Ann: Full Year Statutory Accounts, page-19

Consolidated Annual Report, some points of interest from my perspective....

1: For the Financial Year GPP's share price has retracted from $0.020c (July 17) to $0.004c (June 18) a decrease of 80% - that in itself is a hard pill to swallow, but when you also take into consideration the remuneration of directors or KPM's it is obvious that they have no regard for the share holders regardless of what they claim their intent to be (re: Remuneration Policy, they believe the policy to be appropriate) but it also states the board reviews executive packages annually by referencing the Group's performance and executive performance to name just two of the review criteria (page 8 of Annual Report) on that basis they should be taking pay cuts.

Cash Salary (base)
- (a) King has gone from $78,000 (2017) to $120,000 (2018) an increase of 54%
- (b) Peters has gone from $21,000 (2017) to $36,000 (2018) an increase of 42%
- (c) Suttling has gone from $54,166 (2017) to $72,000 (2018) an increase of 33%

2: Cost of the two placements and who benefited!
(a) Xcel Capital (Bulesco) $418,712 fee for placements (page 11)
(b) Xcel Capital (Bulesco) $123,500 Corporate advisory fees (page 11)

3: Activities: (page 5)
No mention of Kopang, even though the company released an update (20^th March) advising the market that all the conditions have been met and the PGGS licence payment had been made. Nor has Kopang been mentioned in the likely developments and expected results from the operations section.
What is more intriguing is that the “alleged funds” from the June placement was to fund phase 1 of Kopang!!!!

4: The continual referencing to acquiring “high grade Australian Cobalt and Vanadium” – high grade based on “grab samples”? Because if anyone bothered to decipher ALL the assay results from the announcements of the “proposed acquisition” are they really HIGH GRADE? Grab samples and high grade in same sentences should be leaving a sour taste in shareholders mouths (re: all the BS at Morabisi from the ramp brigade) It should be a telling reminder that "high grade grab samples" does not necessarily equate to high grade drilling results, have a look at the weight of the grab samples as well and there has been numerous post in regards to grab samples and the concentrated nature of them.

5: Bulesco resigns prior to a placement where Xcel Capital have received a large portion of the cheap shares!!!! My calculations suggest that Steve Tomsic should be lodging an initial substantial holder notice, with the shares that he/related parties own.
A total of 73,065,690 shares held of the published register (1,455,370,361) = 5.02%


6: OHD, the review was supposed of been completed by now, and referring to the annual report (Principle Activities) it appears that the OHD PDU design and anticipated build (in the USA) is still progressing for operation in Australia. This is again confirmed in the annual report (Likely Developments and Expected Results from Operations) but they have reverted back to their "ambiguous" wording re:


Unfortunately, there is a slight contradiction to this in the email sent out by McLean, whereas it says
(sic) .... "The key change in strategy is that rather than build a PDU, we are looking to build a commercial scale plant with the capacity to supply the Australian market. The project however needs capital and knowledge of the agriculture industry. We have made a key appointment who has both mining and agriculture experience and we are engaging with potential financial partners to commercialise OHD"...(sic)

I am baffled by the two differing versions of what we are doing, BUT I am also baffled why McLean is making references to "WE" as in he has already assumed that the acquisition will be progressed unless I have read it wrong and his reference of we is ION Minerals? But if the we is "As in" GPP then why hasn't there been an announcement that GPP have made a key appointment? As @tuts has queried, has/is McLean already making decisions in the operations of GPP? and I also want to know where he got my personal information from but I have lodged a complaint with the ASX in regards to GPP passing on my personal information to a 3rd party without my consent!!!!!
Again, the "fluff" about engaging with potential financial partners is just a blast from the past as we apparently had partners/financial partners/ JV partners all lining up for the OHD project. I am also perplexed that McLean can be suggesting that we will be going to a "commercial scale plant" but we have yet to validate the process with a flawed PDU1 unit.
How did/has this study progressed? as it has now been completed.......
https://research.monash.edu/en/proj...pplication-of-biostimulant-to-soil-grown-proc

My personal opinion is that if they were genuine, and if the were transparent they would of released the "independent report on the due diligence" prior to the upcoming meeting rather than keep shareholders in the dark and play on their desperate hope of regaining their lost capital.
Realistically, as their published time frames for the progression of this "proposed acquisition" has already been pushed out, and there is little/no information if an exploration licence has been granted what timeframe for this to be a commercial prospect would/could anyone suggest?

I would also be inclined to ignore the fallacious ad hominem arguments of someone that appears to be emotionally brittle.......

All the above is IMO only
cheers