Bad time to be divesting base metal assets and it's symptomatic...

Bad time to be divesting base metal assets and it's symptomatic of  the "sell the farm" policy that's happening at Kidman at the moment as a result of the desperate need for cash to develop Burbanks. These assets are better spun out when the timing in the cycle is right. We've already lost Gunga to short termism and the need for cash.

Then you have this from the presentation on slide 3.
　
"Next Steps:
•Burbanks
•Increasing production from 20,000oz to 30,000oz pa"

You can not increase production from 20,000oz to 30,000 oz pa when you are not currently producing at 20,000oz pa* and in the 6 weeks before 31 Dec 2015 you produced at under 20,000oz pa. Would seem like a misleading statement to me based on published information.

* on slide 12 they say "March quarter production to be limited due to change over period for contractors and revised plan due to reaching 100% ownership". What does "limited" mean? I'm pretty sure it doesn't mean 20,000oz of annual equivalent production.

The most important statement made in respect of the value of my shareholding in this presentation is on slide 9.

​

	Column 1
0	Mine upgrade and development at Burbanks to achieve self funding project status

If they can't achieve this in the second quarter of 2016 our share value will be impacted negatively in a very significant way IMO.

As far as Mt Holland goes I think its a great acquisition and I'm all in support of what they are trying to achieve there although the timeline seems extremely ambitious considering the slow start at Burbanks and the loss of market confidence in this stock. The analogy to Dacian is not bad although Westralia would seem to be a more significant mine to start with and they also had the potential from the nearby syenite deposits and an awful lot of market backing for Rohan Williams who has proved he can deliver for shareholders in the past (ie Avoca).

I know it is a glossy presentation but to not mention the legal claims over the Mt Holland titles seems wrong to me because even if they are defeated they may still be drawn out and if so could affect the timeline to development not to mention the material uncertainty to the mining titles at Mt Holland that goes along with that dispute.

Eshmun