Ann: Notice of Annual General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-29

I agree, they are very reasonable requests indeed.

Do the company reports show that shareholder funds have been expended and millions have been lost YOY?

As of the last Annual Report, returns to the owners of that capital have been non existent. In fact, the capital of shareholders has been decimated.

In the normal course of events, it is reasonable for shareholders to expect that some, or perhaps all members of BOD would accept individual and collective responsibility for the sorrowful lack of commercial success, the decimation of shareholder capital, the YOY losses, and resign. Why not give CGB (CGB is a seperate legal entity - it is not a member of any particular family) a chance to change direction and put shareholder funds to better use. They have had their chance(s) - millions and millions of dollars have expended and lost along the way. I think that shareholders are entitled to ask - how much more and for how much longer?

Since 2007 - can anyone highlight a commercial return for the shareholders of either AGV, QBL or CGB?

However, I would bet a handsome sum that some members of the BOD would not see it that way. And I think that this is because they may well see it as their company. What evidence is there that the needs and aspirations of the shareholders (the ones who provided the dollars) are a greater priority than ... well ... other things.

Ask yourself which members of the BOD bought into the 3.5c "company transforming" cap raise? If none, why did they not put their dollars to the same risk as they were asking others to do?

Ask yourself, why has the Volcan debt of $1,200,000 not been paid back to CGB? Why was that debt impaired. Who retains a proprietary interest in ML1492?

Yes, it is difficult not to agree that they are very reasonable requests indeed @millimouse. And now there is a proposed consolidation. Question is, why did they deal in shares when the SP was low and when they had millions in the bank? It seems to me that it is fair to note that shareholders were repeatedly diluted and the cash was / is used - as one example - for proposed payouts to departing directors. Why?

And what fair minded person could argue on reasonable grounds that any of the above is unreasonable commentary?