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.
It doesn't take an expert to see that a simple 800 fold reduction in mass can result in a 40 fold increase in mineral concentration or sample grade. Explaining this point in so many different ways in hope that it can get across your thick head is very exhausting. I used to think your incorrigability was a result of misunderstanding and an adversity to who was presenting the information. Now I am convinced of ignorance, dishonesty, and I imagine you are merely trying to troll me, and wear me down so that you might get a final word in. Did you ever get to discuss these points further or otherwise corroborate your findings with your network of... whoever they are?
No, I am not an expert. ...but let me tell you who is: Florin Analytical Services, Steve Dobson, Peter Ellsworth, Thad Marvin, and Liberty Refiners. I defer to them each in their own right as independent third parties, with their own reputation to look after. I look forward to Florin's lab analysis results of this particular series of concentrated samples, but I am not sure I look forward to reading your rationalizations and gaslighting in response if you continue to insist that such discrepancy exists even after the concentration process is further validated, original assumptions confirmed, and data further certified by these professionals.
To address the points raised by Gitreal:
1. Understanding Sample Concentration and Original Grade:
- Gitreal's emphasis on the original sample grade being around 0.14 oz/ton, derived from an 800-fold concentration, needs clarification. In mineral processing, the concentration process increases the gold content in the resulting sample but doesn’t change the total amount of gold present. The original sample's grade of around 2.925 oz/ton, as mentioned earlier, is a more direct measure of the gold content in the stockpile before concentration. This figure is significantly higher than 0.14 oz/ton and aligns more closely with the high-grade classification. Insisting that the original stockpile's average grade of 0.14 oz/ ton has been thoroughly refuted as a result of misunderstanding, or worse, a petty attempt to manufacture a discrepancy where none exists.
2. Definition of 'Bonanza Grade':
- 'Bonanza grade' typically refers to extraordinarily high-grade ore, necessarily measured over 1 oz/ton. The concentrate grade of 117 oz/ton is indeed exceptional, but as the respondent correctly points out, it’s the result of concentrating the ore, and in this case derived from a 50 lb sample. The more relevant figure for assessing the overall quality of the stockpile is the original grade of 2.925 oz/ton. This indeed fits the definition of "Bonanza Grade" once found to be consistent. I also believe more sampling data should be collected and released to support this.
3. Statistical Defense of Sampling:
- The critique that one sample from a large pile of rock is not statistically defensible is valid. In mining, it’s well-understood that a single sample may not represent the entire stockpile. That’s why mining operations usually conduct multiple, strategically distributed sampling throughout a stockpile to get a more accurate representation of the overall grade. The information provided doesn't specify if multiple samples were taken, but this would be a standard procedure in resource estimation.
In summary, while the original sample grade is indeed the crucial number for assessing the stockpile's overall value, it's important to accurately understand the implications of the concentration process. The original grade of 2.925 oz/ton, if representative of the stockpile, indicates a high-grade, ore. However, the point about the need for comprehensive sampling to statistically validate the grade of a large stockpile is well-taken and crucial for a proper assessment of the deposit’s value.
Turd? Your crystal ball's track record.
Like I said, reaffirm the facts, but a healthy level of skepticism too. I like management, and the risk profile they represent so far has only gotten better.
SDRC's CEO has promised a Q4 dividend with a goal of .04 (but may be revised up or down to reflect actual revenues) This was discussed in detail in their recent Shareholders' meeting, and on his Twitter account. Filings and distributions come later.
Also, to address a few more points, the concern about production being only "a few ounces" seems misplaced. The reported grades, particularly the 117 oz/ton in the concentrate, suggest a potential for significantly more than just a few ounces of production. Even small-scale mining operations can yield substantial amounts of gold, especially with such high-grade.
While skepticism in investment matters is healthy, it's important to base critiques on the realities of the industry and the specific circumstances of the company, rather than on comparisons to entertainment (in gitreals case, The History Channel's "Gold Rush") or assumptions of minimal production. All that beig said, a great number of their circumstances as far as competitive advantage have attained the realm of fantastic. The sheer amount of bonanza-grade ore accumulated with next to 0 as far as cost of mining, should be mindbogling!
