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 is not proven NBRI has 2000 oz. Let alone 200-500k ounces of gold. It is all wishful thinking and exploration on the shareholders tab.
Perhaps he was working that story to assist in the sale of the property or lease. If all these history reports were actually valid a large miner would have already snatched it up. The story ends with riches correct? Perhaps there is some gold but it is not feasible at all by today's standards and regulations.
Ask and ye shall receive.
Not pragmatic to base investment decisions on 70 year old stories in my opinion.
Sure was promoted. Going into a massive reverse split.
May not be any actual nuggets left at all. Good luck.
Good luck. I appreciate fhe honesty from an IRP. Rare.
Thanks.
IB won't even touch IRCE to short. There are no US retailers short IMO.
Where did I say I agree? Haven't even entertained it.
I feel you. I am hanging.
Take advantage of it while you can IMO.
What is wrong in your opinion?
Understood. I have had to guard the position as well, like when the filing came out regarding non-compliance with the shareholder equity listing requirements.
QuickDraw, thanks for squeezing in my technical question. I look forward to taking notes and reviewing all the information in your detailed interview this weekend when I will have a chance to be more thorough.
Not completely sure, but I will take it.
I am acutely aware of the lawsuit SCRC filed against Ironridge. I will leave it to the courts of law to determine whether their allegations hold any weight and more importantly if they can prove a tort.
I asked for your opinions as one educated further in these areas than I regarding Section 17(b). After all, you are stating CHP has it all wrong, correct?
Fair enough. This is a forum of opinions.
You also stated CHP makes criminal statements correct? I assume by this you mean libelous. Do I have that right?
As far as getting other opinions on Section 17(b) from counsel costing me $900/hr. via phone, umm, no.
You are stating that CHP has Section 17(b) wrong and that his statements are criminal and venomous, can you tell me why or how?
I agree. There is no telling what the condition of that portion of the mine is in now that they have announced a break thru.
There is also no telling what gold is left there and how much it will cost per ounce to actualize.
I don't believe in old historical reports anymore than I believe in the historical "Yes Virginia there is a Santa Claus" story. An old historical report is a story to me.
And without a PEA to determine the costs of producing gold in this area of the Ruby I am not inclined to believe it can be produced at profit margin.
Here is where the chorus sings you cannot do a proper Industry Guide 7 resource estimate study or the subsequent PEA analysis study of costs on a placer drift mine.
OK, I will entertain that as a semi-fact, although I think you could do those studies but granted they would be very expensive considering the challenges and extra efforts in what is already a costly process to any company.
Therefore, you also cannot state gold can and will be produced at XXX cost per ounce if you do not do the studies to determine actual resources and a subsequent PEA.
There is a very valid reason why the SEC does not allow companies to claim proven resources without these real studies.
And NBRI has already shown me repeatedly how reliable their hypothetical assumptions are on a wide range of subjects, from when they will actually mine, to EB-5 financing being secured, to "test mining" the white channel, etc. etc.
When they announced in October 2012 that mining had commenced at the Fraser property and then almost immediately back pedaled and changed the story I started to smell stank foot. Much more so than before. And when EB-5 financing did not materialize by end of year 2012 when the CEO called me and told me in person he was "extremely confident" it would be secured by end of the year 2012 that is when I started hearing refrains of "Smoke Gets In Your Eyes".
Well, smoke does not get in my eyes. I blow it out of the way. I only believe what is believable, and I believe that the SEC disclosures to the effect that the Ruby may never be actually mined are a lot closer to the truth than the hyperbole expressed on this venue.
One percent chance of actual feasible gold being mined here in my opinion.
What criminal allegations Bsav? I see CHP posting his opinions on Section 17(b). Can you offer a different explanation of how it is applied with some precedents perhaps?
If these opinions are distorted and far from the truth, could your offer your contrary opinion as an attorney so that some of us, i.e. myself, can formulate our own opinion based on a full range of intelligent opinions expressed and subsequent independent research I can then follow up with?
I see some potential here based on improving fundamental advances with partners, but as I have stated before I am unsure how these numbers would translate to the SCRC bottom line fiscally and I have also expressed hesitation over what I feel to be excessive SG&A compensation in lieu of bottom line earnings.
Most of all in pennyland I have learned to be leery of stepping into bear traps or stumbling foolishly into trip wires attached to claymores while wearing rose colored glasses and whistling Dixie.
I appreciate your input as well and as such I would like to see some clarification on this matter as to what is a criminal and venomous opinion regarding a company compensated individual, whether for investor relations or a vague title of consultant, posting plugs for SCRC on message boards without the required disclosure.
If I have Section 17(b) interpreted incorrectly in your opinion, I am all ears as to what should be the proper interpretation. I keep an open mind and am willing to entertain opinions other than what I have formulated for myself, and to re-evaluate/modify my opinion when presented with what I find to be a logical and empirical contrary opinion that I can follow up on.
Ihub policy respects and attempts to follow Section 17(b) in my opinion. That is why this forum requires promoters to disclose their compensated position clearly when they post regarding any security.
This is also why certain individuals are not around on this forum for failure to disclose IMO.
Does Ihub also have an improper interpretation of Section 17(b)?
LOL. These dudes should really be more careful who they get attention drawn from. I guess to them getting that "star" denotation is a really big deal.
Everyone wants to be a star lol.
It is clear they do not check a persons posting history before begging for marks.
Hell, I even had an IRP ask me for a mark.
I will look into that thanks.
Point taken. All I know is that since that star thingy was introduced I get scam traders asking me for personmarks in PM daily. You know the "hey bud, I gave you personmark xxx, hit me back?"
So then I look at their posting history and nine out of ten I tell "no thanks"
I only saw 20M restricted shares.
And if people are selling at a loss, it is probably because they realize the company is not worth much at all.
You have a book value of around .017 if the 1M in assets figure is ballpark reliable.
The stars can be useful to identify pumps and dumps in progress.
The 1 for 5000 reverse split wiped old shareholders completely out, and then they gave the company away for 60M shares. Previous holders own 166k total, everybody, the new guys own 60M. The company has 34 Redbox ripoffs. And a sketchy 1M in assets. What is to love about IRCE ??? They took their shareholders to the cleaners in epic fashion !!! Y'all won't even get a penny back for each dollar "invested" when it is said and done. When will people learn that when playing pump and dump schemes to try and get rich quick there is a real possibility that the company is going to play a pump and dump on you? Which is precisely what happened here. Instead of shearing sheep the company sheared you !!!
Just keep hanging on, maybe the circus will come back to town.
Patience grasshopper.
EOD paint.
How much of the volume approx?
Nice EOD paint job to feign a strong move.
They have no money to do anything n BC except tell stories about those claims picked up for next to nothing. How much did the psuedo NI report recommend it would cost just to study Mt. Washington? One million. And that's just the study.
I agree. Runs into the subs when they cannot produce feasible gold.
Would buying this stock pre R/S be considered one of those bad moves?
Appears the bloodletting has begun. Whoever bought your six buck shares doesn't have a clue about the markets. Its not worth a penny IMO.
ENZN. Thar she blows !!
Wow, one share in volume. Bringing it Buffet style !!!
How's that fraudulent scam OTHM working out for you "bud"?
Dang, I just realized INO had headed over ten !!! Back down now some but sheesh Stills had some .50's !!!