Hi @LordFox, AQX is not a company I follow, however I would note a few points. 

1. The first is that they are a tiny $16 million company that are exploring for gold and copper on islands in the Torres Strait, off the coast of Australia's Northern Territory. These islands are relatively remote and the costs of exploration are higher, as would be the costs of developing a mine and operating a mine, should they ever get that far.
2. The second is that they need more cash.  They did have a JV (joint venture) with St Barbara (SBM) but SBM withdrew from that JV in March.  Without a larger cashed-up partner, they will need to keep doing capital raisings to keep advancing their projects.  Further Viewing on AQX's reaction to SBM's decision to withdraw from their JV can be found here.
3. They have just had one of their non-executive directors (Patrick Gowans) resign from (quit) their board this week to concentrate his efforts on other interests.  He also happened to be their Chairman, so their board currently does not have a Chairman.
4. The only board member at AQX with any serious AQX shares is their MD, Andrew Buxton, who owns 62m shares plus another 17.9m options, however he owns less than 5% of the shares on issue (previously 6.17% before he was diluted to below 5% by a recent placement they made - in May).  His total holding (shares, not options) is currently worth less than $800K.  Dale McCabe, who is an Executive Director at Alice Queen, owns 14m options, but no shares so far.  The other directors do not own any significant quantities of shares or options.
5. A new director doesn't turn them into anything.  He or she would just add further experience and industry connections to their board, hopefully, if they get the right director to agree to join them.  What they need is exploration success and lots of cash.

Positive things to look out for would be M&A (mergers and acquisitions) activity, increased ownership by Substantial Shareholders, and positive exploration results. 

Datt Capital increased their ownership of AQX from 7.73% to 9.55% last month - as a result of Datt participating in the $1.8m placement that diluted AQX's MD (Andrew Buxton) out of the Substantial Holders list.  Datt Capital purchased those new shares last month (in the placement) for 1.3 cents each - and they also received 1 attaching unlisted option for every 2 shares they purchased, with an exercise price of 3 cents and maturity of 2 years from the date of issue (i.e. options expire in May 2023).  The AQX SP had ranged from 2 cps down to 1.4 cps for the month prior to that placement announcement.  They closed today at 1.2 cps, so you can't buy them here on Strawman.com in your virtual portfolio, as there is a 2 cps minimum here.  Datt Capital are generally thought of as being smart investors at the more speculative end, and they have had some good success with a number of their investments, but not all of them have been profitable.  Datt are the largest shareholders in AQX (with 9.55%) and they're also the ONLY substantial shareholders (meaning those that own 5% or more of the company) that have actually increased their exposure to AQX over the past 12 months. Others have either sold down, or been diluted by capital raisings.

Something to keep in mind is that because Datt had already invested $1m in AQX prior to May's placement, it is in their best interests to see AQX continue as a going concern, particularly when AQX's JV partner (SBM) had just walked away from the JV and left AQX to go it alone.  Datt would therefore be more inclined to tip some more money in with the hope that Alice Queen might be able to find something better or attract another JV partner or some M&A attention before they run out of money again.  When a current substantial shareholder tips more money in to a struggling company it is very often because they are trying to salvage something from a situation where they might end up with a 100% loss on their investment if the investment calls in the receivors because they've run out of cash.  In other words, something is better than nothing, and sometimes you have to tip more money in to keep the "something" dream alive.  Because the alternative could well be "nothing" (i.e. company goes broke, quietly folds, as over 90% of similar companies do eventually).

While I have highlighted a number of the more obvious negatives here @LordFox, there COULD be a number of positives.  However, as an investor (you said you hold), if I was you, I'd be looking for third party endorsement of the potential, rather than trusting and believing the company's own management and board members, who are likely to very biased towards the company.  I do not and would not "invest" in a company like this.  That doesn't mean they won't become a 10-bagger from here.  They might.  However the risks of them going lower, and eventually broke, are too high for my liking.  I do not like the risk/reward trade off or ratio here.  If they last long enough, the next thing they are likely to do is announce a share consolidation.  And further capital raisings.  Sorry about the negativity, but it's all based on prior experience with very similar companies, in which I lost plenty in my earlier years.  Lessons learned.  I want much better odds of success than this company appears to have before I would look at them any further.

Hope that helps.