Ann: Quarterly Activities Report, page-98

That type of thing sets a dangerous precedent though, communities will then just hold out for the best offer and that would in turn jeopardise the viability of projects.

Perhaps the company could offer to buy the properties at market value? Again, that has the potential to set a dangerous precedent, but at least land holders "would have options" and wouldn't be / feel "as trapped".

The company could either sell the properties with the disclosure of a mine being built, or hold the properties in a trust and sell them when the mine has shut and the land has been rehabilitated.

Of course the land could be leased out whilst the mine is operating, so not entirely a loss.

And finally, some people just don't want a mine in their "community", which I guess is fair enough, but that is why we have these processes and community consultation that give the company to try and address the concerns.