Sidney Resources Corp (SDRC)

[RetroSpect]

Yeah being an Audited company is the first thing to look for in a stock…

That would prevent all the nonsense and exaggeration of valuations based on a piece of rock

[RetroSpect]

.2 coming as I said. Likely even lower

Unreported share have increased so the dilution is about to kick on IMO

[gitreal]

I thought you were up on your memes...?

[surrealistrader]

All right, you win. I'm the IR guy.

Who the f is Jan, btw?

[gitreal]

Only an idiot would treat me as the IR guy. My vested interest in this matter, and so-called expertise, is limited to being a retail investor with no other ties to the company.

Sure, Jan.

[surrealistrader]

[gitreal]

Justin, I like your posts better than those surreal 500-word diatribes......I get your point immediately. Gives me more time to get to my own personal goal of 50,000 posts by end of year.

[surrealistrader]

You're merely poking fun at choice of words. Negotiations can be internal as well as external. I believe that, in this situation, there are multiple cases being made for selling at different degrees of purity, or at what juncture it makes sense to expand their equipment footprint. Such should be ongoingly evaluated internally, and aspects of which with external parties as well (such as equipment suppliers, refiners, and recipients of long term contracts for gold sales.) Internally, I am merely alluding to the necessary economic feasibility studies that need to take place at each step of the process, and I am also sure there are varying opinions on what to do with the gold once it is done being processed (Should they hold it on their balance sheet for instance.)

Now instead of poking fun at choice of words again, "feasibility study," because it seems clear SDRC has no plans to provide one to the market in the grand and formal sense... as they are not interested in spending years and millions coming up with one (Which the company, and onlookers have surely mulled over at length here and elsewhere the pros and cons of such...) putting the company in danger of stalling out their momentum as a business and diluting the shareholders, of which they are heavily incentivized not to do as basically everyone in management is a restricted shareholder themselves... Some kind of cost analysis needs to be done as they work out what makes sense the most as far as bottom line. SDRC is legitimately working out production as we speak, whether or not their standards for disclosure, or their commitment to educating people like yourself the details of how concentration works, frustrates you or not.

I suggest you take your footer's advice and do you own due diligence, engage with the company personally, review the social media accounts of the company, watch their Youtube videos again, and most importantly spend a portion of the time you spend on this board watching the 2023 shareholders' meeting, which those who have watched it already know, provide insight into many of these matters. I personally collaborated with other faithful and enthusiastic shareholders to make sure the meeting was uninterrupted, recorded, edited, and uploaded to Youtube. Watch it for goodness sake.

Honestly you might have a better experience taking up 90% of these questions with the company yourself. Only an idiot would treat me as the IR guy. My vested interest in this matter, and so-called expertise, is limited to being a retail investor with no other ties to the company.

[JustinPCDiscord]

Let's not skip over explaining your weird posting frequency over years whataboutreal.

[gitreal]

So, with no known production numbers or purity, what are they negotiating?

[surrealistrader]

They don't know what kind of production they can guarantee into the future yet nor the kind of purity it will be most cost effective to sell at.

[gitreal]

Why would you have to negotiate for gold sales? Isn't gold just about the easiest commodity in the world to sell?

[JustinPCDiscord]

To recap the active bears here are (1) a grown man posting on average 9-10 posts a day for nearly 12 years on IHUB like that's totally mentally stable and normal and fronting like he's a mining professional but can't say zippo on it and (2) a broken record calling for doom day no matter what happens to the company or share price. Nothing else needs to be said.

[JustinPCDiscord]

Before SDRC broke out all the way to .50 so far go honk your clown nose Retro

[JustinPCDiscord]

You a broken recording 🤡 lol

[RetroSpect]

2.5 million unrestricted added over the weekend. That is a TON of shares. This has been a sinking ship and as these unrestricted share keep going higher, I don’t see a path for this stock to have any chance of going up. Should be a steady ride down from here.

