Thursday, June 23, 2011

Liar Liar Pants on Fire ...

As usual the devil is in the details and special kudos are once again directed to "nor-easter" who spelled it out, but this monkey did not clue in immediately. So whats the latest obvious falsehood? (yawn)
After further perusal of our "smoking gun" it appears there can be no underground dam constructed without an EPA permit allowing it ...

1) Underground disposal: requires an Environmental Protection Agency(EPA)Underground Injection Control (UIC) permit.

So IF dam construction is/has taking place as Mr. Goodwin has informed the world, it may be illegal because NO additional ground water studies have been completed as required for the permitting process. This dopey Co cannot possibly have a UIC permit.

So what a pickle of a dilemma. If we take the man at his word he has confirmed beyond question that the Co may be acting illegally in constructing that dam without an EPA permit.

This Company MUST be relying on semantics to save itself from regulatory sanction. Is an underground dam an attempt to dispose of water? Sure as chit seems that way to me, and I have often wondered how one builds something that every miner's life depends on without an engineering study. This blogger is referring the question to the state of Alaska ... Film at 11:00

Here is the e-mail sent to the Alaskan powers that be ...

"Secondly, a Vancouver promotion called Fire River Gold is restarting the Nixon Fork Mine and has stated recently that it is nearing completion of an underground dam. This appears to me to be an attempt to dispose of water underground and as such would require a permit. Please advise if this is incorrect. It should also be noted that it appears NO engineering work has been completed for this dam. If so it represents a MAJOR danger to underground workers in my opinion."

While we wait on several levels of governance to formulate a response we can peruse some the requirements to actually build and operate a dam in Alaska.

What dam safety permits are required to construct and operate a dam in Alaska? Glad you asked again citizen ... damn yer good at this dam business.

A Certificate of Approval to Construct, Modify, Remove or Abandon A Dam is required prior to new construction, major modification or repair, removal, or abandonment. A Certificate of Approval to Operate A Dam is required before a new or modified dam can be put into operation.

What is required to obtain certificates of approval?

To obtain a Certificate of Approval to Construct, Modify, Remove or Abandon A Dam, plans, specifications, engineering reports and other information prepared by a qualified Alaska registered civil engineer must be submitted for review and approval along with the appropriate application fee.


Well thank goodness lives are not gonna be put into serious jeopardy from shameless securites mutts looking for suckers to sell their worthless paper to ... one hopes.

Thursday, June 16, 2011

The Smoking Gun & Bloody Knife

After many moons of following this promotion in excruciating detail this scribe must pass the highest possible KUDOS to the superior due diligence skills of a poster named "nor-easter" at This individual found what was under this incredulous monkey's nose the entire time ... a report from 2009 that describes the water table problems at Nixon Fork in COMPLETELY unmistakable and undeniable detail.
And what excuse will this determined blogger use to explain the oversight? One must remember we are dealing with a promoter with a lifetime's experience at this sort of thing, and sometimes blind luck is the only thing preventing any poochie from getting shorn on the horrid Venture exchange bordello.

In this case the document was filed on Sedar late and along with 8 countem 8 other documents, including the AIF, proxy materials, notice of meeting, statements of qualified person, a second technical report, "other", etc etc.

Clever Mr. Barr, only the VERY determined with an extreme attention to detail (or very lucky) would find that needle in the haystack.
So what do we have here? Glad you asked citizen. Lets ponder some of this grotesquely contradicted pooh.

"One of the hurdles for expanding mining operations at the project is the primary water table, which sits at approximately 300 m (1,000 feet) below surface. In addition, there is a secondary, perched water table located approximately 140 m (450 feet) below surface."

"Due to the karst nature of the skarn and host limestone country rock, this water table is persistent and difficult to model."

"The water table varies from 140 meter to 168 meter in elevation."
And one of the MAJOR recommendations of the report ...

"Initial hydrology modeling and possible drilling to determine best way to eliminate water from workings that go below current water table."

Well. There is no confusion possible about the definition or existence of a water table at Nixon Fork, and since this report was prepared in August 2009, anything contradicting it thereafter can only be considered a deliberate and sickening falsehood to perpetuate a securities fraud on the public.

With this in mind lets briefly review some of the statements made by this management since ...

"The mine is currently dry. Slimes have been mucked from the bottom of the ramp leaving 1 foot of water. Past operators experienced seasonal inflows into the mine from the spring melt. This has not been our experience over the past two seasons."

"The water table has not been defined at present."

"Although there were resources declared at depth on 3300 (and we will likely do so in our own resource estimate), there is no obstruction to mining below it other than that this is a zero discharge facility and, yes, we do not have an EPA waste water discharge permit."

"The mine is a fairly dry - at present there is about 3 ft of water at the bottom of the mine in the main ramp, so there is no obvious evidence of a water table."

"at present water isn’t an obvious physical barrier to deeper mining."

This blogger has said from day one this isn't rocket science and that remains true today. The only question required has changed only slightly. Its gone from WHERE the Golder Associates study is to WHY this management is withholding its disclosure. It should be absolutely clear, even to the deliberately obtuse, that it remains hidden for a reason, and that reason has everything to do with dead worthless paper being offloaded onto the public by career promoters contrary to virtually every securities law in existence.