Baires: It seems the best way to understand the timing is that it was necessary to take DW out of his position (whether completely or for a transfer to a different position) during the Christmas distraction season, and it was necessary to take him out at all because anyone interested in funding the PP financing needed to see a commitment to production rather than exploration before they would be interested in committing dollars. So it was either see DW off first before Christmas, and do the PP in January, or otherwise do what actually happened, i.e. announce the PP then see off DW. Laying off DW before Christmas was optimal, doing it between Christmas and New Years would have been completely inappropriate, and afterwards would have been too late - the markets would have wakened from the Christmas torpor.

When DW left I think shareholders needed to see there is a future, and having the PP in place was an indication that there is a future for the company, i.e., that there is ongoing commitment to the vision of a viable company committed to production even in the absence of DW. Witness what happened in any case: the outpouring of grief, doubt and concern about the future of the company at the loss of the beacon - DW - even with the PP in place. With no DW and no PP, the share price could have really dumped, then the PP would have been jeopardized at the .09 price and the whole thing might have unravelled.

Given this perspective of a future and a hope for the company as a future miner in its present form, we can conclude that the company handled a very difficult transition very well. Gives confidence. Now let's see what happens to the fellow who generated such confidence and loyalty in shareholders, if not in the market itself. Ike