Possibilities: Positive and Negative, page-19

"....is nothing but pure speculation...."

Well this is the thing, their ASX release earlier this week could have put paid to the "pure speculation".

The fact they didn't address any of the concerns regarding their management of the gold mine, including Radford's 37,000 ounces of gold statement versus HAV's reported 33,432 ounces, says a lot in itself. Every professional manager should know you don't leave things hanging out there unaddressed because that invites speculation. It invites shareholders to fill in the gaps.

Much of the rest of the ASX release reads like self-serving sophistry. As an example the claim that the company has a "net debt position of $0.7 million." Sure, probably technically correct at the time they released it, but what shareholders see is a company with no regular, predictable income that has drawn down $2.5 million that has to pay exorbitant rates on that debt. (Not to mention the options that were issued when taking out that facility).

How did we get there? How are we going to pay it off? This is the sort of situation that brings out the sharks. And its not the requisitioning shareholders that got us here, it's the guys who have been running the company for the last 2 or 3 years.

What also concerns me is this statement from 21/01/19 ASX release:

"The Company has spent many years and considerable financial resources exploring and developing the assets in its portfolio and its immediate priority should be (and is) to monetise those assets rather than continuing to “add one new JORC mineral resource (project) per calendar year” as is suggested in the Shareholder Document. The North Portia divestment is an example of the Company’s serious intent in this regard."

As a shareholder, I look at the Nth Portia deal as an example of what's gone wrong with the company, yet they cite it as an example of future intent.

And, as for me, the days of beatifying St Chris of the Giles are over. The guy gets paid well, he gets his options, he gets his nice little related party transactions. (As an example page 97 of 2018 Annual Report "During the financial year the Group paid $40,000 (2017: $13,000) for 2017 annual report preparation, marketing and public relations support to a related party of Dr Chris Giles")

He's the one who effectively controls the company. I've said it before, when it comes to HAV, all roads lead to Giles. He takes the kudos, he must be prepared to take the brickbats.