Saturday, August 01, 2020 5:35:41 PM
The "Geological Report" that CGLD has posted on their website which they rely on for their "mineral reserves" was prepared by Andrew Grubbs, P.G. in 2016. Mr. Grubbs is a Registered Professional Geoscientist in the State of Texas (No. 6708). However, a look at his resume shows that he has zero mineral exploration experience, and no experience in the mineral industry. He also does not have a geology degree (a Masters in Geography instead, with a minor in Geology as an undergrad). He did somehow get his Texas PG, but I suspect it was in the days when Texas did not require a test and issued registrations based on letters of recommendations and "experience".
Regardless, this is the table of "reserves" that Mr. Grubbs came up with, that CGLD is now using to promote their mining claims:
In a June 26th, 2020 PR, the company President of Eon (the owner of the claims and who Buscar merged with) talked about "documented mineral reserves in the billions." https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CGLD/news/story?e&id=1632903
Without going any further in the Grubbs geological report (it is a hodgepodge of misused technical terms and poor geological practices, IMO), the "reserves" table is enough to know what is going on here. There is a footnote on the table that says "They do not take into account the extension of the veins to any depth......" Well, it looks like that's exactly what they did, despite the footnote. In order to calculate the geometry of the veins, they projected the veins down (they called it "height" from creek-bed, same difference) to 100, 900, 900, and 1,160 feet. And assumed constant widths (and amazing grades) ranging from 12 to 25 feet. Without a single drill hole.
The placer reserves estimate is similarly goofy.....with an amazingly consistent geometry (65' wide X 15' deep by 800 feet long) and extraordinary bonanza grade for a placer deposit (0.5 oz/ton).
I would think that the SEC, should they decide to go after a non-discloser like CGLD, would have an easy time with this one, since the definition of "reserve" is spelled out in SEC guidance. And the Texas Board of Geoscientists would have a fun time with Mr. Grubbs' report.
Regardless, this is the table of "reserves" that Mr. Grubbs came up with, that CGLD is now using to promote their mining claims:
In a June 26th, 2020 PR, the company President of Eon (the owner of the claims and who Buscar merged with) talked about "documented mineral reserves in the billions." https://www.otcmarkets.com/stock/CGLD/news/story?e&id=1632903
Without going any further in the Grubbs geological report (it is a hodgepodge of misused technical terms and poor geological practices, IMO), the "reserves" table is enough to know what is going on here. There is a footnote on the table that says "They do not take into account the extension of the veins to any depth......" Well, it looks like that's exactly what they did, despite the footnote. In order to calculate the geometry of the veins, they projected the veins down (they called it "height" from creek-bed, same difference) to 100, 900, 900, and 1,160 feet. And assumed constant widths (and amazing grades) ranging from 12 to 25 feet. Without a single drill hole.
The placer reserves estimate is similarly goofy.....with an amazingly consistent geometry (65' wide X 15' deep by 800 feet long) and extraordinary bonanza grade for a placer deposit (0.5 oz/ton).
I would think that the SEC, should they decide to go after a non-discloser like CGLD, would have an easy time with this one, since the definition of "reserve" is spelled out in SEC guidance. And the Texas Board of Geoscientists would have a fun time with Mr. Grubbs' report.
Do your own research, use third-party sources, and don't buy into the hype.
Join the InvestorsHub Community
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.
