So the Camp is closed is what you’re saying. Where are their living quarters? Are they sleeping in their cars or on the side of the mountain. Come on now. Either way if the camp is shut down or the entire operations is shut down the company has a responsibility to let the shareholders know what’s happening not a shareholder. It doesn’t take much Jaded. They have lost all credibility. Prove me wrong.
I agree 100%, DoneDeal. The company needs to communicate to shareholders about what’s going on. We haven’t had a shareholder update since January, and that makes it seem even worse. But I’m not going to throw in the towel and sell all my AUMC shares over it. That would be ludicrous. I’m just as concerned about these things as you are. I also have a substantial number of MDMN shares in total limbo.
It’s not fair to start shooting blind with accusations until we know more. Yeah, he needs to keep his word about keeping shareholders informed. But why bash MC without knowing the details? 
Sure, we can beat him up for lack of communication. But we can only guess what’s going on that’s causing any delays. It may not be his fault at all. There are several possibilities—both good and bad—or a combination of the two.
You say MC has lost all credibility. Really? In legal proceedings, the party making the claim has the burden of proof. And imo, this isn’t about proving anybody right or wrong, either. I swear, some of you guys have way too much testosterone. 
Don’t forget: MC has solid credentials. He put up millions of his own money to get this off the ground without charging interest. If the mountain collapses, MC would be out millions. They would never have built a flotation plant if they didn’t have solid reasons to do so. I highly doubt the plans will flop.
1 Like
The municipality/Radioprensa report says the Curacaví Dirección de Obras inspected the Cerro Carén site and determined that the mining infrastructure was inside Curacaví’s jurisdiction and lacked required local permits. The mayor then ordered an immediate and total suspension/clausura of the plant/facilities, with operations suspended indefinitely while the company can submit documents to regularize the situation.
Jaded. This information is LITERALLY found in the same link that MGold referred to and yet, somehow, you come to the conclusion that the mine was not shut down. MGold even translated it for you! Yes, he posted an AI analysis that inferred that the issues could be limited to the camp but, if you take the time to read the subsequent posts and clarifications its beyond clear that the entire operation is shutdown until they resolve the permitting issues.
Could take a couple months or a lot longer. Its not the end of the world but there is no excuse for the silence. This company is nowhere near in a position to consider an uplist. Bulletin board antics which is a bit scary given the current $150 million market cap.
No John, that’ not accurate. Let’s clarify the scenario you laid out: First, read Mike Gold’s entire post:
And like it says, those were his final conclusions regarding this matter.
The info he based that on was after he read a few more details about what may be happening from local sources (I think that’s what he said). I have other things to do besides getting into an intense back & forth. It’s not worth it for me to go dig up those exact posts, that’s your specialty. Take it up with MG, if you want.
5 Likes
We’ll give them a pass if the information blackout is because of a blockbuster deal being done. Thats about it.
See below.
https://www.camara.cl/diputados/detalle/oficio.aspx?prmId=1210
It is a series of official requests from Deputy Gustavo Gatica Villarroel who appears to be associated with the communist/independent party affiliations to various federal government officials concerning Auryn Mining.
Here is a translation of one of the letters:
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION No. 14193
SUBJECT: Request
lrg/asj
S.36°/374
VALPARAÍSO, June 17, 2026
Representative Mr. GUSTAVO GATICA VILLARROEL, exercising the authority granted to him by Articles 9° of Law No. 18,918, Organic Constitutional Law of the National Congress, and Article 308 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, has requested that you be officially communicated so that, pursuant to the attached request, you inform this Chamber of the potential environmental violations linked to the mining project developed by the company “Auryn Mining Chile SpA” in the Altos de Lipangue area, located between the municipalities of Curacaví and Lampa, referring specifically to the background information available in this regard, as well as the measures that may be adopted, in the terms and responding to the other questions raised.
I wish to note that, if the response to this official communication contains reserved or classified matters, it must be clearly indicated along with the legal basis for such classification, in compliance with the second paragraph of Article 8° of the Political Constitution of the Republic.
Which I have the honor to communicate to you, pursuant to the aforementioned provisions.
God keep you.
