Here are some very recent comments straight from the horse's mouth regarding M&A. I have highlighted the important points in relation to CUU. Especially the insider controlled point. This bodes well for a reasonable buyout price. They are completely aware that insider controlled companies are driving a hard bargain.

Jorge M. Beristain - Deutsche Bank AG, Research Division

If I could just have one more follow-up for Don. Don, has your mind changed at all in the past 6 months given the fairly weak performance we've seen year-to-date, again, in mining equities? And this is compounding what the weakness that we saw already in 2011, to the point where, it looks on my math that it is far cheaper to buy going concern companies than to build the project from scratch and then when you compound it with these time delays through the permitting process, it seems to me that the greenfield CapEx and brownfield CapEx has continued to kind of wither on the vine due to time delays but, at the same time, the going concern companies are getting cheaper and cheaper by the day. So in your mind, is the pendulum kind of swinging in terms of favoring more of an M&A strategy, to sort of bolt on immediately accretive growth? Or are you still happy to stick with your portfolio of long-term projects?

Donald R. Lindsay

So my first comment is, that's an excellent question and very well phrased. And it goes to the heart of the discussions that we have here all the time. We are looking at capital allocation as one of, if not the single most important thing that we do. And there's no question that from a market value's point of view, the landscape is tilted towards buy versus build. Having said that, and we have teams that do a lot of work on this, we've reviewed all sorts of opportunities, including ones I'm sure you're watching that are getting cheaper, and they may well get cheaper from here, by the way. And the issue that you have to remember is that the assets themselves haven't changed. They may be valued in the market more cheaply but they're still the same assets. In many cases, those assets have something associated with them that make them not very interesting to us. It could be that they are short life, it could be that they have significant environmental and sustainability issues. It could be that their geopolitical risk is bad and getting worse from a resource nationalism point of view, or from a health and safety and violence point of view. So and those who are trading in the market don't have to deal with those issues, they can buy and sell and get out if things go seriously wrong, but we have to live them for a long, long time. And so as we go to build the company, we are very, very conscious of all these other, more qualitative factors in trying to build a good strong company. We always start with the resource base and are there any significant risks to it? Is it long life? Is it going to catch several cycles during which we can get our capital back and earn a decent return? We look at labor laws. You know what? I could go on and on, on list of questions. And then finally, even though the market price, the current bid, might be quite cheap in quite a number of these companies, they're really controlled, in terms of trying to buy them out, by 5 or 6 shareholders who own perhaps 30%, and they won't sell for the normal takeover premium of 30%, they all want 60%, 70%, 80%. So that in fact, the valuation that you can take it out for hasn't really in particular for hasn't really dropped quite as much as it might appear. So I can assure you that I personally and our Chairman and others on the team here, are looking at that issue all the time. It is intriguing as this market unfolds but, at the moment, we haven't changed our plans.