is...looking for nuts
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.
mods should sticky norcals post!
The stock was at .20 for all of one day. If you really did some DD youll see that before Tangiers entered the picture in 2009 the stock was around .005. Its up almost 1000% since those days. If it wasnt for Tangiers NBRI couldnt have acquired the Ruby and be about to start gold production. What you see as a villain I see as a white knight.
Its in the Gem and Mineral Hall. http://www.nhm.org/site/explore-exhibits/permanent-exhibits/gems-minerals
A PDF link on the top right shows the ruby nuggests.
http://www.nhm.org/site/sites/default/files/pdf/gallery_guides/NHM_Mineral_Hall_Gallery_Guide.pdf
Look on page 2. If you blow up the picture on the right it says Ruby Mine on the train car. All those nuggests are the ruby collection.
Great find meltingglass!
NBRI 10Q is out tonight. They just spent another $272K on the Ruby and bought $57K in new equipment. Doesnt sound to me like they think they wont make the payment or redo it. But someone makes it seem there is a boogeyman under the bed and in every closet just waiting to gitcha. lol!
The answer is in the filings.
If you have the original post why not put it in the iBox? They cant censor that can they?
So who do you think brings out the first meaningful ounces of gold first? Ruby or Sutter? Ruby made a big deal of a couple of ounces recently but thats not really production. Looks like they are close though. Same for Sutter. Hope they both cross the finish line at the same time. That would be sweet cause Im long both.
bobbies NBRI does not trade in a vacuum. Take the chart of GDX gold miners ETF and overlay it with NBRI. It fits like a glove. You can do the same with almost all gold mining stocks. If you are disappointed in NBRI then you have to be disappointed with gold in general.
There are a wide range of expenses every company has to pay to stay afloat. You of course know this. Are u trying to insinuate the CEO is milking the company and all the admin money goes into his pocket? Read the filings. Almost all of his salary is deferred and he is the largest shareholder. Deferred salary is expensed but not paid. Its a non-cash expense. He gets paid in the future when the company becomes profitable. IOW he has the most to lose and the most to gain. As it should be.
The reason for the new mining plan was explained in a pr last spring. http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/north-bay-resources-inc-nbri-issues-fraser-river-project-update-otcqb-nbri-1774065.htm
NBRI. For fans of "traditional financing" instead of convertible debt heres the mother of all convertibles from Barrick. http://ih.advfn.com/p.php?pid=nmona&article=59828752
Their selling $3B in stock to payoff some debt. The OS will be diluted by 20% and shareholders got an instant 10% haircut off of the closing price of $20.50 before the deal was announced. How is this any different from NBRI S1 financing that also has a 10% discount? One difference is Barrick has to pay around $300M in commissions (that shareholders pay for). NBRI pays $0 in commissions. Which one is more favorable u think?
Geez looeez they are opening a mine with maybe $1B in gold in the ground and some here r obssesed with a few thou in convertible debt coming up for conversion? Talk about not seeing the forest for the trees. Nuts.
Spending a few million to bring a mine into production is not hype. Look at all the prs over the years and youll see theyv done everything they said they would. Thats not the profile of a p&d. If someone tells you everyday the sky is falling and you believe it thats on you. Some DD shows the mortgage is held by one of NBRIs largest shareholders. I think theyll do whatevers needed to protect their interests. Thats prolly why theres been 3 or 4 extensions already. Think about it.
Old news. But still pertinent.
In Jan 2013 Macdonald said
Thats great but who keeps selling? Good prs lately but someone is always selling into it and pps has not gone anywhere in ages.
Solid cant do anything at Fraser until the AOA survey is approved by the government. You make it sound like they are sitting around at their own choice. You know better.
If the SEC commented it would be on Edgar. Let me know if you find it. Or let me know if you find any record of a Canadian stock offering. Good luck with that.
Saying only Canadians can use 43101 is like saying only Hawaiians can eat pineapple or only American Indians can smoke tobacco. Makes no sense.
You are too much.
Here is something that should put an end to it.
