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.
Aha, you have brought up a good point! However, using a report to market a "mine" makes that report no longer an internal report. Unless GDSM is using Jenkins's report without his permission, it is no longer internal. Is GDSM using the report without Jenkins' permission? I think not.
And besides, the report on the Azurite Mine was commissioned by Mr. Wharton, the property owner, as it says on page 2:
Mr. Jason Wharton, owner of the Lower Davis Dunkirk Mine has commissioned the authors to appraise the mineral potential of the Property.
We have been through this dozens of times, $b_rich, but one more time.
Jenkins is not a geologist as defined by the State of Arizona, and is not licensed to practice geology in Arizona. He is not, and never was, an ME (Mining Engineer), and to sign as one on reports is a violation of AZBOTR rules with up to $2K per violation.
To sign with his SME membership number as though that was a legitimate ME registration number was misleading at a minimum. And when the AZBOTR is done reviewing the complaints currently lodged against him, it may prove to be much more than that.
Check the i-box for a copy of the Plan of Operations approved by the Arizona State Land Department for sampling on the Gold Crown state land lease area. It provides plenty of details on the five-gallon bucket sampling program. Issued in May, but still no results for a sampling program that should have taken Chaffee a few days.
Why mess things up with verifiable things like permits? Most investors in GDSM don't seem to care about stuff like that - PRs and Twitter posts do just fine! This is all about the hype, and facts just get in the way.
Production in 90 days - sure, no problem, who needs stinkin' permits! Proven reserves, based on zero drill data - absolutely! Reports and appraisals signed by fake mining engineers - sure! Production by late summer - no, but who cares, we have another mine!
They are still involved with Gold Star and now are wanting to get involved with another mine that could help their cashflow.
Of course it can't tell color. Nothing about this seems legit. Why would anyone invest if exploration results are not made public? Oh yeah, this is a penny stock.
Faith-based mining? Given the lack of anything coming true out of the GDSM marketing presentation, I would say that "faith" is not the way to go here. GDSM/WSRA should release the results, for better or for worse. They will have to eventually, as it is part of their Plan of Operations with the ASLD to provide results of sampling. In fact, they are supposed to be paying ASLD for anything they find during the sampling - who knows, maybe there is a nugget or two in one of those five gallon buckets??
If the results are bad, at least they can work on restoring "faith" with their investors again. If the results are good, why have they been sitting on them?
You call these results? This is a PR with vague comments like "gold is present" and "tests were positive" - these are not results. How about an actual number in oz/ton, g/yard or something?? Anything?
Not anything about the third-party doing the sampling, either.
And the results are.....???? Don't stockholders deserve to know what the actual results were, and who the third-party was that took the samples?
Seriously? You are bringing up the GDSM marketing presentation on the Gold Star as evidence of what? That is amusing considering that almost nothing in the presentation has come about. No production, no test results, no 43-101, no uplisting. They really should just remove it from their website - they should be embarrassed.
Peeps act like Gold Star was scrapped or something.
There are plenty of environmental and mining consultants out there that could help these guys, but I have yet to see a qualified one associated with GDSM or WSRA. Obviously, your second theory is the correct one.
I just hope the property owner does not end up regretting his "deal" with these guys. The State looks to the landowner as the responsible party for any mess that is created.
Any word on how GDSM is going to circumvent ADEQ's rules regarding the operation of metallic mines? Just curious how they plan to bring that mine into production in 90 days without an Aquifer Protection Permit. Is it possible that GDSM's technical advisors do not know about these requirements?
Also, if WSRA and/or GDSM purchase the property and start moving stuff around, do they realize it makes them responsible for cleanup of the tailings and historic operations area? ADEQ has already identified other historic mines as being contributors to contamination in the Hassayampa watershed. It sure wouldn't hurt the taxpayers to find the owner of another old mine to help with monitoring and cleanup costs.
If they don't buy the property, they can just dump any environmental problems back in the lap of the Whartons. That'd be the smart thing to do!
Nope, gold is not at an all-time high. That was last year when it peaked at $1900. It would still be a good time to get gold out of the ground at $1650/ounce, but GDSM's two "mines" are nowhere near close to producing, and likely never will.
One "mine" can't get past the preliminary sampling process which suggests that results weren't so promising. The other "mine" has a couple years of tough permitting to go through, assuming there is any gold there. Revenue from these two mines anytime soon is pure fantasy.
