trend, page-67

Hi Bob

"Hell, you must learn patience, you cant become a millionaire overnight,"

Bob, as a general rule of thumb I agree with your above statement but in the context of ABM's management performance over the past 9 months I would have to disagree for the following reasons.

When we consider the recent CR we need to ask ourselves why DH and the Board had a sudden change in strategy. Specifically, what lead to this.

Now, obviously the miners on this forum have articulated the benefits of further drilling so there seems to be *some* merit there. This is not my area of expertise so I will bow to those with more knowledge on this subject.

That being said, I do feel that some folk are possibly a little blinded by the huge resource potential that we have and forget that even the best resource can be diminished by poor management.

I am sure we have all seen it before...... Companies with great resources totally destroyed by abysmal management.

Success = Great resource + Ethical, experienced, and proven Management.

Regardless of the quality of this resource the fact remains that as of today, our resource has been diluted by ~ 25%

Now this in itself maybe forgiven, but the $million question is how do we know this is the last dilution?

The resource will always be great but is the resource per share still great if there are 5 billion shares on market? How about 6 billion, or 7 billion?

Now I am not suggesting that we will have 7 billion shares on issue but I am making the obvious point that the resource **per share** is diminished substantially with every CR. It's all well and good for people to state that the funds will allow further drilling and define a larger resource, but please remember that the original strategy was to achieve the very same outcome using existing cash flows from stage 2.

Also before anyone jumps in and laughs at the premise of further dilution, please remember that there were many on here (myself included) who less than 9 months back laughed at any form of further dilution.

The reason for this was the Boards very clear strategy that they have no intention of diluting and that all further exploration, mining etc. would be self funded.

The other reason is that at the time we all believed that DH's timeline was on track and that he had a good grasp of the process.

We now know that this was not the case. It seems in hindsight that one of the three factors occurred:

1. DH and the Board *purposely* mislead the Market (I personally DO NOT believe this to be the case).

2. DH and the Board *unintentionally* mislead the Market.

3. DH, the management team and the Board showed a gross lack of understanding and experience with respect to most of the operational and business aspects required to transition the company from explorer to producer.

I believe that a combination of 2 and 3 is accurate. In order to qualify this we need to go back and look at the timelines set by DH, but before we do lets consider that the EIS process which is required for the ML was submitted to the best of my knowledge at the end of November.

So, we can say as a fact that from the *time of EIS submission* till now is ~ 4 months and counting.

So lets take a look at some past statements from DH and the Chairman:

1. Managing Directors address 2013 AGM.
**DATED 20TH NOVEMBER 2013**

Page 14 .....

"Stage 2: - Open pit mining using the same plant as at the trial mining.

Upon granting of the Mineral License. Aiming at LATE 2013 / EARLY 2014."

2. Chairman's address 2013 AGM
**DATED 20TH NOVEMBER 2013**

Page 2 ......

"During the year, the company also laid out its plans to move as seamlessly as possible from trial mining (stage 1), to an initial 150,000 tones production plan using essentially the same plant as in the trial with minor upgrades (stage 2)."

Then continues to say .....

"The mineral Lease (ML) application based on this plan is advancing through the various steps and organisations required, and the company is hopeful of receiving the ML and all relevant permits early in 2014."

So, what we know from this is:

On 20th Nov 2013 we have an MD and Chairman giving a date of late 2013/early 2014 for the ML and moving into Stage 2 using "the same plant as at the trial mining".

Now given that the EIS was submitted within close proximity to the 20th November address and given that this process has already taken 4 months without finality I can only conclude that Management either mislead the market OR had absolutely NO IDEA of the process and the time that it would take.

Both scenarios are abysmal but lets hope that it is the latter.

With one month to go till the end of 2013 and only just having submitted an EIS which is required for the ML, how in hell could DH make the statement that the ML is still possible within 2013???

Surely he knew that the review period itself would be 2 1/2 months?

So this is very long winded but I feel this is important for all SH as it goes directly to our Managements and our Boards credibility and experience.

It seems to highlight that we have a management team experienced in geology but completely inexperienced and severely lacking in knowledge with respect to transforming this company from explorer to producer. OR

We have a Board and MD who deliberately mislead the market with respect to timing.

IMO the recent CR was primarily for further drilling and **working capital** which was required due to the inability to obtain the ML within the specified time, which was due to managements inability to meet critical timelines to keep the original strategy on target.

Now DH can blame the NT government all he likes but it was managements responsibility to get the EIS in order and submitted on time and it was DH's responsibility to be accurate with respect to the ML and stage 2 timeline.

From the September quarterly report page 9:

"The company has received guidelines, **in response to the notice of intent filed by the company**, from the NT EPA and is collating all the relevant information for submission".

So we know that as of the end of September that the company had not even collated the information for the EIS. That is 4 months out from end of 2013.

So 2 months after this quarterly and knowing that the process AFTER submission would be over 4 months, how is it that 2 months later DH could make a claim that the ML and stage 2 would still be possible late 2013?

So back to the $million question.....

**IF** Management use a large portion of the current CR for drilling and the split the remainder for working capital and "other" and **IF** they continue with this abysmal track record of not meeting timelines by a LONG margin, then IMO under those circumstances, it would be very feasible that further dilution may occur.

I personally need to see an immediate and transparent reversal of form so that I can regain faith that we will be a profitable producer (on a per share basis) within the near future.

Lets face it. If this were a company with a lower quality resource, most of us would possible have sold by now. I, like many, are holding for the potential and I am hoping that the Board and MD can learn from this pitiful situation and get this company back on track.

The only solace I take from this complete turn around in strategy is that we may end up with a Board member experienced in producing. Lets hope so.

With respect to having "patience" the equation is simple. Companies need $$$ to run. If there is no income then the $$$ have to come from loans or CR. The longer management take to achieve goals the lower the available cash and the need for further cash injections.

With respect to spec stocks, patience had a BIG downside.

Very sorry for the long post guys.