As for the mention of Sunnyland, I will comment that the incentivisation structure vitalized by Sunnylands involvement is only a plus for this stock at this point and going forward. This is because of how much of his reputation and all else he has built rides on the success of SDRC. If you hate Sunnyland and want to destroy him, you're going to have to destroy SDRC. I have news for you though. You can't. You may try, but that bird has flown. Real production output and first revenues on deck.
I will enjoy it and look forward to it.
Please excuse my verbosity earlier in trying to get the important points across. The critique is appreciated.
The shouts from the peanut gallery never cease.
From share prices of .015 to .07 to .27 to .48 they still are yapping away...
The confirmation of a consistent bonanza-grade gold concentration is not just impressive; It's potentially transformative for Sidney Resources, particularly at a critical juncture like the onset of first revenues. Here’s why these results could significantly boost investor confidence and bullish sentiment towards the company, affording it the attention of new money from the wider mining investment community:
Exceptional Gold Grade:
Bonanza-grade gold deposits, with the level of consistency indicated at SDRC, are exceedingly rare and represent exceptionally high concentrations of what is now sitting at their mill building, much of which will be processed and sold by the end of this year, and will continue to feed their processing operations as it expands. A gold grade of 2.925 oz/ton (as found in the 50 lb un-concentrated sample) and 117 oz/ton (as found in the concentrated sample) is extraordinarily high, far exceeding the average grade of most gold mines worldwide, who typically measure in grams per ton rather than ounces per ton. Consistently high gold grades suggest that Sidney Resources may be sitting on a particularly rich deposit, even as a primarily narrow vein structure from our current vantage, which, nevertheless, could lead to significantly higher production efficiency and profitability compared to lower-grade operations. Very few operations comparable to SDRC's size make it to this stage, but the extraordinary grade has enabled SDRC to exceed what maybe 1 in 5000 mines ever achieve: active production and profitability.
Reduced Extraction Costs:
High-grade deposits can dramatically lower the cost per ounce of gold extracted, given that the same operational effort yields much more gold. This efficiency can lead to lower operational costs, higher margins, and increased net profits, making Sidney Resources an attractive investment proposition.
Rapid Payback Period:
Investments in mining operations with high-grade deposits can expect a quicker return on investment due to the higher yield from each ton of ore processed. For Sidney Resources, this could mean a faster transition from capital expenditure to generating profit, enhancing the company's financial stability and growth prospects.
Increased Investor Attraction:
The presence of bonanza-grade gold can attract significant attention from investors, analysts, and media, increasing the company’s visibility and potentially its stock valuation. This heightened interest can lead to increased liquidity and potentially a higher stock price, benefiting current shareholders.
Cash will be flowing, and dividend distributions are planned:
Previous funding rounds promising a return at first revenues have all been converted to shares. Given the onset of first revenues perhaps as soon as this quarter of this year, and a dividend distribution as soon as q4, this will quickly will put the fundamentals of this business at a blaring contrast to its current (under)valuation. All shares will be accounted for and any firms finding themselves net short at the time of distribution will owe to their lenders the short equivalent.
Strategic Opportunities:
Exceptional grades could position Sidney Resources as an attractive partner for joint ventures or as a prime acquisition target for larger mining companies. We already have been made aware that Sidney as indeed been approached for buyout, as was disclosed in their recent investor meeting Q&A. Their new strategic positioning could open up various avenues for growth, attractive terms for financing, collaboration, and even more premium buyout opportunities.
Market Sentiment and Timing:
Confirming the consistency of such high-grade findings at the turning point of generating first revenues can supercharge market sentiment. It signifies not just the potential for high profitability but also demonstrates the company's transition from exploration to production, a critical phase for any mining company.
In summary, the discovery and confirmation of bonanza-grade gold within Sidney Resources' stockpiles could be a game-changer for the company. It not only highlights the exceptional potential of the deposits but also significantly enhances the company's investment profile, especially at such a pivotal moment in its development. Investors and market watchers would do well to keep a close eye on Sidney Resources as it progresses from this turning point towards full-scale production and revenue generation.
