quarterly, page-29

Good debate around an issue of prime significance. I am a long term shareholder, who has lost money by loyalty and belief in this company. The concerns are valid, they are my concerns.

It seems like the complainants have two arguments:
1. get rid of current management and close Perth office and relocate Perth office to Finland, in the process getting rid of most of Perth staff positions.
2. Getting more efficiency out of Finland mining operations by reducing reliance on contractors.

I am not sue that closing the Perth office is in the long term interests of the company, even if it was possible.

Getting rid of management, but then you have to ask what have existing management done fundamentally wrong in their management and marketing of Roseby? What should new management do that the old management didn't do?

As for the mining operations at Outokumpu, O.K. the short term use of contractors does happen in an unpredictable world. They recognise it and will rectify it. I agree totally that mining is occurring with little monetary benefit to the company and nothing to shareholders

Roseby is the key to this company, and I have asked the question before, and have not received an answer, 'what should new management do with Roseby that existing management haven't done?' Changing management may get small increases out of the difficult and marginal mining in Finland, efficiencies are always possible, but the future lies with Queensland and with Roseby, and until something happens there the share price won't fundamentally move.

I believe that we are victims of our own decision making, that we have invested in two marginal copper exploration and mining projects that are market dependent and the market has currently moved against us.

The decision is clear, either you believe market conditions will stay the same or deteriorate, then you sell your shares and get out, or you believe that conditions will improve and you hold on.

For the moment I am doing the latter. I am holding on. But we should keep the pressure on management to show that we are not going to passively accept a losing scenario for our investment.