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.
There were at least three different posters on Yahoo indicating something about a shut down in the next week or two. A couple of these posters were previously supporters of Hondo, as shown by their previous posts. I know these are just posts, and remain to be proven. But, Hondo has not even filed an 8-K to announce the issuance of the two NOVs, which is a "major event". So, why would you rely on Hondo to announce a shut-down? They will do whatever it takes to prolong the charade that they are a mining operation.
Re-working old tailings that have very little gold in them is a bad joke that investors are now realizing is on them. I have posted the old mining records (you wanted facts?) that show the Tennessee Mine was not even a gold mine - zinc and lead were their main product with minor gold and silver production. According to the website - biggest gold and silver producers in Arizona - not even close! Ironically, Hondo has posted other old production records on their website with similar information to what I found, some of which I had not even seen before. Talk about dumb - why post stuff on your own website which supports the fact that you're a scam??!
And proclaiming they have special, patent-pending equipment to remove the gold is even more ridiculous. Buying expensive-looking equipment is a well-used tactic to lend credence to a scam. I could name several in Arizona that have done the same thing, and in one case, installed processing equipment and a laboratory worth millions.
And who says they are complying with the NOVs? Filing a Notification to Discharge is not the same as complying with the NOV - that is just the beginning. It was an easy and cheap form to fill out.
If Hondo is shutting down in a couple weeks (as suggested by multiple posters on Yahoo), and they have NOVs which will prevent them from running for a year or several years, how do they keep finding investors to sink money into this obvious scam?
No problem, hope you double your investment! I have never said money cannot be made on GDSM. But, as with any penny stock, more will lose than win. And I suspect it is more luck than anything else that makes for a winner (imo), unless you know somehow exactly when a PR is coming out. And even that's not always a surefire winner, as evidenced by the last PR. The only sure winners are the folks running this stock.
I know it is a little confusing but the document you refer to (posted on Hondo's website) is not the permit. It is really just acknowledgement that ADEQ has received their Notification of Intent to Discharge Storm Water:
Please be aware this document is not your permit but is your authorization to discharge within the requirements
of the MSGP(s). Preparing and implementing a Stormwater Pollution Prevention Plan (SWPPP) tailored to your
specific site is one of these requirements. You must be able to demonstrate compliance with all terms and
conditions of the SWPPP as well as the MSGP(s) to avoid possible penalties.
Used by companies that are in such bad shape, that there is no other way to get financing.
I know exactly what you mean - great point! Signing a report as an engineer does not always make you an engineer. And signing a report as an engineer can sometimes result in investigations and fines. Luckily, SIRG has used a consultant that is registered in Arizona and that is "verifiable" if you could take some time out of your busy day to do so.
How many of these apply to your favorite scam?
1. The investors live in a flat land;
2. The investors did not make their money in mining;
3. The ore is incredibly rich;
4. Only one assayer or metallurgist can get the right answer;
5. There is a reason the major mining companies overlooked the deposit.
The axioms should be applied much like the old adage about buying a horse:
One white sock, buy him
Two white socks, try him
Three white socks, be on the sly
Four white socks, pass him by.
The presence of one axiom in a mining deal is reason for caution. If two axioms appear the deal is probably a scam; three axioms and it is undoubtedly a swindle. Some classic fraudulent schemes in our recent history have included all five elements, but none of
them were from the periodic table.
What makes you think I'm in? I might be interested in seeing SIRG re-open a copper mine, but that doesn't make me an investor.
If it isn't, it should be.
These guys have a long history of scamming and their latest thing, gold from fly ash, is really pretty comical. Hard to believe anybody falls for it, but apparently some people are really that gullible.
If there was that much gold in coal, would power companies be burning it and piling the fly ash up in huge piles? And if their "Cholla Process" really works, won't that mean the end to the value of gold? Can you imagine a world where gold is suddenly worth a fraction of what it is today, because all the fly ash piles in the world are being mined for gold? It's ludicrous.
It is far easier to call everything hearsay than to actually pick up the phone, or to request a review or copies of public files.
I recommend any investor of SIRG and especially non-reporting stinkie pinkies to view company-supplied material with a skeptical eye. Independent verification of all facts is probably impossible, but you can at least make an attempt instead of grousing about "hearsay". And with a SEC-reporting company like SIRG, there are at least some consequences to keep them in line. Not so much for pinks......
Thanks, figured it was time to weigh in. I look forward to hearing and discussing both sides of the SIRG story and maybe there is something that I can add here and there.
This is not about me. Stay on topic. There seems to be an inordinate fascination with what I do for a living. I am pretty sure this board is for discussion of SIRG, the status of their permits, the technical information available about the mine, etc.
