Countrywriter, you are missing the key point entirely. It is...

Countrywriter, you are missing the key point entirely.

It is allabout price, and any deal which is done that undervalues BRB’s assets going into the deal, the course you propose we accept, is detrimental to shareholders, just like the initial deal at Manna.

The more sensible course of action for shareholders, is to apply pressure for a higher offer, not cave into accepting the first one.

Sellingassets cheaply is not entrepreneurial, it’s value-destructive, stupid andirresponsible.

The focus on monetising the assets at any price has not helped BRB’s share price or BRB’s Enterprise Value. When Peter Cook took the reins as Chairman 18 months ago the Enterprise Value (EV)/ per Resource ounce was $60/oz. Prior to the Offer announcement, the EV/Resource ounce was a paltry $10/oz!

Pre-Offer, BRB’s share price did improve slightly, but only as a result of selling assets cheaply.

The benefits that accrue from combining the Lake Roe and Rebecca assets are not in dispute. BRB should get some of this, but firstly we should recoup a healthy premium on top of what we spent in the ground at Lake Roe (~$82M).

The original Offer assigned an Enterprise Value to Breaker of ~$50M when first announced (Offer minus the cash). Now, because the gold sentiment and RMS share price has improved, it is ~$63M. We don’t make discoveries and prove upmines, simply to receive partial reimbursement.

The current EV/oz is still only $38/oz. We are worth at least as much as Musgrave which has an EV/oz of $115/oz. Musgrave is a great company, but BRB has as more high-grade as well as high-margin open pit material.

BRB needs to see a healthy premium on its in-ground expenditure, as well as part of the value-upgrade that arises from combining the smaller Rebecca with the larger, high-grade Lake Roe Project. The Rebecca Project will not fly on its own as a standalone development, and RMS needs a 3^rd production area soon.

Good wishes to all BRB shareholders

DYOR