I am a smaller shareholder that has been on board for six years and have not posted very much as I do not have a lot of knowledge regarding the mineral exploration procedures. (and am not so great at expressing myself). I am not looking for confrontation with this post, only wishing to voice concerns on events that may take place in the near future.
I have followed all the postings and tried to learn a bit as things have evolved. I have relied on postings from such posters such a Glorioux, Brattymack, S. Novice and especially Larry Hoover for objective and knowledgable information. They gave a lot of info that seemed to make GNH a good buy at +.50.
Although we have not had any startling discoveries, results seems to be consistant with the early discoveries and there is a lot of good territory that remains untested. From Hoovs' report of a couple of years ago, there could be a large area of mineralization in this area that may be fairly high grade. The large nuggets that were discovered many years ago in the first gold rush in this area are proof that there is definitely gold in this land. There is no doubt that this property has great possibilities.
I do not know any of the GNH directors personally but they were well regarded by some of the more knowledgable visitors to the operations a couple of years ago and I do not think that they have changed too much in the interm. I believe that this board has been doing everything within its power to prove this property viable for a mine.
They say hindsight is 20 - 20. I am sure that Frank C., many of the directors and staff of GNH and ourselves can think of things we would have done a bit differently had we known where GNH and the markets would be today. We did not have this information and I can certainly not fault anyone for not being able to see or tell the future. I believe it is very unfair to do so.
GNH has changed a couple of directors along the way, but now seem to have a cohesive group that work well together. From what I can gather they are all pretty much task oriented people and as such would probably not tolerate anyone that wasn't pulling their share of the load. This is a good self policeing feature if they are a tight group. I do not believe that we have any idea how much work has been carried out by this board and all the considerations that have taken place behind the scenes to keep up with the declining markets and share prices. As far as Shasha is concerned, I am sure that he is multitasking when not promoting. He didn't get to where he is by sitting around contemplating life.
I am unsure of Earl Takefmans' history, and he may be well educated and intentioned. He certainly writes well and may or may not know a lot about exploration and all the things involved with operations, but I am a bit concerned with the disruptutions that may come about with a lot of confrontational negotiations that seem quite likely to take place if he is in position to assert himself. He seems certain to cause great disruption to the operation of the board and will probably have most directors firmly distracted with concerns of legal retaliation if his wishes are not followed. This has been proven with his past disagreements and dealings with business associates.
We are in what must be a near bottom for P/M's (especially after today), and believe that we do not need any more legal concerns (and fees) disrupting and distracting a well qualified board that is busy trying to cope with staying alive in this market and operate an exploration project. If it seemed that a director had to be added to the GNH board I would rather see someone like Hoov with his objective and cooperative approach take this position than someone that is certain to be in a very disruptive conflict with the rest of the board.
Just my thoughts,
S.
