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.
In the interest of a stronger SDRC, this is no time to celebrate or derive validation from price.
Success in stock price is a product of establishing expectations; a recent example being the promotion of gold sales projections, dividend distributions, continued expansion, continued proving of mineral assets, and a continued raising of this company's standards for disclosure, accreditation, and credibility in order to fit in with larger players in this industry. Management's success will be in meeting or exceeding those established expectations.
Sean, in reference to the Twitter post below, I understand you began with SDRC as a retail investor yourself. On Twitter, you straddle a line between being both a giddy investor but also a CEO. I see these in conflict somewhat. To me, seeing a member of management celebrating or deriving validation from price, before fulfilling the expectations IR has established for the business, sends the message that the product your company is selling is not the gold per se but the growing number of shareholders themselves. You should not be focused on selling liquidity. That all comes later after getting the real job done, which is selling gold - necessarily to the degree that expectations were established.
That being said, as a shareholder, personally, I would be dishonest if I said I wasn't happy to watch the stock price steadily rise as it has over the past few years. I stay invested as I affirm that the company's product is indeed gold. As a thank you to me for the trust I offer you as a continued shareholder, I will accept that you continue improving and growing in line with your established expectations, and most importantly, continue nurturing the integrity of your product.
$SDRC in Review. 3 years ago a friend introduced me to the company and my network began participating in the company. The three Major US indices are the lines at the bottom that have barely shifted. Invest domestic. Invest $SDRC #GOLD #ESG #SILVER pic.twitter.com/2SYgYsNOIE
— Sean-Rae Zalewski (@SeanRaeZalewski) February 1, 2024
First: I just clowned you below, so as far as ignoring goes, look in the mirror. You are infamously wrong about your price predictions here and have called for the death of the stock since 2019. It's 2024. Take your meds and get scooting. Get a life.
Second: The CRAZY thing about stocks in general is that they are there for the company to issue shares to raise money to grow the business or take on new projects. Whoaaaa, I know. And SDRC issues restricted shares and as such any holder of restricted shares is within their right to unrestrict their shares and (1) hold onto them or (2) sell them when the terms of the restricted issuance are met.
And seeing how price closed at 0.319 yesterday up from .1299 when you started posting here again in Jan 2023, you are now just clowning yourself. I am embarrassed on your behalf and for everyone with some sort of grudge against the success of this company and stock.
Did SDRC increase their unrestricted shares?
It’s a yes or no question.
The answer is YESSSSSS
Did the unrestricted not go up?
Why you ignoring that
You know what, go delete your account.
See the blue squares? That's your chat history on this board, dork.
If someone picked up shares at closing price on the day of your last pathetic and histrionic post of 2019 to current closing price, they are up over 1200%
But look at that first little spurt of posting activity of yours in 2019, calling for the end of this stock, for it to only take off over 20x to all time highs of .50. You are an absolute loser, and it's mentally sick that you show your little overused IHUB handle on this board in 2024.
Unrestricted shares have increased…
That’s a typo
I hope you sell this and don’t try to catch the bleeding knife because it’ll cut through your foot too
Stay away for this SCAM
Bro stfu lmao, "unreported share have increased" what does that even mean? Your M.O. is to make stuff up.
Anyone with a paid IHUB subscription can go check for this fabrication of yours themselves under Postings by RetroSpect to Sidney Resources Corp (SDRC).
Like only you know when the "dilution faucet" turns on because a lying goofy like you knows no one can independently verify exactly when or who is selling shares into the public float, so you can spout off claims unchallenged (so you think).
10/3/19 and 12/21/19 you lied about SDRC going to do a reverse split and then stopped posting as price went up until you reared your lying head back in to start yapping about how ugly the chart was, with price 4.76x higher since you last posted!
That Gitreal actually answers you directly discredits him too, so good job for that Retro.
No one actually interested in this stock should listen to you, and Gitreal out here communicating with you like you aren't a clown makes him guilty by association, clear as day.
Here's a receipt. Eat your words.
I 100% agree with you on these points, though, not with your baseline assumption of fraud and your years-gone displayed motivation to take down any otc mining stock anyone sees fit to promote bullishly on this platform.
The company should address these points thoroughly, in writing, and qualify them under a PG/QP title. They have in some sense verbally at the recent shareholders meeting, which wasn't even meant to be recorded nor reproduced at first. They, during that meeting, explained why they don't believe drilling is worth it for instance, though they didnt expand upon why their sampling efforts to quantify what they have would be done to such a limited degree. These should be ongoing, and for all we know they are, but I agree 100% that 1 x 50 lb sample to quantify such a massive amount of ore is one hell of a judgement call.
I brought up some of these points myself in email (like the question of proving out their assets further and the question of why no feasibility study before investing millions in equipment) multiple times over the years and had been ignored outright, or left for someone other than the company to rationalize on their behalf (like under what circumstance would they pursue SEC reporting status.) I reserve prejudice when I speak on these subjects. I am an investor, not their IR guy, and nor is anybody else on these platforms. To their credit, Sean the CEO has become more active on Twitter, but something about his approach of validating the hype, strikes me as a little too classic otc if you know what I mean. I would rather see accredited expertise qualify statements instead of reposts of investors wide-eyeing through their DD.
The answers I did get, shared a common theme. They all came down to cost and a commitment to not dilute shareholders unnecessarily. I appreciate this, as buyer interest is maintained during the onset of revenues, but an aspect of this doesn't make sense to me too. If we are valuing these stockpiles in such extraordinary dollar values, why is the cost to prove them out treated as so prohibitive? Shouldnt they pursue bankability at least for finance purposes? The company has been operating these sites for so many years now, why the urgency to production like it's now or never? Also, why promise such a heavy dividend during a time when all in cost is so unclear?
You get paid for the risk you take, that's all I'm going to say.
This company does not believe in audits, drilling, or feasibility studies. And they promote an unbelievable dollar value for their resources using statistically invalid sample results. On top of that, they miscalculate stockpile grades because they don't understand basic math concepts. Investors who believe in this company should demand better.
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
.2 coming as I said. Likely even lower
Unreported share have increased so the dilution is about to kick on IMO
I thought you were up on your memes...?
All right, you win. I'm the IR guy.
Who the f is Jan, btw?
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.
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.
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.
Let's not skip over explaining your weird posting frequency over years whataboutreal.
So, with no known production numbers or purity, what are they negotiating?
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.
Why would you have to negotiate for gold sales? Isn't gold just about the easiest commodity in the world to sell?
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.
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
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.
9+ Ihub posts/day = mental illness, paid incentive, or both.
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.
You are averaging 9.35 posts per day since your alias was created 3/21/12. 40,516 posts over 4,330 days. Entertainment 🤣.
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.
🤦♂️ 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.
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.
You're fast. I added to that post just now. Read.....
It's hard to understand what they are currently processing, and how. They are not very clear.
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?
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.
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.
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.
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.
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.
None of your business. You think I'm that stupid to tell you?
It did hit .50 recently Bob, and by your predictions, $1 is coming.
...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.
And what do you do or did you do in your career in mining?
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.
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.
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.
ok maybe that was a mistake...? We will see.
Thanks for the compliments and for trying to make me lose my mind.
Followers
|
150
|
Posters
|
|
Posts (Today)
|
0
|
Posts (Total)
|
9806
|
Created
|
03/08/06
|
Type
|
Free
|
Moderators rbtree surrealistrader |
Volume | |
Day Range: | |
Bid Price | |
Ask Price | |
Last Trade Time: |