Defend yourself old boy! Speak up and address my rebuttal then. Why is our part of the project not going to sell on its own merits vs the holding company's market cap?

===================

What rebuttal? Where is the defense of your statement?

Do you mean your opinion that because the market once valued us at $2.75 (when we had negative cost copper, salazar, 4 year clause, etc.) we somehow are still worth that now? It was a much different project then - a sure thing, speculations up to $10 buyouts and such. Not so anymore unfortunately. I didn't see any proof or argument there, just your opinion...

Look at what Teck did recently at Fort Hills - they could have added another 10% of the project for a bargain price, but didn't IMHO because it wouldn't have been received well by the market. It would have likely made good business sense as Fort Hills is a good project but the market didn't react well to their original buy in.

If they were to pay $2.75 as you are proposing they are preparing to do with their asset sales, they would first have to allow our SP to rise dramatically first to improve the optics of the deal (costing them nothing to do so). The markets have a strong effect on buyout prices or aquisitions.

That's my opinion and it seems self evident - I'm not sure how you expect me to defend it? I believe its true, but obviously you feel differently.

That in itself doesn't invalidate it IMHO.

If they did a suprise buyout at $2.75 as you were alluding to, with us at 16 cents the market would not react well.

Where is your rebuttal that could be even a remote possibility? Spending a quarter of their market cap on 25% of a greenfield project that isn't even on their project timeline? Because we were once valued at 2.75? Defend that, old boy...