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.
On first reading, I'll readily admit that this is quite a humorous parody of the current situation...
...but for anybody on this board who has closely followed the consistent support of Mr Berman by posters such as this, their appeals for fair play... suggestions that speculation and conjecture should not form part of any opinion and that Mr Bermans track record to date points to him being a transparent man of his word who has followed through on his previously stated claims... (despite the fact, of course, that we know virtually nothing about Mr Bermans strategy... or for that matter, Mr Berman himself...), doesnt it seem quite curious...?
I am not defending Rick Berman... I have asked probing questions which have come under attack from numerous quarters... but you guys, quite honestly, are spiralling out of control... The time to hang Berman (metaphorically speaking) and bombard the NASD with complaints are when all the facts are in... Facts, Ladies and Gents... Answers to Questions which to date have been ignored... that should still very much be the focus IM HUMBLE Opinion... Establish just what the truth is across the board... then if he deserves to be thrown to the lions... I'll quite happily douse him in Mesquite Barbecue sauce myself...
Cheers, J.
Off Topic... but as you opened the door... is this really the best character defence for Mr Berman...
Am I the only person who has heard of 'Church Guys'... 'Men of God'... with a proclivity for young boys.
I am not casting aspersions about Mr Berman, simply pointing out that proclaiming faith in God is not a bullet proof character defence, nor is it a guarantee of honesty or good behaviour.
I'm sure I read somewhere that God gave man freewill, there was no cast iron contract that he had to do good... its all down to the individual, for those that like their gonads well toasted... engage in all the heinous sh*t you like...
Cheers, J.
Sure...
No Bid....
It’s number 8 on the list of 10 unnervingly accurate (and, it has to be said, side splittingly funny), Penny Stock Commandments… which can be found as the signature on 'The Lotto Pick Project' board, link below.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=7793
“Thou shalt not buy triple zero stocks having no bid. The bid is thine liferaft to get out of the Titanic of a stock thou has purchased”…
Cheers, J.
Carefull Blue...
You know I have some respect for you, but (in my own humble opinion, as much as certain individuals seem to deem it to be a quality I do not possess...) you're something of... how can I put it... errrrr.... a quite talented, but slimey f*cker to say the least...
I believe you to be a most successful trader, I'm just wondering how the word 'integrity' fits into your modus operandi...
Warmest regards and Cheshire cat style grin... Cheers, J
hmmm... Ok, I'll bite, just for the hell of it...
If I had penned the kind of post you have just submitted, I would fully expect it to be deleted as it borders on being something of an (somewhat lame) attempt to verbally belittle me... but ho, hum... I've most certainly dealt with worse, so I'll play along...
To begin, lets establish that I am an absolute nobody (in the IHub scheme of things at least), I continue to own RSDS stock period... you have decided to submit a retort to a post I submitted in response to one of Dak's messages... Dak for those board users who are not aware, is Lasernats Business partner... further, given Daks history on the board, I think its fair to say that his relationship with Mr Berman has been closer than most... Lasernat himself was at one point appointed by Mr Berman as his 'IHub Representative'...
Not that any of this means a whole hell of a lot, but for those who have recently joined us or have not read back through the history of the board, consider it a heads up on the 3 specific individuals being discussed...
My John how your tune has NOT changed
No... it absolutely has not... I have consistently opined (please read ALL my prior posts) that RSDS has/had an opportunity to exploit real potential... the question in my opinion, has always been; 'do we have a CEO capable of achieving that goal'. I fought as hard if not harder than most to defend this stock from what I saw as genuine bashing when Ice and Blue were on the scene... but I have also made it quite clear that if I consider a legitimate question needs to be asked, which goes to the statements or actions of this CEO... then ask it I will... If that upsets your sensibilities... oh dear.. I'm profusely sorry, but you'll just have to get over it...
and it is funny how you and another poster here would attempt to exploit the present situation and try to oust the present mods so that the board could finally be put into so called better hands in order to achieve whatever end they are seeking.
...again, the suggestions that those who ask questions have an agenda above and beyond exposing the true nature of RSDS's business plan and the capacity of the CEO to advance it successfully... how uttery tiresome it is to hear this... it is also the weakest possible attack from those who have little else to offer... once again, read my posting history, you will see consistency... I have not turned on a dime due to recent events... which is more than can be said for some other specific posters... Moderators who act (despite makes statement that he is not here to serve us... and I cannot disagree with that... its not a paid position after all... but it is an influential one in some respects), and post in the interests of the minnow type penny share holders in this stock, as opposed to the interests of Mr Berman (if you doubt this statement, read the many, many posts extolling the virtues, statements and actions of Mr Berman, an individual I should add, whom very few, if any board participants genuinely know... Hence the asking of legitimate questions... is this beginning to make any sense...?
mods that stood in defense of the company and did so rightly (no not righty) based on the information that was available.
Really...? would you like to go back to May and re-read the company PR's, then juxtapose that information with the actual dates of NOI submission to US Forest and OGM... once you've done that please feel free to submit a meandering diatribe of an explanation, giving us the A-Z of the 'quite rightly mounted defense' to which you refer.
And now that they see that the CEO has screwed them one would think that John, being the humble person he claims to be, would say I am sorry guys, and let that be the end of it
...the AS has been raised, other than that I see no PR from RSDS or any other legitimate and verifiable comment from Mr Berman as to the reason for this... please provide whatever definitive evidence you have that "the CEO has screwed them"... (this is not a defence of him, just a call for you to deliver whatever facts you have for posting such a statement). I certainly feel as if I adopted a hands and knees, vaseline lubed position long ago... but it was way before the increase in the AS...
What is so laughable is the word humble and you in the same sentence, lol. I can just picture your eyes bulging out of your head, and foam coming from your mouth in a need and a want to lash out all because the mods decided to take the word of the CEO over a no name board poster. Get real.
The grammatical structure of my posts are an attempt (although I have admittedly err'd on occasion), to conduct myself with some dignity, integrity and to treat other posters, even (especially) those whose opinions differ from mine, with some respect... I certainly wouldnt describe it as lashing out... if you read carefully, you will also note that I have paid certain mods on this board compliments, for the most part due to their past posting history... I'm sure it hasnt escaped your attention, (as you seem to be as sharp as a pin...) that you also fall under the category of 'no name board poster'... and yet your opinion should carry some weight...? am I correct?
As for your suggestion that I 'Get Real'... Mssr Lasernat... if you own a mirror... take a very long, hard look into it, then sit down, re-read your submission to me, and consider whether it was of any merit whatsoever...
Cheers, J.
Hey Bob...
There have been a number of posts highlighting the issue of Naked Short Selling (Strategic Failure to Deliver if you prefer...) and what, to any extent, it may be affecting RSDS.
I dont claim to be an authority on this subject, but for anybody who has an interest in developing a more complete understanding of the phenomenon, I would like to offer you the following link; http://www.businessjive.com/ with three caveats...
