Ann: Quarterly Activities/Appendix 5B Cash Flow Report, page-50

As I said, the HMX announcement of 14 February explains where the problem lies. Obviously mistakes were made in the past and these mistakes lead to a - from HMX's point of view - poor treatment of HMX in the whole discussion. I can understand HMX's interpretation and the fact is that in the reassessment, land was taken away from HMX - and thus also - at least in principle - from HMX shareholders. It is clear that HMX has to look after the interests of its shareholders. A yes and amen and it is just the way it is without at least questioning the decision is not an option. Neither from my point of view, nor from that of HMX management.

The argument that HMX has not taken care of Mt. Hope or has not been active there in recent years is not an argument against HMX.

However, the focus is currently elsewhere. Kalman, Hardway - the start of drilling at 6 prospects plus the search for a Tier 1 IOCG in the Sumitomo JV context. This is where the music will be playing in the coming weeks.

The boundary dispute is a side noise that will hopefully come to an end with the written statement of reasons. PS. By the way, I do not feel attacked at all. We are just exchanging opinions. Others will decide on this dispute anyway. If the decision is reversed, CNB will certainly file an appeal - therefore clear facts would be "helpful" to end the discussion.