Thoughtfully written post by James Flanigan is posted to read.. Market conditions are poor for most all junior explorers. What James addressed in detail is what Del has alluded to on a
> couple of prior occassions. PEM has the gold, has had near 100% drilling
> success, has been finding average economically mineable grades (for today),
> has a proven 100% accurate treasure map, has an experienced, very dedicated
> successful team-staff and leadership, etc. etc.
>
> This BCSC debacle is something PEM could not have forseen. The BCSC has been
> clamping down, becoming more rigid and demanding with new and stronger
> oversight and their "findings." Their available outline of what should be
> included in submissions to the BCSC is likely deficient and behind current
> practice. I do not see the issues raised by the BCSC as grevious or
> neglegent errors. The BCSC wants to be more thorough then previously.
> Consequently, PEM gets greater scrutinization. Most of the deficiencies
> cited by the BCSC are "discretionary" subject to interpretation as applied
> by BCSC staff. They are increasing their standards. Good for them and their
> desire to protect investors.
Although I think investors should have been told when a 4th drill rig was canceled and when the drill rigs
> were halted in October, I can see the reasons for the decisions and I
> consider the reasons to have been judicious and precautionary for the sake
> of the company and it's shareholders. It was a frugal safeguard, a sage and
> prudent decision which, as it now turns out, was likely a very significant
> choice by Del, one for which he should be applauded. I "check my premis"
> from time to time, for whether PEM's fundamentals have changed, and I find
> that nothing of significance has changed. If the company has failed in a
> specific category I can't see it. But, that is subject to interpretation, I
> know.
Perhaps it would have been better for PEM to put out more information
> to explain the who, what, where, when, how and why's of their changes in
> policy, practice, procedure, plan, and goals, from their earlier stated
> ones. I have questioned all this in many ways and find that decisions made
> months ago were to save money in case market conditions worsened or did not
> improve. A wise decision, as it turns out, although we felt disappointed,
> even kept in the dark, as to why things were scaled back. It created some
> questions, distrust, even loss of faith. No, I don't see PEM as on the
> rocks. I only wish PEM could have found a permissable "public" way to
> communicate with their shareholders and others what they were doing and why.
> The absence of having done so allowed a slow deterioration of confidence and
> an increase in questioning management's decisions.
I agree with James. PEM has been "hunkering" down, "keeping their powder dry" waiting for the
> storm to blow over, so they can survive weathering the storm. If PEM had
> fought or disregarded the building storm clouds they may well have aimlessly
> expended all their ammunition, only to forgo whatever cover they could have
> taken. I have also been reflecting a lot on all things that have worried my
> wife, me, and a dozen other friends and acquaintences who are PEM
> shareholders. I have concluded that, although disappointed like everyone
> else, I have to hunker down with PEM to ride out this storm. It is either
> that or live each day with bitterness and loathing. Yes, PEM is underfunded
> to keep moving forward in it's accomplishments with ever increasing speed.
> My primary concern for PEM is it's financing, funding, share dilution, etc.
> I have voiced this opinion loud and often. It has not gone unnoticed. It
> needs to be addressed, and I am convinced it will be, when market conditions
> allow.
marwal |
