avarice greed and our children's future, page-37

Hi Guys,

ThinkinLoudly is a clear downramper. He does not hold any ELM shares but saying "Note to self : do not buy ELM!" I have reported him/her to TOU. You can't note to yourself as "Do not buy ELM" when you are not holding it.

Secondly, We are in the right track by holding ELM! I won't sell anything while a lot of people want to get big chunks of it.

I have been contacted by many people in last three days, even by the biggest shareholders of ELM, and some people taking to management (I am talking to them indirectly)! I can't write everything here as I have received confidential information but I understood that everyone who holds ELM shares as shareholders and directors of management, all have very big hopes from ELM. This is the best news I can give you.

We are in the early stages of ELM's potash history and everyone hopes that our SP will be multiples of the current price level in any case till end of this year.

I definitly understood from those discussion that MacPherson, Sanders, M.Jones, and the biggest shareholders of ELM, they all want to develop the mine. They all hundred percent agree on this matter.

"YES" to Res. 1 and 2 for MacPherson & Sanders:
Everybody, including M.Jones, the biggest shareholders are all happy with MacPherson and Sanders and they think that those directors are doing a good job.

They demonstrate the intention and determination to bring ELM's potash asset into production which requires a systematic and difficult work.

(I have no problem with Res.4 Middlemas)

"NO" to Res.4 for Ian Stalker:
Everyone says "NO", or keeps a "Question Mark" sign on Ian Stalker even though they think Stalker can do a good job in international capital raising arena. Apparently he is not getting an absolute positive pass like MacPherson and Sanders from everyone.

As Buccaneer mentioned earlier; "Stalker's nature is to do a deal and collect a fee. He has no interest in doing the systematic, difficult work required to bring these types of assets into production."

This means that Res.4 is hard to pass the GM and will create a fracture in the board if it passes. So, Ian Stalker should go IMO!

And "NO" to Res.7 for 30m shares Issue:
Honsetly, I am still uncomfortable that directors are getting too many shares. That indicates me that they are afraid of an early takeover and trying to get as much as possible shares before the takeover. That would be the demonstration of the dark side human nature.

As you may know, according to my earlier analysis,
while the world is in food crises,
the potash prices are still climbing,
the major miners and existing potash producers are
all looking for quality new potash assets,
a TAKEOVER for ELM's world class JORC compliant potash asset should be imminent!

Everybody should be aware of this as the directors are very much aware of it.

Those takeover punters will try to take their chances sooner than later because of the potash market conditions as explained above (and in the news on the previous posts)

Then what would be the point of issuing 30m more shares to dilute our own shares? (I would say "No" to Res.1,2 and 4 as well if I knew that takeover offer is in our doorstep. But I should keep my belief for developing the mine and should say "Yes" to those resolutions)

Is a takeover a concern? No it is not!
Que Sera, Sera (Whatever Will Be, Will Be)

I am very sure that a takeover offer will be competed by other punters. That might create a bidding war and we will definitly get our money in one or one and half multiple of the current SP if it would happen in the short term. That's for sure.

So ELM is still A STRONG BUY for smart investors.