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 read the article - how does DGRI solve this mercury problem? By kicking the locals off those "claims" in Nicaragua and mining commercially?
Other direction - Skull Valley is about 12 miles west/southwest of Prescott. Copper Basin is even closer, maybe 5 miles in a straight line west/southwest, although the road is not so good. It takes close to an hour to get to Copper Basin from Prescott. The GDSM claims (four of them anyway) are just east of Skull Valley.
Well, guess I'll cut them some slack if it is just a typo. You'd think they would be more careful.
Regardless, I do not believe the "high-bar" (i.e. alluvial fan) material has much gold. As you know, placers are sporadic, confined to stream channels, and usually just the first few feet above the bedrock contact. To think that the gold is distributed at economic concentrations throughout an entire alluvial fan is not likely.
Every one of Jenkins' gold properties have multi-hundred millions of dollars in gold, and some are listed as having more than a billion dollars in gold. That is not likely either.
A little math error on GDSM's website - check this out:
And did you notice the Google Earth view of their "minesite" clearly showing the extensive grading of the tailings pile? Move "historic" tailings, and you begin the APP process - in this case, it will be in the form of a Notice of Violation which ADEQ is close to finalizing. I have confirmed that one is being prepared, but couldn't get a date for it to be issued. Something about internal legal review.
Also, if you can open the attachments to Lundin's report, there are some production records from the Tennessee Mine from the 30's. Gold values in the ore averaged less than 0.10 oz/ton. Other production figures I have seen from the 1940's show that gold values for entire years (1942 and 1943) averaged less than 0.050 oz/ton. For anyone to think that the tailings (a waste product) from these ores would somehow average 1 to 3 oz/ton gold, they are delusional. Kayzak's data showed 20 samples from the tailings averaged less than 0.010 oz/ton gold.
Finally, I have always been struck by the big fat lie on Hondo's website which states the following:
They're all over on the Yahoo board practicing sarcasm and grade-school insults, and getting ready for the big party in Chloride this weekend.
Check out Hondo's website - they have added a bunch of stuff. Under the buttons for permits - "coming soon". Under samples and assay reports - "coming soon". Can't wait......
They have posted some of the appendices to Lundin's report. Love to look at this old historical stuff. Interesting that the gold assays reported in the 1930's from the Tennessee Mine are a tenth or a hundredth of what Hondo claims is in the tailings. Now to prove my point, all I have to do is refer to Hondo's own website - thanks!
I guess what I'd like to know is what does it take for the SEC to take action? How much of a lie, and how money do you have to steal from investors to constitute an offense big enough for the SEC to take action? Is it only a scammer's greed that does them in, or do some actually get taken down by a regulatory agency? Searchlight is in their 7th year, and there may be others that are long-lived like that as well. What will be their downfall?
And from what I have been told, as long as these OTC companies have those forward-looking statements in their press releases and SEC reportings, it is a license to lie. And the bigger the lie, the more it seems to attract investors.
Only about 2 months or so. And, yes, I am catching on to the general ignorance about mining, geology, engineering, etc. I have to say that I am impressed with a few individuals though (mostly on this board) - no technical degree or industry experience but have taken the time to educate themselves.
I have lately gotten into tiffs with several people on these boards (you have dealt with them too) who seem to revel in their ignorance and proudly proclaim that they don't need to know the product or anything about it to make money. Well maybe, but I have always heard that knowledge is power, and just a little research would serve these people well - and reinforce that almost every one of these mining stocks is a short investment only and they better not be holding the bag at the end.
SRCH is a good example - no publicly issued reports, nothing but press releases and SEC filings. With SRCH's documented connections to previous (and infamous) scammers, you'd think the "longs" on that chatboard would at least want a technical report or two to look at. But no, they see the press releases, don't understand any of it, and assume it must all be true because of the big words. Maybe most of the "longs" on that board are lying and are actually "shorts" because they can't possibly be that dumb.
