Ann: Fourteenth Supplementary Prospectus, page-395

"... because the $5.9 Million PLUS from the over subscribed Cap raise should make that much in interest each Quarter"

To sum up your point - you are noting the revenue derived from the interest of the funds that have been provided by others (i.e. the share placement). Yes? And do you think that this is a good / desirable or even a sustainable circumstance?

I note in the most recent quarterly report a projected cash outflow for the next quarter of $1,850,000

9. Estimated cash outflows for next quarter $A’000
9.1 Exploration and evaluation 100
9.2 Development 500
9.3 Production 750
9.4 Staff costs
9.5 Administration and corporate costs 500
9.6 Other (provide details if material)
9.7 Total estimated cash outflows 1850

Quarterly Report December 2018 https://wcsecure.weblink.com.au/pdf/CGB/02071888.pdf
(my bold)

Further, am I correct in concluding that there are no projected staff costs for the following quarter?

What do posters think of the following costs for the quarter?

6. Payments to directors of the entity and their associates Current quarter$A'000
6.1 Aggregate amount of payments to these parties included in item 1.2 178
6.2 Aggregate amount of cash flow from loans to these parties includedin item 2.3
6.3 Include below any explanation necessary to understand the transactions included initems 6.1 and 6.2
(QBL Directors Fees)

7. Payments to related entities of the entity and theirassociatesCurrent quarter$A'000
7.1 Aggregate amount of payments to these parties included in item 1.2 199
7.2 Aggregate amount of cash flow from loans to these parties includedin item 2.3
7.3 Include below any explanation necessary to understand the transactions included initems 7.1 and 7.2
(Payment for company management and administration services provided under the AGMmanagement services agreement for geological services, secretarial services, bookkeeping,management and administration staff and office rental.)

And to be fair and reasonable the recent issues with AGMPL is the business of AGMPL. Put simply, CGB is not the defendant in Case NSD398/2019 in the Federal Court of Australia, New South Wales Registry.

https://www.comcourts.gov.au/file/Federal/P/NSD398/2019/3851615/event/29827465/document/1388713

The issue of holders having private discussions with a CGB representative, and I noted in a previous post, may not be the most useful way to understand the intricacies of your investment.

In the relationship of any shareholder (of any company) and an authorised company representative - I do not think one should place too much weight upon any statements made in those kinds of conversations. Of course, the weight that you give to information from that source, is your decision. However, the content of private discussions can be too easily dismissed as variances of the memories of the participants, misinterpreting the meaning of a statement and the context. Indeed, a company representative might themselves be overly negative or overly positive.

Written statements regarding the state of things are far less susceptible to being misconstrued, misunderstood and or, misrepresented.

If I were a holder I would wait until an ASX announcement is published to validate anything that anyone has to say. The reason for lodging company news with the ASX is that there is public scrutiny and accountability. This is just not so with 'private' conversations.