Black_Knight and Emilez are guessing, but, whatever the answer, the results do stink. Was the company, as Emilez posted recently here, just too hurried to take the risk of a bigger deal than it knew how to manage? I am wondering why such a horribly bad deal was entered? Almost stinks enough, just from the items set forth by Black_knight in his recent posting here, to think that taking on aqua farm 4 was intentionally done for one purpose: to ruin the future by getting into a deal where the pollution was too high, the costs of staying in too high, and the size too dangerous? Such hugely negative risks that would overwhelm past success, even prevent credibility for past successes? Intended to make it impossible, ever after, to let anything good be seen from the rest of the succeeding fish farms? I don't believe suicidal business choices were accidental, but, I sure hope someone comes up with a business explanation that rebuilds faith for those of us long SIAF.
Why would contamination be accepted? Just wildly speculating, but, does that mean that SIAF thought it had know-how not merely to operate cleanly, but, to operate with a net cleaning of what was starting as contaminated?
If so, wouldn't that contamination and the risk of not succeeding to improve the environment by the means brought to treat it mean a bargain purchase had to be on the table? This is the bone I cannot get past. Aqua Farm 4 should have been structured as providing major funds to SIAF for its know-how.
The deeper I dive, the worse this mega farm or aqua farm 4 dealing stinks, as bad as stories about deals with organized crime....