The first is that this presentation is fairly long, approx 80 minutes, it is also quite heavy going, although it concentrates mainly on the big boards, it is well presented and does make reference to OTC stocks and the degree to which (in respect to OTC) the effect could be multiplied exponentially... either way you should unplug the phone, put the kids to bed and gag the wife before settling down in a very comfy chair to watch and listen to this... it is very informative and should be consumed to completion...
The second, is that Mr Patrick Byrne (the author of this presentation), is not universally accepted as being the final word or even 100% correct in his assertions and has come under criticism from certain quarters... I wont expand on that, but feel free to google away and read for yourselves.
And finally, I believe short selling to be a relatively short term phenomenon... especially when the focus of the shorting is a company with efficient management producing a real product: genuinely successful businesses, who actually deliver value to their shareholders will (IMHO) overcome attempts to short their stock into the ground nine times out of ten.
Cheers, J.
My, how your tune has changed Dak... Taking issue with Bob's 'burying of current issue posts' is all well and good, but I'm wondering why you repeatedly ignored the many red flags which in my humble opinion, represented large flashing warning signs in respect to the potential for Mr Berman to engage in this particular kind of behaviour, and by complete contrast you are now in full critical mode... a more cynical poster might suggest you were shorting this stock...
My questions, which you and a few other specific posters on this board have sought to dismiss as agenda driven conjecture and speculation in an attempt to bash this stock and the CEO, all went to Mr Bermans past statements, actions and the capacity of this man to manage RSDS in the best interests of the shareholders, which was after all, his stated claim.
Please read my posting history on this board from start to finish, you will see that I have been quite consistent in my opinion. Potential...? Yes, RSDS's cup positively runneth over with it... but there is no excuse for the few 'influential' posters on this board who have given the quite evident warning signs here a complete pass in favor of blindly supporting everything Mr Berman has said and done regardless of some quite legitimate questions
I'm really quite busy at present, but I'd like to respond to one or two specific messages posted in response to my previous posts, offer an opinion on the drilling photographs posted on the RSDS web site and an RSDS representative... when time permits.
I was under the opinion that IHub boards, public and private, were a forum for reflecting opinion, allowing comment and most importantly, posing legitimate questions for general discussion about stock related issues...
I certainly never suggested that the Mods were here to serve anybody... but you do have the ability to manipulate (delete) board particpants posts here, 'some' of those deletions may have been regarded as something of a 'disservice' to RSDS investors looking for a fuller picture of the companies activities.
Further; common sense would seem to suggest that newer investors give the opinion of Mods some weight, so as I may dismiss Moderators posts as nothing more than white noise in certain instances... when they post of course (Spark), others may not... It is that to which I am referring when I make reference to the making a clean sweep of the board Mods, all in the interest of RSDS investors ... which is of course in line with the stated goal of the CEO....
More on your (amongst others) very kind advice that I look for other places to voice my opinion to follow.... if its not deleted of course...
Strongus has posted with relative frequency on this board, at least in comparison to Spark... more to the point, his opinion seems quite reasonable...
Makesumgravy, despite our differences of opinion, (and faz for his recent efforts) are the mods I have some compassion for here, Makes at least has sought to ask some probing questions... (despite some horrific pumping (re Bermans qualities)... and inexcusable posts about digging up dinosaur bones...) as for the rest... in my humble opinion... the board needs a clean sweep and restart with some individuals who can bring something productive to the table...
Cheers, J.
...perhaps some probing, legitimate question asking in a collective and organized manner by the moderators on this board could have helped expose the potential for this kind of eventuality...
I see you havent posted here since mid July... just what was the point of having you as an assistant mod on this board Spark?... when there were others just as, if not more capable of playing an active role here... (not me... I turned down the offer months ago...)
Not trying to be confrontational... just another one of those questions nobody seems to like asked I guess...
... I'll freely admit that I am well out of pocket and out of time to follow this board any longer...
... but for those who have been harshly criticized and laughed at for daring to question the integrity of Mr Berman... based on his own actions and statements, I might add...
The shareholders are and will remain the company's number one focus", Rick Berman, CEO... ha f**kn ha, ha....
I believe now is the time to laugh right back at you... out of pocket or not... at least I've been fleeced with my head out from beneath my legs and eyes wide open... I believed in the potential for RSDS which is why I held my stock and didnt sell... but it was always going to come down to Berman... and how he managed this, which is what the majority of my questions regarding his integrity went to... not the survey reports for these claims...
I guess its just business as usual in the shit filled end of the pool.... Yay Pinkies...
Cheers, J.
I love it when a post begins with 'with all due respect...' it generally means that the culprit is in for it... and in this particular case its me... yum...
Well, I think we can all agree that the last thing we need on this board is conjecture... but as we seem to be bollocks deep in it, I thought I'd throw my hat into the ring...
In all seriousness however Loof... I am not, nor have I suggested that Mr Berman is involved in any wrongdoing, having said that, there has for some time now been a school of thought that Mr Berman reads, if not every post, then a number of the posts on the IHub RSDS board... there have also been suggestions made that Mr Berman has actually posted here on IHub... now, as I suggested in my post... I like to think that Mr Berman is not posting here and I have no evidence whatsoever to suggest that he has ever done so... the post I submitted and to which, it seems, you have taken slight offence, was offered as a 'public interest' reprint of an article relating the kind of activities that 'other' CEO's have engaged in and how those activities are viewed by the F.T.C....
It seems that contrary to conventional wisdom, many of the board particpants here, seem to be of the opinion that oversight of any kind is the last thing that RSDS needs... oh well... here's hoping that I'll eventually see the light... Korn Licker we dont have here I'm afraid... but they have some wicked Rice Whisky which doubles as anti freeze when its drops below 30c....
My apologies if this has put your nose out of joint Tek... one can only wonder why... I havent taken the opportunity to commend you on the most excellent job you did with the RSDS logo, I believe you were working on the AUMN logo too if I'm not mistaken, please correct me if I am...
You chose not to respond to my last post to you Loof, in which I wrote the following... "I fear there are others on this board with far more interesting stories to tell than I, it would be interesting to know if we actually have individuals posting on this board who are working hand in hand with Mr.Berman... don’t you think?"... as a regular board participant, I'd be interested in hearing your views on that...
Cheers, J.
As the issue of whether Mr Berman reads these boards, and (although I like to think not...) potentially may even post... I think this article makes very interesting reading...
By CHRISTOPHER CALDWELL
Published: August 12, 2007
“Granola-eating street fighter” is the unimprovable description that BusinessWeek.com recently bestowed on John P. Mackey, the chief executive of Whole Foods Market. There certainly aren’t many people like Mackey, a vegan who has ruthlessly built Whole Foods into a $6 billion chain of organic groceries. But there are a lot of people who, one way or another, share his recent predicament.
