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's too bad, thought it was pretty clever.
It is the same address as WSRA's, but for some reason, this permit was filed by Mr. Chaffee as an individual. There is also a change of ownership form he filed to transfer the lease from WSRA to himself, personally. Sorry, I don't have that change of lease ownership document, you'll have to take my word for that one. And no, I don't have a link.
Why do you think Chaffee transferred the lease from WSRA to himself? Interesting considering it is never a good idea to do things on a personal level when it comes to things like contracts, leases, etc. Your liability becomes personal instead of the company taking the liability.
I am working on resizing all nine pages of the permit, bear with me.
Okay, last post for a while, gotta figure out how to upload this cursed permit paperwork.
But, I just want to point out that having seen the permits and educated myself regarding the ASLD permit process, I have infinitely more insight than 99% of GDSM stockholders as to the progress of the sampling program, the overall permitting process, and the chances of mining in the next year. I probably have not accomplished much but from the "love" I have been getting on this board, I must be doing something right.
Funny you should ask - I do now! Just arrived via email. Will get it posted if I can. My browser has been causing problems, may have to go to my laptop and see if I can do it that way.
If not, I will email it to some other IHubber that can upload it. Needs to be converted from pdf to jpg, right?
I haven't been called a liar so many times since last poker night! You'd think by giving a permit number, some brave soul would actually call someone other than a secretary down there at ASLD and ask for a project manager in the Minerals Group.
I knew someone would do that, and take that comment out of context. Lighten up!
No, you are taking the word of an IHub poster who claims they called the ASLD, and talked to someonw who gave a generic answer. Get in line for the apologies.
Not sure what you mean by a "moment of weakness", but the post of mine that you found was before I had seen any permits. Turns out that a permit for exploration using non mechanized means (i.e. hand-dug test pits) was issued to Michael Chaffee (not WSRA or GDSM) in early May of this year. They do NOT have a permit for mining which was my concern because some GDSM posters were trying to make the case that mining was imminent. I knew that permits to mine were not a quick process and did not believe that mining was imminent.
I stand by that. Mining is not imminent on the Gold Crown claim (320 acres), and in fact, I am even more sure that mining is not imminent now that I know where they are with their exploration process, which is not far. They will have to submit another exploration permit to do deeper sampling, which requires roads to the sample locations. In turn, that will require archaeological surveys and endangered species studies, which take time. GDSM/WSRA is a minimum of a year from any kind of mining, if not more.
And now that I have a clearer understanding of the State permitting process, I know that the ASLD will review their exploration results very carefully and if they cannot make the case that there is an economic deposit there, the State will not issue them a mining permit.
Did you know that only one gold mine is currently permitted on State land in Arizona? It is a very small placer operation in Stanton (Rich Hill), and I am told they are actually recovering some decent gold. However, my point is that the State of Arizona does not take these gold plays lightly and issue permits without credible and reliable data being submitted to them.
Geez, if you would just give me a break for a few minutes, I will figure out how to upload that permit. Or, you can keep screaming for a link that does not, and cannot exist. Arizona State Land Department does not upload permits from applicants, thus, there is no "link". It is not a "canned permit" - it is a site-specific permit for exploration and has site-specific limitations (no disturbance other than the 100 square feet).
I will get a hardcopy and get it uploaded.
Just for the record, you think I am making all this up, right? And you will apologize when you see I have not been lying?
No, it's more fun just making stuff up. Just kidding, I have never made up anything on IHub, as you will see.
To answer your question, I cannot provide a link to a paper file in the State Land Dept. offices, sorry. They don't post any of the permit info on-line. However, I will see if I can obtain a hard-copy of that permit info and then figure out how to upload a copy into IHub. Will that work for you?
Believe what you want, but her answer was generic, and my answer was a direct quote from the permit. That seems to be a recurrent theme here, people believe what they want to believe. I even gave you the permit number - did you think I just made that up? I do respect the fact that you called, though.
