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.
Not sure why it's difficult either Anvil but it must be since nobody had it right.
Congrats even if you are right about all the notes you were still wrong about the total because one of the notes is $450,000.00.
Therefore the $1.8M is still 100% wrong.
Uh wrong again it's $100,000.00 total. Obviously they can choose which note they want to convert.
It states ANY OF THE notes.
Not ALL as you say.
No you are not understanding that only $100,000 of the tangiers note is convertible. The balance of the note is still under the original terms which are as follows:
Effective October 2, 2012, the Registrant issued a $750,000 Promissory Note ("the Note") to Tangiers Investors, LP ("Tangiers", or “the Lender”). The consideration will be received by the Registrant in tranches of $50,000 no less than bi-weekly, by mutual consent. The Principal Sum due to the Lender shall be prorated based on the consideration actually paid by the Lender plus any accrued interest, such that the Registrant is only required to repay the amount funded and the Registrant is not required to repay any unfunded portion of the Note.
The Note has a maturity date of twenty four (24) months from the Effective Date of each tranche. The Note shall accrue interest at a rate of 7% per annum on each $50,000 tranche independently from other tranches. Unless repaid in cash, the Lender shall have the right to convert all or part of the outstanding and unpaid Principal Sum and accrued interest into shares of fully paid and non-assessable shares of common stock of the Registrant. The Conversion Price shall be the undiscounted volume weighted average price (VWAP) on the day of conversion, subject to a floor price of $0.0129 per share, and a ceiling price of the undiscounted VWAP on the date prior to each tranche received by the Registrant. In addition, upon conversion, 125,000 5-year warrants for each $50,000 in Consideration received shall be issued, at an exercise price of 125% of the Conversion Price of each tranche, as applicable. There is no penalty for prepayment, with prepayment subject to the consent of the Lender.
The proceeds of this Note shall be used for mining projects and general working capital.
The Note referred to above (and the shares of common stock underlying them) is exempt from registration pursuant to Section 4(2) of the Securities Act of 1933, as amended.
The above described executed Note is attached hereto and incorporated by reference as Exhibit 10.1.
Item 9.01 Financial Statements and Exhibits
Again never questioned the debt amount just the amount of convertible debt, which is not $1.8M.
Thanks for posting the proof that there is NOT $1.8M in convertible debt Anvil.
Wrong sorry but that is no where to be found in the document you provide. The facts are facts and the fact is NBRI doesn't have $1.8M in convertible debt.
This again is wrong NBRI doesn't have $1.8M of convertible debt. You provide no proof of your accusation.
The debt was never in question the question was how much convertible debt was there. $1.8M is a BS #.
This is totally false.
Thanks for clearing up that the convertible debt is NOT $1.8M.
Again this is false the company DOES NOT have to issue shares to pay that down.
Also post the link that states the company won't pay cash for any of the debt.
Thanks
Then show me the line that states $1.8M in convertible debt.
The link has been read again if I am wrong point to the spot on 1mans link that states $1.8M in convertible debt.
Obviously nobody has been able to do so therefore I must be correct.
The link 1man posted CLEARLY shows the convertible debt is $836,000.00.
That is the only fact posted today it seems.
So there isn't $1.8M in convertible debt? Thanks for clearing that up.
Which line on which page shows $1.8M in convertible debt?
Then post proof.
Then post a link.
I don't see where in your link has $1.8M convertible debt. You are wrong.
So the link you posted which clearly states $836K in convertible notes is not accurate?
Please post the link that shows the made up $1.8M number.
Sorry that again was back in December likely under $800K by now.
This is false info only $836K of convertible debt per the link 1man provided.
Please stop saying $1.5M as its been wrong for a year.
Funny how the $1.5M fictitious total you keep talking about never goes down. It was wrong to begin with and somehow never decreases.
Ask him
Yeah it's been discussed so many times here before but it keeps getting floated for some reason.
Then it should be easy for you to send me a link of a geologist recommending you drill the mother lode region for grade.
But obviously that isn't possible because this has already been discussed thousands of times here. Not once has anyone with your wrong information ever been able to post anyone of merit that you way is how it's done. Because it's not done that way. Never, not once in the 165 year history of mining the mother lode has anyone ever did things they way you say they should do it.
That's funny hundreds of them made a shet ton of money mining claims just like the Ruby. Someone should go back and let them know they were wrong.
Again hard to understand for newbies but drilling to locate the channel is not proving reserves.
Let's hope so.
Doesn't matter, the facts are in the mother lode region you don't prove reserves so your earlier comment is 100% wrong. When nobody in the history of gold mining has ever proved reserves for this type of mine and you say they should you are 100% wrong.
Good luck Yankee
Uh the conversation was about the geologic process in the mother lode region.
What isn't working?
Lmao despite the overwhelming fact that reserves CANT be proven at the Ruby the false story continues to be told.
Lmao nonsense? It's basic geology.
Sorry this stuff can be hard to understand. Basically gold that collected in the Big Bend didn't originate in the Big Bend. Obviously any novice gold miner would know that the gold would have had to come from upstream. The Black channel had cut through the gold bearing channel and robbed it of its gold. This has been documented that the grade dropped 1,500 feet upstream from the Big Bend, so it is around this location that the black channel was no longer cutting into the older gold bearing channel. Since the gold would have remained locked into the Big Bend for hundreds of thousands of years the origination of the gold, otherwise known as the Blad Mountain extension as describe in the Henkle report on pages 51-54, has yet to be discovered. This is what C L Best and NBRI are obviously looking for. As Henkle describes it discovery of this channel "the reserve situation would be radically altered" if this extension can be found. Since it wouldn't have got up and walked away it remains hidden inside the Ruby property.
Henkle report:
http://www.northbayresources.com/ruby/rubymine43101.pdf