Hi McHale, good to hear from you!
Yes, various members of the group have tried (and continue to try) to communicate with mgmt but even though our group has a considerable shareholding, our experience is that we barely get paid lip service to let alone serious consideration of the issues we raise (including the issues raised in the post above that you refer to).
Therefore we'd be delighted if other SH have a go too!
A word of caution though - we all have to be careful as some of the responses from mgmt can be very misleading imo.
An example of this concerns an issue that we've been banging on about with mgmt for a few years now. We became aware that a lot of the early assays done by WMC weren't tested for Cobalt as back in the day, cobalt wasn't considered important. Copper Strike put out an ASX ann about this in 2010 (8 years ago) suggesting that more work be done on the cobalt non-assays as a priority.
Given that just about every hole since then has had good grades of cobalt, we wanted mgmt to make the market aware that the likely total cobalt resource was much bigger than previously reported (i.e. bigger than the 60,000 t reported in the JORC). We suggested applying an average cobalt grade across all holes to the (many) WMC holes that weren't tested for Cobalt.
In short, nothing happened for a couple of years so when one of the group suggested to the MD, Hamish Collins that if mgmt wouldn't update SH then we would write to all SH with what we considered to be this very important and necessary information.
We received this email back in early January this year:
"In regard to your query below I note that a new Resource is due shortly and this Resource supersedes any historical Resource. The reason for this is that it incorporates all data, including the 2017 holes (44 holes for approx. 6,428m), which enables the Resource geologist to set mineral wireframes based on a combination of, amongst others, appropriate cut offs, stratigraphic /lithological host, depth of oxidation and proximity to the Fish River Fault.
Due to the geological continuity and increased data level over the years, the historical WMC holes which were not assayed for cobalt will be captured in the Resource modelling and where possible an appropriate cobalt grade will be utilised depending upon surrounding information".
So after a couple of years, finally we thought yes, mgmt is going to do the right thing by SHs!
Finally, there would be a total resource update including the missing cobalt assays on the WMC holes, that we the SH had identified and pushed to be communicated! (and, not surprisingly, having tried to convince mgmt to do this for such a long period of time, some of the group took this opportunity to significantly increase their holdings).
HOWEVER, when the resource upgrade was announced on 24/1/18, i.e. 20 days later, after this email, unbelievably, it was not what Collins had said in the email and was in fact a resource downgrade only covering a small subsection of the overall Walford Creek resource.
Now, I regard this as misleading and deceptive and very poor corporate governance.
Previously we had a 72mt resource; now after this downgrade it's only 15.7mt? In the old resource we had 60kt of Cobalt and now, instead of more cobalt as expected, we have 43kt and similarly, before had 296kt of Copper and now 194kt.
When I again queried how this could be, I received an ambiguous response from Hamish Collins and then received a copy of an email sent by Director and Company Secretary, Steve Lonergan to Hamish Collins and Paul Harris on 29/1/18: "Hamish, Good response. I think on reflection on the weekend that we should stick with what has been released and not add anything."
I wonder if you reading this are as concerned as I am about the conduct of the Board?
Here we have a situation where, in my opinion, the email from Hamish Collins and subsequent resource downgrade was misleading and deceptive. Then, instead of correcting the misinformation, the Board decide to try to protect their position and stay silent.
Is this acting in the best interests of all shareholders?
I leave it for you to decide.
SH should also be aware that imo the Board cannot be considered to be considered to be independent. Indeed, the Chairman, Paul Harris, accepted a consultancy arrangement from the largest SH and creditor, OCP (and then wouldn't be transparent and provide the details of this when we asked (until eventually, we believe, the ASX intervened and there was an ann many months later).
Now we regard this as quite unusual and perhaps explains what we perceive to be a lack of good corporate governance by the Board.
Yes, McHale, we would welcome some help so that all SH can work together to finally see realistic value from the increasingly world class Walford Creek resource!
Expand
