What we should all agree on is that while Snezzer's "legal extortion" is really an oxymoron, (as I am sure you intend it to be), it is the reality of what NOT management has to strategise and negotiate solutions for. Virtually every major resource company in Canada has faced similar challenges, and after some initial emotional hurdles, developed solutions that co-opted both financially and community wise. Once financial incentives (in the form of resource dues or royalties etc.) are negotiated, the FN typically want to move forward with minimum delay while protecting cultural and family values. The issues of employment and contractual preferences are generally win/win situations for skilled mangements and FN alike.

As shareholders, we should objectively consider three major potential impacts:

1) Is any ultimate royalty likely to be material in a world of highly volatile resource prices and external risks ? If so, our pricing assumptions should be net of royalty. If not, we should focus elsewhere.

2) Is management capable of dealing with the FN development issues concurrent with other critical tasks. If not, for whatever reason, the greater development time will reduce PV and share price. Uncertainty is chilling the share price.

3) Are other risks and cost quatifiable? If not, risk discounting increases.

NOT stock appears now at its "darkest hour" in market valuation due to these risks and the failed FWR bid. That is remarkable considering that CLF has been firmly entrenched in the RoF.That is what is very attractive about the stock now, all other things equal.

But lets be objective , we will not succeed simply by being apologists for management, even if the stock is undervalued. My next purchase will be envisioned as a five year buy-and-hold, and I am starting to feel the time is near if management meets the current challenge. All in all it remains critical to be diversified even within holdings of juniors.