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.
Zero volume = zero volume - with all the hype on the board why isn't anyone buying shares? They are out there - go get them.
George and Erwin need the retail/504 buyers to get their instant profit from you. With all the high-fives going on with the share price on the floor at .0001 one would think there would be more buying. Good luck.
Can R/S anytime regardless of PR - Safe Harbor Statements!
They are paying themselves from it. Hope this works out for you. However, that does not seem likely at this point based on my dd and the history of the companies located at 111 Airport Rd and their management.
R/S can occur even if stated not going happen in PR - Safe Harbor statements. Seen it happen. Think about it - any company stated they were going to do an R/S would kill any possibility of dumping shares on us.
Not when you see share dumps from PR's - means the 504 or "retail" investors are dumping their discounted shares to us.
Better being .04 Jun11 to .000x in 2012 - right!
Good luck with the investment strategy!
ICOA is a bad investment - dd provided....
Here are the facts - do your own due diligence.
Also, keep in mind that the O/S shares ended just
under 4B with a "share reduction" in progress in 3
phases. 1 part in 2010 and the other two parts in
2011 and we are over 8B+. And now another share
reduction is occurring which really means nothing
as the company can re-issue and sell those "reduced"
shares at any time.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65720777
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72074897
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72541650
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=72546212
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66607849
Anyone can be iphonetrip affiliate - means nothing!!!
Basically, ICOA becomes an iphonetrip affiliate in order to do a PR to pump this so the retail/504 investors can dump shares.
Anyone can apply to be an iphonetrip affiliate - nothing special.
http://www.iphonetrip.com/partnership_program/
I believe George is not selling shares personally. Why do that when the company can do 504 sales to "retail" investors (and then blame them when they are dumping their discount .0001 shares on the market to regular investors (us). The company is selling shares to 504 investors, and paying themselves from the proceeds. George personally is probably not - does not have to in order to get money for printed shares.
Erwin in all three companies and 2 in trouble - anyone see a pattern here? The 2 are in trouble for what - legitimate business activities - no.
All the high fives going on for a company which has been around for well over 10 years and trading .0001 and has questionable business potential at best. Merger's and acquisitions are going to do what for this company? What company with a profit revenue stream is going to merge with a company like this? What revenue stream is going to make this company millions over a year period - no PR or other release indicating any such potential - zero at present.
Last updates for business activities is 2010 on the ICOA website www.icoacorp.com after it has been redone 2x since 2010.
Anyone remember the Share reduction at the end of 2010 and beginning of 2011? At the end of 2010 the outstanding shares were under 4B and after that share reduction which occurred in 3 phases (1 in 2010 and 2 in 2011). Now another share reduction announced - this is a zero value to regular shareholders based on the outcome of the last share reduction. The outstanding shares are 8B+ with ICOA selling shares to "retail" investors at less then .0001 so they can get you to buy the shares and "retail" investors make an immediate profit.
ICOA still owes RI taxes in excess of 300K - I have links in one of my past DD postings on this board or go look for yourselves.
Please do your own DD. One can go confirm everything I have stated here by looking at the postings on this board.
Good luck to you.
This investment scammed the majority of investors. You were correct in your assessments, however, you probably should have expressed them more tactfully.
Any investment which does a 10K to 1 reverse split and at the same time increased the A/S from 5B to 7.5B has no legitimate business and zero regard for investors. This company also stated they would not do an R/S until profitable - they did an R/S. This investment is an absolute do not invest. Also, when they sue investors for expressing themselves is a red flag to never invest in this or anything else Mr. Morris is involved with. If they were real they would have succeeded versus decimating investors monies and trust in the company.
111 Airport Rd. are pump and dump companies!
Judge for yourself. Look who is located at 111 Airport
Road, their management and go check status's for yourselves.
ICOA and SUGO still sharing that same fax machine number.
It is amazing how many high fives are happening with the
stock price at .0001 and the "retail" investors purchasing
shares at less then .0001 for quick profits.
ICOA
Management
George Strouthopoulos, Chairman & CEO
Erwin Vahlsing, Director and CFO
http://www.icoacorp.com
COMPANY HEADQUARTERS
111 Airport Road
Warwick, RI 02889
USA
Tel: +1-401-648-0690
Fax: +1-401-648-0699
KEPI - Clean Energy And Power
Suspended - last board post 9 months ago
Management
Erwin Vahlsing, Jr. - CEO
Dennis K. Shen, President and COO
http://www.cleanenergyandpower.com
Address:
111 Airport Road,
Unit 2 Warwick,
RI 02889
Phone:
401-648-0803
SUGO Sungro Minerials, Inc. - DTCC CHILL
Officers / Directors
Frederick J. Pucillo - Interim CEO
Erwin Vahlsing, Jr. - CFO
Sungro Minerals, Inc.
