One important point from a shareholder’s perspective is the...

One important point from a shareholder’s perspective is the referral by both parties that the award and restart have mutually exclusive elements, namely that the award of the licenses has nothing to do with the closure of the mine. It’s pure naivety to believe this to be true - it’s obvious that this is all about managing a bureaucratic process for the Thai and an agreement by Kingsgate to play along. Whilst we have to endure a certain level of opacity around many of these issues in the name of unlocking shareholder value greater than the net proceeds of the claim recovery, many aspects of the restart should be transparent. Given our cash balances, the sensitivity of funding options to shareholders is unnerving. The only scenario where a shareholder would feel relieved about this opacity is if the funding came from the Thai government or a Thai institution in concert with the government. How will you feel if management announce funding without participation from Thailand? Why would external party funding options be sealed from shareholders? Perhaps the answer is in the riddle and this is why we are blinded, but if it is not the case, then the fiduciary responsibility HFGUY and others refer to will have been ignored - that is a hanging offence for any chief member of the management team.

Funding is one issue, but the processing of our ore is another - if the Thai government do not officially participate in this processing as part of a negotiation, why are we kept in the dark about it? If the Thai government allowed us to process gold and silver sludge, why is a similar update not allowed/provided on our unprocessed ore?

The level of opacity is at a dangerous level and should be threatening your confidence. I’m not sure how we establish oversight or jointly request communication to clear these issues, but if we were speaking about an autocratic foreign government communicating like this we’d all be up in arms.