Sometimes it's better to respond with passion rather than be a robot or disingenuous -but we need to put a line under it and move on.
I cannot see any possible reason to justify withholding such a fundamental and in-depth report from the shareholders of an ASX minnow -especially a minnow in distress (can anyone look in the mirror and say that the information would not be price-sensitive in the market place. This is not the same as a billion dollar company keeping some of it's exploration in-house. This is the jewel in the crown and the single most valuable and important asset owned by OGX. Now we can start to understand it's true value.
Genuine IOCG target no less. Well ...it was not announced to shareholders but published and accessible freely (if you knew about it) -and that has even worse potential implications. It was announced the Anglo performed 12 months of due diligence on site ...were they there even longer?
The evidence seems clear that OGX Brazil have not shared all their geological exploration findings with shareholders of the parent company.
And yet this is their job. For example; where is the data for drill hole CDP_052? This was drilled late 2016 I think (apparently with 3m of mineralisation) ...and still we need to guess it's position (never mind the 30 page multidisciplinary report published in The Brazilian Journal of Geology in 2017 -when the company needed all the help it could get). This report not being released doesn't sit well with me -but I'm not in a position to know all the facts.
Employment contracts surely cover intellectual property.
What other exploration results do shareholders not know about?
In my opinion: At a bare minimum any employees of any company need to show loyalty to their employer and have a fiduciary duty not to engage in any activity that could constitute a conflict of interest. It's a grey area and a slippery slope -just ask the mayors of Ipswich and the Gold Coast. When you are in a position of power, knowledge, responsibility and trust ...you had better keep your nose clean -because you will leave a trail that will catch you eventually.
However,
now is not the time to correct all past wrongs (if any exist), but rather to focus on the job at hand which is to get gold production happening and OGX management need to be given the latitude to address any issues they they see fit.
The company is going through a very exciting (and no-doubt traumatic) period as we await results from many areas, and the new management need our support.
They have been through a very difficult transition after resurrecting the company within days from oblivion, and they have overseen not only a massive increase in the SP, but tangible and meaningful results from recent bulk samples and installation of new hammer-mills as well as exploration initiatives.
I can understand anyone having great mistrust of management of small ASX listed companies in general, especially when we see many lifestyle companies where the CEO is paid hundred of thousands per year without any regard for performance -often with the eventual loss of life savings of the small trusting shareholders.
I believe there are all sorts of backroom deals done between boards and capital-raising brokers to manipulate the share-price and provide excessive performance shares or options. There are situations where major shareholders get to vote for massive remuneration for management -who will then return the favour with private placements to these sophisticated investors at a later date. "You scratch my back ..."
Why is OGX different?
- Our Non-Executive Chairman Joe Pinto receives no salary and therefore is not under influence or obligation from any existing (or established) centre of power from within the company.
- He is the largest private shareholder, and therefore his goals are aligned with those of the company. That would be to maximise value.
- He can suggest/institute making changes as to how the company is run and who runs it without fear or favour. Without his experience, guidance and intervention, I have no doubt we would not be operating.
- Our Managing Director Jeremy Gray is ONLY on $100 G plus performance incentives in the form of shares.
- He has already indicated his desire to control profligate spending (no first-class travel here).
- He recognises the value in the deposits and is well experienced to maximise shareholder value.
- Our COO Richard Crew is ONLY on $80 G plus performance incentives in the form of shares.
- Clearly has grabbed the wheel with both hands when it comes to the concept of "back to basics" and clearly has a focus on performance. I think we are in good hands.
As far as Anglo are concerned ..it's quid quo pro -they bought shares (which they have now made millions on) and they own a share of the company. The lent the company money in return for I'm not sure what exactly ...but at least first bite of the Cascavel Cherry (or a right of refusal perhaps). Some want them in now, some don't (including me). Who cares -lets move on. As Jeremy said it will probably eventually belong to a major ..."but we must ensure shareholder value is maximised first and foremost". I fully concur.
I don't plan to comment on these issues further until we have news, but I do plan to post some more pictures of the recently discovered report showing more of the high-priority targets etc on Google Earth in the mineralisation thread (because it gives some insights). In the meantime -let's allow management to do their job.
Cheers,
SJB
Everything here is my opinion only.
