RE: possible connection? While I agree completely that relying upon conjecture and speculation is not preferable, unfortunately during times like this, it is important to try and read between the lines as much as possible, with the information that is already provided to us so as to direct our decision-making. I seriously doubt Canaco makes a peep before the BCSC hearing. In the meantime, this is what I am seeing:
The BCSC ordeal is significant. Therefore, it will be (and has already been) dealt with seriously. The main issue at hand is the question of materiality. Were the infill drill results of December 2010 material, or not? https://canaco.mwnewsroom.com/press-releases/canaco-responds-to-british-columbia-securities-com-tsx-venture-can-201204240784834001 Ok, Canaco says no. And they've been aiming to say "no"--and how to say "no"--since November 2011. What is material, then? There is "material change" and "material fact," together comprising "material information." It seems Canaco was originally basing its defense based on principles of "material change," but have since become more inclined to consider all elements of "material information." https://www.canaco.ca/i/pdf/MiconInternational-IndependentReviewDrillHoleInformation-February18-2011.pdf Stated here, and elsewhere, Canaco and Micon maintain that the infill drill results of December 2010 did not render the overall deposit significantly larger, or of higher grade, therefore substantiating their claim that they could not be classified as "material information." According to Canaco's published Micon communique from January (https://www.canaco.ca/i/pdf/MiconInternational-IndependentReviewDrillHoleInformation-January19-2011.pdf), "The usual purpose of such an [infill] drill program is to better define and confirm shorter range continuity of mineralization prior to the preparation of a mineral resource estimate rather than the discovery of new mineralization." Two paragraphs later, "Three of the 'new' holes contain intersections of somewhat higher grades than the typical results reported to date. Two of these are also some of the widest intersections, although not the widest, seen to date. A review of the underlying assays for the intersection composites reveals that the grades shown are all the result of single assays which are the largest, third largest, and seventh largest assays in the database." Micon then concludes that these infill results just "generally confirm" results of previous drilling, and that they "could" be used for a resource estimate.
But what I find interesting is that Canaco challenges the BCSC to provide evidence that these infill drill results changed the tonnage or grade of the deposit. On page 2, paragraph 7 of their letter to Paul Bourque: "The results show only consistency with previously published drill results. The infill holes did not increase or decrease the tonnage or grade of the deposit, which in any case was not then, and has not since been, the subject of a resource estimate." https://www.canaco.ca/i/pdf/CanacoResourcesLetterBCSC-April-20-2012.pdf
Does this mean that those infill results were excluded from the IR estimate? If so, was this done so as to prevent any objective or subjective analysis of those results by the BCSC as being material to Canaco's resource, and ultimately it's share price? Based on this statement by A. Paul, CEO Lomiko Metals Inc. and Director of Epic Mining Corp. (https://www.linkedin.com/groups/BCSC-takes-issue-materiality-drilling-94416.S.113432653?qid=e981eacf-d70e-433b-b8af-13bccc76508d&trk=group_most_popular_guest-0-b-ttl&goback=.gmp_94416), is it a reasonable assumption that because those infill drill results weren't included in the IR estimate, they will remain non-material because technically the BCSC can't prove their reliability otherwise? And if those drill results weren't included, how many other 'spectacular' results also were not included so that Canaco could paint their picture appropriately for the BCSC?
Canaco is covering its bases, I believe. It is likely they have attempted to nullify any allegations that they violated regulations concerning material information, by whatever short-term means necessary, so long as they are effective. To be honest, I don't really care if the IR estimate was engineered for the time being. I haven't actually lost money yet, as I'd be an idiot to sell at these prices. What I do care about is that it remains possible that Canaco's resource could be as large as we all expected it to be, and that management systematically shakes the BCSC off their backs so we can all get back in the green.
Here's hoping for June.
Cheers,
Specul8er