preview.redd.it/0w1b5ljq526a1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=06bd0f03fa6253cfaab6f3fc2edcb70faf29ab02

QA/QC Procedures Drill core is oriented and cut with half sent to AGAT Laboratories Inc. (AGAT) for drying and crushing to -2 mm, with a 1.00 kg split pulverized to -75 µm (200#). AGAT is an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. A 50 g charge is Fire Assayed and analyzed using an AAS finish for Gold. Samples above 10.00 g/t Au are analyzed by Fire Assay with a gravimetric finish and selected samples with visible gold or high-grade mineralization are assayed by Metallic Screen Fire Assay on a 1.00 kg sample. Moneta inserts independent certified reference material and blanks with the samples and assays routine pulp repeats and coarse reject sample duplicates, as well as completing routine third-party check assays at Bureau Veritas Laboratories Pty Ltd. Jason Dankowski, P.Geo. V.P. Technical Services & Geology for Moneta, who is a QP as defined by NI 43-101 has reviewed and approved the technical contents of this press release.
About Moneta Gold Moneta is a Canadian-based gold exploration company focused on advancing its 100% wholly owned Tower Gold project, located in the Timmins region of Northeastern Ontario, Canada's most prolific gold producing camp. The September 2022, Preliminary Economic Assessment study outlined a combined open pit and underground mining and a 7.0 million tonne per annum conventional leach/CIL operation over a 24-year mine life, with 4.6 Moz of recovered gold, generating an after-tax NPV5% of $1,066M, IRR of 31.7%, and a 2.6-year payback at a gold price US$1,600/oz. Tower Gold hosts an estimated gold mineral resource of 4.5 Moz indicated and 8.3 Moz inferred. Moneta is committed to creating shareholder value through the strategic allocation of capital and a focus on the current resource upgrade drilling program, while conducting all business activities in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:**Gary V. O'Connor, CEO 416-357-3319
Linda Armstrong, Investor Relations 647-456-9223
The Company's public documents may be accessed at www.sedar.com. For further information on the Company, please visit our website at www.monetagold.com or email us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
Certain statements in this press release including certain information about Moneta's business outlook, objectives, strategies, plans, strategic priorities and results of operations, as well as other statements which are not current statements or historical facts, constitute "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future (without limitation, statements regarding exploration programs, potential mineralization, future plans and objectives of the Company, updated to the mineral resources, and the timing and results thereof) are forward-looking statements. Sentences and phrases containing words such as "believe", "estimate", "anticipate", "plan", "will", "intend", "predict", "outlook", "goal", "target", "forecast", "project", "scheduled", "proposed", "expect", "potential", "strategy", and the negative of any of these words, or variations of them, or comparable terminology that does not relate strictly to current or historical facts, are all indicative of forward-looking statements. These forward- looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company.
Forward-looking statements are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, and are based on several assumptions, both general and specific, which give rise to the possibility that actual results or events could differ materially from Moneta's expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements and that Moneta's business outlook, objectives, plans and strategic priorities may not be achieved. These statements are not guarantees of future performance or events, and Moneta cautions you against relying on any of these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are provided in this press release for the purpose of assisting investors and others in understanding Moneta's objectives, strategic priorities and business outlook, and in obtaining a better understanding of Moneta's anticipated operating environment. Readers are cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Examples of forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to: information with respect to the future performance of the business, its operations and financial performance and condition; statements relating to Moneta's plans for the Project; the Corporation's drilling program and the timing and results thereof; the timing and scope and focus of the Corporation's pre-feasibility study ("PFS"); statements regarding the environmental impact assessment and community engagement activities; and the Corporation's financing initiatives.
Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on the Company. Important risk factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, but are not limited to: uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; changes in commodity prices; changes in equity markets; changes to regulations affecting the Company's activities; the uncertainties involved in interpreting exploration results and other geological data and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration industry; the impact of COVID-19 related disruptions in relation to the Corporation's business operations including upon its employees, suppliers, facilities and other stakeholders; uncertainties and risk that have arisen and may arise in relation to travel, and other financial market and social impacts from COVID-19 and responses to COVID 19 and the ability of the Corporation to finance and carry out its anticipated goals and objectives; international conflicts and other geopolitical risks, including war, military action, terrorism, trade and financial sanctions, which have historically led to, and may in the future lead to, uncertainty or volatility in global commodity and financial markets and supply chains; and the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the widespread international condemnation has had a significant destabilizing effect on world commodity prices, supply chains, inflation risk, and global economies more broadly, may adversely affect the Corporation's business, financial condition, and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to Moneta or that Moneta currently deems to be immaterial may also have a material adverse effect on Moneta's financial position, financial performance, cash flows, business or reputation.
Forward-looking statements made in this press release are based on a number of assumptions that Moneta believed were reasonable at the time it made each forward-looking statement. The assumptions, although considered reasonable by Moneta on the day it made the forward-looking statements, may prove to be inaccurate. Accordingly, our actual results could differ materially from our expectations. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/148072

https://preview.redd.it/6838gjvq526a1.png?width=1810&format=png&auto=webp&s=94a512a3f89392c72064b20cca627850aa03b922

Universal Site Links
MONETA GOLD INC
STOCK METAL DATABASE
TODAY'S ECONOMIC CALENDER
ADD TICKER TO THE DATABASE
www.reddit.com/Treaty_Creek
REPORT AN ERROR

https://preview.redd.it/nd17517gww5a1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=70d49b53a0f007494b7622e427deff49442a211c
Toronto, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - December 14, 2022) - Moneta Gold Inc. (TSX: ME) (OTCQX: MEAUF) (XETRA: MOP) ("Moneta" or the "Company") is pleased to announce it has appointed Ms. Sheila Colman to its Board of Directors ("Board"), effective December 7, 2022.
"I am delighted to welcome Sheila to our Board. We are confident that she will provide valuable perspectives as we continue to execute on our strategy and deliver value to our stakeholders," stated Josef Vejvoda, Moneta's Chair of the Board. "Sheila brings decades of experience in the mining industry, in addition to valuable knowledge regarding legal, governance and strategic oversight. We look forward to welcoming her as an integral member of our Board to support the business as it continues to grow and enhance its commitment to governance and Environmental, Social, and Governance ("ESG") themes."
The appointment follows other recent additions to the Board, highlighting the Company's commitment to advancing its 100% wholly owned Tower Gold project, located in the Timmins region of Northeastern Ontario. Moneta's Board is now comprised of nine members, of which eight members are considered independent: Mark Ashcroft, Sheila Colman, Rodney Cooper, Louis Gariepy, Alex Henry, Krista Muhr, Josef Vejvoda (Chair of the Board), and Blair Zaritsky, with Jose Vizquerra continuing to act as a special advisor to the Board.
About Sheila Colman
Sheila currently serves as Vice President, Legal and Corporate Secretary of Lundin Gold Inc., working closely with the Directors and the CEO to provide oversight of the governance, legal and compliance risks of the business. Sheila has been working with the Lundin Group of Companies since 2006 and now, in addition to legal and governance, she co-leads on key ESG matters including climate strategy and Equity, Diversity, and Inclusion/Inclusivity ("EDI") programs and initiatives. Prior to Lundin Gold, she served as Vice President and Corporate Secretary of Denison Mines Corp.
Sheila graduated from Queen's University with a B.A.(H) and then received her LL.B. from Queen's University. She is a member of both the British Columbia and Ontario Bars and has a Global Competent Boards designation (GCB.D) from Competent Boards.
About Moneta Gold Moneta is a Canadian-based gold exploration company focused on advancing its 100% wholly owned Tower Gold project, located in the Timmins region of Northeastern Ontario, Canada's most prolific gold producing camp. The September 2022, Preliminary Economic Assessment study outlined a combined open pit and underground mining and a 7.0 million tonne per annum conventional leach/CIL operation over a 24-year mine life, with 4.6 Moz of recovered gold, generating an after-tax NPV5% of $1,066M, IRR of 31.7%, and a 2.6-year payback at a gold price US$1,600/oz. Tower Gold hosts an estimated gold mineral resource of 4.5 Moz indicated and 8.3 Moz inferred. Moneta is committed to creating shareholder value through the strategic allocation of capital and a focus on the current resource upgrade drilling program, while conducting all business activities in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.
FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT: Gary V. O'Connor, CEO 416-357-3319
Linda Armstrong, Investor Relations 647-456-9223
The Company's public documents may be accessed at www.sedar.com. For further information on the Company, please visit our website at www.monetagold.com or email us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
Certain statements in this press release including certain information about Moneta's business outlook, objectives, strategies, plans, strategic priorities and results of operations, as well as other statements which are not current statements or historical facts, constitute "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future (without limitation, statements regarding exploration programs, potential mineralization, future plans and objectives of the Company, updated to the mineral resources, and the timing and results thereof) are forward-looking statements. Sentences and phrases containing words such as "believe", "estimate", "anticipate", "plan", "will", "intend", "predict", "outlook", "goal", "target", "forecast", "project", "scheduled", "proposed", "expect", "potential", "strategy", and the negative of any of these words, or variations of them, or comparable terminology that does not relate strictly to current or historical facts, are all indicative of forward-looking statements. These forward-looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company.
Forward-looking statements are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, and are based on several assumptions, both general and specific, which give rise to the possibility that actual results or events could differ materially from Moneta's expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements and that Moneta's business outlook, objectives, plans and strategic priorities may not be achieved. These statements are not guarantees of future performance or events, and Moneta cautions you against relying on any of these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are provided in this press release for the purpose of assisting investors and others in understanding Moneta's objectives, strategic priorities and business outlook, and in obtaining a better understanding of Moneta's anticipated operating environment. Readers are cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Examples of forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to: information with respect to the future performance of the business, its operations and financial performance and condition; statements relating to Moneta's plans for the Project; the Corporation's drilling program and the timing and results thereof; the timing and scope and focus of the Corporation's pre-feasibility study ("PFS"); statements regarding the environmental impact assessment and community engagement activities; and the Corporation's financing initiatives.
Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on the Company. Important risk factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, but are not limited to: uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; changes in commodity prices; changes in equity markets; changes to regulations affecting the Company's activities; the uncertainties involved in interpreting exploration results and other geological data and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration industry; the impact of COVID-19 related disruptions in relation to the Corporation's business operations including upon its employees, suppliers, facilities and other stakeholders; uncertainties and risk that have arisen and may arise in relation to travel, and other financial market and social impacts from COVID-19 and responses to COVID-19 and the ability of the Corporation to finance and carry out its anticipated goals and objectives; international conflicts and other geopolitical risks, including war, military action, terrorism, trade and financial sanctions, which have historically led to, and may in the future lead to, uncertainty or volatility in global commodity and financial markets and supply chains; and the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the widespread international condemnation has had a significant destabilizing effect on world commodity prices, supply chains, inflation risk, and global economies more broadly, may adversely affect the Corporation's business, financial condition, and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to Moneta or that Moneta currently deems to be immaterial may also have a material adverse effect on Moneta's financial position, financial performance, cash flows, business or reputation.
Forward-looking statements made in this press release are based on a number of assumptions that Moneta believed were reasonable at the time it made each forward-looking statement. The assumptions, although considered reasonable by Moneta on the day it made the forward-looking statements, may prove to be inaccurate. Accordingly, our actual results could differ materially from our expectations. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/148034

