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.
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 my bad - I can admit when I make a mistake unlike some people I guess.
You care about nonsense if you care about the LOI and not revenue. Again you misread something 8-12 weeks is what they said which is 3 months and I am adding 1 month for a delay or two since it is a 3rd world country.
So you in on the bet - Suriname in production in less than 4 months for $10,000? I could not care less about an LOI - I care about the revenue
The Company already sent money down to purchase the equipment so I say it is closed. You don't buy equipment for something you are not doing. You are focused on the wrong thing again.
I'll take that bet for lets say $10,000. Bet could be that it will be in production in 4 months? You in for $10,000?
Sadly I guess you don't know how to read a 10-Q then or financial statements.
The balance sheet show notes from related party and notes from shareholder. These equal $397,105. This does not include any funds from the purchase of shares.
But I guess you don't want the facts to get in the a way of the story
Thanks but that does not really provide any information on what the Company is doing. Any news on the production?
I don't care about "happy posts" - I want honest posts no rah rah or bash bash. It would be nice to be able to have open discussions about companies and discuss what we think based on supportable facts. But I have learned we don't always get want we want which is a shame because this is a perfect forum for a genuine exchange of ideas.
Have not been following this stock for a while - nice price jump in the past few days though. Any news from the company other than the money deal?
I ask how many here could do what the management has simply because it appears people are trying to say what the company is doing wrong and how they should do things. It is just funny since I doubt anyone on this board could do it themselves.
I am all for criticism but I guess I prefer to also have a solution that might help since I am truly interested in seeing the company grow and expand. I also believe a good idea can come from anywhere. So that is why I ask that because if you have a better idea than maybe management could implement it.
Because it cannot be the fact they are busy running the company
Why would any management team worry about the the long term??? haha.
just like trazbul said today the only managment teams that worry about daily movements in their pps are the ones running the scams such as in my opinion Lone Star, Vumee, World Moto and lets not forget Pub Crawl.
This company is different than those but lets not let the facts get in the way of that I guess
Don't let the facts get in the way though - right? Not when you can say there is an escrow which as far as I know has never been mentioned by the company or use numbers from a pr to infer something that is also false.
You must be new to the penny stock world. Every penny stock has to pay for awareness - there is no other way that penny stocks can have any volume. They are not on a listed exchange that have analysts setting price targets. Listed stock trade more often on fundamentals then they do on hype - penny stocks are the reverse.
Escrow???? Please show me where in the filings or press releases does escrow appear. I don't see it - it is just again a misleading statement.
The Company said "The initial deposit will be used to finalize the mining camp and obtain the excavator and other necessary equipment to begin production".....“This will allow the joint venture to begin acquiring the remaining equipment necessary to begin production. We are looking forward to this project and expect production will begin soon.”
The $50,000 payment was the initial payment for the $100,000. No mention of an escrow.
Obviously not since he kept disagreeing
The way ETRF moves around makes me think it is a robot or software running it
Interesting ETRF going from 1,000,000 on the bid to 1,000,000 on the ask. Guess that is the shorts position
The press release didn't say pure gold - it said they would recover approximately 850-900 ounces of gold. Which anyone who invests in mining companies wold know that is that they are pulling out of the ground in Peru and then shipping to the US hence raw ore.
But, lets get back to your point of eBay vs the $1,000 per ounce of raw gold. The eBay sold for less than that so again your math was wrong.
Curious, is my math wrong when accounting for the purity levels and discounts?
Seriously, you can't just say you were wrong. The press release say they expect "to recover approximately 850-900 ounces of gold" and does not say specially raw gold. Put when I any mining company says it recovers x amount it is always raw ore recovered - when they say produced x amount of gold it usually means refined ore. This is for gold, silver, iron or anything.
but still not getting your point since your math is still wrong on the $1,000 vs $988. Also, it took me like 10 seconds to do the math to get $1,567 an ounce.
Here is the math again:
850 ounces at a purity rate of 88% leaves 748 ounces of gold. Lets say gold is $1,650 and assume a discount of 5% would be $1,567 per ounce. so, 748 multiplied by $1,567 equals $1.1 million. Which is approximately $1 million.
So, the price of gold would be $1,567 per ounce of gold. Now if you are claiming that you meant raw ore then say you meant $1,000 so did not mean to mislead anyone.
Does that mean you agree - you meant raw gold? I honestly don't find misleading info, which I think was an honest mistake.
