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.
No clue what that number is - too many digits to be an Arizona registration. Arizona registrations are always 5 digits (at least they are now, since they are up to the 50,000's in the number issued). Maybe he was registered in Canada or some other state at one time, maybe even still? That number is not recognized by the AZBOTR.
If it looks official to you, it would probably look official to a lot of people, and that borders on fraud. By putting that on the report, he is claiming to be a Mechanical Engineer when in fact he is not (at least in terms of a report issued in Arizona). His CPG was valid at the time, and he should have left it at that.
Someone relying on that report to make an invesment decision, would have trusted that he should know what he was talking about, because after all, he was a CPG and a Mechanical Engineer (neither of which are recognized by the AZBOTR). Well, if they are now feeling burned by their investment, they might be tempted to file a complaint at the AZBOTR.
To be fair, lmcat, it appears that maybe some assays were done by the Southwest Research Institute group in 1964. They collected samples at 160 locations, but only refer to 50 assays that they did to evaluate "locked" gold values in the placer material. They gave a range of gold results (nil to 0.67 oz/ton, with an average of 0.19 oz/ton). The lab was apparently the Union Assay Lab in Salt Lake City, Utah.
I assume all 160 of the samples (including those assayed) were run through some kind of on-site equipment to determine the amount of recoverable gold in each yard or ton of material.
But, without a description of sampling methods, the data in tables or plotted on the map, or the actual assay sheets, it is all pretty meaningless.
A little different story for the 2005 Lewis report. There was no attempt to assay anything - 15 bulk samples were run through an on-site plant, and the recoverable gold was weighed. Nothing really wrong with this approach, although assaying the reject portion and the black sand might have made for even more favorable results.
As some over on the GDSM board have said, they don't care about these old reports anyway - they are anxiously awaiting the Phase I and Phase II reports. Fair enough!
However, what is not being acknowledged is that the GDSM/WSRA/Gold Tech estimates of "reserves" at the Gold Star claims are based on completely untrustworthy data, and reflects very badly on the various parties issuing these estimates.
No, Don Jenkins was never registered through the Arizona Board of Technical Registration so he wouldn't show up. He was registered through the American Institute of Professional Geologists (AIPG) as a Certified Professional Geologist (CPG), until last year sometime when he resigned. The State of Arizona does not recognize the CPG certification and it is not a substitution for being an RG with the AZBOTR.
I am not saying that being a CPG has no worth, because the AIPG is a legitimate organization. However, I understand that the AIPG is taking a closer look at the whole CPG program because there have been a rash of complaints lately regarding geological reports signed by CPGs. Unlike the RG, the CPG does not require a test, just a degree, experience, an application form, and recommendations from at least two other CPGs.
I have heard that Mr. Jenkins was approached by the AIPG about several recent complaints against him, and that he chose to resign rather than face being revoked. I do not have proof of this, so take it for what it's worth. I heard it from someone who is in a position to know - I tend to believe it because why would someone give away a certification like that?
By the way, I have also seen several reports that Mr. Jenkins has signed as a Mechanical Engineer. He is not registered in Arizona as an engineer, and this is a violation of the AZBOTR rules.
That doesn't mean much to me, I don't trade penny stocks. I will show my ignorance and ask what TDA is - a stock trading company? Not totally sure what a "chill" is either, although I have heard it talked about before.
Thanks for the opinion, but leave me out of this! I only brought up SIRG because oilcan asked why they didn't need to be registered with the AZBOTR.
Easy answer. SIRG is a mining company and does not need to be registered with the AZBOTR because they are not issuing geological or engineering reports on their letterhead. Their consulting company is Paul C. Rizzo and Associates and they are registered as a firm, and also have at least one principal in the company registered individually with the AZBOTR as an engineer or geologist (I forget which). Rizzo or a registered member of his staff will sign and stamp the reports that get submitted to BLM, etc.
Stoddard, on the other hand, stated that he was an engineer and provided a report to another party, probably with the purpose of marketing the Gold Star claims. In my opinion, he is in violation of AZBOTR rules because he is not registered in Arizona, and neither is his firm. In Arizona, if you are providing a report which relies on engineering or geology expertise for its conclusions, and you sign as the person with that expertise (an engineer or geologist for example), and the report is relied upon by someone outside the company, it needs to comply with AZBOTR rules.
