Hello Tinman.

As I understand your question (directed to Bluebird), it concerns whether or not our focus will be working on Pangang’s presently “unrecoverable” slag or whether it will be on their “overall inefficient process for their resources”?

Being that our March 3rd Press Release states that we’ll be doing “further test work” on both the “TiO2 concentrates” as well as the “BF slags,” we’ll know our further degrees of success and the manifold applications of our work following the tests. Of course, work on one sample doesn’t diminish the importance of work on the other. On the contrary, success or failure on one sample can only serve to enhance what we get out of the other sample.

The key sentence of our March 3rd Press Release states that we’ll do “further test work” on both “50-kg samples” of the Pangang “TiO2 concentrates from their beneficiation plant and 50-kg samples of their BF slags.”

“The two parties reached a new agreement on future cooperation, whereby Pangang will provide Magpie with 50-kg samples of TiO2 concentrates from their beneficiation plant and 50-kg samples of their BF slags for further test work to be carried out in Canada using Magpie’s proprietary hydrometallurgical technology, a process that should take 4-6 months.”

I have no expertise whatsoever on this highly technical subject. However, I believe we cannot be far wrong if we were to apply a simple-layman-logical idea here. That is, there is an interdependent connection between the TiO2 concentrates and the BF slags. Testing of one set of samples cannot fail but play an important influence on the testing of the other set of samples.

For the sake of argument—if Pangang (thanks to Fancamp) could make good use of the resulting BF Slags—they might decide to continue their “overall inefficient process” (as you put it). It could be argued that, in spite of the inefficiency of the beneficiation of the TiO2 concentrate, the advantageous processing of the resulting BF Slags would make the whole operation cost effective (in the totality of all its parts together). On the other hand—if Pangang (thanks to Fancamp) could make everything more coherent from top to bottom—they might decide that changing nearly everything is the cost effective way to go (in the long run).

Keep in mind, there are also any number of other possibilities concerning the interconnectivity of all the various processes and the related financial interconnectivities that Pangang will be considering. For Fancamp, this could turn out to be a much bigger deal than we presently realize. As is the case with so much else, the Shareholders’ great frustration is compounded yet again by not even having an estimate of the degree this will pay off (and when it will happen).

The bright side is the fact that this entire technology angle is potentially a completely new—and major—source of future income. Remember, we first engaged SGS and CORUM to develop all these methodologies strictly in regards to developing Magpie.

As is so often the case with everything else, yet again our Great Leaders deserve the highest praise for putting into play yet another great asset they acquired and developed at token cost. On the other hand, as is so often the case with everything else, yet again our Great Leaders deserve the highest condemnation for working overtime, figuring out how best to delay the payoff date into the vast unknown future.