This spring, the Federal Trade Commission moved to block Whole Foods’ $565 million bid to buy out its leading competitor, Wild Oats. In the course of its investigation, the F. T. C. found that Mackey had disguised his identity to make at least 1,300 postings on Yahoo’s stock message boards between January 1999 and May 2006. Under the alias Rahodeb (an anagram of his wife’s name, Deborah), he talked up his company’s stock and trashed his competitor’s. In October 2000, he wrote of Wild Oats that “once the market figures out [Whole Foods] isn’t going to buy this company, it’s headed to $3.00 — or less.” This use of an alias to manufacture support for one’s own position — known, after the homemade ventriloquist’s prop, as “sock puppetry” to chat-room regulars — puts another problem on Mackey’s plate. It also confounds one of our cherished myths about the Internet.
The chance to try on fresh identities was the great boon that life online was supposed to afford us. Multiuser role-playing games and discussion groups would be venues for living out fantasies. Shielded by anonymity, everyone could now pass a “second life” online as Thor the Motorcycle Sex God or the Sage of Wherever. Some warned, though, that there were other possibilities. The Stanford Internet expert Lawrence Lessig likened online anonymity to the ring of invisibility that surrounds the shepherd Gyges in one of Plato’s dialogues. Under such circumstances, Plato feared, no one is “of such an iron nature that he would stand fast in justice.”
Time, along with a string of sock-puppet scandals, has proved Lessig and Plato right. As business, journalism and social life moved online, so did a lot of more pedestrian inner yearnings — greed, pettiness, back-biting, all protected now by traditions of Internet anonymity. In February 2004, Amazon.ca accidentally revealed the true identities of its anonymous reviewers, showing that several authors had taken advantage of aliases to give themselves five-star ratings or run down their rivals. Anonymity, it turns out, can serve two opposite interests: fantasy (an escape from the self) and manipulation (a reinforcement of the self).
None of the social rules that people born before, say, 1970 learned in real space prepare them for moral accountability in cyberspace. Does e-mail have the status of chitchat, or of an affidavit? Is sock-puppeting like shooting your mouth off in a bar and saying, when asked, that your name is none of anyone’s business? Or is it like making a false filing with the Securities and Exchange Commission?
We’re not too good at making these decisions online. We feel as if we’re chatting in a barroom or a dining room, but we may be held accountable as if we were in a courtroom or a newsroom. Without a physically present audience that we can see or hear, we are left free to imagine our audience however we wish. When we do so, it’s easy to delude ourselves that what we’re talking about determines whom we’re talking to. People don’t think, “There could be a billion people reading this, so I’d better not discuss sex.” Their instincts tell them: “This is a place for talking about sex, so there can’t be many people listening.”
The blog of the Red Sox pitcher Curt Schilling, 38pitches.com, is at its most fascinating when he seems to lose track of who his audience is. No major-league pitcher would ever reveal to the tiniest Little League luncheon audience how he pitches to the hot-hitting Yankees’ catcher Jorge Posada. But after facing the Yankees on June 2, Schilling confided in the “privacy” of his blog (which gets thousands of visits daily), “Generally I can follow a split that stays up like that with an even better one at the bottom of the zone, or in the dirt.” Even if a Web site announces itself as a crowded room by calling itself a “forum” or a “chat room,” it never feels crowded because much of the commentary involves responding to specific posts, an act that — for those clinging to old-fashioned metaphors — resembles approaching someone in that crowded room to ask for a word. “I like large parties,” Jordan Baker says in “The Great Gatsby.” “They’re so intimate.”
C.E.O.’s like Mackey are in a particularly awkward position. They pride themselves on their “boldness,” “vision” and “leadership.” And yet any corporate leadership position is a nightmare of legal regulations, market constraints and media pressure. Populist distrust of any rich chief executive is seething just now. Laws on corporate governance are harsh and constantly changing. Shareholder value must be protected. The result is that no one takes anything a C.E.O. says terribly seriously. “He has to say that, or he’ll get in trouble,” is the prevailing view.
Shakespeare’s Henry V, in perhaps the founding act of sock-puppetry, disguised himself in the cloak of a common soldier on the eve of the Battle of Agincourt to rally the restive English forces with a pep talk (“I myself heard the King say he would not be ransom’d”) that few would have believed had it been given in the King’s own name. In the same way, posing as Rahodeb spared Mackey the trouble of appending at the end of every sentence, “... and I’m not just saying this because I run the company.” Leadership is intellectually delegitimizing, and yet leaders require intellectual legitimacy. This is an old conundrum. It has often been beyond the powers of a single identity to solve.
Christopher Caldwell, a contributing writer, last wrote for the magazine about Dr. Ron Paul.
In addition to Rightys comments, Its a curious anomaly... but not everything that has been discussed regarding RSDS has taken place since your first post on the board in June.
With all due respect perhaps you should read back a few months and flesh out the situation a little fuller for yourself... thats not a dig at you, but a genuine suggestion.
a quick board search pulled up these posts...
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=20374000&txt2find=berman
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=20373330&txt2find=berman
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=18809603&txt2find=berman
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?Message_id=18762720&txt2find=berman
You'll notice that three of them are from Dak, who I think we can all agree, seems to have a relationship with Mr Berman which is 'closer than most'... he is also an assistant board moderator.
I have seen e-mails which make references to comments on this board and which suggest he has read the posts personally... I also have two PM's from different posters definitively stating that Mr Berman reads these posts... but I will not post them or any part thereof without permission, which has been sought, just to make you feel a little better about whats going on here...
Cheers, J.
Quite possibly, I have no doubt he reads the posts and dont personally see that as a problem...
If he's posting under a pseudonym without indicating that its him however, then that would be a different issue... not suggesting he is, but it would be very bad form if he was...
Cheers, J.
Hey Dak,
personally, I dont consider my posts to be a waste of time... just another tick in the mental box on who we have holding the reins of this company...
Look... either he's interested in our opinion as shareholders, or he's not... there are many valid, legitimate questions that remain unaswered about RSDS, if he chooses not to join us on this board, not in debate style as you posted, but as per my suggestion of a strictly moderated Q&A (if you didnt read my earlier post please do).... then that Dak, is Mr Bermans prerogotive.
We are repeatedly informed that Mr Berman reads every post on the board... why?... Why the hell would he if he doesnt have any interest in what we're saying... further, if our comments are that insignificant, then doesnt he have anything better to do with his time, like manage the business affairs of RSDS (as per our busy e-learning consultants post earlier).... surely you can appreciate the confusion of some posters here... seems like Mr Berman is staring trance like at this train wreck of a board but doesnt wish to comment on what he reads, with the exception of a few private comments to posters who have chosen not to deal anything other than an underarm softball to him of course...
If he wanted to manage RSDS hermit fashion and not be held accountable, he could have put his hand in his own pocket to fund these claim purchases and salary/fee payments and kept it all private... instead he chose to solicit money from Pink Sheet investors... well that choice comes with some baggage I'm afraid.... us...the investors...
Some posters will say that it is a result of questions such as those posted by myself and a few others on this board which has resulted in Mr Berman being so upset with IHub users... Personally I believe that it is the lack of posts calling for accountability which have led to Mr Bermans current attitude towards this board and its posters... either his statements and actions can stand up to scrutiny or they cant... CEO's shouldnt need to be stroked, molly coddled or given a group hug in an attempt to elicit information from them... He has proclaimed himself to be a responsible CEO, I just want him to do his job.
