Probably should also list the cost to produce (including transportation) for these groups if we have them
For instance, while MAK have a large phosphate resource, MAK is also a very high cost producer, requiring the price of potash to stay high in order to be profitable. At phosphate trading around $120, they were marginal. This explains the share price. From memory, I think this is where they are now focusing on their Namibian project for which they and UCL both have a 42.5% stake as initial studies suggest a cost of approx $55 per tonne to produce.
Looking at them both, I think UCL may be the more interesting stock...particularly given they have just got back a potentially significant zinc deposit in Iran.
Also, if Namibia is that attractive, probably only a matter of time before MAK make a move on it. As it has been mentioned, they did buy 14% of UCL.
