Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
Register for free to join our community of investors and share your ideas. You will also get access to streaming quotes, interactive charts, trades, portfolio, live options flow and more tools.
I've presented public documents and been called a liar and a forger. I have presented my thoughts about placer mining and sampling methods, and been called a "google-ologist". But no one has been able to prove I am a forger or liar, and no one has countered with any technical information of their own.
All you do is present company marketing material from GDSM and WSRA, two pinkie stock mining companies which have zero credibility and no reporting requirements to keep them honest.
You say no dilution, but I think it is coming (or has already happened, but who would know, they have no SEC reporting requirements). Based on the apparently miniscule exploration budget they have expended, I would say money is pretty tight right now or is being siphoned off.
You have a nice evening too!
There's a right way to bash and a wrong way? Perhaps my motivations are not what you think, and I am not "bashing" for the usual reasons.
Play the bounce that is coming up when the next PR comes out, but be quick because it will be gone in the wink of an eye, back to 0.003.
That sort of stuff won't go over well with the majority of penny mining stock investors, and they are unlikely to read it. Too bad, might save them from losing their shirt to the scammers.
Glad you liked it. I guess it is "bashing" if it is information that does not support the story that GDSM/WSRA tries to present. Presenting public documents is information too, and critical information if you are an investor. Unfortunately, the permits do not support the GDSM/WSRA story either.
Frankly, pictures on websites, whether there are roads or not, or how far 5-gallon buckets have to be hauled are insignificant compared to the hoax that has been perpetrated on investors. The hoax consists of the phony reserves figures and the so-called technical report written by the owner of the claims who has an obvious agenda.
You don't know me, and you presume a lot to imply that I have not had goals or done crappy work like hauling buckets down a hill. I have done worse, far worse.
I was just trying to rationalize why they were doing one quarter of the Gold Crown lease area, then the next.
The permitted sampling is for locations in the northwest quarter of the Section (160 acres) and for the southeast quarter of the Section (another 160 acres). That explains the reference to northwest and southeast areas.
The area that the access road runs through is along the south side of the southeast quarter which means they went for the easy ones first (less hiking). The harder ones in the northwest quarter will be a hike - at least half a mile each way (and up to a mile to reach the far north end), lugging 5-gallon buckets of gravel back to the road!
Excellent read - in a quick, two minute skim of this, I saw at least half a dozen statements that I would like to reference in my discussions on other boards. Some hit pretty close to home with projects I am involved in. Will review this in more detail later - Thanks!
He could buy it from his company, right? But why? Or maybe WSRA gave him the lease in lieu of stock options or cash? Since the lease has some value, is that taxable? And why no disclosure to the stockholders? Very odd.....
What is it that makes you happy about my posts today? Just curious....
Since the transfer of the lease from WSRA to Chaffee is now verified, you can take getting a copy of the lease transfer off your to-do list for this week! Nice to see everyone agrees this is truly verified information.
However, unverified emails are apparently more believable than a copy of a public document.
Thanks, appreciate seeing that yet again, can now almost recite that stuff from memory! But I prefer to do my research using real documents and information, not company propoganda.
They are not in Phase 2, they are barely into Phase 1. I can't imagine they have spent more than $20K at the very most, given what they are permitted to do out there. The rest of the funding either doesn't exist, has not been spent, or was spent on things other than exploration.
Who will ever know? This is not a SEC reporting company. That money is investor's money (or was, I should say). Bye-bye....
Unverified information, but let's assume it is true that the poster is "chatting" with Chaffee. Things are not on schedule, unless the schedule has been revised. No PR announcing a new schedule, so maybe Chaffee means a new internal schedule that we can only guess at?
Why would anybody assume the lease and permit are going to be transferred back to WSRA (or GDSM)? Why go through all this transferring - what's the strategy here? And I thought it was unverified information about the lease transfer - is it now verified? Did Chaffee verify it? And how do we know he verified it - will it be discussed in the next PR?
Is Chaffee providing information to one investor and not all investors? Aren't there rules about that?
Hi-bars? The Dictionary of Geologic Terms doesn't list it as a technical term, but I think the way it is being used in the context of a placer mine is that hibars are the sediments that are not directly in the path of the active stream channels (basically form the banks and low gravel hills above the stream).
In the Gold Star area, the high bars are dissected alluvial fans - material that has eroded from the Bradshaw Mts. and are now being cut through (dissected) by streams. Alluvial fans are usually pretty unsorted material (all sizes from silt to sand to big old boulders), and not the best place to look for placer gold. GDSM's technical sources claim that the bulk of their gold will be found in the hi-bar deposits, but geologically, it is not likely. The only chance of finding reasonably good gold is in the stream channels (but you run into permitting issues with that).
You asked, but I am sure that I will get slammed for being a "googleologist" again. Oh well.......