In the recent past I have paid Mr Berman compliments and praised his efforts in personal e-mails... he and I both know at what point in time I stopped doing that... and the reason why...
If my suggestion comes to naught, so be it... its a free world Dak, nobodys forcing Mr Berman to do anything he doesnt want to do... lets think of another subject... FTD's havent been discussed in a few days, or how about an update on Chinas reactor building program... anybody got the spot price of Uranium handy... yawn...
Some CEO's even set up their own boards, John Beebe of PHGI is an example... You may think its unprofessional... but it certainly seems to represent investor relations.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/board.asp?board_id=9804
Your point regarding the disclaimer is another good comment.
Lead time for him to review the questions arrived at by consensus is a must, but I really do believe his appearance here in a 'live environment' would be beneficial in the extreme.
On the surface it doesnt seem to make a lot of difference, but I believe it would create the impression of a tangible connection between IHub users and him, the concessions I detailed in my earlier post were suggestions specifically tailored to clear the floor and protect him from abuse whilst appearing on the board...
Cheers, J.
Agreed,
a Bi-weekly IR option would probably be a better time scale to work with and your comment regarding the reposting of any deleted posts during the period Mr Berman is online is a good point and well made. I am not suggesting censorship, only that the board remain uncluttered for the Q and A period.
Cheers, J.
Hi Aware...
I'd be surprised if you could get Mr Berman on to the board to take part in discussion - or if you can, he'll be unreliable since he is supposed to be working hard for our company.
In principle I cant say I disagree, but how many times have we been informed that Mr Berman reads every post on this board... How much of a stretch would it really be to organize, a one hour weekly or Bi-weekly formal IR update from Mr Berman to us as suggested in my earlier post....
There are many other sites where CEO's communicate with their shareholders in a similar fashion, this really wouldnt be breaking new ground, just improving the relationship between Mr Berman and his investors.
One point I neglected to make earlier... I'd hate to see what Mr Bermans e-mail inbox looks like, given the standard of some of the previous posts on the board, I shudder to think of what he has to deal with... Formalizing a question and answer session in this way, would, I think, drastically reduce the amount on IR related questions he fields by e-mail from individuals... its a scramble for information which drives those e-mail requests.
Cheers, J.
Hey Dfall...
I don't mean to bash your idea JohnIraq, it just seems very unprofessional
Agreed... and the present IR solution is a shining example of professionalism, right?
No, we both know it isn’t… I am not a designated RSDS representative, responsible for delivering an Investor Relations solution for the shareholders of this stock... Give me the necessary information and remuneration and I will deliver an Investor Relations format that will make your head spin...
I understand that you were being sincere in your response to my post, so I'm going to stow the sarcasm and just highlight a couple of salient facts...
The opportunity to deliver a 'Professional' IR solution has always been an option available to RSDS, but one they have decided not to take, if it was going to happen, it would be in play right now.
You referred to Rightys post, specifically that he was ‘more on track with PR’s’ in your opinion, please read his post again, he states the following maybe a pr on pinksheets to inform the world as to the results of the question period.… in other words, the Pink Sheet PR he suggests, would ‘compliment’ the question period suggested in my post, not replace it.
I’d also appreciate you reading Briboy’s post to which I was responding http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.asp?message_id=21826087 my response was formulated in such a way as to address a couple of specific points he had highlighted, namely how to bring some unity and team spirit to this board whilst eliciting answers to legitimate concerns posed by investors from Mr Berman.
I appreciate that you consider the suggestions ‘unprofessional’ and that there are ‘better scenarios’, but if you scroll back a few months you will see that a number of these other scenarios were floated and promptly sank…. Further, as Briboy has mentioned, Mr Berman presently has an unpleasant taste for IHub posters…. My post was offered as a potential starting point to rebuild the relationship between IHub posters and Mr Berman, as we almost certainly represent the lions share of RSDS investors… it has the added benefit of providing board participants with something other to do with their time than toss the spot price of uranium back and forth and cry into their bourbon about FTD’s.
In closing, I look forward to reading your own substantive and innovative ideas on how best to move forward from this point.
Cheers, J.
Bri,
you raise some interesting points here, I'd like to respond and perhaps offer a suggestion that goes to your desire to see more 'Team Play' on the RSDS board.
When I have a little more time I'd like to explain further the reasons for my critical assessment of Mr Bermans statements and actions to date, suffice to say, for now, the scope and sentiment of opinion regarding such, is something of a mixed bag to say the least.
I do still hold shares in RSDS; as I have explained to other posters previously, I originally came to RSDS following volume, flipped a few, but as I had been looking for a value Uranium play, I dug a little.
I uncovered what I thought was genuine potential, and my feelings have not changed in that regard, what has changed, is my opinion concerning the capacity of Mr. Berman to fully exploit that potential... (more about that later)... so yes, we do both hold shares in RSDS...
You state that there are things with which you disagree, question and can't stand; you continue to support Mr Berman, but want to hold him accountable... so what then of your question to me; 'What can we do about it?'
Mr Berman has chosen not to retain the services of an IR representative and has instead opted to wear that hat amongst others. That is his prerogotive, but as a publicly traded company investors have a right to expect a response from Mr Berman to legitimate questions, as he is the self appointed IR representative for RSDS. There are a number of areas where RSDS appear to be underperforming, but Investor Relations is an absolute priority in my humble opinion.
If RSDS management wish to be taken seriously by investors then the status quo which has existed to date needs to end; e-mailing snippets of information to selected board users, ambiguous back channels, rumour and speculation leading to pumping and bashing, referalls to ThePinkSheets.com or one sentance responses advising that questions will be answered in upcoming PR releases... I even read somewhere recently that Mr Berman would no longer field questions from IHub users... is any of this a reasonable or responsible way to conduct Investor Relations?
Rather than being a friendly place for mud slinging, interesting but incidental commentary and general thumb twiddling... this board is the perfect forum for Mr Berman to deliver Investor Relations information... IF and I cant emphasize this enough... it is conducted in a respectful and professional manner.
I would appeal to the board Mods to read this through and give it some consideration, I personally feel it has some merit and could be the shot in the arm this board needs. For it to work efficiently and in the interest of both Mr Berman and board participants IHub Admin may need to be consulted as we may need to make some concessions for the sake of the CEO, an example will follow.
The idea is not to ambush, heckle, browbeat or otherwise attempt to belittle Mr Berman, but to elicit a reasonable response to reasonable and legitimate questions... how do we achieve that?
Well, this is where the 'team' suggestion that Bri often refers to comes into play. Collectively, we could spend some of our valuable time on this board, formulating and prioritizing legitimate questions to pose to the CEO, questions which according to a consesnsus of board users are of interest to investors, nothing 'ex parte' or off topic which would raise the hackles of Mr Berman, but legitimate on topic RSDS meat, which unquestionably deserves comment from the CEO.