The AZBOTR would need to judge the facts and make their decision, if this report or any other "appraisal" by Stoddard were to be submitted to them.
There is also a very serious conflict of interest here - Stoddard was the author of the Arizona Gold Corp. report. Arizona Gold Corp. is (or was) owned by Stoddard and Jenkins. Jenkins and others owned the Gold Star Claims. How could Stoddard provide a fair and unbiased appraisal if he is tied in to the ownership of the claims? It's a sham.....!
Without a single assay sheet to base his estimate on, I think Stoddard's "proven reserves" can be dismissed pretty easily. Maybe a new term - "fantasy reserves". Not to mention the possible AZBOTR violation(s).
And, since Stoddard's estimate was for the four Gold Star claims (#1-A, #4, #5 and #8), only a third or so of the 180 Southwest Research samples collected in 1964 were on these claims. The remaining samples were on other claims. Interesting that ore reserves can be calculated using samples that are not even on the claims in question.
In addition, only 8 of the 15 samples discussed in the Lewis report (2005) were collected on the four Gold Star claims, making the Lewis report a little less relevant too.
The AZBOTR database includes all registrations, since day 1. You will find individuals registered in the 1920's! And, there is also a requirement for firm registration - another way to get an annual fee out of you.
I think you will find that Arizona Gold Corp. is not a registered firm despite issuing statements of "worth" which are based on a geological and engineering evaluation of the Gold Star claims. Nor is Mr. Stoddard registered, despite signing as a Mining and Construction Engineer.
Even if Arizona Gold Corp. is defunct, Mr. Stoddard is still at risk of someone filing a complaint against him as an individual.
Fine by me, but I thought you should know.
By the way, the last thing I wanted to do was to spark another round of SIRG/GDSM stalking. That should stop on both sides. They're not relevant to each other.
Hey $b_rich$, you'll love this! I made a math error on the Lewis hibar results (4 samples) - they actually average 0.014 oz/yard. So, just over half of the average used by all of the GDSM/WSRA/Gold Tech reports which was 0.025 oz/yard. I apologize on this public forum - as much as it pains me, I am willing to admit I erred. How often do you see apologies on IHub?
However, it doesn't change much. The Lewis report is still only 15 samples to characterize many millions of tons of gravel, and has no description of how the samples were collected and processed. The old Southwestern report (1964) still has no assays, and that was where the 0.025 oz/yard estimate came from.
Maybe GDSM can provide the Lewis report and everyone can whip themselves into a frenzy making the conversions themselves, for what it's worth.
Enron, huh!? I'm flattered.
You are wrong on points one and two. Not a stockholder, and don't plan to be one. Frankly, I don't care if the stock price goes up, goes down, or goes away. Actually, I think releasing the report probably will cause a bump in the price, which explains why there is so much anxiety about it. It is too bad that if I end up releasing this report, it may affect stock price - that is certainly not my intent, either positively or negatively.
Not really concerned for the investors except for those that are investing money they can't afford to lose. And I'm sure there's a few of those.
However, your questions are completely valid if directed at GDSM. Since their website links to Gold Tech, and the report is listed on the Gold Tech website as a resource for these mining claims, I would think that GDSM should have access to the report, so ask them for it. Or contact Gold Tech. And ask why it is listed as a resource and not made public. It actually seems like a semi-encouraging report if you overlook the lack of any sampling methodologies, and the small sample size.
Don't worry about being deleted. You were not rude or insulting, and it was on topic. Just wrong.
I seem to recall some old mining town in Colorado where the main street is referred to as the "Golden Mile" because the rock used to build it was relatively high grade stuff from a nearby mine.
And the hype begins! The existence of the Lewis report is now being touted on the GDSM board. Doesn't even matter what is in it, it is already evidence of the value of the Gold Star claims, apparently. And my guess is that no one will even question why this "important" document has been withheld from the investors. GDSM might as well release it, because few on that board will understand it.
If my math is right, that's about 0.004 ounces/cubic yard. Which is, at current prices, about $7 in gold per yard. Not sure when they mined the gold, but I assume probably even worse at the time. They might have done better selling the gravel for road cover.
