Discussion
Condi said:
You would never be allowed to divert /block the river I wouldnt have thought under environmental and ecological protection.
Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
Pretty certain that they did just that in one of the gold shows, diverted a river and then allowed them to mine the section of river.Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
The Moose said:
rgw2012 said:
The Moose said:
I'd really like to see an accurate P&L Statements for each operation.
I would love to know what it really cost to get 6,000oz of gold out the ground!
I seem to recall Tony talking about costs and returns when he was discussing his dredging last season. I think it worked out about 80%/20% cost to profit ratio mining in a fashion like Parker's operation but the opposite using the gredge (ie 20%/80%). So on that basis if gold is about $1200 per ounce, for arguments sake, Parker would be getting $1.4m profit having incurred $5.76m in operating costs. Tony's dredging on those sums, plus his royalties from Parker, makes it a very worthwhile investment for the future and explains how it is so easy for him to spend so much money on barges, equipment, dredge upgrades, planes etc. I know the operating costs for Parker would flesh out as the initial capital expenditure is amortised over several seasons, so there would actually be more profit than the basic sums show, but it's a high level indicator.I would love to know what it really cost to get 6,000oz of gold out the ground!
Du1point8 said:
Condi said:
You would never be allowed to divert /block the river I wouldnt have thought under environmental and ecological protection.
Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
Pretty certain that they did just that in one of the gold shows, diverted a river and then allowed them to mine the section of river.Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
youngsyr said:
Du1point8 said:
Condi said:
You would never be allowed to divert /block the river I wouldnt have thought under environmental and ecological protection.
Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
Pretty certain that they did just that in one of the gold shows, diverted a river and then allowed them to mine the section of river.Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
But assuming that you were allowed to divert the water, why didn't they do it there 150 years ago? They had already proved it could be done and they found a lot of gold. Why didn't they just repeat the operation the whole length of the creek?
Too difficult? Too dangerous? Low chance of success? Too little return?
All those reasons would still apply to the Hurt crew today, even if they were legally allowed to divert the creek. 150 years ago they found the one place where they could divert the creek successfully and make a great return. They must have surveyed the whole creek and determined that there was no where else suitable.
Given the topography of the Hurt claim; fast moving creek, steep narrow gorge, inaccessible to machinery, it's doubtful that it would even be possible to divert the creek there. Certainly given the crew's experience and skills and most importantly, their financial resources. And even if everything was in place to attempt it, will there really be enough gold to make a profit on such a large operation? And we've seen what happens when it rains.....
TEKNOPUG said:
youngsyr said:
Du1point8 said:
Condi said:
You would never be allowed to divert /block the river I wouldnt have thought under environmental and ecological protection.
Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
Pretty certain that they did just that in one of the gold shows, diverted a river and then allowed them to mine the section of river.Finally got round to the final round of Gold Rush - Todds operation was a joke in the end, no wonder he's not coming back next year. Also not a great advert for Volvo that at one point 3 of their 4 rock trucks were stopped waiting for spares, and by the sounds of things all were drive-shaft issues. Tony and Parker did a decent job and actually look like professional miners earning enough money to carry on without the TV money.
But assuming that you were allowed to divert the water, why didn't they do it there 150 years ago? They had already proved it could be done and they found a lot of gold. Why didn't they just repeat the operation the whole length of the creek?
Too difficult? Too dangerous? Low chance of success? Too little return?
All those reasons would still apply to the Hurt crew today, even if they were legally allowed to divert the creek. 150 years ago they found the one place where they could divert the creek successfully and make a great return. They must have surveyed the whole creek and determined that there was no where else suitable.
Given the topography of the Hurt claim; fast moving creek, steep narrow gorge, inaccessible to machinery, it's doubtful that it would even be possible to divert the creek there. Certainly given the crew's experience and skills and most importantly, their financial resources. And even if everything was in place to attempt it, will there really be enough gold to make a profit on such a large operation? And we've seen what happens when it rains.....
However, if you're saying they should mine there, using only the techniques they're using in the show, then that's a different story!
I'm saying that the fact that the creek was diverted 150 years ago, doesn't mean that it could or should be diverted now. If it was feasible or economically viable to do so, someone would have done so by now, as McKinley Creek is classified as a past producer deposit site in Alaska; it's not a new, non-surveyed claim.
Small scale dredging is probably the only financially viable option but it's still very high risk and therefore probably of little consideration to miners who don't have a guaranteed TV revenue income stream...
They basically spent a whole season figuring out how to do it. If they went back next season and began with the correct equipment & set up, then they stand a fair chance of recovering whatever gold is there. Whether that would be enough to cover 2 season's expenses though... You could even imagine a scenario where they have enough experience to become proficient at dredging the creek but they'd still need to find locations where there is sufficient gold (seems very hard without drilling - basically educated guesses) and be at the mercy of the weather/creek. So like I say, very high risk and therefore unattractive/uneconomical to anyone without a TV show bankrolling them.
