BCSC Update
posted on
Dec 12, 2017 07:14AM
Keep in mind, the opinions on this site are for the most part speculation and are not necessarily the opinions of the company WITHOUT PREJUDICE
I received an email from BCSC regarding my latest enquiry. I don't what to say...except I guess the 43-101 rules were made to be broken. In October I sent the following request:
Thank you for the response, but once again it is not the information I was seeking. I would like any records pertaining to St. Elias Mines NOT releasing these azimuths to the public and/or records as to why BCSC did not enforce the following rule:
Once again I was only given limited information. Interestingly, Section 15 (disclosure harmful to law enforcement) prevented the release of some of the files.
The following excerpts make me furious!!!!! It is an email between 2 high level BCSC employees. The response to his question was put in a report
Hi Chris,
This is a follow up to the St.Elias matter I have one final question for you and it pertains to azimuths. One of the more vocal complainants voiced his concerns that St.Elias did not disclose azimuths in its news release on Jan 10 (attached). He is right and 43-101 states that they should be provided. Is this a serious or minor disclosure issue?
Chris Collins, Chief Mining Advisor, Corporate Finance at the BCSC reviewed (highlevel) several key documents relating to our investigation on St. Elias. The review was conducted at the request of the staff of the Enforcement Division.
On January 10, 2012, St. Elias issued a news release that disclosed the significant results from the 11 holes that had been drilled up to that point in time. The release did not specifically mention the location of the drill holes so the public was unable to gauge the results and the impact on the drill program. Nor did it disclose any mention of the information contained in the Grey Report. Collins also commented informally on St. Elias’ failure to disclose azimuths. Collins said that issue was not a significant disclosure issue.