Click here to recieve updates directly to you e-mail

Sunday, September 2, 2018

Silver Viper - forked tongue stuck in your mouth?

Hello Silver Viper minerals, how did the drilling go at Clemente?

You mobilized rigs back in October 2017 (link), started the 2000m program a couple of weeks later (link), and since then absolutely nothing, nada, zilch.

ohhh, sorry, my mistake, you've dropped the property (link), were the results that bad? Pro-tip - you probably want to include that PR on the website.

I wonder if we'll see the same with the drilling at La Virginia? You've told us that you have mobilized the rigs (link) a couple of weeks ago, and so we should be having a "drilling has started" PR sometime next week...or are they already turning?.

BTW, if you do get something interesting, please don't repeat your mistake with Orex Minerals and forget to raise money when the share price was high....

Bitch raising money at $0.08




76 comments:

  1. Yup. It outta be a securities crime eh? Seen it dozens of times. Blanks "aren't material" is how the scumbag argument goes, and blanks get disclosed, if you call it that, in a "discussion" or notes to the financials.

    Anyway. GGI.v spew visually large 8 DAYS after announcing start of drilling aimed at their 'discovery' 1966 pod last year. Drill started June 8 and nada peep on the massive iffing thing since. Pffffft.

    ReplyDelete
  2. The option deal with Riverside looks pretty rich, so I guess they decided to walk away after disappointing results.

    They spent $600k in the 4th qtr of last year according to their financials. The relevant parts of the MD&A are below.

    "During the reporting period the Company completed the first half of its Phase I diamond drilling program, a programmed 2,000m of
    HQ diametre core. In total 9 holes were completed for a total of 1061.54m. In addition, the Silver Viper field crews undertook
    reconnaisance style soil sampling and rock chip sampling/prospecting activities in areas along trend, and adjacent to known
    mineralized areas.
    3
    Company Overview (cont’d…)
    Two key prospect areas were tested during 2017, El Mundo was tested with four holes, for a cumulative 421.09 metres. Nuevo
    Mundo was with five holes for a total 640.45 metres.
    El Mundo historical workings exploited a north striking, steeply west dipping vein/fault thought to cut the nose of a major anticline.
    Riverside’s sampling of horizontal rock pillars in the old workings returned three best values of 512g/t silver and 0.69 g/t gold, 924g/t
    silver and 2.345g/t gold and 2108g/t silver and 5.44g/t gold across true widths of 0.5m, 1.0m and 0.55m respectively. Company
    confirmation samples confirmed the general tenor of these results though drilling during 2017 did not repeat grades or thicknesses
    sampled in the workings. A best result of 1.2m grading 30g/t silver, 0.08g/t gold and combined 0.23% lead zinc was returned from
    33.8m downhole in hole CL-17-004.
    Nuevo Mundo hosts silver-gold-base metal mineralization in vein/faults exposed by a series of small open cuts and underground
    workings. The area hosts scattered workings over an area measuring 575m x 1400m. Mineralization at Nuevo Mundo appears to be
    hosted in structures dipping 25-40 degrees at varied orientations. Confimation sampling returned values ranging from near-below
    detection up to a best value of 696g/t silver and 0.773g/t gold over a width of 0.5m from an oxidised vein exposed in old workings.
    Drilling intersected thin mineralized/anomalous structures comparable to those mapped at surface. The best result from this area
    was from hole Cl-17-006; 0.7 metres grading 827 g/t silver, 0.23 g/t gold, 1.64% lead and 1.45% zinc from 31.5m downhole. Holes
    007 and 008 encounterd historical mine workings at the projected target depth and were abandoned."

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Thanks for that, I went and checked their MD&As on SEDAR as they don't include them on their website. So essentially the results were poor.

      Delete
    2. The MD&A's are on their website. Look under the Investor tab. Then check the financials and you will see two files. One is the financials by quarter and the second is MD&A. Look for the December MD&A.

