Hey GH11...great feedback...I appreciate your opinion and have respected your posts for a long time. I agree with you on the value of the slurry pipe in a stand-alone scenario.

The reason I used such strong metaphors in my downplaying of the slurry pipe is because I strongly believe that neither one of the Govs will opt for this pipe in light of not only their preference (economic development, jobs creation, and income for the treasury's bottom line) but also their responsibility toward the taxpayer (voter) who are in a much better position to JUDGE the progress and the outcome given the amount of information that has surfaced over the last 12 months.

I do believe that the slurry pipe would be the best option for KWG (and its shareholders) if nothing else was in the works and the possibility of a RR was off the table. Conversely, I truly believe that it is not the best option for the whole of the ROF especially from the long-term Govs' perspectives and I think that they will push for the long-term infrastructure option (RR after or in concert with E-W road to get goods and equipment into the area).

As I was writing my last email I kept imagining how much equity Kevin O'Neill (not that I admire him...I dispise his value system) would require if we asked him to fund the building of the slurry pipe....keep in mind that in the last four years we have suffered a dilution of approx 200%... How much equity would we be left if the cost of building the pipe ($4 to $5 hundred million) was factored into the eventual returns. Long-term it might work, but short to medium term it would be very difficult to offset with equity.

Consequently, I have to revert to the most sensible risk management/cost-effective capital structure for the ROF which is a combination of Gov infrastructure investment matched with a long-term bond issue and corporate investment (not forgetting the FN 's involvement) which will spread out both the risk and the wealth-building opportunities (as opposed to pooling it in the coffers of our nemesis in Cleveland). In light of this , I have to assert that the Govs would never support, invest in, nor approve the slurry pipe unless and until they themselves close the door on the RR option.

I do also recognize your point that, for the purposes of finding a deep pocket investor(s) to "take-over" the project or our company as a whole, the slurry pipe makes sense and is a viable option. I do wonder though, if the Gov would then step in and oppose the deal using the "net benefit for the country" clause given that so much scrutiny and support has been levied towards the RR option and the development of the ROF as a whole. I believe that both Govs would never allow the net benefit of the ROF to the province and country, to be compromized by an albeit smart and strategic "tour de force" of one individual company.

Either way it spells success and significant future returns for all KWG longs. Like many astute analysts have said in the past: "In the end, it's all about who holds the assets." ... and Frank has done an incredible job of coralling the assets into our back yard

Thanks again for your response to my post GH11. It was well thoughtout and presented. Keep it coming...I really appreciate what you and many others bring to the table.

Le Penseur