Edmonton44,
Not for you, just ofr the rest of the people interested in this company, as Sh will probably remove it, and everyone there seems to be a reader over here.
------
Surely this demands an explanation by SLI?
How can a listed company make these two contradictory statements?
The question is, was the first one a mistake?
And if not, why did the company release such a statement when it was not true?
How can you state ALL the Peruvian properties have lapsed, then four days later make a statement saying that some of them have been paid and not lapsed"?
- So, did SLI pay the vigencias after releasing that news release?
- And if so, where did the funds come from?
- Or did they suddenly realise all of the vegencias had not expired?
- And if that is the case, when do they expire?
---
St. Elias Mines corrects Peruvian property lapse
2014-07-07 10:26 ET - News Release
Ms. Lori McClenahan reports
ST. ELIAS MINES LTD. - CORRECTION - PERUVIAN PROPERTIES
St. Elias Mines Ltd. is correcting the news release dated July 3, 2014,
which stated that all Peruvian properties have been allowed to lapse.
Actually, vigencias (annual fees) and penalties have been paid to preserve
Vilcoro 1 and 2 (600 hectares), Chance 1 (1,000 hectares), and Chance G
(100 hectares), which cover the main gold showings on the company's
properties in Peru. All other claims that constitute the previous Vilcoro
and Tesoro projects have been allowed to lapse.
