re: met coal quality Did anyone at the AGM asked the Board why the big discrepancies between forecasts and delivering on promises?And if so what was the answer, verbetum if possible? There has been a great deal of speculation over the quality of the coal, the thickness of the seams, and so forth. In the Agapitos technical report this kind of coal is classifiede as met coal with high ash content 10% of dry ash, while the high quality HCC is 6%. The proper washing ot the raw coal can reduce the ash content up to 8% and the coal can be marketed as met coal, PCI or even thermal coal. The BTU content is relatively high, 13000-14000 BTUs/lb. If the quality of the coal is subpar, may be the original report is flawed and for that there are legal liabilities and I don' t see why would not the company take legal action against Agapitos if that would was the case.If on the other hand the whole bungle was due to the stupidity of the Board, Bates and Associates, it is very reasonable to expect them to blame it on the "market" in order to cover you know what. So did anyone asked the question as framed above and what was the answer? Any info on this matter would be helpfull.