Ann: Appendix 3B Placement, page-63

Totally agree we will never know ...
I also agree with my digging, it is solely at management as I believed the projects had potential, doubt about Turesi and Lithium with their ordinary results and reporting does make that so so now.

Monash's reputation has taken a beating in my eyes, regardless of who is to blame, with their latest effort it would now be a matter of were those wheat trials tarnished with the incorrect strength bio-stimulant oils?

Just as a matter of clarity, if the bio-stimulant they used on the wheat was 4 times concentrated (regardless of results) does that then dispel their claims of an elevated cost saving as the concentrated bio-stimulant would not be as cost effective to make?

There is also a couple of things that are starting to stand out on the OHD project:
1) The company have neither dispelled nor confirmed my concerns if any/all of the trials were affected by botched up stimulant strengths.
2) Their original plan was to have a PDU built and operational June this year, why weren't the long lead time items already ordered? Surely, with all the expert consultants we engage one of them could of thought, sheeeez we need to order parts..... also remembering that the (a) told the ASX when they were issued an aware letter (NOV 17), that the plans for the PDU were unchanged (b) it was in their announcements that it was to be built
3) With the debate recently around the wheat plants not reaching maturity, would this statement from GPP's most recent announcement be contradictory?
"The results of plant growth trials cannot be fully understood until trials are complete over the entire lifecycle of the plant, ..............(sic)"
4) The second part of the above statement, are the inferring that Monash are not and thats why they have now engaged an Arborist to oversee Monash?
"..(sic) .......validated and replicate by technical, competent organisations"

cheers
All IMO only