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 : Winspear Resources -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/24/1999 10:23:00 PM
From: Rocket Red	Respond to of 26850

Don't worry about it but i'm sure it will be settled long before it ever reachs court. By the way it 7000 tons.

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/24/1999 10:25:00 PM
From: Andrew	Respond to of 26850

Stay off the pipe

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/24/1999 10:27:00 PM
From: Gord Bolton	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Obviously you are lying again Minelessman. Did you ever get that lie detector test done? Please advise us who has said the ABER would not be allowed to monitor the Bulk sampling process? Aber still has an interest in the project whether they are actively involved in the exploration program this winter or not. I heard that they threw you off the NWI thread, kind of a bums rush type of thing. Please take you B.S. somewhere else.

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/24/1999 10:35:00 PM
From: Paul Bilecki	Read Replies (2) \| Respond to of 26850

Well the corks did not pop!!! What i forsee, based upon pure speculation by drunken Bilecki is as follows: Thursday: $3.45 Friday: $3.00 Monday: $2.75 Tuesday: $2.45 Wednesday: $2.85 Thurday: $3.75 Friday: $5.25-$8.25 Pipe News? Enjoy the shakeout. Market does not like falsestarts. I told everybody, get ready for a possible shakeout. Weather is getting warmer, drillers under pressure to complete lake work before grand melt. Have a happy Easter, where are those Russian Easter Eggs laced with Dr. P. Snaplake diamonds. Watchout out to the north and east. KLA and IAR are due for a major move, as well as SUF. IML and ICL look very good from a property standpoint. What are they ever going to do with that ICL property beside MPV. They have been sitting on that property for years. There must be interest in it from somewhere. MPV and Debeers should pick it up or maybe Winspear should just to piss MPV and Debeers off to say they have them surrounded on both sides. HA, wouldn't that be fun.................

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/24/1999 11:39:00 PM
From: Clifford A. Brown	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 26850

Mineman, <<Aber says: With the Jan. budget Winspear did not include the usual form that was included with previous budgets for us to sign, and now Winspear says we didn't sign and send them the Jan. form so we are no longer part of the $12 million bulk sampling program.>> I hope ABER does not plan to go into court and tell the judge: "Gee, your honor, we didn't know that little piece of paper was that important. You see, Trixie, she's the receptionist. Well, she got one of those huge muffeletta sandwiches with all that olive oil. That new EYEtalian place puts way too much olive oil on everything. Well, she needed something to set it on, the sandwich I mean, so she used that ole JV agreement to kinda sop up all that oil. I mean, she didn't want to get oil all over her important papers the she was working on. Well, that sandwich was so big and oily, no way Trixie could eat it all. So she wrapped it in that JV Agreement to take home for Ronnie. That's her husband. Well, poor Ronnie ate the sandwich and threw that oily JV Agreement away in the garbage. It wasn't his fault. So, yer honor, we didn't know that other paper was important. So, could we please have our piece of Snap Lake, please? CAB Oh, BTW, Minman, since you took the trouble to call the company, why didn't you ask the key question. WHEN DID YOU SEND WSP THE MONEY? If not why not? That would have short circuited the cover story and elicited this response, "I'm sorry, you will have to ask our attorneys about that."

To: mineman who wrote (16636)	3/25/1999 12:41:00 AM
From: Tony from Niagara	Respond to of 26850

It may be both ABZ and WSP are telling the truth. That ABZ and WSP are litigating whether ABZ is entitled to maintain its existing share as a joint venturer should be, IMHO, of limited consequence for those WSP shareholders who held shares in WSP prior to the alleged default by ABZ and those who do not consider the potential increase in WSP's share of the joint venture by reason of that alleged default to be material to their investment decisions. I base my remarks on the assumptions that the issue to be tried is whether ABZ is entitled, in all the circumstances, to rectify its default of failing to deliver written notice of its intention to participate in ongoing joint venture expenses, and that ABZ is ready, willing and able to pay its share of those expenses. I have no knowledge of the terms of the joint venture agreement between ABZ and WSP. Those terms, and other facts not assumed, may be material to the result of the litigation. It is open to a court of superior jurisdiction (i.e., the British Columbia Supreme Court) to relieve ABZ from forfeiture of that portion of its share in the joint venture which is in issue on equitable grounds which I gather, but have not researched, have been enshrined in the statutes of British Columbia. In such case, except for interest costs and legal fees, WSP should be in no worse position than it was prior to the alleged default. Alternatively, the court may refuse to relieve ABZ from forfeiture of that portion of its share in the joint venture on a variety of grounds. In either case, WSP will probably be liable to pay at least a portion of its lawyers' bill. If unsuccessful, it may be liable to pay at least a portion of ABZ's lawyers' bill as well. If the issue is as simple as a question of due notification, I have difficulty in imagining that the total legal costs of both sides in litigating the issue would exceed CDN$1,000,000. Accordingly, IMHO, at least for those shareholders of WSP in the first class referred to above, a WSP victory would be a windfall, less some legals, and a loss by WSP would be a return to the status quo ante less some legals. Regards, Tony E & O E