Management failed them again with these shares

Tims to move on IMO

[surrealistrader]

I hope SDRC drops some real good info soon to follow up the October and November PR's and the Shareholders' meeting. I like seeing peeks at their work in progress, but every time a blip of a video is released it only results in having more questions! We are waiting on those lab results from Florin Analytical Services (as announced in november), and perhaps that data can inform their negotiations for gold sales into the future. I would like to hear of some indication that lab assays of the stockpiles are in progress or ongoing, as 1 x 50lb sample reduced to 1 oz is a bit limited in providing clarity about the grade of such a large amount especially since this ore is supposedly derived from multiple sites. We do have both lode and placer material undergoing test processing at SDRC so more sampling should provide needed clarity given their goals.

Gitreal and Rbtree
A thank you to Rbtree is in order. Finally someone here who Gitreal doesn't feel the need to speak in an adversarial tone to! You guys are bringing up valid points for the sake of discussion, and actually are attempting to assess uncertainties against certainties... even though the angle is still fraud as a baseline assumption, which I dislike. SDRC does deserve the benefit of the doubt imo.

SEC reporting
Sidney Resources' status as a non-SEC reporting company listed on the OTC Markets means that while it may save on the costs and complexities of SEC reporting, investors just need to be more proactive/not lazy in seeking out information and conducting due diligence. OTC pinks are not required to report to SEC. It does not necessarily denote wrong doing, but it does sadly force you to share a category with companies looking to take advantage of the low standards for disclosure. It is my opinion that as soon as it makes sense to do so and is within the companies means in terms of profitability, they should complete the necessary tasks that bring it up to date with the SEC.

[surrealistrader]

9+ Ihub posts/day = mental illness, paid incentive, or both.

[gitreal]

I should check your math.....but I'll assume you know how to work a calculator. Way to go!

So, let's hear your theory about my 9.35 posts a day.

[JustinPCDiscord]

You are averaging 9.35 posts per day since your alias was created 3/21/12. 40,516 posts over 4,330 days. Entertainment 🤣.

[jjr04001]

Bounce coming

[gitreal]

It's entertainment. But on a more serious note, I really dislike fraudulent mining operations or statements that mischaracterize/misunderstand exploration or assay methods and results. To put a $100 million+ dollar amount of value on a pile of rock out in the woods using a single bad assay number, with no feasibility study to show costs, is irresponsible at best.

That's why when someone spouts nonsense, I feel an obligation to correct them. People are making investment decisions on bad math by the company in this case. I would hope it was an honest mistake but in the OTC....I always have my suspicions.

[JustinPCDiscord]

🤦‍♂️ you said you had a career in mining so I'm asking you to say in what capacity, don't imply I meant anything else by that. Otherwise I consider you someone who has consumed an inordinate amount of their life posting on IHUB, 40,000+ posts since 3/2012 under this alias.

[gitreal]

LOL, the comparison to Mexus came to my mind too. Claims of production over and over, quarter after quarter. Problems with this, problems with that, equipment failures, weather, yet another new expert hired to look at the process, always more excuses. But hey....a couple ounces here, and few ounces there. But never enough to make a dent in any of their expenses, just enough to keep investors on the hook.

At least Mexus was SEC filing and audited.

[rbtree]

You're fast. I added to that post just now. Read.....

[gitreal]

It's hard to understand what they are currently processing, and how. They are not very clear.

[rbtree]

So, is the company only claiming to be working or about to work a placer deposit?

Longs might be interested in knowing that, unless something has changed, there are no commercial placer mines (above hobby level) currently operating profitably, of at all, in the lower 48 states. That I know of. Placer mining is a thing of the past, generally speaking.

Yes, 0.14 opt is good for a placer... but, one sample? And how much.... Too many questions....

Think this two bit operation will exceed Mexus' production levels?

[gitreal]

Actually, if it was a placer stockpile that was sampled, and 0.14 oz/ton (or about 5 g/ton) is the actual grade, that is extremely good placer material. I just don't think a 50 pound bulk sample, and assaying a concentrate is the appropriate way to test a large pile of placer material. A large bulk sample (or samples) run through a sluice setup is what needs to happen.

