Jesse:
I guess I overstepped myself. But, that's only a guess. What I attempted to say was please do not use phrases such as 'next week' or 'in several days' if 'next week' and 'several days' are not to happen. I did not intend to offer criticism of company or operations.
Rick has courteously responded to my post. He still accuses cyber-timing as the culprit. Why is my statement ignored? It is he, and you, who have raised expectations. That's not a great sin. It simply is what has happened.
His response:
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
Hello George:
While scanning the investment threads I saw your post and decided to reply to your excellent questions directly. Feel free to post this if you wish.
Our policy is to release material news as soon as it becomes available. Of course, in the real world it does take time to evaluate, format, tabulate and write up the technical information so there can be a delay of up to a day depending on the time of day the material information is received by management. We like to release after the market closes for maximum dissemination before the next trading session and in most cases the news can wait a few hours to ensure fair distribution.
During the first part of the month we indicated to anyone who asked that we would publish assay results as soon as they were received and we did, on October 5th and 7th . That's about three weeks ago and we are still inside the "cycle" normally required to generate and publish another set of results. There is a certain rhythm to what we do and we can't do much to accelerate it. Personally, I think we are moving very fast.
I stand by my comments about internet expectations since, as an investor in other companies, I also am one of the guilty parties who demands instant results that are sometimes totally incompatible with the realities of the business behind a stock market investment. Its not that companies sit on news, it is just that the news can't be produced fast enough to satisfy feedback expectations that are constantly accelerating due to technology. It's a fact.
Regarding the Torngat diamond project, it in no way reflects our lack of enthusiasm for the Chinchaga area. We are in an extremely competitive business and we owe it to our shareholders to react swiftly and decisively to move into exceptional opportunities when they present themselves. It's a spectacular play and the land acquisition situation is "ultra-dynamic", to use a promotional turn of phrase. We will say more about it when things calm down. Of course, if any material events occur we will report them immediately. One more thing on this subject. We would have preferred for strategic reasons to not have announced the land acquisition in the Torngat Project as early as October 12th. We made the announcement at the request of the stock exchange, having previously advised them of our actions in confidence according to certain disclosure rules. Then, after the obligatory announcement, the only responsible thing to do was to highlight it as the excellent opportunity it represents.
One last word on news releases, they don't materialize spontaneously. They cost a lot to produce. For example, our helicopter bills run at a thousand dollars an hour and our burn rate for a two person helicopter crew can well exceed $5,000 per day. Each news release costs about $40,000 to produce at our current level of exploration activity.
Thanks again for your thoughtful questions.
Best Regards
Rick Boulay
president@marumresources.com
+++++++++++++++++
Marum Resources Inc.
www.marumresources.com
* * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * * *
I wish I could step back a bit and see that I was at fault, and say I am sorry for having questioned the course of events. But, I cannot. All I intended to do was to say "You're the one who showed me all the dirty pictures." (The punch line of an age-old joke.) I would not have written if my expectations had not specifically been whetted.
Cheers, george
PS: I will attempt to keep future such comments silent. They do not appear to be interpreted as they were intended. g |