"Too much gold for collector metal to absorb" in cone mold.
Just another day of test processing with the intent to maximize yield. They are now extracting very large contiguous pieces of precious metals from the various stages of their process, not to mention the large amount of pure wire gold we have seen pictures of so far.
Lofty goals for the end of the year and company is hell bent on achieving them. Naysayers have constantly gotten burned here. Study recent history before you start yapping at the mouth (and I don't mean pulling debris out of your ass from 2011 or 2013.) SDRC is a gem in the making.
Sourced from the primary feed stockpile : $SDRC
— Sidney Resources Corp. (@SDRCMINING) January 24, 2024
Extracted from our cone mold after there was too much gold for our collector metal to absorb. A good problem to have!#Idaho #Gold #Silver #Production #Progress #TeamWork #Geology #Invest #America https://t.co/SlbK6XRA3n pic.twitter.com/zhAFG4NCN4
$1.60 coming here. Company continues to succeed.
Smelly? What's your story rbtree?
Are you out for vengeance because you got burned by an OTC mining stock in your youth too?
For so many ideas as to why a stock isn't good, please provide some examples of mining stocks that are good and investable on US OTC. Those of us who actually are allocating capital in this space need comparables because so far as I've looked, (as far as growth prospects, timing of catalysts, and incentivisation structure) SDRC outclasses everything in this space.
Gitreal just defied the laws of material sciences.
Gitreal is manufacturing a discrepancy where none exists and is too thick headed and arrogant to figure it out. He has clearly demonstrated that he doesn't now what (The f) he is talking about and not even his crew of assholes are rising to his aid to help correct (Nor confirm for that matter.) Its no big deal, just take a breather and re-think it. I have thoroughly pointed out your discrepancy, and yes, you missed something here.
It seems we have a classic case of mixing apples and oranges, or in this case, confusing mass concentration with gold concentration. Let's clear this up with some basic principles that should be straightforward, even for those who seem determined to create a discrepancy where none exists.
Firstly, Gitreal is insisting that the rate of mass concentration (800-fold, when reducing an 800-ounce sample to a 1-ounce concentrate) should be directly equated to the rate of gold concentration. This is a fundamental misunderstanding of how concentration works. It's like saying that because you've squeezed the juice out of eight oranges into one glass, the juice should somehow be eight times as orangey. That's not how it works, and it's not how concentration in mineral processing works either.
In mineral processing, and particularly in the context of SDRC's gold assay, the concentration rate of interest is the increase in the gold grade, not the sheer reduction in mass. Yes, an 800-fold reduction in mass is significant, but it doesn't magically amplify the gold content by the same factor. The gold grade concentration, which in your case is a 40-fold increase (from 2.925 oz/ton to 117 oz/ton), is the relevant metric for understanding how much more gold-dense the concentrate is compared to the original ore.
Insisting that the mass concentration rate should equal the gold concentration rate defies the basic principles of material science. Gold doesn't multiply during concentration; the process simply separates it from less valuable material. The laws of physics haven't been repealed, much as Gitreal seems to wish they had been.
In summary, let's stick to the physical realities of mineral processing and leave the creation of alternative realities to science fiction. The discrepancy being insisted upon is a figment of misunderstanding, not a revelation of error in the original calculations.
Anyways, SDRC is doing fine.
I have no doubt in their competency, and our little exercise in clarifying the math made it even more solid for me. Dollars per share are coming. Dividend, revenues, expansion of their claims, expansion io their processing capacity, new avenues for exploration....
I'm very confident in the disproportionate opportunity at this time for holders of this stock. Terminal Fed rates, military conflict, the time is right for gold and impeccable timing with SDRC's company changing catalysts creating a tailwind with investors from broader community looking to enter gold space in an aggressive way.
The key here is the distinction between mass reduction and gold concentration. An 800-fold reduction in mass does not necessarily equate to an 800-fold increase in gold grade or concentration. The gold grade concentration (from the original gold grade to the concentrated gold grade) is what's relevant when estimating the gold content back in the stockpile.
