that was just one small ( border-line critical mass )device
Russian has THOUSANDS of much bigger warheads and the new hyper-sonic ones don't even seem to need a payload the heat/plasma triggers the reactions in the target area
but since Russia hasn't threatened that , MAYBE they believe the vaults are virtually empty
do they sit around in storage , and are NOT moved from bay to bay to settle major account moves
now i still think the bars are just heavily over-committed , but until the forensic audit .. the rumors and theories will multiply for example how much stolen gold ( from other nations is in there) .. somebody looted Iraq and Libya
that can be handled as well deep penetration missiles and nukes in a combination ( increasing the chances the defenses would be overwhelmed , and a better chance of at least partial success )Entirely valid point about modern nukes being far heftier than Little Boy, but still, the gold at Fort Knox is held in a subterranian vault, not just sitting in a building on the surface.
one would assume each vault would be emptied one at a time and shifted to a different vault after auditing ( one would assume only suspect bars would be drilled/assayed ) you have very accurate scales and other tools to check most bars without invasive examination ( otherwise they would never find mineral deposits deep underground by aerial survey )Interesting! I did some quick looking into it. Even if you do bring your gold bars out of the subterranian vault to count them in the sunlight and that's when the Russians nuke you, the radiation will transform the gold197 to gold198, which has a half life of 2.7 days. So it would only be radioactive for about a week.
So much for that built in theft deterrent option.
yeah nah, let's...
Also known as a homophone. But let’s not go too much off topic.
gg
one would assume each vault would be emptied one at a time and shifted to a different vault after auditing ( one would assume only suspect bars would be drilled/assayed ) you have very accurate scales and other tools to check most bars without invasive examination ( otherwise they would never find mineral deposits deep underground by aerial survey )
surely Fort Knox would still have SOME vacant storage space .
ALSO rumors suggest there is another storage facility in parallel to Fort Knox ( in the US )
Okay. But the big C&H pattern which broke above its handle last year, has a target of around $3100.
Just checked back and it was around 20 Feb 2022 we were discussing $2700 ish a bit. So, three years ago. Waited a long time for the handle to break up.
I can see how it could be extended a bit, but it's all just approximate targets I guess.
Looking back it was a good time to be accumulating gold.
View attachment 193741
I wonder if Australian-listed Gold ETF's are similarly constrained from lending their Gold.Conclusion
To summarize: US-listed physically-backed gold ETFs, including GLD and IAU, do not lend their gold. However, their role in the secondary market indirectly contributes to the overall liquidity and sophistication of the gold market, making gold a more accessible and appealing investment option.
my selection in the monthly comp. is contesting that statementJunior gold miners are already up nearly 5% this month, following a 13% rally in January. Momentum is surging into these stocks
If you proceed with this endeavor, you will be misleadingly told by the U.S. Treasury, the owner of the gold, that the metal is annually audited by the Office of Inspector General (OIG) together with an independent public accountant, KPMG LLP. The 2024 audit report of the “United States Mint’s Schedules of Custodial Deep Storage Gold and Silver Reserves” stored at the U.S. Mint, including the depositories at Fort Knox, West Point, and Denver, can be found on the OIG website here. The report on the gold stored at the Federal Reserve Bank of New York (FRBNY) is here. No need for any new audits, the bureaucrats will say. But don’t be fooled. While it's true that currently the OIG inspects the permanent tamper-evident seals covering vault compartments annually, and KPMG has accompanied the OIG during these expeditions, these audits are anything but credible if you would know what happened to those compartments before the last seals were put on. I have been researching the U.S. gold reserves audits for many years, all the way back to 1974, and submitted countless FOIA requests at the Treasury (owner), Mint (custodian), FRBNY (custodian), and OIG (auditor) that unearthed previously undisclosed documents. In total, I have published nine articles about my findings1. The full list of anomalies and problems regarding the audits would be too lengthy to discuss here, but below are a few unsettling conclusions:
Given the significance of this subject, I would like to expand on the most sensitive issue at hand: the frequent re-opening of vault compartments placed under Official Joint Seal. As such breaches mean there can be no assurance the vault compartments still contain the gold they should. An IntroductionYou will know that (on paper) the U.S. holds the largest official gold reserves in the world, accounting for 8,134 metric tonnes. While this gold no longer backs the U.S. dollar at a fixed parity as it did before 1971, it serves as essential support and a final backstop to the dollar, contributing credibility to the dollar’s status as the world reserve currency. Source: U.S. Treasury. Next to the Deep Storage of gold at the Mint and metal at the FRBNY, there are 87 tonnes stored at the Mint that can be utilized as working stock for producing coins.The majority of the gold is stored at a U.S. Mint depository at Fort Knox, while smaller quantities are kept at Mint depositories in Denver and West Point. Collectively, this volume is known as Deep Storage gold and is secured within 42 sealed compartments. The remainder is stored at the FRBNY. The current audits commenced in 1974 and were designed to annually verify 10% of the gold, place verified compartments under “Official Joint Seal,” and after all compartments were attested in 1983 inspect the seals every year (page 36, page 534). But unfortunately, this is not what unfolded. Sealed vault compartment at Fort Knox. How the Audit Procedures Have FailedRepresenting the OIG, Eric M. Thorson attended the congressional hearing for the Gold Transparency Act of 2011 that was initiated by Ron Paul (not enacted). Mr. Thorson’s testimony at the hearing serves as the official statement by the auditor. Having weighed his words carefully, Thorson stated:
In summary:
Two assumptions we can derive from Thorson’s testimony:
Thorson didn’t mention anything about vault compartments having ever been re-opened.