https://preview.redd.it/4ymeox9gww5a1.png?width=1810&format=png&auto=webp&s=469d129a5ec0f39146d8a94c735e0a49e7d1ef90

Universal Site Links
MONETA GOLD INC
STOCK METAL DATABASE
TODAY'S ECONOMIC CALENDER
ADD TICKER TO THE DATABASE
www.reddit.com/Treaty_Creek
REPORT AN ERROR

https://preview.redd.it/pqt8cqqxx94a1.png?width=3500&format=png&auto=webp&s=3aa17f40d7b76b055c57b28e31d6c95e6b383e76
Toronto, Ontario--(Newsfile Corp. - December 6, 2022) - Moneta Gold Inc. (TSX: ME) (OTCQX: MEAUF) (XETRA: MOP) ("Moneta") is pleased to announce assay results from eleven (11) resource infill and step-out drill holes on the 903 gold deposit at the Tower Gold project, located 100 kilometres ("km") east of Timmins, Ontario. The drilling was conducted as part of an initial 70,000 metres ("m") infill and resource upgrade drill program on the recently announced mineral resource estimate of 4.5 million ("M") ounces ("oz") indicated gold ("Au") and 8.3 Moz inferred Au (see September 07, 2022 press release) at the Tower Gold project.
Drilling Highlights:

MGA22-022 intersected 25.00 m @ 3.31 grams per tonne "g/t" Au, including 11.50 m @ 5.85 g/t Au, including 3.41 m @ 12.02 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 19.40 g/t Au, and 0.90 m @ 18.40 g/t Au
MGA22-019 intersected 11.75 m @ 4.23 g/t Au, including 6.00 m @ 7.60 g/t Au, including 3.00 m @ 14.01 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 35.00 g/t Au
MGA22-021 intersected 7.81 m @ 4.09 g/t Au, including 1.50 m @ 5.96 g/t Au
MGA22-030 intersected 29.90 m @ 1.23 g/t Au, including 12.10 m @ 2.53 g/t Au, including 2.75 m @ 6.08 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 10.80 g/t Au
MGA22-021 intersected 25.76 m @ 1.35 g/t Au, including 12.83 m @ 1.75 g/t Au, including 1.73 m @ 5.98 g/t Au
MGA22-019 intersected 35.00 m @ 0.96 g/t Au, including 2.40 m @ 4.04 g/t Au, and 13.20 m @ @ 1.36 g/t Au, including 0.66 m @ 5.66 g/t Au, 0.40 m @ 9.62 g/t Au
MGA22-034 intersected 69.35 m @ 0.70 g/t Au, including 34.70 m @ 1.04 g/t Au, including 6.75 m @ 2.26 g/t Au, including 1.40 m @ 6.78 g/t Au

Note: Intercepts are calculated using a 0.20 g/t Au cut-off, a maximum of 5m internal dilution and no top cap applied. Drill intercepts are not true widths, are reported as drill widths, and are estimated to be 75% to 95% of true width.
Gary O'Connor, Moneta's President and Chief Executive Officer commented, "These latest infill assay drill results from 903 continue to confirm the continuity and extensions of the current mineral resource estimate, recently updated in September. These results support significant gold grades across wide widths of gold mineralization within the economic open pit mineral resources at 903 as defined in the recent Preliminary Economic Assessment ("PEA") study. Extensions of good gold mineralization have been intersected outside the resource and pit, in an area contained during the pay-back period in the first 5 years of production as defined in the PEA. As we continue to de-risk and advance the Tower Gold project, we look forward to completing the current resource infill and upgrade drill program in preparation of a mineral resource estimate update for the planned Pre-Feasibility Study ("PFS")."
The latest assay results are from eleven (11) drill holes for 3,918.0 m of diamond drilling completed as part of the planned initial 70,000 m drill program of resource infill and upgrade drilling. With the receipt of the positive PEA in September 2022, the resource infill and upgrade drill program has now been expanded to 160,000 m to form part of the PFS. Drilling is being conducted on 50 m centres as step-outs and infill of previous drill holes.
Figure 1: Tower Gold Project - General Location Map
https://preview.redd.it/2bgu1r2yx94a1.jpg?width=1271&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=ceb822de804222fff1178589325c19484538c95a
Table 1: 903: Selected Significant Drill Results
https://preview.redd.it/nzxv9ogyx94a1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=a10888bfcea7a36f12496e755810f99a262cb544

Note: Intercepts are calculated using a 0.20 g/t Au cut-off, a maximum of 5m internal dilution and no top cap applied. Drill intercepts are not true widths, are reported as drill widths, and are estimated to be 75% to 95% of true width.
Discussion of Drill Results
Drilling at 903 was focused on infilling and extending the current open pit gold resource from surface to vertical depths of up to 400 m within the current economic pits. The drill results from the western part of the deposit have confirmed good continuity of the resource estimate and extended gold mineralization beyond the current economic pits, as defined in the PEA. Drill hole MGA22-022 intersected significant gold mineralization as extensions to the current resource in the central area of the open pit by up to 150 m, intersecting up to 25.00 m @ 3.31 g/t Au, including 3.41 m @ 12.02 g/t Au. Drill hole MGA22-019 intersected the same zone another 100 m to the west of the current resource with 11.75 m @ 4.23 g/t Au, including 6.00 m @ 7.60 g/t Au, including 3.00 m @ 14.01 g/t Au, including 1.00 m @ 35.00 g/t Au. Drill hole MGA22-034 intersected 34.70 m @ 1.04 g/t Au, including 6.75 m @ 2.26 g/t Au below the current open pit as resource expansion drilling. The 903 deposit currently hosts an open pit indicated resource of 18.09 million tonnes ("Mt") @ 1.01 g/t Au containing 585,000 oz gold and an inferred resource of 24.13 Mt @ 0.75 g/t Au containing 581,000 oz gold (see September 07, 2022 press release). The drill holes predominantly tested the continuity and extensions of gold resources associated with quartz veining within syenites hosted in Timiskaming age meta-sediments north of ultramafic volcanics of the Kid-Munro Formation to the south, located between 2 major splays of the Destor Porcupine Fault Zone in the Garrison area of the Tower Gold Project.
Figure 2: 903 - Tower Gold: Infill Drill Location Map
https://preview.redd.it/fv641osyx94a1.jpg?width=1429&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=0301cc97c87dbedd9982f31668ff214ed2b6ccc3
Figure 3: 903 - Tower Gold: Infill Drilling Cross Section
https://preview.redd.it/od12fo4zx94a1.jpg?width=1280&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=dda27081823e36c5e52ac931f52a2843ad473bfe
Table 2: 903 - Resource Infill Drill Hole Details
https://preview.redd.it/50kdtlgzx94a1.png?width=720&format=png&auto=webp&s=bfbff112afa02c245b038c4ed679b3d5347eba41