I totally agree with you, but what if an American company used the 43-101 format and never used the term "43-101", and they used the SEC definitions for reserves, resources, etc. - wouldn't that actually be ideal? Or, if they mentioned in the first paragraph that in lieu of the SEC coming out with a complete report format, they were going to use the 43-101 format?
You sound like you have a background in exploration or mine development. I have to ask why you waste your time arguing with people like they guy on TWDL (we both know who that is). It is just like arguing with a four-year old and I think it would drive me over the cliff - you have way too much patience for that guy, or their other resident pumpers.
zero k oz. (from reality) x 1600 $/oz (current gold price, more or less)
= $ zero
minus costs to pay for GDSM directors and other expenses
= more annual losses to report
Even with a Wal-Mart degree, this math is easy!
Yes, you asked if it was a miracle or a marketing/awareness firm. I simply thought you were asking about two more commodities (or services) that EXTO might be peddling. I responded that they are amateurs trying to figure out what they can sell that will fool the most people. I know it wasn't quite what you were asking but I couldn't resist.... sorry.
You asked what EXTO is - it is an amateurish group of guys trying to figure out which of their scams (oil, water, mining, etc.) will fool the most people - (and here comes the hate...)
Refreshing honesty - have only ever heard this in private messages from pumpers before!
I wonder what would happen if someone were to post this article on SRCH, RYMM, and the Ireland (IRLD) boards. These are the current scams being run by Matheson or Ager (I am probably missing a couple more). I suppose the posts would be reported by the pumpers for TOS violations and deleted, right? I have brought these connections up before, and been told by the pumpers that "people change, and it doesn't mean their current mining operations are scams". I suppose that is possible, but I'd have to say incredibly unlikely.....!!! Running a con is so much easier than actually opening a mine.
Thanks, I have seen this before, but it is always amusing to read it again! I have known about Matheson and Gunnison for quite some time - their new thing (after kicking off the Searchlight scam) was to start another one - Royal Mines and Minerals. These guys have a "refinery" in Phoenix, and are up to their old tricks but with a new twist - gold from fly ash this time. What a crock - amazing that people fall for this stuff but a sucker is born every minute.
As for the Agers and their current platforms - Searchlight, Nanominerals, etc. - it is a bottomless gold mine (for them) and their cronies. Gotta hand it to them, they have the formula down pretty well......
With these guys around, it is a wonder that any penny stock has any credibility. Money to be made by clever short-term investors, that's for sure, but producing an actual product - not a chance.
I have worked at two gold hardrock mines - 100-foot drill spacing at one of them, and 50-foot spacing at the other. The 100-foot intervals at the first one missed a high grade zone that was only found after they had mined through several benches - can you imagine 1,000 oz/ton Au material being trucked to the waste dumps despite the geologist's insistence that a high grade zone had been exposed? The mine maps said it was waste, and no one could convince management that it wasn't (until they finally posted a guard in the pit to stop the haul truck drivers from stopping and chucking a rock into their cab every time they went by!).
Anyway, your point about 800-foot lateral extrapolation is nuts, would never fly at a real operation. Of course it depends on the deposit's geology, and how homogeneous and predictable the gold mineralization is. I see on their website that they have a picture of a nice piece of core with an apparent nugget in it - the presence of coarse gold would be cause for tighter drilling.
And speaking of DGRI, I always find it amusing when people comment that they are waiting on photos to be posted as some kind of proof of something (which is what DGRI's director has promised this coming week sometime). A picture of native people in a streambed shoveling mud into pans is not worth anything and not proof of anything. A picture like that could have been taken anywhere. Unless it is a picture of the DGRI director himself shoveling mud?
I got into a tiff with someone on another board a few weeks ago who cited the picture of a crucible with a gold bead in it as proof that the autoclave process really works (does this ring a bell with anybody?). I found it hard to believe that anybody was so naive, so they had to be pulling my leg (or not?)