      Delete
    3. my mistake, I was referring to Minaurum, I was wanting to see if they had any new results, but they obviously had a 9 month permitting pause in their 5000m drill program

      Delete
  3. If Clemente was absolutely nothing then why did they issue almost 4 million options to themselves?

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. The didn't...at least according to Sedi. Total options held by insiders are roughly 3 million.

      They also draw no salaries, so options are the only way they can compensate themselves.

      Delete
    2. Ahh! So they issued 3.8 million options to management, directors and consultants in February. Priced at 25 cents, they are well above the price of the stock since listing last fall.

      Delete
    3. "They draw no salaries"? Not according to the financials....just look at the related party note you've referenced. Your second comment about "above the price of the stock since listing" is wrong as well. According to the IPO they listed at 25 cents....nice try management....

      Delete
    4. I reported based on their management information circular, which says the insiders take no salary. Perhaps the financials are showing salaries for contract geologists? Yes, they listed at 25 cents but look at the share price history since then. What puzzles me a bit is the options were issued at 25 cents in Feb but the share price was well below that. Normally options are issued at the share price on the day they are issued.

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. I double checked the MIC and it was zero salaries for 2016. The financials show $61,000 in management fees in 2017. Not a lot of money for the management and directors.

      Delete
  4. So the story about GGI missing assays 3 months (and counting) is all about ...

    "Sodium Peroxide Fusion is required for high-sulphide samples, Glenn. The sulphide mineralization is recalcitrant, and it must first be oxidized to permit acid dissolution of the metals in the sample for instrumental analysis of the grade."

    Everybody got that? Great. Anybody see any possible flaws in that remarkable 'logic'? I hope so. As an aside GTT.v has released their second batch of assays and are preparing for 'end of season'.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I'm guessing that they are going for a "total digest" as a 4 acid could have issues dissolving minerals like zircon. It does mention that it can be used for High sulfide samples, but they had no issues with their assays last year and for Ni ALS can, with their OG62 method analyze Ni up to 30%.

      However, using a total digest method you can accurate measure the amount of (the unrecoverable) Ni in silicate minerals to give yourself another 0.1-0.2% Ni to wow the market.

      Delete
  5. I guess they haven't heard of fire assay.

    ReplyDelete
  6. Good answer. I would suggest the problem with the "high-sulfide" argument is that it doesn't and can't apply to thousands of meters of worthless blanks, which is almost certainly the only thing these crooked basterds are sitting on. Truly GGI.v and it's scamagement insults on every possible level.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Agreed. The amount of time taken to report is excessive. It doesn't take very long to digest a sample. At Copper Mtn we were doing thousands of assays monthly and managed to get daily/weekly/monthly production reports out on time.

      Delete
    2. What will U say if GGI totally proves you wrong??

      Delete
    3. That's quite unlikely, you think if they have drilled multiple wide intervals of massive sulfides at large stepouts from the "discovery" they would not be reporting that?

      Delete
  7. Some too interesting reading from shorter Viceroy Research on Pretium Resources Inc. - PVG.t. I suspected SOMETHING wasn't right with PVG and this document very truly opens a MAJOR can of worms. I wouldn't touch that paper before and now for 100% damn certain.

    https://viceroyresearch.org/2018/09/06/pretium-resources-digging-up-dirt/

    ReplyDelete
  8. Yeah PVG will reply Monday I am sure. AZ was smeared in a similar fashion by short sellers with an article calling them a "Bre-X" I guess 32South did not get the memo.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. AZ wasn't smeared the same way, they did have an issue with manganese which turned out to be way overblown in one hit piece (but AZ had already found a lot of high grade mineralization with lower manganese so this wasn't a fatal flaw anymore). And they figured a way around permitting by placing the operation almost entirely on private land (but it will still take a lot longer to get into production compared to what they projected, as South32 is going to find out ... they really don't know anything about mining in the U.S. so in that sense they were the perfect buyout candidate for Hermosa).

