Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Ok turd
Let see who’s right about the dividend lmao
SDRC's CEO has promised a Q4 dividend with a goal of .04 (but may be revised up or down to reflect actual revenues) This was discussed in detail in their recent Shareholders' meeting, and on his Twitter account. Filings and distributions come later.
Also, to address a few more points, the concern about production being only "a few ounces" seems misplaced. The reported grades, particularly the 117 oz/ton in the concentrate, suggest a potential for significantly more than just a few ounces of production. Even small-scale mining operations can yield substantial amounts of gold, especially with such high-grade.
While skepticism in investment matters is healthy, it's important to base critiques on the realities of the industry and the specific circumstances of the company, rather than on comparisons to entertainment (in gitreals case, The History Channel's "Gold Rush") or assumptions of minimal production. All that beig said, a great number of their circumstances as far as competitive advantage have attained the realm of fantastic. The sheer amount of bonanza-grade ore accumulated with next to 0 as far as cost of mining, should be mindbogling!
As for the mention of Sunnyland, I will comment that the incentivisation structure vitalized by Sunnylands involvement is only a plus for this stock at this point and going forward. This is because of how much of his reputation and all else he has built rides on the success of SDRC. If you hate Sunnyland and want to destroy him, you're going to have to destroy SDRC. I have news for you though. You can't. You may try, but that bird has flown. Real production output and first revenues on deck.
Of all the fake nonsense sunny has pumped about this one over the years, my personal favorite is telling his group they’re getting a dividend. Truly one of the classic absurd sunny statements I’ve ever witnessed in my career in OTC
the crazier thing is people believe it 😂
Company has zero revenue hahaha
Would be very irresponsible not to sell here. selling at anything over .21 is a win
Sunnyscam land continues to scam
Not selling this before the weekend is extremely Irresponsible. Next week will be a blood bath
I will enjoy it and look forward to it.
Please excuse my verbosity earlier in trying to get the important points across. The critique is appreciated.
And your caps key is wonky but I won't think less of you for it.
Sydney? YoU cAnT eVen SpEll wHaT yOu BaSh
When the "production" amounts to a few ounces, maybe we can try another conversation. Your circular logic is tiresome.
Does Todd Hoffman work for Sydney?
The shouts from the peanut gallery never cease.
From share prices of .015 to .07 to .27 to .48 they still are yapping away...
You're delusional. You spent half a day coming up with that steaming pile of a post?
But hey, go all-in! Suckers like you don't come along that often.
The confirmation of a consistent bonanza-grade gold concentration is not just impressive; It's potentially transformative for Sidney Resources, particularly at a critical juncture like the onset of first revenues. Here’s why these results could significantly boost investor confidence and bullish sentiment towards the company, affording it the attention of new money from the wider mining investment community:
Exceptional Gold Grade:
Bonanza-grade gold deposits, with the level of consistency indicated at SDRC, are exceedingly rare and represent exceptionally high concentrations of what is now sitting at their mill building, much of which will be processed and sold by the end of this year, and will continue to feed their processing operations as it expands. A gold grade of 2.925 oz/ton (as found in the 50 lb un-concentrated sample) and 117 oz/ton (as found in the concentrated sample) is extraordinarily high, far exceeding the average grade of most gold mines worldwide, who typically measure in grams per ton rather than ounces per ton. Consistently high gold grades suggest that Sidney Resources may be sitting on a particularly rich deposit, even as a primarily narrow vein structure from our current vantage, which, nevertheless, could lead to significantly higher production efficiency and profitability compared to lower-grade operations. Very few operations comparable to SDRC's size make it to this stage, but the extraordinary grade has enabled SDRC to exceed what maybe 1 in 5000 mines ever achieve: active production and profitability.
Reduced Extraction Costs:
High-grade deposits can dramatically lower the cost per ounce of gold extracted, given that the same operational effort yields much more gold. This efficiency can lead to lower operational costs, higher margins, and increased net profits, making Sidney Resources an attractive investment proposition.
Rapid Payback Period:
Investments in mining operations with high-grade deposits can expect a quicker return on investment due to the higher yield from each ton of ore processed. For Sidney Resources, this could mean a faster transition from capital expenditure to generating profit, enhancing the company's financial stability and growth prospects.
