M, hi....exactly my sentiments to an absolute 'T', and I...

M, hi....exactly my sentiments to an absolute 'T', and I mentioned this in my email to VT, to the effect I was comfortable to throw in my modest holdings, but on the proviso that Bots interests (both in and out of the JV areas) not be rashly thrown away for something of new mineral style and/or cannabis based, but that I felt the new (if any) introductions should back up the current Bots holdings and not be totally at their expense. I emphasised my feeling is that the present areas are well undervalued and the non JV areas have much potential,  anomalous even for gold.

I was as bold as to suggest even if a compromise was reached or a wholesale BOD removal did follow, some progress could be made. I have stated many times money should be wisely used on some or any form of worthwhile prospecting/cheaper percussion drilling etc. not just on salaries, admin etc. We have a geologist Groves, seems quite good, lets see some concrete effort to use the areas we now have, while also and at the same time by all means coming up with new prospects where they may be value accretive,....to this end we must bear in mind SI6 have a number of areas NOT included in the JV, and work should be done on these. We have permission from the Dept to continue work on the JV areas pending completion of the liquidation procedure, but I fully realize the BOD would be wary of spending much on the JV areas till they know where things are headed, and I think that is prudent, but do something with the areas divorced from the JV liquidator debacle until it's sorted.

The JV areas have recorded consistent palladium readings of worthwhile value given palladium's price today, and cobalt recurs widely in many holes. The Dibete and Airstrip copper/silver results were excellent, There is no reason to think similar results will not be found outside the JV areas. No point in just thinking "shell company" as SI6 is far better than that....proactive management of limited cash resources is the main thing we need. Don't be in a rush to throw the baby out with the bath water.

Someone the other day posted that the move to sell "unmarketable" lots was a good idea....subject to the provisos above Von's idea has a good amount of merit.....these related transaction moves are cloudy at best, will save little money, and at worst may result in one group having gained a block of shares carrying with it a substantial voting interest at a measly price.

I have been in this one for an age,  and no one has to listen to or heed my views, but like everyone else who holds I am able to put forward my rationale to try to protect my situation.
This comparison is way over the top, but if Neville Chamberlain had seen the obvious instead of proclaiming "Peace in our time", we probably would not have had  world war two. To go on and on doing nothing is not the answer to firing up SI6. The money runs out, another cap raise follows, then another consolidation follows as night follows day, and holders face a wipe out. At the very least there will be another suite of holders whose parcels become "unmarketable" again. How do we avoid this or at least put SI6 in a position to be able to raise further funds at a reasonable price? By using remaining funds to improve the company, not just to subsidize more of what we have had for too long now.

Regards to all.....apologies for lengthy post.  

.