LUIS ROJAS GALLARDO
Deputy Secretary of the Chamber of Deputies
TO THE HONORABLE UNDERSECRETARY OF CULTURAL HERITAGE
OFFICIAL COMMUNICATION
TO: JORGE ALESSANDRI VERGARA
PRESIDENT OF THE CHAMBER OF DEPUTIES OF CHILE
FROM: GUSTAVO GATICA VILLARROEL
REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
Representative Gustavo Gatica Villarroel, exercising the authority granted by Articles 9° of Law No. 18,918, Organic Constitutional Law of the National Congress, and Article 308 of the Rules of Procedure of the Chamber of Deputies, has requested that official communication be directed to Mr. Emilio de La Cerda, Undersecretary of Cultural Heritage and President of the National Monuments Council, so that he may inform this Corporation of background information regarding potential environmental violations linked to the mining project developed by the company Auryn Mining Chile SpA in the Altos de Lipangue area, located between the municipalities of Curacaví and Lampa, Metropolitan Region, in accordance with the following background information:
BACKGROUND
This parliamentary office has been made aware, through information provided by community and environmental organizations in the territory, particularly by representatives of the Curacaví Municipal Environmental Committee, of a series of facts that raise well-founded concerns about the environmental legality of the mining project currently being carried out by the company Auryn Mining Chile SpA in the area known as Altos de Lipangue, situated on the municipal boundary between Curacaví and Lampa, Metropolitan Region.
According to the information provided, the project would be located within an ecologically sensitive area corresponding to the Cerro El Roble – La Campana sector, a territory recognized as a priority site for biodiversity conservation due to its high ecosystem value, hydrological significance, and the presence of species of special environmental interest.
As reported by the complaining organizations, the company had previously submitted a Relevance Consultation to the Environmental Assessment Service, a procedure through which it was determined that the project did not need to be submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System.
Notwithstanding the above, background information now exists indicating that the project as actually implemented presents characteristics significantly different from those originally presented to the environmental authority, encompassing mining works and infrastructure of considerable magnitude, including extraction operations, an industrial mineral processing plant using flotation, and the construction of a tailings pond of approximately 12 hectares.
In addition, various organizations have expressed concern that the permit holder may have submitted incomplete or fragmented information during the administrative process, artificially separating different components of the project in order to prevent a comprehensive assessment of its environmental impacts.
If confirmed, these facts could constitute a potential circumvention of the Environmental Impact Assessment System, as well as possible illegal project fragmentation — conduct sanctioned under Article 11 bis of Law No. 19,300 on General Environmental Foundations — particularly considering that the works currently being executed may substantially exceed what was originally reported by the company at the time of submitting the relevance consultation.
It is particularly concerning that a project of this nature is intervening in a priority biodiversity ecosystem without clear assurance of full compliance with the environmental obligations required by our legal framework.
In light of these facts, I request information on the following:
1. Whether there is any prior record of the existence of stone wall structures (pircas), archaeological remains, or elements of potential heritage value located in the Altos de Lipangue area where the Auryn Mining Chile SpA mining project is currently being developed.
2. Whether the area affected by the project contains heritage records previously identified by that agency.
3. Whether there exist prior inventories or surveys associated with material heritage present in that territory.
4. Whether that Council has received reports related to destruction, alteration, or physical damage to stone walls (pircas) or other structures in the areas currently being affected by the company.
5. Whether a technical on-site inspection is warranted to verify the existence of material damage to elements potentially protected under current heritage legislation.
6. What technical criteria that agency uses to determine whether this type of structure may be considered protected heritage or eligible for protection.
7. What administrative actions that Council contemplates in the event that material damage is verified to protected or potentially protectable heritage structures.
8. Whether sanctioning procedures exist applicable to unauthorized interventions in areas with potential archaeological or heritage value.
9. Whether that agency plans to initiate an investigation or request additional background information regarding the project currently being executed by Auryn Mining Chile SpA.
GUSTAVO GATICA VILLARROEL
HONORABLE REPRESENTATIVE OF THE REPUBLIC OF CHILE
VALPARAÍSO, JUNE 2026
2 Likes
One thing to add here is that it been known for many years of the existence of those stone walls at the Alto. Some shareholders have seen them and sometimes they show up in photos.
On Google Earth, I did look at the most recent image and compared into to prior images to see if any stone walls had been torn down in construction of the rather oversized tailings facility. Best I can tell, it appears that a stone wall runs VERY close to the boundary of the tailings facility but probably remains undamaged. Otherwise, walls crisscross all over the place through other parts of the operation but would take a lot more time to tell if anything has been damaged. The fact that the one wall runs just outside the tailings facility boundary is at least suggestive that Auryn deliberately avoided damaging it and placed the containment area in such a way as to avoid harm.
Pic shows stone wall just to the left of the red line:
9 Likes
Thank you for your great research into this, Mike!
3 Likes
These guys (Municiples) look to be kicking up dust wherever possible. Everything from environmental to archeological. Auryn either a) was diligent in their permitting process and will be able to satisfy all of these raised concerns or b) they cut corners and will be forced to suffer through considerable delays. Pretty safe to assume that this encompasses a lot more than shutting down the bunk room.
