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.
I guess I am just curious how GDSM/WSRA hopes to avoid complying with the mining regulations and get into production at the "Azurite Mine" in 3-4 months! Apparently, they have come up with some magical way to remove gold from the dumps and tailings, without disturbing the dumps or tailings. And, without any kind of milling, processing, or generation of additional tailings. Truly amazing!
I could take that idea to some other folks I know who have been unsucessfully trying to get permits for their little mining operations for years! All their problems would be solved!
I don't really care GDSM's "funding" news - they can say whatever they want and it will be as unreliable as every other PR and Marketing Presentation they have given. I just want to know about this magical gold process they have discovered....!!
Same amount of intrusion by Arizona regulations, private land or not. You still didn't answer how the gold is to be removed from the ore (whether it is dumps, tailings or new rock from the mine). How is GDSM/WSRA going to do it without triggering APP rules?
Is the gold going to be removed via magic? How do you think GDSM will remove the gold without water? Any process they will use to remove gold from the tailings and dumps will result in disturbance of the tailings and dumps, right? Once disturbed, they are regulated under the APP program. It is wishful thinking that they hope to avoid the APP process.
No, not really - I doubt my posts make anybody very happy. Hearing about rules and regulations that apply to private land are not what folks who own GDSM stock want to hear.
The APP rules apply to private land, and they also apply to mining operations where chemicals are not added. Metals in the ores at the Azurite include lead, arsenic, copper, zinc, and a whole host of others. ADEQ will require that the tailings and the dumps be tested to see if they are capable of leaching contamination. Sulfide ores, such as produced historically by the Azurite Mine, are also capable of creating acid runoff which will have to be evaluated. Failure of any metal or the "acid" test will require a full APP before any processing or mining can occur.
Hey, a fan! And I was starting to think that no one wanted a little dose of reality.
Anybody wonder why none of the other hundreds of old mines in the Bradshaws have been re-opened? Yes, there was significant gold production in the Bradshaws 50 to 100 years ago, but the reality of today is that narrow, high-grade veins are extremely difficult to mine economically, especially when the near-surface parts of the vein are mined out. And unlike the good old days, you cannot just dump your tailings down the hillside (private property or not).
Well, you have apparently bought GDSM's story about no permits needed. I have to disagree. Private land or not, the APP rules apply. Chemicals or not, the APP rules apply because they are proposing to process dumps and tailings that will not pass ADEQ's rules regarding what is "inert". The dumps and tailings will almost certainly fail the tests for lead, and probably for arsenic, and a few other metals. And, don't forget about acid base accounting, sulfides, etc. Please read the regulations.
If they proceed with disturbing those tailings and dumps, the Whartons will be the ones to pay the price.
Wash out the gold? What does that mean?
Both. I don't see any problem with my two statements and I don't believe they conflict (man, you have got quite a memory, $B_rich!). I will stick with my statement that no gold will be produced at the Gold Star/Gold Crown by GDSM. And, yes, the grade is still highly suspect, since no credible sampling results have been released.
However, my point is that if someone (not GDSM) with more realistic expectations were to stick to the stream channels, they might get some gold out. Not sure if it would be profitable or not, and it would be several orders of magnitude fewer ounces than a certain unlicensed "mining engineer" has predicted.
Relatively little permitting means just that - in comparison to the permitting that the "Azurite" would require, the permitting at the Gold Star/Gold Crown would be less. No APP to worry about which is the killer when it comes to permitting a hard rock operation.
That's nice of you to say - I have done my homework, and so can you! All of the rules regarding mining are available on-line, anybody can go take a peek and see for themselves. Here are a couple links....
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/permits/app.html#area
http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/wastewater/download/badctmanual.pdf
The BADCT Manual is a real beauty - almost 300 pages! On page 2-43, there is a lengthy description of what must be done with tailings. "Prescriptive BADCT criteria for a typical Tailing Impoundment design for precious metal operations is discussed herein."
No, starting up a hardrock mine is not cheaper than a placer mine, not even close! A placer operation is essentially a sand and gravel operation, with relatively little permitting to worry about. A hardrock mine has a tremendously difficult startup effort to overcome. If they think they can just start milling and processing dumps and tailings without the proper permitting, they are mistaken.
