Thank you Mr. Anderson for providing reponses to 6 of our challenge questions.
However, as you can see there are still a few questions that require your input.
Please provide a public response to the remaining questions:
- Why further dilute ARU by agreeing to the PP for 15 million of Aurelian shares at $4.75?
- Comment on not releasing drill results on 80+ holes?
- Why didn’t you release holes on satellite targets?
- Why didn’t you release the results of the deep drill hole?
- Why haven’t we received information about the Aerotem survey results?
- Why, after the bid has been presented and accepted, do you talk up the risk in Ecuador when a week before the bid in a press release you downplayed it?
- Why, when so many reputable companies/analysts are saying the situation in Ecuador looks better, do you turn negative?
- Please comment on the Christopher Ecclestone article.
- Why with Tye Burt, the CEO of Kinross, saying he has had numerous meetings with senior officials in the Ecuador government and stating he is comfortable and there will be no surprises, do you preach that the situation is questionable?
- Why is there no valuation for the balance of property for nothing?
- Explain to us exactly how you came to conclude that $1.2 b was a fair deal for blue sky potential?
- There were questionable trading activities in the 20 days prior to the bids. Can you comment on that?
- It has been proposed that Kinross was artificially high and Aurelian artificially low. Please comment on this
- Was the Micon report updated?
- And if so, why has it not been released?
- Why continue to use such a high ‘lower cut off grade’ of 2.3 g/t? Please tell us how many ounces you would have if you used a 0.5 g/t lower cutoff.
- Why are the Bonza ounces not included?
- How does this insitu value compare to other gold juniors sold in the $300+ per oz insitu?
- Comment on the 2,000,000 option granted 3 days before the offer was conceived?
