Ann: Quarterly Activity and Cashflow Reports, page-52

MD - Correct me if I'm wrong, but the aforementioned $110m is the amount that we will "receive" for the current Mining area. While the actual defined area that this applies to is being argued, from my understanding it is not the entirety of the Four Mile area.

Now, to skip forward (or back, depending on how you look at it), when we put the For Sale sign out the front, what did everyone value our 25% of B4M to be worth? Mt personal valuation was a $1b-$2b project (for 100%), meaning our (ACE's) share would be worth $250m-$500m. If we are getting $110m for the current mining area, we would need to know what % of the B4M area that this actually applies to before we can decide if we are giving this away "for nothing", or if in fact we are getting reasonable value, especially as we will be free-carried for a period of time.

At some stage H/Q will sell our product. It might have meant we lost a significant % in this current mining area, but the remainder of the mining lease, of which we still have 25% of (at this stage), shouldn't be impacted (again, correct me if I'm wrong - like everyone, I'm trying to get my head around it all with the minimal information we are being provided).

We have reduced from 25% to 15% of a particular area, not of the entire package. The sensationalists will continue to say we have given away 40%. Both figures are true and correct (IMO), however, I just don't understand why some holders would want to make it sound worse than what it is.

Just my opinion, and a bit of thinking out loud.