Hey Spec. I hope I am wrong about the team and production. My...

Hey Spec. I hope I am wrong about the team and production. My personal preference is for a team that chew gum and walk across the room at the same time, not “lets finish the gum then cross the room, we wouldn’t want to trip with a mouthful of gum”.

(I also prefer the chair of the board and the MD to not be the same person.)

I appreciate the counter argument, but I am not persuaded.

Thinking aloud about risk. There seems to be a view that a merger with RMS would reduce risk. Maybe not.

Risk isn’t always common sense. The example often given: why not make that twin engine jet aircraft safer by adding a third engine? The plane can fly on one engine of course, and the risk of two engines failing independently is vanishingly small. But when an engine does fail it can do so in a way that takes out the whole plane. So all adding a third engine would do is buy another ticket in the “engine fails and takes out the plane” lottery, while adding essentially zero safety because jet engines are insanely reliable and two failing on one flight independently will basically never happen (engines failing for a common cause would of course take out however many engines you had).

I see bolting RMS onto SPR the same way. I swallowed the really good deposit and good mill narrative … I recall being assured the mill was being regularly turned over and ready to turn back on again … but now think shareholders are being gaslighted about mill preparations by a board looking for the easy win of a takeover or merger. I am sure that works for many, but I want the team to deliver the really good mill processing a really good deposit, hopefully for decades, that was implied. If I wanted RMS I would have bought some, and I fear cobbling the two companies would be risky. "Synergy" gets thrown around too casually, but that is just IMHO of course.

But I am often wrong. My sentiment is still “hold”.