To respond to a few posts at once:
The consulting arrangement with HEMP is over, but it seems they are still in discussions with HEMP about the terms of ending that.
Pedro Barquet isn't out of the picture at all. It is fair to say it is his concession, but HIMR owns part of it and Barquet has obligations toward HIMR. My takeaway from the quarterly report is that HIMR still has 25% of BLWP and under the new arrangement Barquet is obligated to harvest at least so much, but it isn't stated how much or what sort of recourse/remedy there is for HIMR if he doesn't. Also, HIMR is the distributor for BLWP with a right of first refusal on distribution. So it seems to me HIMR can bring in revenues as independent distributor for BLWP and as part owner of BLWP, but the matter isn't stated as clearly as I would like in the quarterly report.
The previous PR referred to filling existing orders for Bayano waterwood, so that seems to say the first order of distribution is to fill the orders we have already been told about (or at least the orders that haven't been cancelled due to delays). The interesting thing they say they will seek to sell all the wood to a single source and most likely a chinese source. This raises the question - what about North Cal? There is no indication in the quarterly report or otherwise in PRs/blogs of HIMR's canceling their arrangement with North Cal. I think the original idea was for North Cal to have a role in managing the concession and distribution, but under the new arrangement they don't seem to have such a role. Barquet seems to manage BLWP himself and HIMR handles distribution.
There was an article I cited a few times before about CET which said she contracted with a chinese owned mill to supply 2M worth of logs quarterly. So maybe they are going to try to do something like that. I don't think this ends or harms the affiliation with North Cal. It is probably the most reasonable thing to due in context. North Cal typically takes wood they get very cheap or free and breathe value into it through their woodworking. It has never been that clear how HIMR was to gain by selling to North Cal, maybe through consignment it is mutually beneficial, maybe North Cal was originally to be paid for their services with cheap wood, who knows.
The blog states they will harvest at least 4K board feet per day. How many trees is that? In the original LOI for bayano they estimated 20K trees as 10M board feet which involves assuming 500 board feet per tree, so 8 trees for 4K board feet. However, that estimate is most certainly very conservative given its purpose, so the tree per day number would be lower, maybe 5 or 6.
To me the big issue now is will they ever prove themselves. The stock can't move without very significant proof. Show us video. They need to accept that they have a heavy burden of proof if the market is to believe them. Are they too stubborn to do that - too stuck on the idea that they simply deserved to be believed and unwilling to yield to context.
Their email is investors@hollundindustrial.com
The consulting arrangement with HEMP is over, but it seems they are still in discussions with HEMP about the terms of ending that.
Pedro Barquet isn't out of the picture at all. It is fair to say it is his concession, but HIMR owns part of it and Barquet has obligations toward HIMR. My takeaway from the quarterly report is that HIMR still has 25% of BLWP and under the new arrangement Barquet is obligated to harvest at least so much, but it isn't stated how much or what sort of recourse/remedy there is for HIMR if he doesn't. Also, HIMR is the distributor for BLWP with a right of first refusal on distribution. So it seems to me HIMR can bring in revenues as independent distributor for BLWP and as part owner of BLWP, but the matter isn't stated as clearly as I would like in the quarterly report.
The previous PR referred to filling existing orders for Bayano waterwood, so that seems to say the first order of distribution is to fill the orders we have already been told about (or at least the orders that haven't been cancelled due to delays). The interesting thing they say they will seek to sell all the wood to a single source and most likely a chinese source. This raises the question - what about North Cal? There is no indication in the quarterly report or otherwise in PRs/blogs of HIMR's canceling their arrangement with North Cal. I think the original idea was for North Cal to have a role in managing the concession and distribution, but under the new arrangement they don't seem to have such a role. Barquet seems to manage BLWP himself and HIMR handles distribution.
There was an article I cited a few times before about CET which said she contracted with a chinese owned mill to supply 2M worth of logs quarterly. So maybe they are going to try to do something like that. I don't think this ends or harms the affiliation with North Cal. It is probably the most reasonable thing to due in context. North Cal typically takes wood they get very cheap or free and breathe value into it through their woodworking. It has never been that clear how HIMR was to gain by selling to North Cal, maybe through consignment it is mutually beneficial, maybe North Cal was originally to be paid for their services with cheap wood, who knows.
The blog states they will harvest at least 4K board feet per day. How many trees is that? In the original LOI for bayano they estimated 20K trees as 10M board feet which involves assuming 500 board feet per tree, so 8 trees for 4K board feet. However, that estimate is most certainly very conservative given its purpose, so the tree per day number would be lower, maybe 5 or 6.
To me the big issue now is will they ever prove themselves. The stock can't move without very significant proof. Show us video. They need to accept that they have a heavy burden of proof if the market is to believe them. Are they too stubborn to do that - too stuck on the idea that they simply deserved to be believed and unwilling to yield to context.
Their email is investors@hollundindustrial.com
