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.
I would be shocked to see anything real materialize in the new mines. It appears that the company pumps a mine/property/JV until they start missing deadlines and then simply switches focus to a new mine/property/JV. In another 2-3 months you will likely see another property come up and this one be shelved.
They will be QTCB tomorrow and the next day and so on.
I requested PROOF that they ARE, it would appear that you have answered my question and have no proof to back up your claim.
Would appear that you are wrong yet again about the delisting.
http://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/SIRG/quote
It has been stated before that Asher owns AT MOST 17million shares (Approximate). They are LEGALLY required to report a form 13 if they own more than 5% which is roughly 17million shares. The PR was released because they have the MPO approval. I assume that you have 0 proof that Asher is currently converting shares?
Of course this is hearsay but from the many conversations I have personally had with Paul you are completely off base thinking that they have agreed to "review in depth". They were "looking" at it before they submitted the final draft. When I last spoke to him at the end of July, he informed me that they were expecting to receive the final draft in the next day or two to send out for comments and approval. The fact that they submitted the environmental assessment means the BLM approved it. My understanding from Paul at the BLM was that the MPO determines whether an Environmental Assessment is acceptable or whether a full blown Evironmental Impact Study is needed. Also from a logical standpoint NEPA is not going to waste their reviewing the possible environmental impacts if the BLM won't let them used the lands to mine. I would suggest that folks call the BLM and inquire about the permitting process it would clear this issue up pretty quickly.
Please show me one "fluff" pr from this company. The MPO is the first step to getting a mine up and running and is hardly uneventful. Seems to me the Company would rather DO things than simply talk.
You can interpret it anyway you would like that is your choice but flat out the word Accepted is much more similar to APPROVED than it is to received. FYI though the word approval is expressly stated as alternative in the definition by Websters Dictionary http://www.merriam-webster.com/dictionary/acceptance
I am sure that most people will interpret it the correct way, and not try to debate why one word was chosen over another.
That is absolutely not what is meant! It would clearly state that it was received and would have some follow up statement such as approval is pending if it only meant "that they have submitted the MOP and the BLM received it". Receiving and accepting have two very different meanings as shown below.
Definition of ACCEPTANCE
1
: an agreeing either expressly or by conduct to the act or offer of another so that a contract is concluded and the parties become legally bound
2
: the quality or state of being accepted or acceptable
3
: the act of accepting : the fact of being accepted : approval
4
a : the act of accepting a time draft or bill of exchange for payment when due according to the specified terms
b : an accepted draft or bill of exchange
re·ceive verb \ri-'sev\
transitive verb
1
: to come into possession of : acquire <receive a gift>
Who says the CEO and BOD are getting paid?
Common sense would say that they are not working for free. But with a pinky it is much tougher to see where all of the investors' money is flowing since they do not file full disclosures.
The venture will be profitable as soon as production begins.
At $1600 per ounce (and soon to be much higher) profitability is easy to achieve with little volume.
How can you possibly know that? The overhead expenses are huge on mining operation and profitability is largely dependent
The annual totals will be known 1 year from start of production.
So this is a hope and pray type of mining operation? I would think that a quality company would want to know how much revenue they were going to generate off of a substantial investment. But I suppose that hoping they can produce enough material turn a profit is much better idea than actually having an informed and educated estimations. Of course that is just my opinion.
There is no toxic financing here. Elimination of debt is not toxic financing.
No one mentioned toxic financing, are you concerned about that route? But I suppose that financing a bunch of fluff PRs doesn't require nearly as much financing as starting a producing mine.
well thought diversification Most investors would rather have a single revenue generating position than several diversified ones that only take up resources. Especially when resources are thin as is the case with a start up company.
Here are some questions that investors should ask...
If funding is in place, why do they continue to need to issue shares as debt is settled?
Since there is no revenue, how are the CEO and BOD being paid?
How many years will it be before a positive cash flow will come from the Azurite propeties if it ever opens?
How many ounces will be produced in a year? This question has a massive impact on the overall market cap of a company, ie the pps.
