Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-246

Dickd, the Thai report written by a non-expert should be the least of your concerns. His investigation and report couldn't even conclude there was a direct link rather a possible leak. Even it this was true, which it isn't, ask yourself so what does this then mean in terms of our arbitration case? Effectively nothing. Assuming the worst and they were inclined to accept their was a possible leak from the tailing pond, it still wouldn't create significant long term impacts to the environment and could be easily rectified. But importantly, the panel of international lawyers will be asked why wasn't this ever picked up in the quarterly audit reports overseen by the DPIM who gave it the all clear each and every year? And why was a preeminent engineer in the the design and auditing of such ponds not able to pick up on the potential degradation of the storage pond? And why did they bother writing a +250 page rebuke this finding? An even assuming they were all negligent and the Thai doctor of philosophy who wrote the report for the Thai Government had it right it will not matter as they did not follow DUE PROCESS. Trying to retrospectively justify your actions won't cut it under international law as it was a disproportionate response. There were many alternative and yet they selected to use a sludge hammer. This ultimately is all the tribunal has to consider. It's effectively already a check mate.

ST1, no this will not be considered as there is no direct link. Nor will costs of having to take out a loan bridging facility etc or potential sale of NE at fire sale prices. It must relate to the operation of the Chatree gold mine in isolation to all other impacts on KCN. Our team will look to bring in more than just the remaining 10 years reserves and as such it will be a bigger number being sought and argued on next month. Their side via Arnold & Porter will look to counter via using extreme and unrealistic financial assumptions. It will likely end somewhere in the middle. However, I have noted one case where the tribunal awarded more than the claimant was initially requesting.