dave gruel
1 일 전
i don't think it's a scam per se. and in the history of pump/dumps what CEO has ever said "damn guys, yeah, you got me this is indeed a scam." lol the only answer he can give is what he gave :)
you hit the nail on the head with the comment they're all in at fractions of a cent, so they're insulated from the random ups/downs. Mr Scherrer has around 1M shares, 625k @ $0.04 and 436k (roughly) @ .229. napkin math is a cost basis of his shares of what? $.12? glad he has skin in the game, but his tolerance for risk is going to be a lot higher than those buying right now at .30.
Sean Rae is STILL hashtagging PGMs and REEs. either balls of steel and confident or maintaining the illusion.
i saw the $21 share price calculation as well, which reassures me there will be PLENTY of time to jump in if needed. not sure where the data is to support the claims of "they figured out the metallurgy" but that's the twitter pumpers for you lol
surrealistrader
2 일 전
Thursday, February 16, 2023 5:50:12 PM - Investorshub.com SDRC Message Board:
"Good evening Everyone, I am the CEO of Sidney Resources Corporation. I took the leadership role over the summer and have moving the company towards an incredible path. There near term items that I cannot share with the group because they are material. I assure you there is no scam at play. We are in the process of acquisitions and expanding the company and the scope of the company. Feel free to reach out to me at sean@sdrccorp.com directly. Of course, I am disappointed with the trades that occured 17 second before close in an obvious attacking sell off today. However, I am excited for whomever bought those shares as there is much to celebrate and I look forward to our upcoming press releases that may help ease any bearish thoughts on the position of the company.
Respectfully,
Sean-Rae Zalewski
CEO - Sidney Resources Corporation"
Source Cited: https://investorshub .com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=171231733
surrealistrader
2 일 전
As long as the underground resource remains committedly un-explored and un-proven, whatever can be said that is "Special" about the subject of SDRC remains chiefly a psychological and anthropological phenomenon. Current investor interest is supported by the CEO's background; having his degree in Psychology, minor in Social Psychology, with an emphasis on Communication.
The pursuit of CIRISCO's definition of mineral reserves, an otherwise acceptable and proper way to develop a mineral deposit as a public mining company, would veer this business away from his wheelhouse, diminishing the relevance of his leadership over time.
It was Don Durrett who maintains in his notes about SDRC on his website: "Inexperienced Board. Need to hire a Chairman and a new CEO." The guy doesn't usually look into US-based OTC stocks, because of the low reporting standards and high risk of fraud, so he may not know that things that may be considered important elsewhere (like leadership's mining expertise) may not matter here in OTC. 🙄
https://www.goldstockdata .com/company/1427-Sidney-Resources-Corp.html
https://x.com /DonDurrett/status/1799946702801268843
Really, you think pink-listed stocks are fine? Most investors don't trust them (I don't). They should know that. What's so difficult about submitting their financials to the SEC?
We're not talking about getting listed on the NYSE. We're talking about OTCQB.
I've had my website for 12 years. They are the only US-based gold miner with a market cap over $20M that only trades in the pinks.
It's also rare for companies of their size not to have a company presentation on their website.
My takeaway: they are not shareholder-friendly and don't care about retail investors.
surrealistrader
3 일 전
The PGEs' supposed extra-terrestrial origin is the hypothesis. The favorable economics thereof are what is dangerously being treated as a certainty by this company.
In reality, both are going to need a lot more time, study, and tribulation to exhaust certainty. Hasty promotion at such a stage is not the right move and it may become clear eventually that they probably shouldn't have pumped their findings on social media or encouraged their audience run with it as they have. They should make it clear to investors about how uncertain the path is ahead of them and stop over-inflating expectations. Real-world exploration needs to take place: thorough and reputable sampling campaign and drilling. Feasibility studies will be crucial to understand life-of-mine economics and investment worthiness. There is still a large chance that the construction of a PGM processing plant will be found to be a mal-investment. Contrary to purported belief, revenues in itself will not inspire the level of confidence needed to weather the scrutiny of broader markets. Reserves, reputably proven economically feasible to mine, are what will inform the life of the resource, and because SDRC has neglected to prove mineral reserves in any acceptable way, investors cannot evaluate their investment over the long term. This is not important in OTC evidently, but it's definitely important everywhere else. Add a hypothetical meteorite-bearing PGM deposit to the mix, and it will begin to stink.
