Re: D12 #2/George
in response to
by
posted on
Mar 16, 2009 09:12AM
NI 43-101 Update (September 2012): 11.1 Mt @ 1.68% Ni, 0.87% Cu, 0.89 gpt Pt and 3.09 gpt Pd and 0.18 gpt Au (Proven & Probable Reserves) / 8.9 Mt @ 1.10% Ni, 1.14% Cu, 1.16 gpt Pt and 3.49 gpt Pd and 0.30 gpt Au (Inferred Resource)
I believe I was the one to suggest posters as potential BOD members when I mentioned hoov, who subsequently declined owing to his self-professed not qualified status. The comment was to illustrate that I could be persuaded to vote for a member based on my belief in there commitment to accuracy and pursuit of fairness.... an individual who could use this site very effectively to approach investors for their support. This would be new ground being done this way, I believe. It was not, however, a suggestion to form a new BOD from NOT posters. As you state, it would require professionals to do this job, we have had enough of a taste of those acting unprofessionally and do have options. I'm quite certain there are some very experienced individuals who would be ready to (re-)assume a NOT board postion. The ballot is a powerful tool. We don't even have to have a replacement individual in mind to vote a BOD member out as desireable as that would be.