Will the toxic financing and dilution continue until the mine is profitable?
I applaud you for changing the subject from there is no MOP and it is just hearsay, but having an approved MOP is much than most start up mining companies ever get to. It was also confirmed that they have submitted their Environmental Assessment and have been working closely with the BLM to keep things moving.
The longs have said that the MOP was submitted in July and was waiting for approval. This has been what the longs' phone conversations with the BLM have said all along.
So you have shared your positive conversations with ADEQ with the rest of the board then? Seems that if you got excellent news from them you it certainly would be worth sharing. Can we assume that you got less than positive news from ADEQ?
Trying to blame SIRG for circumstances beyond their control again? Maybe that is why they fired their previous accountants? Probably is quite a distraction for the accountant to the 10Q out on time when they are busy amending and fixing their mistakes over the previous quarters.
They are likely listed as such because they filed a NT-10Q and are technically not current with their SEC Filings. In the past they have filed their 10Q within a few days to become compliant.
http://www.sec.gov/cgi-bin/browse-edgar?company=sierra+resource+group&match=&CIK=&filenum=&State=&Country=&SIC=&owner=exclude&Find=Find+Companies&action=getcompany
Would you care to share what your findings were? I don't believe that I have seen any information about the permits on this board.
When did Don Jenkins purchase these claims?
You would think that the company would at least change the wording when releasing BS reports of "production ready mines"
From their press release dated 7-30
This other property was of immediate interest due to its ability to be put into production within 90 days
http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=53644588
From a very similar report issued by Western Sierra last February
The companies chose the Gold Basin Mine as their first joint-venture project due to the mine being ready for immediate gold production.
http://www.globenewswire.com/newsroom/news.html?d=213914
WSRA seems to be sitting on a glut of "production ready" mines. So how much revenue have they or their partners generated from Gold Basin Mine? Remember a year and a half ago this mine was "ready for immediate gold production"
If a mine that was ready for immediate production hasn't produced any revenues in a year and a half how long before a mine that won't be ready for 90 days take to generate revenue?
Would appear that Joint Ventures with WSRA have not been all that productive.
You have absolutely no proof that they have any intentions of "stiffing" their accountant. You have no proof that the balance is past due or for that matter has even been invoiced. Simply because they have an outstanding balance is not proof that they were planning on skipping out on their bill.
It is very, very obvious what is going on with phone calls to the BLM.
Numerous longs have called, then posted what was said to them. The information is public, so those posts have been very explicit. They have also been consistent. The permitting and EIS processes are well under progress, and moving along fine.
Several others, well one other, posted that what longs are posting is 'not what he was told by the BLM'. Note that poster is being very VERY cautious and vague about what he says. He is unwilling to refute anything longs have posted about what the BLM told them, nor is he willing to post exactly what the BLM told him. That tells us all we need to know. He is unwilling to post what he was told, or refute what others were told because a) he didn't call, or b) he called and got the same info the rest of us did when we called. I expect it was the latter, and he is being vague because he understands the legal and criminal implications of posting purposely false information.
YES!!! I absolutely want you to talk about your phone conversation. You have already chosen to talk about your conversation when you said
Sorry salty but you are wrong, that is not what I was told.
Let the readers decide how much weight they want to give your "hearsay". People on this board are big enough to call and confirm any statements that made by the BLM. The contact information has been provided several times and they are quite open and friendly to talk to. Keep in mind they are also legally required to talk about the status permit as it is public information.
So again I will ask you to explicitly state where "Salty is wrong" I imagine that another denial of this request would indicate what others have already said is correct, and that either your conversation with the BLM confirmed this or that you never bothered to call.
Please explain EXACTLY what you have been told that is contrary to what has been posted. Up to this point several posters have been told
1. The MOP is in the final review process and will take up to 1 month to complete the review process
2. The company has done what has continually made revisions and done what the BLM has asked of them.
3. They have submitted a draft Environmental Assessment (maybe my the name is different)
If you have been told something different please specify.