The board moderator could MC this effort, compile the list of questions on which we have all agreed and then extend an invitation to Mr Berman to join us on this board once a week for an hour (these times and numbers are all just examples folks, I hope this will be the start of discussion regarding these suggestions) to offer a weekly commentary updating us on RSDS progress if he so desires, followed by his response to our questions.
Now to the concessions... I would suggest keeping the number of questions posed weekly fairly low, 5 seems like a reasonable number... the questions should be presented to Mr Berman a couple of days in advance of his appearance on the board in order for him to have time to formulate a full and accurate response... remember we're looking for information, not an attempt to hijack the guy... now the following may be the most contentious issue for most board users, but I hope you will understand my reason for suggesting it... it may also need the approval of Admin to fly...
During the time that Mr Berman joins us on the board, posts should be limited to 'only' Mr Berman and whichever moderator has been nominated to MC the proceedings. Mr Berman could make an opening statement, the Mod would then pose each question, Mr Berman responding to each in turn and follow up with a closing statement if he chooses... Any other posts should be immediately deleted to keep the board clear for this exchange to take place... the board may have to adopt Private Status and or receive the approval of Admin to allow these deletions to take place, but given the specific circumstances, I feel confident that this request may very well be granted by Matt.
Why...? My personal opinion, given the strength of feeling of some of the board users, is that if we do not adopt this policy, the exchange will spiral out of control and degenerate into an all out slagging match... this will achieve nothing and certainly wont encourage Mr Berman to join us again... personally, I would be willing to suffer this minor inconvenience for the sake of the CEO being able to deliver answers to our questions in person on this board... Questions related to his responses, or follow up questions would then join the list of potential questions for discussion during the next IR session, the merit of each to be discussed collectively in a team like fashion on the board during the following week... and so it goes...
The advantage of adopting this specific method of entertaining Mr Berman is clear... he is much more likely to be willing to take part if he receives our assurance that we are looking for an exchange of information and not an opportunity to lambast him... who knows, if he joins us and it works out well, we may have him as a regular visitor to the board as an active participant.
In my humble opinion, it would represent a valuable and productive use of this board... I hope this suggestion finds some support from other regular users.
Cheers, J.
...despite your 2 inch group at a thousand yards comment...
I'm fairly sure that the reason for posing this question was a civic minded effort to forwarn forward thinking investors of the impending need to elbow women and children in the face in a scramble for the one inflatable 2ft by 4ft lifeboat in which to escape with what little remains of their RSDS investment should such an unfortunate incident occur.... errrrr... at least I think that was the point.... I stand ready to be corrected... again...
Cheers, J.
Hi Lucky,
Under the Pink Sheets.Com FAQ section for issuers they give the following advice with respect to splits...
Who do I notify about a merger, stock split or other corporate action?
You should contact Nasdaq's Market Integrity Department at 203-375-9609. Nasdaq will then notify us of the changes.
I can only then assume that Pink Sheets make the impending split information available under the symbol page for the stock in question, although how timely the NASD are in passing that info on is anybodys guess, its all a little ambiguous to be honest... I do like the new look of the Pink Sheets site, if you look at the RSDS Company Info page there is a separate section under Security Notes which contains info on splits, so assuming RSDS conforms to SEC Rule 10b-17 which covers Pink Sheet Securities, Pink Sheets.Com seems like the best bet for notification.
I've looked at the FINRA site, which has replaced the NASD pages, but its an exercise in futility trying to navigate for information there... but what else would you expect.
Cheers, J.
...thats Chang beer for you mate, it plays havoc with my ability to string a coherent sentance together... but the old slappers are looking better by the minute...
Cheers, J.
Sarshee,
sorry mate, but the military analogy doesnt apply here in my humble opinion... there are a myriad of reasons why investors chose to buy into this stock... I understood makes' point which was my reason for responding, but with respect there is no 'Commanding Officer' leading any charge, scant intel, no mission brief and certainly no consensus of opinion...
I was schooled on the six 'P's... Prior Preparation and Planning Prevent Piss Poor Performance... when RSDS clearly defines its objectives, a clear plan of action becomes apparent and goals are met, the 'lack of exposure' that is constantly heralded as the reason for RSDS languishing in the gutter, may miraculously correct itself, good news has a habit of spreading rather quickly whether its promulgated on Yahoo, or some two bit blog site, good news will out, as will the truth on most occasions.
As interesting as it is to read about the change in spot price of Uranium, the number of reactors China is building and the perpetual issue of FTD's, the acid test for this stock will be whether Mr Rick Berman can get his fundamental house in order, period... Just my opinion.
Cheers, J.
Hi Lucky...
This is the only notification requirement that I know of for Pink Sheet Stocks with regard to reverse splits...
Issuers are not required to register securities with the Securities and Exchange Commission (SEC), or be current in their reporting requirements to be quoted on the Pink Sheets. Nor are issuers required to file financial or other company information with the Pink Sheets. SEC Rule 10b-17 requires all issuers of publicly traded securities, including Pink Sheets securities, to notify the NASD at least 10 calendar days prior to the record date of any dividend or other distribution, stock split, reverse split, or rights or subscription offering.
Cheers, J.
Makes,
whilst I appreciate your analysis of S8's vs 504's and your opinion vis a vis filing BB stocks, a debate not without merit and one which you have made on numerous occasions on a number of different boards... I cant help but feel that it is the flimsiest possible argument to offer in support of RSDS.
Each stock, Pink or BB alike should be critically analysed on its own merits, the CEO's statements and actions being the benchmark for such... that has, and will continue to be my standard for judging the performance of Mr Richard Berman, not the performance of RSDS vs other stocks which may or may not be engaged in ambiguous strategies to make money.
I have never suggested that Mr. Berman has a nefarious plan in mind, but serious and legitimate questions have been raised and subsequently dismissed as being 'agendas' by moderators and others on this board, ignored completely or ridiculed.
That is their prerogotive, but is this board seriously only for discussion of issues that are favorable to RSDS, are we to ignore questionable actions and statements on the part of Mr. Berman?
Cheers, J.
With respect Makes, your refusal (and that of other prominent posters on this board...) to acknowledge, and follow up on legitimate questions concerning the credibility and management capacity of the RSDS CEO, given his actions and statements to date, and not withstanding this very poignant comment... The shareholders are and will remain the company's number one focus", Rick Berman, CEO...may be the reason you find yourself in sparse company on that hill...
I would humbly suggest that anybody considering charging up the hill of a pink sheet stock, does so with their eyes wide open and considers asking a few legitimate questions on the way up... I understand it may chaff a little to question the actions and statements of a CEO in whom you have invested, but its a necessary evil I'm afraid...
Cheers, J.
Hi Faz,
sorry for the delay in responding.
I err'd, what the hell, show's I'm human after all... no excuses, I shouldnt rush to post however little time I have.
