Ann: 30 September 2017 Quarterly Report, page-41

Thanks Nowhere,

There are always opportunities in investing as I am sure you are aware and practise it.

Now BNR may have been opportunistic in its play. When I first saw Geko investment I immediately saw the issue of the time with respect GEM's buy-in. There is always a sunset clause in these matters. And I was very interested whether GEM would fulfil its buy-in conditions. Time is always of the essence in investing and this was, on face value, an opportunity.

If GEM was unable to fulfil their part of the bargain in the buy-in then that should not be regarded as BNR's problem. It was not extortion by BNR. Both parties have obligations and responsibilities. Most investment decisions are made on timing. I can assume that this was not done with any malice. Every day people miss deadlines and suffer the consequences. If you read my earlier posts on the matter I said that a need for a negotiated agreement if GEM failed to get its buy-in. So I am not embarrassed by my view. An embarrassing view would be to kick GEM off if and when the buy-in expired. That was an option but not my view.

I agree with the Nanna principle. But I don't see that as a problem here based on my previous paragraph.

Other issues have arisen and BNR's fall-back position would always be the royalties which are sufficient to make it an excellent investment.

As noted before the legal path is littered with many fat lawyers and barristers. Where this matter goes is anyone's guess.

I am still of the opinion that amicable discussions are the best policy, but I fear that the opportunity for that may unfortunately now have passed. BNR may have been able to supply financing to the project.

With respect to my investment in BNR - most of the medium term holders are pleasantly satisfied with their in specie distribution of their holding in PNR which is doing a wonderful job in developing the Nicholson goldmine into a real winner which translates to a current value of 15c for each BNR share held.