If it was a stockpile from a lode operation, you'd simply crush/homogenize samples, split them down for assay, and get a number from the lab. Multiple bulk samples from different parts of the stockpile would be best.

The PR is a little unclear on what kind of material was sampled.

[gitreal]

The fact you ask means you are at least considering that I have the education and experience to know what I am talking about. When it comes to splitting samples versus concentration of samples, how you back-calculate the grade from a concentrate result, and what is statistically valid for bulk sampling.....I know what I am talking about.

We haven't even touched on the problems sampling placer material, or the problems with sampling dump/stockpile material from a lode mine. Or the problems of sampling a vein system in-place (preferably channel sampling across the vein at regular 5 or 10-foot intervals). Or even better, drilling.

For one thing, nobody would assay a 1-ounce concentrate sample from a placer mine (or stockpile). A concentrate is never really homogenous, by its very nature. Instead, you'd run a known weight of material through your test setup (sluice box), and then weigh how much gold you recover, and then do the math. For example, if you run a 500 pound test run of placer material, and end up with 0.3 grams of gold, your placer material runs about 1.2 g/ton (4 X 0.3). No assay involved. BTW, the bigger the test run, the better. And for a really big stockpile, run bulk samples from multiple locations. Again, no assay involved.

[rbtree]

Pretty amazing ain't it?

And then there's the reality: the grade of the original sample was around 0.14 oz/ton- that's the important number. Not particularly high grade, and far from "Bonanza grade".

Plus....one sample from a large pile of rock is not defensible statistically.

[JustinPCDiscord]

I think you're clever enough to give some descriptive details about what you claim to do in a mining career without revealing your identity. Otherwise I guess your 40,511 posts on IHUB spread out well over a decade will have to do to back up your claim of being some sort of mining professional.

[gitreal]

I'd start by investing in a company that is an SEC-filer and files audited annuals. That might minimize the risk a little.

And if it is a mining company you want to invest in, you might also seek out one that utilizes statistically valid sampling techniques and data analysis.

[gitreal]

None of your business. You think I'm that stupid to tell you?

[JustinPCDiscord]

It did hit .50 recently Bob, and by your predictions, $1 is coming.

[surrealistrader]

...and, gitreal, don't forget to include how you ended up washed up onto this shit-hole of a website for most of your days since then.

[JustinPCDiscord]

And what do you do or did you do in your career in mining?

[surrealistrader]

You must know what you're talking about then... and since you now spend all your time on investments discussion boards, might you suggest some good investments ideas?

I'm looking for a USOTC stock with:

little to no dilution,
little to no debt,
dramatically positive company-changing catalysts ahead (like first revenues from gold sales),
an equity structure incentivizing management towards shareholders,
consistent progress to capitalization of their assets,
undervalued to fundamentals,
a growing board of directors with relevant expertise,
a good performing stock,
and a decently promising macro-context

I'm pretty convinced that SDRC fits the bill, but I was wondering if you had any better suggestions since you're an expert after all and all you do is shit on this one.

[gitreal]

Wow. I bet you're good at pissing on people's heads, and telling them it's raining.

You will not ever understand a concept so simple that anybody with 6 weeks experience in the mining/exploration business understands. I have been doing this kind of simple data analysis for my entire career in the mining industry, it is a concept so basic and yet....you have twisted it, and made into something that defies physics/chemistry and common sense.

Maybe we can pick it up again down the road, but for now, it is obviously hopeless.

[surrealistrader]

Ok, Let's back-track to the main point (and I don't mean how stupid either of us are). Gitreal's argument highlights a common misunderstanding regarding the relationship between the mass reduction in concentration and the increase in mineral concentration. Let's attempt to clarify this once again:

Differentiating Between Mass Reduction and Concentration Factor:
Gitreal is mixing up two different concepts: the mass reduction rate and the gold concentration rate. These are related but not directly proportional in the way he suggests.

