I am grateful to FJ for his determined efforts to refute false DD. 

I have been silent as so much negativity has dominated this board negating its value and making the act of sifting the dross for the gems tedious. This company is set and time is needed to see how it gets out of the blocks.

I observe that many of the thoughts that give rise to such negativity are  expressed in the risk section of PTI public papers. The company's analysis of risk is a dynamic document which expands at each publication, I read it and find it useful as it creates for me a sense of reality of the world a venture company inhabits.  It is an easy section to set aside but I find it important as its indicative of the quality of our management's analysis, their mindset and awareness of the pitfalls.  Risk management is critical to business success and having plans to deal with risk is a key factor in survival. 

An examination of the risk section of the company's papers, for example, clearly discusses the options relating to tech impasse, such as the 4th Terminal issue, and its implications or the competition that Brunel fears.

I therefore feel that given that the risk and fears are covered and best left to those we employ to manage. Our role is to observe  risk management is a considered part of the business we invest in.

On this basis my opinion is that this board should seek out the positive in the main and not dwell on negativity.  Particularly at a time when the foundations of this business have been established and the business vehicle is effectively on the launch pad.  It's time to watch and wait.

My conclusion is that Brundalism is an unnecessary repetition of known risks.

Sula