InvestorsHub Logo
Followers 504
Posts 75416
Boards Moderated 21
Alias Born 10/14/2009

Re: inmine post# 65432

Saturday, 04/19/2014 5:26:45 PM

Saturday, April 19, 2014 5:26:45 PM

Post# of 112467
inmine, perhaps in reality they do not know where to find feasible gold now that they have completed enough rehab of the old mine.

Why wouldn't you go directly to the freezer where you know the ice cream is located?



According to the "historical" reports and crowdfunding support the black channel is where all these ten of thousands of ounces of gold are just waiting for NBRI to produce ( at profit margin of course ) being as Best was "right in the middle of taking the nuggets" when forced to close the mine according to Hustledonk.

But after the war of course it was not not economically feasible to go back and mine where they left off because gold was stuck and 35/oz. but wages were up. That's the storyline on that one.

Hmmm. I thought nuggets commanded prices way over spot gold from collectors. They still do, correct?

If Best was mining such vast amounts of gold, how much would wages have to go up to abandon that bountiful black channel?

The story does not add up to me. None of these NBRI stories amount to a hill of beans IMO.

If the black channel was always the goal, why were months spent test mining the white channel in a futile attempt while spending plenty of shareholders money? Or were they just removing junk rock in actuality?

Why are they drilling for targets if they already KNOW there is all this gold in the black channel? If it is a "fact" that there is a large deposit of gold left in the black channel you prove it out right? Then you do not have to rely on shareholders for financing being as the EB-5 investors did not bite the storyline bait to the tune of 500K each. Folks with 500K to invest in anything do their research and are pragmatic or else they will be separated from their 500K rather quickly IMO.

I presume the location of the black channel where Best mined is known, so why did they choose to not spend the estimated 2-2.5M to prove those reserves and establish a PEA to determine approximate costs of production?

That way if there actually is all this gold remaining in the black channel they could have obtained traditional types of financing to mine instead of relying on shareholders to provide the funding for exploratory mining.

My hypothesis is that they know there really is not much gold left in the black channel, and that exploring for new targets to mine is their best chance at success, however slim. They probably chose not to spend the money on proving out resources because it is easier to string along stories of vast wealth and nuggets falling from the sky like pictured on the NBRI website homepage without proof - Quite misleading there with those nuggets falling straight from the sky into investors pockets. Real studies that showed no gold to mine at profit would have been the death of the NBRI Ruby gold bonanza story.

If they had spent 2.5M on real testing like every real miner does and discovered they did not have acceptable gold to mine at profit to report the stock would likely already be just another penny gold story stock bust by now.

Their route they get to string folks along and continue to take salary while spinning excuses and stories, all while the retail investors funding the exploration and other tomfoolery elsewhere watch the value of their portfolio decline steadily, with the brief momo trader related pops and drops, of course.

Shuck and jive, bait and switch, just keep the stock alive by any means necessary.

Long term holding has been a disaster here and will continue to be, IMO of course.