I have at least a dozen e-mails from two individuals at the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining, their e-mails all end with that signature, so hands up there, thanks for straightening that out.
Also for clarification of the second portion, I did state that I thought it was an 'apparant contradiction' and appreciate your post indicating that it was not.
I'm not going to argue the toss with those who took issue with my post, other than to say that my posting history speaks for itself in my opinion, when those taking issue with the few individuals on this board asking legitimate questions, decide to produce substantive DD which supports their viewpoint, I will be much more likely to give their criticism some weight, until such time as they do, their comments do not 'put me on the spot' and certainly do not 'embarass me'... as for being advised to 'sell up and move on'... well, I gave that some serious consideration in the only place worthy of doing so... *flush...!*... and I've decided not to sell and not to move on... sorry chaps, I guess you're stuck with me...
Cheers, J.
Question regarding the most recent PR release...
My posting is sporadic right now, apologies, but I am trying to follow news of RSDS whenever possible...
So after skimming through the last hundred or so posts, I have a question which I am hoping somebody can clear up in reference to the most recent PR.
HOUSTON, TX, Jul 25, 2007 (M2 PRESSWIRE via COMTEX) -- Russell Industries, Inc. (RSDS.PK) announces that it has received approval for its Plan of Operations for uranium exploration on its Cache Claims in San Juan County Utah. The permit was approved by the Division of Oil, Gas and Mining for the State of Utah and allows for 33 holes, one wet and 32 dry to be drilled. The Company has applied for two other permits and expects receive the second by August 13. The Company is reviewing proposals for the purchase of drilling equipment. "We are pleased with Bureau of Land Management's approval of our permit. We are looking forward to being able to validate the proven and probable reserves of this claim area," said Rick Berman, President and CEO of Russell Industries.
About Russell Industries, Inc.
First a comment... the state agency mentioned in this PR is the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals... not Mining...
To my question, not withstanding the mistake in naming the aforementioned agency, it IS however a STATE agency... the PR indicates that the permit was approved by them. Mr Rick Berman however, credits the Bureau of Land Management for the approval of the permit... BLM is a Federal Agency, both permits are required however, so who has approved these permits, State, Federal, or both... and why do we continue to see PR's promulgated with 4th grade errors which a 30 second proof read should avoid... Just a question from an investor with precious little time to investigate it for himself at the moment... anybody who can shine a light on the reason for this apparent contradiction will receive my sincere thanks...
Oh, and I'd like to second Loof and Rightys comments regarding the issue of censorship on this board... further; that the lead Moderator deems it reasonable to ignore posters, especially those who have actually contributed something of substance to this board, makes no sense to me whatsoever...
Cheers, J.
Makes, apologies for the belated response, but I am rather busy here...
Whilst I appreciate your offer, if anybody ends up performing 'Seppuku' around here, it should be the CEO of RI, not you... Mr Berman is responsible for his own statements and opinions, not you.
Berman may have very well meant that there is just no dewartering issue at present. He never said there had not been, I just assumed there was never one. So this can fall on me. Are you sure about this Makes?
I singled out your previous post as you stated "Berman has already addressed this issue with several people and has stated that righty was wrong and now you are bringing up the same issues. This is one of the problems I have with this CEO e-mailing his definitive opinion to certain individuals, who then feel they cannot share it with other investors, for fear of falling foul of the confidentiality statement which accompanies it.
I for one dont believe that Mr Berman meant that this issue has been resolved, rather that one never existed. If those board members out there who have the final word on his opinion would post it, we would know.
Cheers, J.
No Mildtrans, I'm not...
just walking through the facts to show that a dewatering issue did exist, despite Mr. Bermans assertion that it didnt.
The desire to dewater an adit was included in the original NOI.
The Division of Water Quality permit application process is extensive.
The desire to dewater an adit is no longer part of the amended NOI.
Whether it returns to be an issue depends very much on what Mr. Bermans plan of action is for the Rage Claims from this point on. With a little foresight and some fundamental questions asked of the Division of Water Quality prior to the submission (late though it was) of the NOI, this issue could have been avoided entirely... but I guess $350k just doesnt buy the kind of talent it used to huh..?
Perhaps those who are a little irked by my recent posts should consider venting a little of that anguish in the direction of the individual responsible for making these decisions/statements... One Mr. Rick Berman.
Cheers, J.
Hi Utah,
The desire to drill was always part of the NOI, the only change is that the requirement to pump water from the adit has been removed.
They have been asked to provide available information about whether ground water is expected in any of the drill holes, but as the extraction of Ore doesnt seem like a reasonable expectation in the short term, focusing on achievable goals such as instigating a drilling program to prove whatever reserves exist should be the focus now.
There are three permits which can be applied for, Exploratory, Small Mine and Large Mine... an Exploratory permit allows drilling and limited mining.
Cheers, J.
Hi Loof,
This CEO is in possession of an awful lot of good peoples hard earned money Loof... I've never been big on blind faith, his statements and actions should be examined, its quite a legitimate course of action to take for a Pink Sheet stock... If you are looking for agendas... I fear there are others on this board with far more interesting stories to tell than I, it would be interesting to know if we actually have individuals posting on this board who are working hand in hand with Mr.Berman... don’t you think?
I held back this information because I was waiting for confirmation of what I'd heard... trying to be responsible with the information I'd uncovered rather than running off at the mouth... I'm sure you can appreciate that... the following excerpt is taken from a post I sent to JCMoney on June 15th which provides an oblique reference to this issue:
Posted by: JohnIraq
In reply to: JCMoney who wrote msg# 20493
Date:6/15/2007 1:03:36 AM
Post # of 24881
The Notice of Intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit from US Forest Service was submitted on or around the 10th of May, information relating to the submission of that Notice of Intention was provided by Joel Nowak (UF Forest Service). There are additional details and an opinion pertaining to the state of an existing mine on this claim, but I am not going to divulge those details until they are corroborated by a separate State agency who may potentially have a role to play prior to the Feds issuing this permit.
I posted yesterday for two reasons, the first is that Item 4, in the letter at the foot of yesterdays post further confirms the information I had previously received. Secondly and more importantly, the CEO (according to Makes) is denying flat out that a dewatering issue ever existed, which leads me to another of your points...
Also isn't this conjecture and YOUR opinion and how is this DD? ---
"if Makes earlier post is an accurate reflection of Mr. Bermans opinion... unfortunately it seems we cannot hold Mr.Berman to that same standard as he only posts his opinons in relation to this issue to selected Board participants by e-mail, and with the safety net of a confidentiality clause... how convenient...).
Makes is the lead board Moderator, so it seems reasonable to presume that he attempts to ensure that his posts are accurate when they relate to issues concerning Mr. Berman and his opinion. With that in mind he has posted the following...
Posted by: makesumgravy
In reply to: JohnIraq who wrote msg# 24713 Date:7/17/2007 4:01:23 PM
Post #of 24846
Do you have all this documentation?. According to Berman you and righty don't know what you are talking about.
Budget went on for weeks stating there was a 505 and 506 in place without proof to back this up.