Mass Reduction vs. Gold Concentration Rate:
Mass reduction refers to how much smaller the sample gets in terms of physical size or weight (e.g., from 100 pounds to 1 ounce).
Gold concentration rate refers to how much more concentrated the gold becomes in the remaining material.

Clarifying the Examples:
If you start with a 100-pound sample and concentrate it down to 1 ounce, while the mass reduction is significant, it does not directly dictate the gold concentration rate. The concentration rate depends on the gold content in the original sample and in the concentrate. Similarly, for the 500-pound or 2000-pound examples, the mass reduction is massive, but the gold concentration rate still depends on the change in gold grade from the original ore to the concentrate.

Understanding the 40-Fold Factor:
The 40-fold increase in gold concentration is derived from comparing the gold grades before and after concentration: from 2.925 oz/ton to 117 oz/ton. This is not directly tied to the mass reduction factor. It's about how much denser the gold becomes in the remaining material.

Misconception in the Argument:
Gitreal's argument assumes a direct and proportional relationship between the mass reduction rate and the gold concentration rate, which is not accurate. The concentration factor (in terms of gold grade) is not simply the inverse of the mass reduction factor.

Concentration Assays vs. Original Sample Assays:
Concentrate assays do not equal the assays of the original bulk sample. They are higher because the concentration process removes non-gold materials, leaving a smaller mass with the same amount of gold, thus increasing its concentration.

In summary, the 40-fold increase in gold concentration is based on the change in gold grade, not the mass reduction rate. It's crucial to distinguish between these two concepts to understand how the concentration process works and how it affects the assay results of the concentrated sample.

[surrealistrader]

ok maybe that was a mistake...? We will see.

Thanks for the compliments and for trying to make me lose my mind.

[gitreal]

SDRC had much more than one ounce of gold left after concentrating the 50 lb pile.... but took a 1 oz sample aside from that to send to the lab in order to measure grade.

What??! First of all, they didn't have "much more than one ounce of gold left after concentrating". Even by your own twisted logic, if the assay of the original 50 pound sample was 2.925 oz/ton, there was only 0.07 oz in that original 50 pound sample. So how could they have "more than an ounce of gold after concentrating"?? Did the gold magically grow in weight? Is this sorcery?

You should stop while you're behind. And yes, you are a dumb dumb at sampling, analysis, and anything mining. You are not an expert. You do write well, and I bet you have written some great PRs in your time.

[surrealistrader]

Can you not see it? SDRC had much more than one ounce of gold left after concentrating the 50 lb pile.... but took a 1 oz sample aside from that to send to the lab in order to measure grade. Do you get it now? The increase in concentration is not linearly proportional to the reduction in mass. It never was nor should it be.

I'm not an expert. I'm a dumb dumb and even I see that you're wrong. You are manufacturing inconsistencies where there are none. The only question is, is it out of malice or stupidity or both?

[gitreal]

Nope, you're wrong. Lots of words, but you are wrong, and you continue to use a circular argument. It will be interesting to see if the geologists associated with the project insist on a correction in a PR. We'll see how much they value their reputations and credibility.

This much is very clear in your statement:

I'm not even an expert

Think about this, using your logic of how you came up with the 40-fold factor (and not the actual 800-fold factor) for a 50 pound original sample :

If they had started with a 100 pound sample, and concentrated down to an ounce....you would use a 20 fold factor, using your logic.

If they had started with a 500 pound sample and concentrated down to an ounce....you would use a 4 fold factor, using your logic.

If they had started with a 2000 pound sample and concentrated down to an ounce, you would use a one fold factor. The concentrate result would equal the assay of the entire 1 ton original sample. A concentrate assay equals the assay of a one-ton original sample? Does that make any sense at all? Nope. Your logic on how they came up with the factor to divide into your concentrate assay........is completely wrong.

