re: Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, Appendi... EM you...

re: Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, Appendi... EM you said......."Because perhaps the story isn't true...? The 'IF' in your comment is the important word IMO as there has been no evidence (photographic or otherwise) to suggest that the "rampage and destruction" and alleged damage to buildings and equipment actually occurred."


There is also no concrete evidence (photographic or otherwise) to suggest it didn’t happen, other than another "media" article. Which "media" article is correct is anyone’s guess.

Most listed companies subscribe to some form of media monitoring. This enables them to read ALL articles written about their company – they can then respond, put the record straight, accordingly. IDC should have seen this article. Knowing what happened when CRA had ownership of the tenement (i.e. LO rampage/destruction) this should have had alarm bells ringing with management, yet in their eyes it was not important enough to comment on!!!


IF the "rampage" didn't happen, and IF the LO's did not demand the adit work cease until their demands were met, how do you explain the fact the LIS was completed some time in January yet no further work was re-commenced? The jv discussions were not raised until March.

Too many IF’s!!!!

What makes you think the CEO would give me a “private briefing” on these issues if I rang him? The market was not briefed when the issue was raised in the media. As you said, IDC should also have made the market aware IF they had been given the variation – no such info was given.