Danhold despite you being totally PO'd with Linc (and in many...

Danhold despite you being totally PO'd with Linc (and in many cases with good reason) the fact remains that they do have assets including those producing revenue. Clearly the big question is can they maintain cashflow long enough to overcome their spending.

PB is enthusiastic (too enthusiastic) and much institutional support was lost by some of his imo past actions eg: a) prolonged death of original coal sale, 2)Gallilee Coal sale Headline two bil (or whatever) for what was a 500 m sale plus future royalty or c) the GC anouncement valuing linc unrealsitically because of a high share price yet relatively small placement (well, hiopefully a placement) for what IMO is effectively a licensing fee. That aside, he is trying to make LNC a success - with 40% shareholding he has good reason.

We collectively seem to perceive many potential problems, the question is what can we as shareholders do to make what we have work better. Constructive input on how to resolve issues is required - not rehashing over and over the problems (the most obvious of which is a share price dropping from 3 bucks to 60 cents following an asset sale approx 150% current market cap.

I agree with Linsanity - it is a good way to quarantine the various businesses and protect the cash from one being consumed elsewhere. It may also put experts with insto support into each of them. It's not necessarily the best or only approach however it warrants further discussion to maybe develop something practical that may be worth rasing and the next shareholder meeting.

There is no point crying over spilt milk. The 400 mil from Galilee has gone but with careful management that portion remaining in gulf oil can be profitable. You may be right with Umiat - it may be a big long term project. Then again so is coal to liquids.