We always hear something similar to this though. The real acid test is if this is actually true, why couldn't we give the company a 2:1 return on a nice chunk of that and "Settle" for a mere 3 Billion and give back 300 Million in exchange for no concessions: 150M in direct shareholder return and 150M to BCRF. Shirley they would jump on that? If not, why not?

I have no doubt that its a net gain for us. That's not the point. I do think we frequently undervalue the concessions.