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.
The report was done by a certified geologist who is a qualifed person according to NI43101 standards. That is not just anyone. His name address and phone number is in the report if you want to call and question him. Or you can inquire to the professional geologist organizations who issue and certify credentials to see if he is who he says he is.
Only a geologist who is qualifed person under the rules of NI43101 can write a 43101 report. No one else.
The pr NBRI put out when the report was publshed says at the end
Can you post a link to a single geological report published anywhere that is strictly in accordance to SEC Industry Guide 7 and NOT 43101??
What you quoted is exactly as I said that the SEC does not allow US companies to mention a 43101 report in their SEC filings. They do not pass judgement on what is contained in the report. Its a pissing match between the SEC and the TSX. SEC doesnt recognize 43101 and TSX doesnt recognize Guide 7. Its a regulators turf war. Who cares? All that matters is what is actually in the report not where it is filed.
You are incorrect on all points here.
Any company can use NI43101. You dont have to be Canadian. Canada requires it. But its the defacto worldwide standard and is expected by investors everywhere as a way of independently documenting and verifying the mines resources.
The report is written by a certified geologist who wrote it according to NI43101 guidelines and called it a 43101 report and signed his name to it. If you have a problem with that you should take it up with the geologist. The company did not write the report or call it anything different from what the geologist titled it as.
True the SEC does not allow US companies to include a NI43101 report in their SEC filings. But that only applies to their filings so they cant mention it in their 10K or 10Q. But there is no prohibition from publishing and dissementating it publicly. Its the worldwide standard. The SEC knows that. US companies publish NI43101s all the time but when have you ever heard of the SEC telling them they cant do that? Its never happened that I can tell. Can you find one and post the link?
Thanks for the insight.
What bothers me is that when they went to sell it the only available buyer was Chinese. And that was at the top of the market when gold was well above where it is now. Why no Canadian or US bidders? And why did the first Canadian bidder in the bankruptcy pull out after doing their DD?
What bothers me more is that after every positive pr PGLC puts out there is an ample supply of sellers into the news that keeps the pps stuck in this range. Whats up with that?
Its BS until the give the geologists name. In all these years they have never done that once.
Wow! It just traded at .0001. And this is post split! Unfreakinbeleevible.
Everytime I see "par value $0.0000000001" my head exlodes.
NBRI. There is a lot of misinformation being thrown around here. Can anyone here post a link to any announcement somewhere that the SEC approved a geological report anywhere? The SEC has a set of guidelines of what a company can say or not say in its filings and tells them to change it if it doesnt meet the guidelines. Anything said in a 10K or 8K that is not amended later is approved automatically by definition. This Guide 7 thing talked about is over 30 years old and obsolete. No one except the SEC pays attention to it and Ive never seen a report from a mining company that only uses Guide 7 and not NI43101 and would like someone to post a link if one exists somewhere. The rest of the world goes by NI43101 which the SEC wont recognize. The rest of the world also uses the metric system but not the US. Go figure.
This is obscene.
The RS reduced the authorized limit to 300M shares. If they issued 200M shares right away then its almost time for another RS. LOL!
Their filings said after the RS the new OS would be 498,164. Issuing 200M shares to themselves immediately cant possibly be legal?
At .50 the market cap would have been exactly the same as it was presplit. The number of shares were reduced by a factor of 5000 and the pps increased by a factor of 5000. I didnt see where 200M more shares were issued after the RS. When did that happen?
You are assuming they use the offer as the RS price. It cant trade lower than .0001 at least on the public market so the closing price is always .0001. But there is no bid! The highest the opening price on the RS can be is .012. But with no bid it could be much lower. Were not in kansas anymore toto. lol!
How is this possible? They do a 5000 to 1 RS at .0001 so the share price should have been .50 after the split. Within days it is already subpenny??? Any bets on how long it will take to get back to .0001 and another RS? This has to be some kind of world record.
Agreed. This is not toxic. Look at GYST or PCFG for examples of some real toxic death spirals on mining tickers. The death spiral always results in billions of shares issued and multiple reverse splits. Nothing like that on this one. Its a mistake to automatically label any convertible debt as toxic.
I think where we disagree is when you call all NBRI debt as toxic while I see most of it as reasonable. Their pps went from .03 to .22 in six months using what you call "toxic" financing. Its come back down to where it started but thats completely in tandem with the entire gold sector and not their financing. Overlay a chart of NBRI and GDX and youll see what I mean. There are very few mining companies that have bucked the trend. Look at Barrick at what a 20 year low? No one is immune from market forces. By your logic NBRI at this point should be at .0001 after all this time. But its still HIGHER than where it first started this type of financing 3 years ago. Any theories on that?
Osisko is in production and mid-tier. Not a junior. Try again.
Though I bet if we dig back to when they first started out well find some toxicity in the mix.
Debt is a means to an end. Until a borrower can show they dont need the money they are at the mercy of the lenders terms. Commercial banks only lend you money at competitive rates after you show you dont need it. LOL!
OK. I wont ask a 3rd time cause you continue to ignore the question. You cant provide any examples of "conventional mining financing" to a junior mining company that is not toxic because its a fiction. All mining financing at least to juniors is toxic by definition. 'Nuff ced then. Great "research" btw. Isnt that what this board is for? Just sayin.
Thank you. You have confirmed that you really dont know what you are talking about. I challenge you to show just one "conventional financing" by a junior company that is not toxic in some way. Just one. All I ask k?
IMO VWAP pricing is the least toxic form of pricing. The type of pricing you have to run for the hills from is the one that is tied to the closing BID. That is the one where you know a death spiral is coming. VWAP is the average daily price which all things considered is the most fair to everyone.
