"Conversely, How can you look past the history of what has effected your investment negatively? Past performance and decision making is part of DD. Why pretent everything went right? I cant understand that at all. How can you not be upset?!?"
I am and was not pretending everything went right, I was simply addressing the very incorrect statements that were made more than one time now and corrected. You also don't think I have a problem with the current share price, I assure you, that is far from right. However I won't let blantantly wrong statements like i responded to go without something.
"By producing a positive BFS we DID earn 100 percent of Schaft Creek (and Tecks Liard shares, surrounding claims, the port, and the connection NTL that we may lose if we take too long to claim our spot). Teck was supposed to EARN back their share - a fact touted for years by the company.
No more of this revisionist history, please. Its amazing how quick we forget... Maybe a good reason to the to restate is as many try to sweep things under the rug. Maybe its bad menory, who am I to judge."
I guess you are correct, we did earn 100% of SC, but with some sort of back in agreement. You mistake my comment for forgetting, maybe it was a large blunder by Elmer, maybe it wasn't. I can't say I know the exact legal situations regarding the agreement or the talks regarding the formation of the JV. Either way, to say we spent ~80 million for ~24 million, is massivly incorrect as we now own 25% of a massive resource with financing in place. Definitely a lot more than the cash, if you can't see that or decide to state the same thing multiple times over while being corrected, well you are not a smart man or you are a basher. Now I hope its obvious, but I am not refering to you and to who the previous post was on.
"Well, the Salazar for one, missing every single self imposed deadline by a wide margin could be another. Many more listed previously"
Once again, I am not really sure how this relates to what I had said. In regards to the PFS, there is no other documents that could be placed instead of the PFS until the release of the FS. That was the study and those were the results, I can't think of any reason why that would't be on the website or CUU material. Or are you trying to say we should have removed the PFS and put that we missed deadlines? Point is, it's far from the first time this person has went on about this, when its exactly what every single company would do as it was the only results they had at the time that can be displayed in such manor.
"The same could be said of the constant harping that all is well, we couldnt be in better shape and it is unthinkable that anything could go wrong (thats where the past performance history comes in).
The constant conspiracy theories that long time investors are now working for some shadowy organization to steal away our shares or short the stock is laughable in my opinion. Dont be afraid of some of the risks put forward - why not try and de-risk them and we may all feel better about our predicament? Im just sayin..."
Well once again, Not sure how that all related to what I said. I sure do not constantly go on about theorys or that everything is all right and this is done deal. So please don't bundle me up with others. I just had to correct someone on something for what I believe is the third time now.