Funny you should comment on 43-101's right now - I am having an unusually civil discussion on the EXTO board about that very subject! or is this not coincidence and you saw the comments?
Anyway, you are absolutely correct. I still think that using the 43-101 format is not a bad idea, as long as they don't call it a 43-101, and as long as they use the SEC definitions of resource, reserve, etc. DGRI's 43-101 is not compliant, and I was struck by their average grade (0.012 oz/ton) which resulted in their huge ore reserve numbers (I forget what they were) - at first I thought they meant a 0.012 cutoff grade, but I think that was their average. Without cyanide, there is no hope of ever processing stuff that low. So, no reserves at all.
Chemist or geologist? Regardless, you probably have enough technical background to form an educated opinion about EXTO. I was asked to look at a marble deposit east of Tucson once by a cement company - didn't know much about the CaCO3 business but I knew what marble looks like and was able to map it out.
Yes, for Canadian-listed companies, and not really an appropriate reporting format for American OTC companies like EXTO. But, many use this format regardless, because it is thorough and provides good, usually reliable, information.
http://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/National_Instrument_43-101
SEC has different definitions of reserves, resources, etc. and anybody writing a report in the style of a 43-101 had better pay attention to the SEC requirements as well. SEC is supposed to be working on a reporting format similar to 43-101, but has not been released yet.
I think what you're saying is that a geologist could work for a company like EXTO in an advisory role, and there is no conflict? That's true, a mining company should probably have a geologist or engineer on staff or on retainer as a consultant. No argument there.
But, my point is that a geologist who prepares a report as a public document which investors are then going to use to help make investment decisions, should not be a direct employee, and should not own stock in the company. Here is what it actually says in the NI 43-101:
I respectfully would like to point out that you are wrong. Every junior mining company that I have worked for has hired me BECAUSE I am an outside, third-party, with credentials to back up my work. If I were to be a stockholder of EXTO regardless of how it is "structured", I would no longer be an outside, impartial, third-party. Would my sampling methods and report conclusions be credible if I were a stockholder? No.
Frankly, you will never believe what I am saying, and that's okay. I do have work to do, and am not going to waste any more time with this. And again, thanks, but I told you that I would not be calling that number in Nevada for work, don't need it, and I do try to be somewhat selective about who I work for. They call us conslutants, but even I have my limits.
I would like to comment on Baytree's oil venture - may I?
I do not understand your logic regarding due diligence on GDSM. If you buy a used car, are you going to believe everything the salesman says, or would you peak under the hood or even take the car to your own mechanic? An opinion from someone not connected to GDSM is of no value? You are talking about "faith-based" due diligence.
Regardless, as I said on another posting today (and probably my last for a while on this board, aren't you glad?), money can be made on GDSM in the short term. Good luck to you too!
Money can be made on GDSM in the short term just like with any penny stock, if you are smart and a bit lucky. Good luck to all.
JD - There is a simple answer why I haven't done that before. Even though I have work in the area around the GDSM claims, I am being paid by clients to work for them, not to mess around taking tours of a dubious placer mine. As for heading up there to tour the "mine", no thanks, unless you are willing pay my daily consulting fee. Even if I took the tour and asked questions, why would they tell me anything different than what is on their website and SEC listings? Shouldn't all relevant info be posted for investors to make educated decisions?
Thanks (I think). I won't bother arguing whether or not the geology of the area around the GDSM claims supports a multi-hundred million dollar gold placer mine or not, or whether there are economic concentrations of rare earths. I can see that geologic facts are irrelevant - I get it - facts just get in the way!
As with most penny stocks, the majority of investors really don't care - it is all about buying low and selling high and money can be made on just about any stock with a little skill and some luck.
Hey, thanks! Not feeling quite as thoroughly hated anymore.....