They appear to be claiming that Auryn cut corners by gaining permits incrementally vs. hollistically to minimize the actual scale of the operation. Who knows. Specific to the archeological issues. It would be pretty nuts to break ground on tailings or any other surface area unless there was already a comprehensive review for the possibility of any disturbances. If they didn’t take that proactive step its no bueno. You can’t retroactively get permission.
I have been involved with other South American miners who had to change the locations of their tailings b/c they did not receive archeology permits (a few bones were discovered!). However, they never would have begun construction without those permits in hand. Might as well give AUMC the benefit of the doubt on this one as the alternative would be gross negligence.
2 Likes
jmho — this is a fair assessment of what may or may not be the case. I appreciate that this assessment is based on the most recent documents MG researched and shared, as posted.
I question why the Curacavi Municipal Environmental Committee would file such concerns right now vs during earlier phases of construction at the Altos de Lipangue. Though it sounds complicated, i don’t see where this committee provided any clear evidence that Auryn’s project “as actually implemented presents characteristics significantly different from those originally presented to the environmental authority …”
— Or that Auryn “may have submitted incomplete or fragmented information … to prevent a comprehensive assessment of its environmental impact.”
Correct me if I am wrong, but even some limited evidence should be a requirement before setting off a full investigation into their many stated concerns. Either way, if the investigation shows those claims invalid, then the local environmental committee should be held financially accountable for Auryn’s losses during the time the project was halted. jmho
1 Like
Ok, I’ll guess. Aryun interacted with this entity earlier in the process, before they decided to build the plant. If they provided a site plan and or a description of the proposed operation to meet permitting requirements, theres going to be a problem if no one updated the permit. That’s my guess. There’s a environmental consultant problem.
1 Like
There isn’t a problem with the federal government approvals. The piece meal project argument makes no sense. A mining company doesn’t have to do a full blown environmental impact study(1000 day process) if not higher than 5000 tons per month of mining. At last check, Auryn was seeking approval for 3000 tons per month. There is one exception to this. If the project is in a designated environmentally sensitive zone, then a EIS is required regardless. As it turns out, the Alto is not in a designated area as defined by federal requirements such as being next to a glacier or a national park. Rather, it has been deemed sensitive by local officials. Auryn should be able to prevail here.
10 Likes
Hi Mike,
First let me say that I have no idea what I’m talking about when the subject is mining (Baldy will confirm that if needed). Where I do have some expertise is in governmental incompetence, especially as it relates to permitting. What I see is multi- layers of jurisdictions and governmental agencies with sometimes overlapping authority. They probably don’t talk to each other as a normal part of business.
As reported by the complaining organizations, the company had previously submitted a Relevance Consultation to the Environmental Assessment Service, a procedure through which it was determined that the project did not need to be submitted to the Environmental Impact Assessment System.
I’m guessing that was before they decided to build the plant. I agree with you 100%. Auryn did everything correctly in meeting the requirements. I’ll bet that meeting the federal requirements will more than satisfy these guys. The problem is these guys weren’t told of the changes because no one told Auryn that it was necessary.
All a guess. This is the kind of stuff that goes through my head while watering in the garden.
Cheers
2 Likes
Adding the plant doesn’t affect anything. Its the tons of mining per month that is the EIS trigger. Ironically, what put this on the radar of the environmental groups was the large tailings facility as it has a big footprint. It was specifically built for environmental protection reasons.
4 Likes
let me ask, who is Environmental Assessment Service?
1 Like
Ok Mike, I don’t need the facts or any knowledge of the subject to know that if I blame the consultants I’ll be right 85% of the time. So that’s what I’m going to do. We just have to see what the company says.
3 Likes
Mike, you probably know a lot about carbon footprints of a large
tailings facility. EZ and brecciaboy likely do as well. I suppose I could try to research this myself, but I’d like to know what part of a ‘tailings facility’ causes a large carbon footprint. I don’t know much about carbon footprints or how the soil is harmed.
I’ve read a little bit about the SOC (Soil Organic Carbon) to determine the tailings carbon footprint. That part is complicated. That is, I didn’t really get a clear answer. But the tailings are smaller bits of the same mountain that’s been there for eons.
What I want to know would likely take an entire textbook & a professor 
— not just a few internet searches. Seems to me that there must be something added to the tailings that errodes the SOC further.
Jaded,
I think the principal environmental concerns are that they destroyed historical artifacts and sensitive vegetation/wildlife building the tailings facility(and the resting of the mining project) and the tainted tailings could seep out or have a catastrophic containment wall failure event contaminating the small rivers at the base of the mountain.
3 Likes
We are close to halfway through the year and over four months from the deadline for submitting claims against Medinah . I would have thought by now we would have had at least a cursory update were we stand. I would just like to know what is delaying an update on the status of the liquidation and whether there will be a distribution of Auryn shares in the near future.
7 Likes