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.
Truth is, I do have an idea, and so would you if you would read through the Plan of Operations. They have just barely begun the exploration program, and are nowhere near mining gold. And, the Gold Crown lease has been transferred from WSRA to Mr. Chaffee. Still no clue why that was done, but it appears that GDSM is partnering with a firm that no longer has legal control of the lease area.
Here's a question that ought to provoke some conversation:
Given what you have presented for the budget for Ph. I and Ph. II ($75K and $350K), what do you think WSRA's actual costs for Ph. I and Ph. II are so far?
It is stated in the permit - 50 five gallon buckets. The 100 sf of disturbance is all the individual sample locations combined - 25 locations, each a 2X2' pit, and my guess is about 1-2 feet deep. Probably 2-3 days of work (8 samples a day should't be too tough). Another couple days to run the samples through their equipment. Maybe a few weeks for assays if they choose to assay their black sand. If they started back in May, they have been sitting on results for a while.
No difference. Gold, copper, or whatever - why would it matter? In addition to archaeological surveys, biological studies must be done for proposed significant disturbance on all Federal lands and State land too (Gold Crown lease).
The current Plan of Operations by WSRA is for a grand total of 100 square feet (10 feet by 10 feet for those of you without a calculator), no biological studies needed. But no mechanized equipment allowed either.
Mining in a few weeks on the Gold Star claims?
I don't think so - according to WSRA's last PR, they were focusing on the Gold Crown state land lease area, and it appears they are doing nothing with the BLM claims. And by focusing, I mean preliminary sampling only, using hand tools and no mechanized equipment. They do not have permisstion to mine - it which would take another Plan of Operations, archaeological studies, endangered species studies and a negotiated mineral royalties agreement with the state.
You will need to be patient, it will be next year, if at all. Did you know that there is only one State land lease that is actively being mined for gold in Arizona? A tiny operation in Stanton (Rich Hill), which is north of Wickenburg. These State mining permits are not easy to get - the claimant must prove mineral value, post reclamation bonds, etc.
Diatribe - dictionary says bitter and abusive.
Hmmmmm, not so, at least from the side of the skeptics. The comments by the Hondo-skeptics have been generally pretty factual, with links, data, and posted documents. Maybe a little sarcasm here and there. Oh, you mean the threats of lawsuits and IP adress tracing - you're right, that does qualify as a diatribe!
I call bull on most of your statements:
The NOV's Hondo has received to date have been the results of investigations initiated because of an individuals complaint,
The company is addressing all issues head on and plans to have them resolved before they become a "compliance" issue
ADEQ wants this process to work as it will ultimately result in a cleaned up site.
Salt water is the primary fluid used with less chlorine than the average swimming pool.
Almost all waste water is recycled
Hey goldranger, glad you could make it for some more conversations about Hondo! How's it going with tracing IP addresses and all those lawsuits? Amazing that the Hondo board has been so quiet after the NOVs that were a no-brainer to predict, actually were documented as being real.
This post was pathetic on Yahoo, and is now pathetic on IHub. I suspect it was aimed at me over there, so I will address it here too. At least here on IHub, the discussions have some rules and as long as the Terms of Service are obeyed, we are able to have a half-way civil conversation.
Firstly, Hondo has violated two Arizona regulations designed to protect groundwater. Would you exempt them from all rules and regulations because of a few employee's paychecks? Too bad for them, but their employer has chosen to disregard some of the most basic mining environmental regulations that real mining companies have to live by. Working for a penny stock mining scammer is not a good career move, in my opinion.
Secondly, where is that 8-K announcing that they have been hit with major environmental NOVs? Don't the shareholders deserve to know that Hondo is now prohibited from "processing" until they have an Aquifer Protection Permit? Of course no 8-K, no PR, no nothing - except uninformed stockholders.
Thirdly, I would seriously hope that nobody's retirement funds are invested in this scam.
Finally, as far as "us fellows" that are apparently causing this world to be a sad place, get a grip. The sadness is caused by scammers, thugs, bullies, and those too greedy to treat their fellow man with a lick of honesty. Are you listening Mr. Miertschin? How do you get look at yourself in the mirror in the morning without cringing?
Oh yeah, one more thing. Your buddy who toured the mine - is he a geologist, mining engineer, or metallurgist? I assume he must be to know what he was looking at. Please get him to post his thoughts on that Reno-Cell system that they think will remove gold from worthless tailings using saltwater or whatever. What a joke.
Endless supply of prospects in them thar hills, and an endless supply of investors. WSRA and Gold Tech have literally dozens of old, worn-out mining prospects that they can peddle if Gold Star doesn't pan out. They really owe it to GDSM investors to focus on the one at hand first, though.
The 25-sample program should have taken 2-3 days at most, even with hand carrying their shovels and five gallon buckets. Maybe another couple of days to run the samples through their Gold Claimer and U-Tech table. If they are assaying the black sands (and they should), the assay lab might slow them down a bit, but only for a few more weeks. The whole program should have taken a month or less, start to finish. They have had the permit for 10 weeks, what's the holdup?