Hey Salty, a good morning to you as well! Have held off posting on this board until now, but will now be chipping in from time to time. Good thing that SIRG has consultants that are actually registered and credible, isn't it?? And some real, honest-to-god drill holes and ore reserves to talk about! Refreshing.....!!
I appreciate you agreeing about Jenkins and Stoddard not being engineers. However, Jenkins and Stoddard both signed that "Azurite Mine" report as mining engineers - check the last page. As you pointed out, neither are mining engineers. Jenkins also signed as a geologist (CPG) which is not recognized by the State of Arizona to practice legally in this State. He has since resigned that CPG and has no claim whatsoever to be a practicing geologist.
In fact, check this out from Arizona Revised Statutes....
Pursuant to A.R.S. §§ 32-106(A)(5) and -106.02, and A.A.C. R4-30-121, the Board has the authority to investigate complaints submitted regarding possible violations of the Board's statutes and rules. The Board may take disciplinary action against a registrant for the commission of any of the acts identified in A.R.S. § 32-128. Additionally, the Board may assess civil fines and/or file a criminal complaint against non-registrants for violations of A.R.S. § 32-145.
32-145. Violations; classification
Any person who commits any of the following acts is guilty of a class 2 misdemeanor:
1. Practices, offers to practice or by any implication holds himself out as qualified to practice any Board regulated profession or occupation if the person is not registered or certified as provided by this chapter.
2. Advertises or displays any card, sign or other device that may indicate to the public that the person is certified or registered or is qualified to practice any Board regulated profession or occupation if the person is not certified or registered as provided by this chapter.
3. Uses "certified", "professional certified", "professional", "pe", "registered", "registered professional" or "professional registered" in conjunction with any Board regulated profession or occupation if the person is not certified or registered as provided by this chapter.
Struggling is right. It appears that GDSM can't even fund the collection of 25 surface samples because they are paying off past debt.
GDSM a mining company? Not even close. At best you might call them a junior exploration company (and that's being kind). They have never mined a thing except investors.
Instead of constantly questioning the credibility of everyone, a single phone call from you to the BLM would act to either verify, or invalidate their claims about the status of SIRG's permits. Please report back and let the investors know what they tell you. If the permits are nowhere near being approved, you will have your answer.
GDSM is like a living case study of a rogue mining company.
If Jenkins had just put his CPG number and not said he was a mining engineer, and if Stoddard had not claimed to be a mining engineer, we would not be having this "conversation".
Instead, we would be focusing on the unethical nature of issuing a dollar evaluation of in-ground reserves that are unproven. And potential SEC investigations. Another poster hit that topic pretty hard a few days ago, and I am sure it will come up again.
Neither Stoddard nor Jenkins were registered mining engineers at the time they wrote that report. That is verifiable. Is that clear enough?
Again, this is not about me. And I have not said today whether I am or am not a geologist - I am not the issue.
It is not slander to refer people to the AZBOTR website to see whether someone is registered or not. How is that slander? If they are not registered, and they say they are, that is fraud. This has nothing to do with me, and everything to do with a verifiable, provable case of fraud. So please quit with the lawsuits and slander talk and focus on GDSM (including their JVs, their technical reports, and their technical experts).
Yes, absolutely, thanks for summing it up for me.
By signing as "Registered SME Mining Engineer #1594874", that IS fraud. I explained this in a previous post - that number is Mr. Jenkins' SME membership number only. He is not an engineer registered in the State of Arizona. And, the SME does not have a Professional Engineer (PE) registration program. They have classes to help you study for the PE exams. They also have a program for "Registered Members" but this is not specific to engineers and is not the same as a PE. And, he is not on this list either.
By the way, his geology isn't very good either, in my opinion. Is this defamation - no, just my opinion. Is it defamation to point out that someone is lying about an engineer registration - no, it is immediately verifiable on the AZBOTR searchable database on-line.
And, he is a former member of the AIPG, not CPG. The CPG is the non-tested registration that he resigned from. Not recognized by the State of Arizona.
Would you buy a house using a home inspector who resigned his license two years ago? Or go to a dentist who lost his license two years ago? Why would you rely on a report by someone with no current certifications and who is lying about being an engineer?
This "kid" would like to know what I have posted that is a lie. Please provide evidence. It is important that information posted on the GDSM board be verifiable. Just as it is important that a technical report be signed by a real engineer, not just someone who says they are an engineer. Please review the AZBOTR searchable database and tell me if you can find either Jenkins or Stoddard listed as registered mining engineers. Here's a link....
http://www.btr.state.az.us/listings/professional_registrant2.asp
Not overstated and not BS. Just hidden away with a note that the source of that information is "unverified". How is it going with "verifying" that source? As I suspected, no one will make any effort to verify this source. That's okay, I think most on this board have no doubt that the Michael Chaffee Plan of Operations posted in the i-box on this board is genuine.
