still voting no, page-4

Binbin
It is the directors responsibility to do what is in the best interests of the shareholding base in general, which ultimately means to return the most value possible on a per share basis. It is not managements job to redistribute wealth among holders. If ELK can produce a scenario where the cash raised increases value per share more than the Grieve asset backing per share that has been removed then they have done their job, if not they have failed. Bearing in mind the grieve asset backing per share has been flogged of at under $3 a barrel. While dilution can be/is a part of many small cap companys that should not be justification for doing excesive or unneccesary raisings. I understand they needed money, it is the quantity I have an issue with, the lack of positive results from all the previous capital and also the lack of a plan on where and in what quantitys the money will be allocated. I am surprised how casual holders are.

While I have lost confidence in management I have confidence in Grieve/Denbury and expect to stay until the shareprice better reflects that asset.