Please do post my deleted comments. I have no problem you posting any of them. None were rude or obnoxious, unlike the comments directed at me. I was simply defending myself against a slew of both public and private comments aimed at me. I can see how they might be perceived as off-topic, and I'm okay with that.
I've told you now about 5 times why I won't post the Lewis report. It will get posted, I promise! Are you looking to create a little bounce in the stock price to unload some GDSM?
As a mod, I guess it is nice to be able to go back and look at my deleted posts, but you are picking just a few lines out of them (lol yourself, by the way). The lines you picked out were in response to sarcastic and rude comments by GDSM posters, which is why their posts were deleted to begin with. And it wasn't me that complained about their comments, by the way, I would have preferred that they stayed.
You still aren't listening to my interpretation of the Lewis results, or you just don't understand. I suspect you will be one of those that will take any data, no matter how bad they are, as reason to pump the stock. The Phase I and Phase II results, if they ever show up, will set off a frenzy on GDSM regardless of what the results are - should be amusing. I am sure the stock price will react accordingly, hope you make a few bucks before it crashes again.
Enuf said, let's give it a few days and revisit this.
As I said several times, GDSM should post the report, not me. I guess I am curious to see if they will or not. Don't worry, it will be posted, you just might have to wait a few days.
As for deleted posts, I had a bunch of them deleted last week because they were responses to posts that got deleted, and I guess that made my posts irrelevant. I do not insult people on IHub however, I know my comments are probably seen as bashing GDSM just by being negative. In fact, I suppose this post might be deleted because we are not supposed to be talking about deleted posts. The war of deletions is why I have little hope of having a "conversation" on the GDSM board - very few want to listen to facts and opinions that are perceived as negative.
And what about the Gold Crown? I know of no reports on that claim and I don't believe that GDSM/WSRA/Gold Tech, etc. have issued any sample data for this claim. Since you have brought it up, why has no one wondered about the fact that it is 10 miles away from the Gold Star claims, yet discussed as though it is right next to the Gold Star claims? Is it being evaluated by GDSM/WSRA in Phase I, Phase II, etc.? 10 miles away, but probably an hour and a half drive away - no direct route between the two areas.
I guess I wasn't really clear. The average of the Lewis samples (0.011 oz/yard) is indeed less than half of the ore grade (0.025 oz/yard) that is claimed for 6.7 million tons of "ore". However, that is misleading. As spelled out in both the Jenkins and Southwest reports, most (90%) of the tonnage included in the 6.7 million tons is hibar (alluvial) material. The grade of the Lewis hibar samples is abyssmal. The report labels four samples as "hibars" and their average is 0.17 oz/yard, or roughly $8 a yard. You would quickly go broke trying to mine gravel to recover $8 in gold from a cubic yard.
But, all this would make little sense to the average GDSM poster - it's that darned geology and math again.... I don't mean to insult anybody in particular, but it has been said repeatedly on the GDSM board that they have no use for geology or anything else technical. This conversation wouldn't even be happening on GDSM, because my posts would get deleted under some pretense. If GDSM were smart, they'd release the Lewis report, play it up as being more evidence of a fabulous gold discovery, and very few would care enough to question it (as long as the pps goes up).
I don't even look at the Jenkins report in that way. Whether he is a CPG, ex-CPG, or has associations with WSRA, it is probably best to judge the "technical report" on its own merits. As such, it does not present any data other than referring to that 1964 Southwest Research Institute report. To base an evaluation of a placer mine on an old report with no attached assay sheets or tabulated data - that is what I have the biggest problem with. Not Mr. Jenkins' certification status or who he is associated with (although these factors are important too).
I guess what you refer to as a "decent amount of gold" would depend on who is throwing that term around. If it is a weekend warrior who wanted to mine a few ounces, that might fit. If it is a publicly traded company that makes unsubstantiated claims of a couple billion dollars worth of gold, it just doesn't fly.
You're right, I don't know what exactly is in the slag. I know in general what is in the slag as far as the majority constituents - things like silicon, iron, magnesium, aluminum, etc. As for exactly what the gold, silver, copper, and zinc content are - I can't say because I have not found that information. I am sure that Phelps Dodge has that data somewhere, and I'll bet it could be found if someone spent the time to do it. All I know for sure is that the data is not in any report issued by SRCH, because they have not issued any reports.