You avoided my question entirely. Can you give an example of "conventional mining financing" that was used by a junior mining company (as opposed to a major)?
You also use the term "massive" discount. How do you quantify "massive"? A 10% discount on their equity line is not massive. Its actually beneficial. Even a 30% discount on some of their recent notes is really not massive. Its definitely dilutive but not unmanageable. Dont forget that whatever price the conversions occur at becomes the floor. And the ceiling fixed price is well above the market so if the pps goes up dilution is minimal. The seller is not going to sell at a loss. Far from it. They want to see the shares higher to maximize their profit. Thats the game right? Selling down to lower prices defeats their purpose I would think.
fwiw I think the term "conventional mining financing" is an oxymoron. Can you cite an example of one that is not dilutive or destructive to shareholder value in the longterm from onerous terms such as exorbitant interest rates or additional royalties or liens that could result in losing an asset entirely? TSX deals always include warrants that increase dilution by 50% when exercised as well as a boatload of free shares issued for finders fees and so on. No funding is ever non-toxic when you factor in all the addons. Your use of the term seems to equate the issuance of a single share at a price below the market as toxic.
You missed my point entirely. The examples I cited were from TSX companies that did "conventional" financing and wound up losing everything. They are kaput. Gone. Wiped out. Is that not the epitome of "toxic"? Better to issue a few more shares than theyd like than lose the entire company to a bank in a default. Choose your poison. All debt is toxic by definition. Debt is good when it is used to grow the company successfully. At the end of the day success is all that counts. Its the companies that dont use their loans wisely that wind up in the death spiral you speak of.
I've never heard of a 6-K. What is that? Whatever it is it has to also be in their registration statment that the SEC cleared so there could not have been a problem.
Theres no such thing as "conventional" financing in the mining space unless your Barrick. Take a look at Fire River Gold. They made a "conventional" deal with Waterton and now they lost their mine to the creditor and will probably be dissolved. Sutter Gold made the same type of deal with the devil and has now been taken over by the creditors. Then theres the Great Basin disaster which was also from what you call conventional financing. That makes a good old fashioned convertible look brilliant cause all the creditor can get is stock and they cant gain control of the company or its assets.
Thats really not a fair assessment. Every company right up to the largest big board stock restates their filings on occasion. None of the restatements were material and thats the important thing. They were technical issues and resolved. No biggie.
The debt issue remains to be seen. They are still 300% higher than they were when they first acquired the Ruby Mine and have spent over $1M to reopen it. That is not toxic by definition. Until they are producing gold that money has to come from somewhere. Thats why I call it good debt. It is going to increase shareholder value in the longterm. The trademark sign of toxic debt is a trip zero pps. If that happens Ill agree with you. Until then I think youve misjudged this one. Peace out.
You are quite wrong about NBRI. The SEC cleared their registration statement last month. If there were any problems or issues that would never have happened. There is also no indication that their debt is toxic. Its dilutive yes but not toxic. The important thing is that the debt is useful as it is helping to pay for opening a mine. In that sense it is good debt not toxic. It will lead to profitability IMO.
Why state the obvious? No one ever said this was an open pit mine. They say on the website
I think everyone is missing the key point of the pr.
When they use the S1 the shares get issued where the stock price is now. This loan could be converted 6 months from now when the stock price is much higher and the conversion price is twice where the pps is now. And they have the option to pay it back in cash. If they are starting to produce gold they could pay it off quick. And I bet the stock will be much higher too. There is no dilution unless they convert 6 months from now so they have time to wait and more cash right now in their pocket to spend on mining. Smart move if you ask me.
This is surreal. At .02 on a presplit basis the price is now 0.000004. Factor in last years split (1 for 200?) and its 0.00000002. Thats 7 zeros. LOL! I remember looking at this when it first started trading a couple of years ago and it was trading around $0.30. Anyone who bought those shares and held on will need to see the pps rise to $300K to break even. Totally surreal.
Nice sweetheart deal. No cash, $20K in stock, and a 1% NSR. Cant get closer to a freebie. And a related party transaction no less. And your point is... ????
52 wk low n down 21% on just 10K shares. No news. Just crickets. Not good.
At this rate it shouldnt take too long to max out 10B shares. Theyll prolly wait till then to do the reverse split. Then rinse n repeat.
When quoting a pr one should post the entire section so that it is not presented out of context and and distorted.
The full excert says "The gold was recovered during a preliminary geological survey of a newly-accessible area of the Ruby Mine located toward the south end of the Black Channel workings."
The NI43-101 report didnt have access to this new information. Theyre doing this right and improving their knowledge.
Cost basis? Cost basis? On 2 ounces? Seriously? U want financials on 2 ounces? Unreal man.
Very nice. They are making $10K per month and spending $20K per month. How long can they continue spending $1 to make 50 cents?
So why did First Gold go bankrupt and let PGLC pick this up for pennies on the dollar in BK court if this is world-class? There is no reason they can't begin production while still drilling and exploring the outer reaches of the property. What are they waiting for?
Incorrectomundo! In 2012 they worked all winter.
http://www.marketwired.com/press-release/north-bay-resources-inc-nbri-ruby-gold-project-progress-report-otcbb-nbri-1617727.htm
Did you invest in NBRI because of its potential or because of what everyone posts on this board? If you believed in NBRI then and continue to believe in it now then ignore what anyone says about it here. Rosy predictions are only wildass guesses made by peeps who think NBRI will be successful. Negative predictions assume NBRI will fail. Predictions mean nothing. All that matters is NBRI keeps making progress and moving forward.