Contention arises from the concern that there may be a very real separation between what is necessarily best for an individual such as Peter H. Smith, and what is best for shareholders of a public company such as Fancamp.

If Peter H. Smith staked the Magpie property rather than Fancamp, than this would be an entirely differant animal. That the cost was only $15,000 is irrelevant - it is the intrinsic value of the claims that matters. The value of these claims appear to be sufficient enough to lure a well accredited GEO on board as well as raise a new company with governing BOD - so I think it is fair to presume Magpie Mines Inc could receive a substantial premium evaluated on a public market rather than private for speculative potential.

Despite that Magpie 'will' become a public company, it is currently privately owned and accounting would treat it as such.

Fancamp, may elect to sell their ownership in a private company, such as Magpie Mines, to a third party such as myself, or Peter H. Smith for book value. This kind of transaction could take place before a company such as Magpie Mines Inc. goes public, and such a transaction would on-paper 'maximize' shareholder value as speculative value does not exist in privately owned exploration companies.

I believe it is important to note that I am not accusing anyone within Fancamp of illegal or unethical practises. I am merely stating that as a result of these events, there seems to exist a possibility that a Magpie BOD member with a good relationship to the CEO of public company such as Fancamp, might recommend that Fancamp consider sale of Fancamp's Magpie shares to a third party before Magpie goes public? Correct me if this is impossible.

Good corporate governance means leaving your shareholders with no doubt there are checks and measures in place to eliminate the possibility for unethical practises. Sometimes that means doing things a bit differantly despite cost and having more checks in place to assure shareholder confidence. The reputation of Sheridan Sr. alone is grounds for suspicion and due cause to withdraw a normal tendency toward benefit of the doubt.

In any event, I will take more pride in being mistaken than being right and I truly appreciate the insightful responses exploring all possibilities.

Respectfully,

Chris