1. Agreed with the idea of spinning off

- BC, and

- LSG JV plus 5% NSR

as two subsidiaries ininitially (distribution to shareholders later) and give them to two different persons who would be given full authority to run the run them in a pro-active manner, i.e., actually going out there to promote and market the properties. This will give Dave some free time to focus his effort in Borden. After all he has only 1 pair of hands and 24 hr-days.

2. Fearing about a hostile TO at low ball offers: Here are a few issues/questions for comments by others

- I hope that we have a solid poison pill defence in place

- Macquarie, majority shareholder? 5.158.100 M shares plus 1.475 M wts = 10.02% OS (on a partially diluted basis...don't know what "partially" means). This goes over the 10% threshold, hence Macquarie would be considered as "insider". But why they wanted to go over the threshold (and required to declare themselves), since they could have stayed at the 9.9% level and hence under the radar? The only logical conclusion would be that they wanted to be known as an insider who has more than 10%, a force to be reckoned with in a TO (compusory tendering level). So, they want to signal to the world and potential suitors that they hold some good cards, and could behave like a kingmaker (can be bought of course).

- Anyone knows if we have any other major shareholders (institutions) that have some sizable holdings? (two "lurkers" at 5% each could join force to make 2 x 5% =10%).

- Management + BoD holdings: Do they hold a significant sum?

- Retail shareholder: Do we have enough shares (6.64 M shares = 67 shareholders @100k each? Would it be useful to have a head count?) to form a 10% block (just like what they have at KWG)

- Retail + Management:?

Just something to think about.

goldhunter