In light of the reporting from the weekend, things are a bit...

In light of the reporting from the weekend, things are a bit clearer.

AUM, as pointed out, don't want to release bearings of drill holes. Clearly the deposit stretches into a neighbouring property, which the tenements become available in September. Which neighbours property?
EXS or Xstrata? Probably doesn't matter, as they have worked together previously. The guy from EXS taking GPS readings, well its obvious why, if the deposit stretches into their property.

EXS, as reported in the Australian, have already approached AUM for a joint venture via a 15% stakeholder in EXS.

AUM obviously have rejected the JV, which makes me feel either the deposit;
1. doesn't cross the EXS boundary or
2. A large proportion of the deposit is at Las minerales

One thing is for sure shareholders would have been even better off, had AUM been allowed to acquire neighbouring properties, that is now more difficult, but now the cat is out of the bag, what will be McCrae's next move???

To postulate;
1. Maybe it is better off to have AUM suspended to September, that way the co-ordinates are not made public
2. Does it matter now? Clearly if AUM are seen to have a strong interest in one of the neighbouring properties, this will spark a bidding war,

or...the one I like best...

3. If the deposit moves into Xstrata property does AUM have the upper hand in negotiation for sale of it's assets.

Man...this is a soap opera!

DYOR, jasper