That may be true in general, but not for this permit. The permit issued to Mike Chaffee on May 3, 2012 (08-115459) is for samples to be hand-carried in five-gallon buckets from each sample location to the main road, and then off-site for processing. No ATV's, no jeeps, etc. are allowed because the permit does not allow any road-building. Too cheap to do the archaeological studies and bugs/bunnies studies, so the permit is for a total of 100 square feet of disturbance only - 25 samples, each 2X2'.
Wonder why Chaffee has cut WSRA out of the picture and filed this permit personally - the permit does not mention WSRA anywhere?
I remember that you posted that appraisal of the Gold Star claims a while back - too funny! Although probably not funny to whoever fell for it. An "appraisal" of in-ground resources without any sampling data? Signed by a fake mining engineer that worked for the owners of the claim? No conflict there, huh!?
Probably an AZ Board of Registration issue if someone were to pursue it.
Nothing to forward - that's the problem. It is a lack of data that does not support the use of the word "reserves". Any complaint to the SEC would have to point out the repeated use of the word "reserves" by GDSM and the Gold Tech Executive Summary that they use as their primary "technical report". And of course, the lack of any supporting data. That would be for SEC to determine.
Can't speak for others, but I am not shorting it. As for hearsay and suppositions, get on GDSM's website, and the first thing that hits you is the reserves figure of 6.75 cubic yards at 0.0025 oz/yard gold. That isn't hearsay or supposition, it is there in black and white. Where are the data to support those "reserves" figures? I don't think that is nitpicking, it is the central piece of information designed to separate investors from their money.
You're probably right, the SEC won't get involved, at least until someone complains. In the meantime, make your money while you can when the PR(s) come out, because it sure won't be from any gold mining.
Sorry, don't mean to spoil the "game" here. But, fraudulent claims of reserves are a direct violation of SEC rules, and sooner or later someone is going to pursue that angle. If I were GDSM, I would remove that word "reserves" from all their marketing material (including their website) before the SEC hammer comes down on them. Most investors wouldn't even miss it. Just call it something else - value, volume, or whatever.
Why do I think the claim owner made up the numbers? First of all, he has an obvious agenda -he has been peddling those claims for years. If that estimate came from an independant RG or PE, I might be more inclined to believe it, but it didn't. Secondly, I have not seen anything that GDSM, WSRA, Gold Tech, Arizona Gold, or any other entity has ever issued to back up those numbers that is credible. Thirdly, this is a penny stock, what do you expect?
It may or may not be a true statement that most of the land is ATV accessible, but it is irrelevant. Mr. Chaffee's current ASLD permit for exploration on State Land states "Samples will be processed off site. Samples will be hand carried to road." i.e. no motorized traffic off-road for this exploration program, and no mechanized digging.
25 sample locations, 2X2' area of disturbance for each sample, two 5-gallon buckets per hole, hand dug, carried to the road by bucket brigade! How in the heck are they going to evaluate those 80-foot thick high-bars by shoveling a two-foot hole in the ground? Not a very ambitious sampling program - these are pretty small samples for a placer testing program.
Probably 2-3 days of work at most, wonder why it is taking so long? Looking forward to that report.......
Sorry, just not true, duelittle. The estimated reserves (proven, probable, historical, or whatever) of 6.75 million yards of 0.025 oz/ton were made by an owner of the claims based on nonexistent data purely for purposes of promoting his mining property.
The 1964 report that is referred to included a few maps but no sample data, no assay sheets, no engineering, and many of their sample points weren't even on the current Gold Star and Gold Crown claims. No engineering basis for the reserves estimate has ever been presented, and the SEC would have fun with this if someone were to file a complaint.
There will be no NI 43-101 in a month or two, or ever. SEC frowns on American OTC companies issuing documents referencing a Canadian standard.
SEC also frowns on American OTC companies issuing reserves figures for mining properties with no drill data, no credible sampling data, and no third-party reports.
