Ann: Trading Halt, page-76

Stupid? I think that's fairly strong language Surat.

This is an impediment not a brick wall. Successful mining companies spend years and millions negotiating the regulatory and envionmental issues and pursuing consents and appeals.

The ground will have appeal to an entity with the ability to negotate those. I am sure Bowdens has that ability but so will others.

Rick Rule once gave an interview in which he was shaken by a stock which dropped far far further than he ever contemplated. He went back to his original fundmental analysis and reached the view that it was right, and if the stock at say $1 was appealling, at a fraction of that it was unbelieveably good buying.

I cannot see SVL walking away and nor should it. Statements in the media that the mine is dead in the water are legally and factually wrong. SVL is in the position of any development company, ie needs to obtain consent, rather than an exploation company which has not even found a resource.

The quality of the resource is unchanged. SVL still owns it and much of the ground. Before it even had consent 2 years ago, 3 years ago, 4 years ago and 5 years ago, it was in the .20's. We at least know that the first instance court took the view that the impacts of the mine itself were satisfactory - a view reached despite opposition then. This add on of a transmission line seems unlikley to impose significantly greater imacts than the mine itself.

It is a shame the announcement is on a Friday, an often week day for stocks.

Nothing I say will of course affect the current selling, but I do hope that a more considered view occurs next week, which is that the sky has not fallen in. For all the sellers, and there have been many today, there have been buyers who I suspect consider this a bargain with a very substantial gain to be made.