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.
Meteorites have never produced a commercially viable mineable deposit of Platinum Group Metals (PGMs) anywhere on Earth. While meteorites, particularly iron-nickel types, do contain PGMs like iridium, osmium, and platinum, their concentrations are generally not sufficient to justify large-scale mining operations. Additionally, the rarity and scattered nature of meteorite deposits make them impractical for mining purposes.
No known company mines and crushes meteorites specifically for their PGM content as a commercial endeavor. Instead, meteorites are primarily collected for scientific study, private collections, and occasionally as jewelry or novelty items. The costs associated with recovering and processing meteorites are far higher than traditional terrestrial sources of PGMs, making it an economically unfeasible endeavor.
The PGMs that are sold commercially are primarily sourced from terrestrial mining operations, such as those found in South Africa, Russia, and Canada, where they occur in mineable concentrations in ores like norite and chromitite associated with igneous and volcanic activity.
Below are some examples of PGM compositions of well known meteorite samples organized by their type. These PGM concentrations are very low compared to what would be needed for economically viable mining, let alone the absurd ounces per ton SDRC is alluding to have been confirmed in their unreleased assays.
New Video from Dan Hally released: Transcript below.
SDRC's impending deal with Endomines and Unity Goldmines.
SDRC will obtain rights or ownership of the entire Little Giant vein. Sidney resources seeks to take advantage of larger more established Endomines' act of capitulation / divestment from their assets in Idaho.
One advantage that Sidney Resources has that these companies don't is an ability to generate cheap capital for production without proving reserves. SDRC's plan is to mine like the old timers did, without expensive drilling and feasibility studies, hence why their anecdotal AISC is so low. SDRC investors are happy regardless as long as the stock price goes up. Most don't even know what reserves are and the company pretends not to either since their outspoken pursuit of a "inferred resource for recovery."
Endomines:
"We are continuing the negotiations we are most likely we have been looking for exiting the Idaho assets where we have five assets"
It looks like they already tested froth flotation in 2011, but for silver sulfides.
To imply that the only noble metal in the mix that would respond to froth flotation are PGM's is misleading and absurd. I am frustrated at the lack of follow up data / twitterification of everything related to this. I am equally frustrated that the unaccredited staff of the mining contractor are the ones tasked with coming up with metallurgical extraction solutions and not the expert metallurgist P.G. Q.P. P.E. CSO. Mike Irish should be front and center like the president during the pandemic.
Interesting contrasts from SDRC's / Bill Brown's 2011 operational plan:
"No properties with complex metallurgical make up are considered due to additional time, costs and a lower percent of gold/silver recovery."
"The vein widths, grades and metallurgical make up are alike. There are only trace to very low amounts of lead, zinc, copper, arsenic, antimony, etc. Economic grades of gold run from trace to 1.866 oz. per ton, silver from trace amounts to 45 oz. per ton. Cobalt was identified at the surface as well as underground and has good values as confirmed by an independent assayer using fire assays and atomic absorption evaluations."
Mill Tailings?
Backfill after mining?
Ore processing and refining on site?
No projects with complex metallurgy considered?
Mineralogical studies only showing trace amounts of a tertiary resource? (beyond cobalt)
Start up of production mining this year (2011)?
SEC auditor attorney hired?
First to File Inc / FTF Technologies, MRE Depot, Department of Land Transfer Information Inc, and let us not forget the suite of OTC mining stocks Steve Cyros is intimately involved in as a land broker, equipment supplier, and consultant: $BRGC, $BYRG, $XTPT, $SDRC. He is one of the masterminds behind Red Beryl Mining Company along with Sunnyland and the group of stocks Sunnyland promotes as just stated. Steve Cyros has appeared in many OTC mining company deals involving pass through entities like Strategic Stibium Mining / XTPT.
Do your due diligence on Steve Cyros. His reputation has been nurtured amongst the small OTC mining community over these past few years, despite lingering hit pieces on the internet. There's some serious potential here for a long lasting pump upon a reverse merger. There is a cult following behind him and Sunnyland who will predictably be convinced of $AFFL's long term worth.
I have no idea why Don Durrett allowed himself to be quoted in that way.
Even though the guy now proclaims a small position, albeit with hedging language, I assume he has changed his mind from previous statements. His website remains un-updated pertaining to SDRC. Whatever data was provided to him by Sean in private was obviously presented non-publically and would necessarily come with some sort of bindable non-disclosure agreement attached.
