You wrote: "Flambeau on and on etc] ... as clearly they may not be able to read ..." (source: 73749870)
You wrote: "but it's just dealing with maybe air-conditioner IQ levels" (source: 73749870).
Please respond to the bearish analysis thread. I would love to hear your refutations (or lack thereof).A few things...
1) Your first point is summarised by a complaint about people describing things as "lifestyle". Whilst I am relatively new to this stock, this practise is not unique to this hot copper forum, this word is mentioned on almost every active ASX hot copper forum (ironically you do it yourself here: " "lifestyle executives" may apply in a very small number of cases" (source: 73742226). I was fascinated that something like this could be so triggering, so I spent some time to check how prolific it was in the last ~year worth of threads (40+ threads): 73742226, 70706852, 73411502, 73090313, 71292007 etc. Once again, from my perspective, it is no more prolific here than most other active ASX hot copper forums. In my opinion, it sounds to me, like you are trying to build a case for why the management changed the way it did? This point is weak in my opinion.
2) "My resignation was not a response to any dire issue with the company" source: 73742226. I agree. However the framing of this comment seems odd. The stràwman of proposing there was no "dire" issue, then refuting it, is odd to me. Whilst I agree there is no "dire" issue, the problem remains that the "The new majority investors wanted to put their own team in place" and it was "amicably agreed" (your own words). This leads me to believe they were possibly not happy with the current team and wanted their own team, was this due to performance of the drilling or share price? or something else? For example:
ASX:CHK set themselves a challenge:
"HWDD06 is targeting coincident gravity and magnetic anomalieswithin a target zone extending from brecciation and strong haematite and sericite alteration intersected in drill hole CCHWDDH03"Source: 14 Jun 2022, ASX:CHK, Exploration Update - Horse Well, Pernatty C & Warriner Creekhttps://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02531142-3A595349
But then....
"Alteration in HWDD06W1 is consistent with distal IOCG alteration,but not a 'near miss' scenario. A Northwest-Southeast mafic intrusive body intersected in the bottom of the hole possibly represents a major fault,in which case the prospective area may lie to the north of the fault" Source: 31 Oct 2022, ASX:CHK, CHK September 2022 Quarterly Activities Report & Appendix 5Bhttps://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02591866-3A606191But HWDD06W1 is south, why would they say to go north? lol... because HWDD06W1 gave a bad result in my opinion. Speaking of this result,what were the grades of HWDD06/HWDD06W1? Does anyone know? And if not, WHY were these not reported?
Or... were the "majority investors" not satisfied with the response to the ASX Query? (source: 26 Feb 2024, ASX:CHK, Response to ASX Query https://cdn-api.markitdigital.com/apiman-gateway/ASX/asx-research/1.0/file/2924-02777189-3A637344)
When were these shares purchased:"in addition to the shares and options purchased in the $50k challenge". Note: https://www.thespecinvestor.com.au/category/the-50k-challenge/
The page for update 33 has been deleted from the 'blog' ("update 33" has been deleted, I WONDER WHY). If these shares were purchased before 11:27pm 19/02/2024, then does this mean they contradicted the securities trading policy?
According to the Corporate Governance plan 29/09/2021 for ASX:CHK, it states:
"Insider trading is a criminal offence. It may also result in civil liability. In broad terms, a person will be guilty of insider trading if:
(a) the person possesses information, which is not generally available to the market and if it were generally available to the market, would be likely to have a material effect on the price or value of the Company's securities (ie information that is 'price sensitive'); and..."
source: Corporate Governance Plan, 29/09/2021,https://www.cohibaminerals.com.au/our-company/corporate-governance/
3) "When I came on board 4 years ago the share price was at $0.003 and with the help of the team we were able to see that rise to $0.057. Unfortunately, a major sell off saw a lot of this gain disappear quickly of which I was very aware given the vitriolic backlash..." source: 73742226.
You attribute the "vitriolic backlash" to "a major sell off saw a lot of gains disappear quickly", this presumably happened 3+years ago (the scenario you refer to where the share price was $0.057?). How is an incident many years ago relevant or appropriate to discuss now? I think it isn't relevant or appropriate and as someone who should know better about following compliance, are these comments compliant with hot copper's terms of use?
source: https://www.asx.com.au/markets/company/CHK
4) "One of the longest threads "Duster after Duster" causes me a lot of consternation." source: 73742226
If you read the author's stated intention of the name, he is saying it sarcastically. But as for the everything else from this source, yes it causes me consternation also.
However, you go on to say the following: "nor do I believe that these are dusters" source: 73742226 Obviously "duster" is used colloquially here, if we get into the semantics it isn't an appropriate label for anything other than oil/gas (according to the definitions: "Also called duster" https://www.dictionary.com/browse/dry-hole). If you are using the word "these" as all encompassing of all drills to date, then how would you describe HWDD06/HWDD06W1? (what were the grades of HWDD06/HWDD06W1? Does anyone know? And if not, WHY were these not reported?).
5) I see the Canadian assay scenario as a comedy, I believe the users who relentlessly (the relentless) post about the whereabouts of the assays know the assays are probably not from Diamond drilling, and can therefore not mimic a proportional shareprice response upon publishing (in my opinion). In other words, I believe they (the relentless) think it is a failed news catalyst which will bring disappointment once published.
6) This complaining is unprofessional, I find it hard to believe an ASX director or former ASX director would play this violin. Out of the 6 points, two of them are themed around defending the "lifestyle" concept. You say: "I took no time off from the role in the 4 years I was there. I did the role of CEO, Executive Director, geologist, tenement manager and completed on average 70 statutory reports per annum (76 in calendar year 2023 - yes! 1.5 reports per week!)." source: 73742226. That certainly sounds unsustainable, do you know what other companies do instead of complaining about having one worker perform multiple tasks? Employ people. E.g a third party geologist, a secretary of ASX:CHK (which you are required by law to have anyway... and yes I know it can be the same person, the spirit of this statute is lost on most). It might sound like an efficient use of funds, but I bet the academics of unsustainable practice disagrees. I am not impressed, instead I am wondering whether or not the skill of "delegation" was missing here.
---------
I thank you for your honesty, especially for the following comments: "Whilst CHK has not hit an orebody (yet) it has persistent low-grade intersections" (source: 73768321) and "The thing with HW is that it wasn't a total miss" (source: 73768321). To suggest "HW" .. "wasn't a total miss" does not fill me with confidence.