[surrealistrader]

Yet another attempt to "dumb-it-down" to address Gitreal's skepticism:

Understanding Mass Reduction and Mineral Concentration:
Think of a big pile of sand with tiny gold bits in it. This pile is your 800-ounce (50 pounds) bulk sample. Now, imagine we take all the gold out and put it into a much smaller pile. This new pile is your 29-gram concentrate.The big pile got a lot smaller, right? That's the 800-fold reduction in mass. We went from a big 800-ounce pile to a tiny 29-gram pile. But, the amount of gold? It stayed the same. We just removed all the extra stuff around it.

How This Relates to Concentration:
Now, think about how much gold was in each ounce of that big pile. That's the 2.925 oz/ton grade you originally had. In the tiny pile, because we took all the extra stuff out, each ounce has way more gold. That's your 117 oz/ton grade in the concentrate. So, while the pile got 800 times smaller, the gold in each ounce of that pile got 40 times more concentrated (because 117 divided by 2.925 is about 40).

What This Means for SDRC:
This process of concentrating doesn’t create more gold; it just makes it easier to see how much gold was in the big pile to begin with. When Florin Analytical Services analyzes this small, concentrated pile, they are checking to confirm just how much gold is really there per ounce. This helps us understand how much gold was in the big pile (the stockpile) all along, while also gauging the efficiency of the concentration process. The expertise of Florin Analytical Services, Steve Dobson, Peter Ellsworth, Thad Marvin, and Liberty Refiners continues to be necessitated and will continue as they measure what they have in the pursuit of accurate data. They know how to do this accurately, have been doing it accurately, and their reputations depend on getting it right.

The 800-fold reduction in mass and the 40-fold increase in mineral concentration are two sides of the same coin. It's not about creating more gold; it’s about accurately showing how much gold was in the original large pile. This is a standard practice in mining to estimate the value of a stockpile, and the upcoming analysis by Florin should provide a clear and professional confirmation of the stockpile's gold content.

Despite all that's been said, and so-called "circular argument," you still misunderstand basic principles of ore concentration. I'm not even an expert and after a bit of math and abstract thought, even I can see where you went wrong! There is literally no one (who knows any better) besides you celebrating your accomplishment. There are, in fact, no inherent problems with obtaining a gold concentration of 117 oz/ton after an 800-fold concentration process, but before you go ahead and insinuate fraud like an asshole, sir, there are several important considerations that we really should be making:

Efficiency of Concentration Process: How efficient is the concentration process in extracting and retaining nearly all the gold while achieving a significant reduction in mass, from 2.925 oz/ton to 117 oz/ton, especially considering an 800-fold reduction in mass?

Accuracy of Initial and Final Grades: How accurate are the measurements of the initial and final gold grades? Are the reported values of 2.925 oz/ton initially and 117 oz/ton after concentration verified with precision to ensure the effectiveness of the concentration process?

Losses During Concentration: Is it realistic to assume minimal to no loss of gold during the concentration process, given the substantial increase in grade, and how does this align with practical scenarios in mineral processing?

Scale of Process: Can the high concentration achieved in a controlled setting (like a laboratory) be replicated on a larger, commercial scale, and what are the potential challenges in maintaining the same level of efficiency?

Economic Viability: Is the concentration process economically viable, particularly when considering the cost of processing relative to the value of the gold extracted at such a high concentration rate?

Environmental and Regulatory Considerations: How does the concentration process comply with environmental regulations, and what measures are in place to minimize any negative environmental impacts?

Verification by Independent Analysis: How essential is independent verification, such as the analysis by Florin Analytical Services, in confirming the results of the concentration process, and what role does it play in adding credibility and ensuring transparency?

[gitreal]

Sshhhhh....you have no idea what you're talking about. 800 fold reduction in mass results in 40 fold concentration in mineral concentration? Baloney.