Seriously, I think their odds are better at the Gold Star/Gold Crown at producing gold someday. I doubt there is even a hundredth of the amount of gold they are stating in their "technical" report, but a small operation might result in a few hundred ounces if they stick to the stream channel, can make it through the permitting, and if they run enough gravel.
Why take on a several-year-long permitting process at a hardrock mine? It will drain their finances - engineers, geologists, labs, monitoring well drilling costs, etc. - it all adds up.
Absolutely. If they cannot show progress on the first project they were so heavily promoting since earlier this year, why would anyone believe that taking on a second project is a good idea? The schedule in the GDSM Marketing Presentation is completely shot, with no real explanation of why. How hard is it to take 25 surface samples - 2-3 days of effort ought to do it. That's only 8 samples a day.
If real progress was being accomplished at the Gold Star/Gold Crown project, sure, go ahead and get another project in the pipeline. But, the impression I get is that they cannot get the simplest of tasks done on the Gold Star, and are trying to divert attention to this beat-up, mined-out, hardrock mine. With the added bonus of a big pile of tailings that are nothing but an environmental liability.
As for being a P&D, of course it is. Let's not beat around the bush. Look what happened back in February/March.
They would be better off finishing what they started at the Gold Star/Gold Crown. After all, don't the technical reports talk about reserves of 160,000 ounces of gold at the Gold Star? Permitting is soooo much easier for a placer mine than a hardrock mine. That's assuming that they actually plan to mine gold someday.
Of course, this is a penny stock, and the real intent is not to mine any gold, it is to endlessly string investors along through a series of P&D's.
Since the 1920's. Here, go learn something.....
http://www.btr.state.az.us/regulations/statues.asp#32-102
Statutes governing the Arizona State Board of Technical Registration
Regulating: Architects; Assayers; Certified Remediation Specialists; Drug Laboratory Site Remediation Firms, Supervisors and Workers; Engineers; Geologists; Home Inspectors; Landscape Architects; Surveyors; Alarm Business; Alarm System and Alarm Agents
Not sure how close you have been following the GDSM efforts to divert attention away from Gold Star/Gold Crown to their new "gold mine" - the Davis Dunkirk (Azurite) Mine. GDSM's claim is that they will be producing revenue from this new mine in 3-4 months from start of funding. Ever been involved in permitting for a hard rock mine in Arizona? Nothing at all like permitting a placer mine - infinitely harder, and being on private land does not mean they can ignore the rules and regulations and just start mining.
Gold Star/Gold Crown is still out there, yes, but even the preliminary sample results have not been released for some reason. I wonder why?
What's the holdup? Shouldn't GDSM release what information they have? What about the results from the first set of samples from the Gold Crown - why not release those? If this were anything more than a P&D, they would be anxious to get information in the hands of their investors.
I have never said there is NO gold on the Gold Star claims; you can go back and look at my old posts. Every little stream coming out of the Bradshaws has some gold. Somebody might do well on the weekend with a little sluicebox, a shovel, a few buckets, and a few cold beers! Could be fun, once the weather cools off.
But, a public company has the responsibility to prove to its shareholders that their mining project has recoverable, economic gold at their prospect. And, they have the responsibility to utilize testing results and reports by credible, third-party geologists or mining engineers. So far, with the Gold Star, not so much......
As for the so-called Azurite Mine, same story. Yes, there was gold there, and probably still some gold there. Economically recoverable? I see no proof of that, and a report by an unlicensed mining engineer is not a good first step.
As of right now, I have not seen a mineral evaluation report by an Arizona-registered geologist or mining engineer for either the Gold Star/Gold Crown placer mine, or the Davis Dunkirk ("Azurite") Mine. Therefore, it remains to be proven whether there is any recoverable gold at either property. Reports written by self-appointed mining engineers are highly suspect to say the least.
Is there gold on the GDSM properties? How do you know? Because they say so??? Lol...
Not sure what you saw, but the timeframe for an APP on a hardrock mine is definitely not months. They will have to characterize the tailings and dump material, along with potential ore they hope to pull from the mine, and also the water in the mine. They will have to do a hydrogeological study, and probably put in monitoring wells. They will have to prepare an engineered plan and drawings for the lined tailings pond and waste dumps, and they need a Storm Water Plan.
