Silk Energy Ltd SLKEF

RE: Doingthejob/ISM News

[victor2009]

Nickel77,

There's a few things that I would question in this news release.

First thing is the reliability of news releases involving drilling results and promised NI43-101 reports. Back on February 3, ISM had a news release that had to be revised after the OSC had a look at the disclosure infractions. At that time it was said " We look forward to aggressively advancing our program and to producing an updated 43-101 report within the next 90 days"  Now, 193 days later they say that they have only now engaged a firm to prepare an updated NI43-101!  And now they can't even suggest an expected date for release of this information. ISM was more than two years late in providing the first Micon report, now they've taken twice as long as they indicated - there's still no update and they admit they have only now engaged the firm to do the report. In my opinion that's the same as admitting they were deceitful in saying a report was expected by April 30.  These guys seem to think that the disclaimer they throw in at the bottom of News Releases absolves them of their duty to be forthright in their disclosure.

Another thing I'm wondering about is that in February when ISM was able to expect a report in 90 days, they made no mention of who was doing the report - nor that Micon would not be updating their previous report. Were they expecting a report without having even engaged a firm to prepare it?  If so that adds to my opinion that the comment was deceitful. It also makes me wonder why they are "switching horses" from Micon to NordPro. One would think there would be some efficiencies and economies in having an update done by the firm that certified the first report. Is there a chance that Micon wanted nothing to do with ISM - or did ISM not like what Micon had to say?

Back in 2008 Randy Miller made headlines in news releases stating that a multi phase reporting would be made public in 2008, including an economic viability report. Now, no mention is made of the economic feasibility report, I'm sure 2011 will pass without the work being done to complete this vital report. Is this what ISM calls "aggressively advancing our program"?

I agree with you that this whole thing appears to be a stall tactic. It is my guess that an economic feasibility study would likely indicate that exploration over the past six or seven years has not identified economic reserves at Langmuir.  That, along with the need for writing down the asset to recognize reality, might jeopardize the funds that are being directed to insiders and hangers on, such as Gale Capital. This whole thing is becoming more and more of a farce as time goes on.  If regulations are such that the OSC can't step in and protect the shareholders, the regulations are inadequate. If the regulations are in place, and the OSC is not enforcing them, then it is the agency that is at fault - not the legislators. The nonsense that has been going on rewards a few that have not earned the reward, at the expense of many shareholders - and a black mark for the mining industry and the Canadian stock markets. 

One other thing, Nickel77. The NR states "It hosts the past nickel producing mines of Langmuir No. 1 and 2".    Is this accurate? I seem to recall that Randy Miller had to retract a statement in the past, to clarify that one of the "past producing mines" was not located on ISM claims. Do you have any recollections in this regard?