I say revenues aren't enough because "high-grading" is a well known concept in this industry and analysts look out for it. SDRC exhibits a high risk of high-grading through their resource, learning as they go, making profitability volatile or unpredictable over longer time frames. The temptation to over-rely on historical and proprietary data is another risk that analysts take seriously, their proclivity for shamelessly curating analytical results from larger data sets is another, unplanned metallurgical challenges in the onset of production deadlines is another, no demonstration of feasibility before construction of a mine or facility is another, no relevant registered or otherwise accredited expertise or true independent third parties writing the much needed technical reporting is definitely another, and the list of loud colored flags goes on. We need to be clear about the list of things that we risk-tolerant crazy people in OTC take for granted but are very seriously considered everywhere else. "Too expensive" is a cop out when your people are projecting millions to billions on deck, especially seeing all else less prudent they have moved forward with.
Concerning the big PGM question, unscientifically, the company has ruled out terrestrial origin, which in turn has ruled out all known PGM producing comparables, bringing the overall level of certainty down across their projects sharing the same metallurgical pipeline. This is especially so if the company has indeed moved forward in pursuit of them as an economic endeavor. Until indicated otherwise, we must assume that the occurrence hasn't been substantiated because the relevant analytical data remains non-public. However, on behalf of shareholders, SDRC is boldly investing in new land parcels, new equipment, designing new processing pipelines, a facility, (more?) and has risked polarizing the brand over it, alienating investors outside their already established and credulous following. This poses yet more red flags that need to be fixed as SDRC awaits the scrutiny of broader markets.
What we did learn in the mean time is that the current bulls, many still sitting pretty from having invested in pennies and double-.00's, will mobilize to pump anything thrown at them, officially and unofficially. They believe in SDRC's success because the change in stock price has treated them well so far. Based on the latest tease on Twitter, you would assume it unobjectionable to say that any producing gold miner not trading at a 4x premium to yearly cash flow (as with Newmont's) is undervalued. I mean, what shameless absurdity is this....? All it amounts to is a damning display of a lack of understanding in what the modifying factors are that contribute to the investor confidence Newmont enjoys as the largest publicly traded gold miner on US exchanges. What confidence can SDRC inspire in the broader markets by confusing simple fundamental analysis, and continuing to drive in the dark with no headlights as they hit every bump high-grading through their resource? What kind of scope, reputation, and risk appetite does SDRC exhibit that can even share the same train of thought as Newmont?
The promotion of PGM's, not to mention their meteorite origin, will continue to cause more harm than good until some serious reporting is released. Obviously we will re-evaluate these issues as the company releases crucial data, and perhaps if all goes well in near term, begins their tenure as a profitable company. Let's hope the correct kind of reporting gets released because I'm sick of pointing out how much damage they're doing and red flags they're flying by not. Bulls are clearly going nuts right now but it remains unreflected by volume and price action.
surrealistrader
4 일 전
There was no reference specifically to the Lucky Ben shutting down in 1934 or because of the act.
Right. I asked before, what are the other mines in the region that ceased production 1934 or later? I guess I'll have to dig in myself.
Nobody is bending the truth from their side.
I was specifically referring to historical interviews and anecdotal evidence made to benefit the person saying it, the Czizcks, and by virtue of this, the people who currently own it and otherwise those standing to benefit from the Czizcks' appraisal now.
You want to call me out on my research on the grounds of conflict?
I did not intend to, but if you insist, I do believe you are listed as a services provider for this company and were awarded shares. You have a vested interest in your stock doing well and have a working relationship with them that is worth something to you. You're biased just like everyone else.
...and help genuine people understand what they are invested in.
Thanks for that. It's hard to figure out sometimes without thought leaders on unofficial channels feeding info to us.
Nobody likes being called a liar and yet that's exactly what you are trying to do is call these people liars.
