RE: 43-101 etc Gaberlunzie,
When you become negative on a company, you can look at anything and see something bad in it. I guess the opposite can be true if you are positive on a company.
The thing I question is the negativity about the Sprott loan. If FAU requires financing to reach its goals, the thing that I would find alarming is the company not being able to obtain financing. Those unfamiliar with financing in these circumstances would have you believe that the terms of the loan are unreasonable - they are not. What good would have come out of not arranging required financing? Would a future shut down due to lack of funds add the pizzazz you were looking for?
Your comment that the intent of the NI43-101 regulations "was to give shareholders comfort about ore reserve estimates" is not accurate. The intent was to provide protection or comfort to all readers or users of reserve and resource data provided by the company, even relating to raising funds to explore where there is no indicated resource. These regulations do not dictate that NI43-101 reports be prepared on some ordained dates - like quarterly statements. They do stipulate that when certain information is provided to the public, for financing, press release to potential investors, promotional literature, reporting to shareholders - that the regulations kick in. The fact that reserves are not proven, along with the full economic viability reports, does not necessarily indicate a problem - nor that a "hoped for category" is making poor mill feed. It is not impossible that FAU has information on reserves, from outside firms or their own staff - if they feel no need to make this information public, then they can choose to avoid the cost and time of confirmation under a NI43-101. After all, it is not a NI43-101 that turns the mine into a bonanza, some of the greatest mining successes in the world happened without a NI43-101 Report.
Some [Junior, for one] bought into FAU when it was around 48 cents, based on whatever research or information that was available. At that time the investment was known to be a risk - it may succeed or it may fail, it may drop in price or increase before the outcome is known. Whatever the reason, those who bought at 48 cents saw some prospect for profit at that level. If they are still holding, a sell decision when the price is down to 22 cents should be based on identifying some changes that indicate a drastic change in potential since the stock was bought. This could be a number of things - gold price tanking, less potential tonnage/mine life, an investment with greater potential, a poor decision or calculation error on the buy, etc. But sometimes the sell decision is made only because the share price is down, and sometimes because naysayers convince you that you were wrong in assessing the potential. I've sold stocks at a loss, that I've felt had less potential than I saw at the time of the buy. But I've had other situations where I thought the potential hadn't changed, and if it was good buy at 48 cents, its a better buy at 24 cents, and I can get twice as many for my buck.
Given all the negativity here, and some of the misinformation that bashers have spewed, I'd suggest that those holding shares don't get stampeded by others. The company is apparently not that many months from having some cash flow numbers based on full production. Consider whether it might show cash flow that will make the current share price look like a bargain. Then make your decision, sell , hold or buy. Don't get influenced by Junior - why be influenced by someone with an investment philosophy of buy high, sell low, and whine?