But, it's a moot point. I can look at production records and I can look at geological reports, and I know what kind of ores were processed by Phelps Dodge at the smelter. The ores had a gold content to be sure and I am sure that Phelps Dodge was pretty happy about it. According to references on my shelf, the majority of the ore had less than 0.05 oz/ton. I don't need to know what all the other stuff in the slag is, to be able to say that it is impossible to end up with a slag with 0.5 oz/ton gold.
The smelter and the orebody are not really that unique. Both the smelter and orebody have unique features but so does any smelter and any orebody. The geology of the orebodies smelted at Clarkdale are a little unusual for Arizona, given that most production in Arizona is from porphyry deposits and this is a Volcanogenic Massive Sulfide (VMS). But, there are other VMS deposits in Arizona (Iron King Mine, for example), so it is not unique. There are many, many articles and reports on both the smelter and the orebody - should I post a bibliography? Yes, you are right, it was very rich ore, hence the direct smelt. And there is data available for ore going into the smelter. I think I posted those sources before, would have to go back and see what they were.
Nothing that SRCH says in their PRs is credible without their consultants' report. I can't remember if they claimed to know what the values of silver, copper, zinc, etc. are in the slag. Doesn't matter, I wouldn't believe it without seeing the data, and someone credible presenting it. The gold is the focus, obviously, and their claims are not believable.
And yes, a smart (and lucky) person can make money on SRCH no matter if they are a scam or not, as we have discussed before.
Setting up all that equipment is one of the keys to SRCH's success and longevity. Appearances are important and what's a million bucks worth of equipment if it helps buy them 7 years of scamming success? I know of numerous scams that have expensive, brand-new equipment that they have bought (and never used).
My preference would be that GDSM post the Lewis report. If they don't have it, they know where to go to find it. If they prefer to not post it, investors should ask why.
It really isn't totally negative results, and I am sure GDSM can put the approprate positive spin on it. And frankly most of the folks on the GDSM board would have no clue how to interpret it - some of them have repeatedly said they did not think the previous technical reports are a concern to them. Ironic, considering this is a mining stock, that so little emphasis is placed on the data or lack thereof.
If it doesn't come from GDSM (as it should), I will try to find a way to post it. Sorry to keep you hanging, but I have provided the gist of it and you will eventually see that what I have said is the truth.
I am sure some would like to interpret the Lewis results that way.
But, my interpretatin of the Lewis results (accepting them at face value) is that a) there is some gold out there, b) the gold is not distributed in economic concentrations in high bar (i.e. alluvial) material which is by far the majority of the tonnage out there, and c) the tonnage and grade estimates proposed by GDSM/WSRA/Gold Tech are therefore completely unsubstantiated and extremely unlikely.
If some hobbyist wanted to do a small-scale mining operation on weekends at the Gold Star claims, they might make enough to pay for operations if they can identify the higher-grade streaks. But 6.7 million tons at 0.025 oz/yard, no way!
Maybe GDSM should issue the Lewis report, or the Phase I results? Any reason they shouldn't?
That's a good question that investors should ask GDSM - it would be interesting to see why they don't think the results from the 1964 Southwest Research Institute report are enough to begin mining. It was apparently enough for Scott Stoddard (Arizona Gold Corp.), a self-appointed mining engineer, to issue the rather specific appraisal of $143,437,500 for in-ground ore reserves!
The real answer, of course, is that the 1964 report does not have any assay results attached to it and is not a credible report. In fact, the report does not even bother to tabulate the data. They only give averages for results and the range of results. This report is nothing more than a historical curiosity since it does not have the components that would give it credibility.
That leaves the Lewis report (2005) as the only other sampling report for the Gold Star claims. Which GDSM/WSRA/GoldTech, etc. have not made publicly available for some reason. The fact that I have seen it means that they are using it for marketing purposes, but for some reason are withholding it from the stockholders.
Cosmic - the gold ain't there. There is no geological/metallurgical explanation for there to be half an ounce/ton of gold in that slag. You can't get a slag that rich in gold from direct smelting of ores that never ran even a tenth of that for gold. It makes no sense - does it? If SRCH were to produce their consultants' reports for all to see, maybe I could be persuaded otherwise, but with no reports, there is zero credibility. I know I sound like a broken record on the lack of reports issue, but it is a huge red flag.
