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.
website works
thank you for responding
I don't see the kind of trading volume that would support your claim of hundreds of thousands of dollars invested in buying stock. Of course this could private purchase
mining claims-Bandera-this appears to be a dispute between Bandera and Barnett so my understanding from the Supreme Court case is if Bandera lost then Barnett won. It does not follow that SRGE benefits
surface rights-I am not sure who really owns the surface rights but I suspect it is SRGE. The surface rights are separate from the mining claims-both should be tied together for a nice clean package.
Of the two rights (mining/surface) I see the surface rights being the least important.
I am critical of Bandera but really if SRGE had such clear cut rights I don;t think Bandera would be fighting Barnnet all the way to the Supreme Court.
At best this is a 3 party dispute with SRGE being left by the other two (Barnett & Bandera)
Greed and politics always gets involved with a large metal deposit particularly outside the US. A very positive sign that it is all worth fighting for but it does not mean the SRGE is the winner
Outsiders will stear clear of the mess JMO
NP-I have always like Basin Gulch. Since watching the share price drop from early last year I wondered why and saw the convertible offerings. no details but the numbers were there enough to be concerned and back away.
IMO the potential for another producing property must be significant. IMO it must be high grade (ease of permitting) (high grade being a value per ton of $2,000 +) if we speculate on 50 tons per day and a cost of 1/2 of that this provide a monthly cash profit of $1,500,000. 100 tons per day would certainly be doable. That kind of ore can be sent to a smelter anywhere in the western US.
IMO mgmt must think the deal is a virtual lock to even mention a delay at Basin -they knew they would take heat during a CC but did it anyway
CC summary tikasun just posted what I thought was a nice summary of the CC-could you highlight this in the front? edit as you see fit perhaps expand upon it if needed.
nice summary-show be stickyed on front
why are you so positive? no website? your post earlier in the year said $.60
do they have mining rights or does Barnett Or Bandera
too bad property seems really good
the fact that some can get the website and others can not is not positive for the share price
filing-perhaps the filing DH was in the middle of was the amended 8k filing-at least it appears that there are no significant SEC issues. IMO amended filings are not significant.
tried that, also rebooted my computer and tried different web browsers--whois shows go daddy as the site hose and that the website is active
I don't think you right. Right now IMO DGRI has very limited financial resources. no mining company is going to give DGRI that kind of deal on a property (JUNGO) that has limited work done on it.
remember no drilling has been done at jungo only surface work. lots of properties have gold at the surface due to surface enrichment.
by contrast Basin has over 300+ drill holes and miles and miles of trenching.
owners at Basin property spent $5-10 milllion in exploration whereas Jungo has had maybe a $100,000 spent on exploration.
Both have tremendous potential but only a Basin Gulch do you KNOW that the gold is there. At Jungo you HOPE it is there. IMO there is a big difference.
still not there
http://www.southridgeminerals.com/
404 (Page Not Found) Error
If you're the site owner, one of two things happened:
1) You entered an incorrect URL into your browser's address bar, or
2) You haven't uploaded content.
If you're a visitor and not sure what happened:
1) You entered or copied the URL incorrectly or
2) The link you used to get here is faulty.
(It's an excellent idea to let the link owner know.
another CC was mentioned AFTER/IF their other production deal is completed-they sound very positive that this would be happening but noted that it was not completed therefore would make no definitive committments.
Jungo-not much work was done at Jungo to justify those kind of numbers. That kind of number $2,000,000 IMO would have been mentioned in the DGRI news release. DGRI's entire market cap is only $3.6 million so IMO the amounts are not material in relationship to the market cap. IMO certainly less than $100,000.
I am pleased that a deal was done. Jungo was an asset and they finally did something with. Let someone else spend money on it.
I feel the same way about the Oregon properties. Everyone needs to understand that Basin is the home run but these other properties consume resources (time and money). I am glad they are not ignoring the other properties and getting someone else to develop them.
thank you. I know the website address but it appears as error 404 page not found
maybe the property itself is just bad luck
where is website? it used to be there-now it is gone.
imo stock is definitely a hold-the debt overhang has been in there for a long time and somehow the company is still alive- I think they need a mutli million ppm and the pps will change in a heartbeat
cynadide-there are other extraction chemicals-cynadide is the cheapest but at $1,800 there is lots of room for alternative methods JMO
please list the other 19 issues which you deem more important.
I commented on DGRI SEC form 8kA because it was just filed.
certainly IMO it was a timely comment
what misrepresentation-even DGRI said this was a Canadian report. It is public knowledge that DGRI is a US company.
Can anyone honestly I say I bought the stock because of this report AND I thought DGRI was a Canadian company. It would be laughed out of court.
DGRI's disclosure could have been better but on this board this issue was disclosed over and over again.
Also the 10k claried this issue a long time ago the AMENDED 8K is the SEC's way of punishing DGRI.
