You ask three main questions 1. How does eopl's mill relate to...

You ask three main questions
1. How does eopl's mill relate to the granting of ML and whether they are still involved.
2. How the discussions with the traditional owners could drag the negotiations out.
3. How Peter Hall is a also has involved with another company.

When I talked to Peter (end of January) and asked him about the absence of anything to do with eopl he said that they are almost ready but lny have only signed a heads of agreement with them and can send the ore anywhere. Therefore I don't think eopl and the state of the plant has any bearing on the granting of the ML.

The quarterly does however show a diagram that shows the pathway the trucks will take to the mill, which is the Georgetown mill.

As for the negotiations regarding employment for the indigenous owners of the land, I would expect them to be wrapped up fairly quickly. We are redesigning the wheel here, I would expect a fairly generic agreement that realistically sets out obligations of the parties, if eopl wants to play hard ball then we can send our ore elsewhere and what must be an extremely expensive refurbishment will have to be used for something other than it's intended purpose. If the Traditional owners want to play hard ball there legal council would set out what precendents have been set in the past showing they have little to gain for being unrealistic in their demands. And at this point it would be sheer madness for lny to try and save a few dollars squeezing and one unfairly.

Peter did mention his involvement in another miner to demonstrate how non-linear and expensive it is to get a mining company off the ground.

I did extensive research into the company and found carbon copy complaints from shareholders. Not being informed of things, multople deadlines given then ignored. Some deadlines management imposed on themselves seemed factually incorrect. I distinctly remember for example last September as being when LNY would start mining, but then as gassed stated it appears the traditional owners only saw the agreement late last year.

Some things are much better. There website for one has a vision for the company that shows enthusiasm, ours a well ours is so factually incorrect it's just a gross misrepresentation of our company. Still with a JV with Newcrest in New Zealand, check, still only have 50% as Ashford, check. I kind of see though that spending the cash to do up the website before we get the ML is just window dressing, the survival of the company relies on us getting the ML.

All in all I liked what I saw in the graphite play, got in at .02 and it's now at .027. I think management in both companies have made good moves, that hurt short term, don't look good to share holders but once things get moving they turn out to be brilliant strategic moves. Our market cap is puny, when (or if!?) things do get off the ground it should explode to the upside. What timing it would be to unroll the company now with an ML, a shiny new website with hold at aud$ gold at historic highs. LNY is definitely for those with a high risk tolerance though, because and money you throw in could be like throwing it into a blender.

But you don't get to drink champagne without taking risks