Gold Resource Corp (GORO) is a NYSE listed stock. Were talking NYSE not OTC. It is not listed in Canada.
Here is a NI 43-101 report it recently published.
http://www.goldresourcecorp.com/content/DE-00186_El_Aguila_Technical_Report_final_20120710.pdf
And guess what. In that report there is not a single mention of the SEC or SEC Industry Guide 7.
But this is a US company that only reports to the SEC and not a Canadian company that files reports in Canada.
I suppose you will now say this is bogus also or that the CEO of GORO is an idiot and doesnt know what he is doing right? How is this not any different from what NBRI pubished?
From http://www.junior-gold.com/national-instrument-43-101/
They began mining in September. Read the prs. Before full production begins they are doing bulk sampling. Thats still mining. It sure aint rehab. Production comes after the bulk sampling is done and they zero in on exactly where the best grades are.
You are totally wrong and the CEO is right.
Here is Guide 7. http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block474_Doc32.pdf
Its 5 pages long and has no format specifications whatsoever.
Here is 43101. http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block484_Doc111.pdf
Its 44 pages and is all about the format. The table of contents showing each element is what you see on every single 43101 report whether its a technical report or a feasibility study. This is the format he is talking about.
If you were watching the market yesterday u saw NBRI opened lower and traded down as low a .04 on around 300K shares. That was before the news came out. When the news came out around noon the pps shot up in a flash to over 6 cents on a million shares and closed just below the high of the day.
You said the news triggered selling. The opposite is what happened. Look at the hourly chart if u dont believe me. The date and time on the pr says 11:48am.
Traditional financing in the mining space is a fiction. Most juniors would give their eye teeth for what NBRI has cauase they cant get any financing at all from anywhere. Half of the mining companies on the TSX might disappear over the next year because of it.
L2 shows the ask is .0789!
Heres what the CEO said about all this today. The report is a technical report that was done according to NI43101 guidelines. They could have used their own geologist who is also a qualified person but they decided to use someone completely independent and could be the most objective in laying the cards on the table. The only purpose of the report was to compile all known information from dozens of reports and maps over decades about the mine into one comprehensive report that could be used for planning purposes from the geologists conclusions and recommendations. They thought the best format for the report was the structure provided by NI43101. He said that SEC Guide 7 does not provide any structure for reporting. It only says what you can or cant say. How you say it is up to you in Guide 7. 43101 is much more demanding and precise. The structure of a 43101 report lays our every element with numbered sections that are the same in every report and the type of information required is laid out to remove all doubt of what is required. Guide 7 does not do that so the format of 43101 is superior. Thats why they had the report done that way. Whether any regulator approves or disapproves they could give a rats ass about (my words). They could have kept the report confidential and not published it cause they were not required to file it anywhere but they thought it was material information that shareholders should know about. And that as Paul Harvey would say is the other side of the story.
Just as they said. It was a technical error. They assumed that just being current in their filings with their 10Ks and 10Qs was all that was needed. The rule dates back to the 70s and meant that they needed to replicate the same financial statements in their filings into the prospectus as if everything was still on paper. Its BS and not relevant now that all filings are on EDGAR and available 24/7 to everyone anytime. But they corrected it and its over with. Otherwise I doubt the SEC would have approved their new S1. A serious infraction would prolly result in a stop trade order or worse and not a green light like they now have. Have you actually read that rule? After reading it can you really blame any company that made the same mistake? Current info is current info regardless what form it is filed under. Your either current or your not and there is no question they were and are current.
Please show a link to the "law" you refer to?
The "law" you speak of is refered to as "NI 43-101 Standards of Disclosure for Mineral Projects".
http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block484_Doc111.pdf
What part of the word "standard" do you not understand?
Do you see any mention within the standard that the disclosure MUST be a Canadian project or that is MUST be prepared by a Canadian company?
I didnt think so.
