Letters to the Editor Flippant remark threatens flow-through

I read, with considerable concern, the ill-advised reference to flow-through funding in E. A. Schiller’s column in your Jan 11/88 issue.

I particularly disliked the term “fairy godfather” as applied to the various flow-through share funds. At a time when the future status of such funds is being critically appraised by the federal authorities, a flippant phrase, such as the above, serves to put this entire methodology of raising mineral exploration funds in a very poor light. Such a comment in an internationally read mining paper can, in part, counteract the positive facts and arguments that have been put forth in favor of the retention of the flow-through share funding mechanism.

The other reference of “high cost projects” is, of course, a relative phrase and can, with certain reservations, be applied to virtually any area in Canada removed from existing infrastructure. The approach, efficiency and conscientiousness of the particular exploration com pany’s management determines, ultimately, the cost of exploration — the geographic location being only one of many factors.

Recently, I have been afforded the privilege of reviewing Noble Peak Resources’ field programes, for 1986 and 1987, which have been conducted through the use of flow- through funding. The amount of work accomplished, and the exploration progress made by this company, for the money available, is exemplary and, I would suggest, illustrates the positive aspect of the flow-through share mechanism. Calgary, Alta.