To refute Thorson’s testimony, it’s paramount to first establish the OIG did not assume responsibility for the audits since 1993, but as early as 1982. From one of the few documents that survived the 1980s (page 2):
On the front page of an audit report from 1985, we can clearly see the OIG’s name: Second, ever since the OIG became part of the audits in 1982, exactly what was not supposed to happen, did happen: vault compartments that had been physically verified and sealed were re-opened.Read with me, from the 1986 audit report with respect to Fort Knox (Pages 7 and 8): For dubious reasons, from 1983 until 1986 ‘re-audits’ of 1,929 tonnes were performed at Fort Knox and Denver (sealed compartments were re-opened while both depositories were fully audited by then) “in accordance with the plan approved by the Treasurer.” Meanwhile, Deep Storage compartments at West Point had never been audited. Why didn’t the OIG finish the audits at West Point, as intended, but instead began breaking permanent seals at Fort Knox and Denver? Thorson himself said in 2011 that “once you have done that [placing seals] and that seal remains unbroken, then I am not sure what other benefit there would be to going back into it.” One more time, to be sure, the purpose of the seals, as we can also read from the Mint’s annual report 1974/1975 (page 36), was that when compartments had been verified and sealed, “these actions having once been performed … will not have to be repeated as long as the assets verified remain under an unimpaired joint seal.” More Lies by The AuditorWhat Thorson meticulously avoided discussing under oath, he included in a written statement for the Gold Transparency Act of 2011 (page 45):
So, the U.S. Mint audited its custodial gold “in accordance with its own policies” from 1987 through 1992, though the OIG was already in charge at the time. This is like a bank opening its customers’ safety deposit boxes while the auditor decided to take a sabbatical. At the top you can see the “date sealed”, “July 25, 1990,” and the depository is “Fort Knox, Kentucky,” which was fully audited by 1982 (and some compartments re-audited from 1983 through 1986).Also, note that Thorson states that the Mint exclusively opened “those compartments that had not been placed under Official Joint Seal.” This is a lie and I can prove it to you. Through FOIAs, I obtained copies of seals that were placed by the Mint on 5 Deep Storage compartments between 1987 and 1992. Thorson is wrong because all these seals were placed at Fort Knox and Denver, which were verified and sealed by late 1982. Please have a look at one of the seal copies: You can also see on the seal when this compartment was “sealed previously.” It was in 1976 (underlined in red), confirming it was a re-audit. There is no possibility that this compartment was audited for the first time in 1990, as suggested by Thorson. Last but not least, at the very bottom, you can see a date, “February 16, 1993,” which is when this seal was removed by the OIG (presumably for yet another ‘re-audit’). More evidence that the OIG must have known what happened to these compartments between 1987 and 1992. Removing the seal in 1993 by the OIG (after their sabbatical) clearly would have told the history of this compartment. You will also notice the OIG left a trail so complicated, whereas the audit setup in 1974 seemed so simple. Why? ConclusionPhysical gold audits are supposed to remove any doubt about the presence of gold at a specific custodian. But when we look beneath the surface of the audits discussed above, we have to conclude they actually raise more doubt than reassurance about the safety of the U.S. official gold reserves. Sadly, Mr. President, the above-noted problems are just the tip of the iceberg. Why were the physical inventories not completed in 1983? Why did the OIG re-open compartments between 1983 and 1986? Why again between 1987 and 1992? Why was the gold at the FRBNY never audited in 2011? The list is endless and it would take a book to adequately discuss all problems related to the audits. A new, credible audit could verify that all U.S. Treasury gold is physically accounted for. But the process should not stop there. Another question to be examined and reported about is whether any encumbrances have been placed upon the gold, via swaps, leases, pledges, or any other form of rehypothecation. Hopefully, this letter contains useful information for you, and your administration will conceive of and execute a new full audit of all the U.S. monetary gold. Then we can all finally put this topic to rest. A template for this was created by Congressman Alex Mooney’s Gold Reserves Transparency Act last introduced in 2021 with the help of the Sound Money Defense League. For more information please refer to my prior articles that can be found in the notes1. Notes
|
The sooner the audit of Fort Knox is complete the better. There has been a failure of governance in the accountability of the US Treasury over its gold holdings. More importantly a process for continual mini audits and regular full audits needs to be in place to return confidence to the market.
The Australian government also needs to be transparent in the stores of gold here. Mints need to be rigorously audited on a regular basis to continue to have our gold held to a sufficient standard to provide assurance to the investing public of the safety of their gold investments.
gg
yeah , lots of criminals have that protocolI've heard from a friend of an Uber driver that the reason they don't let anyone in is they don't want anyone to see the plans, layout, security set up, etc. If they let anyone in they have to kill them, or something like that.
The sooner the audit of Fort Knox is complete the better. There has been a failure of governance in the accountability of the US Treasury over its gold holdings. More importantly a process for continual mini audits and regular full audits needs to be in place to return confidence to the market.
The Australian government also needs to be transparent in the stores of gold here. Mints need to be rigorously audited on a regular basis to continue to have our gold held to a sufficient standard to provide assurance to the investing public of the safety of their gold investments.
gg
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?
We use cookies and similar technologies for the following purposes:
Do you accept cookies and these technologies?