Bashing DeCosta because he is not a qualified geologist or qualified as a mining expert is not even the relevant topic as far as I'm concerned.
What is disconcerting and totally unacceptable is the continued efforts on DeCosta's part to refute the facts. This was most especially clear when Ulander failed to perform.
Even prior to his ridiculous statements close to the time that the BOD finally pulled the plug on Ulander, DeCosta was apparently making affirmative opinions that Ulander would come through and fund the contract. No one should have stuck their necks out that far, especially DeCosta, whose words are always being scrutenized.
That isn't all. While he is lightyears ahead of me and others with respect to his knowledge of the ADL/LDM properties and other topics related to mining, geology and dentistry, I fail to understand how he could profer any semblance of factual opinions on the agreements, performance and or any related matters with respect to any JV or business arrangements entered into by the BOD with any past or future partners. Why would he be so "annointed" to expound on these matters?
While I find his and other posters' published comments on the geological studies, geological findings and strategies in the discovery and exploration of mining properties extremely interesting and beneficial to me personally, and I hope to others on the boards, I fail to see why that should in any way give them special dispensation to make cheerleading comments on the size, timing and the potential of any past, current or future JV.
I think that is the rub. No one but the company, BOD should offer any public or private statements as to what is or has transpired, or will yet transpire in the future with any JV, especially unsubstantiated. And couching a forward looking statement under the disclaimer of "my opinion" does not mitigate any potential damage that such a statement of opinion has and will potentially cause to shareholders who hold such persons in high regard, from those whom others(followers) regard as more "connected" to the top, the BOD, or more knowledgable,when things do not materialize, as in the case of partner A, B and so far C.
Changing gears slightly, truly, how difficult was it for the BOD to perform an appropriate amount of DD on Ulander, prior to entering into the agreement. DeCosta, being the more connected to the BOD than most shareholders, and having at stake most probably more than the average shareholders, one would think, would have gone one step further and performed some due diligence on Ulander as well as on the geological aspects of Medinah. If his investment was at risk, and he performed a serious enough research on the site, at the site, and met talked with the members of the BOD and other experts, I think it appropriate to ask why would he not conduct even a small amount of due diligence in vetting out a JV partner. He seems perfectly capable to at least look into the veracity of what Ulander was brining to the table.
When it comes to DeCosta, there are more questions than answers. While I am not in the camp of throwing out his opinions in a broad brush manner, I do take what he says with a jaundiced eye. I don't really think his hands are clean as some suggest when it comes to promoting Medinah with its sordid and damaging past events. The square peg does not fit well into a round hole.
Just my opinion.