You do make a good point - if these guys had any real intention of producing gold, why then are they skimming a million bucks a year for director's salaries and "consulting" fees? I have been part of start-up companies before, and if your highest priorities are not research, development, and marketing, you are doomed (or you are a scam).
Another good point - the historic and on-going connections with very well documented scammers. What legit company would allow folks with those kinds of connections to be, in any way, associated with their operation? If it walks like a duck, quacks like a duck, well, you know the rest.
These guys are masterful scammers, probably the most successful mining-scam in Arizona over the last 7 years (and they have some stiff competition).
I have just responded to lmcat's questions/comments, but you will note that I have never posted on SIRG and still don't quite get that whole GDSM/SIRG feud. SIRG may have some problems, but it is not of the fraud variety which is what I am interested in. Whatever is between you and lmcat is not my deal.
Sorry, can't link to the Lewis report or the Stoddard appraisal - as far as I know they are not available publicly. I will see what I can do to upload those documents.
You got me - I forgot about that post. But, it is still not personal in regards to Jenkins. It is just odd that you and others think that Jenkins is not relevant and seem to be very sensitive to any mention of Jenkins. Discussion of the merits of any stock should include where the information (or misinformation) comes from, the qualifications of that person (or lack thereof), their role as major stockholder or as an officer in the company, and the financial dealings that bind these people together. Jenkins is fair game and his name will come up again, whether from me or someone else.
As for my credibility, whatever. You can judge me all you want, but I know I have never lied or mistated anything on this board or any other, and I think the only reason you are concerned about me is that you know I am right and probably would not want me bringing this stuff up on the GDSM board.
As for who might have PM'd me from the GDSM board, how would you know?
Do you want to talk about the faked Appraisal Report?
The Lewis report is actually for 15 samples, not 14 as I said previously. The sample results average about 0.39 grams/yard which equates to 0.011 oz/yard, less than half of what GDSM, etc. claims to be in 6.7 million yards of gravel out there with their "ore tenor" of 0.025 oz/yard.
Granted, the Lewis sampling is a small number of samples, so I don't read too much into these results. But, it could explain why GDSM, etc. does not want to release the Lewis report since it does not back up the earlier data.
By the way, the sample points are listed as hibars, lowbars, channels, upper gulch, side gulch, etc. Looks like Mr. Lewis was trying to evaluate different kinds of geology out there. The results for the hibar and lowbar deposits are miserably low, as you would expect. But that's where most of the 6.7 million yards are located.
Which is exactly why GDSM owes it to their stockholders to release the Lewis report. Whether I have seen it or not is irrelevant - it is referenced in various places, and because it represents sampling data, GDSM should fess up with it! There are some on the GDSM board that daily bring up the lack of a PR or the sampling data. Others tell them to be patient. I would think the Lewis report would keep less patient investors happy for a while.
As to your point about the sampling being a waste of time to do it over - the Lewis report was only 14 sample points, and definitely not representative of the claims. And, it was done by someone that has no credentials, and the sampling methods were not discussed at all. The results did seem somewhat encouraging if you take them at face value.
Perhaps the current sampling program will be more credible than the Lewis sampling or that hokey 1964 report? If they do not have an Arizona-registered individual or at least a CPG overseeing the sampling and stamping the new report, they might as well not release it.
It's not that the Jenkins 2005 report isn't accurate or inaccurate, it's that it says nothing that can be backed up with hard data. No assay sheets, no test data, nothing but a rehash of another poorly documented report done in 1964. Jenkins provides nothing but unsubstantiated speculation about hundreds of millions in gold sitting out there. To base a mine's worth on speculation? Come on, most scams at least provide a few assay sheets.
I am not sure why you keep bringing up the Jenkins issue, it was beat to death a month ago on the GDSM board. Not much more to be said about it. But, since you brought it up, Jenkins resigned because he knew that his registration would be revoked. I cannot imagine a circumstance where someone would resign for any other reason, especially someone whose reputation depends on whatever registrations or certifications he might have. Besides, I thought Jenkins was irrelevant to GDSM?
Yes, I am posting an opinion, just as you are. I do happen to have the credentials that you apparently don't, but given the anonymity that this board requires, I would be crazy to give away any personal information.
