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.

Gold/Mining/Energy : Canadian Diamond Play Cafi -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: WillP who wrote (4824)	11/25/2006 1:30:56 PM
From: james flannigan	Respond to of 16206

Patrick Evans lying? Well judge that statement were it came from.Bloom so much for your ban on calling names.Take a pill, you may feel better in the morning.Its good to see that Will does not think Patrick Evans is lying. James

To: WillP who wrote (4824)	11/25/2006 2:00:51 PM
From: james flannigan	Respond to of 16206

Will as I have always stated the Salman report is only an estimate and may or may not prove to be fact until GK was throwing off diamonds.I think following Supply demand data MUST be part of any ones research how ever crude it may be.It has worked well for me in the oil markets.When the world was awash with $10 dollar oil in 1999, the supply data that I spent weeks researching the history of oil back to the time Colonial Drake discovered oil at Oil Creek Penn,projected tight supplies in the yr 2005 and a supply short fall of 9 million brlspd by 2012.So far the curve projected curve has followed the trend line to a Tee.While I can not predict the oil price 5 yrs from now,Logic states (at least in my world) prices will be higher than today.I also see this as being a situation in the rough diamond supply,but of more magnitude.I was faulted on the oil chat for posting during $10 oil the theory of tight supply.Iam now being faulted on this diamond chat for posting my bold thoughts on tight diamond supply going forward.It really doe's not bother me (though at times it may seem so) Iam used to it.One thing that keeps me in the game (like MPV) is a saying by Boone Pickens,when Wall Street was asked about his retarded oil forecast in 1999? He said you can be "dead right,but dead wrong at the time".I stand to make a lot of money if Iam dead wrong now, but dead right 5 yrs from now (that is of course if I'am not dead).For this Iam faulted by some on the chat.Thats ok I measure investment success by the dollars I count.No offence to any one that does not agree. James

To: WillP who wrote (4824)	11/25/2006 2:29:18 PM
From: Bloomfield	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16206

Will, You make some excellent points. The responsibility for this report rests with Salman Partners. I think you have made a very good case that Patrick Evans has not lied to investors, but instead has exercised his prerogative as CEO to present MPV in the best light possible. And I have to admit, this is what the man is paid to do. I hereby retract my statements, and apologize to Patrick Evans for my comments. Many investors may not understand all the risks involved with MPV, but it's not the job of Patrick Evans to spell these out in meticulous detail. Thanks for placing this issue in the proper light Will. I would not want to accuse Mr. Evans of wrongdoing, when this is clearly not the case. Yours truly, B

To: WillP who wrote (4824)	11/25/2006 6:22:01 PM
From: Bloomfield	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 16206

Will, I think I’ve found a flaw in your reasoning. Americans take a very strict line on corporate ethics and executive responsibility. It is not sufficient to merely obey the letter of the law, but also the spirit of the law as well. Recent court decisions have consistently sided with the interests of small investors, even where officers and directors have obeyed the law in a narrow legal sense. A good case in point is Conrad Black. He was a powerful and wealthy man. He had the best lawyers money could buy. He had majority control over Hollinger and therefore in a strict legal sense he had the authority to make all decisions concerning Hollinger’s finances. But in the end, SEC lawyers chose to prosecute Mr. Black, reasoning he had not acted in the best interests of small minority shareholders. So, is it really true that Patrick Evans and other MPV officers and directors do not bear a personal responsibility to convey an accurate picture of the true risks entailed by the Gahcho Kue project? If GK turns into a fiasco, could Patrick Evans really stand in front of a US court and claim it was not his job to inform investors of the true risks? How would a judge react to such a statement? After all, presumably Dr. Goldie consulted with MPV executives before writing his report, and the fact that Mr. Evans is recommending the Salman report to existing and prospective shareholders could be viewed as an endorsement of its conclusions. Just because someone puts out a disclaimer stating that they are not responsible for their statements and actions, does not mean that this reasoning would be acceptable in a US court of law. It is the responsibility of corporate executives to adequately explain the risks involved in any venture, so that the investor is able to make an informed decision. Yours truly, Bloomfield