Ann: Annual Report to shareholders, page-17

@Learning_2B1,

We are both drawn to this camp because of the perks you outlined, but let me know where everyone sits with the risks below.

That 25% cut can theoretically be proposed to any other component of the technological suite. The precedence has been set. To me it is not about a good deal or a bad deal was struck in this case, there should be no deal at all. Why? What gives SM the bargaining right to ask for anything? And what if they dont get it, this time or next time?

After years of paying for the chairman's private company for a service, primarily developing tech, now GJ wants more than his share in LPD, regardless how marginal it will be? If it's marginal as perceived by Learning, why put that clause in at first place?

Secondly, what if LPD only has 40% in P2 and SM gets royalty? There is no certainty I know, but that is a can of worms. LPD has no operation capacity like BHP or Rio, and we are talking about a complex chemical plant that needs to run at capacity. An operator may want more than 50% to jump in.

Lastly it is about conflict of interest. JW needs GJ for his shares and bonuses thats obvious but because of this, GJ needs JW to support his private company as well!

This is far too much for me liking. Yes investors may make money but for me, integrity comes first when picking a long term invesment.