As for the 1000 investors in GDSM? A few have totally bought into the dream of millions in gold, despite the lack of documentation, and are true longs. I feel sorry for them. Some say they are longs, but realize that gold will never be mined by GDSM and make their money playing the short game. Good luck to them. And then there are few honest ones that are admittedly shorts, and know that GDSM and the Gold Star claims are a scam. Some of them have PM'd me (you'd be surprised who they are), and those are the ones I respect the most.
The mysterious Lewis sampling report (2005) completed for Don Jenkins is referenced on the Gold Tech website as documentation for the Gold Star claims.
The Lewis report is also referenced in a long-winded pump for the stock on the GDSM board:
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=71778773&txt2find=mega
Finally, there is another reference to the Lewis report in a WSRA Quarterly report:
http://www.otcmarkets.com/financialReportViewer?symbol=WSRA&id=64085
But, interestingly, the Lewis report is not available on the WSRA, GDSM or the Gold Tech websites. I wonder why, since it is apparent the work is available to both WSRA and GDSM. Don't the investors in WSRA and GDSM have the right to see results of any recent sampling at the Gold Star claims? Recent compared to the 1964 report, that is.
Why is this always perceived as a personal attack on Jenkins? I am just trying to piece together the web of interconnections between Jenkins, Gold Tech, Arizona Gold Corp., WSRA, GDSM and others. All roads seem to lead to Jenkins, and that's the way it is. In fact, as I have pointed out, the GDSM website links to the Gold Tech website which is Don Jenkins. Maybe they ought to remove that link and actually find the energy to post their own information on the fabulous Gold Star claims.
It's nothing personal, it's not like I know the guy or think I will bump into him at Happy Hour.
Good luck to you. Hope you make a few bucks....
I'll bet you would love to see that report! No, it should come from GDSM, WSRA, or whoever. Ask them - it is listed on the Gold Tech website as supporting documentation for the Gold Star claims.
Also, while you're at it, ask them for Arizona Gold Corporation's 2009 Appraisal Report written and signed by a fake "mining and construction engineer", Scott Stoddard.
And, finally, ask them why they have not posted these documents since they are relevant to the value of the Gold Star claims.
You assume way too much. It is not that tough to find a property with "actual gold". What is hard is to find a property with actual gold that can be mined economically given the grade, size of the orebody, overburden, environmental issues, metallurgical issues, politics, etc. DGRI has not provided any evidence whatsoever that "their" Nicaraguan mine has economic gold. And in fact, the results of half a dozen samples collected by a company officer from orepiles are not even a good starting point.
Not to mention that the JV has not been funded and DGRI is massively in debt.
I have seen it. It was done for Don Jenkins, and consisted of three pages - a cover letter, a sample location map, and a table of recovered grains/yard (of gold presumably). No assays, no description of how the samples were collected. I can understand GDSM/WSRA/GoldTech/Jenkins not wanting to release this report.
Probably more of a visual concern to the locals than anything else, although you are right, dust is probably the real threat being so close to Prescott.
Well, I guess the gold came from somewhere!
Freeport (formerly Phelps Dodge) owns a bunch of acreage in Copper Basin and has contemplated opening a copper mine. If you take the Copper Basin Road up to Prescott, you drive by their area, all surrounded with fence. Apparently, they are facing some pretty stiff resistance from folks in Prescott who do not want a mine anywhere nearby.
No idea why Phelps Dodge would have anything to do with any of the desert dirt scams in Skull Valley.
I don't think Hondo has been foolish enough to publicly say they have. But, if I remember right, there have been several investors who posted on this board that they had called Hondo and been told by management they were running 15 tons a day, or some such nonsense. They were a bit irritated that their favorite company was running "ore", and not reporting the resulting gold as revenue (or at least issuing a PR that they were running ore to help pump the stock price).
To throw fuel on the fire, I seem to recall commenting that running ore would be a violation of ADEQ rules, and asked where they were discharging their wastestream. It's too easy with these guys.....
Testing, testing, and more testing! Seems to be a common theme for a lot of these dirt scams. Now, Hondo has all the equipment in place (or so they say), so they get to test that for the next year or two! Funny, considering they are still claiming to be marketing their E-Leach system to other mines, that they can't even get it to work on their own pile of dirt.
No reported gold production in their quarterly report, so I guess the reports of producing gold were a bit premature (in other words, they lied).