Why didn't they show any sort of mineralogical analysis of the filter paper that was to be wiped along the surface of the agitated mixture?
The reflective, metallic appearance could be due to various minerals or elements in the ore, not just PGM's. PGM's are definitely not the only hydrophobic minerals that are even likely to be present in this light colored powder regardless of the precursory separation processes. Likely candidates based on previous indicators include sulfide minerals such as galena, sphalerite, or pyrite, which are often involved in flotation processes and can exhibit metallic luster. Fine metallic elements like silver, or lead alloys could also float when exposed to air bubbles during agitation. In addition, graphite or other non-metallic but reflective materials may also contribute to the floating silvery appearance.
To confirm the nature of the material, a more thorough analysis should always accompany videos like this. If I'm being perfectly honest, the most professional, legit, and transparent thing to do would actually be to do away with the misleading and emotional videos, provide a formal report including an accredited expert describing the process, and just show the assay charts in full.
Look around this market at mining companies at any stage, especially those that haven't been ruled out by institutions, with established or in pursuit of reserves, and see if they do anything like what SDRC is doing. Metallurgy is no surprise to last years of sorting out in any legitimate mining operation but the fact that SDRC thought they could just skip that process in making their projections two years ago, and proceeded to pump up expectations of revenue upon a prohibitive timeframe without accounting for the time it would take to run such a crucial set of studies, paints a raw picture of their experience and qualifications if anything. They don't know how to talk to discerning investors in this industry and don't do the work to eliminate doubt. They command trust and loyalty while outspokenly holding industry standards in contempt explicitly designed to eliminate fraud. They continue to reiterate their mantra "this is not a traditional mining company", and their average shareholder on social media fails to come up with suitable comparables for study, nor do they speak of any knowledge of the mistakes of the past besides debt and dilution. Why are curated datapoints celebrated? Why are they quoting employees of the mining contractor when they have an accredited metallurgical expert who can do it instead?
Welcome to the OTC where companies are marketed to the OTC.
Video released showing a froth floatation process.
Video description on Youtube:
Knott / New Era vein found to have shifted 100 feet to the left several decades after where it was documented during mining days. This has been theorized by Reed in 1937 to have been caused by an underlying fault. The possibility that an economic deposit of PGM's could be discovered here after all these years of study remains remote.... but a fault would be in character with some form of unique geology described, and would support the creation of layered intrusions associated with PGM's (like at Stillwater and Bushveld,) if not on a much smaller scale. We must not discount the fact that there are no PGM mines in the united states, even those with the most famous and proven deposits, that are able to be mined profitably at this time while prices are in a slump. SDRC's marketed AISC is purely anecdotal and not measured by any reputable industry standard. There is no tangible advantage over Sibanye Stillwater in SDRC's ability to mine PGM's.
The unanswered questions concerning SDRC's mining operation are mounting at a much faster rate than then the answered ones. Even if revenues are logged this year, or deferred to the next, there is little chance that it will demonstrate long term value to the resource in any way. Drilling was outspokenly abandoned during the last shareholders' meeting and previous PR, because it allegedly can't measure the narrow vein structures accurately, so the scope of the resources remain uncertain, and establishment of a reserve impossible. There is strikingly little geological basis provided (Besides an absurd meteorite thesis, only serving to rule out the only known economical comparables) to explain an economical PGM occurrence worth committing to. If we can reject the meteorite thesis, I would be curious if its a Pd dominant deposit or Pt dominant, which would greatly narrow the comparables among known mines, but even the XRF's so far are all but indicating it is a magical Rh dominant PGM occurance. Instead of a patient onset of clues like anyone would expect, all we have been getting is a progressive overload of crazy stuff acting like white noise. These include additional discoveries via photos of XRF readouts with no other official language for instance, also a general lack of transparency due to what was indicated by CEO on twitter to be land purchases - of additional previously deemed depleted/no longer feasible mine workings.
Investors wishing to cultivate suitable context and comparables within this industry (and I don't mean the baseless Lundin Mining nonsense the social media marketers mentioned recently), or simply anyone wishing to make up their own mind (like about what is worth delaying the onset of revenues from their gold milling operation) have been left in the dust. SDRC has demonstrated goals of owning this Warren district at any cost to be bore by shareholders, regardless of the economics, but is behind in coming up with avenues to heighten expectations beyond the euphoria already achieved. Some investors are leaving, met with ridicule, some are apologized for, such as the recently restricted, now unrestricted hitting the tape. NDA's, smoke and mirrors, quoting stooges, curated data points.... nobody knows what's real anymore. The Laser hype was fun but that's since dead in the water as they sort out the daunting problems with their prototype proprietary aiming mechanism burning the expensive lenses and mirrors purchased from "partner" Raytheon. It is unclear if or how any of the additions to the company board have contributed. I am assuming until indicated otherwise that SDRC will indefinitely wish to take advantage of the underwhelming reporting standards of the OTC Pink Sheets without succumbing to an SEC audit which will force some of their large shareholders to become SEC reporting by proxy.
