Ann: Invalid Section 249D Notice, page-119

I take it with this new found sense of extremely large positivity on your part that you will be buying back into GPP in the next week or so??

I won't be buying back by the way as need to see action and see the change in management is leading to far greater transparency to updating SH appropriately with more realistic announcements than some of the tripe they put out in the past. As I stated previously I see this as a reverse TO and lets see how the new additions to the BOD do btw before beating drums further and putting gold medals around the neck of that dude in the avatar you have (and given the amount of self-acclaimed gold medals around his neck now I do worry they will suffer a broken neck soon due to the sheer weight of gold medals they are carrying, but obviously carrying that weight must be bad on the posture).

I think Morabisi/REE is dead as is Kopang. (Kopang is dead IMO because why seek copper/cobalt in Guyana if they have an exploration prospect in Australia through the reverse takeover that is claimed to hold copper/cobalt/vanadium). I wouldn't take to much from the samples as would need to understand how the samples were selected and taken before forming a view as to whether the samples may be a reflection of what might lie in the area (obviously what is underneath the ground can differ in any event) but understanding the selection methods can inform SH as to how to treat the samples IMO IMO IMO.

SOP is in the too hard basket as relying on Origin so leaves OHD as theother project IMO to consider for GPP going forward - and some transparency rather than fluff information around i.) why the delays in the OHD pilot plant for a start, ii.) the reliance and relevance of past OHD trial results going forward, iii.) what are the appropriate benchmarks in assessing OHD because it is obvious the previous statement that OHD is 1/10th of traditional fertiliser costs is rubbish as they meant retail, v.) if it was that good why not the takeup and why the delays, vi.) exactly what did GPP attain for the $4 million spend in terms of rights to the technology and its usuage and even how GPP's spend/research contributed to technology development and vii.) what happened to all those forecast JVs initially stated by GPP when it first started making announcements on OHD in late 2016 to early 2017.

The lack of action on OHD and the inability to get a government grant or progress the JVs they were alluding to in the early days is a huge question mark on the effectiveness of OHD in a true sense IMO because if you take the results published to date at simply face value you would have expected far more significant progress than what has happened here IMO. So the question in my mind is 1.) what role has management's inabilities impacted the development of OHD, because IMO management were not up to the task, or 2.) is it a question like the Ashburton tenements I know @Davyboy has referred to in some of his posts been not as good as they look on paper (i.e. which could also be the case for OHD - using an analogy here for avoidance of doubt), or 3.) a combination of both

Looking at OHD it eerily has some similarities to Guyana - get GPP to take the risk by pumping money into the 'venture' and if it doesn't work out obviously GPP bear all the risks (which in part is also happening with these new tenements in Australia where GPP again will take the risks). I am still struggling as to what risks the owners of the OHD IP actually took since all the research/trials that then feed into any so-called improvement to the OHD process is borne by GPP. Refer Post #: 26786721 and Post #: 28206618 and the embedded posts therein to understand this comment.

As I said both positives and negatives with the reverse takeover in effect proposal, so continue to sit on the fence with splinters - Refer: Post #: 34184247. Be interesting whether OHD is continued to be progressed as well.

All IMO IMO IMO IMO