To estimate the gold grade of the original ore, we should use the gold concentration rate, which compares the gold grade of the concentrate to that of the original ore. In your case, this is 40-fold, as calculated from the gold grades (117 oz/ton in the concentrate vs. 2.925 oz/ton in the original ore).
Using the mass reduction factor (800-fold) instead of the gold grade concentration factor (40-fold) for estimating the gold grade in the original ore would lead to a significant underestimation.
While the 800-fold mass reduction rate is correct for the concentration process, it's the 40-fold gold grade concentration rate that should be used to estimate the gold content in the original ore. I assure you man, you need to consult someone on this and realize that you're confused.
Your interpretation focuses on the mass reduction aspect of concentration, not the gold content concentration, which is a fair and valid approach, but for the purposes of checking SDRC's work, cannot be used. SDRC, in this case, is calculating using the gold concentration rate (which is indeed 40-fold.)
Nobody was ever measuring density here, which, especially in the context of gold, usually refers to its physical property (19.3 g/cm³ for pure gold). We are discussing ore. When discussing ore, terms like "concentration," "grade," "assay," or "tenor" are more appropriate.
You have misapplied the mass reduction rate in calculating the gold grade of the stockpile. The 800-fold concentration refers to the mass reduction, but the gold concentration rate, which is about 40-fold, is the relevant factor for estimating the gold grade in the original ore.
Please stop being confused and move on. Consult someone if that's what it takes.
That's not how you calculate the rate of concentration. You're calculating the rate of mass reduction from a 50-pound sample to a 29-gram sample, which is approximately 782.06. This figure does not apply to the rate of concentration.
Like I said earlier, this stuff is better left to the pros. Not to mention, Steve Dobson DID indeed sign off on this PR. If you read carefully he is mentioned as certifying the integrity of the sample process.
40. I have no idea where you're getting 800.
The rate of concentration in ore processing is determined by comparing the gold content in the original ore to that in the concentrated sample. In SDRC'S case, the concentration process involved reducing a 50-pound bulk sample down to a 29-gram concentrate. Let's calculate the rate of concentration using the information provided:
Original Bulk Sample: 50 pounds
Concentrated Sample: 29 grams
Original Gold Grade: Approximately 2.925 oz/ton
Concentrated Gold Grade: 117 oz/ton
To calculate the rate of concentration, we need to compare the density of gold in the original sample with that in the concentrated sample. First, we need to convert all measurements to consistent units.
There are 2,000 pounds in a ton.
There are 16 ounces in a pound.
There are 31.1035 grams in a troy ounce (used for precious metals).
Now, let's calculate the concentration rate.
The rate of concentration in this process is approximately 40. This means that the concentration process increased the density of gold in the sample by a factor of 40. In other words, the concentration of gold in the 29-gram sample is 40 times higher than in the original 50-pound bulk sample.
To understand what the assay of the concentrated sample reveals about the gold density in the stockpiles, we need to consider the rate of concentration and the assay result of the concentrated sample. Indeed, the concentrated sample has an assay of 117 oz/ton Au and the rate of concentration is approximately 40.
This rate of concentration implies that the gold in the 29-gram concentrate is 40 times more concentrated than in the original bulk sample. Therefore, to estimate the gold density in the original stockpile, we divide the assay result of the concentrated sample by the concentration rate:
Estimated Gold Density in Stockpile = Assay of Concentrate / Rate of Concentration
The estimated gold density in the stockpiles, based on the assay of the concentrated sample and the rate of concentration, is approximately 2.925 oz/ton. This estimate aligns closely with the original gold grade you mentioned earlier for the bulk samples (ranging from 0.72 oz/ton to 1.78 oz/ton, with an extrapolated bulk grade of about 2.925 oz/ton).
Thus, the assay of the concentrated sample supports the initial estimates of the gold density in the stockpiles.
Thanks for pointing out the 40 x rate of concentration.
What we know, SDRC will be selling gold any day now, regardless of any uphill battle to establish reserves and regardless of anything else. The shenanigans on social media are rising to a tilt as well and I'm reading from a few investors who hold shares in margin accounts that their shares are being lent out. Shit is hitting the fan.
