I agree SD , project good , asset good even capital structure...

I agree SD , project good , asset good even capital structure not too bad as long as they can keep tubby away from it which they appear to be doing at this stage. remembering that the consideration shares for the asset gave voting power to the asset vendors and as the AGM showed they are still controlling the vote despite tubbs desperate attempts to take that via their bogus purchase with old mate Jewy.

there is also what i would consider the unresolved royalty issue as the companies explanation regarding that to date doesnt make any sense and is unsupported on fact as far as i can make out and i doubt the royalty holders are swallowing it either

I would be concerned if i were prior management because there are some fairly obvious questions regarding what is documented here and how it all played out. in my opinion the fact that a director of company A that surrendered the ground and the entity that applied for that ground within 14 minutes of the surrender on the same day , are co directors on company C is way to close for comfort here and it looks as though investors appear to hold the same position , as you would think with tubby gone things would start to improve for the company and the SP as it could only get better from there wouldn't it.