Yes I got a call too. Getting the vote out I guess. She did ask...

Yes I got a call too. Getting the vote out I guess. She did ask how I will vote.

It actually prompted me to get onto it ... so I voted.

Where we are now, with go it alone a fading distant gaslight, I voted yes as the fastest way to get management focussed on production.

The ratio of SPR to RMS is a done deal ... the shares trade as siamese twins, and would do even if SPR found something huge (and actually announced it )

I doubt the independent expert would make a career ending move to withdraw the recommendation absent a better offer.

Which leaves the vote, particularly the possibility of small holders voting no so the 50% of shareholders voting threshold is not reached.

Unlikely I think, but more likely if there was another discovery which made holders rethink the offer ratio.

Maybe that explains the absolutely extraordinary pivot from drill - announce - travel the world promoting - repeat, to basically crickets. And that is with a 42.5 million drilling budget that most explorers would give a kidney for.

There have been some heroic attempts on here to defend the silence ... but in my book there is no outcome from spending that much on drilling, pro rata, that does not warrant telling us what is going on. Drilling program stalled? Significant. Nothing much found? Significant. Infill drilling confirms expectations? Significant. Delays obtaining assays? Significant. Something, or nothing, from all those targets they told us about - significant. Management going slow because massively conflicted by perverse incentive of the options vesting on takeover? Significant.