Ann: Shareholder update, page-81

It is turning into a binary debate in whichsome important perspective is lost.

Let’s turn this around: If an Indian smallcap was trying to broker a deal with BHP who do you think would dictate anddrive the timetable.  Clearly that wouldbe BHP.  Without a doubt the drive to anoutcome would be expedited without the Government Bureaucracy we are seeing inIndia.

It is clear from the announcements datingback to end 2016 (Tri Partite) that ECT management have tried to control aprocess which is largely uncontrollable. Changes in requirements, key personnel,involvement of additional departments, reviews etc which were identified alongthe way and completely out of control of ECT management.

The recent MPA and RCA acronym change can onlybe explained as the Indian’s flexing their muscles as it is not in ECT Shareholdersinterest to keep changing nomenclature of agreements this late in the gamenotwithstanding the intend to be aligned. If ECT does not understand thesentiments of the LT holders we have a real problem.I do not doubt that the Indians are keengiven the technology adds up and could result in significant savings, mind bogglingif you do the numbers on this in a Indian context (please lift yourself up to ahigher level if you perspective is clouded).

A large part of the development andexpedition of timetable with be in the hands of our Partners. Is this aconcern? Yes - if you go by track record, no if you believe that once the dealis signed the ball is in their court to realise savings soon.

A fair incentivethat could see this project move quick. I still believe that a short to medium SPof 5-10 cents (equivalent MC) is still on the cards granted that sufficientdetails are released on the prospective revenue model.  

Don’t forget that there are some realincentives tied to key targets and timelines.

RegardsDouble Dutch