      Delete
    2. Same people with the hit article on PVG also called for AMD last March to be bankrupt by now due to their totally flawed tech. Just checked and AMD still in business with a 26 billion dollar market cap. Now these clowns are experts on hard rock gold mining. Yeah tech, gold mining, whatever.

      Delete
    3. If by same people you are talking about these Viceroy dudes, fine. They don't know anything about mining so most of their stuff is incorrect but they do make some valid points as well. The bulk sample was not representative, and the resource model has problems. That's the case whether they said that or not.

      Delete
    4. I skimmed their report. They don't know the difference between in situ density and broken rock density. Most of what they wrote is schlock. But I give them credit for doing a hell of a lot of work.

      Delete
  9. As far as a 'smearjob' goes it sure APPEARS these TOTAL MFing terds oversampled their high grade. That explains near everything. It came home to roost, boyos got alaarmed thus splaining last Qs improvement. They high graded by necessity. Boyos all sold together into that uptick too.

    Co carries a mountain of debt coming due and who can dismiss it all? There are good miners out there. No need whatever to accept dopey risk under circumstances as opaque as these.

    ReplyDelete
  10. I sure hope PVG comes out on top here. A lot of peoples jobs depend on it. How many companies have these shorters built that employ hundred's if not thousands of blue collar people? That's right. None.

    ReplyDelete
  11. Investing in public gold companies isn't about charity work, providing people with jobs that shouldn't exist. What we're talking about is akin to fraud and what we're after is the truth, something that appears to have been stroked past recognition here.

    ReplyDelete
  12. So gold mining and the associated jobs should not exist. Now I see your bias. Seeing as PVG has produced and sold several hundred thousand ounces out of an operation not a year in full production I will give PVG the benefit of the doubt. GLTA except the shorters and the predatory vultures that chase them.

    ReplyDelete
  13. There is no talking at some, obviously. Over $ 750m in debt @ 15% needing to be either refinanced or rolled over in 6 months and these MFers are both highgrading and moving FAR more rock than they say they are moving. The PEA is a fraud, confirmed by the fraud artists themselves. The unrepresentative bulk sample 'proving' the veracity was processed by a securities crook.

    Tards might have another quarter of picking off the Cleopatra vein. After that the grade is gonna fall off the fukkin map no matter what these a-holes attempt. I predict this equity is doomed in 12 months or less. But whoop dee do some dipchit driving a loader has a job. Pfffft.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I think you're making a lot of unsupported assertions. The people who loaned $750 million aren't as stupid as you might think. They would have thoroughly vetted the resource model/reserve models to satisfy themselves they would get their money back with interest. Remember as well that the models used at feasibility were not done by Pretium. They were done independently.

      The grade issue here is largely due to its high variability and consequent difficulty predicting it accurately. Pretium had done pretty much everything I would do to get a better handle on it, including tighter drilling, more development (to increase flexibility) and better geological control.

      There is no doubt Pretium is feeling pressure to generate enough cash flow to make their corporate debt payments, and one might think this would lead to high grading, but think about it for a moment. The best way to increase project NPV is to mine higher grade material as early as possible in the mine life. Therefore if Pretium is high grading they are only doing what all miners do and what leads to the best economic solution.

      You seem pretty good at making predictions without a whit of supporting evidence or without any logical thought process. I hope you don't apply those same lack of skills to your investing because that's a great recipe for losing your investment.

      Delete
    2. I think the people who loaned the money did their own model and realized that even if large areas of PVG's model will never get mined, there are still a few areas with a high density of bonanza grade drill intercepts, and these areas add up to a decent amount of tonnage. You don't even need MIK or any other geostatistics to realize these areas WILL carry high grades assuming they can properly design stopes around them, you just need to have a close look at all the infill drilling results. And it looks like PVG has also realized this is what they need to do (after their initial brazen attempt to follow the FS mine plan). So now the question becomes, can they generate enough cash flow to pay off the debt from these high density bonanza intercept areas, or not? Clearly there is risk it won't happen, but we can't conclude with any degree of certainty right now about that. My guess would be that it will be a close call, and we also need to keep an eye on the potential that they define further areas with high density bonanza drill intercepts, because those would be mineable at a profit as well.