What was the name of that show where 3 guys went into the wilderness alone to find gold? That was quite interesting in so much as it was about reading the land to identify where gold deposits might be, rather than just being given a claim to mine.
Small scale dredging is probably the only financially viable option but it's still very high risk and therefore probably of little consideration to miners who don't have a guaranteed TV revenue income stream...
They basically spent a whole season figuring out how to do it. If they went back next season and began with the correct equipment & set up, then they stand a fair chance of recovering whatever gold is there. Whether that would be enough to cover 2 season's expenses though... You could even imagine a scenario where they have enough experience to become proficient at dredging the creek but they'd still need to find locations where there is sufficient gold (seems very hard without drilling - basically educated guesses) and be at the mercy of the weather/creek. So like I say, very high risk and therefore unattractive/uneconomical to anyone without a TV show bankrolling them.
What was the name of that show where 3 guys went into the wilderness alone to find gold? That was quite interesting in so much as it was about reading the land to identify where gold deposits might be, rather than just being given a claim to mine.
TEKNOPUG said:
I'm saying that the fact that the creek was diverted 150 years ago, doesn't mean that it could or should be diverted now. If it was feasible or economically viable to do so, someone would have done so by now, as McKinley Creek is classified as a past producer deposit site in Alaska; it's not a new, non-surveyed claim.
Small scale dredging is probably the only financially viable option but it's still very high risk and therefore probably of little consideration to miners who don't have a guaranteed TV revenue income stream...
They basically spent a whole season figuring out how to do it. If they went back next season and began with the correct equipment & set up, then they stand a fair chance of recovering whatever gold is there. Whether that would be enough to cover 2 season's expenses though... You could even imagine a scenario where they have enough experience to become proficient at dredging the creek but they'd still need to find locations where there is sufficient gold (seems very hard without drilling - basically educated guesses) and be at the mercy of the weather/creek. So like I say, very high risk and therefore unattractive/uneconomical to anyone without a TV show bankrolling them.
What was the name of that show where 3 guys went into the wilderness alone to find gold? That was quite interesting in so much as it was about reading the land to identify where gold deposits might be, rather than just being given a claim to mine.
That's a very long way of saying: "it's not worth bothering to mine there", which I don't think anyone on this thread disagrees with!Small scale dredging is probably the only financially viable option but it's still very high risk and therefore probably of little consideration to miners who don't have a guaranteed TV revenue income stream...
They basically spent a whole season figuring out how to do it. If they went back next season and began with the correct equipment & set up, then they stand a fair chance of recovering whatever gold is there. Whether that would be enough to cover 2 season's expenses though... You could even imagine a scenario where they have enough experience to become proficient at dredging the creek but they'd still need to find locations where there is sufficient gold (seems very hard without drilling - basically educated guesses) and be at the mercy of the weather/creek. So like I say, very high risk and therefore unattractive/uneconomical to anyone without a TV show bankrolling them.
What was the name of that show where 3 guys went into the wilderness alone to find gold? That was quite interesting in so much as it was about reading the land to identify where gold deposits might be, rather than just being given a claim to mine.
Totally given up on this now, watched since the start and watched up to now but honestly its just not entertaining any more.
Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
red_slr said:
Totally given up on this now, watched since the start and watched up to now but honestly its just not entertaining any more.
Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
I suspect Rick will pick up the remnants of Todd's team and start up his own claim - wouldn't be surprised if Tony has offered Parker's old ground to him!Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
youngsyr said:
red_slr said:
Totally given up on this now, watched since the start and watched up to now but honestly its just not entertaining any more.
Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
I suspect Rick will pick up the remnants of Todd's team and start up his own claim - wouldn't be surprised if Tony has offered Parker's old ground to him!Rick seems like a nice enough guy, no doubt he has been tapping up the producers for the last season and now has a deal bit like the guys from GMG. No doubt Parker is in the deal there somewhere too.
TTmonkey said:
Parker should never play cards. He can’t see when someone’s got a great hand and he’s got jack s
t.
Parker really struggles to understand other people's point of view. For him, everything is very clear, but he simply cannot see that other people have different motivations and put different importance on different outcomes.t. His relationship with Tony Beets is a great example of this; Parker cannot see why Tony doesn't want Parker to mine as much as possible and make as much money as possible as quickly as possible.
However, Tony isn't strapped for cash and the land isn't going anywhere, so if Parker doesn't mine it this year, or next year, or ever, the value is still there for Tony.
Gassing Station | TV, Film, Video Streaming & Radio | Top of Page | What's New | My Stuff