I voted no to the Remuneration Report the first thing when I...

I voted no to the Remuneration Report the first thing when I received the email.

I don't understand why they are still applying for more new tenements again and again when there is little cash left. The projects(MacCauley, JE, Loray May and so on) they got 3 years ago are not drill ready yet. And there are plenty of targets they have no money to drill. If they cannot find anything in the existing targets, ICG won't exist any more. Why are they still applying new ground which will take years to be drill ready.

I am also interested in how much Rob is collecting as the consultancy fee from the company while he is getting 10% of each of the projects. It's conflict of interest. If I have 10% of the project, my target would be spending as much as I can to advance the project without thinking about the dilution. I remember he said he would like to have the same budget as Rio Tinto. Rio Tinto discovered the Winu as part of the first round of 13 kilometres program. If Rob has the money to drill 5 more holes in Mt Lamb, will he make a tier one discovery there?

As a junior company when they had $16 million cash contributed by the shareholders, they should have progressed an easier / cheaper one (JE or MacCauley) where there are plenty of outcroppings and much shallower than Mt Lamb. These 2 projects were acquired before Mt Lamb.