Filbee, Good to hear from you, and good question.Skin in the...

Filbee, Good to hear from you, and good question.

Skin in the game is good – especially for a Non-Executive Director

As muroran says, Jason Macdonald has skin in the game. At last report he held over 15.5 million shares, which I think is more than the combined total of the other 2 directors plus, importantly, former MD Mick Wilson, who has been at Helix for a very long time as a full time executive and who I would have expected him to hold the most - but he's far from it.With Jason's Top 10 shareholding I can't imagine he's dragging the chain and coupled with his experience and skills I voted for him.Here's a bit more background.

Negative sentiments must hit the right target

Helix is an enigma.Its share price has woefully underperformed despite high-potential assets.The reasons to me are clear: it has failed to properly address its problems and to get after its exploration program sufficiently, quickly enough and, it seems to me, in a disciplined enough way that engenders market confidence and is most likely to find early success.

I've looked at Helix carefully for years and I'm sure Jason is not part of those ongoing problems, which unfortunately have resurfaced somewhat after promising early signs of a reset following the announcement of 12 March 2020 re Board and management changes.

Ongoing problems are costing us money, while the gold and copper booms risk passing us by if we don't get stuck into drilling our acreage and promptly reporting the results.We take too long to get started – some prime targets still are undrilled with no plan that I've heard to get after them - then we take too long to drill and then to report assay results. The excuse seems to be a lack of money but the actions don't engender market confidence, especially reporting and timeliness.I wish someone would do a fair comparison of Helix's performance on some of those metrics with other small caps.

It would be a mistake to not support Jason M, out of frustration with the above.I also wouldn't want to distract attention from where the accountabilities should lie as how do we get improvement then? Plus, it would be an 'own goal' to vote down someone with important skills and experience, as he has.

I don't have the Helix Job Descriptions or timesheets but I'll bet London to a brick that Helix's obvious ongoing shortcomings in those areas are not the accountability of any Non-Executive Director (including the well-regarded, also part-time, Tim Kennedy).Serious concerns about our exploration (but not our acreage) are a common theme. A friend sold out completely – millions of shares - in frustration about this issue.I won't go into details here.Others have told me they still won't buy Helix for similar reasons.This cannot continue. It's clearly, IMO, not a Non-Exec. Director issue.

Helix must properly test the potential of its acreage, and immediately because it has alot of catch-up to do.That does not just mean a few holes here or there when pressed, reported belatedly to make it worse. Exploration has to be driven by someone who really knows their stuff,who is organized and disciplined, who will get after it, will report when reasonably expected, thus earning market confidence = less dilution on future raisings and so on.

I think you've got a sense of how good our acreage is; in addition to the gold, think of all that copper ground – not just Collerina –but along trend from Collerina, with gossans at surface – undrilled for goodness sake. Like much of our gold acreage. Grrr!