noiprocs mmerd others, page-59

My concerns were raised, if you recollect, when there was the sudden departure of Carson and then followed by Simon Bean.

Carson, if you care to recollect, was awarded a good sum of Options at a very reasonable exercise price, and yet he walked. Why would he have walked and leave his options there to expire if he thought that there was huge money to be made..??? Think about it. We are not talking peanuts there.

The above was posted by someone else. I have a legal question someone might like to answer. You sign a confidentially clause and you find fraud being perpetrated. Now are you allowed or obliged to go to the legally established authorities or does the clause prevent you from trying to obtain justice even through the established legal system and does that clause prohibit you from being a witness in future court cases.

A problem we have is, the alleged underestimation of high grade results in the JORC statement. The company has put out drill core results that clearly do not align with the JORC statement. Native copper is only part of the explanation.

The company asserts the JORC was only to cover the mining licence. Interesting thought that!

I have attended safety meetings with the following companies Ausenco, Rio Tinto, BHPBIO, BP, Worley Parsons and the base rule is "do no harm". Now the most valued worker is the one holding shares.

The fall in the share price was big enough for a worker/shareholder to commit suicide and to break up marriages and deprive children of a proper family to be bought up in. This does not comply with do no harm.

So we have the companies drill reports, we have the JORC report and the question is do they align? Clearly they do not.

In a phone conversation I had with a director months back He said in a JORC anything above 10% in native copper is reduced to 10%. I do not know if this is true or false.

So the company hired a consultant to do the JORC, one would assume the consultant and the company would have had talks as the report progressed.

When the company received the JORC it went to the ASX and as well a two day trading halt was ordered.

Now coms the "DO NO HARM"! To any employee shareholder this would apply. If there were known problems between the methodology used by the company in there reporting of the drill cores and the reporting of the JORC code then there was a responsibility to report to at least the company employee shareholders. If it effect's their health, there is that responsibility to inform and to look after their health. To the shareholders at large there is a responsibility of disclosure.

To this date there has been no disclosure or explanation. There has to be an explanation for this event. There are two issues firstly the problem with the JORC and the reporting of nuggets of copper, secondly the alleged underestimation of high grade results in the JORC statement. This is a simple engineering situation.

If the company were to put out a reasonable explanation of what happened now the flood gates of litigation could open based on that should have been seen coming and a technical explanation given with the JORC. Now if the ASIC rules prohibited an explanation then that should be known.

So since then the top 30 shareholders have purchased 1.338 million shares, purchased possibly at a price 45% lower than the price before the JORC.

In five years time the shares will be worth what they are worth, based on what they dig out of the ground and now will be ancient history.

I could be excused for asking the simple question, Please Wayne what the flaming heck is going on.

I note the mention of CY OConnor, I remember reading once that Mrs Lincon was once asked "aside from that how did you enjoy the opera." It is never a good idea to upset people.