But you are spinning the numbers to reach a conclusion that I don't understand. Especially, since he $988 per ounce is lower the the $1,000 number you came up with.
I am getting tired of going around and around with you on this issue. So can you simply say that you meant the raw gold which based on that pr would be $1,000 per ounce of raw unrefined gold not pure gold.
Based on the previous information released it could be around 80-85% imo
So you admit you did the math the raw ore and not on 100% pure gold. Which your point about eBay still makes no sense to be since it is less than the $1,000 number you referred to.
Again you forget the work approximately.
So lets look at your math and what you just said They sold a 6 gram and a 10 gram bar for a total of $508. So they sold .514 ounces of raw gold (16/31.1) for $508 which would be $988 dollars an ounce. So I guess I still don't see your point.
Also, you are equating selling 16 grams (or .514 ounces) for $508 to selling 748 ounces to a refinery for $1.1 million?
The company has been consistent in saying that it looks at the 3-5 year plan not the daily ups and downs of the pps. Which in my opinion is what they should be doing
No it is an assumption on bad math. Unless you are now saying you meant $1,000 per ounce of raw ore.
You simply cannot say you were wrong. The word approximate is also in the press release. So lets look at it again.
850 ounces at a purity rate of 88% leaves 748 ounces of gold. Lets say gold is $1,650 and assume a discount of 5% would be $1,567 per ounce. so, 748 multiplied by $1,567 equals $1.1 million. Which is approximately $1 million.
So, the price of gold would be $1,567 per ounce of gold. Now if you are claiming that you meant raw ore then say you meant $1,000 so did not mean to mislead anyone.
Just tired of it all. People act like what the management is doing is easy and act like they could do better themselves.
So you are making an assumption instead of using the Company's actual language which is what creates all the misunderstandings. For example, lets look at what they actually said:
"Selling gold and silver through its retail division allows the company to increases its margins by 15-20%. Junior mining companies typically sell its ore to refineries for 5-7% below spot price."
Additionally, you forgot to account for purity levels and the discount rate. You also forgot about the word approximately - so it could be $1.2 million which with an 88% purity level and a 5% discount works out to be about $1,700 per ounce - amazing how using the actual math works out
Yea I know. I have never seen that as well. I am just tired of the misleading bs from people on this board like this - $1,000 per ounce is ridiculous - common sense would say the company would not sell it gold at that price unless it was 50% pure or something.
You are mistaken since the company has stated in the press releases and sec filings that refineries pay 5-10% below spot price not 59% of spot - that refinery would have no business.
"An Oz of Gold at the refinery is roughly 1000.00 dollars." - ummm where did you get that information from?
Look what happen to Netflix with the one Facebook post
I could not agree more with you. If you know how to trade this is the type of stock that can make you money imo.
There where a few new sentences:
"The Company’s Board is currently contemplating ways in which the Company may attract new capital partners to support the Company’s growth plan over the next 3-5 years. The Amendment will provide the Company the flexibility to consider and respond to future business opportunities and needs as they arise." and "The increase in the authorized shares of our Class A Common Stock could, under certain circumstances, also be construed as having an anti-takeover effect (for example, by permitting easier dilution of the stock ownership of a person seeking to effect a change in the composition of the Board or contemplating a tender offer or other transaction resulting in our acquisition by another company). However, the proposed increase in the authorized share count is not in response to any effort by any person or group to accumulate our Class A Common Stock or to obtain control of us by any means. In addition, the proposal is not part of any plan by our Board to recommend or implement a series of anti-takeover measures."
So it could be about the vote or could be about the new possible investors but your guess is just as good as mine.
The company cannot get a fixed loan. I know a lot of people have asked this but anyone who has been around mining stocks for a while will understand that you cannot get a loan for a project without a 43-101 and the Company has already stated they don't intend to get a 43-101 since it will cost more than $150,000.
Oh OK - thanks. I thought I missed something. I follow a lot of stocks and every so often I miss an update. thanks.
I have not seen anything on that issue - where did you read it?
This is what I as referring to - please support the sentence "just drastically increased (the) float." The float is defined as "the total number of shares publicly owned and available for trading." Just is defined as "very recently." Drastically is defined as "extreme in effect or action".
The only recent (a/k/a just) increase in the float was the 7 or so million issued to Asher based on the 8-K's. The increase in the a/s does not impact the float at all until, and if, they are issued to 3rd parties not including the management. So i'm simply asking where you find support for the sentence "just drastically increased (the) float." I would like to know if there is something I am missing from the 8-K's or other filing.