Wipper, your opinions are clearly well considered but your...

Wipper, your opinions are clearly well considered but your conclusions about EXT management contain a subjective logic in my view. I don't think there would be a shareholder in any resource company in the world that would complain about their management maximizing strategic strengths which in this case are the size and nature of the project, and the sheer open-endedness of it's magnitude. Yes this has a direct bearing on the share price about which we seem to agree.

There are a number of characteristics about this play that make it different from many investments not least being the illiquid nature of the registry. When KAH/ RIO/Itochu et al took their now obviously strategic stakes in KAH and in EXT, the game changed to one where a takeover scenario became the obvious first corporate hurdle (or opportunity depending on your investment preference) against which shareholders AND management made investment decisions. The situation we are in now is not about EXT management packaging the business for a quick sale as you seek to suggest, but quite clearly about proving up the economics of a massive project and identifying (and reportedly receiving) positive stand-alone funding indications as an option for development. This is ENTIRELY what any shareholder would expect of them.

The representations to ASIC are about protecting shareholders in the event of a takeover, not as you seem to imply, greasing the pole for an easy sale at what you quite rightly describe as an undervalued bid.

BTW, everything is for sale at the right price. It is my contention, and those I suspect, of all current SH, that we ain't seen it yet.

I reiterate, that as you state you are a non-holder, I'm having difficulty reconciling your indignation, not your freedom to comment.