I do want to make the point that I have never said you cannot make money off of a stock like GDSM. It is quite possible to make a bunch of money in the penny stocks if you are smart, and a little bit lucky. But, a year from now, will GDSM be kicking out gold bars and rare earth concentrate - I doubt it. That's all I'm saying......
No, I can't loan my crystal ball - it is a special and rare model, can actually sort through the facts impartially, and comes up with an opinion regardless of hype. Helps to not own stock - takes the emotion out of it.
And yes, you certainly do have the right to defend your investment.
Thank you! Really appreciate the job tip, but pretty busy these days. I am sure that EXTO will do just fine without my expertise. Also, there is the little matter of conflict of interest - if I was a stockholder as you claim I am, I wouldn't be able (ethically) to do geological assessments and reports for them.
I am guessing $0.0005, but that's just a geologist talking. Go figure, a geologist commenting on a mining stock. What's this world coming to.....
Glad I could help! Any idea who is doing the testing and what the results were? Any report available? I am willing discuss whatever data was generated, and if it is reliable/believable data, I will be the first to congratulate all the GDSM stock holders.
I'd like to think that I haven't lied and as far lying to the stockholders, it is really tough to catch a penny stock in a flat-out, verifiable lie. The geological reports they offer up usually look pretty good to people without technical training. Even to another geologist, they are tough to poke holes in without other, truly third-party reporting to compare results to.
I offer my opinion, and like any other person posting on this board, it is just an opinion. I appreciate your civil comments, and I have got to run too, so you'all can go back to chatting about the stock price again.
If you want to private message, I'd be happy to go into the geology in more detail. Based on some of the comments today, I don't a civil discussion is going to happen on the public board.
What would you expect to see? I don't mean to answer for lmcat, but I have driven by there half a dozen times in the last 6 months. The first few times, I saw nothing but big piles of gravel with some keep out signs. The last few times, someone has taken a backhoe and dug some test pits beside the road in alluvium. So, a little activity.
I have clients with hard-rock claims nearby, so these areas are familiar to me. And it interests me professionally how these placer mining schemes can successfully pull so much money out of people's pockets with so little success at pulling gold out of the ground.
I know it seems suspicious all of a sudden that I am posting comments on GDSM, but I follow numerous stocks, not just GDSM.
Good point, maybe I should replace the word "scam" with "questionable". I have been following the comments on this GDSM chatboard for months, but have not commented because there are so many of these "questionable" companies that I could spend all day every day posting comments. Ironically, it was some pretty inoccuous comments about the weather in Prescott which attracted my attention, having just spent three days up there doing field work last week. It is obvious that most of the commenters on this board have never been to Arizona or Prescott.
Regardless, I understand the suspicion. Comments about geology from someone who claims to be a geologist are always treated with skepticism. I have no way to prove it, other than to challenge people to question my geology in a rationale, civil manner and avoid personal attacks.
As far as providing the geological evidence of why the Gold Star claims have "questionable" value, it will take numerous postings to make the case, and without trespassing and taking my own samples, would never be good enough for most people. So, for now, I am not going to attempt it. Maybe this weekend, when I have more time..... (and I know that I will take some heat for this apparent "copout" but I still have work to do this afternoon on some real mining projects).
Thanks, nice to be considered an expert on something and be recognized for 25+ years of experience (hopefully you weren't being sarcastic, I can't tell anymore).
And yes, I have been up there in that area a lot in the last two years working for several different mining clients. I have driven through the GDSM claims near the Copper Basin Road and always wondered whose piles of gravel they were (now I know). I figured they were part of one scam or another, but didn't really care - it wasn't why I was up there.
Frankly, if people want to make a buck or two on the short game, more power to them. If they are "longs" and they have invested retirement money, those are the people that I feel sorry for.
You have a good weekend too!
Have I what? Gone up there and spent the weekend digging by hand and running a sluice box. No. It might be fun if I had nothing better to do, but I have mapping/sampling projects for real mining clients to get done.