Ann: Invalid Section 249D Notice, page-114

I don’t concur that they are being proactive but more reactive.
If they were being proactive would they be committing funds to another project rather than progressing the ones we already have?

IMO if they were actually being proactive they:

1) Would of had our own geologist (Watts) on the ground more often at Morabisi, we are funding the project and it is irrelevant at what stage of the earn-in we are/were at, even if it was only to observe/oversee the development of the project as it unfolds.
Sitting around on a couch or doing a flyover of our tenements just isn’t conducive to being proactive.

2) We would be banging on the door of the Minister of Natural Resources to ascertain what the delay is with the Kopang PGGS licence, rather than worrying about looking pretty for a photo shoot https://www.greenpowerenergy.com.au/first-phase-lithium-exploration-successful/ or sitting around waiting for the phone call to say it is a go, considering that Guyana actively encourages Foreign Direct Investment as being critical to its economical development.
https://www.state.gov/e/eb/rls/othr/ics/2015/241583.htm

3) As we have basically funded Thermaquatica’s development for the past 5/6 years at a cost of circa $5M, you would think that GPP would have some input to a priority or exclusivity to having our Bio-Stimulant oil produced. There have been some issues with consistent production meaning downtime but no indication of the causes (could it be the change of feed when Thermaquatica go from our “coal” feed to another feed source?) As such, why haven’t we got a company representative over there (OHD expert Trench or Flavelle who was there at the inception of CTL) The lack of produced oils was one of the main reasons that GPP decided to build our own PDU, costs for transport to and from was another, but being proactive would have also meant ensuring that there was sufficient oil to conduct the broad acre field trials, which according to a GPP announcement they had started (but somewhat vanished) https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20171218/pdf/43q7rn71zc44hm.pdf
Being proactive, they would be chasing our consultants for the "MIA" Commercial Plan, Marketing Study, the HRL review of the PDU, ordering the long lead time items for the build of the PDU and anything else they have been suggesting they will inform the market of as the project progresses.

4) They would have a crew on the ground collecting samples from our Potassium project now that the NT Fracking moratorium has been lifted https://www.ntnews.com.au/news/nort...t/news-story/e6c02f2e0e0eeb837be33154b41a299c
A statement from King:
“..(sic)... What is particularly encouraging is that soil samples suggest the potassium yield within the claypan is on par with some of the leading SOP projects currently under development globally. What could aid Greenpower further is the fact the project lies so close to existing road and rail infrastructure versus peer projects.”
https://www.asx.com.au/asxpdf/20170303/pdf/43gjg35bjpkwhr.pdf

It is statements like these, along with the “rival Greenbushes” “rival the Pilgangoora region” “300% yield increase” “10% of the cost” “more flowers, more fruit” “bigger Bok Choy” etc in announcements, that encourage investors to commit capital to GPP, it’s a pity the company didn’t commit to their projects but rather go chasing their tail (Modus Operandi for the last 10 years) by supposedly being proactive and looking to add to the portfolio rather than enhance the current one.

Shareholders have bought into GPP for different reason over a 10 year time frame:
Those that invested for the CTL/OHD could be somewhat disappointed to have GPP’s core business (a disruptive technology, one with a possibility of helping/improving a sustainable world food supply) stalled as funds are allocated/raised to pursue a Lithium project.
Those that bought in for the prospect of the Lithium/REE could be in the same thought process but they knew that GPP already had the OHD project but same as when they announced the SOP project, funds being stretched now.
Then we have those that bought in for the SOP, knowingly GPP already had 2 bazookas but the OHD/Li buyers could be excused for thinking, how are we going to manage 3 projects when we can’t manage 1 or 2.
Kopang arrives but it is only an extension of Morabisi…..
Ok, so its all much as muchness and the same as the company decide to try another “boom” project, with this latest acquisition they do not have the funds to (a) actually fund it, with out further credit raises (b) to keep up the facade of continuing with the current projects. At some point they will have to inform shareholders of their intent……..

IMO only, if the company wanted to raise funds because of the extra costs of having “consultants, etc” travelling more frequently overseas to oversee/fact find problems with our projects then it would be much more palatable than the guise of the latest placement funds being used for Kopang/Morabisi/OHD and then announce the acquisition and being well funded.

Some readers/posters might suggest to give management a chance!!!!
Not even close to be warranted that they would deserve anymore chances, they are the ones that have bitten off more than they can chew, they are the ones that fail to get a project to completion, they are the ones chasing the "elusive" project that they may/may not be the company maker, whilst IMO they already have one sitting there (OHD) !!!
They may suggest timelines for this new acquisition, but GPP and timelines - really .............

I recall a poster suggesting this management do not have the ability to finish a project and it appears to be the case, will this be any different? Personally I highly doubt it, but maybe this (if shareholders approve it) might be that time, who knows!
If this fails, we still have a plethora of things to go looking for, close your eyes and throw a dart!!!!
https://en.wikipedia.org/wiki/List_of_chemical_elements

Leopard and spots!!!
Proactive or reactive?
I’ll take the latter….

All IMO only
Cheers