Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

Skip to comments.

Billion Dollar Photo? Civil Engineer Opinion Wanted (Vanity)
Street Tracks Gold Shares ^ | Dec 9, 2005 | Travis McGee

Posted on 12/09/2005 10:49:04 AM PST by Travis McGee

I recently came across a photo which purports to show nearly a billion dollars in privately owned gold bullion, in one vault. The gold bullion is supposed to be held in trust for shareholders who purchase ETFs or gold shares in this company. Be that as it may, I don't want this thread to turn into a discussion of precious metal ETFs, or the price of gold, or gold versus fiat money etc.

I just have some questions which only an engineer can answer. Does this picture physically "add up?"

I rough-count approx. 150 pallets in sight, with approx. 80 bars per pallet. At about 100# per ingot, six pallets high, that makes each stack of pallets weigh about 48,000 freaking pounds!!

On plain wooden pallets! Not special steel pallets, or some other custom pallet designed to hold a billion dollars worth of gold in one room.

I once handled 10,000 pounds of lead in 50# ingots (for a boat keel) and it was impressively heavy when stacked up! Gold as we know is much heavier than lead, almost double. (Gold's specific gravity = 19.32, Lead = 11.34)

So I have a few phsical questions civil engineers might want to tackle. Can you determine likelihood that the gold bars are real, from this photo, based on the pallet materials, pallet construction and orientation, and the weight and distribution of the alleged gold ingots?

This is what made me wonder, when first I examined the photo.

#1: Look at how most of the wooden pallets' edges overhang the stack of gold bars below them. That is, the vertical wood risers between the two flat wooden "floors" are not directly on top of the gold below them. The vertical wood riser in the center is, but the risers on the sides are hanging out over space. Much of the crushing weight of those thousands and thousands of pounds of (supposed) gold is held on the thin horizontal wooden "floors." I think it could be shown (even with lead bars in a test) that such pallets, stacked exactly that way, would crack apart under the cumulative weight of gold. The gold ingots do not completely span the space between the risers, that is, they do not rest their ends directly over the wooden risers on the sides of the pallets, putting the risers in simple compression.

The vertical wood beams would have to be under the gold to directly support the incredible weight, and not hanging out over the edges, over thin air. That is my layman's opinion, anyway, based on stacking and handling 200 bars of lead, weighing 50# each, once upon a time.

Question #2: How did the forklift load those top pallets? The ceiling of the vault is seems rather low for a forklift to get them up there. Don't forklifts need some clear space above them for high lifts? At least 3 or 4 or so extra feet, I'm guessing from memory. So, did they use forklifts to carry the approx. 8,000# pre-loaded pallets into the vault? That is the clear implication from the orientation of every single pallet facing their open sides toward the camera.

OTOH, if you were loading empty wooden pallets by hand, bar-by-bar, every warehouseman should know (this is "warehouse 101") to alternate the orientation of the pallets 90 degrees, each pallet, to vastly increase the stability of the overall stack of pallets. If a stack of pallets broke or collapsed (crushed the wood and tumbled sideways, because they were all oriented the same direction) it could kill somebody under the ensuing gold avalanche. Remember, each pallet stack of gold weighs approx. 48,000#, based on my estimate of 100# per bar (which may be way off.) Alternating pallet directions for stability is a basic practice, if they were loaded in place by hand, bar-by-bar, and not by forklift.

So the only reason all of the pallets would be oriented this way toward the camera, would be because they were brought into the vault by a forklift, and not bar-by-bar, by hand. If so, could a forklift place those top pallets up there, given the ceiling space above the top pallets? And if they were loaded in place, bar-by-bar, what warehouseman would not alternate the pallet orientation, for stability and safety?

These question only raised my suspicions about the pictures. Now, an engineer might be able to total up the weight of the gold bars, figure out the crushing /compression strength of the wood, figure out how much of the total stack weight is carried to the floor through the vertical risers, and how much is simply downward weight upon the unsupported horizontal wooden pallet floors, and determine if this is a possible photo of actual gold, or possibly something else.

Since I can't go and physically inspect the ingots in this vault, I'm just curious what engineers think about the credibility of the photo, based on the physical sciences.

Remember, this is gold held in trust for investors, who pay their money, but do not, as far as I can determine, get to visit the secret vault and inspect it.

Maybe an engineering professor can give this question to his students, as a test.



TOPICS: Business/Economy; Miscellaneous
KEYWORDS: etf; gold
Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last
To: Mr. Lucky

That 48,000# was from was my mistaken 100# per bar estimate for EACH pallet, not the entire room.


41 posted on 12/09/2005 11:28:47 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac

I thought somebody said typical gold bars were more like 27 pounds. That would make the value about double what they need. That's the same ratio I got calculated a different way - about twice as much as they need.


42 posted on 12/09/2005 11:28:55 AM PST by gondramB ( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

"I'm just guessing, but the ingots in the photos look longer than 7 inches long to me."

But, gee...they look shorter than 7 inches to me.... :)


43 posted on 12/09/2005 11:29:56 AM PST by gondramB ( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 40 | View Replies]

To: r9etb
-- I mean, really: hand-lettered labels thumb-tacked to the wooden pallets?

