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.
That has been the pattern with these guys (Gold Tech, WSRA, Arizona Gold Corp., etc.) for years. They have an endless supply of claims, prospects, and washed-up old mines to throw at investors. They all have billions of dollars in gold, silver, etc. - and if you don't believe it, just read the appraisal signed by honest-to-god, self-proclaimed mining engineers!! The certificate of value must be true, just look at the corporate stamp of Florida on it (Gold Star appraisal previously posted on this board). Lol.....
If something doesn't work out (like poor sampling results) - divert attention by bringing up another one. A "new mine" always generates excitement, and also generates more income for the promoter. On the plus side, I guess it keeps them off of welfare.
What is the original source of this information about payments? From pinkie "filings"? A PR? Was a copy of the contract ever posted anywhere? Of course not, there is never anything verifiable provided by GDSM or WSRA (third-party reports, sample results, contracts, permits, etc.)
"Mr. Michael Chaffee is the President and C.E.O. of Western Sierra Mining. He has over 30 years of mining experience....."
Chris - you are talking about the Davis Dunkirk Mine? They will never get far enough to even worry about permits or development. Look at WSRA's history of hard rock "mining" - zero. It is all about promotion, with zero history of mining. 100 years of mining experience? Not a chance - WSRA was a shell company and the current owners have no link whatsoever to the past operators of WSRA.
Ironically, the original WSRA (or whatever they were called at the time) was a promotion company too, and never did any mining either. An early 1900's version of the current company - promote, promote, promote. Why bother mining, it is awful hard to make a buck that way.
WSRA is completely over their head when it comes to hard rock mining and are either completely clueless, or deliberately lying about the 3-4 month timeframe to "production". Probably a lot of both.
Not sure what you consider absolute proof, and I don't know of anything in the world that is absolute. LKAI seems pretty transparent, but I have not looked at all the information they have posted.
However, your comment is very wise, and with your permission of course, I will use it next time while commenting on the next desert dirt scam I happen to run into.
The real question you should ask is whether the money being allocated by LKAI to exploration is really being spent on exploration. If I were an investor, and at least some was being paid out, and the rest went to legitimate exploration, I'd be okay with that. Is there any evidence that the exploration is a lie? If not, then all is good. As a rule, all mines are in a constant state of exploration. Quest for ore!
I thought this argument about claims and mines was beat to death months ago. Are you serious? This is a mine located on both patented and unpatented mining claims, very typical for most mining operations. Not too tough to understand, is it?
Read the PR's, get on the company website, and for confirmation, do a little independant research. I never believe PRs and websites without other research, and LKAI is no different. So far, everything checks out.
Operating at a profit is far better than operating at a loss which is what many mines, even some very large ones, have done over the years. I would say that LKAI showing a profit is pretty commendable. Profit margins for legitimate mines are slim.
It is expensive to do exploration, permitting, and mining. Which most penny "mining" stocks have no concept of, since they have never mined anything but investor's pockets.
Thank you, always good to get an explanation. Even though GDSM is a "mining" stock, I can see that the type of knowledge I have takes a back seat to the mechanics of how pennies are traded, promoted, etc. Some of the folks on this board obviously flunked Earth Science in school, but will do okay with GDSM with a little luck.
I will neither confirm nor deny I am a geologist - it is off-topic. I will, however, deny that I am a daytrader.
I am just trying to figure out how penny stock promoting works. Kind of interesting, and all part of the puzzle.
I will accept your word. I was just surprised to see your promo because I believe it was the first posted on this board since I became interested in what GDSM was promoting.
As for being a good deal at this price? Maybe. Maybe not. Depends on whether this company ever releases any actual sample data.
I believe your disclaimer just like I believe what it says in the pinkie filings by GDSM. You just started posting about GDSM today (a lot!), and you are not helping to dispel the characterization of GDSM as a pump and dump.
And the paid promos have apparently begun for GDSM. I am pretty new to all this, but my understanding is that these firms are paid in stock to publish these pumps. They then reap the benefit of their pump by dumping just as soon as the price creeps up. Is that true?
