pulp mill invalid, page-156

Gambers

In all fairness it is correct what you say about 2000/2001 GNS thinnings but my understanding is that these are very small projects and were probably planted in the better locations that GNS has. On the other hand later projects such as say 2008 was a huge project and probably not planted in the best locations. I have always worked on the assumption that the 25MAI used by GNS it its prospectus (which is based on the historical average MAI across all GNS plantations since it started!) would be undershot by 10-20% just to be conservative. For the 2000/2001 projects I think we are looking at 30MAI or above but as I say special factors may apply there. But still and all I am not saying that GNS record is not good just that time will tell. Obviously they "market" the 2000/2001 results as what one might expect but I think you have to be conservative...