So if you are going makes such statements it would be to everyones benefit to present the goods. Berman has already addressed this issue with several people and has stated that righty was wrong and now you are bringing up the same issues.
I am not a mining expert but I read documents. Utah has been very very dry so where the water comes in to play I have no idea?.........But the fires have done alot of damage to forest areas.
Posted by: makesumgravy
In reply to: None
Date:7/18/2007 10:51:48 AM
Post # of 24883
Excerpt from RB. Answers to 2 questions. I cannot post a confidential e-mail response but this I can.
How may remember how this board was pounded for weeks regarding the first issue......This was proven without a doubt from the TA that a 505 and 506 was not filed nor had been. The 504 was completed on 5/31/07. As of yesterdays date the numbers are the same.
This dewartering issue has been the 2nd thing to surface.
From RB:
Reference regarding 504, 505, 506 & dewatering being a problem.
I think any reasonable person would agree that someone who knowingly posts a falsehood is committing a fraud.
He has also mentioned that in copying these kind of post that he may submit them to the Nasd....
It’s common knowledge that Mr.Berman uses a confidentiality disclaimer at the foot of his e-mails and this has been cited as the reason for not posting facts in the past, but Makes seems to make it clear that privately, a number of individuals on this board have been told that those articulating this issue are wrong, further that they are committing a fraud… that’s strong language, especially as the letter from The State Division of Oil Gas and Minerals seems to contradict his assertion.
I try to stick to fact and avoid speculation whenever possible Loof, you and others are free to read my posts and take it or leave it, each to their own.
As Requested...
Hi Makes,
further to your request for a document supporting the facts I presented yesterday, that an issue related to dewatering of the Rage Claims project did actually exist, I am happy to provide you with this letter from the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals in Utah.
For the benefit of those who may not have been following this issue closely, I would like to explain the purpose of this letter, why it is in my possesion and in my opinion, what bearing, it may have on Russell Industries projected exploration of the Rage Claims if and when Federal and State Exploratory permits are issued.
This letter identifies specific items of a Deficient Notice of Intention to Conduct Exploration in respect to Russell Industries and the Rage Claims. This is normal business and nobody should have a knee jerk reaction over the fact that this letter was sent. It is quite simply a request for clarification or additional information of details contained within Russell Industries Notice of Intent to Conduct Exploration which was filed with the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals on May 25th 2007 (State permit application, not Federal). The Division routinely suspended further review of the NOI on file until such time as an amended version, addressing the points raised by the division, was received. The amended notice was received on or around June 29th and the review continued.
Items 1,2 and 3 request additional information and clarification, but it is Item 4 which is of interest to us as it relates to the controversial issue at hand.
"The NOI says there is water in one of the adits that will have to be pumped out. This may require water sampling and a discharge permit from the Division of Water Quality. Please include information or correspondence from the Division of Water Quality showing that this requirement has been met or that a discharge permit is not required."
It appears that Russell Industries planned to pump the water from an adit (the definition of an adit is 'a type of entrance to an underground mining shaft which is horizontal or nearly horizonal') in order to access and explore the existing shaft it served, and were requested by the Division of Oil Gas and Minerals to show that they had taken the required steps to secure the necessary permit to pump out the water, or provide evidence that a permit was in fact not needed.
Unfortunately, the Rage Claims are located within the boundaries of a U.S. National Forest, this from the Division of Water Quality:
According to the State of Utah's Antidegradation Policy, the discharge of point sources of wastewater, treated or otherwise, into surface waters geographically located within the outer boundaries of U.S. National Forests whether on public or private lands is prohibited (UAC R317-2-12.1.a and UAC R317-8-3.2).
R317-2-12. High Quality Waters.
12.1 High Quality Waters - Category 1.
Suffice to say that not only is a permit needed, but the permit application process is extensive. My understanding is that the permit required was a UPDES (Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) Permit from the Division of Water Quality.
As a result of the requirement to undertake this extensive application process, I have been informed by the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals, that the amended Notice of Intent to Conduct Exploration by Russell Industries, Rage Claims, no longer includes the requirement to pump water from this adit.
I have known about the fact that an adit located within the Rage Claim area was water filled since May 11th. At that time, as a courtesy to Mr. Berman I contacted him to advise him that the Division of Oil Gas and Minerals were offering that information to anybody requesting an update on Russell Industries Exploratory Permit Application. I further stated that I would not discuss this issue on the board and until yesterday I had not. I have changed my mind because the issue has been raised by others and more importantly, Mr. Berman is now denying that dewatering was ever an issue (if Makes earlier post is an accurate reflection of Mr. Bermans opinion, that Mr Berman has addressed this issue with several people and that those presenting it are wrong, he has apparently now stated that "somebody who knowingly posts a falsehood is committing a fraud"... unfortunately it seems we cannot hold Mr.Berman to that same standard as he only posts his opinons in relation to this issue to selected Board participants by e-mail, and with the safety net of a confidentiality clause... how convenient...). I contacted the Division of Oil Gas and Minerals for confirmation that Russell Industries had been formally advised of the permitting requirements and this letter was sent to me by return.
Finally, what bearing does this issue have on the potential for exploration of the Rage Claims by Russell Industries...? I could care less that this adit is water filled to be honest, of course it would be great if they could explore the adit and shaft it serves, but a comprehensive drilling program is as important if not moreso to prove whatever reserves exist so the focus should be on putting an efficient plan of action in place that allows for drilling operations to begin as soon as possible if and when State and Federal Permits are issued.
That the information provided by State contradicts Mr. Bermans opinion of this, I dislike intently...
Cheers, J.
p.s. The letter is addressed to Mr. Nowak, who is the U.S. Forest official dealing with Russell Industries permit application, as this letter is a copy of his courtesty copy.
Hi Makes,
I know that you and I have had differences of opinion in the past, but I appreciate your opinion and the commitment you have shown to this board.
A document to confirm these facts will follow... if the board then feels that I am 'off the mark' so to speak, and that a dewatering issue was not raised, I will be more than happy to offer a retraction of my statement and apologize to the board.
I can only atest to my own posts and not those of Righty or anybody else, but I find it interesting that you suggest Mr. Berman holds the opinion that 'I dont know what I'm talking about'. In fact, I would appreciate you forwarding to me anything you may have which shows that Mr.Berman does in fact hold the view that you suggested, I have always gone to great lengths to try and ensure that the information I post is factually correct, and to date, I dont believe any of it has been refuted publicly, so your comments come as something of a surprise to me. If I made a habit of posting sensationalist statements for effect it would make more sense, but I dont, plain and simple.
Cheers, J.
Hi Utah...
If your post is an accurate reflection of Mr. Bermans comments in relation to your question, then I think that there is cause for significant concern in respect to his ability as CEO of RSDS and his credibility in general.
There most certainly was a ‘water issue’. Mr. Berman is being somewhat economical with the facts here; the statement you paraphrased suggests there is no issue, nor has there been in respect to their permit application submitted to National Forest Service… really…? Has anybody thought to ask him about State?