Good one! Almost as funny as asking for pictures to show nothing is going on. Maybe there are also pictures to show there is no Bigfoot Monster. What kind of logic is that?
The only proof I would believe that there is even a mine in Nicaragua with any DGRI involvement, would be a report from a third-party consultant attesting to it. So far, nothing. Just like with most penny "mining" companies.
Sorry, for some reason, the link I provided doesn't link directly to the pdf on ADEQ's website.
Try this - just go to ADEQ's home page at http://www.azdeq.gov/index.html
and use their search mechanism and punch in "BADCT". The first document that comes up should be the BADCT guidance document. It stands for Best Available Demonstrated Control Technology and this 298 page document goes into a lot of detail about how mining operations in Arizona are required to design and operate their facilities to protect groundwater.
The good news for the Gold Crown lease parcel, is that this document does not apply. Placer deposits are considered the same as sand and gravel operations, and are not looked at as potential sources of contamination. However, mines like the Davis Dunkirk (Azurite) are most certainly regulated under the APP program and BADCT, due to the heavy metals and sulfides documented to be in the ores, the dumps, and the tailings.
There is a reason why old tailings piles should best be left alone. GDSM/WSRA needs to do carefull due diligence before disturbing the tailings at the Davis Dunkirk Mine ("Azurite Mine"). This is from http://www.azdeq.gov/environ/water/wastewater/download/badctmanual.pdf:
The following facilities may be present at mining, processing, or smelting and refining operations and are considered, or deemed by A.R.S. 49-241.B, to be categorical discharging facilities requiring an APP, unless exempt pursuant to A.R.S. 49-250:
- Surface impoundments(2) including holding, storage settling, treatment or disposal pits, ponds and lagoons (A.R.S. 49-241.B.1);
- Solid waste disposal facilities except for mining overburden and wall rock that has not and will not be subject to mine leaching operations (A.R.S. 49-241.B.2);
- Injection wells (A.R.S. 49-241.B.3);
- Mine tailing piles and ponds(2) (A.R.S. 49-241.B.6);
- Mine leaching operations(2) (A.R.S. 49-241.B.7);
- Sewage or sludge ponds and wastewater treatment facilities (A.R.S. 49-241.B.11);
- Septic tank systems with a capacity of greater than two thousand gallons per day (A.R.S. 49-241.B.8);
- Facilities which add a pollutant to a salt dome formation, salt bed formation, dry well or underground cave or mine (A.R.S. 49-241.B.5); and
- Point source discharges to navigable waters (A.R.S. 49-241.B.10).
I am very happy to help investors have a clear understanding of the rules and regulations governing mining in Arizona, as it may affect the value of their GDSM stock in the long run. No need to thank me.
What does it matter? In the bigger picture, 90 days is not going to produce an Aquifer Protection Permit for GDSM, whether it be from start of funding or from whenever.
I will be posting more information on Aquifer Protection Permits later, stay tuned. Plenty of boring, yet completely verifiable information. And I know how much this board loves verifiable information.
As you and I discussed last night, permitting of a hard rock mine with documented heavy metals in the ore is not a 3-4 month process. Being on private land has the advantage of not involving State or Federal environmental studies (unless the access road cuts through State or Federal land, and then all bets are off). However, all State rules do apply, including the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP) which I keep harping on. If they started today, they might have the APP in a few years, assuming they have the funding to wade through that, and assuming there really is sufficient ore there. Do you want links to the APP rules - it will bore you to tears, but every legitimate mining company is very aware of these rules and has to plan their operations years in advance as a result. Not only is an APP required for startup, but every change in operations requires a Modification.
I am still intrigued by the Dry Extraction Process you spoke about. Can't find a thing on-line about it, and even talked to several other mining people (real mining engineers, by the way) about it. Apparently what you are talking about is not only cutting-edge but also a secret.
