Whaler, Tantallon, EBF

My point on using the flow through funds within the period committed is that the drilling that Micon later required could have been done with flow through funds. Also the “open at depth and length” situations mentioned by so many posters could have been explored and this supposed ore body extended at depth and into Lutha; also with flow through funds. This would have benefited ISM as it would have reduced the penalties and other liabilities resulting from the failure to spend flow through funds. It would have shortened the delays that ISM say resulted from Micon requiring additional drilling. It would also have lessened the damage to ISM’s reputation with those that handled and bought the flow through shares and got stung with their own tax penalties. Cash was not conserved, it was spent in the year following along with penalties that could have been avoided or reduced.

You mention that Micon was onside since May 2008 and that they are a world leader. That might be an indication that there was ample time to have foreseen the need for extra drilling in time to qualify the flow through expenditure. And I am also wondering about the source of your claim that Micon is a world leader in the field. I am not questioning the ability of this firm whatsoever, but I am interested in the world leader claim. My understanding is that there are a number of firms that are much larger with a more prestigious list of clients and wider global representation. If you could, please explain the source of you information. There seems to have been similar claims made when ISM hires outside consultants, like Dundee, Launchpad, Clarus, etc. that have not been substantiated. Is this Micon claim another one?

Best

Nickel