Court injunction over Kolosori, page-23

Krum,

For a while I was thinking of renaming my parrot Krum because of the repetitive posts but do appreciate your contribution. I share your concern on finance being considered as the preeminent outcome. For the most part money is an enabler like mining and positive relationships. Put simply, money-in should be less than money-out from the outcome of sold mining product. While finance staff are in control the balance is almost always wrong. The focus should be balanced between relationships, mining and money because without any of the three we are looking for a paddle. This one has been lacking in mining export focus.

RM lives locally and he has built relationships that should have been invaluable. My bet is BOD considered success was integrally linked to those relationships and backed the RM horse rather than start again. In hindsight a misguided but fully understandable hope.

Money to enable mining has been spent elsewhere. Litigious behaviour is atypical of inexperienced staff that get indignant and pursue a fight not understanding that the two protagonists will both lose something. Far better to have the lowest level dispute resolution that can be achieved. High court is about the highest peaceful level of dispute resolution and therefore the most costly to both parties. Was it possible to avoid so much being spent on litigation each of us need to judge for ourselves. While sumitomo will be quietly sniggering they hurt more early - two losers. But we continue to be embroiled in fights.

However, as investors with life experience we should have seen this and when we didn't we only have ourselves to blame. So we should not be moaning or parroting as it is our own fault.

What is going on in todays active chat is just an extension of the same things, we are touting hope in a fight to restore justice. In any fight etc. At least this time its not our money but realistically what is the likelihood of the landholders winning and by extension AVQ getting any meaningful benefit? Middle of a donut.

What we want to hear is that we have secured finance to mine, export and sell at a profit. As previously stated this is highly problematic because of a record of fighting , social-environment volatility and not exporting product for profit. Also PP planning to not understand the due diligence required. Vast majority of shareholders are not likely to contribute anymore and extending that offer is a further portent of doom.

Also as previously stated, I have lost so much it wasn't worth bailing but it is my own fault for not bailing at 23cents. Did it help the SI people by staying? Not in any way. Should this company be a boon to the SI? Yes, and its sadder for the SI folk than it is for me.