Oh yeah, one more thing. 98 percent recovery!?? That is pretty damn amazing. I did some work at a gold mine where they were getting 85% recovery in a heap leach operation and that was considered pretty darned good. What have you seen, in your experience, for good recovery rates?
I noticed that their website is "under construction", but you apparently went me one further. Your points are well taken, but the more basic problem is not the lab, it is the sample collection itself. Not to say that the lab isn't a problem too.
I can read - I am not questioning the lab. Just submitting a sample to a lab does not make that sample credible.
I am questioning who took the sample, I am questioning how the sample was collected, where it was collected, and what it represents. Reports?
Never met them. My opinion is based on the quality and content of their reports. I have a right to my opinion about their lack of sophistication.
I am still intrigued by this "dry mining". I still don't understand what you are talking about. I wasn't aware that water was used as a way to mine ore in either an open pit or underground, except maybe in placer operations. Are you referring to the drilling method for blast holes? Water is used to cool the equipment and keep the dust down. Maybe send a link - I am very curious.
At the time Jenkins and Stoddard wrote that "appraisal" for the Azurite Mine, Jenkins was a CPG. However, he and Stoddard were not mining engineers (see the last page of the report). For this reason alone, the appraisal is not valid.
Are you saying GDSM is not using the report to promote their stock? Are you kidding?
Until DGRI issues a report, done by a third-party, these results are meaningless. Anybody can submit a sample from anywhere and ask a lab do a leach test. What does that sample really represent? Where's the lab report and where's the report from the third-party consultant that collected the sample?
Two possibilities, in my opinion:
There is something that GDSM/WSRA think they know, that allows them to make that statement. I doubt they are sophisticated enough to really know the rules.
or, GDSM/WSRA is simply making stuff up to make it look like they know something, to sell stock.
I am curious where you got the term "dry extraction process". Is this something that you saw somewhere, or did I miss it somewhere in the GDSM/WSRA propoganda?
What's your take on a person signing a report as a mining engineer, when in fact (and this is verifiable), they are not? And then, how do you feel about a publicly traded company using that same report to help sell stock? Doesn't matter who the report was originally done for, using it to sell stock is highly unethical to say the least, if not illegal.
How is something an asset if it takes more to mine than its worth? That's why in-ground appraisals with a dollar amount are not appropriate and are very misleading. It gives a false sense that there are millions or billions of dollars in ore just waiting to be scooped up and taken to the bank. Let's agree to disagree on the appraisal because that appraisal was so bad, and so misleading, that it makes my head hurt.
I will try once again to answer your question. You are asking what it would take to permit the removal of ore from the mine and pile it up somewhere? Am I close?
Not sure what you mean by a "dry extraction process" for mining. Removal of ore would require drilling, blasting, and haulage to the portal, and not sure where the term "dry extraction" comes in. Are you sure you are not referring to the milling and processing part of mining?
Regardless, if they pile that ore on the ground outside the mine, and the ore fails for "inertness", they will need an APP. They will generate some waste rock, and if they pile that on the ground outside the mine, and it fails for inertness, they will need an APP.
If they load that ore directly onto a truck and move it to a process facility somewhere else, they might avoid the APP at the minesite, but probably not. Is there water in the mine? Are they discharging it somewhere? That would require an APP. And don't forget about the waste dump, which nobody could afford to truck off-site as well.
People have tried to open up small mining operations in Arizona and have claimed some kind of "environmentally friendly process" that exempts them from permits. Good luck with that.....
I thought there was $600K allotted to exploration, and a four phase exploration program with an established schedule? And reserves of 168,000 ounces of gold? Is that not true? If GDSM has reserves, why not jump right into production (with the proper permits of course) - it would pay for all kinds of exploration.
Why dally around with surface samples - do the proper studies, get a backhoe or drill rig out there, and find out if the 168,000 ounces are really there or if it is a promoter's fantasy. What's with the sudden austerity program, given all the hype about funding in place. Where did the money go?
You asked how to check on possibly existing permits, and I answered. You commented on the Jenkins appraisal and that discussion of permits had no place in an appraisal, which I disagreed with.
