Yeah. You're right, its not a good explanation. When I read the 7/7 press release I looked at "land leases" as being the value of the property including mineral reserves since it immediately followed the sand and gravel reserve estimate.
That item definitely could use clarification. Probably has more to do with old valuations carried forward but can't be sure without asking.
"The land lease for Murphy Sand & Gravel is carried at acquisition cost." Should be easy enough to understand. The statement could just as easily say "The mineral reserves for Murphy Sand & Gravel are carried at acquisition cost."
"Lotta room for interpretation!"
The use of acquisition cost means there is NO room for interpretation; it is a hard figure. PBLS is to be applauded for using a conservative number.
Going back to the $47,550,000 mineral reserve item on the unaudited financials ( #msg-12370910 ). I called Mike M. and he says that in order to remain "conservative" they are only including 20% of the sand/gravel reserves.
He didn't say whether or not that is how it will be carried on the audited version. Personally, I'm satisfied with that answer.
My original thought that it had any tie in to the lease costs was totally incorrect. As you pointed out, that is a different line item and the section of the earlier press release (July 7) that I referred to was specifically aimed at the lease and not the reserves.
News 
Market Data 
Discover 
