Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Politics : Gold and Silver Stocks and Related Commentary -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: Michael Bidder who wrote (18153)	10/7/2005 10:30:48 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 18308

AQI management has reminded IMR that the case is scheduled, when they received the offer. They will probably not accept the offer as they don't need to. No doubt Newmont will attend. If IMR had made the offer much earlier it may have been more palatable. It seems that IMR management had not heard about Hemlo, the famous and very similar court case. It is instructive to look into the issues surrounding the Lac-Corona case and the outcome. Justice Holland's decision based as it was on no written down deals, just verbal exchanges and assumed implications of inviting people to look at your data, was a landmark decision in the annals of Canadian mining. It spawned a flurry of Confidentiality agreements where property examiners tried to get you to sign their CA rather than you sign theirs. Inco was a notable case. I would never let Inco on my properties as their CA gave them the right to buy your property off any third party whose claim to it they felt was as good as yours. I demur and feel that the third party had better make his claim known in court. I would not sign my rights away. What Holland said was no company would have led a company onto their property to look at their data unless their was an implied confidentiality, even if proof of this was not in writing. All Hemlo was based on parole evidence, (word of mouth, or hearsay which includes industry practice and probable action) which worked for Corona's claim in this instance. In the IMR-AQI case there is a signed CA, so the case will have to go by that, but the question is, who is the injured party? Certainly IMR cannot claim to be. It falls therefore to AQI and Newmont. The question is when the geochem data was in the package that IMR perused, how reasonable is it to assume that IMR could just land on the spot and stake by pure and fortuitous co-incidence so few weeks after looking at the data? I think it will be judged hardly a co-incidence. If IMR came up with the information all on their own, they made it very hard to act on it, when they happened to look at the enabling data. It hardly seems likely that they did. To launch a grass roots exploration program so soon after the data perusal which was inconclusive, would be seen to be very risky for most exploration companies. No matter how you would sing the praises of the company and its redoubtable geologists, you would have to admit the existence of the a-priori enabling geochem tip off, which is the all important geological issue, hamstrings their efforts to claim that they came up with the idea all on their own. That is why if you have your own program you give up your right to claim it was homegrown if you peruse some of your own thinking in someone else's confidential data. caveat perusor. There are all kinds of lead zinc showings around. Their are few large geochems in silver and that is the key that would make me excited about staking. Geochems in silver are legendary. A larger silver geochem, due to the high mobility or ephermal nature of the substance can nought but come from a large source. The IMR geos knew that and staked accordingly. Now assuming that the judge concurs with the above, and I think it can hardly escape his attention that the conclusions I have come to are obvious, there exist some other legal issues. For me that will be the interesting part. It is fine to say IMR staked on data found in Newmont's office and evidently so, but quo vadis? EC<:-}