confirmation of funding, page-23

Yellowcake, I think your criticisms that management allow themselves to get distracted are fair. The BCD move was unnecessary although will imo likely turn out favourably for MAK shareholders - BCD is already a better financial prospect for the changes that have occurred down there. (As an aside, the money spent there should have no impact on their ability to raise capital for Wonarah/Namibia if and when needed if the projects are viable).

The MAK management have the challenge of all explorers - the lure of exploration and discovery often seems to override the more boring realities of development. I don't think it's fair though for critics to charge that they haven't progressed on Wonarah, they have but it's just at a more normal pace than the original overly optimistic assumptions.

It's not my role as a non shareholder to defend the management but my reading of the recent history of Wonarah (with MAK) was that the management were actually caught unready by the rise in phosphate prices two years ago which made Wonarah potentially viable sooner than they appeared to be anticipating. From basically scratch they've done quite a lot since then and the foundations are laid for it to be a goer with the rider that prices have to hold a historically fairly high level - that's your threat.

I do agree they should be focussing on their phosphate projects and should either ditch or set aside some of their other assets which, imo, are not very viable.