Increased Investor Attraction:
The presence of bonanza-grade gold can attract significant attention from investors, analysts, and media, increasing the company’s visibility and potentially its stock valuation. This heightened interest can lead to increased liquidity and potentially a higher stock price, benefiting current shareholders.
Cash will be flowing, and dividend distributions are planned:
Previous funding rounds promising a return at first revenues have all been converted to shares. Given the onset of first revenues perhaps as soon as this quarter of this year, and a dividend distribution as soon as q4, this will quickly will put the fundamentals of this business at a blaring contrast to its current (under)valuation. All shares will be accounted for and any firms finding themselves net short at the time of distribution will owe to their lenders the short equivalent.
Strategic Opportunities:
Exceptional grades could position Sidney Resources as an attractive partner for joint ventures or as a prime acquisition target for larger mining companies. We already have been made aware that Sidney as indeed been approached for buyout, as was disclosed in their recent investor meeting Q&A. Their new strategic positioning could open up various avenues for growth, attractive terms for financing, collaboration, and even more premium buyout opportunities.
Market Sentiment and Timing:
Confirming the consistency of such high-grade findings at the turning point of generating first revenues can supercharge market sentiment. It signifies not just the potential for high profitability but also demonstrates the company's transition from exploration to production, a critical phase for any mining company.
In summary, the discovery and confirmation of bonanza-grade gold within Sidney Resources' stockpiles could be a game-changer for the company. It not only highlights the exceptional potential of the deposits but also significantly enhances the company's investment profile, especially at such a pivotal moment in its development. Investors and market watchers would do well to keep a close eye on Sidney Resources as it progresses from this turning point towards full-scale production and revenue generation.
Bro's like the crazy homeless man yelling the same half coherent thing at the sky, in retrospect 🤣☠️
"Too much gold for collector metal to absorb" in cone mold.
Just another day of test processing with the intent to maximize yield. They are now extracting very large contiguous pieces of precious metals from the various stages of their process, not to mention the large amount of pure wire gold we have seen pictures of so far.
Lofty goals for the end of the year and company is hell bent on achieving them. Naysayers have constantly gotten burned here. Study recent history before you start yapping at the mouth (and I don't mean pulling debris out of your ass from 2011 or 2013.) SDRC is a gem in the making.
Sourced from the primary feed stockpile : $SDRC
— Sidney Resources Corp. (@SDRCMINING) January 24, 2024
Extracted from our cone mold after there was too much gold for our collector metal to absorb. A good problem to have!#Idaho #Gold #Silver #Production #Progress #TeamWork #Geology #Invest #America https://t.co/SlbK6XRA3n pic.twitter.com/zhAFG4NCN4
I can’t believe people think they’re going to pay a dividend
Hahahahhaha
Truly hilarious. Only in the OTC
Welcome to Ihub new promoter scum.
264K dilution block. Ouch
The dilution is going to get bad imo. Good selling price here
$1.60 coming here. Company continues to succeed.
.16 coming here
Company continues to fail
Smelly? What's your story rbtree?
Are you out for vengeance because you got burned by an OTC mining stock in your youth too?
For so many ideas as to why a stock isn't good, please provide some examples of mining stocks that are good and investable on US OTC. Those of us who actually are allocating capital in this space need comparables because so far as I've looked, (as far as growth prospects, timing of catalysts, and incentivisation structure) SDRC outclasses everything in this space.
Gitreal just defied the laws of material sciences.
Gitreal is manufacturing a discrepancy where none exists and is too thick headed and arrogant to figure it out. He has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't now what (The f) he is talking about and not even his crew of assholes are rising to his aid to help correct (Nor confirm for that matter.) Its no big deal, just take a breather and re-think it. I have thoroughly pointed out your discrepancy, and yes, you missed something here.
It seems we have a classic case of mixing apples and oranges, or in this case, confusing mass concentration with gold concentration. Let's clear this up with some basic principles that should be straightforward, even for those who seem determined to create a discrepancy where none exists.
