Found this clip inweekend reading:

"Since the days of accelerated production that lasted from 1985 to around 2005 [the time when the bullion banks loaned bullion to the miners to use in financing production] new deposits have become more difficult to find and bring to production. The political climate in which miners operate in the world has increased the risks associated with investment. The deposits that are out there have become smaller. Mining companies are lowering their sights and looking at deposits as small as 1 million ounces. Anything larger is more inviting. Deposits in politically favorable and mining friendly nations add to that attraction.

So imagine that you have to before a company that is producing the proven deposits and is already producing and good drill results on your properties you would not choose but go for both, provided the terms are right for you.

There are many companies out there from those exploring, to those with proven deposits right the way up to junior companies already in production. These are safer than the unknown, so, subject to the takeover enhancing shareholder value and not diluting it, takeovers are a very good way to go and a way that will be followed increasingly by large mining companies in the future."

This stimulates me to ask: Could some of the less savory "bigs" be keeping the price down, and accumulating ECU shares? The motivation being to have a good amount of shares to sway a shareholder vote for a less than value based take over of ECU?