I don't post much. I prefer to read and listen others' opinions...

I don't post much. I prefer to read and listen others' opinions and make up my mind accordingly. When you have really long-term holders like Gymjunky and Doncamilo being alleged to throw out drivel, I treat the poster making those allegations with utmost circumspect. The amount of relevant news that Doncamilo in particular has provided to all shareholders via his updates is nothing short of phenomenal and I as a long-term holder trust his opinion and his motives over someone without his track record. Noting here that WoodFr0mTrees only has 18 posts, although I strongly suspect that this is just the latest account of HFGuy. There are a number of new accounts like this that I am sure I'm not the only one to notice.

Separately, the correct saying is "You can't see the wood for the trees", attributed to Sir Thomas More, 1533, see link. (The saying 'You can't see the wood for the trees' - meaning and origin. (phrases.org.uk)). Perhaps update your username WoodFr0mTrees, but only if you think grammatical and historical accuracy and attention to detail are important.

My understanding is that the Arbital Panel's awards are purely defined in monetary terms. Please correct me if this isn't the case but that's my recollection, also that they provide detailed explanation as to exactly how the dollar value of compensation agreed upon has been calculated. The Thai Press have repeatedly quoted 25-30 billion thai baht, so around $1.1 billion aussie dollars as the likely size of the award. There are lots of articles over the past couple of years in the bangkok post and other papers quoting this figure. I've also seen $750 million US dollars quoted which is consistent with the numbers in the other currencies. If these numbers are accurate (and the thai press have been very accurate so far) would we really turn down $1.1billion because we didn't want to pay Zurich $70m? Cutting off our nose to spite our face?

As for the Thai Government saying "there is zero chance of any financial compensation", why would they since they weren't the Government at the time and had no control over the decisions made? Current governments have never blamed previous government(s) for poor decisions have they.

I completely get that the previous Thai Government didn't want to pay compensation because it was effectively an admission of wrongdoing that would result in a loss of face and that a successful settlement as evidenced by a prosperous gold mine employing local workers and being the heart of the local economy is a much better story to sell, especially when facing an election. With the election behind us however, can you please elaborate why the current government would be reluctant to pay financial compensation entirely attributable to the actions of the previous government? Or is the Junta still pulling the strings in the background (as a party within the current coalition) and very sensitive to any negative publicity that could undermine their influence of power in future? I can't see the other coalition parties being happy with this situation when they could just throw PM Prayut Chan-o-cha under a bus and lay all blame on him.

Doesn't really matter now anyway. It is simply a matter of time before plant 1 is refurbished and Chatree produces gold at full capacity which will give RSK the free cash flow to do what he likes - buy back shares, pay dividends, explore the repeat systems other posters have mentioned, whatever he wants. People pissed off about the bonuses paid can't see the wood for the trees - Kingsgate are back and a huge shareholder windfall is only a matter of 4-5 months away.