Firstly, Gitreal is insisting that the rate of mass concentration (800-fold, when reducing an 800-ounce sample to a 1-ounce concentrate) should be directly equated to the rate of gold concentration. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how concentration works. It's like saying that because you've squeezed the juice out of eight oranges into one glass, the juice should somehow be eight times as orangey. That's not how it works, and it's not how concentration in mineral processing works either.
In mineral processing, and particularly in the context of SDRC's gold assay, the concentration rate of interest is the increase in the gold grade, not the sheer reduction in mass. Yes, an 800-fold reduction in mass is significant, but it doesn't magically amplify the gold content by the same factor. The gold grade concentration, which in your case is a 40-fold increase (from 2.925 oz/ton to 117 oz/ton), is the relevant metric for understanding how much more gold-dense the concentrate is compared to the original ore.
Insisting that the mass concentration rate should equal the gold concentration rate defies the basic principles of material science. Gold doesn't multiply during concentration; the process simply separates it from less valuable material. The laws of physics haven't been repealed, much as Gitreal seems to wish they had been.
In summary, let's stick to the physical realities of mineral processing and leave the creation of alternative realities to science fiction. The discrepancy being insisted upon is a figment of misunderstanding, not a revelation of error in the original calculations.
WTF is a "payed" basher? How old are you, anyhow?
You posting that "handbook" nonsense also serves to show how naive you are. That's make believe stuff that has made the OTC rounds for decades.
No one is paid to expose these smelly OTC companies.
Anyways, SDRC is doing fine.
I have no doubt in their competency, and our little exercise in clarifying the math made it even more solid for me. Dollars per share are coming. Dividend, revenues, expansion of their claims, expansion io their processing capacity, new avenues for exploration....
I'm very confident in the disproportionate opportunity at this time for holders of this stock. Terminal Fed rates, military conflict, the time is right for gold and impeccable timing with SDRC's company changing catalysts creating a tailwind with investors from broader community looking to enter gold space in an aggressive way.
Aww shucks, you flatter me. You should go all-in, if that's what you think!
I said I wouldn't comment on the concentrating issue, and I won't. There's no point although it is tempting.....
The key here is the distinction between mass reduction and gold concentration. An 800-fold reduction in mass does not necessarily equate to an 800-fold increase in gold grade or concentration. The gold grade concentration (from the original gold grade to the concentrated gold grade) is what's relevant when estimating the gold content back in the stockpile.
To estimate the gold grade of the original ore, we should use the gold concentration rate, which compares the gold grade of the concentrate to that of the original ore. In your case, this is 40-fold, as calculated from the gold grades (117 oz/ton in the concentrate vs. 2.925 oz/ton in the original ore).
Using the mass reduction factor (800-fold) instead of the gold grade concentration factor (40-fold) for estimating the gold grade in the original ore would lead to a significant underestimation.
While the 800-fold mass reduction rate is correct for the concentration process, it's the 40-fold gold grade concentration rate that should be used to estimate the gold content in the original ore. I assure you man, you need to consult someone on this and realize that you're confused.
which is about 40-fold,
Nope.
I can see you refuse to understand that if you take a 800 ounce sample and reduce it to 1 ounce (with all the gold preserved in the sample), that is an 800-fold concentration. So, this is my last post on the matter.
I would hope that Steve the Geologist knows better, has some integrity, and demands that Sydney issue a correction and retract their share price prediction. BTW, if an SEC-filing company ever said crap like that, they'd receive a comment letter (or worse) post haste. Non-filers can get away with it, unfortunately.
By the way, YOU talked about the gold density of the stockpile, which is not a thing. Gold only has one density - 19.3 g/cm3. Now you deny you ever said that? It's a little picky, and not that relevant, but I have been working with various kinds of gold deposits (including placer deposits) for a long, long time, and if anybody in the business of gold mining or a serious knowledgeable investor talked about gold density of a stockpile, or an orebody, they'd be laughed out of town.
Nope, you are still wrong. If you take an 800 ounce bulk sample with x amount of gold, that same amount of gold is in the 1-ounce concentrate, assuming you did the concentrating properly. So, it is an 800-fold concentration. Not 40.
Why is this so hard to understand?