Yes, that, but this particular lab (PTOE Labs, Chem Chek, Dr. Demenna) has also been cited before in prior work done for SDRC, such as the 2022 technical report under the heading of Liberty Refiners (viewable on company website.)
The main thing about this test was that it is not just an assay test but the result of this lab having also designed what looks like an incredibly involved chemical leaching process. It is one result, out of a presumed many tried, in order to separate out only the silver and gold while leaving the other noble metals untouched. Peculiar/ironic/confusing as it is, no other noble metals were tested for besides gold and silver as seen on this page, which would have been necessary to demonstrate the effectiveness of the separation....
Regular assay labs certainly don't do that kind of work, but to your point, yes, we need unbiased reputable sources of hard data in general, and not ones specifically chosen or referred to by the company for reasons that aren't anything but 100% clear to investors. There are many reputable labs between Idaho and New Jersey that could draw up a perfect assay chart and could test for virtually anything one could ask for. We are still waiting for assays that are sufficiently demonstrated to be representative of the raw ores, using an appropriate and unbiased sampling process, so as to come up with a reasonably narrow ballpark value of the stockpiles.
To this point about revenues from gold:
"love to know if they are able to separate gold and silver “at volume” right now. If so, it would be ridiculous to let an entire season pass without generating any cash from gold."
There was a Twitter release (yes Twitter's necessarily small bites of information are increasingly becoming the norm of company communications, regardless of relative materiality or relevance in general), showing a certificate of analysis done by a lab in New Jersey. It describes a specialized cyanide leach test designed to separate out gold from the complicated suite of metals we have learned of over the course of the past few months. I will link to it below.
Video of Steve Dobson and Guy Saco on Linkedin:
For information on the historical mines just secured by Sidney in the Warren Valley, including those said to have recently been tested to contain PGM's (Knott and New Era), read:
Reed, J. C., 1937, Geology And Ore Deposits Of The Warren Mining District, Idaho County, Idaho: Idaho Bureau Of Mines And Geology, Pamphlet 45
The pamphlet can be downloaded here: https://www.idahogeology.org/product/p-45
This is very high on the scale of how complicated metallurgy can get given their scope. Companies get stuck for years on metallurgy, and almost always without any deadlines to profitability. They usually figure all this out before they can even attempt to figure out if a mine can be profitable and for how long. The multiple stages of feasibility studies take years after all the data is in... A company in their position would want to take their business model to the bank in order to construct a mine... Instead, these guys have jumped ahead and keep accepting cash privately to build and build and build and experiment, and who knows what else, without presenting these necessary scientific and economic studies to investors.
Instead of proving what they have, cost structures, and what they can reasonably sell for profit, they just expand.
"This is not a traditional mining stock" is the answer to every industry-comparability-informed question.
Investors need higher profile money to appeal to this project, but they never cease to hold in contempt the standards by which mining companies are judged by.
Another mindfuck from Steve Cyros's XRF rig released!
This time it's from an unprocessed and concentrated piece of ore from a newly staked historical mine near their older claims.
Rhodium 867ppm, Palladium 574ppm, Silver 5721ppm, Cadmium 1620ppm, Tin 1162ppm, Antimony 1122ppm
Whoop, no assay chart again, but stay tuned for the rest of the developments coming this fall!
Alarming to me is this Cadmium at such high concentrations given Cyros is handling that alloy with his bare hands. The crushing of such cadmium-laden alloys would definitely create highly toxic fumes to humans... especially given that a mere 1-3ppm when measured in soil is said to be detrimental to plant life.
All this talk of cyanide leach tests, high concentrations of cadmium, antimony, makes me think that permitting will be a factor not to be underestimated after the enormously and increasingly daunting metallurgical issues are solved. The more they work, it seems, the more they lower the overall certainty of their operation's economics, and the more they introduce possible excuses to delay fulfilling their previous astronomical projections of profit into the future. As I have said repeatedly, they can "high grade" through 1-2 years of gold ore, now with the 1 curated certificate of analysis from Dr Demenna showing a necessitated a cyanide leach to liberate the gold, but all that would do would postpone lower grades to be converted later in the life of the operation. Does it stand to reason that these already mined higher grade ores will show up out of nowhere again and again and again?
