Mine Develooment Director Required?

So having watched the WW video, the one thing that jumped out at me, probably the most, was having ‘spare change from $100m’, to get the lithium plant in production.

Im in the mining game, and believe you me, $100m might sound like a lot to the average person, but for a mining operation, its literally peanuts, especially for a commodity that is extremely hot and is likely to have a disruptive change to the way we live our lives now and in the future. Now I know I am getting a head of myself as there are still runs that need to be scored here, but considering the high grade large tonneage deposit we have, and how it needs to fund only $100m, that tells me the chances of going into production are even higher than I originally thought… its basically a low risk play, that I would expect to be scalable as im sure there would need to be scope to allow for upside if this beast of a thing continues to grow, which is looking more likely by the day.

So, as I am of the assumption that we have the assets in the ground, the question is, do we have the assets at the Board level to be able to execute if we are ridgy didge. I suspect having adequate board skills is a standard DD compliance check for anyone sniffing around for collaboration. I know we all have different perspectives and opinions which is absolutely fine, but here are my views

Considering the pivotal period we are in now, Id prefer to be honest, not to have a massive shakeup of Directors so that we can show internal strength (unlike the Australian government) prior to establishing some sort of deal. IMO, whilst winton might not be the ideal man, I think he is good enough to remain chairman as he has a corporate finance background and has access to capital markets, including Chinese, check out DXS as an example. Winton was also able to present solidly as evidenced the other day and I must take my hat off to him as he doesn’t back away from answering disgruntled shareholders. I do rate that in a person as a personal side note. Im basically saying, as a front man, Winton could fit the bill especially if his focus then turns on promoting the company around his capital connections, as that 'front man'

Hugh Bresser has a Geo background and is a good counterbalance to kevin I suspect. I know Kevin is gun, he was a massive influence on my original investment decision, but there is a risk that leaving him unchallenged could lead to heightened geological risk, albeit I suspect low. So I am ok for Hugh to stay on, especially if we have a lot of exploration programs that need to be run…. And we do….

Kevin, well, to me, he is the man… however, he is the man to find whats in the ground, he is the detective, the sniffer dog, the truffle finder, the one to find whats in the ground… I would personally want to see kevin spend most of his time managing the exploration programs (of both lithium and gold) as we all know theres plenty more work to do there because we keep finding more! and if kevin keeps doing so, kevin is controlling growing the assets in the ground and because he is that good, I personally don’t want him to stop what he was ‘born to do’.. we really are very very lucky to have him…. which leads to my next point…

All is good to have awesome stuff in the ground, which we do, and itslikely to grow much more, but we do not have anyone with prior experience in EXECUTING a mine from scoping study to DFS, Construction, Commissioning all the way through to running at nameplate capacity. I, as I am sure many else here, are soooo keen on BGS, I think we need to start warming up to more additions at the board level, I mean sheeeeet, we only spend 55k per month on overheads so there is room… I will be stating this at the AGM. If we are going into production, and are completely serious, we NEED someone with a mining development background, because like my opening sentence to this post, its nice to have spare change from $100m but if you don’t have the right people on board who have done this, know the risks, the right controls to put in place to control costs, the right DD committees to have, the right contractual arrangements, technical expertise, contacts etc etc…. well you might end up blowing $100m right out the door and there goes the dilution etc etc etc… there goes unhappy JV partners, lawyers, fees, time wasting etc etc…

I am happy for the current board to continue personally, but BGS needs to start looking at growing a long with the company… and by growth, we need to grow into what we are going to become…. And that may certainly be a producer… so if we are serious, we need someone who can get us there with as minimal risk to protect the investment decision ($100m)…. I hope we are working in the background to locate such a person, because as we all know, you can have the right assets in the ground, but if you don’t have the right assets managing the business, good luck to you.

Anyways, these are just my ramblings, but $100m ?? I think some of the Chinese, downstreamers, SOE’s or the like, could literally fart that out and not even notice. If we get taken over, well, we want to do this from a position of greatest strength also, and I think having that person in place would aid in doing so, so bringing on the right calibre person, really is a win/win for me at least.

I respect others views so understand that we may not all agree here, but the above is my position believed to get max value with as minimal risk. I think we all keep our eyes open for some good candidates.

Looking forward to what is likely going to be a fantastic AGM!

Have a good weekend all. Looking for do losing our JORC virginity! I'm a bit nervous hahaha.