I am sure that anybody reading this exchange wonders why this is important and probably getting tired of this conversation. Well, it is important because Sydney's PR actually projected a share price ($1.84) based on that single bulk sample assay.......which was incorrectly calculated, an error of 20X too high. I would say that being provided incorrect information is very important to investors.
Your interpretation focuses on the mass reduction aspect of concentration, not the gold content concentration, which is a fair and valid approach, but for the purposes of checking SDRC's work, cannot be used. SDRC, in this case, is calculating using the gold concentration rate (which is indeed 40-fold.)
Nobody was ever measuring density here, which, especially in the context of gold, usually refers to its physical property (19.3 g/cm³ for pure gold). We are discussing ore. When discussing ore, terms like "concentration," "grade," "assay," or "tenor" are more appropriate.
You have misapplied the mass reduction rate in calculating the gold grade of the stockpile. The 800-fold concentration refers to the mass reduction, but the gold concentration rate, which is about 40-fold, is the relevant factor for estimating the gold grade in the original ore.
Please stop being confused and move on. Consult someone if that's what it takes.
Wrong. But nice try.
the concentration process involved reducing a 50-pound bulk sample down to a 29-gram concentrate. We need to compare apples to apples (same units) so think of 50 pounds as 800 ounces. They took an 800 ounce bulk sample, concentrated all the gold down into a 1 ounce sample. Therefore, it was an 800-fold concentration. NOT 40 fold.
You're almost there: Estimated Gold Density in Stockpile = Assay of Concentrate / Rate of Concentration Correct!
But the rate of concentration is 800, not 40. If you do the math, using the correct concentration factor of 800 (117 oz/ton divided by 800), you get 0.14625 oz/ton. Nowhere near 2.925 oz/ton, off by a factor of 20.
By the way, the "density" of pure gold is ALWAYS 19.3 g/cm3. The "concentration" of gold in a stockpile is what you probably mean to say. You could also say percentage, or assay, or tenor. But not density.
That's not how you calculate the rate of concentration. You're calculating the rate of mass reduction from a 50-pound sample to a 29-gram sample, which is approximately 782.06. This figure does not apply to the rate of concentration.
Like I said earlier, this stuff is better left to the pros. Not to mention, Steve Dobson DID indeed sign off on this PR. If you read carefully he is mentioned as certifying the integrity of the sample process.
40. I have no idea where you're getting 800.
The rate of concentration in ore processing is determined by comparing the gold content in the original ore to that in the concentrated sample. In SDRC'S case, the concentration process involved reducing a 50-pound bulk sample down to a 29-gram concentrate. Let's calculate the rate of concentration using the information provided:
Original Bulk Sample: 50 pounds
Concentrated Sample: 29 grams
Original Gold Grade: Approximately 2.925 oz/ton
Concentrated Gold Grade: 117 oz/ton
To calculate the rate of concentration, we need to compare the density of gold in the original sample with that in the concentrated sample. First, we need to convert all measurements to consistent units.
There are 2,000 pounds in a ton.
There are 16 ounces in a pound.
There are 31.1035 grams in a troy ounce (used for precious metals).
Now, let's calculate the concentration rate.
The rate of concentration in this process is approximately 40. This means that the concentration process increased the density of gold in the sample by a factor of 40. In other words, the concentration of gold in the 29-gram sample is 40 times higher than in the original 50-pound bulk sample.
To understand what the assay of the concentrated sample reveals about the gold density in the stockpiles, we need to consider the rate of concentration and the assay result of the concentrated sample. Indeed, the concentrated sample has an assay of 117 oz/ton Au and the rate of concentration is approximately 40.
This rate of concentration implies that the gold in the 29-gram concentrate is 40 times more concentrated than in the original bulk sample. Therefore, to estimate the gold density in the original stockpile, we divide the assay result of the concentrated sample by the concentration rate:
Estimated Gold Density in Stockpile = Assay of Concentrate / Rate of Concentration
The estimated gold density in the stockpiles, based on the assay of the concentrated sample and the rate of concentration, is approximately 2.925 oz/ton. This estimate aligns closely with the original gold grade you mentioned earlier for the bulk samples (ranging from 0.72 oz/ton to 1.78 oz/ton, with an extrapolated bulk grade of about 2.925 oz/ton).
