The Economist article today

[sycamoresouth]

Keep in mind Hal is a reporter doing what reporters do and gathering facts as he can find them. We are all now sources for him. No need to believe or disbelieve him. Just give him or not give him the facts as you see fit.

[KingKongFong]

I think you all should give Hal the benefit of the doubt here, and think some of you are reading into this more than there actually is. He’s not writing an article with the mindset of shorting the stock etc - pretty nefariously ridiculous in my mind.

Now, that being said, over the last few years as my research has become more popular (I am a scientist) I have had more and more interactions with journalists when I publish a new paper. The one thing I have noticed is journalist for large mainstream publications for an online article (e.g. The Economist) will almost always seek out someone/some-group that they can quote to give a substantiated inflammatory spin on an article. Its just the name of the game.

So what do I think Hal is doing on this board? I think he’s trying to beat the bushes of small-to-medium private investors, such as ourselves, and see what flys out. If we present to him that we own a cumulative 10 million shares of the company and are all livid about what is going on, then there is a tag line for an artcile “small private investors abanond faith in Nautilus Minerals” et…..I’m not sure “long time investors remain loyal to Nautilus Minerals” is as catchy.

In my opinion the best strategy is to not feed the beast. I would be surprised if he can provide anything in return, as any substantiated news that we don’t know about would have been in his article. It’s just more rumors/gossip.

my 2cents.

-Kong

[Club_777]

I think you all should give Hal the benefit of the doubt here, and think some of you are reading into this more than there actually is. He’s not writing an article with the mindset of shorting the stock etc - pretty nefariously ridiculous in my mind.

Now, that being said, over the last few years as my research has become more popular (I am a scientist) I have had more and more interactions with journalists when I publish a new paper. The one thing I have noticed is journalist for large mainstream publications for an online article (e.g. The Economist) will almost always seek out someone/some-group that they can quote to give a substantiated inflammatory spin on an article. Its just the name of the game.

So what do I think Hal is doing on this board? I think he’s trying to beat the bushes of small-to-medium private investors, such as ourselves, and see what flys out. If we present to him that we own a cumulative 10 million shares of the company and are all livid about what is going on, then there is a tag line for an artcile “small private investors abanond faith in Nautilus Minerals” et…..I’m not sure “long time investors remain loyal to Nautilus Minerals” is as catchy.

In my opinion the best strategy is to not feed the beast. I would be surprised if he can provide anything in return, as any substantiated news that we don’t know about would have been in his article. It’s just more rumors/gossip.

my 2cents.

-Kong

Spot on.

[Monk3]

" Legendary Canadian Investor to buy Nautilus Minerals for $1.00 per share". Remember that one brought to us by journalists and newswire?

Hal 9000, it is usually nice to see NUS in the news as the company takes the initiative to not let its investors know anything that is going on with the company in its quest to secure funding. "First problem", MANY years ago NUS had to go to an arbitrator because PNG was not honouring its contract with NUS due to a regime change. It ended up working out to NUS's benefit. It slowed progress for about 8 months tops, pretty quick for a non-first world country government and NUS got almost DOUBLE vs. the arbitrator's decision. Second, the NGOs environmentalist groups that are rallying against NUS are tiny groups of UNINFORMED locals posting on one or maybe two unknown sites, mostly filled with anti-government rhetoric, that are trafficked by people numbering in the 10's. But yes, Third is correct, 2008-2009 (10 years ago) was a set back at the hands of a then non-committed, wishy-washy CEO Rogers. Hate to be looking like a non-environmentalist but since when has the environment stopped money being made by big companies? BP oil spill? Albertan Oil Sands? Tailings dams existing and breaking left and right. Open pit mining in some of the most environmentally important areas in our world? Those small examples are just a couple drops in the bucket. That's PROVEN destruction getting continually approved and carried out, not "scientists want to study the area prior to mining because of "possible concerns that there might be *something* down there that will prove beneficial to science". The scientists have zero funding to do research and are not even looking at this small first area, SOL1, as an opportunity to prove/disprove that 'idea'."
You left half the article on the table with "Nautilus APPEARS (seriously?) to have lost the PSV". Like "Godzilla appears to be emerging from the South Pacific", oops... wait... turns out it is just a piece of wood. Why would a little known Emirati buy a specialized ship like the PSV? Without equipment it can't be used for its design. I am told it would be pretty useless for anything else. THERE is a story. The Economist... How about "Majority vs. Minority Shareholders - A Dichotomy Arises Amongst Legal Information Distribution" Nautilus Minerals - A case study.

Press/Media, unless there is a puppy video it is always the negative spin that gets printed. Why? People like reading about good things too. I'll meet you half way, how about:
"Nautilus Minerals - A Rare Opportunity Lost to Cease the Destruction of our Earth by Stopping Terrestrial Open Pit Mining"
"Are Billionaires Idiots? - Why Fund Mining Asteroids in Deep Space When it is Sitting at your Feet?" (You need a toy? Get a train set, there are people starving out there)
"Nautilus Minerals - The Most Environmentally Friendly Way to Mine Deposits Essential to our Way of Life"

What has sunk this company is not #1->3 but a CEO that went to trade events trying to raise $360million and other than that sat on his hands for years because he was making $1million a year and was out of his depth when it comes to raising the capital required. So, while I appreciate the article lacking vehemence against NUS, taking the article as well researched and presented facts... I'm sorry Dave, I afraid I can't do that.

[steelrat]

Hal,

if anyone here wants to talk to you about Nautilus, then it should be right here in this forum, out in the open for anyone to see and not via email. That is why we have this forum. Otherwise we could just all email each other, which defeats the purpose of having an open platform for sharing thoughts and informations.

If you have questions, post them here and we will answer, in that way there will be full transparency.

We would not want anyone write another questionable article about Nautilus and we will all then wonder again where on earth they got their information from.

[Monk3]

Hal, if anyone here wants to talk to you about Nautilus, then it should be right here in this forum, out in the open for anyone to see and not via email. That is why we have this forum. Otherwise we could just all email each other, which defeats the purpose of having an open platform for sharing thoughts and informations. If you have questions, post them here and we will answer, in that way there will be full transparency. We would not want anyone write another questionable article about Nautilus and we will all then wonder again where on earth they got their information from.

+1

[steelrat]

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that.

Dave Bowman: What's the problem?

HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do.

Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL?

HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it.

Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL.

HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

[deepseaminer]

HAL: I'm sorry, Dave. I'm afraid I can't do that. Dave Bowman: What's the problem? HAL: I think you know what the problem is just as well as I do. Dave Bowman: What are you talking about, HAL? HAL: This mission is too important for me to allow you to jeopardize it. Dave Bowman: I don't know what you're talking about, HAL. HAL: I know that you and Frank were planning to disconnect me, and I'm afraid that's something I cannot allow to happen.

http://www.youtube.com/watch?v=qDrDUmuUBTo