[surrealistrader]

It doesn't take an expert to see that a simple 800 fold reduction in mass can result in a 40 fold increase in mineral concentration or sample grade. Explaining this point in so many different ways in hope that it can get across your thick head is very exhausting. I used to think your incorrigability was a result of misunderstanding and an adversity to who was presenting the information. Now I am convinced of ignorance, dishonesty, and I imagine you are merely trying to troll me, and wear me down so that you might get a final word in. Did you ever get to discuss these points further or otherwise corroborate your findings with your network of... whoever they are?

No, I am not an expert. ...but let me tell you who is: Florin Analytical Services, Steve Dobson, Peter Ellsworth, Thad Marvin, and Liberty Refiners. I defer to them each in their own right as independent third parties, with their own reputation to look after. I look forward to Florin's lab analysis results of this particular series of concentrated samples, but I am not sure I look forward to reading your rationalizations and gaslighting in response if you continue to insist that such discrepancy exists even after the concentration process is further validated, original assumptions confirmed, and data further certified by these professionals.

[gitreal]

The original sample's grade of around 2.925 /ton, as mentioned earlier, is a more direct measure of the gold content in the stockpile before concentration.

No, there was no assay of the original sample. You are making that up using a phony 40-fold concentration factor. It was an 800-fold concentration; you must divide your concentrate assay result by that 800-fold factor, not by 40.

This is a circular argument you're making. For someone who admitted they knew very little about sampling and analysis..... you're now an expert?

[surrealistrader]

To address the points raised by Gitreal:


1. Understanding Sample Concentration and Original Grade:
- Gitreal's emphasis on the original sample grade being around 0.14 oz/ton, derived from an 800-fold concentration, needs clarification. In mineral processing, the concentration process increases the gold content in the resulting sample but doesn’t change the total amount of gold present. The original sample's grade of around 2.925 oz/ton, as mentioned earlier, is a more direct measure of the gold content in the stockpile before concentration. This figure is significantly higher than 0.14 oz/ton and aligns more closely with the high-grade classification. Insisting that the original stockpile's average grade of 0.14 oz/ ton has been thoroughly refuted as a result of misunderstanding, or worse, a petty attempt to manufacture a discrepancy where none exists.

2. Definition of 'Bonanza Grade':
- 'Bonanza grade' typically refers to extraordinarily high-grade ore, necessarily measured over 1 oz/ton. The concentrate grade of 117 oz/ton is indeed exceptional, but as the respondent correctly points out, it’s the result of concentrating the ore, and in this case derived from a 50 lb sample. The more relevant figure for assessing the overall quality of the stockpile is the original grade of 2.925 oz/ton. This indeed fits the definition of "Bonanza Grade" once found to be consistent. I also believe more sampling data should be collected and released to support this.

3. Statistical Defense of Sampling:
- The critique that one sample from a large pile of rock is not statistically defensible is valid. In mining, it’s well-understood that a single sample may not represent the entire stockpile. That’s why mining operations usually conduct multiple, strategically distributed sampling throughout a stockpile to get a more accurate representation of the overall grade. The information provided doesn't specify if multiple samples were taken, but this would be a standard procedure in resource estimation.

In summary, while the original sample grade is indeed the crucial number for assessing the stockpile's overall value, it's important to accurately understand the implications of the concentration process. The original grade of 2.925 oz/ton, if representative of the stockpile, indicates a high-grade, ore. However, the point about the need for comprehensive sampling to statistically validate the grade of a large stockpile is well-taken and crucial for a proper assessment of the deposit’s value.

[gitreal]

Even small-scale mining operations can yield substantial amounts of gold, especially with such high-grade.

I know you don't understand the concept of sample concentration but, the grade of the concentrate is not important. Because it was concentrated 800-fold from the original sample, the grade of the original sample was around 0.14 oz/ton- that's the important number. Not particularly high grade, and far from "Bonanza grade".

Plus....one sample from a large pile of rock is not defensible statistically.

[JustinPCDiscord]

Play nice Retrospect. We aren't here calling you names like that despite you being famously wrong about SDRC so far.