The claims contain proven and probable reserves of 6.75 million cubic yards of ore. The average ore tenor is 0.025 oz/yd. At $1,200 per ounce, proven and probable reserves are $202,500,000. Total estimated reserves, not including a valuation of black sands, is $550 Million. An unusual and significant attribute of the Gold Star property is that the mineralized black sands, unlike most, appear to contain substantial gold values and possibly PGM.
I don't think 1manband would mind you using his quote, and you're right, they would probably harass him if you had mentioned the source. Although, some GDSM'ers have been on the Research Board before, so it is not a "refuge".
The Gold Star properties are comprised of approximately 650 acres. To some extent, the difficult train has limited our initial efforts, but the majority of the property is accessible via ATV vehicles.
No problem, I knew you had no way to PM (a little birdy told me). Got a kick out of some of your posts on GDSM over the weekend! It is ironic that the very same questions these folks ask on the SIRG board, prompt nothing but sarcasm and indignation on the GDSM board. They can dish it out but have a hard time responding to the same criticism.
One thing that has not been debated fairly on the GDSM board is their incorrect use of the word "reserves". They claim to have reserves of 6.75 million tons of 0.025 oz/yard gold. According to the SEC definition, they do not have any reserves. I suppose a complaint to the SEC would probably be a waste of time, but a lawsuit by a disgruntled investor might make life interesting for them.
I will check out the PCFG board in more detail later, but did take a quick look. Looks like their placer mine is close to the Olinghouse Mine, a lode mine which is very well known for coarsely crystallized gold. Not surprising that they are actually finding some placer gold!
Not the case with GDSM - there are some lode gold mines in the hills above the Gold Star, but none that are specifically known as producers of coarse gold, or any significant gold production for that matter. We are now past the timeframe that WSRA was supposed to be getting their results to GDSM for the initial sampling. Assuming the results are now in GDSM's hands, I suppose GDSM could sit on the results and release them at some later date. But why would they wait (unless the results are not encouraging)? Several of the GDSM posters have pegged tomorrow as the big PR release - we shall see!
Sorry, missed your earlier post, but you obviously had the same concerns! I scanned through that link to the Sun Central Mining 43-101 (in their 8-K) that you provided - now that is the level of detail that I am talking about! Is it too much to ask that a "mining company" provide a few details? I use that term very loosely in regards to DGRI....
They might have peeked at IHub but realized they probably didn't even know what questions to ask without looking foolish. It always amazes me that folks investing in mining stocks do not take a few minutes to educate themselves. I am not suggesting people need degrees in geology or engineering, but an hour reading about how barite deposits form, what constitutes a minable deposit, and how they are explored and developed wouldn't be unreasonable.
Their definition of due diligence is not the same as mine.
Amazing how little information can be packed into a PR!
Which mine was the bulk sample collected from? How big was the bulk sample? How did they collect the sample and split it down? Who collected the sample - a third party or not? How did they collect it? Was chain of custody maintained? What lab assayed the sample? What does the bulk sample represent - was it from an ore stockpile already processed in some fashion, or from the face of the workings? Why only one sample? Statistically, one sample is next to worthless. Where is the actual assay report? Will it be posted? If no assay report is posted, you can only assume the numbers are made up.
An assay costs $50 or less - DGRI is going to make a mining decision based on one "bulk" sample? What a joke!
Their reactions are human nature I guess - they don't like being questioned. I also understand why they would wonder why a professional would be wasting their time on IHub.
There are a few very knowledgable professionals on IHub that regularly comment on mining issues, and I have raised the question myself - why do they bother? 1manband in particular had a very good point - for every person that posts a comment, there are many more that never comment but might actually use IHub as a source of information (for better or worse). He encouraged me to continue providing comments in the hope that it might save someone from making a foolish investment decision.
As for why we are not "out doing it", I cannot speak for the others - maybe retired, maybe don't need to work anymore, maybe are doing it and IHub is an amusing diversion. I am in the latter category.
As for being a gobbledygook expert, I will take that as a compliment. I am becoming pretty good at recognizing it when I see it.
