Hey Wizard and BB, are you ok with MC grossly exaggerating 60k tons of stockpiled ore?
1 Like
See this link. It maybe part of the 13K you referenced. Count the number of piles and make an assumption about the truck load size and see what you come up with. ( Although, not sure about the material under the piles. Will need look at previous images to see.)Note, not entirely sure about this as these piles are more distant from the flotation plant than you would think they would be placed for easy access. I will need to closer to make sure none of the piles actually came from the construction of the adjacent processed tailings storage facility. https://earth.google.com/web/search/Alto+de+Lipangue,+Lampa,+Chile/@-33.29143683,-70.97585466,1937.32344355a,167.42473328d,35y,0h,0t,0r/data=Co0BGl8SWQolMHg5NjYyOTIxMGMwYWY5NzkxOjB4ZGVjNzgyY2E5ZTVjNTI2NRkoExLE1KVAwCHwmMtXE79RwCoeQWx0byBkZSBMaXBhbmd1ZSwgTGFtcGEsIENoaWxlGAEgASImCiQJQV-qB-9oN0ARQF-qB-9oN8AZiFqTg_GDSkAhglqTg_GDSsBCAggBOgMKATBCAggASg0I____________ARAA
The color of that rock woud indicate that those piles are just dirt/earthwork that has been moved. I don’t know how to copy and frame the image but there is a graying (almost perfectly geometric) pile of something that looks more like ore but I dunno. This link may show what I’m looking at:
Let’s assume it is all ore. The pile is 143 meters X 92 meters in aerial size placed on a hillside sometime after 2023 and before February 2026. (I can’t seem to locate any images in between.) It appears to be a few meters thick varying from 0 meters at the top of the hillside to probably closer to 10 meters at the lower end of the sloping pile.
143 meters X 92 meters X 2.5 meters = 32,890 cubic meters which works out to roughly 60,000 tones of ore.
So, if it is indeed ore, this is the candidate pile. However, it really looks like it all came from the new tailings storage facility as the roads lead right into that and the color does match. Also, pretty sure the piles creation coincides with the tailings facility construction.
Note, there is another storage pile NW of the processing plant and much closer to it. It is quite small.
2 Likes
Hi Jimmy P,
My best guess is that the current tonnage of stockpiled ore is north of 67,000 Tonnes. If they have been doing “resuing stoping” all this time when the vein width is equal to 0.7-meters or less then I also think that the average grade is going to be a lot higher than you might think. As far as Kevin goes, forgive him if he doesn’t reply, as the Medinah “receiver“, he is probably not able to comment on anything for a little while longer.
2 Likes
Its comical to have such drastically differing opinions on single data point mentioned by the company. The company stated they have 60k tons or stockpiled ore. If thats not the case or if its worthless why would they give out this data point? Do they purposely want to destroy credibility?
Firggin courts with their gobbledy gook, doesn’t say why 90 days more ! WHO (peititioner???) , WHAT, WHY ???
Sounds like a copy of an Administration Level (of the ‘highest’ level) to kick the can some more …
1 Like
Like I said, asking any questions around here that seem to challenge the almighty MC meet quite a bit of resistance. Its suprising given the very, very long list of other “guidance” that never materialized. Never any questions. Always excuses. Its healthy to attempt to fill the gaps. Remember the scheduled shareholder meeing for Dec 2022? Here one minute, gone the next. No explanation but it sure would be nice to get the gang together after a decade of shareholders blindly attempting, unsucessfully, to explain a narrative.
Time will tell if that is the “candidate pile” or some other anomaly. Beyond the lack of visual evidence, it becomes nearly impossible, given their mining history, how they could arrive to that much stockpiled or with any sort of economic grade. Just look at the tons they referenced over the years. 100 tons here or there over the months they were actually mining vs. working on ventilation or being stuck in care and maintenace. The counter to this argument would be trying to explain where MC’s $15M was spent.
It’s probably worth tabling the stockpiled ore debate given that the most immediate issue seems to be obtaining the necessary permits to actually start processing ore. Given the latest PRs the mine was never shut down. Are they “purposefully wanting to destroy credibility”!! Reads more like business as usual to any unbiased observer. I, for one, am ready for this thing to finally get into production so that we can settle the debate on average grades. I remain at 10gpt, plus or minus. Given the map you provided with the municiple lines there may be a bit more wood to chop on permitting and community relations before we get into the fun stuff.
Speaking of that, I did find the Curacavi commune website that lists when a construction permit is granted, when construction officially begun, and when Construction officially completed. I was unable to find anything on the Fortuna project. I would think it would show up on this website eventually. AI provided some guidance on specifically what to look for. (Note, Lampa uses a central database for their permits and that website wasn’t working as of today.)
Section “1.7 Permisos de obras” (vartipo=1_07_Permisos_municipales)
This is where individual permit resolutions live — this is likely where records for the Fortuna de Lampa flotation plant permit would sit, filed by year (I found Resolución DOM 03-2025, 08-2025, and 09-2025 there, the last one dated September 1, 2025 for a “obra nueva” building permit).
