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 (4832)	11/25/2006 9:14:36 PM
From: debvan	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 16206

Will: #2. The other subparcels contained no such stones. Most analysts and modellers conclude the diamond value in the eastern lobe is too high, but an alternative hypothesis is that the samples from the other lobes and pipes were too small to produce a meaningful number of valuable diamonds. As a result, larger tests from those areas would yield a much higher diamond value. (In fact, that has been a common refrain from many of the Mountain Province shareholders.) Actually Will, one of the high value stones came from Hearne (April 3, 2003 MPV NR). I do not know where the recently reported 5 ct stone was found (July 26, 2006 MPV NR). DebVan July 26, 2006 Charles Wyndham of WWW stated: “It is encouraging that the samples included some valuable stones, including one 9.9 carat diamond valued at over $7,800 per carat and a 5 carat diamond valued at over $4,600 per carat. April 3, 2003 It has now definitely been confirmed by both De Beers and the Company’s consultant, Overseas Diamonds N.V., that a sub-population of high quality, top color diamonds exists in both the 5034 and Hearne pipes. The 3.4 carat diamond recovered from the Hearne pipe is such a diamond and has been valued at US $7,140. These diamonds represent a significant part of the total value of the diamonds even though they only represent a small fraction of the total number of diamonds

To: WillP who wrote (4832)	11/25/2006 10:02:03 PM
From: Bloomfield	Read Replies (3) \| Respond to of 16206

Will, I think we’re talking about two separate issues. You’ve made a good case that the Salman report, although highly optimistic, should not be regarded as an outright lie. However, this does not absolve MPV from a responsibility to explain to investors the true risks involved in the Gahcho Kue project. You are talking about an act of commission; a deliberate effort to mislead the public through a lie. I am talking about an act of omission, where something that should have been explicitly stated, the relative high risk of project failure, is not being adequately explained to investors by management. It's true that it is the responsibility of Patrick Evans to promote the Company, but it is not his first responsibility. The primary responsibility of management in a public company is to keep investors informed, whenever possible, on issues that have a material impact on the financial outlook for a Company. It’s not good enough to point to the Paradigm and Salman reports and say that this could be true. It is the responsibility of management to represent the best interests of shareholders by taking adequate care to advise investors of the true risks involved in any venture, so that they can make informed investment decisions. Will, you may believe that MPV has adequately discharged this responsibility, but I must respectfully disagree. Yours truly, B