I am curious to see how this "exploration" and proving out a "World Class Deposit" will result in mineral reserves on any metric accepted by the wider investment community. Upping the ante in this way is a marketing tactic for OTC stock enthusiasts, and maybe late stage gold bull market type people with no experience in this industry, and seems almost intentionally deterring to specialist investors serious about investing in this space.
Either they have done all the due diligence needed to determine that the scope of their new discovery is economical to mine and process for sale, (for those that are new to mining investment, no they haven't) or they are trying to protect the area around it so other companies or individuals don't come in and do their own due diligence, drill, sample or whatnot, outside of what they and only they have the authority to present.
from concentrates, not from rock samples
New XRF mind-fuck!
Released today on twitter, a picture of an XRF gun readout showing: Niobium 84ppm, Molybdenum 38ppm, Rhodium 357ppm, Antimony 243ppm, Tungsten 871ppm
Hypothetically, would the impurities nobler than gold (PGM's) necessarily be found by anybody that has smelted in this locality before 2023?
....or is SDRC doing something fundamentally different?
PGM's were found at the smelting stage, and overlooked by exploration thusfar, including the drill core studies done in preparation of the report by Goldstone in the 1980s, and not to mention 150+ years of production mining, prospecting, drilling, and otherwise occupation of this area.... so what has been done differently now, that makes smelting so much more complicated? From all the documentation on gold mining in this region, has nobody documented impurities in the slag being impervious to the high temperatures subjected to it? Have its contents beyond the target primary metals never been investigated before?
It should be easy to produce assays targeting PGM's, especially by now, so I am having trouble coming up with any good reason for why the company still refuses to. The excuses made public concerning traditional assays not being accurate are painful and abhorrent. This is the year 2024, so we have the technology available to do this quickly and inexpensively for goodness sake. No public company should fly any red flags (like this) for longer than absolutely necessary. The thought that they are deliberately holding information back, after saying all they already have on the subject on social media and in filings is a PR disaster.
Also, why is Steve Cyros being photographed recently at Sidney Resources with a bunch of samples and an XRF gun in hand? Isn't this the guy behind the BRGC property and BYRG property? Both are historical producers of industrial metals with novel and unexplained PGM mineralization, no less recently uncovered by use of an XRF gun.
SDRC is a gold stock.
The company has demonstrated that they are on track to start selling a steady stream of gold and silver concentrates by the end of the year.
Everything else found present in these ores may or may not be a precariously stupid distraction. The PGM thesis, and the silence it supposedly necessitates, as management's "control play" secures their claim, is probably counter productive as hell. I am reminded of what we saw with turn-of-the-century early-1900's promotion of any given region's potential, often based merely on anecdotal evidence, in order to attract laborers and investors. They already have said that they think the PGM's are derived from a massive meteorite fragment, showing that they have discounted the possibility of hydrothermal and magmatic sources of PGM's in their rock. They have also released a picture of what they are calling a "PGM Vein." This is all terribly confusing. Where have meteorites ever produced a mineable PGM deposit outside of individual collectors pieces and specimens for study? What company on earth crushes meteorites for their PGM content in order to sell alongside a primary gold product?
It is my opinion that SDRC should NOT invest in equipment and a facility for processing PGM's until the resource is proven economically feasible to mine and process. They shouldn't even advertise PGM's as an economic boon until then. The scope must be established and a feasibility study must be conducted and shown to investors. Nevertheless, as earlier indicated, Sidney is jumping the gun again, consulting with a prospective 3rd party partner to process the PGM's present in their gold ores, and any additional "PGM Veins" found on their existing claims. I must say, this company has a nasty habit of moving forward in using investor capital to build out an operation without proper due diligence, and when it was borderline tolerable before, now the stakes are higher with a (vastly more complicated to economically prove, and relatively much easier to disprove) novel PGM occurrence. It was dangerous when it was just gold and silver, but now that they're moving forward on PGM's, we are in a totally different ball game: lower grades, a broader area needing to be mined, different environmental stuff, higher thermal resistances, higher melting points, different chemical resistances.... If the company moves forward with a PGM thesis, they're back to square 1, and they need to get back to discovery delineation and exploration!