According to State, Forest did indeed raise a ‘dewatering issue’ and it is an issue that Mr. Berman is very well aware of, as details of it were contained in the original Notice of Intention, submitted by Russell Industries to the State Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals on May 25th.
The aforementioned NOI apparently stated that there was water in one of the adits that would have to be pumped out. This issue was indeed flagged by Forest, but it was State, who on June 19th 2007 suspended further review (subject to receipt of an amended NOI), and issued a ‘Deficient Notice of Intention to conduct exploration in respect to the Rage Claims’.
State raised 3 general issues, and one specifically focusing on this issue of dewatering. Russell Industries were advised that they ‘may’ require a UPDES (Utah Pollutant Discharge Elimination System) permit for the Division of Water Quality, which I am assured is an extensive process. They were further requested to show information from the Division of Water Quality showing that this requirement had been met or that a permit was not required… I don’t know about you, but that certainly sounds like ‘an issue’ to me…
On or about June 29th 2007 Russell Industries submitted an amended NOI and I am informed that ‘dewatering’ the adit is a goal which has now been retired from the plan.
So what’s the big deal here…?
Well, we are constantly reminded that Mr. Berman ‘knows what he’s doing’, that he’s ‘doing his job’ and striving for transparency… all of which are noble aims considering he signed salary checks to the tune of $350,000 this past year, a significant chunk of shareholder change for a company with no revenues I might add.
Is it a responsible, ‘knows what he’s doing’ CEO, who PR’s the start of Mining Operations in May, when a 5 minute phone call with the State Division of, Gas and Minerals and the US Forest Service would have provided enough information to clearly indicate that this timeline was not feasible…? Who submits the application in the form of the NOI to State, on May 25th 2007, a mere 6 days before the deadline for Mining Operations to begin?
Was the issue of ‘dewatering’ this adit examined during Mr. Bermans due diligence prior to purchasing these rage claims (presuming he did in fact conduct DD), were the Division of Water Quality permitting requirements considered…? and if not, why not? Submitting an NOI containing a requirement to dewater a portion of this claim and then subsequently removing that requirement shows a staggering lack of foresight for a CEO who has previously dealt with issues related to Environmental requirements for the discharge of ground water, as per this PR from April 2006;
Russell Industries, Inc (RSLI) Announces the Company's Strategic Plan
Market Wire, April, 2006
Russell Industries, Inc. (OTC: RSLI) is ready for Pink Sheet Quotation as of April 6, 2006. The company's symbol is RSLI. The company is headquartered in The Woodlands, Texas and has a wholly owned subsidiary that will serve as the operating company located in Sheridan, Wyoming. The President and CEO of the company is Rick Berman.
The company is in the oil and gas exploration services industry. RSLI is continuing development of a patented water treatment process that has been discharged in oil and gas exploration. The process makes the water safe for disposal back into the environment. The company has focused on testing in the Powder River Basin of Wyoming and Montana where Coal Bed Methane (CBM) exploration is prominent. The company has leased additional technology from Lawrence Livermore Laboratories, the leading U.S. Department of Energy research laboratory. By combining technologies, RSLI's prototype is able to remove sodium, barium arsenic and any other contaminant containing a positive or negative ionic charge. The end user of this technology is any oil gas exploration entity that has to apply for permit to drill and subsequently has to present a plan to any Department of Environmental Quality or regulatory agency to show how discharged water will be treated.
Does it reinforce claims of transparency and responsibility to now obfuscate this issue? Is Mr. Berman concerned about whether he damages his credibility?
I continue to hold RSDS and still feel that this company has potential, but Mr. Berman needs to up his game IMHO. I know that it will make me unpopular to criticize his performance on this board, but I refuse to join the ranks ‘lemming fashion’ and praise this guy when his performance is so obviously lacking. Prayers and positive thoughts unfortunately, will not be enough to lift this stock back onto its feet, Mr. Berman is going to have to work and work damn hard to do so… and for $350k per annum, we should expect nothing less from RSDS employees.
Hi Digitaltradz,
Sorry mate, but you have misinterpreted my point entirely here.
I do think that this will take longer than expected, but with respect there is no such thing as ONLY a drilling permit. The three available permits are for Exploratory Mining Operations, Small Mine Operations and Large Mine Operations.
An Exploratory Permit includes any surface distubing activities for the purpose of discovering a deposit, it includes but is not limited to sinking shafts, tunneling, drilling, digging pits or cuts, building roads etc. Susan White the Mining Program Coordinator for the Division of Oil, Gas and Minerals in Utah has further indicated that there is no restriction on the amount of Ore which can be extracted under an Exploratory Mining Permit. A Small Mine Permit allows an area of land no more than 5 acres to be disturbed, a Large Mine Permit is required for an area larger than 5 acres.
My opinion about Mr Berman babysitting the application process with State and Federal Agencies in Utah is nothing to do with 'pushing an elephant past its pace' to use the analogy of another poster here... Its about making sure that this elephant 'keeps' to its pace and doesnt wander of the beaten track so to speak. The application process can be long and complicated, its a wise man who doesnt underestimate the potential scale of the requirements and works quickly and diligently to provide information or fulfill requirements immediately upon request, what better way to do that than in person.
PR'ing the start of Mining Operations in May and then subsequently filing your Notice of Intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit with the US Forest Service (Federal) on or around 10th May and your Notice of Intention for an Exploratory Mining Permit with the State Division of Oil Gas and Minerals on the 29th of May...? A reasonable timelne...? Is this Elephant Pushing by Mr Berman...? or is it understandable enthusiasm to reach a goal, combined with a limited knowledge (at the time), of the regulatory process required to achieve it...?
Tension was building just prior to the stated completion date of the 504 and this stock was about to run the day the PR detailing the Permit application delay was released IMO. If it does not interest you why Mining Operations were PR'd to begin in May, followed by the extremely tardy submission of the required documentation to achieve that goal, then perhaps it should.
I have sent Mr Berman personal e-mails in support of his efforts before now... but he made a mistake when he PR'd the beginning of Mining Operations in May... a mistake he could have avoided if he had taken a more direct and personal role in understanding the Permit Application process... is it the boards opinion that as the CEO of this publicly listed company Mr Bermans performance should not be scrutinized and this issue should not be commented on... Are we not within our rights to hold him to a higher standard as he moves forward with this process...? It certainly isnt mine...
Cheers, J.
Hi Lucky,
There are a number of things he could do, and indeed probably should have done by now... but of all the things on his plate I firmly believe that there is one overwhelming requirement at present.
He should go and camp out in Utah and babysit the permit application process from start to finish with both the Federal and State agencies involved. If the potential for these claims is as real as suggested, it deserves nothing less in my opinion, than the full focus of the CEO, on the ground and in person to deal with any and all issues/questions that arise from either agency. Nothing is a higher priority, without these permits exploratory drilling cannot take place to prove what resources exists on them... what does RSDS have then...?
Cheers, J.