I'll try to do better with your next question - are there any conditions that would make for less stringent permitting? Yes. If they can show that the ore, the dumps, and any tailings they would create are all "inert", they might avoid most or all of the APP process. And don't forget the water they might pump out of the mine - it probably has some issues as well. "Inert" has very specific definition by statute.
I know what you are getting at - maybe they can use a dry process, and gravity separation to remove the gold? And try to avoid all the environmental permits? If the ore consisted of only quartz and gold, it might work. However, here is a list of minerals reported from the mine (Jenkins, 2010):
The entire shear zone tends to vary from 15’ to as much as 30’ in true width, containing native gold, silver chloride and sulphosalts, and copper oxides and sulphosalts in the zone of oxidation. Below the oxide zone metals of importance are pyrite,
chalcopyrite, galena, azurite, chrysacolla, bornite, and pyrargyrite.
Here's an on-topic response. Invest in an ounce of gold, at least you know what you have. Investing in a penny gold miner like GDSM with no reserves, and little chance of mining in the next year or two (or ever) is not the same as investing in gold.
Treat this like it is - a penny stock that you might make money on if you can time the bounce in price right next time there is a PR.
It is a common misconception that mining on private land gets you out of all permitting, and makes it all that much easier. If no Federal or State lands are affected (like maybe an access road to the private land), the usual Federal or State environmental studies and permits are not an issue.
However, mining in Arizona (on public or private land) is regulated by the Arizona Department of Environmental Quality (ADEQ) under numerous programs. Not only are there air permits, storm water permits, solid waste permits, fuel storage permits, etc., the real biggie is the Aquifer Protection Permit (APP).
And of course there are MSHA permits, State Mine Inspector Permits, etc.
None of this existed in the 1920's (except maybe State Mine Inspector). ADEQ didn't even exist as an agency until the mid-1980's. So, if permits have been started with some program at ADEQ since the 1980's, I'd start with ADEQ. There are numerous ways to search. One way is to get on-line, and there is a GIS mapping program that you can access that shows all facilities/properties that are in their system, for any reason. You could zoom in to that area, and see if that property is listed somehow. I think there is a search mechanism also, but you'd have to know an owner's name or mine name maybe. For those who love links:
http://www.azdeq.gov/function/programs/gis.html
There is another way to track permits on-line at ADEQ's website:
http://www.azdeq.gov/databases/ltfsearch.html
Don't get confused by this one - ADEQ's database is called AZURITE!
Last comment, and an important one. An appraisal of a mine or mineral value should take into account factors that affect the price to mine. You can't just say that there is an in-ground value of xxxxx dollars (especially with no drill data, lol!). If it costs more than xxxxx dollars to mine and process the ore, it has negative value. Environmental and political considerations could easily make something un-mineable. Look at what is happening with the Pebble Mine in Alaska, or the Resolution Mine in Arizona?!! Hugely rich deposits whose future is very much in the air due to a variety of factors.
That so-called appraisal is invalid for a variety of reasons - first and foremost because it was signed by two individuals who claim to be mining engineers and are not. Secondly, they establish in-ground values without any consideration for other factors.
You're right - the issue is not that the samples are being collected by buckets and shovels. The real issues are number of samples, sample locations, sample depths, and volume of sample.
25 samples for 320 acres of State lease land are inadequate (one sample per 13 acres), even as a preliminary program.
The sample locations in the stream beds will probably come up with some gold. Enough gold to do some weekend hobbyist mining - who knows? On the other hand, the sample locations on the hi-bars will probably come up with nothing.
Sample depths are inadequate, especially for the hi-bars. For deposits that are being touted as 40 to 80 feet thick, a surface sample is a waste of time.
Volume of sample is very important for placer deposits. A minimum of one cubic yard is generally desired, and some folks run up to 5 cubic yards per sample. These two five-gallon bucket samples equal about a twentieth of a yard.
