Ann: Never Never and Pepper deliver exceptional assays, page-71

I do think that is the role of shareholders, same as the role of the board and management is to try and maximise shareholder value and I am conscious that as a retail holder my vote doesn't count for much, but it does still count.

I don't think anyone is talking about rolling management here not even undaunted but doesnt mean we should be questioning things. I would also point out that I am not unhappy with management here and think they have done an amazing job to date overall, but that doesn't mean we shouldn't be asking questions or trying to hold them accountable.

In terms of the royalty and the director KPI's, I agree we were in between a rock and a hard place at the time the original agreement was done for financing. However when the time came to vote on these items months later NN had been significantly proven up and we were no longer in that wedge. The financiers took on that agreement knowing that the royalty was subject to a vote and whilst was a high probability of going through was not a sure thing and had a possibility to be voted down. The financiers also made significant returns from the shares they acquired by providing that funding. An independent expert report also found that the issue of the royalty was not fair or reasonable at the time the vote occurred yet the board still recommended and supported it. Coincidentally at the same time the royalty vote occurred management were pushing through their KPI shares which needed the support of the major holders to get through. A number of these KPI's had already been achieved by the time the vote occurred and whilst justification was provided by management on why, the bottom line is management were given free shares based on parameters that were largely achieved at the time the KPI's were approved. So basically the larger shareholder got management support for their royalty and management got the support from the financiers for the KPI's, in my opinion both were to the detriment of other holders (as a result of lost future profit and dilution respectively).

I know numerous other holders also questioned this and pointed it out at the time of the vote.

I think the forum on SPR is very useful and there's a huge volume of detailed analysis and hypothecating that goes on which is great and i enjoy reading through it. I also enjoy the counter side of things because it holds me accountable in how i see my investment and keeps me honest instead of thinking everything is going to the moon. My point was simply that an alternative and critical viewpoint in the forum isn't necessarily a negative thing or representative of someone hating on the stock.


@Joelstar I am aware of that but considering the circumstances thought it may have been a prevalent defensive strategy to keep the rigs spinning and the news flow going. Surely they have enough information and potential targets to keep going, i know a lot of people on here have drawn a lot of X's on maps of targets which don't seem unreasonable i.e. below WW, 4P, pepper etc? If the MRE drops as expected or better with a significant component converted to reserve as we hope then that is a major derisking event for a potential acquirer and so I would prefer that there was continuing news flow coming afterwards as rapidly as possible to maintain our current upward trend and defend against any TO or low ball offer.