Hi there Richo123,There is definitely a concern regarding...

Hi there Richo123,

There is definitely a concern regarding relevant expertise at SGQ.

DIRECTORS:

John Prineas (Executive Chairman) Background - Comercial Law and Finance;
John Dawson (Non executive Director) Background - Finance;
Sarah Shipway (Non executive Director) Background - Finance.

EMPLOYEES:

Dave O'Neill (Project Manager) Background - Geologist Mining - Exploration

CONSULTANTS:

Charles Wilkinson (Technical) Background - Geologist Mining
Ben Pollard (Geologist) Background - Geologist Mining
Newexco (geophysical) Background - WA drillers
Entech

The obvious concern is the absence of mining expertise at Director level. The Executive Chairman is reliant on the expertise of the Project Manager and the role of consultants would be managed by the Project Manager in conjunction with the EC.

The second concern is the absence of Start Up mining experience. This is particularly relevant to the Stricklands debacle regarding the Canadian testing; Entech's drill out of Stricklands; The Scoping Study and the Initial JORC estimate.

I don't know if SGQ will do anything to address these types of concerns unless pressed by significant share holders. I say this because it is unlikely that the Directors will admit the lack of expertise at their level is a need for concern. Additionally, they will probably remain content to have the EC manage the Project Manager and Consultants.

There is not a significant block of major shareholders who are likely to make a move regarding Board composition. Perhaps they might look at Employee capability regarding start up mining experience. That would be a starting point at the very least.

I know many SH's are hoping the late January drilling delivers results that turn the SP around and I hope for their sake that a significant intersection/s are encountered. However, the reality remains that SGQ do not appear to have the organisational capability to deliver shallow mining at Stricklands and Investigators. The shallow mining was touted as an alternative to raising capital through additional equity raising. There is no doubt in my mind that SGQ will need lots of cash and soon if they are to survive as a viable exploration company at MA and Patersons.

I have not made this post with any ramping intentions. My objective is simply to state things as I currently see them both in relation to existing operations and the future of the company. After being a shareholder for more than five years with, at times an investment of circa $35K, I made a balanced decision to exit SGQ based on the rationale outlined above. I have moved this money into companies that I believe are well placed to realise SP gains.

All the best to everyone and I hope SGQ makes structural changes that are focused on start up mining.

Cheers
Mulac1