If your Yahoo chatboard guys cannot respond in a reasonable manner to 1manband's points regarding "reserves" and lack of recent drilling data, they are the losers.
Lots of new names on the GDSM board this weekend that seem to want to get in by trying to scare us "foolish" longs out of our shares at bargain prices.
You tell me, what is the source of those quotes? Please provide a link for each one. I must have missed a couple of them because I don't see them. Especially the comment about wind-deposited placers. Must be really windy up there in Skull Valley.....!!
Perhaps I should have put "inside" in quotations. Of course it wasn't from GDSM, or WSRA, or some engineer working on the Gold Star project. It was a complete fabrication and I think you know where the source of that supposed "leak" was coming from. And I know you will tell me that you don't pay attention to anything not coming from GDSM. Fine, but not all posters on this board are as perceptive as you, and some seem to accept such information as though it is true.
Tangled web....!!
This was posted on the WSRA board a while back but deserves revisiting. Pretty amazing to me, but maybe it is old news to folks that have been involved in penny stocks for a while.
http://investorshub.advfn.com/boards/read_msg.aspx?message_id=69624150
Funny you should ask - my boots have been on the ground up there, and fairly recently. I think I have seen the old Nevada Mining operations from the Copper Basin Road, but never thought much about it. Just looked like a sand and gravel operation, which it was.
Yeah, it would be ironic if that was why PD took gravel from there. If you look at some of the grades of a typical Skull Valley placer deposit, the material is often worth more as road gravel.
Some will, some won't no matter what happens. A PR is plenty good enough for some.
The leaked inside information (which has been posted several times in the last few months) is so obviously a fabrication that it is laughable.
Thanks, but you are in the minority on this board. I think a PR will definitely cause a temporary bump in the GDSM share price, but an actual report, signed by an actual engineer or geologist, would be infinitely more desirable (if I were a shareholder). We'll see what happens.
Wind-deposited placer? That's a novel concept. Almost as silly as nickel and lithium in a placer deposit.
And by the way, I highly doubt that WSRA is drilling for their samples. Probably test-pitting.
Or are you throwing those quotes out there as examples of misinformation in previous GDSM posts?
Exactly what I've been saying for months on this board. With no credible or reliable data, this is being touted by GDSMWSRAGoldTechArizonaGoldCorp. as a 160,000 oz. gold deposit.
The highly anticipated upcoming report is more than likely going to be in the form of another PR, not a report. It will most certainly be incredible (as in hard to believe)!
As a GDSM "long", do you think it does the stock price any good in the long run to have folks posting false claims of "leaked information"? What is the purpose of the GDSM board on IHub? Why do you post on IHub - to promote interest in GDSM, right? And to try to distribute factual information regarding GDSM? Am I wrong?
I know you attempt to point out BS when you see it - don't I have the right to do the same?
Nickel, copper, zinc? Lithium? Seriously? Leaked sample reports for the Gold Star claims from an "engineer buddy" are fabrications. Why would someone be leaking information, and why would they be analyzing for these metals anyway?
I realize it is a poster that came up with the "leaked information" and not GDSM or WSRA. However, stuff like this does not help with credibility.
It may have very well been PD needing some fill material (gravel/soil) to cover the old waste dumps, etc. up at their Copper Basin operations. I really doubt it had anything to do with mineralization, just a handy place to get some fill.
Yeah, I saw that inset that talks about placers being formed by water and wind! Wind? Are you kidding me??!! That would be the last way to form a placer deposit. And of course, all the platinum group metals - what a crock!
The company is now called Freeport Mcmoran - here is a link to the corporated website:
http://www.fcx.com/
I found nothing on their corporate website about the Copper Basin property. I did find the following document that mentions some mine reclamation work that was recently done at the Copper Basin property:
http://www.fcx.com/envir/pdf/brochure/reclamation_AZ.pdf
I don't know anything about the material trucked from (or to?) Copper Basin, but I seem to recall that rbtree had mentioned it in some post a while back. I am curious about it as well, and wonder what possible connection there is to Nevada Mining's hokey placer mine.