Friday, May 01, 2015 11:01:45 AM
We have all heard this. But as far as I know nobody has ever produced anything that verified it.
IMO it makes no sense at all that a company is a "reporting issuer" because the IR is in a province. I realize that regulations are stupid sometimes and that this could be correct but I have never seen anything from an authority that says this.
But we should find out easy enough next week.
If the IR needs to be gone for a year we should have the CTO gone in a few days.
If the CTO isn't gone by the end of the month I would guess that the 1 year IR thing is just another rumor passed along for years without thought to if it was actually true.
It will be nice to see something simple happen here for once instead of thinking something should be simple only to find out there are a dozen other things that need to happen first.
Also on a different topic wasn't the 43-101 supposed to cover ALL work done up to current drilling?
Why is there no mention of the SOE testing and the Huston lab work?
Is the "ALL" actually "Almost" or are they required to list the work no matter what?
Avant Technologies Equipping AI-Managed Data Center with High Performance Computing Systems • AVAI • May 10, 2024 8:00 AM
VAYK Discloses Strategic Conversation on Potential Acquisition of $4 Million Home Service Business • VAYK • May 9, 2024 9:00 AM
Bantec's Howco Awarded $4.19 Million Dollar U.S. Department of Defense Contract • BANT • May 8, 2024 10:00 AM
Element79 Gold Corp Successfully Closes Maverick Springs Option Agreement • ELEM • May 8, 2024 9:05 AM
Kona Gold Beverages, Inc. Achieves April Revenues Exceeding $586,000 • KGKG • May 8, 2024 8:30 AM
Epazz plans to spin off Galaxy Batteries Inc. • EPAZ • May 8, 2024 7:05 AM