Join today and have your say! It’s FREE!

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Please Try Again
{{ error }}
By providing my email, I consent to receiving investment related electronic messages from Stockhouse.

or

Sign In

Please Try Again
{{ error }}
Password Hint : {{passwordHint}}
Forgot Password?

or

Please Try Again {{ error }}

Send my password

SUCCESS
An email was sent with password retrieval instructions. Please go to the link in the email message to retrieve your password.

Become a member today, It's free!

We will not release or resell your information to third parties without your permission.
Quote  |  Bullboard  |  News  |  Opinion  |  Profile  |  Peers  |  Filings  |  Financials  |  Options  |  Price History  |  Ratios  |  Ownership  |  Insiders  |  Valuation

Timmins Gold Corp T.TMM

"Timmins Gold Corp is engaged in acquiring, exploring, developing and operating mineral resource properties in Mexico. It owns and operates the San Francisco open pit and Ana Paula gold project in Guerrero and the Caballo Blanco gold project in Veracruz."


TSX:TMM - Post by User

Bullboard Posts
Post by lilbuggeron Feb 12, 2009 1:18pm
480 Views
Post# 15774356

Anyone know???

Anyone know???

I am a little confused.  I was re reading the news release on Feb 2 where TMM clarifies it San Francisco disclosure and it begins by saying "as a result of a review by the BCSC" and then goes on about some data in the Preliminary Feasibilty Study that wasn't in compliance with NP43-101.  This brings up some serious questions for me, especially when the CFO of the company who happened to be the "qualified person" as defined under NP 43-101 resigned on Jan 20, 2009.  If the amended report was refiled Jan 16, 2009, was there some sort of disagreement with this amended report that both the CFO and another director resigned because of it?  And if this is the case why did the qualified person namely Krohman sign off the first time it was filed?  I thought he was some hot shot who worked for the BCSC for years and should have known exactly what was going on and therefore would never be subject to BCSC review for failing to comply with securities law.  Was Krohman incompetent when the Feasabilty Study was originally filed???  I am suprised a purportedly "PROFESSIONAL" director of the company who is paid handsomely for his "PROFESSIONAL" designations can not stand behind his purportedly "PROFESSIONAL" opinions and work.  If I hire a professional to say fix my teeth, I want it done right the first time and not have to go back later to have it redone and if that does happen I want to be compensated for the extra pain and discomfort I have endured due to the unprofessional work that has been performed.  Should Krohman have the same professional standard of care as say a dentist???  It bothers me that a company I own shares in hires someone to do a job and that someone is held up as capable due to their professional designations but in fact is no better Joe Schmuck who says "Oops, I made a mistake, thanks for the wages you've been paying me until it was discovered but now that everyone knows I think I will leave so I don't have to fix it.  Who, by the way is the qualified person who approved the data in the news release on Feb 2??  I am unsure what is going with Timmins as it seems to be floating without a tiller.  I hope it gets better by I am not holding my breath.

GLTA

Bullboard Posts