      Delete
    3. I'm making assertions based on long (very) experience. Snowden yet again and doesn't the chit hit the fan with them on a regular basis?

      Dopes forwarding first dough relied on co's disclosures just like everybody else. They are fully secured unlike the retards holding the equity. When the time comes to refinance the crunch will come, with gusto.

      What this management is 'doing' can't be sustained because, drumroll, the gold simply won't be there at 15 gms/ton for the longer term. It will fall and once it gets to 5 gms/ton this project is 100% pure uneconomic.

      Delete
    4. Again, you're making claims that you can't support. You have no idea what their costs are or how to calculate their cutoff grade. You diss Snowden, who are well known and highly respected in the mining world. Few companies know how to do MIK. Do you even know what it is?

      Delete
    5. I dis Snowden because they can't be the one to verify their own work. WTF is that? I dis the company because they are clearly NOT disclosing material information. There VERY likely ISN'T 20 years of 15.8 gms/ton yet both are still swearing up and down it's so. I'll believe Strathcona over both any day, and the reason for that is they have no reason to lie. None. The gruesome twosome absolutely, positively do. Do you even know what this is (_*_)?

      Delete
    6. I'll take your lack of response as a definite "I don't know."

      Delete
    7. Do you know what this is? (__O__)
      It's what happens to people who rely on self aggrandizing terds trying to impress their egos with spewing instead of listening. Respond to the issues, not continuously about how smart you think you are.

      Delete
    8. Who says they can't review their own work? You? Viceroy? Do you really think the reserve report was compromised? Then complain to APEG. I know what they will tell you. And by the way...have you ever looked at it? The reserves at that time were stated as 19 million tonnes at 12 grams/tonne, which is about 10.9 gm/ton. Where are you getting 15 gm/ton? The same place Viceroy got 2.78 for the SG of broken rock?

      Delete
  14. http://media3.marketwire.com/docs/pvg723_Cleo.pdf

    This shows the cleopatra vein and the bulk samples. I'm convinced these chitface basterds promoted unrepresentative samples on purpose. There is no other way to juice reserves like was done here. (And Silver Standard)

    Whats telling to me is the fan drilling. 15 gms/ton ain't gonna last, 100% guaranteed.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. I agree that fan drilling is an inferior way to maintain grade control. The reason people do it is because they want to minimize the amount of development required to prepare a stope, and they want to make longhole drilling more productive. That said, I think it's the wrong approach when grade is the thing one is attempting to bring under tighter control.

      Delete
    2. I challenge you to tell me the bulk sample was representative. Strathcona walked because it wasn't and the co rejected it's 2.08 gm/ton conclusion AND it's responsibility to report. It would take a large fool to overlook the conclusions of Strathcona over fukkin Snowden.

      Delete
    3. Representative of what? What was the baseline they were comparing to?

      Delete
    4. I thought it was a simply question. You have Strathcona using a sample tower and getting 2.08 gm/ton and you have Snowden taking something over 40% of the bulk sample from the Cleopatra vein and getting 15.8 gm/ton. So which of the two do YOU THINK would be the most representative? (of expected mining head grade, duh)

      Delete
    5. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    6. This comment has been removed by the author.

      Delete
    7. I would like to know what the resource estimate was for the blocks they mined and that's what I would compare the actual bulk sample to. I know the folks at Strathcona. I worked for them back in the '80's. I also know Snowden...a bit technical for my taste but a very good consulting group. This isn't a question of who's got the better rep. It's about who can do the best job of predicting tonnes and grade in the resource model.