Just as a reminder of the issues here - why did Chaffee transfer the ownership of the Golden Crown State lease parcel from WSRA to himself? Why bother permitting such a limited sampling program (the "five-gallon bucket sampling program"), and why is it only half finished after three months? It does not take three months to sample 25 surface locations - I don't care how hot it is, or how much the roads flood up there, there is no excuse. Why were no results released in the last PR? You'd think if they had impressive results, they'd be pretty proud of them and we would see them.
I suspect it all boils down to funding - if they have to sell shares to satisfy past debt, they are probably not able to finance the exploration program either.
Doesn't matter if I am a geologist or not, I am just a poster on Ihub. Civil lawsuit - are you kidding?
It does matter if someone signs a report as an engineer appraising a mine at some unbelievable dollar amount and claiming ridiculous "ore reserves". Investors are relying on this report to make an informed decision and trust that the preparers of the report are qualified. They might also assume that the report has been prepared by third-party experts. They would be dead-wrong on both counts.
The signers of the report on the so-called Azurite Mine, posted on the GDSM website, are Jenkins and Stoddard. Both claim to be mining engineers but neither are registered in Arizona, and both would appear to be in violation of AZBOTR rules governing who can call themselves engineers. SME might be a little irritated as well, since Jenkins (an SME member) is suggesting that the SME has also registered him as a PE. Whoops - SME does not have a PE registration program!
Good point - I have been puzzled by the frequent use of the term "DD" as it applies to GDSM. If it doesn't include seeking and reviewing public documents (like permits), and it doesn't include talking to public agency representatives, what does it mean?
Surely reading GDSM company PRs, fake pinkie reports, Tweets, etc. are not what they mean by DD, is it? By all means read them. But as you said, do the real DD to figure out what, if anything, is true.
So far, not much has been true. 90 days to open up a hard-rock gold mine - fantasy! Still no sampling data at Gold Star or Gold Crown. Inadequate surface sampling program still not completed. JV partner sells off the Gold Crown lease that they are supposed to be developing. Technical reports by fake mining engineers. Fraudulent ore reserves figures. Fake appraisals. And recently, 25 million shares hit the market - where is that money going? Enough to make your head spin!
Either the "real players with big money" are not very smart, or they are purely counting on the right PR to create a bump in GDSM share price that they can take advantage of. Isn't that the nature of pennies?
Just because real players with big money are involved, doesn't mean that everything GDSM says is true.
There is no way you can permit a hard rock mine in Arizona from scratch to mining operations in 90 days. It is absolutely impossible. I am not making up excuses and obstacles, I don't make the mining rules in this State. I can post more links to the mining rules and regulations, but I doubt you would take the time to read them.
What GDSM is saying is simply designed to entice investors who do not do their homework.
I think I know what you are trying to say, but I'd avoid high places during a thunderstorm, as a start. You can be ready, and you can do your homework. Leaving everything to chance and luck is no way to go through life. I recommend researching everything that can be researched, and that includes looking at public documents that are "verifiable". I would also recommend avoiding putting your faith in salesman pitches like today's GDSM "letter".
Peace to you too, and have a good weekend.
You could not be more wrong. Being private property, they will not have to abide by BLM or USFS rules unless the access road crosses Federal lands. But, there are plenty of State requirements governing mining. I posted the State Mine Inspector's handy guide to mine permitting, and apparently you did not even take a peek. On average, an Aquifer Protection Permit for mine permitting can take anywhere from two to three years, and I have one mining client that has been seeking one for 11 years now with no success.
GDSM stands a better chance of mining at the Gold Star claims years ahead of any mining at the so-called Azurite Mine. That's assuming there is enough gold at the Gold Star claims to be worth mining, and we STILL do not have any results from sampling.
WSRA can move in and set up shop all they want, but they are well aware that there are rules they must follow.
A poster over on Yahoo has indicated that Hondo is shutting down in mid-August due to the environmental issues. His brother supposedly works there and has been given notice. It would be good to confirm this, and I am not sure how it fits into the big volume yesterday but it seems like odd timing and too much of a coincidence.
If true, Hondo cannot just "shut down" or walk away. They are now officially on the hook to prepare and implement the storm water plan, and they must still do the APP. As owners of the property, and as the folks that disturbed the old tailings, they now own the problem, forever. I suspect the taxpayers will end up with this mess to pay for - thanks to Hondo!
There were no reported results at all, so that part of the PR is misleading.
What the GDSM PR was trying to say was that, because no actual results were reported, it was disappointing to just about everybody.
If the GDSM guys had been more clever, they should have reported a little teaser, something like "results varied, but were up to xx grams/yard". Investors probably would have been pretty happy with that.
