Ann: Notice pursuant to Section 249D of the Corporations Act, page-39

Whoa stephok I think you are missing out some vital steps there, When you say "12 month lease,could turn out to be two year lease?" that in theory is a possibility but it is not a given. For that to happen GBF has to ask and MXR can either agree or decide that it does not want that possibility anymore.
On page 2 of the December 10 announcement it mentions that if MXR has developed economic resources or acquires projects ready for mining, it will have control of the Burbanks facility plus the security of a base load of gold ore on a Toll milling basis from 2020 onwards. MXR can decide that that offer is no longer in MXR's best interests and turn down the request to extend the lease for another 12 months.

So even if GBF takes up the option to purchase 50% of EGMS then MXR will still have the other 50% and the milling operation will be controlled by EGMS. So there will be equal sharing of the mill by mutual agreement.

I think Kevin has covered our interests as shareholders.
The vital thing is for GBF to agree to taking up the option to buy 50% of EGMS because that then leaves MXR debt free (or should do depending on the outcome of the negotiations with ERL) and with a steady monthly income to offset against running the company while moving ahead on seeking a suitable project ready for mining.