where is the technical expertise?, page-7

NavyGulf,

I take your point about needing legal expertise, but I think one lawyer would have been enough for running WWI (and maybe likewise for running Australia, but don't get me started...)

Your idea, that WWI might be delaying the hiring of geological/mining/etc expertise until it's needed, seems like a reasonable strategy in principle. However, I'd argue that WWI have already taken major decisions that are the province of mining engineers and geologists, such as the method of mining. It doesn't make sense to me for WWI to decide make-or-break technical issues like that based on passing inputs from relatively disinterested consultants.

In short, I think a mining engineer and geologist should have been on-board by now, yet such appointments aren't even being mooted. Of course, such an appointment(s) could be made overnight, and if that happens, I, and perhaps others, will be more likely to buy in. Conversely, any ongoing unexplained failure to achieve an appropriate technical skill set in-house would seem (to me) to be not only damaging in itself, but also an indication of severely flawed management skills. To put that last point another way; the fact that lawyers (obviously) aren't trained as mining engineers or geologists may be less important than the fact that they aren't trained as managers, in such skills as delegation.

Just my opinion, but I'm content for now to await some appropriate progress in recruitment by WWI.

Grav