News release and PR are the same, meant to say news release and corporate reports. Unless you count Facebook and Twitter - those are not really news releases either. Of course, if something of substance were released by social media, it would require an 8-K, right?
I thought about it (for about a second). Playing the news release and PR game carefully, a person might make some money, even on GDSM. Amazing how news, no matter how lacking in substance, can make the stock price jump. For example, posting that permit yesterday seems to have done something to the price today. I wouldn't consider a permit for 25 surface samples to be very exciting, especially considering there are still no results, but go figure.
But, no stock for me - I would be afraid of being a bag-holder (see, I am learning all the lingo!).
Isn't that exactly what I said? I just wanted to point out that water cannot be dumped back down a well, and a well cannot be "enlarged". It can be deepened but it is not easy, and most people just put in a new well. That's what they would probably do, if the ASLD allows it.
Water supply is probably not the issue here, but disturbing the stream channels on the property - that's a serious issue because those are the best places to find gold, and unfortunately off-limits due to CWA 404 issues. I suspect that WSRA is aware of that. You don't mess with the Army COE.
Hate to tell you, but lmcat is right on this one. Disturbing the channel of a wash, even a dry wash, is a Clean Water Act issue (Section 404), which is administered by the Army Corps of Engineers. Here is the link:
http://www.epa.gov/compliance/resources/publications/assistance/sectors/constructmyer/myer1c_dredgeandfill.pdf
That's why most placer operations stay out of active stream channels, to avoid having to conduct all the studies needed to get a 404 Permit.
As for the well, there is no way to expand the well. It would be illegal to dump water, filtered or not, back down the well. That would make it an injection well which is a permitting nightmare. They can, however, get a permit to put in a second well if needed. And, they will most certainly be building ponds to catch the water, and allow for its reuse. If they ever get that far.
Once GDSM gets their mining permits, they can put up fencing. They are a little ways off.....
Yes, the Gold Crown lease is now owned by Chaffee personally, not WSRA. I have no information about the BLM claims.
What this means for the JV, etc., I will leave that up to others to figure out.
Your comment cuts both ways - I see the same fraudulent ore reserves posted multiple times every day, and the constant cheerleading about imminent mining at the Gold Star claims. Those folks are wasting their valuable time as well.
If sasquatch stumbles on a sample pit and sprains a toe and can find a lawyer that will take his case, he would sue too! You make light of it, but people sue over stupider things.
My real point is, why would someone put a lease in their personal name, when they have a mining corporation (WSRA) set up for such purposes.
Why would they post private property signs on public lands? It is open to the public. Ahh, I get it, you're being funny, right?
No, the Gold Star claims are unpatented BLM claims. Same deal there applies - you and I can wander around on those claims too.
If there is mining equipment or other valuable assets, and there is a permit in place that specifically allows that equipment, the owner does have the right protect that material and can post it and fence it off. But, only under the conditions of the permit.
Warren - if you have a chance today, can you retrieve the SEC definition of "reserves" and post a link (GDSMer's love links!). I think everyone needs to see what the SEC considers a "reserve" compared to what GDSM thinks a reserve is.
If not, and I have time, I will go find it myself and post it later today.
Or maybe some of the regular GDSM folks can go find it and post it - maybe even in the i-box, since it is rather important!!
What are your thoughts on that information? Any theories?
Let's be clear, lmcat, the state land lease (the claim) is no longer in WSRA's name either. It was transferred to Chaffee, personally, and all subsequent documents (including the POO that was posted yesterday) are in Chaffee's name. WSRA no longer has a roll here except as maybe the consultant doing the sampling.
If I were Chaffee, I'd be concerned about somebody stubbing a toe on one of his sample pits, and suing him personally since he is now the sole entity named on the lease and the exploration permit. Why would someone open themselves up to personal liability that way, makes no sense?
And before someone says you cannot be walking around in that area, you can as long as you are not committing "mineral trespass" - sampling, mapping, etc. Day hikers and bird watchers can tromp around all they want on that lease area. Maybe WSRA and GDSM should organize a picnic - when it cools off!
Chaffee is a geologist? Did not know that.
You are right, those kinds of permits are not easily obtained! I was actually surprised they got their POO so quickly, but the scope of work was limited to a total disturbance of 100 square feet, with no motorized/mechanized equipment, so it was a no-brainer for the ASLD.
They will need a Storm Water Plan (and permit) once they are up and running, but that is pretty easy to do.
I wouldn't say WSRA is an empty shell. They are pretty active, and team with multiple partners (GDSM, Gold Tech, GEAR, etc.) on various mining ventures. They are probably stretched kind of thin, considering the number of prospects they are peddling.
However, the company that is touted as having a 100 years of "experience" was actually called Gold Chain Mining Co., founded in 1907. It was a mine development company but never mined anything. Their only asset over the years was a block of mining claims in Utah that were never developed.
