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.
Until convinced otherwise, I am sticking with the third possibility and my opinion that they actually do know something that allows them to make that statement. Is discrediting their sophistication based on having actually met them or is that just baseless defamation to aid in a point proving attempt?
Dry extraction or dry mining is not an uncommon method used to remove ore body. It is more commonly referenced in pit or surface mining but can also be used in underground mines provided the conditions are suitable. Dry mining is best suited for ore located above the water table and is simply mining without the use of water. I'm surprised such a simple and common technique would cause such curiosity.
If you are referring to Mr. Jenkins, at the time of that report his credentials were standing and as such the reports created and signed by him are still valid.
It is not of my opinion that they are using the report to sell stock so therefore I feel that it is not unethical. I am not a securities lawyer so I can't speak to the legality of a particular use of documents.
The value of an asset and the cost of acquiring that asset are two separate issues. If the cost of acquiring an asset at a given time exceeds the value of the asset it does not mean that the asset has no value but does mean that it is not profitable to attain. The current price of gold has made mining a lot more capable of profitability as of late and many analysts are looking for gold to go much higher than current. The appraisal is just that... an appraisal. It was performed at the request of the owner of the property solely as to determine the mineral potential of the property.
Thank you for your perspective. I've become quite familiar with mining and of the permitting requirements over the past couple of years but I am no expert. There is something that they (GDSM / WSRA) knows that would allow them to state the 3-4 month schedule and I am trying to determine what that is.
I know a few skeptics think that they are not on the "up and up" but I don't see it for many reasons. Although what they have done so far may not agree with what some investors and "experts" are comfortable with, the discomfort or lack of information does not automatically put them in the "illegitimate" category.
I've never seen a "scam", promo or pump run with as little exposure as possible and less than outstanding potential advertisement. Maybe this is a trick to lull investors in with silence and mediocrity! LOL
Not what I asked but that's OK. An appraisal shouldn't talk about permits, fees or costs. Its purpose is for value of asset only. Fees, permits and operational costs are for feasibility studies... which the Azurite report was not. The feasibility study, if and when one is completed, will determine whether the venture is economically viable or not.
Actually that is not what I am getting at. I'll try again... How difficult would it be to permit ONLY for the removal of ore from the mine using a dry extraction process?
I agree, the sample program that is currently being conducted on GoldStar is not sufficient to target production locations. However, given that they already have a "good idea" of where to start looking for the higher concentrations of gold, it is my assumption that the current sampling program is only a precursor to a larger and more thorough sampling program that would provide best starting target locations for production. Or as Marc stated...
This approach has produced encouraging results and has allowed for the area of focus to be narrowed, saving the JV a tremendous amount of potential expenses in site sampling/exploration.
Thank you for that information but that was nether my conception nor an answer to the question asked.
Another question...
Could a condition exist that would allow for a more simple or a less stringent permitting process? For example: Could gold bearing ore be extracted through dry extraction means for transportation and processing off site?
Lets assume that WSRA / GDSM knows a way to achieve the stated 3-4 month production time... What conditions could exist(information that we don't have yet) that could allow for this?
Given that the Azurite mine is private property, who would hold permits on previous mining efforts and what would the expiration be on those permits? Could there be a condition by which permits already exist that could be transferred to WSRA / GDSM?
I would not expect to see any information on the permits in that report since it is an appraisal.
IMO, given that there has not been any promotion through outside sources (paid or compensated) and not enough PRs from the company to indicate any sort of "pump" by the company, it appears that there is an actual effort being made to pursue these mining ventures.
I've seen "scams" and this not what one looks like. If it is, it is the worst laid out plan for one that I have ever seen.
Very accurate. The sampling tool and transport container have no bearing on assay results.
Given that the Azurite mine has been at some point an active and working mine, is there absolutely no circumstance by which the 3-4 month timeframe could be achieved? Is there absolutely no posibility that there has already been something set in motion or a pre-existing condition that would allow for such quick progress that maybe we have not been made aware of yet?
Why has there been no news on funding, permits or anything of significance yet? The last news of any significance regarding the mine was 5 months ago.
How is the 0.035 target price being calculated?
GDSM extremely oversold here. Indicators starting to make a turn up.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=GDSM&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p82042996142
Seriously?
99% of shares are held by longs
The SMA(50)broke a couple weeks ago. The SMA(100) broke this week. The SMA(200) at 0.004 is next support. If that breaks, the next support is in the mid 0.002s. The chart is falling appart and needs more volume going through on the ask. The small daily paint jobs are really starting to take their toll.
http://stockcharts.com/h-sc/ui?s=SIRG&p=D&b=5&g=0&id=p07485226580
Good looking board b_rich!
The issuance of shares by GDSM is not by definition "toxic financing".
The definition...
Toxic Convertible
Used by companies that are in such bad shape, that there is no other way to get financing. This instrument is similar to a convertible bond, but convertible at a discount to the share price at issuance and for a fixed dollar amount rather than a specific number of shares. The further the stock falls, the more shares you get. Popular in the mid to late 1990s. Also known as death spiral convertibles or floor-less convertibles.
It won't matter either way. The warrant options are an incentive for the buyer (investment group), not the issuer (GDSM). For the investor to execute the warrant option, the PPS would already be higher than the strike prices of 0.10 and 0.15.
I would assume with the private investors that they have already stated as having on board.
Confusing question... warrant options will be purchased at their set price of 0.10 and 0.15 per share. They will get what they can for them which should be above that since warrants are purchased at a price lower than what is current. I'm not sure of their expiration dates.
