I trust that it will change in the future; unfortunately, "the future" appears further and further out.
Pains me to say, in some respects, but until proven otherwise, I agree with RD that there are ways to limit dilution in 2013 (vs. 2012), and that to do so is eminently in the company's interest (as opposed to shareholders' alone -- there's a difference).
If 30 million new shares bring in only $15M - $20M, I see no reason the company cannot pledge to use only half of the newly authorized shares in 2013, at most.
Until I'm shown why this cannot be, why can't the company do any combination of the following to limit cap ex to say $100M or even $110M, rather than $115M - $120M:
1) defer the the 2012 dividend (payable in late 2013), "saving" ~$3.0M of the $15M - $20M
2) defer upping the equity stake in one or two fish farms one year
3) building one fish farm for cash, without the equity participation
4) selling the least valuable, or least immediately needed piece of land (LUR)
5) greenhousing HU over two years, rather than one
6) issuing shares opportunistically after the FN listing and/or a bond deal; in any case, only > $1.00
7) franchise restaurants before investing in too many more company owned prototypes
8) master franchising APM technology to one province
9) whatever else
