If it was, I hope he enjoyed the grog!!

It could very well have been the GRIZZ. He could charm any officer of the law, no matter what he did wrong!! (Sobriety not withstanding!)

We need to pool our pennies and send him to the DRMS to "discuss" the completion of CGFI's permit process. I'll bet it gets done in no time flat!!
Get 'em GRIZZ!

Was one of the offenders "Otis" by any chance? He may have relocated from Mayberry.

Sounds like Silverton is a Mayberry type of town, escorting a "drinking man" to his car. Nice friendly town.
Now I know why CGFI has a "layed back" attitude.

On that topic, Johnnie, IMHO, and if my memory isn't failing me, the civility of the board has always gone up and down, but not necessarily based on the standing of the company's stock, contemporary press releases, or even company related events (although they do become topics of conversation).
The tone of conversation and civility usually changes when posts with obvious self serving intent start showing up. Those posts usually contain obvious misdirections and or misleading reports.
Discussing the latest topics and history of CGFI, your opinion of it's accomplishments and shortcomings, the possibilities of upcoming events, are all healthy exercises. The tone of the discussion, common respect for other's opinions and an honest effort to be willing to share the sources of the data one posts is the key to keeping the conversation civil.

No reflection on you, Johnnie, or any criticism of you intended. This is just my humble observation and opinion as a long time reader of CGFI's discussion board.

Please, everyone, be respectful of each other's opinion. We are here to share information and help answer sincere questions that anyone may have about CGF. There will always be disagreements on the meaning or indications of events. You can challenge the opinion, or the source of the information. Attacks directed at the poster, is not allowed.
Keeping one's emotions in check and treating the other posters with respect is the key to keeping the board civil. (That and maybe a couple of shared rounds of grog every now and then!!)

Answer questions, and question the answers. We all benefit through civil, honest discussion.

(Ok, I'm off the soapbox for now.)
Have an enjoyable holiday everyone!!
MT

Just trying to keep it civil and based on facts.
Lets hope for some more good info from CGFI soon.

Hey Bruno,
As I remember the way things went, CGFI proposed to repair and revamp the existing settling ponds in its proposal in 2010. It seemed at the time that that plan was the norm and would be acceptable. The dry stack method had never been used or even approved by the DRMS for gold mines in Colorado and would have been (and is) a more expensive method of handling the tailings.

At the time, the financing was available (via loans) to repair the existing tailings repository. So the denial of the permit in 2010 was a surprise to CGF. (As in any proposal, there is always a few points that require revision, but the complete rejection of the proposal was shocking.) It has been speculated that this situation was attributable to a supervisory employee in he Durango office. (He is no longer employed at the DRMS.)

You probably are without question correct about California being the toughest on environmental regulations. I meant to say "one of the toughest" states. I stand corrected.

Beside NV Taylor's posts, I have been told, by other mining engineers familiar with the regional miming situation, that 10 years is the average lead time to get a mine or mill permitted and operational.
We are seeing it here at CGFI. Having the mill operational this year seems to be dependent on occurrences in the upcoming month or two.
Profitable by the end of the year? I have my doubts. But our target, as investors, is to have the share price rise. That is JMHO.

CGFI

Quote: "The Mill could easily have been permitted and running in 2010 if CGFI was truly interested in doing so."

And where do you get the basis for this statement?
In 2010, the settling pond issue was just coming into definitive focus.
CGFI proposed a method to deal with the problem, but suddenly the DRMS decided that the proposed solution was not sufficient. (Although it WAS sufficient for decades before at CGFI and other mines throughout the region.)
No one could have foreseen the DRMS's decision to require a complete change to handling the tailings and the total cleanup of an environmental problem that was left by the former owners. And THAT problem is the root of the delays CGFI faced in 2010 and still faces today.
That environmental issue, the settling ponds from the old workings, and the method of handling the tailings in the future, is the reason the POW only has a conditional permit.