This from a poster in April regarding the schedule of GDSM and WSRA's activities:
Phase 1 is almost complete.
Phase 2 is about to begin and will be complete in late summer (August / September?) of this year. This phase is small scale gold production.
NI 43-101 completion is to begin shortly.
Phase 3 to begin in late summer of this year. This is the beginning of full scale production.
Phase 4 is currently unknown.
I never said filings. I said PR's and fraudulent ore reserves numbers - regurgitated over and over. There are no filings with the SEC - this is a stinkie pinkie.
Of course Hollis is lying. That bulk sampling is a joke, just like the sampling of the so-called ore piles.
Actual investors have done no DD here, just regurgitated GDSM and WSRA company PRs and fraudulent ore reserves numbers. A few may make money, but most will lose.
Do you think there is a link to everything? I know of no drilling ever done at the Gold Star claims or Gold Crown lease, other than to put in a well. The burden of proof to support those reserves should be on GDSM, or you, if you continue to post them.
Whether I am real geologist or not is not the issue here. This is not about me, it is about how GDSM is enticing investors with reserves numbers that are not real and in violation of the SEC definition of ore reserves. And it is about a poster repeating those fraudulent ore reserves numbers over and over.
Just in case anybody is confused by the way it is presented in the i-box, I am not the author of the POO. Therefore, it is not "my" POO - it was written and submitted to the ASLD by Mr. Michael Chaffee.
No link needed. Anybody, and I mean anybody with common sense, can see that creating a reserves number without a single verifiable assay or any drillhole ever being drilled is a fabrication.
Do you want to talk about the SEC's definition of "ore reserves"?
I am not perfect, have misspelled words myself. But to do so in a Shareholder's Report for all to see has to be embarassing. You should know, we all have a little harmless fun now and then, at someone else's expense?
What is this, the 20th time that GDSM's fraudulent reserves figures have been posted by you in the last week? The more you repeat it, doesn't make it any less of a fraud.
How many drill holes back up these reserves figures? Oh yeah, none! How many assay sheets are available to back up these numbers - again, none. How many third party reports signed by a registrant are available - bingo, none! Wishful thinking does not create reserves. If GDSM could prove these reserves, I might even invest!
What does that WSRA Shareholder's Report mean by "difficult train"? The nearest track is several miles away.
Hey, the "conversations" are gone! Thanks, that is the first fair thing I have seen in a while.
There are other things (links) on the i-box that are not from the company either, but I think I have made my point. I really couldn't care less about "conversations" with Lovito because he has nothing at all to do with the mine or the exploration efforts and what could he possibly say that would interest me? I doubt he has even been to the claims and it looks to me like the funding is not really available, based on the minimal efforts in the field. But it was the new "rule" concerning the i-box that I was concerned about.
I know you and the other investors don't have anything to hide, it is GDSM and WSRA that I am concerned about. Like why WSRA no longer owns the lease to the Gold Crown? Probably an innocent reason, but so much for transparency. I doubt they counted on someone actually checking.
Their royalties check to the State would be based on the results, so I assume the test results must be submitted with the check. I am curious what happens if they claim no gold was recovered - maybe no report would have to be filed? But how would the State know if they were truthful or not?
Active field activities would be the digging of the sample holes, and their reclamation, which would almost certainly be done immediately (why would they hike back just to cover up the hole?)
The exploration permit is good through April 15, 2013. The field activities and proof of reclamation would have to be done by then. The royalties letter with sample results might be okay to be sent in after the April 15th, 2013 deadline, not sure.
If no sample results are submitted, and the sampling was actually done, my only conclusion would be that they found nothing and that they are no closer to proving reserves.
They must submit proof of reclamation (pre- and post- photo documentation) by the end of the exploration period (April 15, 2013), regardless of whether they find anything or not.
Good questions. If you look at the "conditions" of the permit, they must submit a royalty payment to the ASLD for any gold recovered during the sampling program, if they do the sampling program. The amount of gold recovered is bound to be quite negligible, even if results are good. But, they need to pay the State for it, and do it within 60 days following "active field activities".
The royalty payment must be accompanied by a report of some kind with details like number of samples, sample map, dimensions of the excavations, volume, amount of gold, the royalty check, and be in the form of a notarized, signed, dated report. For giggles, let's assume they get awesome results and the 50 buckets average 0.05 oz/ton gold. Fifty buckets of gravel might weigh a ton or so. So, they will have found and recovered a twentieth of an ounce - they will owe the ASLD about $75. However, they might also admit they have found nothing, and they owe the ASLD nothing.
Good results, bad results, doesn't matter - they can do another POO or modify the existing POO and do more testing upon approval. The ASLD doesn't really care what your results are for exploration as long as you follow the conditions of the POO. However, when it comes to the production royalty agreement, that's when they make you prove "reserves".
Reviewing and copying a public file is not magic. Anybody, even you, can do it. And should do it, if you are an investor.