WSRA and their current management have no real connection with Gold Chain Mining Co., other than some buyouts and mergers. That 100 years of mining experience has no basis in fact. Mr. Chaffee (a relatively recent addition to WSRA) and his associates may have some experience promoting mining prospects and doing some grass-roots exploration, but 100 years of experience between all of them? No way.
The State land lease area, where WSRA is focusing the current sampling efforts, is also under the jurisdiction of the Corps of Engineers in regards to whatever streams are present. They cannot alter the flow of any waterway (dry or not) without extensive permitting.
The use of that stream water is irrelevant - not only is it not allowed, but those streams in that area only flow a couple weeks a year, at best (and you don't want to be in or near them during a summer monsoon!)
Trailer-mounted office is acceptable but they will need it included in their next POO (it's not in the current POO).
Maybe they are afraid they'll be sued along with me, since they would be the ones posting it for all to see.
They should do a little research on the SLAPP laws in Arizona which protect freedom of speech regarding public matters. A quick search shows that Arizona has pretty good SLAPP laws - here's a link for those always screaming for links:
http://www.citmedialaw.org/legal-guide/anti-slapp-law-arizona
Have you ever tried to dig a hole in cemented alluvial material (sand, rock, cobbles) with only a 2X2' surface disturbance area? Try getting deeper than a foot or two....
As I told another poster, I don't know what it means. Could be meaningless, done for tax reasons or something. Anyone who has run a business knows that given a choice, put the company name on legal paperwork, and not your own. He did it on purpose, and even filed the paperwork to make it official. Might be interesting to see whose name is on the the BLM permits (if there are any).
Very good description of sampling methods for a placer!
Since the bulk of the "reserves" for the Gold Star (and presumably Gold Crown claim too) are supposed to be high bar deposits averaging 40 feet deep, a couple of five gallon buckets of gravel taken from the each surface sample location will not be adequate. The results from this surface testing do not characterize the full depth of the deposit, especially since placer deposits tend to be richer with depth. Drilling and, at the very least, deep test trenching is the way to go.
Also, 25 sample locations spread out over 320 acres is less than a single sample per 10 acres.
I am not sure it is negative that it was filed by an individual instead of a corporation. I am just trying to figure out why. Why would a person expose themselves to liability and deliberately remove the corporation from the lease, and all subsequent documents (including this POO)? What do you think?
Posting a public document is not illegal. I posted it in its entirety. I suppose you could claim I doctored it, but as my name suggests, git real. You seem much more bothered by this than most - why? Maybe you're Chaffee.....(lol)????
All I can say is - wow! Oh, and where's my apology?
Here we go - I suppose you think I am a State employee, or maybe some insider. I knew some genius would start that. Please read my post - I obtained them from someone who reviewed the file, just as you could if you wanted to.
Where's my apology?
You'd be in even bigger trouble going off-road on BLM land without a permit. The BLM permit for constructing exploration roads is the next topic of business. Someone else is going to have to research that one - I've had enough of being called a liar to last a lifetime.
Someone can call BLM or go down there and pull permits, just as the State Land lease was obtained.
My feeling is that GDSM/WSRA is focusing on the State lease land (approx. 320 acres), based on what their last PR said. I suspect they are doing nothing with the BLM claims (Gold Star claims), but I could be wrong. Is this where say "imo"?
Here is the entire POO - hope it is readable, did my best to make it a reasonable size, but must be an easier way than how I ended up doing it.
A reminder, this is public information. My source obtained this by requesting a review of the file several weeks ago, and paid for copies. I do not want to hear anything about insider information, bashing, or lying. Maybe an apology from a few...... (yeah, right!).
And all this talk about transparency. Why doesn't GDSM or WSRA or Mr. Chaffee (since he is apparently doing this without WSRA) make this information available? Most legitimate mining companies post sampling reports, environmental permits (or at least permit numbers) and other relevant documents on-line.
I had to disable Google Chrome - it did not play well with my antivirus program.
Anyway, I will post the entire POO in a minute.
Funny you should ask that - the permit that WSRA filed in 2011 was denied because they wanted to use mechanized equipment but did not want to pay for the archaeological surveys, etc. Jenkins' name was on the 2001 permit as the project geologist, with his then-current CPG number and his ME (Mine Engineer) number. His CPG is now self-revoked, and his ME was never valid, at least in Arizona. Maybe there is an attempt to separate the current sampling program from Jenkins? But why separate it from WSRA? Really weird, but obviously done for some reason.
By the way, there is no requirement by the ASLD that an exploration permit application have a "project geologist" named on the application, but I guess WSRA/Chaffee felt it was important in 2011, and not important in 2012.
And, a State lease is not like a normal mining claim on Federal lands. It is a lease, renewable on an annual basis as long as bonding and other conditions are met, and only up to five years. I'm a little fuzzy on what happens after that, but I think they need to prove mineral value to get additional extensions.