something fishy, page-4

Why this letter not back in April when MIN announced T/O? Perhaps because it is only now (after FMG coming in) that someone perhaps and by the sound of the letter, raised a concern and the minster had to respond. Again sad thing is this letter was to AGO which means, if this theory is correct, the concern would have been raised by AGO BOD which would then mean AGO BOD is trying HARD to put other bidders off. One may argue AGO may have simply been protective of "their asset" BUT if there is a T/O (by whoever) is involved would you not want to sell AGO as a flexible option re access to port and help demanding higher bid ... unless of course the BOD is adamant about MIN's bid regardless.