Hi there le88, I can't agree with your contention that the...

Hi there le88,

I can't agree with your contention that the consent of WSA is needed for a decision to mine.

The decision to mine will be a decision of the SGQ Board of Directors. When that decision is made, WSA will have choices in relation to its 25% joint venture holding in E29/638.
Some of those choices are:
1. WSA can agree with the decision and become a henceforth contributor to the relative costs (subject to any memorandum details in the original agreement);
2. If WSA agrees with the decision to mine, it may seek a proportionate position on the SGQ Board;
3. WSA may seek to increase its proportion of the JV in relation to E29/638
4. If WSA does not agree with the decision to mine or does not wish to become a contributor under the JV agreement, it may seek to withdraw from the JV.

WSA might also, if interested in launching an SGQ TO, conduct DD.

Of course, there will no doubt be much discussion between WSA and SGQ in the lead up to a decision to mine. However the ultimate decision will rest with the BoDs of SGQ.

Of interest is this quote from JP's letter to SHs that accompanied the AR.
"Our strategy is to establish a low‐cost, high‐margin mining operation at Mt Alexander – initially to mine the
Stricklands deposit and then rolling out the same model to the shallow high‐grade deposits at Investigators
and Cathedrals. The early results from this scoping work are highly encouraging."

The lead up work is well and truly underway and an initial decision to mine will, more than likely, be at Stricklands and that decision could be as early as Q1 in 2021.
ALIMO of course.

Cheers
Mulac1