Some indicators, page-17

Don, my two cents.

Dilution without context or a growth strategy might be alarming in a company that it's achieving anything, but that doesn't apply here.

For any company, dilution is only a concern if the shareholders are being diluted without a corresponding increase in the value of the company. But if you are being diluted by 10% pa, and the value of the company is growing by 30% pa, then it's a net win for shareholders, and I'll thoroughly enjoy being diluted and diluted till I become filthy rich in my diluted shareholdings in a growing company.

Also, if we need to pay cash for an acquisition (like the neighbouring tenement), we need to raise money to get that cash, at which the CR would be a dilution anyway, so issuing shares for an acquisition is not by itself the problem. The problem arises as to what the acquisition is, and whether we should have done it in the first place. In our recent example with AGE/adjacent land, I would suggest nearly ever single shareholder would give that a big tick. So the acquisition (small, as you say) is good, and issuing shares for it is then not a concern.