RE:Selection of JackieMac on NGE
"Compare your project to an economic deposit in the area? Check. Name drop majors? Check. Claim that your techniques will uncover giant deposits? Check. Claim that your proprietary information will locate those deposits? Check. After years of fruitless drilling, convince the shareholders that you are closing in on the prize? Check. Have non-geo NL writers dangle the carrot of a 50MOz deposit with no evidence? Check. Dilute bagholders at the rate of 1.75M shares per month for the last 4+ years? Check. And the checklist goes on, and on, and on ..."
...
"Multi-element high-resolution ICP-MS equipment and techniques have been commercially available since the 1990s, yet NGE still cites "New Lab Technology."
[ https://www.nevadaexploration.com/_resources/presentations/NGE-Corporate-Presentation-March-2019.pdf ]
I suppose all the other explorers don't understand chemistry and engage labs which still rely on triple-beam balances and charcoal muffle furnaces."
...
"Perhaps next time $NGE can apply for a grant from UNR rather than have shareholders fund their research dissertation. I've read every single post here, every singe document $NGE has released on SEDAR, every single page on their website, and every single video interview or presentation on YouTube. I wanted to be convinced because of the idea. But nowhere have I found any discussion on the practicality of mining these deposits. Consider the ranch which sits just southwest of the parcel and ask, why did their ancestors settle there? If I were looking to sink capital into $NGE, I'd make friends with the rancher and talk about wells, pumps and water tables. $NGE is too far ahead of the curve. At a much higher POG, middling valley troughs might be attractive. But as things stand, $NGE is a data proprietor, not a mine finder."
...
"Yep, and dusters will be dusters, either way you drill them. Perhaps buyers should ask who would want a gram or so per ton starting at 400 M beneath a valley floor? Or even a few isolated intercepts of 5 G/T at 600M? Better yet, how about some scattered remnants at the valley trough at 1,500M? I like the scientific approach this company takes, but more and more I sense that the goal is to prove a scientific point rather than find an economic gold deposit. I hope that $NGE wins beyond everyone's wildest dreams, because I'd love to see the plans to mine these valley trough deposits once $NGE discovers its 100 MOz prize."
...
"I disagree that NGE can continue to add an average of 1.75M shares per month without assaying something a little better than "anomalous." Unless the company can demonstrate at SGV that its interpretation of hydrogeochemical data is able to reveal economic gold deposits, I believe we will see NGE3.0 by June, 2021. The experiment can't be interminable at the shareholders' expense."
...
"The point I was making is that NGE is an efficient data collector, but their record of locating economic deposits is woeful. If they had been paid for their data, from orders either to sample a new area or reveal their extant information, the buyers would have the burden of interpretation. NGE1.0 & NGE2.0 have yet to demonstrate that, after 14 years, 28 private placements and a consolidation, their prospecting techniques can locate economic gold deposits. How many intercepts greater than "anomalous" have they reported?
"A few posts now refer to officers working without compensation and struggling through lean times. That demonstrates dedication, but the company's financials indicate that its personnel are presently very well compensated relative to their peers. I'm not buying the "poor prospector" pitch.
As far as my "obvious role" here, you can speculate all you want. But that doesn't change the fact that there are many more cheerleaders here, hailing their "Rock Stars," than there are those who dare to question the $1,000/day hype."