QA/QC Procedures Drill core is oriented and cut with half sent to AGAT Laboratories Inc. (AGAT) for drying and crushing to -2 mm, with a 1.00 kg split pulverized to -75 µm (200#). AGAT is an ISO 17025 accredited laboratory. A 50 g charge is Fire Assayed and analyzed using an AAS finish for Gold. Samples above 10.00 g/t Au are analyzed by Fire Assay with a gravimetric finish and selected samples with visible gold or high-grade mineralization are assayed by Metallic Screen Fire Assay on a 1.00 kg sample. Moneta inserts independent certified reference material and blanks with the samples and assays routine pulp repeats and coarse reject sample duplicates, as well as completing routine third-party check assays at Activation Laboratories Ltd. Jason Dankowski, P.Geo. V.P. Technical Services & Geology for Moneta, who is a QP as defined by NI 43-101 has reviewed and approved the technical contents of this press release.
About Moneta Gold Moneta is a Canadian-based gold exploration company focused on advancing its 100% wholly owned Tower Gold project, located in the Timmins region of Northeastern Ontario, Canada's most prolific gold producing camp. The September 2022, Preliminary Economic Assessment study outlined a combined open pit and underground mining and a 7.0 million tonne per annum conventional leach/CIL operation over a 24-year mine life, with 4.6 Moz of recovered gold, generating an after-tax NPV5% of $1,066M, IRR of 31.7%, and a 2.6-year payback at a gold price US$1,600/oz. Tower Gold hosts an estimated gold mineral resource of 4.5 Moz indicated and 8.3 Moz inferred. Moneta is committed to creating shareholder value through the strategic allocation of capital and a focus on the current resource upgrade drilling program, while conducting all business activities in an environmentally and socially responsible manner.
**FOR FURTHER INFORMATION, PLEASE CONTACT:**Gary V. O'Connor, CEO 416-357-3319
Linda Armstrong, Investor Relations 647-456-9223
The Company's public documents may be accessed at www.sedar.com. For further information on the Company, please visit our website at www.monetagold.com or email us at [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected]).
Certain statements in this press release including certain information about Moneta's business outlook, objectives, strategies, plans, strategic priorities and results of operations, as well as other statements which are not current statements or historical facts, constitute "forward-looking information" or "forward-looking statements" (collectively "forward-looking statements") within the meaning of applicable Canadian securities laws. All statements, other than statements of historical fact, that address activities, events or developments that the Company believes, expects or anticipates will or may occur in the future (without limitation, statements regarding exploration programs, potential mineralization, future plans and objectives of the Company, updated to the mineral resources, and the timing and results thereof) are forward-looking statements. Sentences and phrases containing words such as "believe", "estimate", "anticipate", "plan", "will", "intend", "predict", "outlook", "goal", "target", "forecast", "project", "scheduled", "proposed", "expect", "potential", "strategy", and the negative of any of these words, or variations of them, or comparable terminology that does not relate strictly to current or historical facts, are all indicative of forward-looking statements. These forward- looking statements reflect the current expectations or beliefs of the Company based on information currently available to the Company.
Forward-looking statements are subject to inherent risks and uncertainties, and are based on several assumptions, both general and specific, which give rise to the possibility that actual results or events could differ materially from Moneta's expectations expressed in or implied by such forward-looking statements and that Moneta's business outlook, objectives, plans and strategic priorities may not be achieved. These statements are not guarantees of future performance or events, and Moneta cautions you against relying on any of these forward-looking statements. Forward-looking statements are provided in this press release for the purpose of assisting investors and others in understanding Moneta's objectives, strategic priorities and business outlook, and in obtaining a better understanding of Moneta's anticipated operating environment. Readers are cautioned that such information may not be appropriate for other purposes. Examples of forward-looking statements in this press release include, but are not limited to: information with respect to the future performance of the business, its operations and financial performance and condition; statements relating to Moneta's plans for the Project; the Corporation's drilling program and the timing and results thereof; the timing and scope and focus of the Corporation's pre-feasibility study ("PFS"); statements regarding the environmental impact assessment and community engagement activities; and the Corporation's financing initiatives.
Forward-looking statements are subject to a number of risks and uncertainties that may cause the actual results of the Company to differ materially from those discussed in the forward-looking statements, and even if such actual results are realized or substantially realized, there can be no assurance that they will have the expected consequences to, or effects on the Company. Important risk factors that could cause actual results or events to differ materially from those expressed in, or implied by, the forward-looking statements contained in this press release include, but are not limited to: uncertainties relating to the availability and costs of financing needed in the future; changes in commodity prices; changes in equity markets; changes to regulations affecting the Company's activities; the uncertainties involved in interpreting exploration results and other geological data and the other risks involved in the mineral exploration industry; the impact of COVID-19 related disruptions in relation to the Corporation's business operations including upon its employees, suppliers, facilities and other stakeholders; uncertainties and risk that have arisen and may arise in relation to travel, and other financial market and social impacts from COVID-19 and responses to COVID 19 and the ability of the Corporation to finance and carry out its anticipated goals and objectives; international conflicts and other geopolitical risks, including war, military action, terrorism, trade and financial sanctions, which have historically led to, and may in the future lead to, uncertainty or volatility in global commodity and financial markets and supply chains; and the impact of Russia's invasion of Ukraine and the widespread international condemnation has had a significant destabilizing effect on world commodity prices, supply chains, inflation risk, and global economies more broadly, may adversely affect the Corporation's business, financial condition, and results of operations. Additional risks and uncertainties not currently known to Moneta or that Moneta currently deems to be immaterial may also have a material adverse effect on Moneta's financial position, financial performance, cash flows, business or reputation.
Forward-looking statements made in this press release are based on a number of assumptions that Moneta believed were reasonable at the time it made each forward-looking statement. The assumptions, although considered reasonable by Moneta on the day it made the forward-looking statements, may prove to be inaccurate. Accordingly, our actual results could differ materially from our expectations. There can be no assurance that forward-looking statements will prove to be accurate, as actual results and future events could differ materially from those anticipated in such statements. Any forward-looking statement speaks only as of the date on which it is made and, except as may be required by applicable securities laws, the Company disclaims any intent or obligation to update any forward-looking statement, whether as a result of new information, future events or results or otherwise. Although the Company believes that the assumptions inherent in the forward-looking statements are reasonable, forward-looking statements are not guarantees of future performance and accordingly undue reliance should not be put on such statements due to the inherent uncertainty therein.
To view the source version of this press release, please visit https://www.newsfilecorp.com/release/146814

https://preview.redd.it/06f83kszx94a1.png?width=1810&format=png&auto=webp&s=b283c7d15f19e35ca26e99c46a1fa21ce75946f5

Universal Site Links
MONETA GOLD INC
STOCK METAL DATABASE
TODAY'S ECONOMIC CALENDER
ADD TICKER TO THE DATABASE
www.reddit.com/Treaty_Creek
REPORT AN ERROR

The industrial valves market is projected to grow at a CAGR of 5.80%, with estimated market size of USD 59.1 billion in 2021 to USD 82.9 billion by 2028. One of the key factors fueling the market expansion for industrial valves is the rise in infrastructure-related activities. Industrial valves are in greater demand due to increased infrastructure-related projects and the expansion of private infrastructure investment (PPI). Additionally, improving industrial equipment performance and lubricant life with continuous lubricant filtration speeds up market growth. Continuous use of these systems also helps to reduce the costs associated with machinery repairs and production downtime. The market for industrial valves is further benefited from expanding urbanization, lifestyle changes, a boom in investments, and rising consumer expenditure. Additionally, throughout the projection period, the expansion of refineries and petrochemical facilities and the adoption of Industry 4.0 and IoT in industrial valves provide lucrative prospects to market participants. On the other hand, it is anticipated that local manufacturers' low-cost valve offerings and the absence of established standards will hinder market expansion.
Get Sample Copy of the Report @ https://marketsnresearch.com/sample/1570
Industrial Valves Market Dynamics
Drivers: Growing demand for valves from healthcare and pharmaceuticals industries due toCOVID-19 pandemic
The healthcare and pharmaceutical sectors are at the vanguard of fighting the COVID-19 pandemic due to its rapid spread. There is an increase in the creation of all essential medical devices needed to treat COVID-19 patients. Several significant industry firms have seized the chance to help in the effort to combat this pandemic since industrial valves are crucial to the production of various types of medical equipment. Emerson's valves, for instance, can control pressure relief, maintain the cleanliness of the materials and components in sterilizers and oxygen therapy devices, and support analyzers and other crucial hematology equipment. Additionally, pop-up and remote hospitals and triage centers receive oxygen supply through the company's high-pressure and high-purity valves.
Restraints: Lack of standardized policies
Manufacturers of valves must abide by the various certifications and laws in each region. Due to the wide use of valves in numerous end-user sectors, this factor leads to diversity in product requirements. However, due to the need for industry participants to modify the same product by regional rules, which makes it challenging for valve manufacturers to attain an optimal installation cost, this diversity is impeding the growth of the valve market. They must use their resources to establish production facilities in other places to address this problem, which will require extra capital investments.
Opportunities: Use of lloT and Industry 4.0 in industrial valves
Valves are essential parts of a variety of industrial machinery. Using conventional schedule-based maintenance techniques, manufacturing organizations cannot be warned about probable valve failures. As a result, when inspecting valves, technicians frequently report defects, leading to unplanned downtime that could have been avoided by using the Industrial Internet of Things (loT). But recent advancements in data science, connectivity, and computer power have made it possible for businesses to use loT technology to cut down on unscheduled downtime caused by valve failures. With the help of the Internet of Things (IoT), valve specialists may remotely check on the condition of the valves in a plant and measure their effectiveness, lifespan, and failure risk, resulting in improved valve performance and a secure working environment.
View More Information : https://www.globenewswire.com/en/news-release/2022/11/14/2555190/0/en/Global-Industrial-Valves-Market-Size-Share-to-Garner-82-9-billion-by-2028-at-5-80-CAGR-Analysis-Outlook-Leaders-Trends-Forecast-Segmentation-Growth-Growth-Rate-Value-by-Markets-N-R.html
The globe category is estimated to be the largest growth in the steam engine market during the forecast period
The globe category dominated the market. Globe valves, which govern by the position of a movable disc concerning the stationary ring seat, are among the most often used valves for controlling the flow in a pipeline. The globe valve's main benefit is that it doesn't leak as much as other valves. These valves are used in various industries for their advantages, including superior full-closing properties, quicker opening and closing times, and positive shut-off. Additionally, they can function as stop-check valves.
Oil & gas is estimated to be the largest growing market category during the forecast period
The oil & gas segment is projected to grow the fastest during the forecast period due to the expansion of the transportation industry, rising energy prices, and expanding drilling operations in Gulf Cooperation Council (GCC) nations. The COVID-19 pandemic outbreak, however, has caused an economic catastrophe that the globe is still recuperating from. After COVID-19, the growing need for maintenance work in the oil and gas industry would present profitable business prospects. The need for maintenance operations would also increase opportunities for maintenance service providers in the oil & gas industries, increasing the demand for valves. This is because most of the existing oil and gas refineries are aging.
The North American segment is estimated to be the largest growing market during the forecast period
North America is the largest industrial valve market, projected to grow fastest during the forecast period. Since several of the greatest global firms, like Emerson (U.S.), Cameron-Schlumberger (U.S.), and Flowserve Corporation, are based in North America, the continent is a significant market for industrial valves (U.S.). Among the key drivers propelling the market in North America are the increased need for safety applications and the region's expanding R&D efforts connected to using actuators in valves for automation. In the U.S., industrial valve application fields are being expanded by industry-level R&D in various sectors, including energy & power and chemicals. Oil and gas, energy and electricity, and water and wastewater treatment industries all employ control valves to start, stop, or throttle flow and ensure safe and effective process automation.
Read Comprehensive Overview of Report @ https://marketsnresearch.com/report/1570/global-industrial-valves-market
Key Market Players
The industrial valve market is dominated by a few global players and comprises several regional players. Some key manufacturers operating in the market are G.E. Company, Emerson, Flowserve Corporation, Schlumberger Limited, TechnipFMC Plc, KSB SE & Co. KGaA, KITZ Corporation, Alfa Laval Corporate AB, Curtiss-Wright Corp., CIRCOR International, Inc., Oilwell Varco, Inc., Weir Group Plc., Neway Valves, AVK International A/S, Flowserve Corporation and LESER GmbH & Co. K.G.
About Us
Markets N Research team is comprised of well skilled and equipped personnel ready to concur any upcoming challenges in the market sector for both individual people and organization around the world. We know time is money, and therefore we ensure we solve your problem within the shortest time possible to prevent delays or missing any opportunities. We use globally accepted techniques with a little innovation from our staff in solving all your market research related challenges.
Contact:
Markets N Research 1016 W Jackson Blvd, Chicago, IL 60607, United States Email - [email protected] Tel: +1 773-649-1529

