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 : ECHARTERS -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: knight who wrote (2453)	3/22/1998 5:01:00 PM
From: John Menzies	Respond to of 3744

There would appear to be nor requirement in Canada - no idea about NASDQ but would think that it is the same for exchange apporval of press releases. For complex or significant announcements I take the view that a brief chat with teh exchange is a good idea. If you read all the Canadian press releases you will note the exchange disclaimer at the bottom expressly stating that this announcement has not been approved. In Oz the responsibility is on the shoulders of teh directors and the officers making the announcement - there is no exchange disclaimer - on matters of ore reserves an Oz listed company has to have a sign off at the bottom of he release by an accredited person with the requisited experience - this is usually a company employee - a geologist with more than 5 years experience in the field being reported. Can you image the bottle neck which would be created if exchange approval was required for all releases - you hav just got to have some trust some time!!

To: knight who wrote (2453)	3/22/1998 10:55:00 PM
From: E. Charters	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 3744

No approval anywhere I am afraid. It's caveat suctor. Approval is unworkable. It injudicable whether or not there is anything out of hand in any companies release upon reading. From time to time some over the top BS is asked to be clarified. There are rules about conduct and accuracy and assay reportage that you see broken from time to time. But it's hard to tell when the company has infracted. The amount of investigation you would require is mind boggling. Mind you there should be more checking and more onus on the companies to show the accuracy of their data is above reproach. One thing I would like to see is independent consultant's reports at a certain stage of a claimed discovery. A requirement of proof of a consultant's reliability and the prevention of use of consultants to lend credibility if they are engineering firms but are restricted in what they can report or certify. No statement from a consultancy firm wheher second hand or first hand should be allowed if it is not independently verifiable. In BC for many years an engineer could not report on an assay without first independently verifying its accuracy and reliability. This fact constrained Bre-X as it reported in BC and thus the engineering firm Kilborn, BROKE THEN LAW when it reported false assays upon doing check assays on the Loa Duri results. The disclaimer in their report does not protect them. EC<:-} echarter@vianet.on.ca The Canadian Mining Newsletter