capital gain on disposal of shares, page-11

Yes Yellowman, based on paying 450m shares for a large landholding around Fortnum, Peak Hill was the direction taken by the new management when they made the decision to retain a holding in the vanadium through the 20% retention of a stake in yrr. Imo the board considered Peak Hill offered more upside and this led to the proposed spin-out of yrr. If they had thought Gabinintha held more potential, then giving up 80% of the most prospective project would not have made sense. Therefore the credibility of the company and the board was resting on proving Peak Hill up. With no drilling as of yet partly because of heavy rain originally and, now due to supposedly not being able to secure a rig the market will view the current delay as unacceptable and lose confidence in the board and that will be reflected in the share price. The cost to get a plant built to produce vanadium is beyond gpn without a large partner, which incidently would have been a challenge faced by yrr also, was no doubt behind the board's thinking. Now that gpn has full ownership again, other more realistic alternatives may be considered such as a deal to mine vanadium without the need to be a producer. This option may prove valuable to gpn as full owners whereas only having a 20% stake in yrr could have diluted its worth to a small royalty. This of course is only my thoughts based on limited knowledge of what is happening behind the scenes. Needless to say any deal gpn can do on either gold or vanadium will be a positive outcome and should restore confidence in the company.