Your claim that CGFI could have resolved the problem in 2010 is erroneous and fallacious, as well as claiming this mill would only take 2 to 3 years to be fully operational.

NV Taylor covered this lead time and permitting topic extensively in multiple posts. Now your post seem to infer that he (a man who spent his professional career in mining in both NV and CO) didn't know what he was talking about?

The situation CGFI finds itself in is solidly centered around this environmental issue. CGFI has worked long and hard to find a method to resolve this issue in a state renown for having the toughest environmental laws in the nation. Now, having found a solution to the issue, your post seems to be denying it ever was an issue. (Or is there some other reason for the claim the POW mill's permit was denied in 2010?)

A check of the DRMS website and the thousands of pages of correspondence between the agency and CGFI will show anyone would be hard pressed to find documentation that does NOT deal with the environmental issue in one way or another. (By the way, the mission of the DRMS is the protection and reclamation of the environment.)

20 minutes of DD seem not to be enough to get the complete and accurate story.

CGFI

And which "state regulatory agency" would that be? Surely if you spoke to someone at an agency, you would be able to tell us which one it was!

"Investers"? I hate to be the one to tell you this, but "there ain't no such thing"!!

Like the meaningless word you use, the majority of the claims asserted in your post, factually are just erroneous.

Logic seems to be lacking in the train of thought also. A "fully functioning" mine or mill would, by definition already have permitting. If it didn't, then it would not be "fully functioning" at anything, by law.

That's what one gets when only doing 20 minutes of DD and jumping to conclusions.
We have had professionals who work in the mining industry post information about the average length of time it takes to permit and start up a mine or mill. They directly contradict your post's claim. A bit more research would seem to be necessary.

So what "state regulatory agency" was it that gave you this data?
I'll wait for a reply.
CGFI

If he is, I'm wondering if he is investing his collections in CGFI stock. Now that would be the apex of irony!

There is always something cooking out in the woods AK! It may not be great, but at least it will soothe the raw nerves until GOOD news comes along!
(Just save all your potato peelings in case Sergey wants me to brew up some vodka! . They will work in a pinch!)

I was out scouting ammo sources, Sergey. It's darn scares right now. I'm looking for any .40 caliber S&W I can lay my hands on. My Sig is running low!!
Can't even reload my old cartridges, I'm out if powder. I'll be using a bow and arrow (home made at that) real soon!!
Lets go CGFI, MT needs some cash!!

Don't sweat the grog, we can always drink the torpedo juice if we have to!!

Have you have been spying on my still AK? In some places that would bet you a load of buckshot!!
Still trying to perfect the recipe. I'll have it soon god willing!
I would much rather have some news from the DRMS saying the pond recovery is complete and the dry stack plans have been approved, but I will take any one of the items mentioned above!!
Grog Friday next week, I hope!!

Aye aye, sir! Who are we shooting at?

Looks like it did for a while. Closed at .0055. OUCH!

Oh, I have always freely admitted to that malady, LJ, no question about it.
Today is just one of those days where I'm not sure if I are coming or going! Arrrrgh!!!

You know Scooter, we pirates wear eye patches so we only see half the stuff other people see.
It helps us to be "glass half full" type of people, and I guess "half empty" type, at times. Today, I'm not sure what I am!!

If ye be a good pirate, ye should have a extra flagon or two always ready for making merry. But I be ready to uncork the good stuff when the occasion be right and proper.
Should we get word the mill be ready, that be a proper occasion!!
As you were. Carry on till news arrives on the morning tide.

Yeah, I did, but I thought I was just going colorblind!!
Any little recovery is a movement in the right direction.

Someone needs to wake me up also!

Welcome all the new CGFI iHub mods, the Grog is on me tonight!

(Anthony550, you and I are the designated drivers!!)
GLTA!

An extra mug of grog for you, flicker, and welcome to the club of those who have been attacked by the unknowing!! There are quite a few of us here who have been speculated about, incorrectly.
I look at that stuff and ask "what business it of theirs what I invest in or who they think I 'really am'?"
Life is too short to worry about that dreck.
Thanks for your posts and opinion about CGFI.

