LOL...No, Odyssey is not in trouble.
Do you normally take your investing advice from those who admit a short position on a stock?
Do you normally believe the reports issued by hedge fund managers?
From the "comments" section:
"Based on this article, I was about to sell all my OMEX. Then I looked at the top where it said the author is shorting OMEX. So I realized there were two possibilities.
1) The author did all this research, and spent all this time because he is altruistically trying to help his fellow man or
2) He is trying to drive down the price so he can make a profit.
Which do you think?
Here's a hint, it is not number 1."
Here is another:
"Same old, same old. Ryan Morris will say anything at all to cause OMEX’s share price to decline. It doesn’t matter to him if it’s a lie, a distortion, or an omission of material fact – he just wants the stock to go lower at any cost. Thankfully the market has become inured to his “investigative research” and no longer pays attention.
Morris still doesn’t know a lot about Oceanica. He makes erroneous assumptions about where the company will mine within its claim. He makes erroneous assumptions about work done by Rofomex and Innophos. He makes erroneous assumptions about costs, the environmental permitting prospects, the political climate, concession status, and more.
His cost assumptions are clearly well off-mark. The cost chart that Morris displays is based on the “best guess” of an accountant who was part of the Phosmex organization. What Morris doesn’t realize is that there’s a massive pipeline built into the later cost numbers he shows in the chart. That means those costs include all the pipeline and pumping costs and slurry preparation costs. Even that estimate is questionable as it was based on a personal conversation rather than hard data. Oceanica has no need for pipelines if they operate like Chatham (which I guess that they will). Like Chatham, Oceanica is likely to take rock phosphate delivered at port at a cost of somewhere near $50/ton (Chatham will pay $80/ton).
The costs will be well below Chatham’s quoted price of $80/ton (which Chatham believes they can reduce). Chatham will operate in 1,200 feet of rough seas. I believe Oceanica will operate in 300 ft of relatively calm water. Based on my discussions with Chatham and dredgers, a $50/ton number is a good estimate. Some feel costs may come in below that number, but I’d rather be conservative. Most important, those familiar with the cost economics of subsea phosphate mining have the hard data to show these operations can be cost competitive with some of the largest and lowest cost phosphate mines in the world. What data does Ryan Morris supply?
Morris claims that the environmental permitting process stops nearly all mining projects in Mexico. Yet Mexico is the world’s number one producer of silver, and mining is the country’s third largest source of foreign income following oil and auto. According to a study done in 2013 by Behre Dolbear, Mexico ranked #5 in the world for business environment from mining. Further, Morris doesn’t mention that Phosomex successfully obtained a full mining permit for its phosphate dredging operation in Baja years ago. The fact is that Mexico depends on the mining sector for 5% of its GDP and it’s obvious that many mining applications are successful and permits are granted. This doesn’t sound like the unfriendly mining environment that Morris attempts to portray.
Morris cites the salt mine expansion that Mitsubishi attempted in the ‘80s as proof that mining is difficult to get approved in Mexico, even with a large budget. Yet he fails to note that Mitsubishi was attempting to expand into an established nature reserve, a protected whale breeding ground, and a known bird sanctuary directly inside the environmentally sensitive San Ignacio Lagoon. Oceanica has none of these issues. Rather than operate next to shore, I believe Oceanica will operate 20-30 miles offshore where the phosphate concentrations are highest.
The claim regarding overlapping concessions is absurd. The Ministry of Mining is the single authority in Mexico empowered to grant concessions, and Mexican statutes only allow for concessions to be granted on “free” lands – lands which have not already been granted a concession.
http://bit.ly/1d65FYG
I spoke with the company about this idea, and they said that there are zero overlapping mineral concessions for Oceanica. The maps that are used on the Ministry’s website can be confusing and are not rendered in fine enough detail to establish true boundaries. For that purpose, the lawyers, geologists, and Ministry officials would have relied on a “meets and bounds” survey to establish the borders of the concession and determine that all land within those borders was not already claimed.
Morris states that underwater phosphate mining has, “never been completed in history.” What’s one more lie? Underwater phosphate mining goes back to the 1800’s in the US, when phosphate was dredged from rivers at depths of up to 50 feet. See
http://bit.ly/1d65FrN . What Oceanica is going to do is not technically difficult. Every single part of the operation is done at commercial scale, for one purpose or another, at present.
The political climate for mining in Mexico isn’t deteriorating as Morris claims. It’s improving. Mexico has shown massive success attracting foreign investment since liberalizing the mining sector in the early 80’s and now it wants to take a bigger cut from the miners. Despite the increased tax, the relatively low general tax rate means that the overall tax burden is still highly competitive, that’s why most miners are continuing to invest in Mexico despite the increase.
Mexico mining taxes unlikely to significantly impact investment - analyst - BNamericas Notably, the Mexican government will be anxious to prove it can still be successful at attracting new investment post the implementation of this tax structure. They are especially anxious to increase fertilizer feedstock production.
Pemex 2014-18 business plan targets three petrochemical chains - BNamericas
Innophos chose not to pursue its claim because it was not economic. Oceanica will not be mining where Innophos was testing. For Morris to assume that Oceanica is non-economic because Innophos had no luck in a different spot is just foolish.
Every new mine is opposed by environmental groups. The difference for Oceanica is that their form of mining is relatively environmentally friendly, and they are not displacing anyone with their activities. Morris doesn’t appreciate the fact that mining 20 miles out in the open ocean is vastly different from mining in Magdalena Bay. Oceanica won’t disrupt whales, turtles, surfers, land developers, tour operators, or fishermen. The operations will be dramatically less invasive than presently approved commercial activities in the region such as land development, bottom trawling fishing, and land-based phosphate mining.
There’s little doubt in my mind that the project will be approved. If a couple environmentalists are truly “furious” about Oceanica as Morris claims, it’s only because they are being used as pawns in Ryan Morris’s holy war against OMEX. Once they are supplied with actual facts rather than Morris’s lies, they will appreciate the limited impact of the project as well as its massive economic and humanitarian benefits for the Mexican population. Regardless, a few narrow interest groups won’t determine the outcome of a project which, I believe, will have meaningful national importance to the Mexican people.
Morris obviously thinks he knows a lot about Oceanica. He thinks that pulling some concession info. and talking to a couple environmentalist gives him an edge. I’m going to go out on a limb and make the assumption that JP Morgan bankers and Mako investors have a lot more information about Oceanica than Ryan Morris. They not only have access to the same public information upon which Morris relies, but they have access to incredibly valuable private information that Morris doesn’t. They think that the asset is worth quite a bit of money. So, who has the informational and analytic advantage, Ryan Morris or Mako and JP Morgan?"