My guess is that if the new rule is nothing gets posted on the i-box unless it is from the company, the Plan of Operations will never be posted. Nice to make rules, but maybe what is in the i-box now should be examined and anything (like links to alleged "conversations" with Lovito) should be removed as well. Isn't that the rule, nothing but information directly from the company? How is that conversation going to be verified?
Full 2011 (denied) ASLD Plan of Operations was posted last night, probably nobody noticed being so late. This will need to be "verified" by the legitimacy police too, I suppose (lol). Here is the link:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=77730529
It is amusing to see that term "DD" used by some GDSM investors who do no more than read company promotional material. You do not have to have a technical degree to make a few phone calls, review a public file, or read some articles on-line.
And you're welcome for the documents I posted - I also posted the complete 2011 POO (never implemented, and denied by ASLD) last night. No comments yet, so maybe it is no longer there? It can be reposted.
Fabricated and unprovable - you're talking about the marketing material provided by GDSM, right? You mean how they arrived at those reserves figures, right?
Sure, ASLD permits could be fabricated, I suppose. However, they are provable, and according to a previous poster, they're being verified.
Seriously? How about a link to something other than GDSM company marketing material, Gold Tech reports, etc.? How about some real DD?
Most corporate attorneys know nothing about environmental rules and regulations. Especially that shill that all these companies use in Florida. I know a few environmental and mining attorneys and most of them wouldn't touch a client like GDSM or WSRA with a ten foot pole.
It is a tough problem, but a 404 permit can be obtained if you have enough time and have a good (registered) engineer that is familiar with the 404 process. However, they have stated in their "technical reports" that the vast majority of their so-called reserves are in the hi-bar deposits that would not involve the stream beds. Therefore, it is critical that they evaluate those hi-bars.
Taking 25 surface samples, only half of which are on the hi-bars, is going to tell them very little about the hi-bars. No matter what the results of this preliminary sampling are, they will still know next to nothing about their hi-bar deposits which are reportedly 40 to 80 feet thick.
Their best option is to ignore the streambeds, and prove a resource in the hi-bars.
Totally agree! I have posted on several occasions that money can be made on GDSM. Every PR ought to cause at least a little bump. Just don't get caught holding the bag.
I know you will rummage through my postings until you find the one that fits your needs. A CPG is an honor more than a useful registration. There is an education requirement, minimal experience levels, and recommendations by at least two other CPGs. No test. It is not recognized by the State of Arizona and most geologists with a CPG also have the Arizona RG to be legal on their reports.
Okay, now go find one of my old posts and see if I made another "mistake". You seem pretty hung up about Jenkins. You have implied he is irrelevant to the current GDSM/WSRA efforts, and that he is not involved, so why do you care?
What do GDSM filings have to do with fraudulent reserves figures and unregistered experts?
You're pretty good at grabbing old posts, and you are right, at one time I incorrectly said his CPG was revoked. I knew at that point for sure he no longer had it, and I assumed he was revoked because it is unheard of to resign a registration. So, I apologize again for making a wrong assumption. I acknowledged multiple times afterwards that he was not revoked and had resigned instead.
However, I would remind you that the CPG is a registration issued by the AIPG, and no test is required unlike the rather difficult Arizona registration exam for geologists. Consequently, the CPG is not recognized by the State of Arizona. And neither is the Mining Engineer registration (#1594874) that Mr. Jenkins routinely, and possibly illegally, applies to his reports.
I really didn't care either way, it is not a requirement of a Plan of Operations to list a "Directing Geologist". If he is the one that authors the upcoming sampling report, I will have a problem with that and so will the ASLD.
As for "having a problem with Jenkins", I do. He is the author of an Executive Summary with a fraudulent ore reserves figure. That document is referred by GDSM to their investors and prospective investors as evidence of the amount of gold at the Gold Star claims. And, you continue to post that same fraudulent ore reserves figure over and over as though it is fact.
Jenkins' company Arizona Gold Corp. also has issued a fraudulent "appraisal" for the Gold Star claims with a rather exact appraisal amount of $143,437,500 of "In-ground Ore Reserves", with nary a single drill hole to back it up. You bet I have a problem with stuff like that.
Personally, he might be fun to have a beer with, but professionally, his ethics are severely lacking.
Who does the verifying? That will be interesting.
Here is the full 2011 Plan of Operations that was denied (see last page). This is the program they should have been doing this year. Note that it was submitted by Michael M. Chaffee of Western Sierra Mining Corp.
Also note that the "Directing Geologist" was Don Jenkins with his Certified Professional Geologist (CPG) registration, and his Mining Engineer (ME) registration. He has since resigned his CPG (which is not a registration recognized by the State of Arizona anyway). His Mining Engineer registration is not, and never was valid in Arizona.
What was the point of doing that?