During the CC the SEC inquiry was briefly mentioned by the CFO maybe DH who made the point that DGRI is now fully compliant. I suspect this is what the inquiry was all about. How did this piddly little broke company with lots of debt end up with the property? The property check out but the SEC can point out lots of picky stuff about your filings-but disclosure is definitely better but criminal? IMO a big no--everyone knew this was broke US company, everyone knew this was a Canadian technical report which probably did not fully measure up from a compliance standpoint-but even the SEC let DGRI refile the report-as opposed to a complete denial--that speaks VOLUMES on the credilbility of the property and the basic data.
Bandera has disclosed the legal action- no precise details but disclosure has been made. Plus they disclose if they lose at the Federal level then the whole property gets written off.
complaints/allegations are seldom disclosed. Even if they are then it happens in such a way that the outside investor has no way of evaluating the claims. IMO most investors stay away.
Bandera has a legal action and disclosed that if they lose at the federal level then they will write off the property. This disclosure is enough to have a lot of potential investors to stay away.
How long did take for cigarette companies to admit that smoking was bad? how long did it for Ford to admit that the gas tank on the Pinto? had a problem?
Those companies had auditors, law firms and legal opinions yet nothing was disclosed.
Auditors had checklists for those companies.
What about the Madoff fraud? complaints were filed yet nothing was ever disclosed. Why? those auditors had checklists too?
yet nothing was disclosed. why because the auditors got a response back from management and law firms that everything was ok.
so I do take comfort in a check list NO-what is the worse case for Bandera-loss of property-fully disclosed-auditors satisfied-checklist gets marked as complete
I agree Bandera made the proper disclose
last post of the day
while I agree it should be brought to the attention of the auditors. IMO it would not be disclosed why? Bandera would have their attorney comment that the charges were not material, relevant etc. The auditors put the letter in their audit file and mark the check list as completed
look at from a different point of view-if you make a claim against Bandera for unethical or bad behavior would it be disclosed? answer no
why short sellers would have field day, make a claim, short the stock, have the public company make disclosure, share price goes down.
Bandera has disclosed the lawsuit and their plans for a complete writeoff
also while in Mexico you are guilty when charged but Bandera and its auditors operate under Canadian rules
End of story
Why do you say that? claims of wrongdoing are not financial disclosure item, if it were do you know how long the disclosures would be for public companies? How many claims do think Ford or Microsoft have? They have have huge legal departments.
even if the former CEO was involved in criminal behavior. This means he has to resign but the financial disclosure remains the same. IE Bandera owns the properties in Mexico until the legal process is concluded and in Bandera's case they state that if they lose the federal process then they will provide for a full write off. The asset might remain but it will be revalued for $-0-. They could decide to walk away but that is a separate decision from writing off the asset.
BTW the financial also show that Bandera spent $325,761 in legal and accounting work for the past two years on this property-How long will that go on?
IMO I think Bandera will write off the costs and walk away
not really-Bandera has mexican attorney who wants to get paid for defending them. The auditor request a letter from the attorney who then replies that Bandera has an issue and that they (the law firm) thinks they are right which is the same response they (the law firm) provides to the court.
The most recent Supreme Court ruling came out after the last finanicial statement which said the following on page 16 note 4
"Should the ruling be in favour of the defendant, the Company would be required to recognize an impairment charge on the property for $9,229,235."
Mexican system- I totally agree. This is why I don't buy into the info about Barnett being evil/wanted. IMO it simply does not matter. It may be true but it is not relevant to Bandera. There is a legal dispute. Legal disputes are bad for shareholders. Even if Bandera continues the legal dispute it is still bad, the outcome is at best very uncertain.
outside investors have no way knowing if the claims being made (by either side) are bogus or real, Erroneous or accurate.
Legal issues can be resolved in a friendly manner or they can turn very personal, nasty and emotional. The latter types are very bad for shareholders
so you confirm the charge but state that it was bogus and thrown out of court-please post link.
even you now admit that the claims were made but are "frivolous" or "farfetched"-well that it what happens in legal disputes. Claims get made by both sides.
I find it amazing that then charges against Bandera are made they "BOGUS"
claims against Banera are upheld all the way to the Supreme but the people behind the claims are bad people who will end up in jail
legal disputes do not need evil people behind them. IMO legal disputes scare away investors. The property goes nowhere and shareholders are the losers.
do you have any proof? post some links. the information posted was details, precise and had reference. but your response was just denial that the poor guy was also taken advantage of?
even if true having a gullible person in part of a public company is not a ringing endorsement of management's effectiveness.
is this the same Roehrig who is now President of Bandera?
post a link with PROOF
You must know this person pretty well to be on a first name basis
also there is no denying the timing of his resignation.
keeping around as "consultant" could be his way to keep his hand in the company till to getting money and/or keeping quiet about activites or providing assistance. outsiders have no way of knowing.
very strange to leave but not leave, to retire but not retire.
wow-could be. they were noticely vague on details, I understand why during the CC but some of that could have been put into the news release. Also more information about Avidian would have been useful.
