NVA (ASX) General Chat

Originally posted by danbradster: ↑

"But there are also clear markers in our sharprice history where the market has spoken and immediately following management decisions, announcements, the price has dropped. This is not a one off, this is a pattern. Management need to take responsibility for what they have done, not how hard they worked to do it."

What drives the SP up in the short term is not necessarily what is best in the medium term. Eg. accelerating production by 1 year, by cancelling all other exploration and studies. People like nice short timelines (and the SP may rise), but we'd end up with a big problem to solve later if actually wanting to develop the rest of the under-explored project (and the plant design simply not matching the resources later found).

"So easily looks like using precious shareholder funds to invest in yet another unrelated company where the payoff is uncertain. Why not do the work and get the cash so we can invest in our project? (I think I know the answer, but it doesnt change the fact we have $1m less cash to spend on developing what I actually invested in and they got the benefit of not investing cash in their own project) If we wanted to invest in a Coal company we would ask management to do so."

Uncertain, yes. But it's not that different to exploration. You spend millions on exploration as a gamble, which pays off or doesn't. You help a coal project to improve their odds of development - the potential payoff being not only equity, but a boost to the Estelle project's development potential. If it would not be useful to Estelle, then it would be frustrating having investments made into random projects. But it sounds reasonable to me. 'Work' maybe cheaper than 'cash' too, doing some work for them using excess staff capacity, potentially costing us $500k but charging at $1m.

It might have a third benefit - having one more better-developed project in the immediate area gives further justification for the road to exist. Benefits:
Equity.
Non-cash investment.
Potential power source.
Helping the government to better justify the road.

There's probably some synergies out there. Eg. how we share an airstrip with USGold. Other experience and resources may be able to be shared too, for mutual benefit.

An example scenario: we help them to accelerate their project by 6 months, and it doesn't cost us much (charged at $1m, but costing less). The project then has more progress for AIDEA to show off while progressing the road, and only 20 miles from Estelle.

Actually, I think I've located it and it's 34 miles. Still less than the 110 miles to Anchorage.

The access road documents mention it (https://dot.alaska.gov/roadstoresources/assets/WSSARS/WestSusitna_TAR_w_Appendix.pdf):

Expand

Absolutely agree that long term benefits should outweigh short term impacts and I am more than happy to ride the bumps on decisions like ore sorters for instance. I could even be comfortable with this choice, but I am more concerned that decisions such as this, if they are indeed part of a clear long term strategic plan, then there should be no need to be finding these elements under explained in market disclosures or hidden in financial statements.

I dont need every disclosure to be a "headline", in fact I wish there were less attempts to "headline" and more calm and considered choices being made.

I am trying to read the strategic review update in that light, but it comes across as a list of potential "headlines" rather than being bedded in the time-line for development which is what shareholder sreally want to know.

The very fact the time-line has shifted and yet there is no mention of how the Strategic Review has altered the time-line is a failure to address the core concerns of shareholders. Lets not be afraid to talk to the changes (positive or negative), we should gain confidence from the greater understanding and knowing what the drivers are for shifting expectations and changes of focus.