Hello Peter Marshall,

You’ve written: “Telephone: [sic!] I think that if you had done a background check on Hoov’s credentials (post history for example), you would find that Hoov’s mining consulting, chemical, and board history more than qualifies him to present his very polite warning to your call for action.”

My “call for action” is for Fancamp to open channels of communication with the investment advisory community. Certainly, that’s long past due. Certainly, we can all approve of that. Certainly, there’s no controversy in doing it.

You’ve expressed doubts that I’ve been properly introduced to Larry Hoover because I haven’t “done a background check on Hoov’s credentials,” which include his “mining consulting, chemical, and board history.” Furthermore, as you’ve stated, those excellent credentials “more than qualifies him to present his very polite warning” to me.

Rest assured. I don’t doubt Hoov’s credentials nor would I ever dream of questioning them.

This may come as a shock to you: I have heard about Hoov before and even read some of his writings on the GNH Message Hub. I’m also aware of the fact, there certainly are people who appreciate what he has to say. Some people think he’s a Rock Star; others think the opposite. I’m sure he’ll be the first one to tell you not to be awestruck. His pronouncements don’t ordinarily contain extraordinary revelations. He represents himself as being humble. I accept that. I take him at his word.

For those who haven’t seen it, as follows is a link to his 28 page reporting of the “Project History and Exploration Activities” of Golden Hope Mines. As I understand it, this was a project, as a GNH shareholder, that he voluntarily undertook on his own.

http://dl.dropbox.com/u/3360843/Golden%20Hope%20Report%20Sept182010.pdf

On page 4 of his report, I believe it was Hoov who described himself (as follows):

“Larry Hoover is an analytical chemist, who spent much of his career applying that knowledge in the field of environmental monitoring, exposures, and the toxicology of contaminants.

“For the past 15 years, Mr. Hoover has provided research and analytical support to major organizations on a contract basis. Over the last half decade, Mr. Hoover has focused primarily on consulting for junior mineral explorers, providing diverse services including research and analysis, report generation, investor relations, and fund-raising assistance.

“Mr. Hoover is neither an accredited geologist, nor an investment advisor and any thoughts or opinions contained within this document should be considered to be speculative in nature, and should not be construed as investment advice. Mr. Hoover is a significant shareholder in Golden Hope Mines Limited.”

The date of the report was 20 September 2010. GNH stock closed at $0.95 that very same day. That was the very highest closing price GNH stock ever had. Again on 20 September 2010, during the middle of the day, GNH reached its all time $0.98 high, which it repeated the following day. It’s been downhill ever since. Yesterday, it closed at $0.115.

My point is, we all make humdinger mistakes in timing, if not in judgment. I’m certainly included. I’m far from proud of how some of my own prognostications have turned out. I’m sure Mr. Hoover has just as often (if not more so) gotten it just as right as he got it wrong in the one example that I came across. My point is, don’t put too much reliance on reputations and unsubstantiated impressions.

Measure for yourself the evidence one side presents against the contrary information you get from the other. Of course, consider who is making the presentation. But that’s only one of many things. And, possibly, it’s way down the list. In fairness, it’s not Hoov’s fault that information from Fancamp is harder to come by than it should be.

In his Chemical Analysis Posting to this Message Hub, Mr. Hoover talks about the fact that, so far as himself, he’s exercising caution because he’s not seen proof that convinces him. Certainly, I support him for drawing our attention to the importance of scientific information. I’ll go further; non-proprietary scientific information should be easily accessible, as should its cited sources.

On the other hand, giving us his Armchair Chemistry Lessons in a brief posting to this non-academic Message Hub is not the appropriate thing for him to be doing at this point. He admits he’s not up-to-date with the latest science. Nowhere does he mention that he’s ever spoken one word to any one person at Fancamp who has the scientific credentials appropriate for his level of inquiry. Nonetheless, he proceeds to give us his uncorroborated opinions anyway.

Absolutely, as I said before, we should all welcome learning what he finds out, after he’s taken the time to do the requisite investigatory work. Just as Hoov wants the positive proved; I want there to be one shred of scientifically-corroborated evidence to the negative.

There are four scientifically-credentialed people on our Board of Directors:

Peter H. Smith, PHD, P.Eng.
Fauad Kamaleddine, PHD, P.Eng.
Mel De Quadros, PHD, P.Eng.
Jean LaFleur, M.Sc., P.Geo.

There are three scientifically-credentialed people on our Advisory Board:

John Harvey, P.Eng.
Mackenzie Watson, P.Eng.
Edward Thompson, P.Eng.

As well, there are the technical experts at Champion to consult and to respect before voicing the unvetted suspicions Mr. Hoover has brought to the fore. I’m confident the Champion geologists and chemists have done their due diligence before approving Champion’s major stake in Fancamp.

As follows is the Champion webpage, which contains snapshot résumés of its Board of Directors. These guys didn’t approve the major Fancamp buy-in without having made substantial studies of our operations, from top to bottom.

http://www.championminerals.com/vns-site/page-board_of_directors-en.html

It is somewhat of an end-run for anyone to post technical arguments on this Message Hub, without first speaking with even one of the ample number of technical experts employed at Fancamp or Champion (or, even, Argex, for that matter). Also, these people can be asked by interested chemists, such as Hoov, for how to contact still more experts. The object is to get reliable information from the people who are in the best position to be the most conversant with the up-to-date Fancamp analytical testing and scientific data.