Welcome To The Inspiration Mining HUB On AGORACOM

The company is exploring for nickel deposits on its Langmuir property near Timmins, Ontario; for nickel-gold-copper on its Cleaver and Douglas properties; and for molybdenum and rare earth elements at recently acquired Desrosiers property.

Free
Message: Re: Whaler and Tantallon

Jan 03, 2009 07:32AM

Jan 03, 2009 07:37AM
4
Jan 03, 2009 07:56AM
1
Jan 03, 2009 08:31AM
1
Jan 03, 2009 08:51AM

Beerbelly,

You ask why I “give a darn about this issue”? I believe these boards are to be used for the benefit of all to get questions and concerns out in the open and answered. If ISM could have continued to deliver drilling results, it could only benefit LBE and the other Companies in the Shaw Dome. Positive news on any these properties that are so intertwined because of their proximity to each others claim boundaries will have an affect to all Companies. That doesn’t stop the fact that ISM should be required to explain why it has missed the opportunity to spend the flow thru funds along with now having to pay interest and penalties; with all the talk about Ni in every hole the past year and a half, I thought it would have been a given that ISM would have had multiple more drills working their properties adding to the resource. I think you would have to agree with me that most posters on the ISM sites have continually mentioned ISM has absolutely no intention of ever mining; their full intention was, and is, to prove up resources and sell it to a major as soon as possible. What better opportunity could there have been to help sell ones investment than to deliver multiple non stop drill results of Ni. In my opinion, that is the full intention of what the flow thru financing was to be used for, along with the tax write off investors in this financing received.

Regarding your statement: “but there should have been a separate current liability calculated for the actual funds requiring payback, at least per generally accepted accounting principles…” First Beer, I am not an accountant, nor am I fully aware of all financial reporting requirements, but I would opine to believe there is no generally accepted accounting principle that would require setting up a liability for something that is based, and becomes payable, on events three months later. In the financial statements I have read, the commitment and possible financial implications are mentioned in a “Commitments” or Contingencies” note. I won’t be contacting your Auditors, but I am sure they will now be doing whatever is necessary in the upcoming financials that should be posted within the next 40 days. Just my opinion.

Best

Nickel



6
Jan 05, 2009 08:25PM
4
Jan 06, 2009 02:43AM
Share
New Message
Please login to post a reply