Is this the first OTC Markets stock or grassroots mining stock you have ever invested in? The name of the game here is to stoke expectations and it's perfectly acceptable in this space to inflate expectations to the moon only for exaggerated inference to inevitably be revised down when proven. Buy the rumor, sell the news. 99.99% of the people who look at such a thing ask themselves "Can I make money on this?" They suppose a yes or no and move on. The people who suppose yes are probably looking at the anthropological phenomenon above all else in their decision - the promotional machine built to support this stock's marketcap. A prominent bullish trader of SDRC stock has said recently: "Some people would rather be right than make money." exhibiting all information expressed is to support a motive to make money, and not truth per se.
Anything special about the mining side is counterbalanced by persisting uncertainties: Low standards for reporting and over-reliance on private/proprietary data whether historical or recent. The company has embraced a policy of non-transparency and non-reputable reporting. This acts as a deterrent to anybody worth their salt in mining analysis even being able to look at this company. The risk to reward, when analyzed honestly, sans the bad math and hubris of the volunteer pump campaign, is entirely unclear, but what is clear is that the company has apologetically embraced it. "Drilling can't find the gold here." I am overwhelmed by the sheer list of bent truths in the history of this company and the people promoting it.
Regarding the meteor, they are reporting a "hypothesis" that the samples they have taken and sent on for further analysis is what looks like evidence of a meteor impact. They even reference this as a potential secondary impact from the time of the beaverhead impact. SDRC reports elemental iron, chromium and nickel.
We are still waiting for reliable and reputable data on this. Its a hypothesis, and if we were to run with it, it does not indicate an economically feasible mine. All proven feasible PGM mines are from terrestrial origin, magmatic, maphic, and whatnot. Ruling out terrestrial origin at such an early stage in the discovery is a bad sign from an economic certainty perspective and should not be done in my opinion. That is, unless, it is not real, then why wouldn't they want to deter any kind of comparative study that they can, which is exactly what SDRC has done by pre-emptively claiming it is of extraterrestiral origin. There are no mines in existence Historical or current that crush meteorites for PGM content as an economic endeavor.
"successfully precipitated four out of the eight targeted precious metals"
That's a report on the labs growing capability. Its not specific to what they are processing out of the Lucky Ben. I miss read that. Yes there are only eight precious metals so they are working on perfecting their lab work for all of them and are up to four now. That doesn't mean they are mining all eight of them or even four of them. It is just a report on the lab capability. What we know for sure is they are mining Gold and Silver so that is two.
SDRC is planning a processing facility with the plan to mine and process ore over the mines' life. Why build something so ambitious just to process some stockpiles found in the woods? The economics of the deposit for any given mineral you are building out processing for needs to be exhausted before investing in a mining facility for the long term. Anything otherwise passes great risk onto investors. I'm not saying its the most risky way to go forward, i'm just saying its enough of a deliberate feign of industry standards that it would only appeal to a small group of very risk-tolerant people and not much of anyone that has real experience analyzing this stuff. I understand Don Durrett was one example contrary to what I am saying, and I wish he would speak more on his diligence. Even he admitted how steep the risk to reward SDRC represents as an investment, despite beginning a small investment himself.
The miners were mining gold and silver. Why is there no real documentation? Again, REE's had no value until the 1990's. who is gonna mine REE in the late 19th and early half of the 20 century? For what purpose? why would historical miners care what amounts of REE there are? What I was describing to you in story on Granite creek is an example of how other metals besides gold and silver were overlooked in early times simply because there was no value in them..
That's all fair. We have not received anything beyond LIBS data for Rare Earth Elements from these claims or piles. Lets revisit REE's when their presence is substantiated and they indicate a persistent and reproducible quantity beyond just average crustal abundance levels. If we were just measuring for occurances, I would say most people in most geological regions could find a list of REE's present. REE's are fairly common, but again, an occurrence does not necessarily indicate an economic deposit that could support a mine. As for PGM's, it looks to me these, besides gold and silver, are what the company is focusing on, and these were certainly valuable and promoted in the early 20th century. There were false positives in the region in prospecting data during times the commodity was in vogue, indicating stock promotion. Yes it happened then just as much as it happens now.
If you are looking for info on REE's in this AREA read this. It is fairly explicit as to the mineral inventory of the beaverhead impact and the source of the REE's
I'm not actively researching REE's. SDRC needs to provide more substantial data so industry comparables could be narrowed down.
