MGR will release a response to TNM/FP articles. I can't say much about the MAC negotiations other than they are selling, several buyers have made proposals, MAC responded, counters are expected.
MAC contributed US$4.58 million over the past 3 years.
I'll respond to the rest of your questions as asked later.
Comments regarding handholding may be true. All companies have shareholders who ask questions. Some companies answer these questions, some don't. I'd like to think that what has happened on this thread hasn't been a love-in, just check out some of the previous postings. Good honest questions (for the most part), some tough to answer.
As for the "salting", check out the release to come out. One thing for certain is that the sampling project got all of the attention it needed. Perhaps someone tampered with the samples, but MGR's testing identified it and it was announced. Unfortunately the positive results had been announced previously, but that was (and is) the law. For the record, the company checked the samples for evidence of salting, and none was discovered. After 3 months of investigation, Hawthorn came to the same conclusion, no evidence of salting.
I had stated this last year, but the Company had announced a geochemical anomaly. It never stated it had any deposit or reserves identified in this area. Over 95% of all geochemical anomalys have no orebodies associated with them, so the announcement of a geochemical anomaly should have been viewed as "the company has identified an area where it should look to see if there is some gold." The company looked, and found little of interest. The reasons for looking may have been wrong (tampered samples), but the standards applied at the time are the same as those currently being recommended by the TSE and OSC in their interim report on Mining Standards, and the November 1997 standards in Policy 19E of the VSE. The VSE standards are a bit more stringent.
Dave |