WSRA should have stuck with their 2011 plan of operations (which was rejected by the ASLD) and was actually not a bad program. Of course, it is not WSRA doing the sampling anymore, it is Chaffee since he transferred the lease to himself.
Good questions. From the information in the Jenkins report, there is no evidence of mining at this mine after 1925, and in 1942, all gold mines in the U.S. were shut down by the US Government so that mining could focus on necessary metals. So, it appears that no mining has occurred in recent times at the Azurite Mine, which might have started the ball rolling with the permitting process.
Also, there is no mention in the Jenkins report of any permitting efforts (as of the date of the report in October 2010). If permitting efforts have started between then and now, maybe GDSM should issue a new PR? I know that area fairly well, and have not heard of any serious efforts to re-open any old vein deposits in the Bradshaws, of which there are dozens or maybe hundreds just like this one. Lots of promoting going on.
Given the complexities of opening mines in Arizona, and particularly hard-rock mines, I would say that if they started permitting today, they might be up and running in 2-4 years under the best possible circumstances. Only if they have the funding, and if the economics make sense, which is unlikely with these old vein deposits.
It is really too bad for WSRA that they will now be known for their bucket sampling program. Actually, they had a reasonably good sampling program laid out in a POO submitted to the State in 2011 that involved deeper sampling, larger samples, and more samples. It got rejected because they were not willing to do the required archaeological and endangered species studies (which take money).
And to be fair to WSRA, the current POO (the bucket sampling program) was not prepared or submitted by them, but instead by Michael Chaffee personally, who is the new owner of the State land lease. I wonder why it was done by Chaffee personally since it is WSRA that has the JV with GDSM? Is WSRA now out of the picture at the Gold Star and Gold Crown project? Maybe the next PR will explain this (not holding my breath).
If you believe the PR's, GDSM should be well into Phase II or Phase III at the Gold Star claims by now. They have only taken half the permitted surface samples, so it looks like they are still in Phase I. They are a minimum of a year from mining at the Gold Star and Gold Crown claims, and that assumes they get this phase and subsequent phases of sampling done. That also assumes they get the archaeological and endangered species studies done. And it assumes there is sufficient gold there, which remains to be proven. The Arizona State Land Department will need to review those results, and approve a mining plan, before going into negotiations over royalties.
As for other claims from the GDSM PR's - there is no way a mine like the so-called Azurite Mine can be permitted as an operating mine in 3-4 months. That is pure fantasy, and they know it.
I thought they were pretty good ideas - just trying to be helpful. You have to admit that GDSM's last PR was pretty lame, and left a lot of investors pretty disappointed. Seriously, don't you think they could do better?
Speaking of fake... (nah, I won't go there).
There could still be money to be made on GDSM. However, they need to be smarter with their PR's. I could run a better scam (er, I mean "mining company") than they are and I am sure you could too.
Instead of issuing a PR talking about good sampling results, throw a few real numbers out there next time. Pick the highest number and say "sample results ran up to xxx oz/yard", and it wouldn't be lying. People like real numbers.
Also, find a real mining engineer. Things are tough right now in the real mining business, and exploration has slowed considerably. I bet there are a few engineers or geologists floating around that could write up a little report for GDSM on how exciting the "Azurite Mine" looks. No need to fake ore reserves numbers, but a well-written report with lots of colorful geological maps can really put a positive spin on it.
Come on, GDSM, put some thought into this!
Nope. No way a hard-rock mine can be permitted by the end of the year.
You're probably half-right, Chris. Their PR stated that the sampling is only half done, but I agree that the sample results were probably bad which is why we saw no sample results.
If GDSM were to "up-list" as they claim, would they have to report finances back prior to the uplist? If so, that would expose where the $600K went (for example), right? That ain't gonna happen....
The five-gallon bucket issue may be old and beat-up but it is still relevant. The smokescreen GDSM tried to throw out there with their billion dollar mine up in the Bradshaws is a joke, but sure got some people excited. 90-days until production - who could possibly fall for that? Oh yeah, I know who.....