clarification of views, page-3

You are entitled to your view.

Compare the valuations.

1. Wonarah. $40m on a risked discounted valuation from Mr Trivett. Not passed an economically and technically feasible hurdle yet. (I believe it will one day), but anyone familiar with the mysteries of compound interest should theoretically understand the mysteries of the reverse process (discounting) and that the point in time between now and 2050 when Wonarah will be commercially viable makes a big difference to its value. Will NMDC pay $40m for it any time soon? Probably not.

2. Mehdiabad. $0 on a risked discounted valuation from Mr Trivett. Will Mr Drummond give away his indirect stake in it for zero? Probably not. The host country, Iran, which does not have a reputation for scrupulously adhering to agreements of any type (Vienna Convention on diplomats, the IAEA or the agreements with UCL) may be limited in how long it can behave in an economically less-than-responsible manner if regime change becomes the only viable option to deal with the nuclear problem, and that problem has to be dealt with before Wonarah becomes commercially viable.

The broker research that supports the recommendation to switch from MAK to UCL (and retain MAK exposure up to the close of the offer) is biased (and possibly not independent). Just my view. The research probably helps to fill up the UCL share register with MAK friendly shareholders who will be forced to accept the offer as UCL's share price should drop a bit after the offer closes. I will not be accepting the offer.