SMResources
4 일 전
You ask why are SDRC's spokespeople currently saying that the mine ceased production because of the 1934 Gold Reserve Act? They are not.
Read it again, the quarterly report says "mines in the Warren area". There was no reference specifically to the Lucky Ben shutting down in 1934 or because of the act. Nobody is bending the truth from their side. Your taking their words out of context and trying to twist them into your own narrative. You want to call me out on my research on the grounds of conflict? I'll call you out on your accusation. Good luck with that. Do your own research. Part of the reason I come on this filth of a site once in a while is to do my best to dispel the BS that accumulates on here and help genuine people understand what they are invested in. Nobody likes being called a liar and yet that's exactly what you are trying to do is call these people liars.
Regarding the meteor, they are reporting a "hypothesis" that the samples they have taken and sent on for further analysis is what looks like evidence of a meteor impact. They even reference this as a potential secondary impact from the time of the beaverhead impact. SDRC reports elemental iron, chromium and nickel. they never directly said there were an REE's from the meteorite only that the meteor hypothesis may explain the "unique presence of precious metals and rare earth elements within the district". They never said these are samples out of the Lucky Ben mine!
"successfully precipitated four out of the eight targeted precious metals"
That's a report on the labs growing capability. Its not specific to what they are processing out of the Lucky Ben. I miss read that. Yes there are only eight precious metals so they are working on perfecting their lab work for all of them and are up to four now. That doesn't mean they are mining all eight of them or even four of them. It is just a report on the lab capability. What we know for sure is they are mining Gold and Silver so that is two.
The miners were mining gold and silver. Why is there no real documentation? Again, REE's had no value until the 1990's. who is gonna mine REE in the late 19th and early half of the 20 century? For what purpose? why would historical miners care what amounts of REE there are? What I was describing to you in story on Granite creek is an example of how other metals besides gold and silver were overlooked in early times simply because there was no value in them..
If you are looking for info on REE's in this AREA read this. It is fairly explicit as to the mineral inventory of the beaverhead impact and the source of the REE's. . https://www.mbmg.mtech.edu/pdf-publications/fs9.pdf
Rare earth elements (REE) occur in the Phosphoria Formation, which was previously mined for phosphorous (P) at the Canyon Creek, Maiden Rock, and other smaller mines throughout the county (Emsbo and others, 2015). The Phosphoria Formation extends northward to Silver Bow County, eastward to Madison County, and southward into Idaho. The Phosphoria Formation may also be a potential source of the critical minerals vanadium (V), chromium (Cr), nickel (Ni), and Zn. A few REE placer deposits can be found along the Montana–Idaho border, where there are well-documented bedrock deposits (e.g., Austin and others, 1970), and similar deposits may occur on the Montana side of the border.
surrealistrader
4 일 전
I did answer your question. Just not very well. Here goes. From the article
“I’m not going to touch this. I am going to will it to you, Jay, and when we work it again, we’ll work it together.” J.A. Czizek
That's why the mine was closed. If you read Jay's bio, they never got back to it. It was a nest egg. They meant to mine it only if they needed the money but they never did need to.. When the gold act was passed in the 30's it only made sense to hold onto the mine as property. The gold in the mine isn't going anywhere and the price for gold keeps going up. Its a form of security.
Ok, thanks for that, but you just confirmed via documentation / an old interview that they stopped mining for reasons other than the 1934 Gold Reserve Act. Maybe you would understand my question if I asked it again: Why are SDRC's spokespeople currently saying that the mines ceased production because of the 1934 Gold Reserve Act? Mining stopped in 1915, and the owners public-ally alleged that the land is not depleted of reserves. That much is clear, but we do not know to what degree these men were bending the truth. I'm not assuming anything. You have done quite a bit of reading of old newspaper articles, and anecdotal accounts from back in the day; Are these reliable to you given the apparent conflict of interest? These are the owners of the land. Why wouldn't they try to make it seem more valuable than it is especially with the intent to sell it eventually regardless of the degree of depletion?
