something to consider, page-36

hi mugsley.

i can see how you are frustrated. i am too. this has been a disaster for every ags shareholder except for those that jumped in on the 8 cent raise which i wish never happened.

and yes the announcements sort of had a positive and negative spin so it all sort of got messy for me too.

i bought into ags on the back of ags having 25% in what i believed would be an ecomonically producing (cash flow positive) extremely high grade uranium mine and from my understanding this would have been the case if the uranium was sold (even on the spot market) so i believe questions need to be asked regarding why stockpiling occurred.

all the prospective misleading stuff is of less importance to me because it was not a factor in me buying into ags. i can understand how the misleading stuff can be very important to others though and trust me i would have been very happy for alliance to have a win in court regarding the misleading stuff.

so apologies mugsley i am not here to dwell on the misleading stuff. i am all about the effect of the stockpiling on alliance resources. i believe i have the right to ask questions without being accusatory.

here is a question: who thinks a bhp, a rio, or even a cameco would have accepted the ~$74 million from quasar?

once again i will say that for the record i am not making any accusations of any wrong doing by any party associated with the four mile uranium project. it's not for me to say what is for example fair or unfair.

hi chris.

i thought ags was decent in that they were quick to say that the chile results were nothing to write home about. a lot of other explorers that discover duds go on about how they now have a better understanding of local geology blah blah blah.