I would agree with your point of view, Mod, if I saw any indication of cash going into the officer's pockets at this time. (That is why everyone who is serious about investing in any penny stock should read the financials.)
What concerns me, somewhat, is the accrued wages. I would prefer to see the wages paid in stocks, rather than being accrued liabilities. But that is just my personal preference. (I could make a case for both ways of handling wages owed.)
The percentage of debt that is wages owed to the officers is minor portion of the total debt load. When the company becomes profitable, it will be interesting to see what percentage of the profits go to who, and how fast. But our concern, at that point, should be with the stock price. As long as that is healthy, we profit. It really doesn't matter how the debt load is dispatched.

Sorry, SBB, I didn't mean to infer that you called this stock a scam. I was referring to the language the detractors use. Please forgive my awkward wording.
MTP

SBB, the detractors have always made it seem like the officers are collecting salaries monthly and making outrageous amounts of money thru these salaries. This is just not the case.

If you look at the 10-Q filed with the SEC, page 20 states:
"Salaries are generally either accrued as an unpaid liability or, paid in the form of stock awards in lieu of cash, which are exempt under Rule 16b-3. Amounts owed pursuant to our executive employment agreements have been fully accrued as of November 30, 2012."
This has been the case since 2009.
So any stock issued in lieu of salaries are subject to the same price fluctuations that your and my stock are. In either case, if it is an accrued liability or stock payment, unless the company shows a profit or the price per share increases dramatically, the officers of the company will receive nothing or very little.
To put it another way, the officers of CGFI are , and have been, working for an IOU (since 2009) that will be worthless without CGFI becoming a successful, profitable company.
Now show me how they are "scamming us" with that arrangement. It certainly looks a lot different when you actually read the complete SEC reports, doesn't it?

Here is a link to the 10-Q:
http://filings.issuerdirect.com/data/1344394/000135448813000150/cgfi_10q.pdf

$CGFI

I should have bought shares of stock instead of visiting the dentist today! I could have added 118,000 shares to my position. (My toothache would be tolerable if it would help the cause!!)

LOL, you saw thru my plan! Let them spend time trying to calculate my shoe size (I'll post a picture of my shoes), or Pi to 5000 decimal places if that makes them happy.
I have the broker's statement showing my buys and my total shares. (That's easy math.)
But really, that info is never going to be posted until I have 100 times my investment in the bank. (It could happen!!) Then they can weave stories of all the insider info I must have had to get that much of a return!!
Baffle them with BS, Akula!

LOL! My average share price is 12.47¢ and my shoe size is 12.5, so does that make me even?? (Well, I guess not, at least mot with today's price at about 1/10 of that!)
I'm going for quantity right now. Quality will follow in a few months, I believe.

Don't thank me yet, wait till the survey is up and running. I just may decide to ask some odd-ball questions!! (Like the difference between your shoe size a d your average price per share, divided by pi!!)

Or we just a bunch of "nosy neighbors"???

Sure, Anthony, I can set up another survey site for share count. I had planned to do it but the reverse split came along and I didn't think too many people would like to be reminded of how few shares they had left..
I'll try and put one together over this weekend.
If there is any other information this board wishes to collect, and I can do it within the limitations of Survey Monkey, just send me a post and I will add a question to the survey to collect it.
I'm glad someone asked for another try at gathering information.
$CGFI

Agreed, SB.
Although my background is not in financing, I do understand the necessity for a solid source of funding.
My background is industrial automation and project planing and management. I can tell you that it is a rare project that does go according to a projected schedule. The newer the process, the more difficult it is to project timetables accurately. But the thing to remember with POW is that this WAS a fully operational mill a few years ago. Reports from some of this board's member who have visited the site tell us that the mill is in excellent shape. So the only real change to the mill will be the addition of the drying equipment and the dry stack repository.
Another strong point we have going for POW is the "old timers" who ran the mill before it was C&D'd. They know how to run it. POW still has them around.
My personal opinion is that "toll milling" will get CGF a good source of income (and a predictable one) once the mill is operational. That source of cash can be used to get the mines operational. But getting the first source of funding for the dry stack process and a bit extra for the first few weeks of operation will be the most difficult. The granting of a clear mill permit, without conditions, from the DRMS will be a good, leveragable, source of funding.

