Fact check! Let's finally get this straight:
I believe a certain other poster's repetition has had its desired effect, and substituted propaganda for fact in many (I hope)open minds.
<<Lew: How's this. We were promised chickens coming home to roost in April and early May>>
We were not promised... Period. That is not what was written and this is a _fact_. Common sense tells us a promise was not implied either. Show it to a lawyer and ask if someone being late on what was stated would constitute a breach of contract. This is _important_ because when some people have fixated and twisted on this issue, this is what they are implying: A broken promise, a breached contract, betrayal, lies...
This is poisoning the well, and sadly it is only the individual shareholders who have imbibed.
Here is what Mr. Furlong actually wrote:
"...I expect the weeks of April/early May to be a watershed for the Company. All of the 'chickens' (so to speak) should come home to roost. We anticipate refiners will report on the initial pilot plant concentrate shipments, remarks from Behre Dolbear's consultant metallurgist who is presently evaluating our recovery processes and completion of the initial 28 drill hole program surrounding BRX..."
I don't see the word promise or any _absolutes_. I clearly see two key phrases:
"I expect" and "I anticipate"
Notice he is commenting on the actions of 3rd parties -- not IPM.
I have many times here gone over the logic of a sign-off being a slow and rigorous process, especially in the current political climate. I have also on past posts outlined how as I understand it, such a technical audit can involve coordinating a myriad of independent agencies, contractors, sub-contractors and labs -- and it seems to me a schedule conflict with any one of these can affect a whole chain of events. Only this moment did I notice the wording of "Behre Dolbear's consultant metallurgist" ... From that language one could speculate that this may be a sub-contractor BD has to coordinate, one who theoretically have other clients. Bottom line: BRX is a big piece of dirt; .025+ is a big number; BD has an 80 year old reputation that _is_ it's real product and they are auditing a controversial process/ore body in the wake of previous scandals under the glare of a media spotlight _and_ it is a big job.
I beleive my logic is sound and the words in question are unambiguous. There are no "broken promises". There is an incorrect _estimate_ that was given as such. The worst one can say is Le Furlong is guilty of optimism.
Let us also look at one other inaccuracy:
Mr. Furlong stated:
"...Additional exciting activities related to Black Rock are also in progress, which includes drilling, geology and geophysics. These will be progressively reported during May."
Consequently the following communication came from the company in May:
May 28, 1997 -- 40 Square Miles Added to Black Rock
May 22, 1997 -- Final Pilot Plant Recovery Report -
Transfer of Black Rock Ownership Completed
May 1, 1997 -- Metallurgical Appointment Awarded to Lycopodium
May -- Presidents Message...
I don't see a broken promise here either.
<<are no results by the AGM, I still think the company owes its shareholders an explanation for the missing chickens>>
Being that it has been reported a contract has been signed with a refiner, I would guess those reports will soon be or may already be "in"... I also wonder if it is in the shareholders best interest to prematurely release them, in the current environment, without some form of corroboration. I believe I read that Sam Shaw would be _compiling_ data and reports back from many labs etc. from around North America, during May. Again, a lot of 3rd party work, some results straggling in would not surprise me, nor some needed time to compile it and create a coherent report.
I imagine there are or will be some chickens, but this skirts the real issue. The only chicken I hear most people concerned with is verification -- a sign off on a technical audit. If we have it by the AGM, fine... if not, yes, I agree we would deserve an explaination, which I feel strongly will be along the lines of what I've already proposed: Independent verification is just that -- Independent -- as well as rigorous, and however frustrating, cannot be rushed.
<Of course, if CL is correct and we are at $12 by the AGM, I will be in a little better frame of mind about this>
I don't think the fundamentals will be changed by this one way or the other -- however our investment objectives and timetables may be quite different.
<but don't you think a company should be asked to explain broken promises>
No, I think that is perjurative and incorrect and it alarms me to see _shareholders_ buy this propaganda. Of course, I think it is perfectly reasonable for the company to explain why 3rd party activities are taking longer than they anticipated and I bet the will do so if they are not to our pleasant surprise completed. I also would imagine reasonable _estimates_ of further time frames will be forthcoming.
I remain Long.
Lew Green
PS... Nothing personal about it, I just remain committed to fewer posts in an effort to bring back many readers daunted by the recent volumes beyond there available reading time, and to try to avoid hair-splitting peripheral debates. I am actually glad for this post, because I have wanted to correct this for some time, but felt it was becoming impossible to these words to be found yet alone heard. |
