I don't disagree with a lot of 3500's views. I think the...

I don't disagree with a lot of 3500's views. I think the rationalization of the current board according to their skill sets seems like a valid point. For me the if, how and when depends on what happens over the next 6 months.

I'm not willing to make bold statements until I see what is actually delivered and how they intend to implement the technology worldwide. The past is to a large extent forgivable. IMO the next 6 months is critical and a lack of results potentially unforgivable given our leading position on spl (which is due in part to the current board foresight and in part to the EPA).

As a board INL clearly appear at the moment for a $5 million micro cap top heavy in accounting and weak on strategic decision making. Strong in corporate finance and weak maybe in implementation (no dig at Brian he has done a fantastic job thus far).

If the strategic decision is made to license out the technology around the world then its probably wise to be top heavy.

If they plan to implement it worldwide themselves then the top heavy board is not ideal and we will need more do'ers potentially at the cost of one or two of our talkers.

Having said this no matter what strategic direction we take I think we are lucky to have staff like Dave, Andrew and Brian. If their loyalty is too Keiran, Allan and Phil as a partnership then so be it...I don't mind the extra cash burn on the proviso that they don't try to raise any capital via share issues below 10 cents...

Dilution is not good for any shareholder...especially shareholders which have already plowed so much into keeping INL up and running. Hopefully we can all agree on that point at least?