Victoria Gold Corp T.VGCX

RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:For those not able to watch the briefing yesterday

[HoneyBadger77]

Zibo510, read paragraph #2 of my earlier post:

TSX:VGCX Forum Post | HoneyBadger77-36151339 | RE:For those not able to watch the briefing yesterday | Victoria Gold Corp (stockhouse.com)

And this one:

TSX:VGCX Forum Post | HoneyBadger77-36151485 | RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:RE:For those not able to watch the briefing yesterday | Victoria Gold Corp (stockhouse.com)

And the rest of my posts that pertain to this topic.

A 'Directive' is a policy or a guideline and not law unless it derives as a result of a law in a particular statute.  I'm sure VG's lawyers know which directives must be legally followed and those that are recommendations or guidelines.  That's not to say the VG shouldn't follow EMR's directives but when there are costs involved, then VG has a right to question the directive and decide not to comply when there is no benefit to them, and especially since this matter is still under investigation.

If you were a suspect in an investigation would you help provide the investigator with evidence  or information that could potentially help them incriminate you?  Of course not since that would be against your legal rights.  Building a berm and driling ground water monitoring wells at VG's expense for EMR's exclusive use so they can monitor the ground water (right at the mine site yet) for years to come is like the police investigating you and issuing you a directive to incriminate yourself.  As I previously mentioned, if EMR wants / needs a berm and ground water monitoring wells, then that should have been in the original mine build plans and VG would of had no choice but to build it at their expense.  That's no longer the case and so if EMR needs a berm and wells, then let them build them themselves, pay for it and stop thinking that everytime they write a directive that VG is just going to jump and spend more of their dwindling cash reserves.  

My opinion only.

HB77