RE: You're the One MISINFORMING ovis... 2guys, If I accused you of being misleading, then I do apologize. My opinion differed from what I had orginially understood was you position. Perhaps you can see my point. Read the story detail you attached and tell me why anyone would have said >>>I'm not sure that China's standards are anywhere near what we have here in Canada. <<<
What about the fraud at Southwestern was enabled by China standards not being up to Canadian standards? The China assay were not the problem. The CEO residing in Vancouver was the problem.. Score 1 for the quality of the Chinise assay results and score 1 for the Canadian reporting standards. Score 0 for Vancouver fraud artists.
I don't think it is very hard to commit a fraud anywhere. It is harder to get away with the fraud when you have to meet the BCSC reporting standards. I am not saying anything about what happened with BGM and the missing 4M ounces of Indicated resource. I am happy to wait for the BCSC dust to settle. However, it is a matter of a record that between June 28th and August 12th, 4M oz of Indicated resource vaporized, perhaps eat by an Excel spreadsheet... Who knows why the 4M oz dispeared, but I hope the BCSC extracts an answer.
At the same time, I am curious if anyone has a scenario for how the CEO at Southwestern might have been able to get away with the fraud past the pre-feasibility stage. An innocent enough question. Obvious the fraud is always going to be discovered by the time another company repeats the drilling on the property. No way around that gotcha. All a budding fraudster can do is come up with a better strategy to delay the discovery of the fraud. Why would any CEO do it? I don't know but some have and I expect some will do it again in the future, no doubt with a better plan than that used by Mr. Paterson. I'm sure a better plan exists...
And for the record I would argue that the Southwestern fraud would be no harder to pull on a deposit in Manitoba, Ontario of British Columbia than it would be pull in China. And given the Canadian standards and the given the same ill advised fraud plan, the results would be the same. Location is not relevant. Where the company reports is what is relevant. This may not match your opinion and that is cool. Differences of opinion make for better discussions.
Thank-you for sharing the news paper report.