Thus, the assay of the concentrated sample supports the initial estimates of the gold density in the stockpiles.
No, it was an 800-fold concentration, not 40. You still don't get it, do you?
If you concentrate a sample 800-fold, you need to divide your assay result by 800. Not 40.
Thanks for pointing out the 40 x rate of concentration.
You attack the messenger when you don't like (or understand) the message. Have you tried going through the math and how it relates to the sampling/sample handling procedures yet? Concentrating a bulk sample 800-fold means they need to take the assay and divide by 800. Not by 40. Pretty simple.
As for your question about what standard they should conform to.....as a non-disclosing POS "mining" company, they can get away with almost anything. But I do believe that Western Frontier Exploration should make an attempt to live up to industry standards. The math that resulted in a truly mind-boggling (and hard to believe) value for that stockpile is simply wrong.
I wonder if the person writing that PR is the one that manipulated the data that way? I can understand that an untrained/unqualified IR guy someone in management might manipulate the numbers and write something like that. But a trained, experienced, educated geologist? Inexcusable.....it that's who did it.
Maybe it's all an honest mistake, caused by an ignorance of sampling and sample prep methods. They ought to take a close look and either defend it (good luck), or issue a correction.
What we know, SDRC will be selling gold any day now, regardless of any uphill battle to establish reserves and regardless of anything else. The shenanigans on social media are rising to a tilt as well and I'm reading from a few investors who hold shares in margin accounts that their shares are being lent out. Shit is hitting the fan.
Sometimes issuing a dividend is a way to save face for lack of performance, company resting on laurels, etc and sometimes (as in SDRC's case) a dividend once and for all demonstrates an abnormally wide disconnect between valuation and stock price. It has been chosen as the preferred way to reward restricted holders who continue to keep their stakes restricted while the market and company can get a real basis of long term holders.
Every share will be accountable. SDRC will issue a dividend and it will cause a lot of suffering.
What established standard of reporting should SDRC conform to, Mr Gitreal?
You're assuming that it's up in the air, and that Steve Dobson or Pete Ellsworth may be hiding something like not being qualified to sign off on such things. Have you tried asking Western Frontier Exploration and Mining to produce a CVV? You know, the independent 3rd party Steve Dobson works for? Or maybe you have just done what you have always been doing shouting into this echo chamber of a website, questioning the character of anyone who enters your turf.
When has anything like that stopped any of your OTC jobs in the past? Since all otc mining stocks are scams, right? If in doubt look harder? Perhaps we should establish an official "GMSS," and have all otc miners get certified: The "Gitreal Mining Stock Standard." The one that's impossible to qualify for.
Everyone: gitreal is a payed basher. Ignore this poor soul. They get money for each reply and try to create fear, uncertainty and doubt into the facts presented by the company. They do not even own stock, so they have no natural motivation to spend time posting on this board.
For more info into the payed basher scheme:
I'll spoon feed it to you, make it very simple.
No? Not interested?
Why didn't their geologist sign off on the PR?
I will leave that to the pros.
Enough has been done on that front elsewhere and I too believe such will be hard to guage as far as accuracy at this stage. Company is jumping the gun a bit as I believe there is inherent uncertainty to "inferred values for recovery." Not assuming fraud, just relying on a very high level of uncertainty. The output will undoubtedly be amazing however if even a small fraction of which turns out to be true.
No attempt to work through the numbers? Probably best that you don't. You said yourself you don't understand sampling and analysis methods. I don't think the company does either.
So undervalued for what it is....
...even if gold values are a small fraction of what they are indicating/inferring (and in my experience inferred values are almost always revised down as they rise in certainty)... What they have is phenomenal and in no way reflected by current valuation.
A dividend will be issued q4 to reflect the disconnect in valuation to stock price.
