<Ok I see what you are reading. The substantial increase I took to mean from recent levels, which I believe were relatively low. But I see what you are getting at. You are saying that the range is no longer 4 to 8 million, but some new higher range. If so, I think the new range should have been mentioned in the pr.>

I gave the above some thought and looked at the last 2 Qs. I'm not good at reading the financial reports, but it appears to me that the PDS capital on hand at the close of both those quarters was either zero or negative.

My understanding the reason it gets so low is lack of licensing and an annual cap on the amount of additional capital infusion. Corrections welcomed.

So when they say "The resolution included an agreement to provide a substantial increase in working capital" the obvious thing to change is the annual cap, not necessarily the range. The range is somewhat meaningless since they have not met the low end of that range for a while now. IMO. Corrections welcomed.

Opty