Running discussion on SP, page-31180

Incase i haven't been clear.

This isn't about what my personal view is of different countries are in africa. Most of my investments are actually in varying parts of africa and i understand the differences quite well. Infact a colleague sitting next to me operated a mine in the DRC.

My point is simply that whilst people can debate the nuances between each country in africa, in comparison to most of our competitors (australia, us, canada) both MLL and AVZ will be seen as high risk geopolitically.

My statement was that in comparison to Australia, both projects will been seen as high risk. Yes the risk's between african nations are different, varying and complex. But simply bickering about who's country is better or worse is kind of like bickering about who came 9th or 10th in the geopolitcal horse race.

I can tell you now, with absolute certainty, that whether MLL or AVZ get investment isn't going to be becaue of what conflict is happening or what risk the country is. Why? because all countries in africa have operating mines. These mines are operating because they are economical and the profit expected from said mine warranted the the capital investment to develop it.

SF2TH