Worldwide Mining Residue Suppressants Market: Presentation
Mining Dust Suppressants Market is delegated a fine, evaporate particulate matter made of dust, soil, minerals and numerous different particulates tracked down in the neighborhood climate. The mining business faces difficulties like cruel environment, rising energy costs, water shortage influencing the everyday tasks and by and large efficiency of the organization.
What's more, dust is made in each step of mining cycle like in the extraction, stockpiling and transportation, mine development, handling and so forth, thus the organizations need to screen and control dust outflows at each stage. Dust concealment is an indispensable component to meet the natural security and wellbeing prerequisites which acts like a danger to the labor force present.
In the mining business, the residue delivered during material handling tasks is a significant wellspring of air borne vapor. Dust causes a large group of issues for the mining tasks like hardware disappointment, low-perceivability issue, medical conditions and so on. Dust likewise establishes a possibly dangerous climate. Consequently, there are necessities for dust suppressants in the mining business.
Request the sample copy of report @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/samples/18766
Worldwide Mining Residue Suppressants Market: Elements
As ascend popular for clean energy and concerns connected with security increment, the interest for dust suppressants is supposed to quickly develop. To stay away from expensive harms and potential fines, the mining business is carrying out and following security guidelines, which has utilized dust suppressants a need around the world.
Mindfulness in the digging business for dust control frameworks, brilliant assembling and expansion in speculations are the key variables driving the development of mining dust suppressants in the market around the world. The expansion underway of metals, for example, copper and iron mineral directed by new ventures and extensions is setting out development open doors for the organizations in the mining business in this manner driving the mining dust suppressants market.
The variables, for example, lower injury rates, adaptability, grade control and better recuperation are the fundamental powerhouses to drive the mining suppressants market. The public arrangements and guidelines to zero in on wellbeing and security and expansion popular for wet suppressants is making it important to utilize dust control frameworks in the mining business in this way, filling the interest for dust suppressants in the worldwide market.
High upkeep cost of residue control hardware and absence of subsidizing are a portion of the variables which adversely influence the development of mining dust suppressants. Stoppage of mining exercises in Europe, consistence with the residue guidelines, accessibility of legitimate smothering specialists to retain the residue, feeble commands, absence of severe approaches, significant expense of residue control hardware are not many variables which could hamper the development of mining dust suppressants market.
The developing economy of the mining business and ascend popular for the residue assortment items is cultivating the development of worldwide mining dust suppressant market. Moreover, consistent development in the strategies for dust assortment is setting out open doors for the mining dust suppressants. The extension of deals organization and assembling offices of key or driving players; with a significant interest in innovative work for the development of non-petrol based wet suppressant is a pattern expected to shape the worldwide mining dust suppressants market inside the conjecture period.
Check Pre-Book here @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/checkout/18766
Global Mining Dust Suppressants Market: Segmentation
basis of type

Wet dust suppressants
Dry dust suppressants

basis of application

Stockpiles
Mine haul roads
Longwall mining
Others

Global Mining Dust Suppressants Market: Region-wise Outlook
Asia- Pacific is anticipated to dominate the mining dust suppressants market owing to the presence of robust economies like China, India and Australia. The companies in India are outsourcing projects to mining service companies and making the sector more structured in the country. The drilling potential and untapped exploration in India is expected to provide industry opportunities for the growth.
With the increase in investments, the opportunities for mineral exploration, infrastructure and resources is increasing in MEA. The revenue growth in Africa is boosted owing to the investor-focused and transparent laws developed by institutions including World Bank and International Finance Corporation. Latin America is also consider to provide growth opportunities due to booming market in countries such as Chile, Peru, etc.
Some of the key players identified in the Global Mining Dust Suppressants Market are Quaker Chemical Corporation

Arclin Inc • Dust & Water Solutions • Dust-A-Side • GE Corporation • Solenis • Tecpro and • The Dow Chemical Company • Wet Earth Mining • others.

Request For Report Customization @ https://www.persistencemarketresearch.com/request-customization/18766
About us:
Persistence Market Research, as a 3rd-party research organization, does operate through an exclusive amalgamation of market research and data analytics for helping businesses ride high, irrespective of the turbulence faced on the account of financial/natural crunches.
Contact us:
Persistence Market Research Address – 305 Broadway, 7th Floor, New York City, NY 10007 United States U.S. Ph. – +1-646-568-7751 USA-Canada Toll-free – +1 800-961-0353 Sales – [email protected]