111 Airport Rd. - Unit 5
Warwick, RI 02889
Phone: (401) 648-0805
FAX: (401) 648-0699
martin@sungrominerals.com
Estimate R/S after 940M+ of the 504 shares sold between now and sometime around April or so. Can't let those 504 investors lose out before an R/S. Extremely unfortunate for regular investors. Even if ICOA is/was going to do an R/S this year they would not say so as it would destroy all buying. Even though a CEO/CFO state no R/S does not mean they cannot or will not do one - unfortunately it is not illegal (though it should be).
This Retail investor has 220M to dump at .0001 or greater....
In May 2011, the Company raised $24,000 through the
issuance 220,000,000 shares at a price of $0.0001091
through a Reg D, 504 offering.
Retail shares purchase prices you are buying......
Judge for yourself what is happening here - facts are facts.
Here is what the shares you are currently purchasing were sold by ICOA to Retail or private investors:
In May 2011, the Company raised $24,000 through the
issuance 220,000,000 shares at a price of $0.0001091
through a Reg D, 504 offering.
In June 2011, the Company raised $22,000 through
the issuance 340,000,000 shares at a price of
$0.0000647 through a Reg D, 504 offering.
In October 2011, the Company raised $19,000 through
the issuance 380,000,000 shares at a price of $0.00005
through a Reg D, 504 offering.
Company ended 2010 with less the 4B shares and now it is
in excess of 8B+.
https://www.otciq.com/otciq/ajax/showFinancialReportById.pdf?id=70675
DD on ICOA and 2 other CO's at the same address....
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=65720777
Highly dubious 50M will ever fund!
EMXC
http://www.news25.us/story/15515223/emax-worldwide-inc-pinksheets-emxc-signed-loan-documents-in-the-amount-of-5000000000-fifty-million-dollars-with-inter-global-investments-llc
BTDG
http://www.einnews.com/pr-news/519426-ssm-media-announces-execution-of-loan-documents-with-inter-global-investments-llc-for-fifty-million-dollars-
Get ready for the dump from friends of ICOA! Flippers trying to get .0002 with no bid - good luck with that.
That's like a tug on a fishing line to get people to think they will be able to buy at .0001 and sell at .0002. The .0002 buys will be bait - watch and see.
All the .0001's you want - like I said.
Float at 2.57B+ Dec 2010 - from 880M Aug 2010 after the "share reduction". Why is it that George and company do not provide the current share status? I suspect George and company have been issuing shares at less then .0001 as payments to parties who are waiting for a pump to dump their shares to unsuspecting bag holders. 2.67B shares held by insiders.
If George is on the level provide the current share counts!!!!!
Nothing other then "working on financials" since last year.
9+ months with no share update - very bad sign!
I suspect the the Float is even higher now and George and associates are keeping it hidden from investors. If George and associates decide to do another RS even though they say they will not (does not mean they cannot do one), then any potential integrity and confidence in this security is gone.
Where are all the supporters? They appear to have quieted down
now that the stock is at no-bid and the lack of information and delivery coming from ICOA.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=64257132&txt2find=float
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58583339&txt2find=float
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=58582677
Last reported float numbers Dec 2010:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=59194626&txt2find=float
Float 2.67 Billion +++
Started Float at 880M prior to the share reduction
Good night. Thanks for discussing this. I believe I read an article awhile back on Barrick having some of the lowest costs per tonne in mining which is around 700.00 a tonne. However, I believe that includes all materials extracted from the process and not just gold which will vary based on concentrations.
Personally, if the mining ever takes place I think it will be in the 80M to 100M in costs to implement and complete the mining on this property for 100k ounces of gold and other metals. Wish you the best of luck with this.
I am not invested here an any way. The chart link chart is interesting. I see that Barrick mines areas where gold is a secondary consideration to the other metals being mined. Thanks for the link.
Then you should be rolling in money soon! Best of luck to you. Barrick is mining other materials as well as gold as you can see. Desirable yields are those properties with several ounces per tonne.
