Firstly, I went back to the announcement of the feasibility study on the Hismelt plant in Saudi Arabia. They used the word Feasibility Study but in the same highlights section they said the study would be expedited and completed by the end of 2023.
Therefore, there was clear error in terminology around this announcement which is concerning in itself.
Now the sentiment seems to be that this was a deliberate misleading statement. The fact that they provided the ludicrously short time frame for said FS meant that I interpreted it not a full feasibility, but rather an incorrect use of terminology.
I personally really don't think that you can say it is misleading when the error in terminology was relatively obvious, and indeed gave an insight to the time lines and therefore levels of accuracy of said FS.
They have now provided an appropriate timeline of 2-3 years to complete a scoping study, and then Feasibility Study on a Saudi Hismelt plant.
They also subtly changed their narrative around the study, and their explanation that it was for the purpose of evaluating broad commercial economics of the proposal for the Saudi investors, is the most logical.
The clear focus for the Company and the only way forward for the SP is for the Company to obtain funding and off takes on the 68% Fe start up.
I personally don't believe that the Saudi Hismelt study (be it FS or Engineering Study) is a short-term catalyst for the Company other than freeing up the potential for Saudi investment in the earlier stages of Buena Vista development.
I know that you feel mislead and betrayed but I think it is more a case of naivety and lack of mining people on the Board.
I do not see the record of mining development success from the current Board members.
I do see a constant pushing out of ad hoc announcements have mixed messages, muddled timelines and cause total confusion for shareholders. Trying to work out what their actual plan is like some cryptic crossword open to any number of conclusions and riddled with basic errors.
This reflects poorly on the Board generally, but Management cannot hide behind the Board.
However, everything in their cryptic narrative has been about financing and developing phase 1 at BV.
Therefore, the next 2-3 months will be make or break for that proposal particularly given the impact of weather on development timetables.
I would suggest that calling a meeting at this time (which takes two months) would create enough uncertainty to put financiers on edge.
I also quite bluntly doubt that you would get the votes to win unless you had a well credentialed, high profile replacement Board in waiting.
And if you did win you will miss the opportunity to have a chance at starting 2024 due to the winter.
I don't have an answer for you on the US exchange issue that you raise, other than to say I personally disregard which exchange we are going onto as a significant factor.
Having personally run companies dual listed in Australia, UK, South Africa and Canada, I do know that this is not a magic bullet and it will only work if they can get things moving at BV and have value adding announcements.
Therefore in regard to your question on how long we should wait, I think that we have no alternative but to wait until the end of April from a commercial sense. Hopefully this discontent will bring a sense of urgency to management.
As I said earlier any proposed Board coup requires a strong alternate Board proposal, will be negative to Company both commercially in trying to fund BV and for market perceptions, and is unlikely to succeed on numbers. Remember they can do a placement at these low prices to friendly parties so it is really only a wrecking motion, borne out of frustration.
The Board needs independent Directors of sufficient mining background to progress the project and remove any weak links at Board and management level.
Magnum is a December year end Company and therefore traditionally holds it AGM in late May each year.
Therefore, you could find and then nominate a suitable Director or Directors to seek election at the AGM. One of the Directors should be up for re-election each year so that is a way to harness shareholder support to effect real change.
I share many concerns on the issues you raise I just see a different perspective which hopefully you will consider. I am getting old now but I have found that focusing on winning small battles is easier than worrying about the whole war. I trust that this alternate proposal may be of interest