This is just another penny stock play, with the actual product being close to irrelevant. GDSM could be touting a new way to manufacture widgets, and the hype would be just the same.
Nope, not into trespassing or crawling into unsafe old mines. Besides there are publicly available records which contain quite a bit of information about old mines in Arizona, including the Davis Dunkirk (Azurite) Mine and the Senator Mine.
According to the following website (which is a little more trustworthy than the one you stumbled on),
http://www.mindat.org/loc-53960.html
the Senator Mine is shown with the following info - "Workings include a 200 foot deep shaft (1881) with levels, drifts, crosscuts, etc. Later the main shaft was sunk to 835 feet before 1934."
So, the Davis Dunkirk is still the deepest in North America at 2 miles deep. Must be awful hot down there - lol!
Honestly, it is refreshing to see something besides regurgitated PRs.
Two miles deep? I did not realize that Arizona now has the deepest mine in North America!? WSRA and GDSM must be so proud to be working on the Azurite Mine, even deeper than the 8000-foot deep Homestake Mine in South Dakota!
Relying on a website like this one -
http://www.southwestmines.com/id1.html -
with postings from admitted trespassers will result in a bunch of misinformation like that. A dry mine? Look at the pictures - doesn't look very dry to me.
But hey, it is refreshing to see an attempt at DD besides spouting PRs all day long.
Wow, you are persistent! But, I am not going to play your game.
I have asked for comments to a statement made in a publicly available report (Ralph Page, BA and Dick Wullaert, PhD, dated August 2, 2012). The report states that there was no economic way to process sulfide ores prior to the 1980's. I think Phelps Dodge and every other mining company in Arizona (or around the world) would beg to differ with that statement. If Hondo's expert believes that statement is true, it does not reflect well on his "expertise", does it?
Folks can read the reports, do the research, and decide for themselves about Hondo.
You are partially right, Warmy. Opinion is not DD, but there have been plenty of facts presented on this board that are verifiable.
The bucket sampling program consists of 25 surface samples scattered over 320 acres (one sample every 13 acres) (fact).
The bucket sampling program appears to be a bust (opinion), was not even finished (fact) and no results have been issued (fact).
The Gold Crown state land lease was transferred from WSRA to Chaffee personally (fact).
The authors of the appraisals and technical reports used by GDSM to market their two projects are both under investigation by the AZBOTR (fact).
The ADEQ regulates metallic mines through their Aquifer Protection Permit program and any disturbance of the existing dumps or tailings at the Azurite Mine will require entry into that program (fact).
I am sure there are more facts out there that I have forgotten. Thanks for the opportunity to present a few.
Prior to the 1980’s, an economic way to process metal sulfide ores did not exist. Thus, these types of ores were discarded with the mine tailings (as was done at the Tennessee Mines in Chloride, Arizona).
What do you mean, chris? Are you saying that WSRA, with 100 years of "mining experience", is not professional enough? Or that the "mining engineers" that have signed all those appraisals and technical reports are not professional enough? Surely you cannot be questioning their credibility, are you?
There must be a logical reason why 25 surface samples take 3 months to collect and process, right? Maybe it was too hot, or too rainy, or too many gnats, or the hills were too steep, who knows...
Core samples? Nickle? It would be fun to watch someone try to get a sample from a placer mine using a core drilling rig. And why anyone would analyze for "nickle" in a placer mine is beyond me. Especially in Arizona where nickel has never been produced commercially.
Can't wait for the latest report from the "engineer buddy"!
Great question! And you are right, we are not in Canada. And, GDSM is not traded on any Canadian stock exchange. So, a NI 43-101 would not be appropriate.
Yet, there it is on slide #16 and also on slide #19 of the GDSM marketing presentation on their website, as a goal of the Phase II portion of the project. Why would GDSM and their JV WSRA (with 100 years of mining experience!!) think that a 43-101 would be appropriate? You'd think they would know better with all that mining experience and all their "mining engineers" to advise them........???
No problem.
However, I think you did mention something about "THIS PROCESS TAKES TIME"? I am curious why stockholders are not in the least bit concerned that nothing in the marketing presentation on the GDSM website has happened. The schedule is blown, the NI 43-101 is nowhere to be seen, the uplisting is fantasy, no mining is on the horizon, and there are still no results for the very simple sampling program at the Gold Crown lease.
Yes, exploration takes time, but something has seriously gone wrong with the development of the Gold Star and Gold Crown. Maybe they should think about removing that presentation from their website? It isn't that hard to update a website. They seem to be able to put PRs and links to "engineering" reports just fine!
I think you are responding to the wrong post, ttmasher. I never said a word about accumulation, shares, etc.
Hondo's new "report" was issued today: "Independent Observation of Hondo Minerals, Inc. Operations", by Ralph Page, BA and Dick Wullaert, PhD. Here is an example of what these geniuses are saying:
Prior to the 1980’s, an economic way to process metal sulfide ores did not exist. Thus, these types of ores were discarded with the mine tailings (as was done at the Tennessee Mines in Chloride, Arizona).
The usual approach in the industry is to do extensive sampling of the mining site (tailings pile in this case) to get enough assays to convince management and investors of the precious metals content. This can (and has) in many cases used up a significant portion of the financial resources of a company. HMI management took a different approach. Management asserts that they have made it clear to investors the risk associated with this approach.
Really? You must not have been paying attention. Did you hear about a GDSM promising production from a mine in 3-4 months? That's pretty absurd.
Or, taking three months to collect 25 surface samples from the Gold Crown lease, and then not being able to find the time to release the results - that's pretty absurd too.
Or a fake mining engineer signing reports for the last 20 years in violation of State regulations. I'd say that's in the absurd category too.
Should I go on.....?
Shareholder's meeting is not the same as a public meeting. No public meeting I have ever attended required a sign up before hand. Sometimes they ask that folks sign in when they show up but not before hand.
Is this going to be advertised in a local paper? I think not. Any reporters or State officials invited? Doubt it but I guess we'll see.
Shareholder's meeting as you point out, not a public meeting. They have asked for names first to "choose a venue", but also to screen out potential troublemakers. Can you imagine standing up and asking them what they are going to do about an Aquifer Protection Permit for the so-called Azurite Mine? And how they expect to mine in 3-4 months without that permit?
I see this meeting as a cheerleading session for existing stockholders and potential investors. I really doubt anything but "happy" news will be discussed. Like $2.44 billion in reserves - lol!!
"Funding deal done on the Azurite Mine?" That's what you said. No, you didn't state it as fact, but I wondered if you had heard something. I am sure you will let this board know when it is proven as fact by something other than a PR or email.
Where did you hear about the funding for the Azurite Mine? It had to start somewhere. Did this start with you?
Where is the evidence of funding for the "Azurite Mine"? Another email from somebody to somebody who heard something from a relative who works with the team of "engineers" on the project?
How about the Gold Crown sample results - any news? Any verification of that unverified plan of operations yet? Didn't think so.
I will have to go back and check your links in your old posts. Why hasn't DGRI presented any of this existing data, or at least the links, or at least say that some data exists? You'd never know that any exploration was done from their PRs, just those ore pile samples and a hokey metallurgical sample. Oh yeah, you mentioned that the conclusions from B2Gold's report were that the mine was not economic. Guess it would be bad for business to refer people to a negative report, so better to say nothing.
Are you sure it was even the same mine? It is somewhat confusing what DGRI's "mine" even is, since there have been several discussed.
I believe I read the same report about this deposit. It was signed by a guy certifying the results using his Costco membership number. And an appraisal by another guy claiming to be an International Man of Mystery!
They also extrapolated the results from half a dozen surface samples down to the upper mantle, hence the rather robust tonnage figures. And mining can commence immediately - no permits needed because the land is posted with keep out signs. Everybody knows that you can do whatever you want on land that is posted!
You are right, I have no competing data to compare directly to their supposed drilling program. They have not proven they have any gold, and it can't be disproven until someone else (a third-party, with credibility) drills it. All you can do is refer to historic records that show the ore that was direct-smelted by Phelps Dodge typically did not run even a tenth of the gold that they are claiming to be in the slag (a waste product). Somehow the gold is now 10 times richer in the slag than in the original ores?
The lack of other data is exactly why this thing has dragged on for seven years. These guys are good at what they do........!
I wish it were that simple to sneak in to use your tin-can sampling method. Slag is not loose enough to simply scrape samples off the side of the borehole. I believe they claimed to have used sonic drilling methods which drives the drill steel through the material using high-frequency vibrations, and a plastic bag inside the drill steel fills with the material. The driller retrieves that material about every five feet, and then goes back in and drills another five feet. Expensive method, but routinely used for environmental investigations.
But, we'll never know for sure if any holes were drilled, since they have never issued any kind of report with borehole logs, assay reports, etc. Could be pure fabrication, or maybe not, take your pick.
No, I don't need a map. I know exactly where this pile of slag is, and anybody who has ever taken the Verde Valley Railway trip up the Verde River begins their journey with the train riding up beside the slag pile. You could almost reach out and grab a piece of slag. Highly recommend the train ride!
That's the beauty of it - almost impossible to find a smoking gun on these guys and they know it! Me, or anybody, grabbing a sample of smelter slag from the tracks or even through the fence proves nothing. What am I supposed to do, submit results to the IHub board for a vote? Waste of time and money, obviously.
Besides, a grab sample or even a dozen grab samples would never be sufficient to disprove an 18-hole drilling program anyway - it would take at least a couple drill holes to begin to debunk the previous drilling. They would claim that the surface has been leached and the "goodies" are all deep within the pile, or some such other line of crap.
No, this is only going to end if an investor with enough suspicions and enough motivation takes these guys to court and forces an independant, third-party sampling of the slag pile.
I don't know what the Luxor angle is - is that what you mean by the "core complaint"? You are wondering why Luxor would be involved if it isn't legit? Maybe they see it as a typical penny stock angle - they know as well as you do that money can be made off of SRCH as long as they time things right. I don't know anything about Luxor, but some legitimate companies end up sinking money into some pretty sketchy operations (e.g. Madoff, etc.)
Two hour drive NW of Phoenix. Nice drive. Bring a picnic lunch, it is not private property.
I don't claim to understand all the finances of a deal like Searchlight, but one thing is obvious - the combined salaries to the BOD and the payments to Charles Ager (the "consultant") add up to a huge amount of money. Nice gig - be on a BOD, do nothing, and pull in $100K or $150K a year, year after year. That's the motivation, in my opinion. Gravy train that keeps on giving......
Yes, the permit side is important, but as I said, not until they start actually processing, which in my opinion is never.
The drill holes are probably still there, if they were even drilled at all. No report was ever issued, no real evidence that any hole was drilled.
The problem is that this is private property - you cannot just amble over there, and grab a sample of the slag or check for drill holes. That is the key factor that has kept this scheme going for so long. If this were BLM or State land, an investor or nosy skeptic could go grab a sample or two. Even jumping the fence and sampling would be a mistake - you would be admitting to trespass if you publicized your results. So, a nifty way of keeping a lid on actual slag sample results.
The samples reportedly collected during the drilling process are certainly long-gone. Assay labs only hang onto them for a little while, then start charging a monthly fee for storage. I am sure they are not available, and even if they were, why would SRCH allow anybody to re-assay them?
The key here is the complete and absolute lack of any reports. Zero. Nada. If a person were to invest hard-earned money in this, wouldn't that be a red flag if no reports were provided for review?
Bre-X? Not quite the same scale, but this would still make a nice book or movie someday.
You don't get it. DGRI is claiming to be a "real" mining company, yet has done no exploration work on their Nicaraguan "gold mine" before buying equipment? You cite the example of the placer mine in Uganda - my understanding is that the mine in Nicaragua is supposed to be a hard rock mine. You don't "shovel dirt and pan out the gold" to explore a hard rock mine. You map the geology, you sample the outcrops, and you drill. It takes months, sometimes years to get this stage done and from what I can tell, they have not even started. And then you take the data and prepare a feasibility study to see if it makes sense economically to mine the deposit. No evidence whatsoever that any of this has occurred.
A few high-graded samples off of ore piles, and a single sample sent to a dubious metallurgical lab say nothing about the ore grade, tonnage, or other factors that go into the equation. Appears to be a total sham in my opinion.
Think DGRI might do a little exploration first, hmmm? Who buys equipment and starts mining with no exploration? This Nicaraguan gold mine is an obvious fantasy.
The proven ties between this company and documented scammers (Matheson, Agers, Gunnison, etc.) is enough to condemn this as a scam.
The lack of true technical documentation (PRs and quarterly reports do not count as technical reports) is enough to condemn this as a scam.
The historical mining and smelting records are enough to condemn this as a scam. There is no way that the slag is higher in gold by 10-fold than the original ores were.
Three strikes, they're out!
And you are right, the process would need to have environmental permits. They could certainly get those permits, so I don't see that as a deal-killer. But, I doubt they are concerned with permits, because they know they will never have a need to get them, if you know what I mean.
I am just curious how much longer they can keep this thing going before they make a fatal mistake and get shut down? Another 7 years? I wonder what the record for mining-related scams is?