And if you zoom in real close the labels say:

"Sh*t Load of Gold #423"
"Sh*t Load of Gold #424"
etc... :)
44 posted on 12/09/2005 11:29:56 AM PST by Daus
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child
My only question involves the pallets at the bottom of the stacks . . . How do they hold up the entire load above them without breaking?

It looks like the load is pretty much carried by the beams. And it would probably take more weight than this to compress the 4"x8" beams.

45 posted on 12/09/2005 11:30:56 AM PST by Aquinasfan (Isaiah 22:22, Rev 3:7, Mat 16:19)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 16 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

Look at the pictures with the humans in it - those pallets are not the familiar size of pallet I'm used to seeing.


46 posted on 12/09/2005 11:31:30 AM PST by biggerten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: dirtymac
I don't care that it would crush the lower pallets. I just want a lot of trucks and forklifts.

"Woof woof!"

47 posted on 12/09/2005 11:32:59 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 39 | View Replies]

To: biggerten

And another thing, the wood grain looks pretty tight, probably oak.


48 posted on 12/09/2005 11:33:09 AM PST by biggerten
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 46 | View Replies]

To: gondramB

Let's look for some size reference. Paper labels maybe?


49 posted on 12/09/2005 11:33:50 AM PST by Travis McGee
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 43 | View Replies]

To: Mr. Lucky
Okay, 48,000 pounds is 768,000 ounces @ $522 per ounce equals $400,896,000...

Not a billion, but I'd take it in a pinch!

50 posted on 12/09/2005 11:33:52 AM PST by Bender2 (Even dirty old robots need love!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 35 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

For an accurate assessment, just dial: 1-800-007-BOND


51 posted on 12/09/2005 11:34:25 AM PST by Cobra64
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

"Let's look for some size reference. Paper labels maybe?"

Oh actually I agree with you about the length...I was trying to make a joke..apparently a bad joke.


52 posted on 12/09/2005 11:36:22 AM PST by gondramB ( We don't get no government loan and no one sends a check from home-we just do what what we wanna)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 49 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee
The full stack on the right shows that the bottom pallets' runners are not positioned over those below. The bending is not sufficient to the force above that should have sheared the first lower units...Camel's back.

The weight does not appear to add up to what is presented. If somehow the weight is true, no one should be allowed in that room...the domino effect is in play.

53 posted on 12/09/2005 11:36:54 AM PST by Deaf Smith (No, but I did stay in a Holiday Inn once.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

all that glitters is not gold


54 posted on 12/09/2005 11:37:39 AM PST by Baraonda (Demographic is destiny. Don't hire 3rd world illegal aliens nor support businesses that hire them.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: Alberta's Child

I agree with you. From what I'm seeing, these pallets are only maybe 24" squares. It looks like the pallet supports are maybe 2 x 6's. Most everyday pallets are nominally 1 x 4's.


55 posted on 12/09/2005 11:39:28 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 22 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

1/3 of the entire weight is two tons ...

Those tops and bottoms are NOT plywood. take a good look ... they're 6 one-by-four(?) natural boards. Each board is taking 1/6 of two tons or 333 pounds ... approximately the weight of one Michael Moore.

I think it would hold.


56 posted on 12/09/2005 11:40:17 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 33 | View Replies]

To: Travis McGee

I think 100 # is too much.

I visited a gold mine on Northern Luzon in my younger days. My wife and I just showed up in our bright red volkswagen and they gave us a royal tour. I guess they figured two young Americans showing up un announced in the remote location made up de facto important.

Any way, they took us to the vault and handed my wife an ingot. It was so heavy she nearly dropped it. Had it been 100 # I know she would have.

If you check Kitco, the bar they have is 400 oz or 25 pounds.

The pallets would definitely be ok with these size bars.

Check Kitco.com bullion


57 posted on 12/09/2005 11:40:31 AM PST by bert (K.E. ; N.P . Chicken spit causes flu....... Fox News)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 1 | View Replies]

To: r9etb

I disagree.

I see an interior picture with taken with flash: note overhead fluorescent lighting.

Presuppose this is a vault with no other illumination, and the flash is bouncing off the gold in the foreground and hitting the gold immediately behind it.


58 posted on 12/09/2005 11:41:25 AM PST by George Smiley (This tagline deliberately targeted journalists.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 4 | View Replies]

To: dljordan

The small flash on a pocket camera will do that ... the foreground is slightly overexposed, the background slightly underexposed.


59 posted on 12/09/2005 11:41:52 AM PST by ArrogantBustard (Western Civilisation is aborting, buggering, and contracepting itself out of existence.)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 37 | View Replies]

To: bert

The bottom line: Special "things" need "special" pallets.


60 posted on 12/09/2005 11:43:06 AM PST by Sacajaweau (God Bless Our Troops!!)
[ Post Reply | Private Reply | To 57 | View Replies]


Navigation: use the links below to view more comments.
first previous 1-2021-4041-6061-80 ... 101-110 next last

Disclaimer: Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.

Free Republic
Browse · Search
News/Activism
Topics · Post Article

FreeRepublic, LLC, PO BOX 9771, FRESNO, CA 93794
FreeRepublic.com is powered by software copyright 2000-2008 John Robinson