Tim, this GDM thing is really, really simple but you keep getting one major fact wrong.
You wrote: "GDM claimed ownership and certainly had something to do with its getting further developed."
Wrong. While it may be true that GDM claimed and promoted ownership, they did NOT own it. GDM agreed to pay George a joint venture interest on any deposits George found himself. George owned the SFD 100%. GDM was merely going to participate with George in any prospects George found. This is no different than what Encal, Renaissance, and CamWest do today. Except that instead of paying George a joint venture interest, the existing partners pay Pinnacle. Again, I ask you, does Encal, Renaissance, or CamWest own the SFD? Of course not. So why do you keep saying that GDM owned it? They didn't.
Furthermore, saying that GDM "had something to do with its getting further developed" is fantasy. That is like saying that since I have licensed windows 95 on my PC from Microsoft that I "had something to do with its (W95) getting further developed." Doesn't work. I told you that GDM died from internal problems (all the money was gone.) This had zero, nothing to do with an agreement to pay George a venture interest in anything George found using the SFD if he turned the prospect over to GDM for drilling. George had no connection to GDM. He was not a shareholder. He was not an employee. GDM wanted to pay him for any prospects he found. GDM used the claim of the SFD to promote their stock to get investors. A claim which investors like yourself had and still continue to interpret meaning that the SFD was somehow owned, developed, etc. by GDM. IT WAS NOT. That is why George and the SFD were never sucked into GDM's demise: Neither George nor the SFD had anything to do with GDM. Do your due diligence and look at the lawsuits like I have. DuMoulin and Boskovich in Vancouver was the law firm that cleaned up the loose ends on that front. The Stephens people went through the whole issue as well before they became the third largest shareholders of Pinnacle as well as a licensee through CamWest. I would start by calling Pinnacle's inhouse legal counsel, John Woodbury (403) 264-7020. This issue has been looked at thoroughly and put to bed by people a lot smarter than me, but go ahead do what you say you will do when you wrote: "As I stated before, I will look into this matter and make calls." I have given you a starting point and the phone number.
As far as the stock dropping $3 following a day in which it rose $3 does not indicate a can of worms. I have always said that price movements in this stock are not indicative of anything because it is so thinly traded. The company has 4 million shares in the float but most of it is held by dedicated shareholders. Volume is the best indicator of something right or wrong with the company. On the $3 drop the official volume was a paltry 26,100 shares or 0.65% of the float, and if you assume double counting on the bulletin board, it could have been a miniscule 13,050 shares out of 4,000,000 in the float. Like I said, meaningless. Existing shareholders understood that when Pan Canadian does not drill the primary zone of interest shown by both seismic and the SFD, the results, like the volume, were meaningless.
-Dilution |
