alternative proposal- 48c raising?, page-26

Ninie, Why cant you believe the No sentiments,

We are being asked to approve selling most of our assets
at prices agreed, when the price for copper and zinc
was at levels that I dont think any base metal miner in the world would be able to survive. Prices for these metals have now improved to a level where from my understanding all of the OZ minerals operating mines are churning out cash. Even Grant Samuel has admitted that the assets prices we are being asked to accept are below even their lowest valuations and have basically said that they could change their opinion if OZ was able to sell assets or raise equity that would be sificiant to keep the banks happy, what level that is we dont know.

Whilst the GFC is still happening, the equity markets have improved and many, many, companies that were in a similar position to OZ have been able to raise capital via rights issue to strenghten balance sheets.

Why have we not done the same, only AM and the board know the real reasons, we have been told that they originally couldnt get a rights underwritten and that they thought that an issue would be too dilutive, well what is more dilutive than selling most of your assets at prices reflecting the nadir of the market, and selling substantially more of these assets than what is required to pay out all of our debts!

AM, MGMT and some the board have a real/percieved conflict of interest, by getting us to sell to Minmetals, they will guarantee themselves a position with Minmetals, whereas they already know that shareholders are really p#$$3d at them, even for OH's payout, and would probably face an EGM to remove them from OZ if the NO vote gets up.

OZ's true financial position have improved, and our debt levels in $AU have decreased with the falling $US and the sale of Martabe, our mines are churning out cash and I have been told that if metals prices and exchange rates just stay at current levels then our debt could if not entirely be repaid, would just about be paid out just by positive cashflow alone, this is in just a 12mth period, and doesnt rely on selling any other assets.

Our financial position is not dire, our problem is that we let our loan agreements expire before we worked out new loan agreements, and with the banks currently short of capital themselves, have asked for their money back, now we were told that it was only one (Ausie) bank that was the problem, but being part of the syndicate the others then wanted out as well, what is the true position with the other Aussie banks, surely a bank makes money when it lends money, and rely on a borrowers assets to make its judgement on credit worthiness. OZ minerals has over 4 times as many assets (even at reduced valuations) as the $850 million (maybe less) that we currently owe, the problem is a short term cashflow problem as AM said.

“What we've been hit with is a short term liquidity squeeze – because we have those key investments, particularly Prominent Hill and Century which, once completed, then generate cash – so we had this hump of need of extra cash which comes back second half of the year"

But most of these assets if we vote YES will not be profing us the current OWNERS but will instead be profiting AM and Minmetals.

We the owners of OZ, are being asked to sell off most of
our assets at below valuation prices, before we have even been asked to put our hand in our pocket to help pay out the debt, and I firmly believe that if we were given the opportunity to contribute to a rights issue even at 70c, then shareholders would, and with all this behind us and a new CEO and Chairman, OZ would be multiples of its current value.

That being said, whilst I will be voting NO, I will not tell others to do the same, but instead ask you to consider your vote thouroughly.

cheers grant