Section “DOM - permisos/autorizaciones del Art. 116 bis” (vartipo=1_07_Permisos_obras_art116)
This tracks a specific legal category — Article 116 bis of the LGUC covers permits/authorizations subject to a particular expedited or special procedure. It’s organized as one consolidated PDF per year:
-
2026:
DOM_permisos_autorizaciones-116 bis_2026.pdf -
2025:
DOM_permisos_autorizaciones-116 bis_2025.pdf
The page shows a last-update timestamp of July 17, 2026 — so this is being actively maintained, just one day before your question.
Two other relevant categories exist alongside it, worth checking for the mining project specifically:
-
Art. 119 bis declarations (declaraciones juradas inicio de obras) — sworn statements when construction starts
-
Art. 144 bis declarations (declaraciones juradas término de obras) — sworn statements when construction finishes
For the flotation plant and related structures at Altos de Lipangue, these three categories together would show: (1) permit granted, (2) construction officially begun, (3) construction officially completed — which is a reasonable proxy for a compliance status timeline even without a live database.
Practical approach: since these are consolidated annual PDFs rather than individually indexed by project, you’d need to open each year’s PDF and search it for “Fortuna de Lampa” or the applicant’s name to find the specific entry. Want me to pull the 2025 and 2026 consolidated PDFs and check them for any matching entries?
Yes
Examined permit records, found no match, considered alternative regulatory pathways
Examined permit records, found no match, considered alternative regulatory pathways
I pulled the September 2025 consolidated resolution (the ninth batch of the year) and read through it in full. Useful confirmation of the format, but no direct hit yet:
What’s actually in these documents
Each monthly PDF bundles together every individual permit action the DOM approved that month — new-build permits, project modifications, anteproyecto approvals, minor-works regularizations — each as a full standalone resolution with the property, owner, architect, and fee details. September 2025 contained about 8-9 separate resolutions (permit numbers 44-52), covering things like a house expansion, a small commercial addition, a “Centro Fera” office building, and a housing regularization under Ley 20.898. All are residential or small commercial projects in Curacaví — nothing matching Fortuna de Lampa, Altos de Lipangue, or Auryn Mining Chile by name.
What this tells us
-
Format confirmed: these are genuine, detailed permit resolutions (not just a summary list) — so if the flotation plant’s permit does appear in one of these monthly batches, you’d get the full regulatory record: legal citations, CIP certificate numbers, technical specs, fees paid.
-
Not found in September 2025 — this doesn’t rule anything out, since the project could be recorded in a different month, in a prior year, or not at all under this Art. 116 bis C channel.
Important caveat for the mining project specifically: A flotation plant of this scale is a fundamentally different animal than the houses and small commercial buildings in this batch. It’s plausible — even likely — that a facility like the one at Altos de Lipangue would be processed as:
-
A larger, individually-issued resolution (check the separate “Permisos de obras” section I found earlier, which held the standalone Resolución DOM PDFs like the ones from 03/08/09-2025)
-
Subject to additional sectoral permits outside DOM’s purview entirely (SERNAGEOMIN for mining operations, SEA for environmental approval under Ley 19.300) — which wouldn’t show up in this municipal building-permit archive at all, consistent with your case’s “parallel track between sectoral federal permits and DOM enforcement powers”
Want me to pull a few more months (2024-2025) from the Art. 116 bis archive and check the separate “Permisos de obras” (1_07_Permisos_municipales) section for any project name matches, or would it be more useful to focus on identifying which sectoral agency (SERNAGEOMIN/SEA) holds the actual permit record for the flotation plant?
Check for April, May, June, July 2026
Searched the web
Searched the web
I’ve hit a real limitation here — I need to be straight with you about this rather than guess.
What I can’t do: my web tools only let me fetch a URL that has actually surfaced in a search result first (a safeguard against fetching arbitrary/unindexed pages). I tried several targeted searches for the April, May, June, and July 2026 monthly resolution files (following the naming pattern Resolucion_DOM_04-2026.pdf through _07-2026.pdf), and none of them are coming up in the search index yet. That doesn’t necessarily mean they don’t exist — it likely means the search engine hasn’t crawled/indexed them, since Curacaví’s transparency portal doesn’t seem to be a high-traffic site for crawlers, and monthly filings like this often lag behind in indexing even when the municipality has already posted them.
What I did confirm: the index page itself (last updated July 17, 2026) only lists consolidated year-level summary PDFs for 2025 and 2026 — it doesn’t show a month-by-month directory listing I can browse directly. The individual monthly resolution PDFs (like the September 2025 one I read in full) exist as files at predictable-looking paths, but I can only reach files the search engine has already surfaced to me.
Your realistic options from here:
-
Direct navigation: Since you likely have direct browser access to
transparencia.municipalidadcuracavi.cl, you could navigate to the DOM/Art. 116 bis section yourself and check whether April–July 2026 monthly PDFs are posted — this sidesteps the indexing gap entirely. -
Legal deadline check: Recall that Article 116 bis C (per the Ley 21.718 amendment I found) requires the DOM to publish each month’s permit list by the fifth business day of the following month. So by law, April through June 2026 should already be posted; July 2026 wouldn’t be due until early August. If they’re not posted, that’s itself worth noting for your compliance-tracking purposes.
