Hello kidl
I followed up on your request but to be fair to the whole thread, I believe I should pass along what I have just been told from Sudbury for everyone to read and make their own conclusions. (Some wording has been changed to avoid style recognition to help conceal the identity of the writer.)
My contact was not the source of the contradictory info. I do not blame them, as this is typical of Falco. The day I finally heard from them, they had been told that another crew arrived to do extensive geophysics which would be followed by more drilling.
Then someone inside Falco, said wait a minute, now we want to evaluate all the data and then we'll decide about more drilling this year or not!
I hate to say this, but that is very typical of Falco. I will keep my ears open to find out if the previously announced/planned three holes were in fact followed up with any more drilling or not?
As of yesterday, all the geophysical crews have now been flown out!
I wish I had not been told the crews would be there until Christmas. I am sorry, but this is very typical major behavior. They call the shots and often don't seem too concerned about the cost implications of repeatedly changing plans.
I have been around Falco, Inco, etc. for decades and have often seen crews that were supposed to be in camp for two months, called out only weeks later.
My apologies.
From the above, I can only conclude that with the possible exception of a bit more geophysics, only the planned 2003 work was in fact carried out this fall with no real evidence/proof of any additional drilling.
That is not to say Falco did or did not hit more MS, simply that we appear to have no proof/evidence one way or the other now. In that regard however, I can't reasonably conclude that the additional geophysics is any evidence of a good MS intersection or not.
What I suspect is that Falco did not hit deep enough MS intersections this fall to warrant immediate follow-up drilling. I am going to have to presume that whatever was intersected must be the same or only incrementally better than the 1m of 11% Ni that was hit previously. Good enough to require more geophysics but not good enough to warrant an immediate increase in drilling.
Considering that CMD shares have increased from $0.13 to $0.62 this year, I must also presume that some investors will interpret modest results in any eventual NR, as less than euphoric news and reason to lock in some profits now.
In short, even if CMD's eventual NR reports say a 3 or 4m intersection of MS, I suspect the market will view that as a signal to take profits rather than to buy. At least that's what I am going to assume.
In short, there may possibly be more short term down side risk in CMD right now than short term upside potential.
Long term, I remain very optimistic, but this info for me does not support the current share price.
Be careful folks.
Regards and apologies.
Vaughn |