It will be a lot of back and forth between the mine operators and ADEQ, and there are always multiple revisions to every application. If they can do all this in "months", it would be a new record for a hard rock mine in Arizona. Most mining APPs take several years, and I know of at least one that has dragged on for over 10 years.
And, by the way, they will need a real engineer to sign off on this stuff, not a "SME Registered Mining Engineer".
An APP is not just a "plan and paperwork".
I know you will find the following information very useful, as it has a direct impact on GDSM's plans for "production" from the Azurite Mine:
You need to obtain an Aquifer Protection Permit, or APP, if you own or operate a facility that discharges a pollutant either directly to an aquifer or to the land surface or the vadose zone (the area between an aquifer and the land surface) in such a manner that there is a reasonable probability that the pollutant will reach an aquifer.
See A.R.S. § 49-201(12) for statutory definition of discharge
A.R.S. §§ 49-241 through 49-252, and A.A.C. R18-9-101 through R18-9-403 for statutes and rules related to APP
The following facilities are considered to be "discharging" and require permits, unless exempted, or the director determines that the facility will be designed, constructed and operated so there will be no migration of pollutants directly to the aquifer or to the vadose zone:
Surface impoundments, pits, ponds, and lagoons
Solid waste disposal facilities, except for mining overburden and wall rock that has not been subject to mine leaching operations
Injection wells
Land treatment facilities
Facilities adding pollutants to a salt dome, salt beds, or salt formations, drywells, underground caves, or mines
Mine tailings piles and ponds
Mine leaching operations
Septic tank systems
Underground water storage facilities (if wastewater-effluent is used)
Sewage or wastewater treatment facilities
Wetlands designed and constructed to treat municipal and domestic wastewater for underground storage
Where are these 4th Quarter revenues coming from for GDSM? A placer mine where they couldn't complete the preliminary sampling? Or from a hardrock mine where they will need a couple years of permitting?
I was trying to figure out what this string of old messages was about. You assumed I knew something about mods resigning on GDSM back in July. When I was referring to resignations, I was talking about Jenkins resigning from his CPG certification, not about a Mod. Just to be clear.....
I doubt there is any connection between the Lovitos and Mr. Shepherd. Shep's pile of gravel (chock full of gold and platinum) is just a few miles farther down the road from the Gold Star. I don't what it is about the Skull Valley area that spawns so many of these "gold mines". Maybe "Skull Valley" just looks like a cool name on promotional brochures?
That's a bit ambiguous, Scrutinizer. Do you believe that GDSM can be producing gold at the "Azurite Mine" within 90 days? If so, I am curious how you think they can circumvent the normal ADEQ permitting process. Any thoughts?
When do you think GDSM will be in production, and how do you know they will money?
Bit of a stretch to compare GDSM with Microsoft and Apple, don't you think? GDSM has never produced anything, and very likely never will.
Exactly - which is why I have absolutely no fear of that happening. I obtained it from someone I trust who copied it directly out of the ASLD files. I suppose some clever photoshopping, and something on it could be altered, but why?
Because it is verifiable, it is far more trustworthy than anything in a stinkie pinkie PR, a Tweet, a Facebook posting, or an appraisal done by unlicensed, self-appointed mining engineers.
GDSM's marketing presentation posted on their website has promised a lot of things (uplisting, 43-101, production by end of summer, etc.), none of which has come true. How can anyone take what these guys say seriously?
I think that comment about something being "fabricated" was directed at the Plan of Operations currently posted in the i-box with the note that it is unverified. A call to the ASLD would confirm that a Plan of Operations for 25 surface samples (the "bucket sampling"), submitted by Mr. Chaffee, was approved in May of this year.
However, a call to Ms. Fuller at the AZBOTR is not a bad idea too. It would verify that two individuals whose reports are being used by GDSM for marketing purposes, are currently under investigation for practicing mining engineering without the benefit of being registered. In fact, one of those individuals lists his SME membership number as his mining engineer registration number, as if no one would ever notice. Kind of funny, but also a rather blatant effort to fool unsuspecting investors.
As for the unverified POO, I suppose anything can be fabricated these days. But, no one, in the 6 or 7 weeks this POO has been posted in the i-box, has been able to show that it is a fabrication. Anybody with any common sense can see that it is for real.
