ann out - khul morit exploration update , page-68

Here's a HC conversation that took place when the promo was written in Feb. It suggests that there was at least some uncertainty in interpretations and expectations. I think people fell victim to marketing. If PRW can get away with quantifying absolute B/S and verifying it 3 times, what chance is there for accountability here:

27/2/2013

SIRJOHNNYBOY:

"..... I do not like a company intimating a positive result when the most accurate word they can use to describe the observation of copper-bearing mineralisation is "FREQUENT".

How does one quantify "FREQUENT"? ...That could be 56x 100mm sections over 800m.

How are a few pictures of what appears to be good mineralisation supposed to be quantified by the market.

They could be more accurate if they wanted to.

Do you mean to tell me that they can't give an initial indication from a handheld XRF.

So they have reported minerals that are usually found in conjunction with a porphery deposit ...is that the only time these minerals are discovered?

My point is that if the results come back as low grade -the company have not been guilty of inaccurate reporting BUT RATHER vague reporting ...and there will be nothing shareholders can do.

I'm not saying I'm right ...I'm saying be careful ...this has happened before -think CTP ...OK that was worse (but many others). My first VOR post I did not realise that thecompany had previous form with "directors specials" ...this does not augur well.

It might be a new management team ...but who is pulling the strings up top?"


ME in REPLY:

"SirJB. I don't disagree with anything you've written. And I'm not really saying much more than IMO, the readjustment in the management and technical staff has resulted in the actual strategy and results now being more in line with the stated and most desirable strategy.

If people think that the company is saying they've already hit an intersect that is an analogue to OT ore, then perhaps there is variance in interpretations. Are they saying that they are getting very positive indicators for Cu porphyry mineralisation and after they do some geophysics they will hone in on the potential source? Maybe that's an interpretation closer to the way of thinking of others.

Most announcement are word-smithed to the Nth degree, so IMO, presumption lies with careful deliberation by the promoters about inclusions and equally exclusions, from which basis, vague may not seem so vague any more."