      Several consulting groups have taken a crack at Pretium's resource estimate but no one, not even Strathcona have come closer to the real grade than Snowden. It's an extremely difficult resource to model. It defies normal statistical analysis. Snowden were one of the early users (possibly the first) of MIK and remain one of the leaders in its use. Strathcona...they don't even do resource models as far as I'm aware, so who are they to question what Snowden did? And frankly, who the hell are you to question them???

      Delete
    8. It's obvious you haven't bothered to a) absorb the short report or b) followed the link I provided showing the location of bulk samples and Cleopatria vein. Put the two together and something is very clearly whacked. Shorters point out Co is moving almost twice the amount of rock they say they are moving, and that fact is backed up by the amount of explosives used. Instead of wasting your time asking retarded questions of zero value to anyone why not answer good ones that might benefit everybody?

      What bothers me the most is the FACT the processor of the bulk sample is a massive fukkin securities crook and the company has been dissolved and no longer exists. That ought to bother anybody holding this damn thing.

      Delete
    9. I read the short report and the main one as well. Hilarious stuff. Read the part about waste into the lake. They claimed a density of 2.78 tonnes per cubic meter but broken rock runs about 1.6. To borrow a phrase from an idiot on the internet....that report is fukkin chit.

      My question was the correct one for anyone who knows how to do a reconciliation, which you appear not to know. Do you know anything about mining or are you just playing games with the adults?

      Back in May I openly wondered if Pretium might have to do a new reserve. I said it because their reconciliation was terrible from what I could discern. I also wondered how they were going to pay their current portion of debt, which might be the catalyst for a new reserve report. Viceroy has covered the same ground, although they seem overly focussed on Pretium's apparent reported tonnage discrepancies (big fukkin deal!) rather than screaming for a public accounting of their reconciliation.

      The bulk sample is history. Who gives a chit what Strathcona said or who milled the sample. All that was known back then. There's nothing new there. Since then the company managed to acquire the money to build the mine and successfully put it into operation. Apparently a few people with much more mining savvy at their fingertips than you or me or Viceroy looked at all the information and said it was worth the investment. That's all that counts now...except for the quarterly results.

      Delete
    10. Lets agree to disagree about how this dopeshow conducts itself shall we? I say another 2 quarters is all it will take for the rubber to truly hit the pavement for PVG. Today we get news from the Co that their filings with the B.C. government have been corrected. (No explanation for the reason behind the error)

      Delete
    11. The news release explains clearly why the amended number was submitted.

      Delete
    12. Do you REALLY have to contradict every word? So whats the reason for the error then? Stupidity? Incompetence? Fraud? Back up your dorkism k? First US class action lawsuit filed already and there will be more ... or are you denying that possibility based on your vast gurutardism too?

      Delete
    13. Sorry to disappoint you grasshopper but the news article said they amended the number because the original one contained all excavation since the start of mining instead of just the one for 2017. To be absolutely clear...because you seem unable to understand plain English text....the submitted number was for life of mine, not for the year. It clearly was a simple mistake.

      People can sue all they wish...that doesn't mean they're going to win anything...particularly because of one meaningless mistaken number.

      Delete
    14. Here is something to wrap your brain around. In their summary of Sept 6 Viceroy said

      "The overwhelming majority of our research indicates Pretium manipulated the results of its bulk sample program through an overreliance on samples taken from the Cleopatra vein, thereby artificially inflating Pretium's grades and reserve projections for the Brucejack Mine."

      At the time of the bulk sample a reserve report had already been published (Tetra Tech - June 21/13) and the Cleopatra vein had not yet been discovered, therefore it was not included in the reserve report. (Pretium news release July 23/13) Total VOK zone published reserves were 15.1 Mt @ 13.6 g/t for total contained gold of 6.6 M oz. An updated reserve report was published June 19/14, again by Tetra Tech with VOK reported reserves of 13.6 Mt @ 15.7 g/t for total contained gold of 6.9 M oz. Lower tonnes at higher grade and an increase of only 0.3 M oz.