Their costs are 450.00 per ounce of gold extracted. They have 198M ounces extracted which cost them 8.91B approximately.
If everything is true using the numbers indicated (I believe any
actual costs will be higher then 600.00 if this ever truly happens). I do not believe any of this will ever happen with
SUGO based on the facts.
Using a similar number or a number I recall seeing of 600.00 per ounce of gold for SUGO to extract it this is what I come up with:
To extract 100K ounces of gold from Mesa:
100k x 600.00 (estimated cost)
60M dollars to extract the gold.
Amount of earth processed:
100k / .37 ounce per tonne
270M tonnes of earth mined and processed
Manpower, equipment, processing time, loans,
JV's - electricity, fuel costs all add up (fast).
100k x 1850.00 per ounce of gold
185M dollars (potential gross)
No, I think you are missing the details - Barrick is dealing in high yield locations with several ounces of gold per tonne. This is why their costs are around 450.00 cash per ounce of gold. They are not working .37 ounce per tonne properties.
You are making the assumption that their location yields are less then 1 ounce of gold per tonne on average and that is simply not the case. One of the largest gold mining concerns is only going to focus on the highest yield properties and anything under an ounce is considered low yield.
If the property is a high yielding gold property meaning several ounces of gold per tonne on average then the costs of mining per ounce goes down. Since Barrick costs are around 450.00 an ounce cash they are working high yield properties and locations. If this property has the resources in it as stated then it would be easier for the management to sell the property outright then attempt to develop it - IMO.
Barrick are among the lowest mining cost operators in the industry - they are one of the companies that set the standard.
They have a market cap of 50.8B compared to a 2.5M market cap for SUGO. No comparison - however that is not the intent here - mining costs are being discussed and because Barrick has resources in the mining industry they have some of the lowest costs in the industry.
http://www.barrick.com/News/PressReleases/PressReleaseDetails/2011/Barrick-Reports-Q2-2011-Financial-and-Operating-Results1126090/default.aspx
Unable to get a per ounce cost until after the gold has been mined and the costs assessed. The lower the yield of gold per tonne means higher costs to mine. This is why Barrick, one of the largest gold producing mining companies goes for higher yields of several ounces of gold per tonne to get their costs as low as possible. Their cash cost per ounce was around 450.00 per ounce of gold in early 2011 - that is determined after the gold has been mined and processed. Remember that this company has equipment and resources and focuses solely on mining. With a property yield of .37 it would be challenging to make it profitable at best.
Not wrong - you are completely mistaken. Listen to what you are saying - no matter how much earth needs to be processed the cost to mine an ounce of gold regardless of how much earth needs to be processed is the standard of mining? That is completely wrong. Gold mining is measured by what it takes per tonne of earth to be processed to extract the gold. You are saying that the cost is the same to extract gold from 1 tonne of earth versus having to process 3 tonnes of earth to get an ounce of gold. Completely wrong.
I recommend you do the research before making such erroneous statements.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66397102
To mine the gold at 600.00 per tonne of earth to extract .37 ounces of gold equals what? And 600.00 is an extremely low estimate to mine gold today. The real number is 800.00+ per tonne to extract gold from the earth. Do the math and buy more if you believe in this investment despite the math.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66397102
Ratio of .37 ounce of gold for each ton of earth is not profitable to mine today or back in 1997.
Shared receptionist with shared management in three different interests - Mining, Clean Tech and Wi-Fi (SUGO, KEPI and ICOA at
111 Airport Road, RI). Keep on believing this is totally legitimate even if facts indicate otherwise.
Please read info on costs to extract gold if you have not done so already.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=66397102
1997 value applied today = no investment:
From BHP's assessment in 1997:
300M tonnes of earth x 600.00 = 1.8B dollars (cost to extract gold)
175k ounces of gold x 1850.00 = 324M dollars (profit)
http://www.timberline-resources.com/main.php?page=190&press=3
Now a newer NI report indicates more gold and BHP missed it?
In how much area and how deep which affects the costs to extract the gold significantly. 600.00 is a low low estimate per tonne to extract gold. It is more in the neighborhood of 800.00+ per tonne to extract gold.
Same to you!
And what about nodummy's DD?
If this was a viable investment I would go through the effort to obtain this documentation - there is no ROI for me to obtain them based on the facts to date.
Again, heresay unless the court documents are viewed - no verification of these facts.