Replies to post #63060 on Colorado Goldfields Inc. (fka CGFI)

[flicker]

How many years has this been reported in the 10-Q

The Company prepared additional material for consideration by the DRMS and the MLRB. Management submitted a new permit amendment application (“AM0-03”), to the DRMS on January 27, 2012 and April 23, 2012. On August 9, 2012, the DRMS approved, with conditions, AM-03.

>>>"...same story that has appeared in EVERY 10q for years."

[M_T_Pockets]

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