Hello Rago.

Please take no offense. I intended none. This is what I said:

“In no way, shape or form, does his [Jean Lafleur’s] thinking coincide with that of Rago’s who pointed out (Monday, on this Message Hub) that we could sell two million Argex shares for the expressed purpose of renewing all our leases.”

The operative word I used, “could,” is not to be taken as the equivalent of “should.” Your saying we “could” do something is not the same as saying you’ve concluded we “should” do it. Nor did I say that.

I was trying to put across three ideas and tie them together (while being brief doing it):

1) Jean Lafleur is on record, over and over again, as unambiguously in favor of monetizing most of our assets.

2) Selling Argex shares and using that money to pay for unexplored leases is the direct opposite. It’s taking an asset (Argex shares) with a clearly defined dollar value (in the market) and converting it into something (unexplored leases) whose value is not presently known. In effect, doing that is the equivalent of demonetizing our Argex shares (which are the fruit of our past labors converting an inconclusively evaluated property into a liquid asset).

3) Because Lafleur’s views are so explicit and so far different from tightly holding on to our assets, I doubt the idea of paying dearly to do the opposite (that is, demonetizing Argex in flavor of unexplored leases) would even cross his mind (as it has with you).

My comment in my earlier message was more about Lafleur than it was about you. Of course, my saying an idea crossed your mind is a far cry from saying you’re in favor of it or that you’ve endorsed it. My point was: Being that Lafleur made a firm and sincere commitment to shareholders to extract monetary values from our properties, he’s not about to turn-around and convert an important and well-known monetary entity (Argex shares) into a speculative one (unexplored leases) without any known value (even though, as you’ve pointed out in your last message, “we could if we wanted to”).

As I understand it, your take on the subject was more about delineating what’s possible than it was about anything else. My point is: that’s a distraction. Moreover, my reasoning is: Not only should we not expect it, we should expect Lafleur to hold true to his promises to acquire money for our assets, not exchange our well-delineated assets for early largely un-delineated exploratory projects (even though “we could if we wanted to”).

As I said earlier, a far better “could” would be to use Argex money to invest in Fancamp shares. That way, we’re investing in the whole Fancamp as it is. Getting the whole package means getting all the valuable stuff we already know about. That’s a far better use of our money than spending it on unexplored leases (even though “we could if we wanted to”).