Doyle K Brook was a FORMER senior officer with Nevoro-Nevoro has other properties in NV. during the CC they mentioned access to other properties-
wonder if Brook did this on his own and then plans on flipping it to Nevoro?
wow-did not realize it was so fast. I suspect this was one of the issues the SEC got on Dutch for.
Hollis the CEO who worked in finance and the brokerage business has no excuses. During the CC Pertu seemed kind of baffled by the question. did not even realize that Hollis was working on it. Might not have even been aware that this was a requirement.
Things like that happen in a small public company.
I have noticed the disclosure in other public filings (10K) about the shares that Hollis and Pertu own. Also the 8k filed when the preferred stock for debt was done so there has been disclosure.
Overall I am less concerned about this than: convertible debt, total debt, new deal and development at Basin. Management does own a lot of stock (makes me feel more comfortable)
I would be more interested in knowing how much cash compensation Hollis, Perttu and the CFO receive. They have disclose employment contracts but how much was actually PAID?
SEC form 3-the form itself is simple however an individual who has never filed before must certain filing data from the SEC. Access codes, ID something along those lines to ensure that proper person is getting the electronic clearance from the SEC to file. Once those codes are received then the form is simple.
I agree that Basin is the Home Run-however this project will take a lot of money to develop that potential. A decline on a small miner permit is positive but will not develop the big potential-that can come only from millions of dollars
there are the following choices
-------a) decline-start production generate positive cash flow develop rest of property
-------b) raise millions of dollars
=-------c) JV the property to a large company
When Basin was acquired and the share price was at $0.30 that was the opportunity to raise lots of money-instead management went the convertible debt route
A is the route management is going for now but C is always a choice
agreed but no new shares have been issued DH confirmed no changes
yes drilling at Basin-based on results they acquired more property (which is a reason why a public company keeps quite about lots of details). They have results from over 300 drill holes but the sample size is low and Basin has lots of course gold Therefore they need bulk samples to know exactly where to start production. This work is in process expected time frame is Oct at which point they will file for small miners exclusion and start production-with the cavaet that a new deal could also be placed into production and that might compete for the limited amount of human resource time (ie Pertu's time)
limited to 15 posts so this is my response to 47552
mgmt stated work at Basin was done this year, SEC filings and news reflects that-you either believe that as a fact or you dont-That information is LIMITED-I totally agree-management explained why- IMO the reason is justified-Why would I as DGRI want to publicly disclose great details about my information (which cost me a lot of money) when I want to acquire other property in the area?
Its like buying raw land knowing a freeway is going to put in nearby-do I rush around telling everyone about the new freeway or do I buy up as much land as I can. DGRI chose to keep quiet and get more property-Is this a rationale business decision? IMO a big YES
DGRI is a business, information is valuable. Oil companies keep quite too. There is a definite balance act but DGRI is taking the long term view-this is not about stock promotion but building valuable assets-that takes time
with over 300 holes and lots of gold in the ground-12 more holes finding gold is not particularly relevant to the issue of WHERE DO I put the decline, what direction do I go? How deep does it go? How much course gold is in this area versus the other areas. This requires comparison of one area to another. A small miners permit covers 5 acres-Basin Gulch is huge!!!!!! which 5 acres do you pick?
answer -we are running tests. sometimes results on one test might mean more test
Basin Gulch is on target BUT if another project gets acquired THEN Basin might be delayed due to human resource limitations.
would you rather have 2 producing properties one now and one in Q1 2012 or just one?
IMO I would take 2
DGRI has a history of looking for other deals-see news release earlier this year about some deal in AZ, in 2010? there was a possible deal in NV.
Those deals did not get done. Will these? Mgmt said wait and see and if yes then there might be another conference call in 3-4 weeks
buy low and sell high-no CEO of a public company can make sure that all shareholder buy at the right price. That is is not his job. his job is to manage the company-his actions influence the share price but as DH pointed out the big markets have had big swings-even the gold price goes up and down-DH comment was company has to take a broader view -IMO makes sense
I also agree with the DH point that DGRI is not solely about Basin Gulch. They do have other things going on. The deal on Jungo is a case in point.
They also have assets in Oregon which are basically idle-something could be done there.
I suspect deals came along because of RP from someone who knows he has the ability to put those into production.
DH made the point that as a company they want more than one source of cash flow-IMO this makes sense. Also development of information for Basin takes time and while that information is being developed the management team works on other things. IMO this also makes sense.
Jungo-DH said 8k will be filed so that will contain more information--RP said the deal also gave them access to other more advanced stage NV properties
overall I am really happy they did a deal on jungo (takes time to do a deal) plus someone else has to spend money on it.