Let's Take a Look Venture at the Points you Made - Venture you used some News Release statements to support the direction that you beleive VRB is headed. Let's review each in detail if we could:
-
-
- (1) Completed an $800,000 financing. The financing was further support for the new management team with almost all the financing coming from existing shareholders with no commissions paid;
- Of this $800,000, how much was netted to be directed at moving the company forward? Was there significant dollars paid out on paper, as PO suggests, as bonuses and then re-imbursed as shares and corresponding warrants, with no net gain to operating capital and subsequent dilution? This is the interpretation that I undersand from Patrick's rambling. We will have to wait and see how this plays out. Hope Patrick is wrong, as such would not be looked upon favourabley by most long term shareholders (in my opinion).
- How much of the $800,000 will be directed at actually drilling and moving the company forward? Virtually none as I understand it. I still do not have an appreciation for the state of the nation after the previous administration, and hope we are not to be surprised some time in the future.
(2) Closed its downtown office and cut operating expenses significantly;
- Is this move not a given regardless of who may have take over the management role?
(3) Legal, banking, accounting firms have all been replaced or are now managed internally;
- Is this really a positive or perhaps a conflict of interest scenario and a move that lacks transparency? Only time will tell, but I prefer outsiders for any company as they can act as a watchdog.
- (4) Significantly reduced the number of incentive stock options the company can issue;
-
- How does this sit with long term shareholders when millions of options were distributed by and to the new management players, in light of the claims of greediness by the Dissident Group? A number of shareholders have assumed great risk and such activities cannot be justified.
(5) Implemented an efficient claim management process and renewed over 150 claims;
- How are we to substantiate such? We can only take their word for it, as we had to with the previous management team?
- (6) Renamed and rebranded the company to better align the name with the company's corporate strategy of targeting production of high-purity vanadium products. The objective is to coincide with the existing demand increases in the steel and alloy markets, and the global commercialization of large-scale pure vanadium batteries;
- We have had name changes in the past with no resulting benefits accrued. Personally we could call the company "MUD" and if it had the goods and the nowhereall to get it into production, it would attract the appropriate response.
(7) Initiated a long awaited National Instrument 43-101 technical report on the company's flagship Lac Dore project, which will include an update of the resource estimate as well as recommendation in order to reactivate the former feasibility study conducted on the project by SNC-Lavalin in 2002; Are not most 43-101's called for when it is expected that the completion will take the project to the next step (feasibility)?
- Will the contract/report meet the requirements of moving the company to feasibility/production or simply result in the announcement that more drilling is required to confirm original results and move the company to the next stage ? Are we not aware of this now?
-
- (8) Composition of the advisory board has been enhanced;
- have we not had several Advisory appointments over the years who still are listed as members, and if so, where have they got us? How have they been utilized other than in name?
- (9) Exploring opportunities with strategic groups on various projects:
-
- we have been there and done that, and we have yet to see anything materialize. We can only hope that with Adriaan things will be different. To date we are still waiting for confirmations signs as my repsonses would suggest.
(10) IOS has been mandated to provide a technical report according to National Instrument 43-101, including an update of the resource estimate as well as recommendation in order to reactivate the former feasibility study conducted on the project by SNC-Lavalin in 2002. Due to this strategic input, projections of time frames and capital requirements for advancing the Lac Dore vanadium project have all decreased significantly. Vanadiumcorp is targeting NI 43-101 compliance of the Lac Dore project by the first quarter of 2014. The ability to access many years of data with the former main project manager of the Lac Dore deposit will save significant time, share dilution and capital requirements. - I think that this is the same as item (7). One would hope that utilizing the previous data would save time, money, and diltution, but to emphatically state the benfits will be accrued as noted may be a stretch. While no expert, I would be surprised that the next step would be feasibility. In other words is it realistic to think that the expected report will result 43-101 compliance to move beyond further drilling?
Venture and Mountainman, rather than mudslinging, which I am sure does not win you any points, I would be most interested in an objective/informed response as to how my responses may be wrong/misdirected. I continue to be a shareholder, but am looking for rationale of substance based upon facts as opposed to what you alluded to - hope and prayer.
I look forward to a Bright 2014 and for Adriaan and company to alleviate any concerns tha I may have. I look foward to regular up-dates being consistently released as indicated in previous releases.