Hi buda, just like to make a couple of comments on what you've...

Hi buda, just like to make a couple of comments on what you've written above:

You state QBL’s inferred JORC could easily go above 300MT. BAU already has 379MT with further significant upside potential. Roughly half of this amount is already classified as measured or indicated, and not just inferred.

You state that most likely the money in the bank will most likely go due to the legal claim. As per the statement released on the 27 September 2013, the claim relates to 20 million shares, with the loss claimed likely to be the difference between the price at which they were acquired (95c) and either the price at which they were sold or the current trading price of any shares not sold. So the worst case scenario would be a liability of around 16 million, which is less than half of the current cash reserve. The real loss will be nowhere near this level due to the fact that many investors would have sold out on the way down and would not be holding at the current levels, and no settlement will go anywhere near 100% of initial claim. What’s more, If it went to court, there’s no guarantee that the action would even be successful. QBL currently has 300 million shares on issue and cash at back of roughly 4.1 million (as of last quarterly) so cash backing per share is 1.36 cents vs BAU’s roughly 17c per share backing. BAU also has chinese JV partners covering 60-70% of exploration expenditure over the majority of tenements. Even with the legal claim, it's obvious which company is in better shape financially.

QBL’s 25% grade was leached at low temp samples and high temp sampling could increase this to 35%. All BAU’s grades are also reported at low temp and unbeneficated; at the moment BAU has a better quality resource.

I'll concede that QBL has the logistical advantage but BAU gets my nod in every other area. I realise everyone is excited with QBL's recent runup but if you take a detailed look they're not even close to matching BAU IMO.