Some questions to be considered; feel free to use them.1) What...

Some questions to be considered; feel free to use them.

1) What is the profit/loss guidance for the company as a whole for FY13? If they cannot quote a figure, why not?
2) When will the company become self funding and not have to rely on placing shares for cash?
3) Does the company still have faith in the integrity of its South African assets given that it is so eager to acquire assets outside of the country's borders?
4) Given that the company has drawn down $2.5M of funds from Bergen to conduct due diligence on the Colombian asset, it is not too much to expect a capex estimate for the ramp up of the mine to 500ktpa. How long will this ramp up take, how much capital will it require, and will these funds be raised via placement of more shares?
5) When will the board be competent enough to make deadlines that they can keep to?

Someone should also slam home the following point in front of their faces. Go ahead and steal parts (or all) of this if you like.

We keep on hearing about the calibre and prestige of the members of the Conti board, but they fail to seal important transactions, fail to keep the company to its own deadlines, and continue to have this reckless ambition to place shares for cash. This same board listed the company on the AIM and employed James Leahy on the board to no avail, consolidated the stock to no avail, and continues to excuse the demise of the stock by suggesting that its simply because the major coal stocks abroad are being sold off too. No, the stock has, for the most part, been sold off because of the very poor performance of the board. A prime example: the stock was consolidated to artifically bump the price to attract cornerstone investors. The only entity interested in Conti has been Socius - hardly a success the board can hang their hats on.

If the board really feels that the stock doesn't deserve to be at these levels and is undervalued, then why can't they arrange a 'proper' cornerstone investor to come in and support the stock at these prices, and why do they feel the need to place shares at these supposedly 'undervalued' prices. Shouldn't they be able to raise funds at a premium to the price if it really is that undervalued? That is something an experienced board of directors would be able to achieve, but clearly that is too much for this board to even consider.