Ann: Trading Halt, page-154

I don't think it is a case of looking at worse case situation.....more a case of expressing frustration. We all know that nothing has changed 'in the ground', and that DW and PB have steadfastly held on to the 50/50 risk factor despite many of us 'divining' their body language to interpreting 2V as a 100% certainty. We also know that the reward in the success scenario is massive (and larger still with the land grab).

We all know that additional funds will be needed sooner or later and that a conservative approach would argue for a CR now, while a more aggressive (roll the dice) approach - which I have consistently articulated for - would wait till after 2V. The BoD is appointed and remunerated by us to make these calls based on their interpretation of the situation. I do not fault them for their decision - even if I disagree with it. But my disagreement is based on opportunity cost rather than actual cost.

I do however, feel that expectation management is poor; that communication needs improving; and that the directors' self awarded dilution protection in the form of low threshold performance options should be rejected as being inconsistent with the journey of fellow shareholders who have invested hard cash...often to levels beyond prudence. I have provided a fuller and broader argument on this elsewhere. Meanwhile, let the venting flow, as catharsis is often the best remedy for a grievance. Sooner, rather than later we will all be back on the same song sheet - but hopefully with a bit more mature/robust relationship between the BoD and LTH'ers in particular.

GLTA

BTW xDom, not specifically responding to your comments - to which I agree.