As far as rare earth elements go. SDRC indicates there are. From their report:
"Additionally, geological evidence from the area, including distinct rock formations and mineral anomalies, has been collected and submitted for further analysis. These findings align with impact signatures observed in known meteorite strikes, adding scientific weight to our hypothesis. If confirmed, the meteorite strike could explain the unique presence of precious metals and rare earth elements within the district, potentially positioning Warren as a significant source of both
economically and scientifically valuable materials."
The above comes after staking more claims. It is good they are using two different assay labs to process their samples.
1. A question: Where else on earth has a meteorite impact been offered as the geological backdrop for an economic REE or PGM deposit? Somebody name one mining company, please.
2. I agree it is "good they are using two different assay labs to process their samples." Parallel studies are crucial. I would also like to see some kind of gesture of reliability to the sampling process. I hope they publish these in full, uncurated, and hopefully with a reputable independent third party written report. I made a post below about what I would be looking for in the interest of reliability to these much anticipated pieces of analytical data. Can't wait!
"We have successfully precipitated four out of the eight targeted precious metals" but this does not mention REE's.
Besides Gold and Silver I don't know what they are referring to as precious metals. Your right, gold and silver are traditionally the two precious metals associated with this area. However, that's all they were looking for in them days. Copper forms with gold and silver deposits so that can be speculated. They do mention Nickel.
REE's, copper, & Nickel are not precious metals. The only things that are culturally known to be PM's are Gold, Silver and the 6 Platinum Group Metals. That makes 8. You make an interesting story relating to this below, but obviously gold was produced in the past and whatever was alloyed with it will have been separated whether it was considered valuable or not. It is surprising that there is no documentation about this cited by our community, nor any that could be found via internet searches of academic papers, geological survey, or any derivative proprietary documents, in the history of the Idaho Batholith. Historical data is not informing the present metallurgical issues because they are apparently a complete departure from what can be derived from historical documentation about Warren's gold production and local smelting.
For example, there is a story on Granite Creek BC in the 1880's. ... My point is, Gold and Silver were the only things of value in them days and all they were looking for. Only those two Chinese miners were saving their platinum. This is why I think REE have never been explored for in this region. It can be inferred that they are doing broad spectrum assays which would include REE analysis. I am looking forward to seeing more on their findings.
That's a fair and tempting train of thought. As we move forward a decade or two as Warren continued to be explored and worked, Platinum was certainly known about by geologists, and I assume the local smelters as well. It was pursued and promoted by mining men everywhere especially as the century turned. There was a futures market for platinum as well, and those promotions became more vigorous as that price ebbed and flowed. We know this. Your story takes place in a completely different geological region, making your point only relevant in terms of the time Warren was most likely to be aggressively explored but not by geography. As far as the Idaho Batholith is concerned, I posted here 4 examples of platinum prospecting documents in Idaho that never came to fruition. This is because investors cared enough about platinum then to be attracted to it and their promoters saw it worthwhile to publish in newspapers and commission reports about them, regardless of the geology being conducive to its presence nor the intention to move forward with constructing a mine. There is no documented production of PGM's in this region. Those prospects were later dismissed as false positives, or at best uneconomical occurrences.
Investors in SDRC are placing a bet on something completely new and undocumented even after 100+ years of study and commercialization, and came at a time when expectations (over first revenues from gold and silver) have been invoked to their highest degree. New mineral discoveries and a promise of even greater profits and sensational breakthroughs as a main moment of truth approaches have indicated to me something wrong and a desire to hedge their core thesis. My position remains that substantiating their discovery will stun the academic community and perhaps exploration interest in the region, but that does not guarantee profitable mining and processing. Feasibility studies to determine cut-off grades and reserves and a necessary 3D intersection of their resource are what would do that. Overall certainty about the feasibility of their portfolio of projects has gone down with the decision to invest investor capital in pursuing these new commodities.
I wish SDRC would pitch a deal to uncle Musk to use their tech on Mars. I'd sign up for that
Let's prove laser mining's efficacy on Earth first.
