Ann: Strategic EPC Cooperation Agreement, page-350

The question of CR is too abstract, IMO, without assessing the context.  If CR was the only source of funding available to the company and that this funding was existentially critical, then of course I would support it....grumbling all the way of course....but still supporting it.  I suspect a meaningful quorum of shareholders would conclude the same.  But that is highly unlikely to be the context.

The more likely context would be that a CR would be one of the potential funding options available to management to meet their funding needs.  Along with self generated funds and of course, debt.  In such a context, a rational shareholder perspective, surely must be to pursue a source of funds that is most cost effective and most shareholder value 'accretive'.  While I would accept a CR if it was, rationally speaking, part of the 'best answer' - I am highly sceptical that it would be so, in the face of the development funding likely to be available when involving Chinese and Indian interests.

Part of the 'higher cost barrier' of CR are soft costs or subjective costs that shareholders would place given the loan provided to directors; and the fact that while the company has clearly had massive value creating progress towards its long term goals - the short term path has been materially at odds with the short term expectations management provided by management.  Whether it was manipulation or whether it was naivety, it has created a big subjective hurdle for management to clear in the future.

Part of the 'lower cost barrier' of debt financing may be from the 'development' nature of it.  Further 'lowered' by the desire for Chinese interests to get economic benefit from a rapidly growing giant economy in the making. The economics of the 'investment', if successful, make debt financing even without this development context, extremely compelling.  The company is now in a position where it can service the debt for an additional 200ktpa expansion from the profits of the first plant (if running at capacity) which further lowers the risk.

So, given all this context, I would be very surprised if a CR was on the horizon.  But if it does, I will assess it along the lines of the thought process above.  I suspect once the hubris and emotion subsides, many shareholders would probably do the same as long as they continue to believe in the longer term goal and in the obvious progress that has been made towards it.

All IMO.