That was not the impression when ABU advised results of the 8-...

That was not the impression when ABU advised results of the 8- 10,000 ton trial. From memory all the costs involved in that trial was around the $3.5 million mark (plant, wages etc.,) and they on sold the gold produced for in excess of $5 million. I don't call that inefficient over the couple of months that the trial occurred.... No doubt it could have produced more but at the very least it was very profitable. I do agree that 12 months or so of it not being used since is well and truly inefficient. It seems that the directors called it one way (via announcements) until they needed to justify something else. That is where the terms 'inefficient and ineffective' come to mine. I seem to remember fairly experienced miners posted at the time they were more than satisfied with production results.

Chef only reminded us on the 'justification' as to why directors had a complete change in direction causing, in my view, dilution, long delays in further production, significant drop in price of shareholder's investment, loss of independent market forces (dumping of stock by underwriter) and now lack of trust in our management team.

I for one would hate to see what our ASX would look like if all investors in companies only did so to make a quick buck in a couple of weeks, rather than actually financing our companies making something, paying taxes and employing people for the long term development of our country. I would suggest the greater bulk of investors feel similar to me.