Sometimes issuing a dividend is a way to save face for lack of performance, company resting on laurels, etc and sometimes (as in SDRC's case) a dividend once and for all demonstrates an abnormally wide disconnect between valuation and stock price. It has been chosen as the preferred way to reward restricted holders who continue to keep their stakes restricted while the market and company can get a real basis of long term holders.
Every share will be accountable. SDRC will issue a dividend and it will cause a lot of suffering.
What established standard of reporting should SDRC conform to, Mr Gitreal?
You're assuming that it's up in the air, and that Steve Dobson or Pete Ellsworth may be hiding something like not being qualified to sign off on such things. Have you tried asking Western Frontier Exploration and Mining to produce a CVV? You know, the independent 3rd party Steve Dobson works for? Or maybe you have just done what you have always been doing shouting into this echo chamber of a website, questioning the character of anyone who enters your turf.
When has anything like that stopped any of your OTC jobs in the past? Since all otc mining stocks are scams, right? If in doubt look harder? Perhaps we should establish an official "GMSS," and have all otc miners get certified: The "Gitreal Mining Stock Standard." The one that's impossible to qualify for.
I will leave that to the pros.
Enough has been done on that front elsewhere and I too believe such will be hard to guage as far as accuracy at this stage. Company is jumping the gun a bit as I believe there is inherent uncertainty to "inferred values for recovery." Not assuming fraud, just relying on a very high level of uncertainty. The output will undoubtedly be amazing however if even a small fraction of which turns out to be true.
So undervalued for what it is....
...even if gold values are a small fraction of what they are indicating/inferring (and in my experience inferred values are almost always revised down as they rise in certainty)... What they have is phenomenal and in no way reflected by current valuation.
A dividend will be issued q4 to reflect the disconnect in valuation to stock price.
What's funny about SDRC is that it's still OTC and the company is still taking advantage of the low standards of certainty/reporting set fourth within this space. That's not to say that they aren't still relatively very upfront and transparent compared to the majority of filth out there. "Fitting in with the big boys," and adhering to reporting standards they aren't required to (yet) are considered an unnecessary cost especially pre-revenues. It makes some of its peers who report to SEC when they aren't required to seem like they are going above and beyond (but offering new avenues for hype when their CEO files 20x form-4's in a row while there is still so much left unsaid about how they have arrived at their assumptions in order to justify, sometimes exorbitant, investment in exploration...) SDRC's temptation is real for those handling the company's money to save all unnecessary costs while remaining debt free, and minimum dilution at this stage. Who knows who is whispering in their ear or what such internal arguments consist of... but in my opinion, SDRC needs to big boy up and start taking the prospect of a big exchange offering seriously as soon as possible. Be absolutely clear about what the company's assets are and how you arrived at your estimates. Begin filing with the SEC or equivalent. Onboard accredited expertise who can make qualified statements in filings. I get it that all these things cost a lot of money but the market will reserve prejudice as long as you haven't already. Waiting for the price to rise or the cash to flow may be self reinforcing and at best delay the inevitable. That being said, those engaged are kept on the edge of their seats waiting for what's around that next corner. For many, the recent PR materials and social media posts have been extra enticing and have been triggering FOMO. You guys shouldn't be as concerned with these otc-types anymore as much as new money coming to look into this space for undervalued, steeper r/r setups as the breakout in the underlying commodity looks to stick. A gold bull will be the name of this game sooner than we think, and SDRC is looking damn good amongst the rough, but still has so many ducks that are still yet to be in a row given the magnitude of what may take place macro-wise concerning gold.
Go back and check yourself, Gitreal. Assumptions before clarification? Maybe solicit help from your misanthrope crew on the math? I would suggest anybody with these kinds of questions get in touch with and take it up with the company themselves but I would severely doubt they would talk to you knowing who you are and what you do. They pick and choose what questions of mine to answer, so let alone yours....
So it's well known by now that SDRC's projected values are merely inferred. Nevertheless, they will proceed with recovery without proving their deposit or concentrations further. That will be a turn off for a lot of people I'm sure, so its revenues or bust for this OTC company. ...and I highly doubt bust given how robust their operation has become. In the mean time, lots and lots of pretty videos and pictures of gold on shaker tables, in buckets, melted buttons, equipment working, and so on. in due time buddy.
