Younever offended either, Ando. An it’s absolutely not a...

Younever offended either, Ando. An it’s absolutely not a popularity contest. Most investors discuss a company for similar reasons, to gauge the risk-reward of their allocation of capital. You are playing the man and not the ball.

Forus, it’s not about being glass half full, it’s understanding what is requiredto reduce the risks on a greenfield mining project to create cash flow andwealth for decades/generations to come. Perhaps we are much more patient as we’ve had some good outcomes and have the benefit of diversity.

Ithink Noodly hit the nail on the head the other day. If we’d gone with a Chinese EPC post DFS and optimised DFS, they probably fully funded the project, without offtakes, built the thing for half the price and we’d be in production. I can tell you though that if TNG were in production 5 years ago, due to titanium pigment and iron pricing, we’d never have turned a profit. The outlook for vanadium and pigment is very positive through the early 2020’s which is why some on hear allow themselves to not forget the past but simply focus on what is going to create wealth, which is the future.

Insteadof that quick process to production, we’ve gone the institution approach inusing a reputable engineering firm to test and re-test every little process tode-risk the processing so when it is finally built, its going to work immediatelyand for the next 4 decades without issue and more than likely become theprocessing tech of choice for titanium feedstock and vanadium pentoxide. Syrah immediately comes to mind being one that rushed into construction and they’ve torn up so much shareholder wealth as they never got it right in the engineering phase. Old Insta-Tolga did well as he bailed but not many have done well since. Lynas back in 2011/12 also comes to mind of farking it up also.

Iloved BHP’s decision and commentary on Jansen Potash in the last couple of days. It’s taken them 18 years from acquiring the tenements, an unsuccessful takeover bid for Nutrien in 2010 and then 10 years from that point and $5B of de-risking the project to a point that they have made an FID for a couple hundred years cash flow. They were also patient enough (as they are diversified) to hold tight during the last 10 years of potash prices that would never have allowed the BHP board the commit the next $6B or allow any greenfield project to come online. That’s a sensational approach and culture you can’t just create. It’s a generational culture.

Burtonhas pissed you off and that is what you choose to focus on but I would encourageyou to be positive about the project and it is working through the commercial deliverables. If you start looking a bit more broadly, you too might see that Burton hasn’t farked this project up because we aren’t in production 5 years after his marketing pitch indicated but has gone down a conservative and institutional approach to de-risking this project for 40 years and given TIVAN the best opportunity to be a standalone company in its own right, in due course.