SMResources
4 일 전
I did answer your question. Just not very well. Here goes. From the article
“I’m not going to touch this. I am going to will it to you, Jay, and when we work it again,
we’ll work it together.” J.A. Czizek
Thats why the mine was closed. If you read Jay's bio, they never got back to it. It was a nest egg. They meant to mine it only if they needed the money but they never did need to.. When the gold act was passed in the 30's it only made sense to hold onto the mine as property. The gold in the mine isn't going anywhere and the price for gold keeps going up. Its a form of security.
As far as rare earth elements go. SDRC indicates there are. From their report
"Additionally, geological evidence from the area, including distinct rock formations and mineral anomalies, has been collected and submitted for further analysis. These findings align with impact signatures observed in known meteorite strikes, adding scientific weight to our hypothesis. If confirmed, the meteorite strike could explain the unique presence of precious metals and rare earth elements within the district, potentially positioning Warren as a significant source of both
economically and scientifically valuable materials."
The above comes after staking more claims. It is good they are using two different assay labs to process their samples.
"We have successfully precipitated four out of the eight targeted precious metals" but this does not mention REE's.
Besides Gold and Silver I don't know what they are referring to as precious metals. Your right, gold and silver are traditionally the two precious metals associated with this area. However, that's all they were looking for in them days. Copper forms with gold and silver deposits so that can be speculated. They do mention Nickel.
For example, there is a story on Granite Creek BC in the 1880's. They were mining gold. it was about 19 dollars an ounce. They were also capturing Platinum with the gold. At that time Platinum was worth about .25 cents per ounce. The miners would separate the gold out from the platinum and throw the platinum away. Later the Chinese also worked this creek and in the 1980's when prices exploded a cabbie picked up a couple really old Chinaman and gave them a ride to the old Granite Creek townsite. They said wait here and went down to the townsite. About 20min later they returned with sacks full of something. The cabbie dropped them off and was so curious he went back to the old townsite. in one of the cabins there was a hole in the floor and empty tins were strewn about the cabin. One tin still had a flake of platinum in it. You see these Chinese mining Granite creek separated out the platinum and kept it. One hell of a pay check for these old boys.
My point is, Gold and Silver were the only things of value in them days and all they were looking for. Only those two Chinese miners were saving their platinum. This is why I think REE have never been explored for in this region. It can be inferred that they are doing broad spectrum assays which would include REE analysis. I am looking forward to seeing more on their findings.
I wish SDRC would pitch a deal to uncle Musk to use their tech on Mars. I'd sign up for that
surrealistrader
5 일 전
You didn't answer my question and nor did your article. It looks like neither of us know the answer. Why is everyone saying production stopped because of the 1934 gold reserve act when it in fact the last year Lucky Ben was mined was in 1915? Yes, in 1935, it seems was when it was caved in, but that's not when production stopped. Why was it left dormant for 20 years before that?
Sir, I know you have been awarded shares for your services in the past. I've read your article multiple times over the years. Your investigative reporting is informative and entertaining. The historical resurrection story of these past gold producing properties has always been intriguing and exciting to me. I don't appreciate the insult though. It still escapes me why the company is promoting a Rare Earths resource without anything beyond unreliable Libs data to substantiate it. This has always been a gold and silver story and the change in the past few years is abrupt to say the least, indicating to me a desire to hedge their core thesis. It is hard to believe that no other company in the district over the past 100+ years it was commercialized has documented half the minerals SDRC claims to find in economic quantities.
surrealistrader
5 일 전
Rare earth elements exist virtually everywhere in their respective average crustal abundance levels, varying slightly depending on regional geology. Here they are below, listed in ppm or parts per million. SDRC finding these in their average crustal abundance levels does not indicate the potential economic feasibility of mining these, but another shameless promotion, and perhaps a need to hedge their core thesis.
Lanthanum (La) ~30
Cerium (Ce) ~66
Praseodymium (Pr) ~9.2
Neodymium (Nd) ~41
Promethium (Pm) Trace (radioactive, not naturally occurring in measurable amounts)
Samarium (Sm) ~7.1
Europium (Eu) ~2
Gadolinium (Gd) ~6.2
Terbium (Tb) ~1.2
Dysprosium (Dy) ~5.2
Holmium (Ho) ~1.3
Erbium (Er) ~3.5
Thulium (Tm) ~0.52
Ytterbium (Yb) ~3.2
Lutetium (Lu) ~0.8
Yttrium (Y) ~22
SMResources
6 일 전
I am curious what presence for rare earth elements within the district they are referring to? Anyone have any historical information in the district[url][/url][tag]insert-text-here[/tag]?
