Hi Tant, thanks for the PDAC feedback. I had heard that some investors got a chance to speak with both Andre and Ian and were quite pleased having done so.
On the topic of "revisions", it's not the first time these guys have had to revise something issued earlier. Recall the following?
http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=16463344&topic=ISM:CA&symbology=null&cp=null&webmasterId=92583
IMHO I don't particularily think there is anything evil or underhanded going on, I don't think they are that stupid when putting a "pen to paper" in the form of a 43-101 compliant NR. I would tend to agree with you in that there may be "closer scrutiny" at hand by many share holders and non share holders, and given a chance to question or raise concern, it looks to have happened in/on both occasions. I call it follow thru on the part of the OSC and if they too were confused or there were rules broken, they tell the company to try again in the form of a revision.
As many have said here, that Feb 3rd NR raised many questions and many here sought clarification. Many asking here for it, which is not the best place to look for it either. No one here on the thread works for or represent the company. So failing a personal clarification from IR or ISM, it looks like the best place to go would be having the OSC do so for them.
Here we are some 6 weeks later with a newer "clearer" NR.
BTW, are we allowed to call our little gem a "Open Pit Nickel Deposit" or is only Micon allowed to say that? Tantallon what did you see coming thru as clarifications between the two NR's?
http://app.quotemedia.com/quotetools/newsStoryPopup.go?storyId=27466374&topic=ISM:CA&symbology=null&cp=null&webmasterId=92583
Cheers
