Replies to post #19700 on Solidus Communications Inc (SLDC)

[BigBake1]

Yet it still cannot be called an actual NI43-101 as that is misleading. As it does not comply with any of the NI43-101 standards to be called a NI43-101. For a US company to state such is illegal and misleading. You can disagree all you want, but it is in fact misleading to label it as such as it does not meet the standards outlined in NI43-101. It would be like saying you are an MBA because you read the same books.

As far as its content I disagree, the overall problem is that the original report it is based on cannot be confirmed thus why more drill holes were wanted. If the information contained showed that the targets were in fact rich then why would Timberline request more holes to redefine the targets? All it does is confirm there is possible and or potential content, it does not confirm content, which is what the NI43-101 standard is all about.

As far as I am concerned they were misleading investors for a quick pop and nothing more. I understand dilution is a necessary component in business growth, but to mislead in order to keep the doors open is just plain illegal and nothing more.

[lmcat]

I seem to recall that everyone on the board was waiting for SUGO to get their report and the PPS went up on that news.

While an NI 43-101 compliant report is not required, I know 2 companies, both in AZ. that have them. I think it is becoming standard or at least it should be.

The pre-permitting stage is underway and underground confirmation drilling of the historic resource is planned to begin in early 2011. New drill results will be used to verify existing data and to complete a NI 43-101 compliant technical report on reserves and resources. (one AZ mine)

I believe that any company that needs funding will find it a lot easier if they can prove the mineral deposits/ore with an NI43-101.
I am told that these reports can run 100 pages or more and cost over $200,000.