One of the many reasons for including consolidation was to put...

One of the many reasons for including consolidation was to put the concept on the agenda.

For both discussion and reaction.

It was a deliberate and considered inclusion.

In full knowledge that it would be the controversial topic out of the many pieces in that commentary.

And controversy is a good thing.

It brings in many eyes.

Have a look at PAA today.

And there are very few institutional eyes on IPT right now.

And there is little interest in the market for most of the mineral resources sector species like IPT right now.

And IPT on HC has been a quiet as a graveyard.

To elicit the range of responses from this particular group of shareholders whose evaluations I trust and and respect. (And if you have been posting regularly here recently, then you know who you are.)

And to gauge the measure of response quality and assess the specific potential for IPT.

Consolidation potential will have been a discussion point in any boardroom in any mining company with 3B shares on offer.

And I’m sure that IPT will be considering all options, and running the risk assessment processes on all of them. And looking for shareholder feedback.

And so, to continue the discussion, we will all have some experiential knowledge of companies where it worked, where it failed, where it wasn’t considered necessary. There will be differences in experiences and opinions. It will be educational. Longer explanations will be appreciated. Let’s start with positive consolidation stories - we all have our own burn stories - so where has it worked.

That being said, the responses so far capture the diversity of SH sentiment on the topic. So in one way, that job is already done - admittedly with a minuscule sample size and little data analysis, but with loads of experiential knowledge across decades. And experience counts.

I have no emotional sentiment one way or the other re consolidation.

No joy, no fear, no emotion. For me it’s a purely business decision.

A cornerstone investor would clearly be solid catalyst for a re-rate, and a tight share registry would be far more attractive proposition, like a number of the companies mentioned.

And the time frame for some of those companies has been over 4 or 5 years, and we are looking at 2 ish for production samples maybe less. So I had a tight timeline in mind for SP re-rate.

Good responses: all noted with consideration.

Let’s see how it progresses.

Ruminating,

Ice