Ok. Thanks for clarifying the semantics.
I usually just use the broader vaguer word "processing" to refer to taking the raw ore to a more concentrated form... but that will also refer to a salable form as well such as refining and melting. Based on the recent videos, is that not exactly what SDRC is doing? Washing? You saw the table on youtube right?
Perhaps you're just here to have a pissing contest with me and direct the conversation in a direction away from the company and the value they are clearly creating. The discussion never was about how stupid I or you or anyone is. Its about the company and whether it is a viable investment opportunity. I say it is, and if you say I need to be absolutely clear on proper semantics between milling, processing, and washing for my opinion to be valid, then that's your opinion.
When I invested in this company it was a prospect generator and an exploration play. Now several years later its working out production while the board of directors and the investor base as grown considerably. No toxic debt, and comparatively very little dilution. I'd say that's pretty damn good. Invest in people. I'd say if they continue with their MO, the stock price will continue to do well.
SDRC is test milling placer material because that is a great portion of the ore they plan on processing into the future given the stockpiles found on the SRP claim. This is not all they are testing. They are also test milling lode material collected from their activities drifting along the vein in Lucky Ben Tunnel #2.
I know there is a great difference between processing lode (which is derived from rock / undergound) and placer (which is made up of particles on surface / gravel / sand / or perhaps underwater). It makes sense that their testing will focus distinctly on these two very different oretypes given their plan for production of BOTH.
I am not an expert on ore processing techniques but I know enough to know that they are different. Are you? Please enlighten us with any further relevant details if so.
Yes, I did, and I should have clarified that was the 1 claim out of 6 that were found that SDRC is focusing on currently in its test milling. Rather than arguing semantics, I will clarify below.
The claims denoted SRP or SRL are the ones containing the found stockpiles.
The orepile (Found on the SRP-1 claim) they are focusing test milling on right now (alongside ore Lucky Ben tunnel #2) is of placer material. The rest (found on SRL claims) are of lode.
Next time you need help understanding something, just ask. Anyways, you're welcome for the spoonfeeding of that PR from Oct 4th 2023.
You are terribly confused, Gitreal. Go back and read the entire PR from October 4th, I urge you.
SDRC then described 6 newly discovered stockpiles: 5 are from lode (denoted as SRL) and 1 is placer (denoted as SRP.) By the time the PR was released, the company already completed a series of collections, grab sampling, and had secured underground and surface rights.
The 5 x SRL stockpiles are the ones referred to in your quote which you shamelessly copied and pasted here out of context. These were known from the beginning to have been of underground origin hence the showcase of historical documents concerning the Knott and Delaware veins in relation to these. It doesn't take a rocket scientist to realize that the L in SRL refers to LODE!
The SRP-1 claim also described in that very PR (of which you carelessly left out) is of placer origin (Hence the P in SRP). This is also bonanza-grade ore and SDRC is focusing its efforts on capitalizing upon it this season, alongside and in addition to the vein material from Lucky Ben tunnel #2.
I understand that so much valuable ore magically being found and staked this year completely separate from the Lucky Ben project is blowing minds, as it is mine, but you guys need to get your facts straight before you go and claim that the company is lying or manipulating or whatever. It's one thing if you're bearish and want to make a case for that, but there's no excuse for dishonesty and disinformation.
Zoom out on the chart... and Retrospect's spam.
People are buying and are likely accumulating because they see value and desirable catalysts ahead. Some people buy and make a game out of it. Are you sure your claims of manipulation are true? Regardless, your post comes off as whining. Who cares about day to day action? The real story is seen when you zoom out on the chart. 2019 to today = a trend. What is different that will make anyone expect a reversal of that trend? Not even the bashing in this echo chamber is different.
They knew what it was immediately and didn't reveal it to investors/public until the claims were staked and confirmed to be theirs.
They're not slow. If anyone's slow, it's the public, right? We're in the dark until the company discloses the reasons and it answered some of the criticisms you guys had about the equipment they were doing test runs with.