The 17 rare earth elements are: lanthanum (La), cerium (Ce), praseodymium (Pr), neodymium (Nd), promethium (Pm), samarium (Sm), europium (Eu), gadolinium (Gd), terbium (Tb), dysprosium (Dy), holmium (Ho), erbium (Er), thulium (Tm), ytterbium (Yb), lutetium (Lu), scandium (Sc), and yttrium (Y)
"If confirmed, the meteorite strike could explain the unique presence of precious metals and rare earth elements within the district,"
surrealistrader
7 일 전
Let's ponder Sunny's Freudian slip: "Dump Truck"
Thursday, October 10, 2024 - Sunnyland:
"You ever see a dump-truck hit a person??"
Using this same phase broadcasted across multiple platforms, as well as his first post on Ihub in years, I'm not sure how much more poignant one can be by warning us of something with the word "dump" in it. This is a guy who is not listed in company filings personally but brags about "Rivaling the Llelands" in how many shares he owns. Whether its by using passthrough entities, accounts in other peoples' names, imposing a desire for legal insulation, who knows what, regardless, a shareholder owning greater than 5% of the company is going under-reported through official channels. Why?
gitreal
1 주 전
Bulls are in a circle jerk over bad math, unreliable analytical data, and their unwavering trust of management.
Yup. It would be sooooo easy, and not that expensive to do a few credible assays, signed off by a third party professional to certify they have any PGMs, to certify the concentrates have any value, etc. I have seen supersacks of concentrates......the pictures these guys have shown look nothing like concentrates which tend to be dark, sooty looking from all the sulfides. The photos of these supersack concentrates look like sand, and just sand.
Why won't they do something believable to legitimize all their hype?
Painfully obvious why. Someone(s) going to end up in big legal difficulties soon, IMO. Civil....or worse.
surrealistrader
1 주 전
Bulls are in a circle jerk over bad math, unreliable analytical data, and their unwavering trust of management.
"Our goal is to process all of this ore by the end of 2024. It will be a very Merry Christmas in 24' "
The company and its spokespeople will say literally anything before an anticipated catalyst to keep the airwaves on their topic of choice and the keep the speculation alive. Even if metals can be precipitated in a beaker in a lab, is that as good as putting it into service at scale? (No.) Does anybody understand how complicated and expensive this process will be? What are the costs associated with this and why is the twitter echo chamber talking as if it carries no cost at all?
Stockpiles conveniently found in the woods, like bags of sand found under a freeway, are not an indication of a profitable or sustainable underground or milling operation. To prevent malinvestment in all this company has moved forward with, investors need feasibility studies and reserves. They need to intersect their resource in the third dimension, and work to understand their cost to produce in a more thorough way than committed to thusfar, and publically. We need a commitment to real transparency and true third party technical reporting. We need someone properly registered to stake their reputation on the integrity of this sampling process and its degree of representativeness of the resource SDRC intends to commercialize over the long term. Just because there's low reporting requirements in OTC Pink Sheets and because so they don't have to, it doesn't mean its the right thing to do to move forward foregoing this kind of diligence and reporting. I say this in the interest of not just attracting (and not deterring) quality investment, but actually demonstrating reliably that this business is being built on a solid foundation. Can anybody besides SDRC establish that Warren is as special as purported? Why is Endomines divesting from their Idaho assets? Why can't any other mineral rights owner in this region provide documentation to the market and attract investment in their own right? Why did "the experts" say this company was "crazy" to move forward when the Lucky Ben portal was still boarded up? What changed fundamentally besides the adoption of a policy of complete contempt for reputable expertise and measurement?
Also, how long do chemical assays take? Are lead times long enough to make it appropriate to say "We are still waiting for results" in multiple quarterly reports in a row? Has this so called "PGM bearing meteorite deposit" not unraveled into the PR disaster that it is? Who actually started out here looking for PGM's in the first place? Predictably, work is being done to keep the PGM issue from festering into an indicator of something wrong with the gold thesis itself. It will fade into the background as it must in the onset of revenues and dividends from gold & silver. It's not like every public company has a vigorous cult following led by insiders that can establish and reinforce rhetoric on unofficial airwaves in order to pick up where the PR disasters have left off. Keep your eyes on the prize guys.
