I have been thinking about the fact that our long awaited met study is complete. This was known since the company told us so in the latest MD&A.

So here lies the question, is that not a significant material item that should warrant a news release? Secondly, on the surface, what is the impression if they do not release it, sit on it for this long, and in the meantime we witness a significant seller persistently unloading stock to any healthy bid? On the surface does the company not also set itself up for potential basher type posting that may talk about these same items I have mentioned? Heck there are many ways to intrepret these events, but a basher could really run with this and the company would be best served to remove doubt and show the report.

Bottom line.... is the Met Study a "material piece of info" that should require a compnay issued news release. If not, then can I ask wouldn't the 43-101 be looked or handled in the same manner too? As it is just another piece of paperwork that may possibly be complete for all we know. Maybe if we are to find out if it is complete or not, we will/would have to find out by our traditional ISM means of news worthy dissemination and that's wait until he next MD&A?

These aren't gripes, these are questions for the shareholders to kick around and throw their to bits in here. In the end we see the market heading for the gutter again. We have no news and as a result of that we have investors who obviously do not have ANY degree of certainty here. We saw Mustang the other day give investors an update and even ley out a target date for them.

Given that our Micon task has been the main focus for ISM since being announced way back in April/May08, could the company not have enought inof now to be able to say, "Hey we are near the end" The light at the end fo the tunnel must surely be able to be seen by the ISM management team by now. Heck we were also just told some final and additional drilling was and is being done. In fact one additional target was completed for drilling.

I am willing to bet that if the company came out with a release and told the world "this is where we are at twith our long awaited 43-101, we expect completion by Micon for no later than such a such a week, that shares would quite possibly be heading up on speculation of what is in store. That little bit of certainty and smidgen of impending closure on this long long Micon journey would definitely lend us all some direction and piece of mind.

Maybe a simple obligatory Sedar quarterly meets timely disclosure requirements? Does anyone know the definition what is considered material information?

"

Further to that here's a neat read about Steve Job's Of Apple and whether the compnay should have told shareholders about his health wrt Material info and it's general definition.

http://articles.latimes.com/2009/jun/25/business/fi-apple-jobs25

The snippet re: Material

"Companies are not required to divulge medical details about executives, lawyers said. But they are required to disclose "material" information, which is defined as what a reasonable investor would need to know to make an informed decision on buying or selling stock."

http://www.neowin.net/news/main/09/06/25/analysts-say-apple-violated-sec-disclosure-rules

"In addition, Paul Argentini, a professor at the Tuck School of Business at Dartmouth told Cult of Mac that "The law is very clear — full disclosure of material information," and that "If a CEO's liver transplant isn't material, what is? But whether the SEC has the balls to do something about it, we'll see."

While there is nothing in the SEC requirements that directly says firms are required to disclose medical details about executives, they are required to divulge 'material' information investors should know before buying or selling stock. In August of 2000, the SEC adopted Regulation FD, to address the disclosure of information by publicly traded companies and other issuers. Regulation FD says that when an company has nonpublic information that is known to people who could act on it (buy/sell stocks, etc) the company must make public disclosure of that information, to prevent insider trading and to protect investors from fraud. If Jobs' had died, or been close to death, and those at Apple sold stock before the stock dropped as a result, they would have had an unfair advantage over other stockholders."
So is the reason we have not seen a news release becuase the results of a completed Met Study fall into the category of "nonpublic information"? But as stated above there can be people who have access to this information and could act on it to buy or sell shares. Can you blame underinformed investors for making or drawing possibly negative conclusions as the stock hits .58 after being at .96 in June?

It's all speculation on my part, but watching CIBC unload the stock in a time when Nickel has doubled since April also begs the question..... What is wrong here? Why the sell now? We now know there is a completed Met study sitting on someone's desk somewhere and that SGS Minerals Services has completed their task. Obviously there would be non-disclosure or confidentiality agreements in place for such work.

http://www.inspirationmining.com/news.html?id=83

Yes it's all up in the air as we await the trio of reports.

Cheers