Share
3,014 Posts.
lightbulb Created with Sketch. 195
clock Created with Sketch.
16/02/18
15:59
Share
Originally posted by RooBendigo
↑
I think we can agree that we should leave geology to geologists, mining to mining engineers, and metallurgy to metallurgists.
Where we part company is on this notion that there is natural order of things in which only metallurgists can run mining companies. Someone should have told Lang Hancock, or Kerry Harmanis. It is a theory we can test against evidence; I maintain that successful mining company directors and MDs have come from a range of professional backgrounds, and the same can be said for unsuccessful ones. I don't think it helps to base decisions on confected nonsense.
Dixon, Grammer and Fitton built Kin. Something to be aware of when you buy shares in Kin, because they and their close associates still control, by my guess, 50 million shares aka votes, probably more. Now between 50 million and 80 million votes have been cast at Kin general meetings in the past so they already have 50% of the likely votes cast, even if a turnout was an unprecedented 100 million votes. There are really no large institutional holders, and it is probably no accident that no major holders have emerged from any of the capital raisings. These guys have always made it very clear that their aim was develop a mine, and they invited shareholders to join them, on the understanding that they intended to keep control of the project. Personally I liked that about Kin, and I like the record of achievements of these guys over the years.
Others might prefer a company run by Lawyers, accountants, or metallurgists. Fair enough, but if that was true I can't imagine why on earth you would have bought Kin shares.
Expand
Originally posted by RooBendigo
↑
I think we can agree that we should leave geology to geologists, mining to mining engineers, and metallurgy to metallurgists.
Where we part company is on this notion that there is natural order of things in which only metallurgists can run mining companies. Someone should have told Lang Hancock, or Kerry Harmanis. It is a theory we can test against evidence; I maintain that successful mining company directors and MDs have come from a range of professional backgrounds, and the same can be said for unsuccessful ones. I don't think it helps to base decisions on confected nonsense.
Dixon, Grammer and Fitton built Kin. Something to be aware of when you buy shares in Kin, because they and their close associates still control, by my guess, 50 million shares aka votes, probably more. Now between 50 million and 80 million votes have been cast at Kin general meetings in the past so they already have 50% of the likely votes cast, even if a turnout was an unprecedented 100 million votes. There are really no large institutional holders, and it is probably no accident that no major holders have emerged from any of the capital raisings. These guys have always made it very clear that their aim was develop a mine, and they invited shareholders to join them, on the understanding that they intended to keep control of the project. Personally I liked that about Kin, and I like the record of achievements of these guys over the years.
Others might prefer a company run by Lawyers, accountants, or metallurgists. Fair enough, but if that was true I can't imagine why on earth you would have bought Kin shares.
Expand
I would disagree with DH's comment that there are only 3 people in this country that can successfully oversee the design and construction of a gold plant .........that simply is not true !
There are many individuals either acting as independent consultants (similar to DS) and within a niche group of companies that do this all of the time. Quite often that niche group of professionals are hired by that niche group of companies regularly on a contract basis and circulate between them . Those companies ultimately rely on metallurgical results from the client to drive the plant design.
A few of the companies that immediately come to mind are GR Engineering , Ausenco , Sedgman , Lycopodium , etc. , etc.
Your reference to Lang Hancock and others is a little misguided imo as they no doubt engaged the right people at the right time as those companies transitioned . Hopefully the 245D proposers had that base covered before making their move.
We are now in a trading halt so should have some answers soon to halt the shock wave created this week among shareholders.
My opinion only and GLTAH.