You have obviously put a lot of thought into the financial end of CGFI's situation. I admire that. You are asking a lot of great questions. Some of the other board members will also be able to help with details about the operation side of the mill.
When we share the info we have, we get a better idea of what we can reasonably expect.
Thanks for your insight. Keep the questions and info coming. It helps many who read this board.
MT
$CGFI

Yeah, and I'm prepared, my air bed fits the truck perfectly!! But I have a slope to the driveway, so it would be like sleeping standing up.
One thing for sure, it would be no secret. All the neighbors would know.
On the bright side, late night bathroom runs would be simpler, just find the nearest shrub!
Sleeping in the truck bed would also motivate me to clean out the second half of the garage real quick!! (At least while the temperature stays low!!)
You know, with all these pros, I just may talk myself into trying this. If I did, it would certainly be an "ALL OR NOTHING" move.
Lets see, batteries for the flashlight, extra blanket, plastic sheeting in case it rains, coffee pot that fits on the truck manifold for morning coffee, disable the motion sensor on the driveway light. What am I forgetting? Oh yeah, the $3 grand!!
I would need to sell the truck for that.
I guess my plan does have a flaw!!

Let me check my piggy bank!!
(If I did something like that the wife would find out and I would be sleeping in the bed of my pickup!! Then again if it went to .51, I just might be a hero since I bought over half my position at .015 to .012!! Oh the pain of indecision!!)

I think they have a good chance of making it, SB. Since the DRMS cleared everything but the completion of the ponds, CGFI has permission to do repair an preparatory work on the mill through this past fall and winter.
The mill should be in reasonably good shape. This is pretty rugged equipment. I believe that most of the work needed will be electrical repairs and replacement, and the addition of the drying equipment, used to dry the tailings. (This equipment was not part of the existing mill, since the old process used a slurry to transport the tailings.)
The clear span is a remarkable structure. You probably have seen one if you live in a cold weather state where salt is used to de-ice the roads. The stockpiles are sometimes covered with a structure such as the clear span to keep its contents out of the weather. (Exactly the purpose for the dry stack tailings.)

Cash is critical. It will be needed to accomplish the clear span project. Word of solid, conventional financing would go a long way to stabilize and raise the share prices.

$CGFI

Good digging, Mod!! Yup that is the company I was referring to. They have been doing most of the excavation work on the ponds, and their equipment is seen in some of the pictures that Optimiss posted.

Now, can you find the keys to my 1966 Chevy Malibu I lost in 1978?

Maisel Trucking has been working for payments in shares, as have many of the other contractors.

As far as the "fast track", I guess I was not clear. The time frame excludes the DRMS process. The 4 to 6 weeks referred to in past discussions would be after approval of the TR. However if you read the correspondence from them, there are only a very few points that the DRMS wanted clarification on.

Environmental groups have already appeared, and were rebuked by the DRMS. One anti-mining group (INFORM) tried to insert themselves into the approval hearing and derail the process. They came to the meeting with demands that the prescribed specifications and requirements were inadequate. They tried to have the DRMS do things "INFORM's way". The DRMS concisely told them that they were at the wrong forum to try to change the regulations. INFORM's objections were dismissed expediently.
I have seen no other environmental groups object to the pond recovery process. Actually there is a local group that is supporting the process. The Anamas River Clean Water group, (or similar name, I am sure I do not have it correct) has been trying to get more recovery projects like this underway. If you are unfamiliar with the ecological disaster that befell the Anamas River, I suggest you do a quick Internet search for it. It will explain a lot of the political and economic attitudes that has effected many mining projects in Colorado, particularly in the San Juan county area. It will also help explain the $500+K environmental bond imposed on CGFI.