Or maybe since they have to provide their results to the State Land Department, they didn't want to provide any hard numbers at all since they will be "verifiable" and didn't want to get caught in a lie.
Sure, production by GDSM in 3-4 months from the Azurite Mine. Are you kidding? Do you have any idea what it takes to permit a hard rock mine in Arizona? Especially when the access road will go through Federal lands? Private land or not, mining requires so many permits that your head would spin:
http://www.asmi.az.gov/UserFiles/PDF/summit.pdf
Assuming they actually move forward with an option on this mine, the exploration alone will take months or even years. Then, assuming they actually find verifiable "reserves", which is doubtful, it will take more years to get the permitting approved. For GDSM to talk about 3-4 months until production is not only irresponsible but an outright lie to distract investors from the failure to move forward on the sampling at the Gold Crown State land parcel.
Dunphy - I found the report on ASPA's website that Dodge wrote! I didn't think it would be there, considering that Dodge got in serious trouble for it. After a very quick glance, it looks fairly well written, although I see there are no maps, tables, or data. Probably a lot of fluff if you were to really review it in detail.
Here's the link if anyone is interested:
http://aspagoldcorp.com/content/dodgereport.pdf
I think the key here is that how you sign a technical report makes all the difference in the world. The two letter acronym "RG" got this guy fined over $1,000.
I wonder how much of a fine it will be for two gentlemen who have consistently signed numerous reports and appraisals as mining engineers? Here's one example:
https://www.dropbox.com/s/ct1dklmb5p2ux37/Azurite_Report_of_Appraisal.pdf
Nice to see AZBOTR actually nailing somebody for being a fake geologist. Maybe more will follow soon, particularly for several fake mining engineers out there. Do you have a link to ASPA Gold - what prospect or mine was that all about?
I have nothing to do with the GDSM/SIRG feud. If you will note, I have posted on SIRG only once since becoming an IHub poster and I was posting on GDSM well before the feud got out of control. SIRG has problems, just as any startup mining operation has. Some of their problems are going to be very challenging to overcome and they may very well fail. However, there is no comparison between SIRG and GDSM.
So, to make myself absolutely clear, I post on GDSM because of the lies and fabrications of the company, their JV partner, the author of their various technical reports, and some of the more vocal supporters on the IHub board. Nothing whatsoever to do with SIRG and their supporters, and nothing to do with being a "short". And nothing to do with being a paid basher (that asinine accusation comes up fairly often too).
You will also note that whatever I post is verifiable (like the supposedly "unverified" POO that I made available), or is based on my experience and training. By the way, when is that "unverified" POO going to be verified? It's been weeks, and still no one has bothered to do the leg work to verify it. That's the kind of crap that keeps me on the GDSM board.
i'm guessing in 2-3 weeks he'll say results are in and there's some gold,
The values assigned to the Azurite report are for proven and probable reserves which according to the IG7 is allowed.
Not sure what you mean. If you are referring to the 2010 date of the Jenkins/Stoddard report on the "Azurite Mine", this is obviously not a 43-101 report, and GDSM is not a Canadian-traded stock. So, if you are concerned about that report being "stale", that is not an issue.
The main issue with the report is the unsubstantiated reserves figures and the completely bogus $2.44 billion number in future-possible-potential-fantasy ore reserves being thrown out there to impress investors. Oh, and the fake mining engineer certifications.
I thought that the phrase "permitting problems" was odd in that GDSM PR. They actually had no permitting problems - after Chaffee transferred the State land lease to himself from WSRA (for some unknown reason), he filed a Plan of Operations, and it was approved within several weeks. That doesn't sound like a permitting problem at all and in fact, it went pretty smoothly.
The problem is that the scope of work was simply deficient. 25 surface samples, each consisting of two five-gallon buckets of gravel, scattered over 320 acres was hardly worth doing. And, based on the recent PR, they have only done half the sample locations since the Plan was approved in early May. Three months to take 12 or 13 surface samples? The "problem" is not permitting, the "problem" is that WSRA put together a deficient plan, and cannot seem to find the time (or funding?) to complete what should be just a couple days of work for a two-person crew.
Monopoly money appraisal certificates!! That's funny! The certificate I posted is one of several I have that Arizona Gold Corp. issued for mines it was promoting. There is so much wrong with those "appraisals" that I don't know where to start. To issue a certificate of appraisal as the owner of the claim is like a home owner putting together a home inspection report and handing to a prospective buyer - who would believe it? Yet, these mineral appraisals seem to be just fine with GDSM investors?!
And then there is the lack of technical information on which to base the appraisals, the false certifications of the appraisers, and the violation of SEC rules. Unbelievable!