Meanwhile, we have lots of restricted stock becoming unrestricted (which will probably continue and get more intense until the end of the year with a dividend informally announced) and the preemptive selling that always goes along with it. If market-markers net short have been willing to do so when locates are fake, they are guaranteed to waste no time in taking advantage of when locates are real. Sidney's team of volunteer market-makers should get ready to hold their line lest stock price fall below established support. Investors are going to need to take advantage of any and all buying opportunities if euphoric expectations have not already produced an overweight position. Hang in there for that dividend reinvestment squeeze! 🫠
Super bullish. If you are capable of the DD to find this, then you will know there's plenty of information on the new CEO out there, what OTC activity he has been involved in, and his business acumen.
I am absolutely sure that anyone who has been moving money into this shell, seeing what looks like a thing being groomed to take on a new business, is going to realize just how much they have knocked it out of the park.
To the moon with you all.
You're wise to not trust anything said on this platform, especially from johnny-come-latelys like me.
Nothing to see here. Business as usual.
Whoever's been accumulating is about to get a payday.
Even with the dramatic share increases, the incoming bid from Sunnyland's followers will create a new floor for this shell. Now that Steve Cyros is officially the man behind this company, I expect this to be another historical mining resurrection type business, impending property purchase or merger.
Strategic Advisory and Collaborations Advisory Expansion
Quoted from SDRC's 2024 Q2 Report on OTCMarkets:
Engagement with a Specialized Recovery Company
Quoted from SDRC's 2024 Q2 Report on OTCMarkets:
Jul 23, 2024 quote from Sean-Rae Zalewski (@SeanRaeZalewski) on X
Evaluation of Geology for Meteorite Strike
Quoted from SDRC's 2024 Q2 Report on OTCMarkets:
Metallurgical Testing and Complex Ore Challenges
Quoted from SDRC's 2024 Q2 Report on OTCMarkets:
First Mac Shahsavar live interview announced!
Wed, Aug 14 at 4:30 PM EST. Link to twitter.
He will be sitting with his in-house geologist James Ingraffia. What questions should listeners find most pertinent to ask in case of an open Q&A?
The cited "Estimated Results" is clearly far from a definitive nor exhaustive account. Let's not pretend that it is or is even meant to be. For conversations sake, I do see some problems that could lead to a wide margin of error if you were to treat it as such. We must understand that we will necessarily not have access to the same information the company does in order to do that though:
One thing that stands out to me is the conversion of grams to ounces instead of troy ounces. The spot price of precious metals is the market's conversion rate per troy ounce. There are approximately 31.1035 grams in a troy ounce. 1,381,830 grams would equal 44,416 troy ounces.
The value of $1382.00 per ounce is stated as a "portion of the potential values." This implies there might be higher possible values, but does not provide a basis for the chosen value. For calculations sake, market fluctuations and metal purity levels have already seriously affected this value, and gold is clearly not the only metal present in any of their concentrations. Recovered Ounces = 44,416 × 0.80 = 35,533 ounces. Total Value = 35,533 ounces × 1382.00 dollars/ounce = 49,111,906 dollars. A small difference, perhaps.
The aforementioned problems are not what concern me as an investor. The margin of error between $49million and $53million for 6 months of work (set to expand) is nominal. What will interest me most are calculations confirming previous projections of the stockpiles grade, and a break down of all in sustaining costs of running this operation, in order to arrive at a projected long term value of the project. We don't know how much stockpiled ore it took to create this amount of product, nor do we have a break down of costs to know how much profit will be available for the company and shareholders.
That all being said, I appreciate the preview from SDRC but realize that every one of these numbers can and probably will change.
Revenues before reserves.
I think those 3 words answer all of those questions.
Filtering through the flagrant remarks and assumptions of failure,
I do think your suggestions are reasonable. The PGM's should be presented as is.... In original sample amount, raw ore grade; Not concentrated amount because there's plausible deniability that the math could be wrong or fudged. This is one of the situations where it will be worth presenting with accredited opinion, and a brief report for context.
REE should be presented as-is as well, but as-is only... especially if they are not prepared to pursue what they could reasonably concur to be an economical resource of REE (or the possibility thereof.) Those detected are merely at or near XRF threshold levels as far as presented so far. Unless they have new undisclosed information about these proving otherwise, I doubt they will be pursued as a resource. The fact that Sean has pointed out XRF readings of REE may be somewhat of a "red flag" but probably not a malignant one as if it necessarily means outright fraud. Like you said, REE's are relatively common and exist almost ubiquitously in at or near detectability thresholds. He didn't lie, though he did get excited about it, and did expect others to as well. Perhaps it is amateurish at best... and some may insist this judgement isn't one to be made by a qualified CEO. My personal preference would be to remain reserved and prudent with these things as well. I think its forgivable, but look forward to them presenting some more definitive findings when appropriate.
