Been busy with other stuff, lately, so not much time (and I guess motivation, with the way things have been going) to look too closely at my stock portfolio lately. Some very interesting posts here over the last two or three days, though.

I like Adrian, and he's usually right, but to think gold is going to rise significantly tomorrow certainly goes against so much of what we've seen over the past years. The Bear Stearns failure being one of the great examples.

ECU being subject to a buyout at a silly price? I've worried about that for over a year (although I tend to worry more than most), and this AUR deal just brings it to the attention of many junior mining company shareholders, especially those that have very good properties in politically acceptable locations. Here's the thing - why wouldn't a larger company make an offer for ECU? Is it that we haven't proven up enough resource yet?

Looking at junior miners for the last 18 months or so, I'd have to agree that there isn't much risk in waiting for more to be proved up, since the release of good/great news doesn't hardly move the stock price.

And a current offer of $3 would be viewed as heaven sent for many, many shareholders, even some of those who swear their holding their shares till they die! We been deprived of a share price beginning with the number "3" for so long, that it will look very, very tempting. You know a lot of shareholders are wondering if this stock (like other juniors) will ever rise significantly.

GWR's comments on the AUR bid and whether a competing bid or bids will emerge are bang on, as his comments generally are. Kinross has likely preempted others by making a bid with a 63% premium, how will another company or companies sell a 75% or 100% premium, especially with the best asset being subject to the whims of Ecuador?

Some here are very unrealistic.

Dislcosure: I'm generally exactly wrong! (But I do hold steadfastly to the notion that we've still got the original Hank Paulson at the reins of the Treasury.)