      My question to you is how can anyone believe Viceroy's claim when contained ounces only went up by 0.3 M oz??

      Delete
    15. You haven't given the REASON for the error. What is it? Lets put this another way as you seem to be having difficulty. If one can't rely on the very simple that is only corrected when outted, what CAN one rely on from these dopes ... the far more complex?

      Delete
    16. In life, when there are more than one possible answers it's the simple one that is most likely, particularly when there is no reason to believe otherwise. Viceroy would have you believe there is something nefarious behind it. What could that be? Ask yourself this question...what motive do they have for over reporting their tonnage? What do they have to gain from it?

      Delete
    17. Supposing into infinity wasn't the question. You swore up and down they gave a reason. I asked you what it is and you still haven't answered because they obviously didn't. Why spew things you never, ever, support with fact? You contradict everything and provide nothing.

      Delete
    18. They gave the reason but apparently you don't want to believe it. Further to that point...where did I swear anything. Hyperbole much?

      Someday you should consider answering my questions rather than avoiding them....if you are capable.

      Delete
    19. What is the REASON for a math error a 3rd grader wouldn't make for the third or fourth time? If it isn't fraud it's incompetence. So which is it?

      I'll tell YOU the reason. It's straight-up incompetence and it ONLY came to be corrected because the shorters pointed it out.

      My main difficulty with your spewing is about the processor of the bulk sample. A massive securities crook ran the co that did it and it took a special request to get that information. Said wicked crook MAY have bought PVG paper, nobody knows. Company has been dissolved and no longer exists. So whom does one turn to vis-a-vis that critical bulk sample now?

      Shorters make good points and among them is how (the fuk) a blue chip secretly deals with securities crooks for critical work in the first place.

      Delete
    20. Slight update for the semi-interested. I see more PVG class action lawsuits in the US than a body can shake an incredulous stick at, including 2 new ones. Pfffft. https://www.stockwatch.com/Quote/Detail.aspx?symbol=PVG&region=U

      Delete
    21. It may surprise you to learn that I agree with one or two points in the Viceroy paper. The main one I agree with is whether Pretium will be able to make their debt payments. I'm going on memory but I think they have almost $400 million current. (Payable within the next 12 months) They have $140 million in cash and will generate at best $40 million in FCF over the next 4 qtrs. That gives them $300 million...not enough to pay their current debt.

      I also suspect (and said so in May) that the reserves will be downsized because they simply cannot reconcile between actual ounces and their reserve model. This is a theme underlying Viceroy's claims. I question Pretium's plan to expand the mill and increase tonnage. This will not help grade at all and may not increase ounces produced.

      The rest of their statements, including the one about the owner of the mill that processed the bulk sample...they are all just poo flinging with the hope that some of it sticks somewhere. Was it not known who was processing the sample at the time? Was Quartermain's history not also known? Investors who did a modicum of due diligence would have known all that stuff before they invested, and they still put up their money.

      Clearly some investors (mainly lenders) thought it was a worthy project. And yes, they (some of them) are first in line to grab the assets if Pretium goes under, but they won't get much of their investment back because most of it went into labour and materials to build the mine. The underground equipment will be scrap. The mills and motors will be about the only things of value...and perhaps the camp if someone in that area needs one.

      Delete
    22. For certain total debt is closer to $ 700m needing to be either rolled over (costing tens of millions) or refinanced. That's year end. I think a reconciliation is due after year end. The brilliant decision for a high grade/high output operation is looking fatally flawed and as you say their current plant and most equipment is expensive scrap for a high grade/low volume one. Don't like how the bulk sample was accepted as gospel, for sure don't like the fact an SEC charged mutt dog did it and then folded the company.

      I can't see these boys buying out the stream. That dough will be MORE precious than gold. Next quarter might be O.K. because boys know they have to highgrade. The one after that will tell the tale. I believe grade will sewer. Time will tell. As she sits the risk in this equity is stupid high IMO.