From my research, I do not believe that environmental groups (if any more try to object to CGFI's progress) will be successful. The only item left that they can request to become a party to would be the TR for the dry stack repository. Actually, they have already attempted to do so, and their complaints were judged to be unreasonable and excessive. (You can find their correspondence in the DRMS website files. Search for "INFORM")
Your point is well taken, Sanbrunobaby. My viewpoint has always been that when it comes to projects involving government regulations, "You don't know what you don't know"! Or if you prefer a quote from Gilda Radner's "Roseanne Roseannadana": "It's always something. If it ain't one thing, it's another"

You are correct, Les. The bond actually started out much lower. It was increased around the time of the C&D was issued, and then increased again. But the majority of the bond was required for the estimated pond reclamation cleanup.
As Sanbrunobaby points out, some if the bond will remain for the recovery of any environmental dangers associated with the mill and dry stack. But the figures are calculated on the cost of the cleanup associated with the remaining process. (And remember the mill is a functional mill, just closed by the C&D. There should be bonding in place associated with parts of that process, if any was required before.)
The DRMS saw the ponds as a much higher risk and costly cleanup than the mill. The dry stack SHOULD be much less, since there is no danger of a pond overflow or rupture. (It's pretty hard to get dry earth to flow like the slurry in a settling pond would.)
I seem to remember that the DRMS and the Hard Rock Mining rules do allow for the return of the bond upon completion of the necessary work, however I can't place my finger on the info right now.

Play safe, Sem. Get your assets back stateside ASAP and in one piece.

Everything costs money, Bruno. However most of the work needed to meet the completion of the recovery of the old settling ponds is earth moving. There is a company that has been working with CGFI for years doing the necessary excavation and trucking. (Maisel trucking I believe is the name.)
As far as environmental groups, that part of the process is over. If they had objections, they missed two chances at the scheduled hearings to have their say. However the recovery of the ponds is considered environmentally helpful. It is riding the area of a blight on the land. Some of the groups have already come out in favor of the recovery.
So what is left to finish? Ensure the integrity of the liner of the ponds, cap the liner with sand, then larger aggregate, and finally one layer of clay and another of topsoil. Seeding with natural grasses and wildflowers will make the pond blend into the environment.
Now, the dry stack enclosure falls into a different process. It will be under its own TR,(still needing to be approved by the DRMS) and definitely will require cash or credit. But the repository won't be a long build process. I have seen estimates discussed here that put it at about 4 to 6 weeks at most to have the area ready to accept tailings. (The clear span goes up in a week!! The footings and retainer wall will be the long lead items it seems.)
I hope this gives you a better insight into the process that CGFI faces. From an industrial project point of view, it really is a relatively fast track process. Particularly considering that both these items time schedule can overlap.

I believe we will soon see good things happening, Brendan. The first one we need is the DRMS signing off on the TR for the dry stack and clear span. (I believe the settling ponds are soon to be completed when the weather breaks, but that is JMHO. There doesn't seem to be much work left for completion of that requirement.)
When the TR is approved, a sound time schedule should be predictable, and a projected profit schedule should follow. That is when the stock price should really show us some healthy growth. Until then, it may be a bit tedious waiting.

I was able to increase my share count to 57,000. (I was mostly trying to average down.) But I still think the fundamental reasons I bought into CGFI is still sound.
I guess we will find out this year, hopefully sooner than later, but it may take some time to start showing a profit.
At least the assay numbers so far have proven to be adequate. That is a good sign.

Sometime the stars just align perfectly, and then again, sometime we just get lucky!!
(I can usually only count on the luck, but I'll take a double helping of luck right now. But please make it "good" luck. I'm tired of the other kind!))