There are a mountain of things that could be said, but it all boils down to two simple questions. And until I hear good answers to these two questions, there is no reason to believe Aurelian's board of directors are acting in the best interests of its shareholders (for whatever reason).

1) Why accept the current low bid as friendly?

The bid comes at a time immediately prior to the publication of the new mining law that by Kinross's own admission contains no substantial surprises. This can only mean that the draft mining law called "reasonable" by ARU's own CEO will have no substantial changes. As the political risk uncertainty is the prime cause for the drop in share price of Aurelian this year, once the company has a firm legal footing its share price can logically be expected to rise. Kinross's bid is that of an astute mining company that knows Aurelian and its assets are at a discount to both past and future valuations. However it seems inexcusable that the Aurelian board of directors consider this bid friendly.

2) What possible advantage is there for Aurelian shareholders to sell 15m shares to Kinross at $4.75?

At the Aurelian AGM, the CEO stated that the company had sufficient working capital for present needs. There is no need to dilute Aurelian stock at such a low price unless the company believes its share price will remain low for the foreseeable future. If that is the case, its information about the contents of the new mining law is substantially different to both Kinross (most importantly) and all other Ecuador analysts I have spoken with.

Until the shareholders of Aurelian hear a good answer to these two questions, there is every reason to suppose that the board of directors, headed by its CEO Patrick Anderson, it not performing its fiduciary duty correctly.