(Bloomberg) -- In the most densely populated corner of the US, temperatures are about to drop after a stretch of unusually warm weather. And the signs of a winter crisis are already multiplying.
Heating oil delivered to New York is the priciest ever. Retailers in Connecticut are rationing it to prevent panic buying. New England’s stockpiles of diesel and heating oil — the same product, taxed differently — are a third of normal levels. Natural gas inventories are also below average. A Massachusetts-based utility is imploring President Joe Biden to prepare emergency measures to prevent a gas shortage.
Add some cold to the mix, and in the best-case scenario, Northeast consumers will shoulder the highest energy bills in decades this winter. The Biden administration, under pressure to tame prices ahead of the midterm elections, is considering ways to stash more diesel and gasoline in New England. In the worst-case scenario, a cluster of states with a combined economy bigger than Japan’s will run out of fuel to keep the lights on and heat homes and businesses.
“It’s going to be pretty bad,” said Marcus McGregor, head of commodities research at Conning Inc. “Diesel, heating oil and natural gas prices are through the roof. When you’re on a fixed salary, how does it impact your overall budget? It has to be bad.”
The Northeast is no stranger to fuel constraints. Its dearth of pipelines and refineries means the shale fields of Texas and Pennsylvania might as well be on the other side of the world. But now, a global supply crunch intensified by the war in Ukraine is putting the region at risk of an energy disaster to rival the one menacing Europe. The Northeast will compete with countries across the Atlantic and around the world for fuel to generate power, fill up trucks and keep the cold at bay.
Rocky MacDonald, a father of three and realtor in Stoneham, Massachusetts, expects to pay over $500 for heating oil to keep his three-bedroom ranch house warm this winter. That’s about 20% more than last year. To save money, MacDonald and his wife are cooking dinner at home more often. When they do go out, they skip the bottle of wine.
“I just can’t believe it. The monthly expenses are crazy amounts,” said MacDonald. “I’m trying to hoard every penny.” His family’s total spending has climbed to $10,000 a month from $8,000 last year, and he’s worried that rising interest rates will trigger a housing-market slump, eating away at his income.
For Rocky and other consumers grappling with historic inflation, the outlook is increasingly dire. Americans are poised to spend the most on heating in at least 25 years this winter, government estimates show.
In the Northeast, a typical family is expected to pay $1,094 to keep warm with natural gas this winter, 23% more than last year, the Energy Information Administration said. Homes that rely on oil for heat — primarily in New England and the Mid-Atlantic — will be hit even harder, with an average bill of $2,354. Northeast households using propane will spend about $1,970. Low-income consumers will suffer the most.
“Some of the most at-risk people of suffering when heating fuel runs out are immigrants and refugees,” said Jeffrey Thielman, president of the nonprofit International Institute of New England. “We are very concerned about the coming winter.”
That creates a tricky political calculus for the Biden administration. US energy exports have surged amid pressure to help European allies replace sanction-hit Russian supplies. But Biden is also facing calls to curb such shipments to help consumers at home. For Republicans, inflation has proved to be a potent political weapon: A press release announcing a Donald Trump rally in Pennsylvania this month noted the state’s surging heating oil prices.
So far, the Biden administration is using one of the few tools it has at its disposal to tackle high pump prices: It’s releasing unprecedented amounts of crude oil from the nation’s emergency reserves. But that can only go so far. US refineries are already running flat out, and without excess capacity to process the crude into usable fuel, the extra oil releases don't do much good.
Of course, much depends on Mother Nature. Meteorologists are predicting relatively mild temperatures for Europe and the Northeast this winter thanks to the weather pattern known as La Nina. Gas prices for next-month delivery have tumbled on both sides of the Atlantic as a warm autumn curtails demand. But in late October, the UK’s national weather service said the country’s chances of a colder-than-normal winter are increasing.
At the heart of the Northeast’s energy squeeze is natural gas. Even after Pennsylvania’s shale boom brought abundant supplies to the region’s doorstep, constraints have persisted.
That’s because New England and the Mid-Atlantic are more reliant on gas than ever. Coal-fired power plants have shut in droves, falling victim to environmental opposition and competition from cheap gas. Wind turbines and solar farms haven’t sprouted up quickly enough to replace them. And that bounty of shale gas in Pennsylvania? Concerns about climate change have scuttled plans for pipelines to bring it eastward. The Northeast’s dilemma reveals how the energy transition, at least in the short term, is ratcheting up the pain for consumers.
Almost half the electricity generated in New England and New York comes from gas. In extreme cold, heating may take priority over running power plants, which keep the lights on.
“The New England region has been on a lousy carousel ride for about a decade now trying to address the risk that comes each winter because of its over-reliance on a single fuel source,” Allison Clements, commissioner for the Federal Energy Regulatory Commission, said in an interview.
Heating oil and diesel are also part of the equation. The number of Northeast households that use heating oil has ticked lower as more switch to gas, but that’s little comfort to the almost 20% of homes there that still rely on it. The East Coast, the one US region dependent on foreign imports, has to vie with countries struggling to replace Russian supply. Refineries from Virginia to New Jersey have shut after failing to compete with larger Gulf Coast rivals.
A diesel shortage, meanwhile, can have devastating economic consequences. The bulk of consumer goods moves on trucks and trains powered by the fuel, which is also used in manufacturing and food production.
The Northeast isn’t entirely isolated from oil and gas pumped from other US regions. It can pull supplies from pipelines snaking up from the Gulf Coast and other points west. Heating oil and diesel are also delivered by truck and train. In rare cases, they come by sea, though the law requires that only US-built ships deliver fuel within the country — and there aren’t many of those.
But in a deep freeze, the Northeast will need more supply from abroad. The bulk of it will come from Canada, and some will come from Europe, a region that will be hard-pressed to export fuel with its own energy security at stake as the continent pivots away from Russia.
Other supplies will arrive from overseas. Cargoes of liquefied natural gas set sail each winter from Trinidad under a long-term contract and arrive at a terminal outside of Boston. Shipments to the East Coast have also come from Nigeria and a handful of other countries.
On peak days in the winter, as much as 35% of New England’s natural gas supply comes from LNG cargoes, according to New Hampshire utility Unitil Corp. And the US will find itself in competition with buyers from the UK to Japan.
That’s also true for so-called distillates like heating oil and diesel. Last year, more than a fifth of the East Coast’s supply came from abroad.
Eventually, the Northeast may be able to wean itself off foreign fuel by ramping up renewable energy. But in the short term, there’s little relief in sight.
“It’s not gonna be pretty for the consumer,” said Robert Yawger, director of the futures division at Mizuho Securities USA.
https://www.bnnbloomberg.ca/the-us-northeast-is-hurtling-toward-a-winter-heating-crisis-1.1842673

https://preview.redd.it/u4kuemafhn5a1.png?width=512&format=png&auto=webp&s=8cc5ae639c670781a71e5af6a448ae50eb2e6db3
Orthopedic Devices Market Outlook (2022-2029)
A new report from Exactitude Consultancy Research, titled Global Orthopedic Devices Market Size, Share, Growth, Industry Trends and Forecasts 2022-2029, provides an in-depth analysis of the global Orthopedic Devices market, we rank the market based on segments such as: production processes, applications and major regions. The Orthopedic Devices Market report offers an in-depth analysis of industry size, share, growth, trends, demand and forecasts to 2029. The report also provides information on Orthopedic Devices opportunities and development trends. Our roadmap for the future and best manufacturing history will help guide your Orthopedic Devices decisions. This report tracks the latest trends in the industry and examines their impact on the overall market. It also assesses market dynamics, covers key demand and price indicators, and analyzes the market based on SWOT and Porter Five Forces models.
The global orthopedic devices market size is expected to grow at a CAGR of over 5% between 2022 and 2029. The market was estimated at USD 39.54 Billion in 2020 to USD 50.48 Billion.
Get Sample Pages PDF (Including Full TOC, Table & Figures)
https://exactitudeconsultancy.com/reports/4319/orthopedic-devices-market/#request-a-sample
Competitors in Orthopedic Devices Market Report Are Breg Inc., Smith & Nephew PLC, Medtronic PLC, Johnson & Johnson, Arthrocare Corporation, Globus Medical Inc., Stryker Corporation, Microport scientific corporation, NuVasive, ConforMIS, DJO Global, Zimmer Biometry, Conventus Orthopaedics, DePuy Synthes Inc., Arthrex Inc., and others.
Complete Growth Report Is Available (Including the Full TOC, Tables And Figures, Graphs As Well As Chart)
https://exactitudeconsultancy.com/post/orthopedic-devices-market-growth/
Key Segments
Global Orthopedic Devices Market, By Products (IN USD Million)
Joint Reconstruction Devices
Orthobiologics
Arthroscopic Devices
Hip Replacement
Ankle Replacement
Knee Replacement
Shoulder Replacement
Other Implants
Surgery Devices
Drill Guide
Custom Clamps
Distracters
Screwdrivers
Implant Holder
Others
Global Orthopedic Devices Market, By Application (IN USD Million)
Spine Orthopedic Devices
Hip Orthopedic Devices
Knee Orthopedic Devices
Shoulder Orthopedic Devices
Elbow Orthopedic Devices
Foot And Ankle Orthopedic Devices
Joint Reconstruction
Trauma Fixation Devices
Others
Global Orthopedic Devices Market, By End Users (IN USD Million)
Hospitals
Clinics
Medical Industries
Care Centers
Orthopedic Laboratories
Manufacturers
Regional Dominance: (Future of Orthopedic Devices Market)
The Global Orthopedic Devices Market research report covers ongoing market trends, development overviews, and various research methodologies. It presents key factors directly manipulating the market, including production strategies, development platforms, and product portfolios. According to our researchers, even minor changes within product profiles can lead to major disruptions to the above factors.
➛ North America (United States, Canada, and Mexico)
➛ Europe (Germany, France, UK, Russia, and Italy)
➛ Asia-Pacific (China, Japan, Korea, India, and Southeast Asia)
➛ South America (Brazil, Argentina, Colombia, Etc.)
➛ Middle East and Africa (Saudi Arabia, UAE, Egypt, Nigeria, and South Africa)
There Are 7 Sections To Show The Global Orthopedic Devices Market:
o Report Overview: It Includes The Objectives And Scope Of The Study And Gives Highlights Of Key Market Segments And Players Covered. It Also Includes Years Considered For The Research Study.
o Executive Summary: It Covers Industry Trends with High Focus On Market Use Cases and Top Market Trends, Market Size by Regions, and Global Market Size. It Also Covers Market Share And Growth Rate By Regions.
o Key Players: Here, The Report Concentrates On Mergers And Acquisitions, Expansions, Analysis Of Key Players, Establishment Date Of Companies, And Areas Served, Manufacturing Base, And Revenue Of Key Players.
o Breakdown By Product And Application: This Section Provides Details About Market Size By Product And Application.
o Regional Analysis: All Of The Regions And Countries Analyzed In The Report Are Studied On The Basis Of Market Size By Product And Application, Key Players, And Market Forecast.
o Profiles Of International Players: Here, Players Are Evaluated On The Basis Of Their Gross Margin, Price, Sales, Revenue, Business, Products, And Other Company Details.
o Market Dynamics: It Includes Supply Chain Analysis, Analysis Of Regional Marketing, Challenges, Opportunities, And Drivers Analyzed In The Report.
Complete growth Report of Orthopedic Devices Market
https://exactitudeconsultancy.com/reports/4319/orthopedic-devices-market/
About Us
Exactitude Consultancy is a Market research & consulting services firm which helps its client to address their most pressing strategic and business challenges. Our professional team works hard to fetch the most authentic research reports backed with impeccable data figures which guarantee outstanding results every time for you. So, whether it is the latest report from the researchers or a custom requirement, our team is here to help you in the best possible way.
Connect Us:
PHONE NUMBER +1 (704) 266-3234
EMAIL ADDRESS: [[email protected]](mailto:[email protected])
Orthopedic Devices Market Development, Orthopedic Devices Global Market Drivers, Orthopedic Devices Market Analysis, Orthopedic Devices Market Demand, Orthopedic Devices Market Forecast, Orthopedic Devices Market Growth, Orthopedic Devices Market Regional Analysis, Orthopedic Devices Market Segmentations, Orthopedic Devices Market Share, Orthopedic Devices Market Size, Orthopedic Devices Market Trends

0. Preface

TLDR: For the last 84 years, there has been hope on this sub that GameStop does a Share Recall and forces SHFs to close their short positions. However we learned that in 2003 the SEC and DTC made it impossible for companies to do Share Recalls of their stock, even when trying to protect themselves from naked shorting. Share Recalls are instead something that financial institutions can do, to recall shares lent to short sellers...however seemingly not an action likely to happen in the GameStop saga.
Of course there is an "alternative" Share Recall happening, in the form of retail investors gradually DRSing their stock. This is something GameStop can encourage and report on from the side, but not something they can directly effect. However I have found evidence that companies such as GameStop are able to direct something akin to a Share Recall - a mandatory Share Surrender. This DD presents evidence and a very interesting, relatively recent precedent of a company taking such steps. If GameStop instigate such a Share Surrender in a manner similar to this precedent, my conjecture is that it could well lead to shorts being force closed very rapidly, and thus a path to MOASS.