Work in process. Some aren't aware of what has transpired and yet some are quick to retaliate.
Agree on all points.
Agreed and most P&Ds release more PRs than 1 every 2 weeks (at the time) or 2 months now.
Of course they are holding. It's called being a bag holder. Huge spread + dilution + no volume at the ask = bag holder.
I appreciate your opinion but that is far from proof.
I encourage relevant and verifiable proof so if there actually is then please share. Copy and pasting without a link to a full document will be considered opinion and/or hearsay and not relavent to GDSM since it cannot be put into context.
It plainly states "samples" in the IG7 and how to compute quality. It doesn't get any more clear. I will not argue what is obvious and plainly written in black and white. I will leave it up to everyone interested to make their own determination of what is said in the IG7. Link here...
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/industryguides.pdf
(2)
Proven (Measured) Reserves. Reserves for which (a) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill holes; grade and/or quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and (b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are well-established.
(3)
Probable (Indicated) Reserves. Reserves for which quantity and grade and/or quality are computed form information similar to that used for proven (measure) reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for proven (measured) reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation.
That could be but nobody's opinion of unverifiable information should convince anyone into selling a single share. Everyone needs to do their own DD on GDSM and sometimes that should often include post history. I make no claims to be an expert on anything in this industry but providing links to verifible documents should help anyone make their own decisions.
According to the IG7 it is and it spells out exactly what is accepted. What is accepted is exactly what the report states.
From IG7...
(2)
Proven (Measured) Reserves. Reserves for which (a) quantity is computed from dimensions revealed in outcrops, trenches, workings or drill holes; grade and/or quality are computed from the results of detailed sampling and (b) the sites for inspection, sampling and measurement are spaced so closely and the geologic character is so well defined that size, shape, depth and mineral content of reserves are well-established.
(3)
Probable (Indicated) Reserves. Reserves for which quantity and grade and/or quality are computed form information similar to that used for proven (measure) reserves, but the sites for inspection, sampling, and measurement are farther apart or are otherwise less adequately spaced. The degree of assurance, although lower than that for proven (measured) reserves, is high enough to assume continuity between points of observation.
Actually it isn't a theory it is a fact. It says clearly in the appraisal...
8. GoldTech Engineering Co. (Jenkins), 2006 was a report based on the review and
analysis of all available technical information, together with a mapping and sampling
program of all accessible mine workings.
As we progress, information on the claims and all associated reports will be added to our website
Please stay on topic. Discussions about other companies not related to GDSM is off topic. The discussion of post removals is off topic.
GLTY
Well, I guess we'll just have to agree to dissagree.
Like I said before, it is not open to interpertaion. It is written specifically in a manner to not be subject to interpretaion. There are two parts to this so let's read it again...
3.
PART 1: Estimates other than proved (measured) or probable (indicated) reserves, and any estimated values of such reserves shall not be disclosed unless such information is required to be disclosed by foreign or state law;
PART 2: provided, however, that where such estimates previously have been provided to a person (or any of its affiliates) that is offering to acquire, merge, or consolidate with, the registrant or otherwise to acquire the registrant’s securities, such estimates may be included.
Even IF GDSM did not have what is necessary to disclose estimates based on part 1 of this statement they definitely have rights to provide estimates based on part 2.
It is written in black and white. There is no room for misinterpretation. Additionally, that is one report out of many to come. While it may be too soon for some to invest at this point, to "cry foul" based on lack of information at this point is only skeptical opinion. GDSM will provide all related documents as promised and when they do, those who are "on the fence" will be able to make their decision accordingly. The PPS however, may be much higher at that time.
The bottom line is that there is no proof whatsoever that GDSM is behaving outside of SEC regulations.
Also, with the PPS falling, SIRG will need more and more shares to issue to Asher and others. Unless the PPS dramatically increases, SIRG will be out of compliance with Asher's terms and will have no choice but to increase the A/S. We already know that the attempt to increase the A/S to 1.5 Billion earlier was to satisfy Asher.
That is straight from the company filings on page 34.
http://quotemedia.10kwizard.com/download.php?ipage=8329323&action=PDF&src=quotemedia&msrc=68a2dcc319463f7fa6367eee2437b37d
It needs to be brought up until SIRG stops using toxic methods to pay their salaries. With toxic dilution continuing, anyone who currently holds or buys will experience increasing diminished value as more shares are issued.
Interesting prediction considering that there appears to be nobody willing to buy at the ask. Can't blame anyone for waiting on the PPS to fall before buying. Those who bought at 0.015 are already down 66%. Where is the bottom?
In regards to the legality of assigning values to the reserves...
From industry guide 7, page 35
http://www.sec.gov/about/forms/industryguides.pdf
3.
Estimates other than proved (measured) or probable (indicated) reserves, and any estimated values of such reserves shall not be disclosed unless such information is required to be disclosed by foreign or state law; provided, however, that where such estimates previously have been provided to a person (or any of its affiliates) that is offering to acquire, merge, or consolidate with, the registrant or otherwise to acquire the registrant’s securities, such estimates may be included.
Depends on how long someone is willing to prop up the PPS with paint. Many indicators have gone deep south. MA(200) is 0.004 which should provide support but with such a thin bid, who knows. Volume has increased over the past 3 trading days on decreasing PPS... not a good sign. If MA(200) is broken, next support is around 0.0026.
Yes indeed. Looks like we might be golden quicker than I expected. The report posted on the GDSM website looks VERY promising!
Please stay on topic folks and keep it clean. Everyone is welcome to their own opinion.
Awesome! Thanks!