It's difficult to understand the agenda of many of the posters on this board.
'Gloomfield' must have his bass on ackwards because although he states many points as fact, he gets things completely backwards. For example, today he posted about the gold dore being 73.57%. Fortunately he included a paste of the actual information from the June 28, 2012 release which incorporates the figures to do the calculation correctly: (9,870 oz were settled and 280 oz in consignment with Johnson Matthey) (9,870 +280 = 10,150, which, divided by the shipped dore weight 10,906 equals 93% in my books, net of the refining charges). This is a far cry from the 73.57% he so wrongly calculates.
Also, the repeated references by certain posters to the size of the Revenue Canada liability are old information and are seemingly intentionally misinterpreted to blow the information way out of proportion. The reference to $3.3 million as a liability to the company is simply wrong; that figure is the gross amount of the claim of the cost of the bulk sample expenditure which was 'flowed-through' to the investors and which was originally challenged by the CRA. "The Company had previously recognized a provision for the indemnity of flow through investors of $1,046,224. As a result of reassessments made by CRA during the 3 months ended November 30, 2012, this provision has been reduced to $43,323 (February 29, 2012: $1,046,224)" Note 22 of the November 30, 2012 financial statement sreleased yesterday. Furthermore, "These aforementioned amounts payable to CRA are in dispute with the CRA and the Company is of the opinion that its objections will be successful during calendar 2013."
I will spell that out for clarity: the current provision for this liability has been reduced to forty-three thousand, three hunderd and twenty three dollars.
And repeated references to the size of the outstanding liabilities on the balance sheet are misleading. Yes, the 'Trade and Other Accounts Payable' of $5,064,665 plus the 'Due to Related Parties' of $981,015 as of November 30, 2012 are indeed large and must be met in the future by some form of cash flow or equity financing, but the corresponding figures for February 28, 2012 wer already $4,708,706 and $422,692, respectively. The fact is that the company has not been terribly cash flow negative over the past nine months.
'GotoHellCrow' seems to have some basic knowledge about the mining industry but is perhaps a (former) shareholder of Carpenter Lake who got wiped out in the early days of that project. He thus seems to have an agenda to attack Frank at every juncture.
And Mr. 'GoldExecutive' is not someone I would put much faith in even if he were a shareholder of the company. He would never qualify as an executive in any business of mine. Firstly, his spelling is atrocious. He could not even be a 'bad' lawyer. Additionally, his interpretations, like 'HellCrow's' are so contorted as to be not just unbelievable, but ridiculous. I won't even attempt to decipher an example.
I do not work for Barkerville. I am only a shareholder, like SOME of the other posters on this board. I too am awaiting the new 43-101 reports. I too am frustrated by some of the delays. But that is the nature of this business and we must have patience.
Keep in mind that if you vote for Rex Harbour and his affiliates, you will effectively be voting to sell some of your stock to Rex Harbour for $1.00 per share. Having not seen their Proxy Form yet, nor the new 43-101 reportS (plural), I cannot foresee that this would be a good idea. The company does need more cash on its balance sheet but there must be better ways. If Rex Harbour and his affiliates want to buy more stock in Barkerville, let them pay open market prices or have Barkerville give us all a rights offering. If more of the existing warrants are exercised in the not too distant future, that might all prove to be academic anyway.
The bottom line?: Read this board at your own peril and be careful whom you believe.