1. A history of Superstonk's understanding of what a 'Share Recall' actually means

There has been much confusion since the inception of this sub (and its predecessors) about the subject of Share Recalls. There was a time (mid 2021) when many Apes believed it is possible for GameStop themselves to carry out a Share Recall, thereby forcing shorts to close their positions. The reason they had not done this, as the theory went at the time, was because actioning such a recall without a legitimate business reason would result in lawsuits against the company for market manipulation. However the conjecture was that GameStop was, nonetheless, putting together a business case that would allow them to carry out a Share Recall, and thereby launch MOASS.
However, Apes then came to learn about SEC rule SR-DTC-2003-02. Coming into effect in 2003, this was a rule proposed in the aftermath of a number of companies attempting to action recalls of their shares, when they felt that Short Sellers were manipulating their stock and the DTC was not taking sufficient steps to prevent this. The rule was proposed by the DTC themselves, in effect to lock companies in as "prisoners" within the DTC as a depositary, preventing them from exiting. The basic argument from the DTC was that companies have no rights to decide what happens to their shares after selling them to the market. Sole ownership rights fall with whoever hodls the stock, and the issuer is therefore unable to carry out actions such as Share Recalls.
https://www.sec.gov/rules/sro/34-47978.htm
https://preview.redd.it/rv4anmxymdq91.jpg?width=1767&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=2a6c027b191b19878d38e88bc4f5ffd05a35f316
The understanding of what Share Recalls are in reality then moved, correctly, to their usage by financial institutions. The most prevalent use of these is when the issuer of a stock carries out a corporate action of some kind, which makes it advantageous for stock lenders (e.g. asset management firms) to recall their shares from stock borrowers such as SHFs. Thus it was conjectured that by GameStop carrying out certain corporate actions, such as a stock dividend, lenders would recall their shares and thus force SHFs to have to close their short positions, and thus launch MOASS. An example of such conjecture is below:
https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/ttvawt/boom_lenders_must_call_back_their_lent_out_shares/
https://preview.redd.it/hch58m15ndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=533fcc7e0e64a36276b87b9ff683d1d5b0c1952a
Of course what we saw happen in reality is the DTC instructing most institutions to simply carry out a standard stock split, meaning such a Share Recall had no benefit for lenders to action. I do not believe it was GameStop's intentions, with the announcement of the stock dividend, to force into being such Share Recalls. I believe they probably knew things would turn out the way they did over the last couple of months. However this whole sorry affair lends more weight to the idea that a stock issuer cannot take actions to force a Share Recall, given the DTC and nefarious actors can just circumvent these as they please.
The most recent Share Recall method widely discussed on this sub, and currently in action on a daily basis, is of course DRS. The whole idea behind DRS is that it is a gradual Share Recall of stock from the DTC's clutches, eventually resulting in the complete removal of shares to being directly owned by retail shareholders and insiders. As someone who has 90% of their 741 GME shares held safely in my ComputerShare account, I am a firm believer in this individual shareholder led-Share Recall. It may not be an instantaneous 'Silver Bullet', but at some point (74.1% of the float? 100% of the float? 50.1% of shares issued? 100% of shares issued?) it is sure to result in something...big.
https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/wc56mdrs_is_the_share_recall_stop_floating_around_a/
https://preview.redd.it/fvtc7ef9ndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3f4d031b506ad59d9a178972e271b0fdd3a3746e

2. TNIB and a blueprint for a fast acting Share Surrender

So the story of Share Recalls seemingly stops there, as we wait for the incremental and inevitable march towards the DRS share numbers encroaching, enveloping and eventually eviscerating those held in the DTC. The only power to effect such a Share Recall thus lies with the tens of thousands of individual shareholders, and a small number of company insiders whose shares are also held by ComputerShare. GameStop's involvement and ability to effect a Share Recall thus begins and ends with the "encouragement" of quarterly reporting DRS numbers, and nothing much else directly possible beyond that. Right?
Maybe. Maybe not... I have come across some information that points towards them actually having a means to effect something similar to a Share Recall - a Share Surrender. The evidence I present for this is a past precedent, namely the actions taken up by a company called TNI BioTech Inc. in the period 2013-2015, which I will henceforth refer to as 'TNIB'. Credit for pointing me towards uncovering this is with u/weregoingstreaking, through some private exchanges I had with him/her. He/she was more interested in the resultant broker criminality which ensued from these eventw, however I became interested to learn what led to these issues in the first place. What jacked my tits was that the origination was TNIB ordering and then effecting a mandatory Share Surrender of their stock to their transfer agent.
I believe this story may serve as a blueprint for GameStop also carrying out such an action in the future. If the mechanisms that TNIB pursued are still possible, it would therefore mean the company does also still have the power to effect a Share Surrender themselves. Consequently if my findings are correct, then it could mean that Share Recalls are possible through the actions of individual shareholders continuously DRSing their shares, but concurrently Share Surrenders are possible by GameStop carrying out similar actions to TNIB.

3. Common stock certificates exchange in 2013

The story begins in the summer of 2013, with TNIB effecting a corporate action to resolve issues from various M&As they had carried out over the years. By then the company had shareholders still holding the paper common stock certificates of various bought-out firms - Galliano International Ltd. (CUISP: 363816109), Resorts Clubs International, Inc. (CUISPs: 761163-104 / 203 / 302), PH Environmental Inc. (CUISP: 69338E107) and the original TNI BioTech, Inc. (CUISP: 872608104). My guess is that there were enough shareholders with these paper certificates of the bought-out firms that still held records, to cause various kinds of issues. In order to resolve these problems, TNIB issued this press release detailing the corporate action:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tni-biotech-inc-announces-mandatory-exchange-of-common-stock-certificates-cusip-number-872608104-for-new-stock-certificates-with-active-cusip-872608203-210588751.html
https://preview.redd.it/x40mooafndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=5a3f02074961e05ea965580b5678d53ca40267d8
There are three interesting points for me with this corporate action:
• Firstly, it is aimed only at those shareholders holding the paper common stock certificates of the bought out companies.
• Hence this by no means affected the vast majority of shareholders and shares of TNIB, which presumably were in electronic format at street name brokers and the DTC.
• However the second interesting point was that the corporate action required those holding paper shares to mandatorily surrender these certificates and receive a replacement with the new CUISP.
•The third point is the method required to be used to do that, namely to send the certificates to their transfer agent, Direct Transfer LLC.
The reason this initial corporate action piqued my interest is the fact that TNIB could take an approach, as a stock issuer, that mandatorily forced shareholders to surrender their shares. At first glance this appears to be in contravention of SEC rule SR-DTC-2003-02 detailed above, which prevents issuers from carrying out actions compelling stockholders to do anything. However looking more closely at the precise wording within the rule, it prevents the withdrawal of shares by the issuing companies...but not the replacement of shares with new or updated versions of those shares. Hence TNIB's corporate action was actually keeping within the wording of the rule, although in effect being a mini-Share Recall of some of their paper stock certificates.
IMG

4. Cytocom spin-off announcement in May 2014

Having successfully effected the above described mini-Share Recall in 2013, from what I can tell it emboldened TNIB to go one step further a year later. In May 2014, the company announced that they will carry out an internal reorganisation of their business lines, to officially spin-off one of their subsidiaries named Cytocom. Below is the press release issued by TNIB, which their board had determined would be in the best interests of thr company's shareholders:
https://www.biospace.com/article/releases/tni-biotech-announces-proposed-spin-off-of-b-cytocom-inc-b-/
https://preview.redd.it/x7lkcjwindq91.jpg?width=1590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=c85ce098a882160b9a64fccb605b4e80a1f3a53e
Once again, there are some very interesting points to note with this corporate action:
• To begin with, its result would be TNIB shareholders continuing to hold their shares of that company, and those equities still being publicly tradeable on the OTCQB market for mid-tier venture firms.
• However these same shareholders would also receive shares of Cytocom, which would operate as a spun-off private firm and thus with those shares not tradeable on an exchange.
• Secondly, taking a cue from their corporate action the previous year, the press release announces that "mandatory surrender of existing TNIB shares will be required to receive shares of Cytocom through the Distribution".
• So once more TNIB is effecting a corporate action that requires a mandatory action to take place
• However you may have noticed that this action is to be carried out by all shareholders, not just those with paper common stock certificates, hence also including those held in electronic formats.
• The third and final point to note is that, unlike the previous action, this press release does not give much detail to shareholders about how to mandatorily surrender their shares.
• There is no mention in this initial press release explaining how TNIB shareholders can go about doing that, such as contacting their transfer agent (which had changed, in fact, from Direct Transfer LLC to Guardian Register & Transfer Inc).
TNIB may have avoided providing the methodology detail because the approach they would go onto specify caused quite some commotion over that summer... Perhaps their board realised that a "bomb dropping" of this kind required releasing this information gradually and gently. However, as you will see in the next couple of parts of the story, what they went on to direct certainly caused some pain to brokers and no doubt SHFs.

5. A Share Recall, literally on paper!

The months following this, in the summer of 2014, seem to have been a busy one for TNIB and its various stakeholders. The detailed directive from TNIB about how shareholders must mandatorily surrender their shares, in order to receive the dividend distribution of their spin-off Cytocom's private stock, seems to have caused quite some commotion. Although the original record date for the distribution was due to take place on July 15th, these difficulties resulted in TNIB issuing an extension detailed here:
https://www.bloomberg.com/press-releases/2014-08-14/tni-biotech-inc-announces-an-extension-to-the-record-date-of-its-wholly-owned-subsidiary-cytocom-inc-and-dividend-now-set
https://preview.redd.it/ujzx0zamndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=d0ae69778f2168927472c235a9f8733c196b5b4c
A summary of notable points from this announcement is as follows:
• TNIB made the stock surrender a mandatory requirement for ALL shares, but they also specified that the surrender must be carried out in paper share certificate format.
• Therefore they effectively turned off the button for making standard electronic transfers, and only permitted shareholders to send in the physical paper certificates to their transfer agent.
• This meant that shareholders who did not have their shares in paper format, which would of course have meant the vast majority of them, first had to obtain or convert the digital record of their TNIB shares to the transfer agent.
• The transfer agent would then provide paper share certificates for their TNIB shares, but along with that also provide paper share certificates for private spin-off Cytocom.
• With the major amounts of paperwork this approach required, this was proving a difficult task for many of the shareholders and brokers to complete.
• TNIB therefore provided an extension to when this process had to be completed, extending the Record Date to receive the Cytocom stock dividend until 30th September.
I do not know why TNIB decided to follow this method, which would no doubt have been extremely cumbersome for them and their transfer agent as well. However this second Share Surrender was in effect a full Share Recall of a kind, one that would allow TNIB and the transfer agent to see precisely how many shareholders they actually now had (i.e. including, potentially, those to whom the stock had been sold through naked short selling). It was also preventing the DTC and street name brokers from creating electronic IOUs instead of "real" shares, as the final delivery to shareholders had to be both TNIB and Cytocom paper share certificates. As detailed next, Wall Street was not prepared to do this without a fight...

6. The Schwab e-mail and TNIB'S letter to shareholders

You Apes are going to love this next part of the story! As I said in the previous section, the process that TNIB had mandated for distributing their spin-off Cytocom's stock was causing huge headaches for the brokers. Having gotten used to creating IOUs and synthetics out of thin air since the 1970s, the manual nature that TNIB was forcing them to follow did not go down very well with them at all. In communications to TNIB shareholders, it had appeared they had been blaming TNIB for not carrying out the steps in a timely manner.
This resulted in TNIB's CEO Noreen Griffin to publish a letter to the shareholders, one day before the 30th September Record Date for the stock dividend. Within the letter, Ms. Griffin defends and justifies the approach her company had taken, and dismisses broker claims and requests for a more "standard" process to be followed. However the best part is a (highly doxxing!) sharing of a complaint from one of the brokers, Schwab. If you read nothing else line-by-line within this DD, I would urge you to read the panicked, mansplaining, condescension of that e-mail from the Schwab representative to TNIB's Investor Relations manager:
https://www.prnewswire.com/news-releases/tni-biotech-inc-corporations-ceo-issues-letter-to-shareholders-discussing-cytocom-dividend-277484861.html#financial-modal
https://preview.redd.it/l8j206wqndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=96a71378e45bdd42f909b05cf729e34cb7870f08
A summary of Ms. Griffin's letter to the shareholders follows:
• She acknowledges that TNIB had by then already streamlined the process significantly, by permitting the DTC's Deposit and Withdrawal at Custodian ("DWAC") service using a Fast Automated Securities Transfer Service ("FAST").
• This is a method of shares direct registration, which is similar to DRS but where it is still held by the DTC - more details available here:
https://www.investopedia.com/terms/d/dwac.asp
• TNIB allowed this concession from their original stipulation, so that "DTCC Participants [brokerage firms]" did not have to carry out "physical surrender in client name [and instead] providing Guardian Transfer a list of our beneficial holders along with share amounts, address & TINs".
• However she completely dismisses the Schwab representative's request to switch further to the "standard" method used these days for such stock dividend issuances, and reiterates that the mandatory surrender of shares is still necessary
• She goes on to highlight the ludicrousness of Schwab's claims, in which they appear to cast blame on TNIB for being unable to recall shares swiftly enough from those that had borrowed the stock i.e. most likely SHFs
• The letter concluded with a doubling down of TNIB's stance, which is that brokers had been given ample time - 90 days - for shares to be recalled from short sellers and surrendered to the transfer agent
However even more than Ms. Griffin's letter, it is the Schwab representative's e-mail which is quite astonishing to me in its brevity. He appears to openly admit that Schwab, and the entire Wall Street brokerage establishment, partakes in the worst excesses outed by members of this sub over the last couple of years as a normal course of their business operations. In fact, there is a particular passage within his e-mail which is basically describing FTDs caused by multiple rehypothecations of the same original share i.e. illegal naked short selling:

https://preview.redd.it/v00gnvrtndq91.jpg?width=1768&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=3d8e1c9638c481a985912589e6272148e7bc7da5
I do not think the Schwab representative thought his e-mail would see the light of day, and it appears to me like a last ditch 'Hail Mary' play with time running out. He therefore probably tried to just say to TNIB that this is how the industry operates and that the company has to get with it...but had his bluff called by TNIB. CEO Griffin went so far as to doxx and then point-by-point dismiss and highlight the absurdness of Schwab trying to normalise FTDs, which was no doubt a humiliating final message to Wall Street from TNIB: "We are doing this our way, whatever you guys might say to try and pressurise us". What a champion!

7. Aftermath of the Share Surrender and dividend stock distribution

• The period between the announcement of the Cytocom spin-off stock dividend distribution and its eventual completion saw some extraordinary movement in the share price of TNIB stock.
• That time span was five months and the volatility of the share price indicates there may have been closing, re-shorting and closing again of short positions.
• For example, the share price fell to an intra-day low of $162.90 on 11th July, however then increased rapidly to $435.00 only two trading days later on 15th July (+167%).
• In fact, it appears there may have been four or five seperate Gamma Squeezes and Short Squeezes during the period before the Cytocom stock dividend spin out distribution.
• It seems likely the mandatory surrender of shares necessitated by TNIB's corporate action was responsible for this painful episode for short sellers and their enabling brokers.
• Having successfully completed the Cytocom spin-out on 1st October 2014, Ms. Griffin stepped down as CEO and Chairman of TNIB and retired for a few years.
• However according to her LinkedIn profile (https://www.linkedin.com/in/noreen-griffin-74893b37) she now appears to be back as an Executive VP at Cytocom, the company she helped launch in that summer of 2014.

8. A possible blueprint for GameStop Corp.?

As far as I can tell, TNIB's mandatory Stock Surrender corporate action is an approach that other companies are potentially also able to effect, as it falls within SEC's rule SR-DTC-2003-02. For firms that have likely had excessive naked short selling of their stock, such as GameStop, it appears to be a way to effect mandatory closing of short positions. By doing so, companies such as these may be able to create scenarios whereby accurate price discovery for their stock is made possible once more. As this is a fiduciary duty for the board of any publicly listed firm, such Stock Surrenders may thus be a method to create shareholder value.
Some specific points in the case of GameStop carrying out such a corporate action:
• The legitimacy of such an action is dependent on it not affecting market manipulation, but instead having a sound business case.
• In TNIB's case this was in order to consolidate paper stock certificates under a single CUISP (in 2013) and to distribute a share dividend of a private spin-off company (in 2014).
• As an example, GameStop could legitimately spin-off its NFT division and Marketplace as a seperate entity from the bricks-and-mortar retail chain (GMErica, anyone?)
• To do so, they may be able to replicate TNIB's approach of requiring a mandatory Share Surrender, in order to receive the stock dividend of the new spin-off company.
• The whole point of such a Share Surrender is to force all those who hold the stock to "return" shares to the company's transfer agent, so that they can issue the stock dividend directly to share holders.
• This is in conrast to GameStop's stock split in the form of a stock dividend carried out in July, which was to distribute the additional shares not just directly through ComputerShare, but also through intermediaries such as the DTC and their member brokerage firms.
• The 'genius' of the approach TNIB took was that they made it a mandatory requirement that all shares had to first be returned to their transfer agent in order to receive the stock dividend, including by forcing brokerage firms to send a full list of all their TNIB shareholders and share numbers.
• GameStop carrying out this same approach would most likely result in the DTC and brokers having a "Schwab moment", when realising that providing their actual list would mean providing comprehensive proof of them illegally over-selling shares without locates.
• Hence in order to reconcile their shareholders lists to match how many are on record at the DTC, which theoretically should not include sales of IOUs/synthetics, my conjecture is that brokers with stock lending programs would have no choice but to recall shares lent to short sellers.
• However with the free float having shrunk to almost nothing through DRS, and all the stock lending brokers forced to act en masse to recall shares to fulfill the mandatory Share Surrender, there will be no possibility to cover these by borrowing new shares from other lending institutions (as there will no longer be anyone prepared to or even able to lend the stock).
• Hence my conjecture is that the various parties on the wrong side of all this - prime brokers, stock lending asset managers, retail brokerage firms, and of course Short Hedge Funds - will suddenly have to go from their current stance of co-operating with each other to keep MOASS at bay, to instead be fighting each other tooth-and-nail in order to carry out the Share Surrender.
• With the currently available option of using new borrows to settle old ones no longer an option, the only remaining approach will then become purchasing (or, at least, trying to purchase) shares in the open market.
• Perhaps after burning through a few shares sold by early paperhands, it will become increasingly difficult to carry out such purchases at reasonable prices, resulting in the asking prices to rise astronomically as SHFs attempt to close out likely hundreds of millions of short positions.
• The result of such a Share Surrender corporate action by GameStop could very well be as prophesied on this and predecessor subs from 84 years ago: the Mother Of All Short Squeezes.