Without establishing the scope of the resource, cutoff grades, reserves, all in cost of mining, this company is driving in the dark with no headlights. Without these, given all we know, not to mention blatant overreliance on historical and proprietary data, the margin of error is too great for a public company even if magically found to be legit. I guess that's just my own opinion though. There were enough industry comparables to make it borderline tolerable when it was just a Gold and Silver op, but now the PGM and Meteorite business has made it especially so. I press anybody to find a mining company in documented history that has ever crushed meteorites with the intent of selling PGM's. All (reliable) indicators point to such a thing necessarily unfeasible. The need to prove the market wrong on this is overdue.
As we anticipate revenues directly translating to near term catalysts for the stock: buybacks, cash distributions, more aggressive marketing avenues, bulls throwing more cash in the ring, whatever it takes, 2025 here we come. Who's ready to be run over by a dump truck?
surrealistrader
1 주 전
Especially true in OTC, the stock price has almost nothing to do with the fundamentals of the company itself.
The OTC Markets is known to be a venue for stocks that can move thousands if not tens of thousands of percent in price, from trips to dubs, dubs to pennies, pennies to dollars, and the opposite, all while the companies themselves have amounted to materially nothing.
There’s no shortage of people who are necessarily more knowledgeable than you whether they’re out to provoke FOMO or FUD. Shameless manipulators and innocent enthusiasts alike will assert that the company is legitimate because of how much the price has risen, or a scam because of how much it has fallen. You cannot argue with the majority of people who are taken in by this way of thinking. Entry and exit (stock price) is everything to most people in this space.
We all should know by now how easily these illiquid stocks move. Because of the perpetually liminal stage these companies are in, their spokespeople can say literally anything without fear of consequence, the boiler room rhetoric can take over, it doesn't take much for the stock to get pumped more aggressively on social media, and it only takes 1 person to get FOMO for the stock to trade at higher prices within minutes. Predictably and shamelessly almost everybody will assert that price has proven themselves right and their naysayers wrong. On the flip side, the stock could be down in near term but we are told from bulls to "Zoom Out" to see how much winning has taken place. Winning in OTC is anthropological, not fundamental. Most people are here for a perceived positive catalyst or series of catalysts to sell into, and only care about the health of the company insofar that it can maintain plausible deniability and expectations long enough to take advantage of a growing audience, and support their exit.
The group of people marketing this particular stock day in and day out know this thoroughly. You can go back and observe a history of stories shared about how much money was made trading enormous moves in stocks that were known to be absolute rackets, or speculative failures, whether it was during the weed stock frenzy, or one of the countless other examples of OTC stock pump and dumps.
In my opinion, at some point, price inevitably becomes a double edged sword, and the company itself is subject to greater scrutiny with greater access to new markets. At some point, the grand gesture of legitimacy that investors need ceases to be price, and the higher price becomes a liability. Unlike in more popular forms of stock investing - in more thoroughly regulated markets, SDRC enthusiasts will celebrate success long before any moment truth. All we need is the price to move up and that will be enough. Revenues may or may not amount to profitability and that may not matter ultimately to the majority of present investors, but who's to say it won't to the people they are depending on for an exit? As long as the company works to deter mining stock investors with higher standards for risk, and their audience hell bent on selling to people dumber than them, SDRC will remain an OTC stock. Feasibility and reserves may not matter in OTC like it does in in other markets for mining stocks. Again, most people here will not care, because as we historically know the stock can go up much higher than this before any discernible moment of truth or the company amounting to anything material. Just stay alive long enough and keep people excited long enough for the next speculative tidal wave into smaller mining stocks or OTC and everyone will do fine.
Hot Features
프리미엄
브라질 증권 거래소, NASDAQ, NYSE, AMEX, LSE 등 주요 거래소에서의 다양한 실시간 주식 시세를 모니터링합니다.
Sunnyland
1 주 전