New footage of the gold table (2nd run).
SDRC, a new gold producer, is severely undervalued to its fundamentals. A dividend will be distributed Q4 2024 reflecting this. At this stage, debut gold production, SDRC should be considered an optionality play, hyper-leveraged to gold price. The company is here to stay and has momentum especially if you recognize how well timed we are in the gold cycle. Money will be looking for stocks like this (legit or not) especially if you consider how the company has gotten this far without institutional money, or any kind of debt, and remains incentivized towards shareholders, a rare and impressive accomplishment especially in this industry, further setting it apart from the sea of filth mentioned earlier. There's been very little dilution to the float, largely insider funded, and board-members have never sold or otherwise unrestricted any of their stock ever. I think that's pretty damn good, especially relative to the rest pool of gold stocks at the stage they're in - the key point. They will be of the least risky amongst its microcap peers as a waterfall forms looking into microcaps for steeper risk to reward setups. Real revenues from gold sales are upon us, with filings to reflect this any quarter now, setting itself apart in so many ways from your scams of the past. As the stock price rises, their reporting standards will rise as well and the prospect of offering on larger exchanges will become very real too. Remains to be seen, yes, but will you still lump it in with your heaping pile when its trading on NYSE or Nasdaq?
Should I not give them the benefit of the doubt, against all the evident progress, and despite the ever present uncertainties? I am very happy with how far they have come since I first purchased the stock, and I'm equally proud of the stocks performance. ...Of which we are presented with every reason in the world to believe is built on sound fundamentals and is still undervalued as such. Should I not be? Run for the hills its gonna dump? Get up to speed on the company's unfolding catalysts and provide your rational analysis please. The cynical "all so called mining co's on otc are scams" bit has run its course and it explains nothing. OTC is saturated with filth, yes, but it can be the venue for an asymmetrical opportunity if found to be legit. Even with your experience as an ihub troll you must have witnessed some amazing life changing things out of less compelling stuff than this. SDRC is a gem and if I turn out to be wrong, tie me to a damn stake.
I just really like the company, and as a shareholder I have a vested interest in them doing well and in the word getting out. Appreciate the compliments but no I'm not an insider. I just pay attention, and have a nasty habit of spoonfeeding the lazy.
I believe those duties have been Dan Hally for some time now. The company has contracted out some promotion and marketing services to outside firms... and those firms are listed as recently as 2022 yearly disclosures... but thats not technically IR as they arent representing statements as from the company.
Thanks buddy
Penny-flippers and growth-investors alike have a lot going on here and a lot to like. The ranges are wide... but I'd recommend all to zoom out on the chart and appreciate how higher highs and higher lows have been carved out a multitude of times over the past few years resulting in multi-year highs recently. This is because the company has been articulating and delivering upon their value proposition wonderfully. Sidney Resources has come a long way to become one of the rare few of their size to achieve gold production. Sure you can buy and sell the ranges, as theres a bit of volume on both sides these days... but we know that volume is here now as opposed to some of the lulls of the past year because something bigger is truly afoot. The debut of this gold producer is attracting new money. Engage with the company where they update the public, and do what it takes to understand the catalysts that are taking place here.
Shameless, dishonest. Continue to be shocked... I guess.
Contracts for sales of gold and silver product are being negotiated as we speak and revenues are upon us. It's only Q1 of what we know will be a breakthrough year for this gold producer. Your filings will reflect it soon enough. The momentum has clearly been building with this growth story, which is night and day compared to where it was years ago... and the process is being documented for all to see! Find where the company engages with the public and continue to be shocked.
Dividend distribution set for Q4 2024.
To replace the amortization expense from financings of years past (now converted to shares) and as a thank you to all boardmembers, & private shareholders who continue to keep their restricted shares restricted, a cash dividend will be paid out before the end of the first year SDRC logs gold sales revenues. ...and by golly they are going big with a 4% goal.
Any firm, or person net short will owe the cash equivalent.
Full production set for Summer 2024.
100 to 150 tons per day. I'm not sure if that will mean further investment in equipment to expand milling operation. But nevertheless, that's the stated goal.