But dont take my word for it. By all means please email any Canadian regulators email address and ask them if NI43101 can only be used by Canadians. Dont ask the obverse as all Canadian companys are required to comply with NI43101. But there is absolutely no restriction that prevents non-Canadians from adhering to the same standard. I dare say any Canadian regulator would welcome that as an endorsement.
End of thread here. We are going in circles. You think NI43101 is for Canadians only and I think its for anyone anywhere that wants to comply with the reporting standard. Fine.
Curious though to know if you have a link to any Canadians that are ticked off at NBRI filing NI43101 reports?
What difference does that make? Any company anywhere is free to use the NI43101 standard for geological reports as long as the author of the report is a qualified person according to NI43101 standards. Geological is not a synonym for geocentrism. This is the 21st century. There are no borders where standards are concerned much less most everything else.
fwiw they also have Canadian properties that have recent NI43101 reports published. Different geologists too. Imagine. Just sayin.
Ive seen comment letters that usually say things like "if you have no proven reserves you must say so", or "if you refer to a 43101 report please revise and just call it a geological report" or "plase provide a map to the property" etc. etc. etc.
Their really on the ball eh?
If you can post something of substance from their "interpretations" please do so as that would be news to me.
Their big thing is usually to require all US mining companies to include a boilerplate disclaimer in all press releases that says the SEC does not recogize measured or indicated reserves which guess what are the terms used by NI43101. The SEC prefers the terms proven and probable which NI43101 does not recognize. Face it dude you are perpetuating a crossborder pissing match over terms that mean the same thing unless you dare to include them in filing in a certain juridication.
What was that Clinton phrase? Oh ya. It depends on what the meaning of the word 'is' is. Right.
Guide 7 is 5 pages. Count em. http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block474_Doc32.pdf
It was issued in 1981 and has not been updated since then.
The SEC has repeatedly been asked by industry groups to update Guide 7 but they have refused to do so. Hoonose why.
http://www.kayescholer.com/news/publications/sec-vs-canadas-ni-43-101-30august2013/_res/id=sa_File1/mason-mining-journal-article.pdf
The bottom line is who cares? All Guide 7 really requires is that if a company does not have proven reserves they have to state that in their SEC filings. There is no other disclosure requirement except to also provide a map to the property and a simple description. NI43101 on the other hand dictates a whole range of data that must be disclosed that Guide 7 doesnt mention. That is why NI43101 is the world standard not Guide 7.
Thats just plain silly. A standard is a standard is a standard. Anyone anywhere can use it. To say someone in a different country cant use the standard is absurd.
Guide 7 is obsolete. It is only 5 pages long and was written over 30 years ago and never updated. NI43101 is over 50 pages long and gets updated almost every year. It is accepted worldwide as a standard. Guide 7 is not a standard. It only says what a company can or can not say in its SEC filings. To call Guide 7 a standard is a joke.
Can you post a link to some regulation that says that no companies outside of Canada can issue a report that says it is in accord with NI43101 or that only Canadian companies are allowed to use it? What ur saying makes no sense at all. Its like saying baseball played in Japan is bogus baseball because it is not being played in the US.
Can you prove it does not?
The standard is at http://web.cim.org/standards/documents/Block484_Doc111.pdf
He wasnt asking about any geologist under the sun. Of course there are crooked geologists just as there are doctors who will write you a perscription for anything if you pay a fee. He was asking specificly about the geologist who wrote the NBRI report. Careful now cause what you say could be held against you if the geologist sees your posts and sues you for slander. The most valuable asset of any professional is their reputation.
This is our fundamental disagreement. It is the content of the report and adherence to the letter of the standard that makes it a bona fide report. what you are insisting on is adminstrative and has nothing to do with the actual content of the report. For my money the only thing that matters is the content. Insisting that the company has to be Canadian in order to use the standard is a red herring.
You keep calling the report bogus. What is it that makes it bogus to you other than it was not filed with the TSX and NBRI is not Canadian?
If you read the certification page in the report that is signed and stamped there is no question the geologist is saying the report meets NI43101 rules. Do you think a geologist would risk his career and livlihood by certifying something that is not true?