I realise that Westcott, but my remark relates back to Chubb's...

I realise that Westcott, but my remark relates back to Chubb's question. Your's is just a generalisation.

From the point of GBG shareholders being diluted, it makes a huge difference to the future share price and the value of their investment, regardless of whether they are pumping out 30mtpa or 60mtpa.

Chubbs wanted an idea of the future shareprice not so he can plot it on a chart- but to estimate what value will be realised from his investment in time.
The (relative) shareprice of GBG will always be less now than what it would have been had further shares not been issued to Ansteel.

GBG's future was underwritten- it was not at risk due to finance as your scenario suggests. An option for debt was available, sourced through Ansteel, but the board declined- in favour of selling a further stake of GBG. They might have regrets now that the financial freeze is easing.

There has to be a limit. Otherwise, why should KML source a loan through CDB? Why not GBG just issue another 500m shares to Ansteel and GBG use that as a further capital injection to KML? And so on... when more is needed?

Because it was a good business decision at the time when they first planned to use debt rather than a capital raising. GBG changed those plans for obvious reasons. Read back Chubbs' thoughts on possible reasons for those changed plans. I think he has valid grounds for his comments.