You mean to say that taking part in what is an unofficial custom...

You mean to say that taking part in what is an unofficial custom of bribery in the DRC which would be in direct conflict with Australian Corporate law would have been a better path for Nigel and the rest of his team to take?

You mean to cede part of a project to a third party who had no prior direct or implied interest in the project because third parties had been bribed and pressure had come from key influenced members of the officiate to cede those percentage interests was a good idea?

Of the above, in what sense does it make correct business sense to reduce the ROI by such huge percentages and to partake in activities deemed illegal under Australian regulations?

The cattle rustling thieves of the shadow board are comfortable with reducing the ROI in return for POTENTIALLY (no guarantees) the keys to a mining license, with nothing guaranteed, promised or implied, e.g. no legal contract or right to obtain.

So what is it that Michael Carrot and his team are offering that Nigel has not? Acceptance of corruption and further questions being asked in years to come as to our conduct undertaken to obtain said permits and licenses?

With the EU (particularly France) and the US now moving in on the DRC and the Chinese on the backfoot for their various abuses against the Congolese people (in relation to underpaid salaries and destruction of geology) and the State of the Congo (in respect to underpayment of taxes) IMO it would be absolute madness to move to the losing side because it seems like it might be an easier, but less profitable option. The thing is, the easier option is not guaranteed either.

So maybe the STUPID bit applies to those with a SticK in the ground ToO make a LatE ShifT in the wrong direction thinking we will all be LithiuM KingS through corruption obtained by abuse of position.