9. A possible blueprint for $GME's majority owners - soon to be Insiders and DRSed Retail Investors?

What I described in the previous section is currently a fantasy - there is nothing to say that GameStop would effect such a Share Surrender any time in the near future. Although it seems to me this is an approach they could legitimately and legally take, I have not been able to uncover a shred of evidence pointing to them actually planning such an approach. Maybe this is what the board has had in the works for the last couple of years...but maybe it's just my hopium.
However our shareholder rights provides each of us with a number of benefits and privileges. Specifically these are: voting power, ownership, the right to transfer ownership, dividends, the right to inspect corporate documents, the right to sue for wrongful acts, and the right to advocate Shareholder Proposals. Some of you may remember a two-part DD that I published less than a month ago about the last of these rights - Shareholder Proposals using SEC Rule 14a-8:
Part 1: https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/x29utb/how_rule_14a8_and_drsing_more_than_50_of_shares/
Part 2: https://www.reddit.com/Superstonk/comments/x29ull/how_rule_14a8_and_drsing_more_than_50_of_shares/
https://preview.redd.it/wd8h5fgzndq91.jpg?width=1590&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=6027a1176f4616c053c5b20c972018bcaf118c70
This DD was controversial, in that it details a method whereby individual shareholders could take steps to compel GameStop to effect a corporate action. I recognise that DD had a somewhat polarising reception, but I merely wanted to highlight that there are things that each of us has, as individual shareholders who bought $GME shares, have rights to. u/luckeeelooo makes this case with the below follow-up comment about that DD, in response to concerns raised by some other sub users (to Mods) about it:
https://preview.redd.it/r2otiph4odq91.jpg?width=1623&format=pjpg&auto=webp&s=02e80ae6bd3386162acb2d8682d83ee89cc1be62
The reason I bring up that DD is because a Share Surrender is an example of a corporate action that an individual investor can raise as a Shareholder Proposal. Hence even if GameStop's board is not currently planning to take such an approach, this is nonetheless an method they could be compelled to follow. That is, if an individual shareholder makes such a Shareholder Proposal, and a majority of the overall shareholder body votes positively in support of it.
Note that this is not something I am necessarily advocating, as a "call to arms". However for any SHF shills reading this, I hope you take this message back to your masters: there are multiple approaches in addition to DRS that both GameStop and individual investors can employ, in order to force close short positions. So before someone, somewhere enacts a Share Surrender, do the sensible thing and exit your lost bet. The first Hedgies to close out might still survive, while the rest of the slower Hedgies...r fuk.

10. Summary

• Superstonk went through several iterations of its understanding of what a Share Recall actually is,
• At first it was thought this is something that GameStop can themselves instigate, in order to force Short Sellers to close their positions.
• However it was learned that the DTC, working in cahoots with the SEC, has blocked such a path by companies since 2003.
• The common usage of the term Share Recalls, it was found, is the act by stock lenders to recall shares from borrowers, typically Short Sellers.
• Although corporate actions such as stock dividends can produce such Share Recalls, it appears these can be circumvented through the DTC and brokers simply not carrying out corporate actions in the manner directed by issuing companies.
• Finally, it has since been realised that retail investors DRSing their holdings is, in fact, a gradual form of Share Recall which may take a while, but highly likely to result in SHFs having to eventually close their positions.
• However I found evidence and a precedent for a corporate action that GameStop can themselves action, which may also force SHFs to close their positions much faster.
• This is something called a Share Surrender, which a company called TNI BioTech (then with the ticker TNIB, and now IMUN) successfully effected twice, in 2013 and 2014.
• A Share Surrender appears to be within the SEC's regulations and comply also with the DTC's internal rules, as this is not an act of a stock issuing company attempting to withdraw its shares being held by the DTC.
• Instead it is a corporate action to reset or consolidate its stock, rather than to withdraw from the DTC altogether, and thus not a withdrawal request to the DTC.
• The first instance that TNIB took of this approach was in 2013, in order to make defunct the paper stock certificates of subsidiaries it had bought out over the years.
• The DTC permitted TNIB to make a mandatory call for Share Surrenders of these paper certificates, to be exchanged for new certificates under a single CUISP number.
• Having being emboldened by the success of this initial, limited scale Share Surrender in 2013, TNIB went onto enact a much wider reaching directive not long after.
• In 2014 they decided to spin out a subsidiary named Cytocom as a private firm, with the distribution of this new entity's shares being distributed through a stock dividend.
• However TNIB required a mandatory Share Surrender of TNIB stock, in paper certificate format, in order to receive the new Cytocom stock.
• Effectively this was thus also a full Share Recall, as all TNIB shared had to be returned to the transfer agent in paper certificate format, to receive paper certificates of the new Cytocom shares.
• The effect was consternation and panic by Wall Street brokers, and no doubt SHFs to whom they had lent shares, when trying to carry out this mandatorily Share Surrender.
• TNIB eventually agreed to an extension to the deadline for carrying this out, and also permitted a DTC-internalised version of DRS, but which would still mandatorily require brokers to provide a full and comprehensive list of all theit TNIB shareholders.
• TNIB's CEO was forced to write a public letter to shareholders, defending their stance and even sharing an extraordinary e-mail received from Schwab, in which they tried to normalise naked short selling and FTDs as a reason to revert to a "normal" dividend stock distribution.
• With no option but to fulfil the mandatory Share Surrender, it appears brokers had no choice but to carry out Share Recalls from SHFs they had lent the stock to.
• The result seems to be a series of Gamma Squeezes and Short Squeezes during the summer of 2014, including some extraordinary price action e.g. +167% in 2 days.
• My conjecture is that if the mechanism used by TNIB to force a Share Surrender is still possible, it could be one employed by GameStop's board, to help fulfill their fiduciary duty of promoting accurate price discovery of $GME stock.
• There may be multiple legitimate business cases for which they could apply a Stock Surrender, however the one I provided as an example is in order to spin-off a subsidiary named GMErica (e.g. as a seperate entity for their NFT division and Marketplace).
• In any case, a Share Surrender appears to be a mechanism for GameStop themselves to instigate (effectively) a very fast acting Share Recall, to complement the more gradual Share Recall of individual retail shareholders DRSing.
• As I have also highlighted with one of my previous DDs, regarding SEC Rule 14a-8, such a Share Surrender may even be within the power of a single Ape to make a Shareholder Proposal for at some point.

App opções binárias

#NYSE #CRL $CRL Charles River Laboratories International Inc. is interesting #Forex #GBPUSD $GBPUSD is interesting

Insider Buying: Major Drilling Group International Inc. (TSE:MDI) Director Buys 2,000 Shares of Stock

Mill Road Capital III, L.P. Sells 3,900 Shares of Major Drilling Group International Inc. (TSE:MDI) Stock

Major Drilling Group International Inc. (MJDLF) CEO Denis Larocque on Q2 2021 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Major Drilling Group International Inc. (MJDLF) CEO Denis Larocque on Q4 2020 Results - Earnings Call Transcript

Major Drilling Group International Inc. 2020 Q4 - Results - Earnings Call Presentation

Drilling Services Market With Vendors Baker Hughes Inc., Weatherford International Plc., Schlumberger Limited, Superior Energy Services Inc., Transocean Limited, and Halliburton Co.

FXPay Inc. aims to create a large, international, eco-friendly community on a digital platform that is made to meet the demands of #Forex premium #brokers and #traders

Latest Filing from Judge Du indicates Potential to Remand Case back to BLM (12/2/22)

DEC 15, 2022 ME.TO MONETA CONTINUES TO INTERSECT SIGNIFICANT GOLD MINERALIZATION AT TOWER GOLD

DEC 14, 2022 ME.TO MONETA WELCOMES SHEILA COLMAN TO ITS BOARD OF DIRECTORS

DEC 06, 2022 ME.TO MONETA INTERSECTS FURTHER SIGNIFICANT GOLD MINERALIZATION AT TOWER GOLD

Industrial Valves Market Real Time Analysis & Forecast 2018 – 2028

The U.S. Treasury is considering taking over American International Group Inc. under a conservatorship as one option to address the insurer's crisis

Mining Dust Suppressants Market:Global Industry Trend Analysis and Forecast –2025

Got the Working Cradlepoint Ask Me Anything

The US Northeast Is Hurtling Toward a Winter Heating Crisis

I’m being scammed right?

Orthopedic Devices Market Trends, Research Analysis, and Projections 2022-2029

GameStop cannot enact a Share Recall. But I found evidence (and an amazing precedent) they can instead direct a mandatory Share Surrender. That really could lead to forced closing of short positions, and thereby trigger MOASS.