I wouldn't be surprised if IROC had a problem with the last NR by KWG....perhaps he (Moe) stepped on some toes with the wording of that release..
from my reading of the NR it is implying that "We (KWG) are aware that we are not supposed to provide valuations for mineral deposits that do not have Measured Reserves (i.e for which a Feasibilty Study has been undertaken that has proven economic viability ). ...We didn't actually publically disclose this number, but a third party did (The Globe and Mail). Regardless we disagree with their hypothetical "in situ value" as it should be 50% higher.".... So Mo is actually inferring the endorsement of this value/method of valuation (despite it being erroneous by its undervaluation) by stating that a third party has disclosed this value
..So in a sense it may be that he is playing word games/semantics, and perhaps following the letter of the law , but not really the spirit ....BUT I would be surprised if thety were actually calling him out on that as I suspect much more flagrant violations have gone unchallenged in the TSX-V markets/IROC.
To me it's a valid challenge by Moe. If Resource companies have to abide by laws which restrict them from reporting "in situ " values of deposits, then , other public sources (i.e newspapers) should be held to the same degree of accountability (i.e they shouldn't be able to lowball OR highball the "in situ" value of a deposit, without firmly/clearly explaining the limitations of such a valuation method.
The Globe in Mail article did note " However, the $60-billion value or even the $31-billion figure does not take into account whether the deposit is economical to mine."
Cheers,
Luker