Sean's last tweet was very telling, and does answer some, if not all questions about what the company's plans are with any new discoveries. I don't think they realized how groundbreaking it is to have such a problem of PGM's in their stockpiles at the time they first disclosed it. I think they are realizing a bit too late how much more calculated, strategic, and prudent it will be appropriate to be with the cards that are in their hand. We agree that the prize is big if they can substantiate some of the claims being thrown around so far, and will work to secure their interests before doing so lest it provoke competitors.
I believe that's exactly what they have done and they are working to secure their position in the district as we speak and before a more full or substantial disclosure of their work pertaining to this discovery.
I think that's reasonable.
REE may not be pursued beyond the detectable levels of XRF.
In anything other than a concentrated form, I don't see how PGM's wouldn't be found in anything that isn't an amount measured in ppm. It remains to be seen if anything beyond the gold and silver (or even the gold and silver for that matter) can or will be proven to be of an economic / commercial grade resource any time soon given the grass roots financed / non dilutive / pre-revenues financial position of the company.
I do expect circumstances to change in the coming years however with a history of gold sales behind them. At that point, the company will pursue bankability of their assets and perhaps formal feasibility studies and reserves will be established at that time.
So all they have to do is prove PGMs & REE's?
Is that all they have to do to attain credibility and legitimacy in your eyes? Something tells me that even after that's done you'd still be here talking the same tone.
What "facts" would you need to ignore?
Please take your time and provide an exhaustive list.
Gitreal, grasping at straws for no reason.
I know you have enough criticisms that could make a Barrick or Newmont look like a dumpsterfire. You make it seem like you are the only person here to have done due diligence on the company, which is not true at all. Astroturf is all that is. Quite a few people who still follow the company since Bill Brown's days are well past posting here for its now very predictable toxicity. All the research you ever do is for the purpose of validation of your underlying thesis: a mining stock on OTC = scam, necessarily.
Everybody knows, the odds of any stock promoted on OTC failing are most certainly in your favor. It's most unimpressive to take your side. Compounding this, you focus on mining. Look at the success rate of early stage mining projects as a group: dismal! Look at the size and stage of the companies being predated upon: Mom and Pop shops and startups have vastly higher failure rate than well-banked corporations. Yes, OTC has a lower barrier of entry as far as reporting and listing requirements (which is actually becoming stricter), and companies list here despite the OTC's baggage of the past, shitty reputation, and the predatory market-making that comes along with it.... its a business, and plays a necessary role in our economy, and is a necessary source of capital for some companies, some who have gone on to do very good and important things in our world. I say we embrace it and work towards an infrastructure in OTC that ensures legitimacy. I appreciate that you guys have found your own little way of doing that, but me and my investor peers have ours too.
The truth is, SDRC is a legit business undergoing staggering growth in one of the toughest industries on the planet. They are going outside the typical modes of finance, industry standards, and de-risking protocols to do so despite being called "insane" by so called experts. OTC is a startup environment and this is a startup, pre-revenues. Incentivisation structure is key, and we have one oriented strongly towards shareholders. No hot shot management, no big salaries, no flamboyant marketing, no unduly frivolous exploration campaigns. We are witnessing a creatively engineered attempt to preserve shareholder value, while they use their non-toxically financed means to build the foundations for future success, self-funded.
Some of the things you knock the company for are actually good things. You're not looking at things like a growth investor. Again, you're just trying to prove your underlying thesis, and spend so much time and emotion on your precious thought leadership on Ihub of all places, for what? The luls? You've never provided any suitable comparables in insisting that SDRC is bad investment. You have never said anything good about any company like its some sort of rule. You have made it clear that you are not a trader or investor yourself. This hobby you have of populating investment discussion boards with your perspective is remarkable to say the least.
Try assuming SDRC is legit and they could benefit from your constructive criticism. They are climbing quite a steep learning curve going from where they were just a few years ago so quickly. It's quite a balancing act, being so grass-roots transparent and engaging with shareholders about their process and problemsolving while also trying to be strategic and playing that multi-layered chess game we know they are.
This morning's tweet from CEO Sean:
Dobson on discovery of enormous dome-shaped anomaly: