InvestorsHub Logo
icon url

petty cash

06/19/07 12:11 PM

#21501 RE: aclark20 #21500

TRUE
icon url

righty

06/19/07 12:15 PM

#21502 RE: aclark20 #21500

hmmm well on one hand i agree, but on the other i do not see any reason why these new aumc claims would not be registered active or inactive, makes no sense at all, now mind you, we do not know if they are staked recently or what if thats the case then a person needs to search through san juan county to verify them as they would not be registered through state yet.

At this point i am more interested in paul bakers comments on the dewatering issue, and why berman, proceeded to press release the ni43101 completion for end of year, and as well the permits expecting to be granted in 45-60 days if he indeed was aware of the
icon url

righty

06/19/07 12:26 PM

#21507 RE: aclark20 #21500

hmmm well on one hand i agree, but on the other i do not see any reason why these new aumc claims would not be registered active or inactive, makes no sense at all, now mind you, we do not know if they are staked recently or what if thats the case then a person needs to search through san juan county to verify them as they would not be registered through state yet.

At this point i am more interested in paul bakers comments on the dewatering issue, and why berman, proceeded to press release the ni43101 completion for end of year, and as well the permits expecting to be granted in 45-60 days if he indeed was aware of the utah DOWQ potentially delaying those permits for a further total of 210+ possible days, at the very least as discussed yesterday that element of the permitting process could very easily delay the permits for 180 days.

Now this is why i am also very curious why it was decided to wait until those permits were granted before getting the payday claims permitted, in my opinion, and it is speculative at best, all claims should be started down the permitting trail asap if indeed the intention is to complete ni43101 resource evaluation this year.

The main issue here is as another poster stated earlier today, all the claims in the barrell don't add up to jack squat, if you have no idea of the uranium or vanadium content contained in those claims.

We can cheer berman on all we want but without actual PROOF of the content, we are wasting our breath. I might add we look kind of foolish to serious mining experienced investors when we are cheering on a company with no proven resources, just a pile of paper claims.

I do believe this pinky crowd knows full well what they are looking at with this company, it's the rest of the world that comes to bear in mind, in regards to the real value of this company.

The sooner berman proves up resources, the sooner this company gets taken seriously, this is why myself and many others take a very serious approach to how this data is represented,

it is not good enough just to blincdly support the ceo, company or a pile of paper claims, lets just try to keep it real...right now,

we have nothing more than a resource guestimate on a fraction of what our claims represent, in my opinion.

and that report was not based on actual verifiable resource modelling,

and btw....anyone ever ask berman what happened to those samples that were sent to als chemex?

seems they were sent long enough ago we should have heard something ...by now.

REAL