road show ann , page-11

irrelevant only because ME (from my understanding) is associated with it and yes any deals may well shore up his stake in the total project. that's what I understand and IMO the director incentives need to be scrutinised very carefully and voted on accordingly particularly if directors also have a stake in trinity as they are directly benefiting from this whole transaction in any event - with the trinity ownership. the MOU for the trinity JV is public and has been released to the market. IMO and what I can't digest is that trinity has a 10% stake in the JV - which I am fine with. BUT it also has the option of increasing its share by an additional 15% at some point. however if things do not take off then it will probably just sit on the 10% - but if things do take off then no doubt it will exercise its option for the balance of 15% - raising its ownership to 25% (potentially huge in anyones language). and its the ceo shareholders that are initially funding this project and therefore underataking the major risk. IMO great option to have. trinity ownersip is in no way diluted as it has a stake in the project and not in ceo. BUT i agree with your summation of the situation. the MOU was released previoulsy and unfortunately may have been glossed over for whatever reason. so now we are financing the project and if successful potentially reduce our stake to 75%. trinity if it proceeds with its additional 15% does have obligations imposed as far as cost sharing go so you need to read that document for yourself to gain an understanding of it - as far as it goes. Double dipping - make your own minds up and DYOR.