      Delete
    23. I should correct one thing I said somewhere along the way. At the time of the bulk sample in 2013 Serophim Muroff had no charges against him by SEC. That occurred afterward, in 2017.

      The debt owed in the next 4 quarters is $400 million. A further $300 million is owed beyond that. Details of timing, etc on the remaining debt are contained in the MD&A, which I have read but cannot recall.

      Delete
  15. Check this out!!!

    https://www.newswire.ca/news-releases/new-discovery-yields-9000-ounces-of-high-grade-coarse-gold-from-single-cut-at-beta-hunt-mine-692816781.html

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. That's some damn pretty Australian rock no? $ .09. Methinks I'll be sticking it up now. Film at 11:00. http://pennystockjournal.blogspot.com/

      Delete
    2. And away we go. Got some UBER rock porn here folks. Oz is a day ahead of us and looky what the're saying over there.
      http://www.abc.net.au/news/2018-09-10/rich-gold-seam-half-a-kilometre-deep-in-kambalda/10219576

      I consider this tip another as good as it gets for spec players. $ .09 ain't gonna be the price for long methinks. (last good un wuz Golden Bear GBR.v)

      Delete
  16. GTT and GLDN drill results out today.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. GTT.v halts itself 20 minutes before the close and announces a PP. Great so far. Read on and it's freakin flow-through again, just like the last $ 11m or somesuch. I don't like these dorks. If news was all that (it sounds interesting) why do these tards continue diluting with 'tax assisted' dough? Further, why rush another FT WITHOUT shopping for 'hard' money first, results in hand? I liked the main man who walked/was turfed this spring, he was cool and approachable. Latest cheese here can't be contacted at all and this tax-assisted dilution suxs anus.

      Delete
    2. "The company will pay a cash commission of 7.0 per cent of the gross proceeds of the offering"

      Lord give me strength. Tax assisted for a 50% after tax discount plus fukkin grease. (plus charity flow-through?) Pass. There will be a zillion shares out in no time at all, irrespective of what these boys 'have' or 'do'.

      Delete
  17. RNX presentation. PDF format

    https://bit.ly/2Qh0265

    ReplyDelete
  18. You guys need to step away from your keyboards and take a deep breath. I think 3 out of the however many comments have anything to do with the silver viper thing.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. As one of the 'culprits' I would say in my own defense that AG has covered these babies to varying degrees. I would also submit that some of the tips/touts that come outta blue here are VERY actionable. Everybody here had the heads up on massive Oz gold (porn) boulders before the rush. Keep em coming I say.

      Delete
    2. Never heard of silver viper, like to discuss junior stocks making headlines. Like RNX, GBR, etc. Anyways sorry for hijacking the AngryGeo's subjects that she likes to discuss.

      Delete
  19. I feel compelled to warn the good folks here about Cryptocurrency and/or Blockchain. There was a federal court decision last week in the States that opened the door for the SEC to take out the scammers. They aren't wasting any time doing it. Upshot is the gaggle of crooks of VSE and CSE garbage might find themselves wanted K9s the second they cross the border. This MAY also signal the end of the Crypo/Block promos. Just sayin and observe ...

    https://gangstersoutt.blogspot.com/2018/09/crytocurrency-fraud-artist-josh-garza.html

    ReplyDelete
  20. There is a news report out on Titan Mining management changes. Kevin Torpy, GM at Brucejack has resigned and will be going to Titan as VP Ops.

    ReplyDelete
    Replies
    1. Arizona Mining people run Titan and own almost 1/2 the company.
      Wonder what their end game is with TI?? TDW has a $2.50 target and have just started coverage. Estimate based on zinc at $1.10 a pound.

      Delete
  21. Resignation by cheese at Brucejack eh? What's the motivational timing one is forced to wonder. Observers are expecting a NR tomorrow afternoon (after the close, pffft) from GGI.v. Is that fully dopey $ 350m market cap gonna survive it?

    ReplyDelete