Trading volume and interest, page-29

Well your focus was wrong. It was pretty clear from NMDC's media response they were thoroughly unimpressed that the technology was not proved enough and that the company had not made profits in all the time of negotiation. I also stated as such, from time to time, that in negotiations the companies that had significant income had much more leverage because deal or no deal they would still keep existing. I also stated that not having a profitable company was not compelling proof of the merits of the products.

You might argue differently, but that doesn't matter to the people you are dealing with, especially when you had expected them to commit significant capital. Capital the Indians are famous for not giving easily.

Bacchus Marsh upgrades were planned (at least twice) in those years so its at odds with your statement of India focus. Why plan them in a number of years if the focus is not there? I had also asked this previously and the response was that upgrades would commence when the sales met the need to do so. Honestly, that's a fair response, when sales are adequate you upgrade. However, now you have changed tact with a, 'build it and they will come', approach. This too is fair enough however the significant capital the company once had is gone. Not good at all - especially for shareholder value.

Quite frankly you could have just as easily completed these upgrades when you had significant capital instead of spending the dollars. Dollars that were spent on intangible works that gave the company, from what I can see, not a lot of additional capital assets. Sure these assets depreciate, but they don't immediately disappear as most of the dollars have done. Now you need to do a CR which, in my opinion, significantly increases the shares on register and put significant inertia on the share price.