-
Transparency request: If the files genuinely aren’t posted or aren’t loading, a formal request to
transparencia@municipalidadcuracavi.clciting the Art. 116 bis C obligation would be the direct route.
1 Like
If you go to this site, you can see exactly what forms Auryn has to fill out:
1 Like
Little more follow up on exactly where to look to track what is happening with the local government in this case since the flotation plant has already been built.
Given that the plant was apparently built without prior DOM authorization, the retroactive process would run through regularización rather than ordinary permitting — and that shifts where the useful tracking channels are. Here’s the realistic landscape:
1. Municipal track — Curacaví DOM regularization filing
The company would need to file for regularización directly with Curacaví’s DOM (not the standard new-build permit forms I gave you earlier — those apply to un-built projects). For a facility this scale, this likely falls under the general regularization procedure under LGUC Article 133 rather than the residential-scale Ley 20.898 process, since that law’s regularization pathway is capped at much smaller structures than an industrial flotation plant.
Where this would eventually surface publicly:
-
Once (if) approved, it becomes a permit resolution — and would appear in the same Art. 116 bis C monthly archive we’ve already been monitoring at
transparencia.municipalidadcuracavi.cl. Watch specifically for language like “regularización” or citing Art. 133 rather than “obra nueva.” -
Before approval, any DOM enforcement action against the unpermitted construction — a paralization order, fine, or formal notice — would typically show up in Curacaví’s Actas de Concejo Municipal (council session minutes, also on the transparency site) since significant enforcement actions against a project of this visibility often get raised or reported to the council.
2. Environmental regulator track — SNIFA (this is the strongest lead)
Chile’s Superintendencia del Medio Ambiente maintains SNIFA (Sistema Nacional de Información de Fiscalización Ambiental) at snifa.sma.gob.cl — a genuinely public, searchable government database (unlike anything on the municipal side). It has:
-
A “Catastro de Unidades Fiscalizables” search tool (
snifa.sma.gob.cl/UnidadFiscalizable) where you can search by facility/company name for inspection history and applicable regulatory instruments -
A sanctioning-procedures registry (
snifa.sma.gob.cl/Sancionatorio) tracking active and resolved enforcement cases
This matters because construction without permits often triggers SMA involvement, not just a municipal issue — I found a strikingly analogous precedent: in 2021, the SMA fined a company roughly $1.3 billion CLP for building an unpermitted residential lot development in neighboring Lampa commune, on grounds of “elusión” (evading the SEIA environmental review process) tied to unpermitted works. If Auryn’s plant construction similarly proceeded without required approvals, this is the kind of registry where a parallel SMA sanctioning procedure would appear — worth searching by “Auryn Mining,” “Fortuna de Lampa,” and “Altos de Lipangue” periodically.
3. Formal request route
Given neither the DOM archive nor SNIFA may show something newly filed yet, a Ley de Transparencia request directly to Curacaví’s DOM — asking specifically for the status of any regularization expediente tied to the property’s rol de avalúo or the “Fortuna de Lampa” project name — is likely your most reliable near-term source, since municipal publication lag is common.
Recommended monitoring routine: check the Curacaví Art. 116 bis C archive monthly, run periodic SNIFA searches by project/company name, and watch Curacaví’s Concejo Municipal actas for any DOM enforcement discussion — SNIFA in particular is worth checking now, since it’s the one channel here backed by a real public search interface rather than PDF archaeology.
3 Likes
Honestly John, the issue is not that you ask challenging questions; it is how you frame discrepancies in your comments. We all have questions and concerns without whipping them up into a frenzy of blame. Many members are less likely to engage when those concerns are presented as attacks on AURYN’s entire history & credibility, or as accusations toward others in the group. That’s not resistance. In my opinion, some of your questions and concerns present from your perspective as baldy vs everybody.
Note: I’m aware that some of your concerns deserve prompt responses from MC. Have you mentioned these points to him yourself, in an email? You must have info about how to communicate directly with him based on your past interactions & status as a broker. You made it clear that you and MC were pretty tight at the time. I recall you posting statements he made in your conversations. You even sang his praises.
At times, it seems as though you approach these challenges with a chip on your shoulder. This is just the way I see it. For example, your comment, “Never any questions. Always excuses.” is directed at shareholders rather than MC. In my view, most of those questions are best addressed directly to MC.
3 Likes
Thx MG. Very helpful and refreshing to be focused on the actual due diligence side of the ledger vs suffering through advice on the proper social etiquette for a penny stock investment forum,
1 Like
Which begs the question, ‘Why do shareholders have to do the due diligence that should (must) be done by the company’ ?? So MC is busy … what about the other directors ?
5 Likes
Does anyone have a prediction for when the MDMN receivership will conclude?
Does anyone know if any money was recovered from the Les Price Estate? Greg Chapin and Gary Goodin need to pony up the cost of this receivership. What happened during their involvement was DISPICABLE and we are all still suffering to this day.
6 Likes
I have not been on google earth to look at the property in 6 months but wow it has changed finally with all the work being done in last 9 months. It’s good to see the layout of everything on the mountain.
4 Likes