Ahh, the irony! Posting of a publicly available document is labeled as unverified, even though it is easly verifiable with a simple call or a file review at the ASLD. But use by GDSM of a mineral appraisal report prepared by two unlicensed "mining engineers" currently under investigation is considered just fine!
A simple phone call to Kathryn Fuller, investigator to the AZBOTR, will confirm the investigations and their general nature.
Kathryn Fuller
Assistant Director
Investigations Manager
602-364-4945
Duties: Oversees investigations process; conducts investigations of alleged violations of state regulations. Negotiates consent orders on behalf of the Board.
kathryn.fuller@azbtr.gov
Two projects are obviously too many for GDSM's JV partner WSRA to handle. If you cannot do what was promised on one project, why switch to another one? Or at least have a shred of honesty and admit that the results from the first one did not make it worth pursuing. That is often the result of exploration, and no point hiding it (unless you are a penny stock, of course).
I also seem to recall a recent WSRA PR where they admitted they were busy "developing" some other non-GDSM mining projects this summer. So, it is obvious that WSRA is either stretched thin trying to "develop" mining properties or the results of the initial sampling were not good at the Gold Crown, or both.
And by "developing", I mean promoting.
The State Land Department does lease land for sand/gravel production. But, GDSM's Gold Star "mine" in the Skull Valley area is so far from any possible market that it will never be profitable as a sand and gravel operation. That $10/yard gravel will just sit there.
Declaring in-ground values for "ore" is ridiculous, even if a deposit was properly explored and assessed (GDSM's two "mines" have not). No legit mining company does that, just penny miners who think they can impress investors.
Sounds great to talk about millions (or billions!!) just sitting there, but there is a reason it is just sitting there. There isn't a square foot of Arizona that hasn't been looked at half a dozen times (or a hundred times) by prospectors over the last 150 years.
Continuing to say something that is not true, does not make it true. Mining involves so much more than scooping up nuggets and delivering them to the bank. Even if it were true that there is $67 million in gold sitting in the ground out there at the Gold Star claims (and there is no evidence of it being true), you have not accounted for any mining costs. If it costs $11/yard to mine $10 worth of gold, you have lost a dollar for every yard you mine.
Maybe in the unreal world of penny stock promotion, some folks will be fooled by statements like you made. But, in reality, I think most people understand that the economics have to be PROVEN favorable to even begin the mining process. And by PROVEN, I mean exploration and then a feasibility study by licensed and qualified mining engineers.
As for being a long term investor in GDSM, I seem to recall reading somewhere that "this type of trading is highly speculative and short-term, usually holding any security for a few minutes to a few weeks, at most." Is that what you mean by "long term"?
And therein lies the problem! If it takes $11 a cubic yard to mine and process $10 "ore", you have lost money.
GDSM and their "technical" reports and appraisals assume that there are enough folks out there that will make the same simplistic mistake. Legitimate mining companies do not publish values of "in-ground" ore for this reason - entirely misleading.
We have already paid a deposit of $50k which goes toward the purchase price!
$10/cubic yard? They'd make more money delivering it as road gravel!
By the way, perhaps the Jenkins report should have some kind of warning like this....
"The risk of loss is substantial and reliance of anything said/posted by an unlicensed engineer and any individuals, members, affiliates or related persons thereof, however expressed, particularly unworthy of reliance to make investment or trading decisions.”
Looks like the Pronghorn exploration permits (2) were issued by the ASLD for a big chunk of state land in Section 36, and a smaller piece in Section 2. The check was a reclamation bond to cover both areas, to ensure that whatever holes or other damage was reclaimed. Someone should go look at the ASLD file and see if any sample results were ever submitted to the ASLD, as required. Might be interesting to see what kind of gold values were found. Or maybe the exploration work was never done.
The current Chaffee exploration permit is for an adjacent chunk of State land (320 acres) in Section 35. You know, the "bucket sampling" program, which we still have not seen any results for, almost three months after the permit was issued.
The Azurite report was clearly done for Jason Wharton as you can see from page 2:
Mr. Jason Wharton, owner of the Lower Davis Dunkirk Mine has commissioned the authors to appraise the mineral potential of the Property.