Bobby,
SIRG is a very promising and a solid stock.
This is not a scam and the investors of SIRG know all the details. I suggest you read posts from Imcat, they are very informative and have all the actual facts with evidence of what SIRG is doing.
SIRG has a great potential for giving its investors a big fat paycheck in a few months.
They stated at the time of filing that they would have to amend.
The Company provided TAC with a copy of the disclosures made in this report before this report was filed with the Securities and Exchange Commission. The Company requested that TAC furnish a letter addressed to the Securities and Exchange Commission stating whether or not it agrees with the disclosure made herein. As of the date of this filing a copy of the letter from TAC confirming its agreement with the disclosure made herein has not been obtained. A copy of this letter will be filed upon receipt.
http://www.sec.gov/Archives/edgar/data/1076966/000119312512316008/d386071d8k.htm
Not that humorous when they are required to report a material change (such as changing accounting firms) within a specified period of time. It is not within their control as to how quickly TAC responds, but they are still required to report the change to the SEC. They actually did the correct thing by filing without waiting for TAC's response.
I that you could could place more blame on the accounting firm (which the FIRED) for getting them placed on the chill list than the company.
Given the fact that a number of their recent financial reports needed to be amended (ie contained errors) would be a pretty good reason to get rid of the accounting firm that prepared them. There have also been many other possible reasons discussed on this board as to why they wanted to change the auditors.
I certainly not a minion for LMCAT, I simply chose to answer why she was missing because folks have said that she is missing from the boards because she sold out is completely incorrect.
I absolutely was not proven wrong!!! The standard response was from the SEC filings saying they were given 93million shares over the course of the 1st quarter. If they still held all of those shares they would have to have filed a form 13D as I stated. Can you please show me the 13D filing which would be required if they still have 90+ million shares?
Please provide proof that they CURRENTLY OWN 90million shares and not that they were given 90million shares. There is a very significant difference between the 2 statements.
Larry, we have discussed this several times, Asher is not sitting on 90million shares. If an individual holds more than 5% of any class of shares they are required to file a form/schedule 13D with the SEC. The maximum number of shares that Asher could hold is 16.5million (roughly) at any one time otherwise they would have to report it to the SEC.
It doesn't need to be brought up every single day, like I said before it has been beaten to death and anybody and everybody has already been made aware of it.
My apologies, I missed that as it was not under the promissory note section.
Please provide proof that the company enterend into a convertible note of $133k with a maturity in November 2012.
How many times are the convertible notes going to be brought up? I would imagine that everyone is well aware of them.
You are incorrect in the deadline. They planned on having permit sometime in August.
From the Daily Miner article
Sierra expects to submit the preliminary draft to BLM in July and expects there to be about a month worth of review.
http://www.kingmandailyminer.com/main.asp?Search=1&ArticleID=51086&SectionID=1&SubSectionID=798&S=1
They were issued those shares if they held more than 5% at any point in time would have been required to file form 13d? You will notice the shares were issued over a 3 month period and would have been sold over that time period.
I have read every SEC filing by the company, and likely more thorough than most. If an individual owns more than 5% of the outstanding shares they must report to the SEC by way of a form 13d. Given that form has never been filed Asher cannot hold more than 16.5million shares at anytime (330mil x 5%). So the bulk of the 94 mil shares have already hit the market and have been reflected in the current pps.
Asher has no more than about 17million shares. If the company had more than 5% of the outstanding shares they would have to report it. Please provide proof that they have more than 10million.
Those "long" candles are not accurate. They were generated by opening trades of .001x for a couple of thousand shares, and were likely some form of price manipulation. If you exclude those erroneous trades you would see that nothing has sold for less than .005x in the last month or so. Excluding those shares would paint a much different picture.
So the .003 comes from where? We have seen the bulk of the shares coming through in excess of .006 currently you could sell 50k for at least .005 and likely .0064 (5k showing but likely much higher). For that matter a trade just went through for 80k @ .0065.
So exactly what dollar value constitutes significant interest in your opinion? Does $1241 indicate strong interest?