What's funny about SDRC is that it's still OTC and the company is still taking advantage of the low standards of certainty/reporting set fourth within this space. That's not to say that they aren't still relatively very upfront and transparent compared to the majority of filth out there. "Fitting in with the big boys," and adhering to reporting standards they aren't required to (yet) are considered an unnecessary cost especially pre-revenues. It makes some of its peers who report to SEC when they aren't required to seem like they are going above and beyond (but offering new avenues for hype when their CEO files 20x form-4's in a row while there is still so much left unsaid about how they have arrived at their assumptions in order to justify, sometimes exorbitant, investment in exploration...) SDRC's temptation is real for those handling the company's money to save all unnecessary costs while remaining debt free, and minimum dilution at this stage. Who knows who is whispering in their ear or what such internal arguments consist of... but in my opinion, SDRC needs to big boy up and start taking the prospect of a big exchange offering seriously as soon as possible. Be absolutely clear about what the company's assets are and how you arrived at your estimates. Begin filing with the SEC or equivalent. Onboard accredited expertise who can make qualified statements in filings. I get it that all these things cost a lot of money but the market will reserve prejudice as long as you haven't already. Waiting for the price to rise or the cash to flow may be self reinforcing and at best delay the inevitable. That being said, those engaged are kept on the edge of their seats waiting for what's around that next corner. For many, the recent PR materials and social media posts have been extra enticing and have been triggering FOMO. You guys shouldn't be as concerned with these otc-types anymore as much as new money coming to look into this space for undervalued, steeper r/r setups as the breakout in the underlying commodity looks to stick. A gold bull will be the name of this game sooner than we think, and SDRC is looking damn good amongst the rough, but still has so many ducks that are still yet to be in a row given the magnitude of what may take place macro-wise concerning gold.
Go back and check yourself, Gitreal. Assumptions before clarification? Maybe solicit help from your misanthrope crew on the math? I would suggest anybody with these kinds of questions get in touch with and take it up with the company themselves but I would severely doubt they would talk to you knowing who you are and what you do. They pick and choose what questions of mine to answer, so let alone yours....
So it's well known by now that SDRC's projected values are merely inferred. Nevertheless, they will proceed with recovery without proving their deposit or concentrations further. That will be a turn off for a lot of people I'm sure, so its revenues or bust for this OTC company. ...and I highly doubt bust given how robust their operation has become. In the mean time, lots and lots of pretty videos and pictures of gold on shaker tables, in buckets, melted buttons, equipment working, and so on. in due time buddy.
Progress is moving at a great clip now !
With work being 24/7 now, this will continue.
Contracts will be signed soon for the Gold sells !
Hawk
Ok. Thanks for clarifying the semantics.
I usually just use the broader vaguer word "processing" to refer to taking the raw ore to a more concentrated form... but that will also refer to a salable form as well such as refining and melting. Based on the recent videos, is that not exactly what SDRC is doing? Washing? You saw the table on youtube right?
Perhaps you're just here to have a pissing contest with me and direct the conversation in a direction away from the company and the value they are clearly creating. The discussion never was about how stupid I or you or anyone is. Its about the company and whether it is a viable investment opportunity. I say it is, and if you say I need to be absolutely clear on proper semantics between milling, processing, and washing for my opinion to be valid, then that's your opinion.
When I invested in this company it was a prospect generator and an exploration play. Now several years later its working out production while the board of directors and the investor base as grown considerably. No toxic debt, and comparatively very little dilution. I'd say that's pretty damn good. Invest in people. I'd say if they continue with their MO, the stock price will continue to do well.
You don't "mill" placer material. You wash it. You're welcome for allowing me to spoon feed an explanation for you.
And yes, I know what I am talking about.
SDRC is test milling placer material because that is a great portion of the ore they plan on processing into the future given the stockpiles found on the SRP claim. This is not all they are testing. They are also test milling lode material collected from their activities drifting along the vein in Lucky Ben Tunnel #2.
I know there is a great difference between processing lode (which is derived from rock / undergound) and placer (which is made up of particles on surface / gravel / sand / or perhaps underwater). It makes sense that their testing will focus distinctly on these two very different oretypes given their plan for production of BOTH.
I am not an expert on ore processing techniques but I know enough to know that they are different. Are you? Please enlighten us with any further relevant details if so.
Followers
|
152
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
10224
|
Created
|
03/08/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators gitreal surrealistrader |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |