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.
Not a mine, really. It is a gold placer prospect located about a mile east of Skull Valley, Arizona, and about 14 miles southwest of Prescott, AZ. It consists of both BLM claims (the "Gold Star" claims) and the Arizona State Land Dept. lease area (the "Gold Crown" lease).
No results have been released from the preliminary sampling of the Gold Crown lease. Let's just say that attention has been "shifted" by GDSM to a new prospect (Davis Dunkirk Mine) up in the Bradshaw Mountains (just south of Prescott).
Okay, fair enough. Nature of non-SEC reporting stocks - no way to ever know anything about the finances for certain.
With your vast experience in the mining business, do you think that any money actually changed hands?
Considering GDSM's long trail of broken promises and missed schedules with development of the Gold Star (e.g. mining by late Summer), why would anything they say be believable at this point?
Seawater is a good example, and there have been scams run over the years that claimed to do exactly that. Currently, there are folks that are claiming to extract gold from fly ash (coal ashes), volcanic ashes, lakebed clays, smelter slag, and old mine tailings.
The latter two examples (slag and tailings) are actually possible, but unlikely to be cost-effective since the old-time miners generally did not leave enough behind to be worth processing, even at today's gold prices. But, always a new crop of investors who have a dream......! If it sounds too good to be true, it probably is.
There's a few atoms of gold in just about everything, including sewage. Doesn't mean it can be recovered at a profit. Producing gold from fly ash is about as obvious a scam as there is.
Difficult funding - that would explain why the Gold Crown sampling was not completed. For something that should have been completed in a week or less, progress at the Gold Crown appears to be dead in the water.
Production by end of summer? Not!
Some folks wouldn't know verifiable proof if it bonked them on the head. If copies of Plans of Operation and Transfer of Ownership are not verifiable proof, what is?
Proof of what? Well, proof that the sampling program at the Gold Crown lease consists of 5-gallon bucket sampling of surface sediments, one per 13 acres. Completely inadequate, and a very preliminary stab at testing the Gold Crown. And only half completed, I might add (based on GDSM's own PR).
Also, proof of a change of ownership of the Gold Crown lease from WSRA to an individual, Mr. Chaffee. Apparently, the JV is no longer between GDSM and WSRA, since WSRA no longer controls the Gold Crown lease? Interesting maneuver.
What isn't verifiable are the reserves claims and mineral appraisals issued by self-appointed "mining engineers".
For seven years, the runaround! Endless testing with a multitude of metallurgical labs. One was so secret, they could only refer to them as the Unnamed Australian Testing Lab. And all overseen by Arrakis, the common link.
I read through the latest testing results in the 10-Q, with dozens of carbon and resin recovery systems being tested. I do believe part of my brain died reading this crap. Gold in solution should be easily recovered, the technology exists! What's wrong with this picture?
They think 45 percent recovery is not good enough and shooting for 85%? If there is really half an ounce of gold per ton in the slag, go with 45% and start production already! 45% percent is not bad, go for it, and keep testing to get to 85%. At least some gold will be produced, right?
Wrong, the gold is not there, this is a scam!
Bankable feasibility study? No bank, or halfway intelligent private funder would accept any feasibility study without actual consultant reports and assays and they do not appear to exist. Has anyone ever seen an actual report?
You are correct. The SRCH BOD and their "consultant" continue to live quite well! This from the latest 10-Q:
Mineral exploration and evaluation expenses - related party increased to $95,966 during the six month period ended June 30, 2012 from $95,058 for the six month period ended June 30, 2011. These expenses relate to services provided to us by Nanominerals Corp. ("NMC"). NMC is one of our principal stockholders and an affiliate of Carl S. Ager, our Vice President, Secretary and Treasurer and a director. We utilize the services of NMC to provide technical assistance and financing related activities. In addition, NMC provides us with use of its laboratory, instrumentation, milling equipment and research facilities. We pay NMC an advance royalty payment of $15,000 per month and reimburse NMC for actual expenses incurred.
Looking forward to your new update with new data "on in and all around several mines". Should be very interesting and relevant for all those interested in GDSM.
Is there a script you are reading from? Any thoughts about how they will permit the Azurite mine in 3-4 months?
You keep talking about $$$$$ and revenue with the new mine (so-called Azurite Mine). How in the heck are they going to permit a hardrock mine for operations, even if they focus on dumps and tailings, in 3-4 months??? Any thoughts (of your own)? And don't just throw GDSM propaganda at me or tell me they are smart guys and you trust they have it figured out. Have you done any real research of your own on what it takes to open a mine in Arizona?
And I don't want to hear about WSRA's 100 years of mining either - that is another crock! There is no real connection between the current WSRA and the shell company they bought. I will give them the 30 years they claim - at least promoting worthless mines for the last 30 years is sort of close to mining.
GDSM would have been far better off pushing forward with the Gold Star Mine which would have been infinitely easier to permit. Assuming there is sufficient gold there, of course, which we still don't have proof of.
Apparently not as huge news as you had hoped. Back to 0.0028 today - the "run" has ran its course. The fact that the Gold Star mining venture is a complete failure, with every part of the schedule blown, has apparently turned some investors off. Production by late summer - hah!
The "bait and switch" to an old worked-out mine that can't possibly be brought into production in 3-4 months is not impressing people either.
Keep posting the same old GDSM propaganda, they must love you!
Geophysics "confirms" 1.5 km-long barite deposit. I don't suppose they have any plans to actually drill it, do they? Just start mining......???
CEO, not CEA.
Seriously? Minor setbacks for mining on private land and some permits? Who in the heck did you talk to, and what agency was that? Did they tell you anything about the permits needed for mining? Any mention of something called an APP?
Try going to this website:
http://www.asmi.state.az.us/
They have a handy document entitled "Guide to Permitting Mine Operations". Pay special attention to Section 6, page 1.
Of course the CEA and BOD are getting paid, this ain't a non-profit!
Hope and pray mining? I have called these kinds of ventures "faith-based mining" because people are willing to apply huge dollar amounts to in-ground value based on no credible data. This mine has nary a single drill hole into it at this point, or maybe they are saving that data for another PR?
And then, project the profit based on what? Most legitimate mines do not turn a profit for years, if ever. The Resolution Copper Company in Superior, AZ has sunk hundreds of millions into trying to create a mine in what is N. America's richest ore discovery in the last 50 years. If they ever get up and running (and that is IF), they will be a billion in the hole before any ore is mined. There is a land swap deal still in Congress that will decide their fate.
To think that a mining operation of any size will turn a profit from day 1 is ludicrous. Especially given the circumstances with the Azurite Mine with no exploration, no permits, and no assurance they even have rights to mine.
Profitability has already been determined...
The venture will be profitable as soon as production begins. At $1600 per ounce (and soon to be much higher) profitability is easy to achieve with little volume.
Did I say I knew everything? I think you are grasping at straws now, $B_rich. Some of those mines are out of state, and can be researched, and maybe there was historic production or maybe not. I really don't care.
As I have said in another post, historic production does not mean a mine will ever be productive again. There are literally hundreds of small mines like the "Azurite Mine" in the Bradshaws, some of which produced relatively small amounts of ore. Many produced nothing.
Even if an old mine like GDSM's so-called Azurite Mine had been a "producer" in years past, it does not mean it will produce again. The old miners were pretty thorough, usually, and many an old mine has had the pillars robbed for the last bit of ore. And what might have been profitable in the days of 2-person crews, black powder, and hand-driven drill steel, is not profitable now because of all the permitting and environmental issues.
There is so much that goes into the equation that proclaiming an in-ground value of ore is meaningless and purposely misleading. If it takes a million bucks to mine and process $999,999 worth of gold, you have lost money. That's why the SEC does not allow appraisals of in-ground value.
That's why you wait and be patient for company updates and disclosures.
I doubt it. The last four on the list are placers in the same general area as the Gold Star/Gold Crown (also marketed by Gold Tech in past years). If they are so incredibly rich, why are they just sitting there? Why are they still for sale?
well thought diversification along with the ability of "ownership" and MULTIPLE revenue streams!
a real geologist like Mr. Jenkins
Here you have it folks! Some people like to claim they are a registered mining engineer when in fact the registration number they provide is just their membership number in the SME?? LOL! Can you believe someone would do something so misleading in a document provided to the public?
Don L. Jenkins
Certified Professional Geologist #3341
Registered SME Mining Engineer #1594874
October 12, 2010
That is a tough question because we don't have many specifics about what GDSM/WSRA is really planning to do, or what their finances are really like. They say they are going to run the dumps and tailings first before attempting to do any underground mining. Sounds good, but processing dumps and tailings does not get them out of the permit process. In fact, ADEQ specifically names tailings as a categorical "facility" requiring an APP.
So, ignoring the underground mining aspect, let's assume they will try to permit the processing of the tailings and dumps with ADEQ.
Even though the tonnage of dumps is not worth it, they will have to set up some kind of milling equipment to process the dumps. Let's assume they find a way to extract a concentrate from the dump rock, with minimal chemical use (like cyanide). Even so, that will generate more tailings, which will require a lined, engineered tailings pond. Ever priced out the engineering for a pond - or the liner system? Not cheap. They will also need monitoring for the liner, probably a series of monitoring wells.
As for the tailings which is a larger tonnage - I doubt gravity separation or flotation will work, and they would need to do some chemical leaching since it is extremely marginal grade. More ponds, more liners, more monitoring. Just not worth it for tailings that are so marginal in grade.
All this would take the APP process to be legal. It would require proof of financial responsibility. It would take real engineers and geologists to sign off on the work, something that GDSM and WSRA don't seem to feel the need for.
My guess, under the best of all possible circumstances, is that it would take 12-18 months to get an APP. But, it is ridiculous to even contemplate all this, for a company that cannot even handle a 5-gallon bucket sampling program!
Good golly, if that were the case, would there be any mining or better yet, any mines opened? lol!
Your wait for the "good stuff" is over! I know you have been waiting on more information regarding whether a crappy old mine (the so-called Azurite Mine) can be re-opened without any permitting:
Closed facilities are those which ceased operation before January 1, 1986 with no intent to resume operations for which they were intended. Closed facilities are exempt from the APP requirements; hence, they are not subject to BADCT requirements.
However, if the facility ever resumes operation the facility shall obtain an aquifer protection permit and the facility shall be treated as a new facility for purposes of section 49-243.@ (A.R.S. 49-250.B.11)
Everyone should read this over. Good Stuff!!!
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ct1dklmb5p2ux37/Azurite_Report_of_Appraisal.pdf
Yep, great stuff. Pay attention to the signatures and "titles" of the two individuals signing the appraisal (last page). Then, search for them in the AZBOTR database of registered engineers.
http://www.btr.state.az.us/listings/professional_registrant2.asp
Well, they can try doing the APP with their "engineers" but I'd like to be a fly on the wall in that APP Pre-Application meeting at ADEQ. What appears to work just fine with GDSM investors will not work in front of a group that includes actual PE's and RG's.
I have been told that phone calls are "hearsay" and not verifiable, so I think I will pass. If a public document posted in the i-box a month ago remains unverified, how would a phone call stand a chance? Why don't you call and report back?
Aquifer Protection Permit - has anyone at GDSM or WSRA considered this in their 3-4 month production schedule?
PERMITS, AUTHORIZATIONS OR FILINGS:
Individual Aquifer Protection Permit (APP)
LEGAL AUTHORITY:
A.R.S. § 49-241 et. seq. and clean closure is defined under A.R.S. § 49-201.5
CONDITIONS REQUIRING PERMITS, AUTHORIZATIONS OR FILINGS:
This permit regulates new and existing facilities that dispose pollutants to the land surface,
underlying soil, or groundwater, in order to prevent groundwater contamination, where there
is a reasonable probability that the pollutants would otherwise reach groundwater. Such
facilities may include mines, industrial facilities and waste-water treatment plants. Areawide
permits may be issued in lieu of an individual permit to cover facilities under common
ownership in a contiguous geographic area. Discharge reduction in the pollutant
management area and the demonstration that aquifer water quality standards will not be
violated or further degraded can be evaluated collectively for existing facilities. This type
of permit is most applicable to large mining and industrial sites. Clean closure plans may
be approved by ADEQ without issuing a permit for dry wells and facilities that have APP,
Groundwater Protection Permits or a Notice of Disposal on File with the Department.
An APP application consists of a general information submittal and a detailed hydrologic
report. The following suggestions are to assist the applicant in the process:
(a) Submit a Determination of Applicability form if the applicant is not certain that their
process requires an APP.
(b) Request a pre-application meeting with ADEQ.
(c) Submit a pre-application proposal.
(d) Consult a qualified professional to complete the application.
(e) Request a review of the application by a consultant under contract to ADEQ.
The most critical requirements specified in the APP regulations are that the applicant must
show that the Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology (BADCT) will be utilized
by the facility, that aquifer water quality standards will not be violated in the aquifer at a
point of compliance as a result of discharge, and finally, the applicant must demonstrate
financial and technical capability. BADCT guidance is available from ADEQ. Facilities
requiring permit approvals by ADEQ may also be subject to review for consistency with the
applicable local and/or regional Water Quality Management Plan.
You don't even have to buy an old gold mine; just say you are going to buy the mine and issue a PR. How would anybody ever know if money actually changed hands or not? It is all an illusion, in my opinion.
Nice pictures! But, you apparently missed my previous posts. Yes, any mine can be re-opened, even this mined-out mess.
However, first you have to do the exploration and prove the resources. And I don't mean undocumented sampling by a self-proclaimed mining engineer - I mean by an actual, registered, third-party professional. Who would fund a mining project based on questionable data??
And, you might as well start the permitting immediately because, even run concurrently with exploration, it will be years before startup is allowed.
And re-processing a pile of tailings with very marginal value? Even if the values are real (which I doubt), the second you start moving that pile around, the APP rules apply. Tailings created before 1986 are exempt from current environmental rules, but the second they are disturbed, they become current tailings and are regulated. They better have the APP in hand, or else there will be NOVs. This has recently happened to another "tailings project" in Chloride - NOVs.
Just sayin'.........
Wow is right! An appraisal done by two individuals claiming to be engineers, when in fact, they are not.
Also, wow, why would anybody believe what they read in a PR from a non-SEC reporting company like GDSM? Surely you don't, do you? Do you really think $50K changed hands? I doubt it, but we'll never know for sure since they are not SEC-reporting.
And, FYI, the "mine" is on real estate (Yavapai County Assessor's Parcels 205-14-253 and 257). "Owning" it, or even a percentage in it, is not really possible unless they are buying the property. Pity the poor owners (the Whartons) - any environmental damage to the property will be the responsibility of the Whartons to clean up. Cleanup of old tailings piles can cost millions, and as soon as they are disturbed, they are considered regulated under the APP rules.
Not achievable,actually, and not very solid.
Let's take a look at what Lovito and GDSM promised in their marketing presentation regarding the Gold Star (remember that "gold mine"?):
NI 43-101 will be started - nope, no sign that a 43-101 is being conducted. Is it? Hard to do a 43-101 with no third-party data.
Small scale mining at the Gold Star Mine will begin in the summer of 2012 - nope, no permits to mine, very little sampling completed, if any.
Full scale mining operations in late Fall 2012 - nope, no permits in the pipeline, failure to complete even the most basic of sampling programs using five-gallon buckets
Phase III and IV, full scale mining by late summer 2012 - nope, once again, not happening.
In my humble opinion, it appears that development of the Gold Star Mine is dead in the water despite the fact that permitting would be so much easier with a placer mine than an old underground hard rock mine with significant environmental complexities.
And, there is verifiable proof that WSRA (GDSM's JV) does not even own the rights to the Gold Crown state lease land anymore, signed over to a private individual, Michael Chaffee, in February 2011. Is GDSM's JV with WSRA, or with Chaffee?
No, that was fine. Nevada does not have a State registration program for geologists. A geologist with a CPG might be your best choice, if you seek one out in Nevada.
Your questions about cost, etc. should be directed to your geologist - they should have a better feel on how to answer your questions since they have specific info on the situation. Not that I mind answering questions, but your geologist who is already involved would be best.
Do you have a good mining engineer or geologist helping advise you? It is a good investment to get a third-party opinion, relative to the cost of drilling and assays. A single hole could cost you $15K or more whereas an opinion from a third-party would be a tenth of that. If someone is telling you that you don't need an outside opinion, I would be very suspicious.
Also, that area around the Sleeper has been looked at, and re-looked at repeatedly by junior and majors over the years. I am not saying that there cannot be "hidden" orebodies with no surface outcrop, but there is probably a good reason that the area has not been mined.
Good luck!
Flooded workings? Nice picture - confirms that they will have additional APP issues to deal with as GDSM tries to develop this "mine". Can't just pump water down the hillside. They will have to meet the following standards (among others) for any water pumped from the mine, or any water generated during processing of the tailings/dumps:
The following are the aquifer water quality standards for inorganic chemicals:
Pollutant
mg/L)
Antimony 0.006
Arsenic 0.05
Asbestos 7 million fibers/liter (longer than 10 mm)
Barium 2
Beryllium 0.004
Cadmium 0.005
Chromium 0.1
Cyanide (As Free Cyanide) 0.2
Fluoride 4.0
Lead 0.05
Mercury 0.002
Nickel 0.1
Nitrate (as N) 10
Nitrite (as N) 1
Nitrate and nitrite (as N) 10
Selenium 0.05
Thallium 0.002