let ian know how you feel, page-16

Just thought i'd let everyone know I sent the following email just now to [email protected]

To whom it may concern,

I am emailing in regards to the recent market announcement notifying the market of a general meeting in June with accompanying explanatory statement. It is of great concern to me what appear to be an underlying disregard for current shareholders and a lack of consideration for the dilution of these shareholders, many of which have supported IronClad through the gradual decline in share price of recent years.

In recent times there have been a number of presentations conducted by IFE, particularly Mr. Ian Finch describing how undervalued the company is at present with no ascertainable reason. Might I suggest that the issue of capital at a price which the company already describes as being ?undervalued? simply holds the share price back further and essentially dilutes the current shareholders by a larger amount.

In particular, resolution 3 is requesting that 11,000,000 shares be issued to professional and sophisticated (d) investors within the next 3 months (b). Initially it states these funds will be used to fund Stage 2 feasibility studies and then goes on to state at the end of the resolution funds will be used to explore for gold, uranium, lead & zinc. Firstly Stage 1 is not operational at present so is funding Stage 2 feasibility within the next 3 months really a goal that the company should be concentrating on? Secondly it does no instill great confidence in the shareholders to vote Yes to these resolutions when their reasoning is not clearly defined and quite confusing.

I believe most shareholders are comfortable with rewarding employees as per Resolution 4 however I would expect that these rewards only be delivered when employees meet the higher end of their expected duties or perform above and beyond their limits. Rewarding employees for simply delivering their skills on a daily basis without outperformance is not something I?d expect to be incentivized.

Resolution 5 relates to the issue of performance rights to Mr. Ian Finch and Mr. Neil McKay. The diminishing sliding scale rewards both of these employees for meeting deadlines AFTER those expected by shareholders following comments within presentations of first shipment in Q4 2011. I understand directors should be rewarded however I query should the details of these performance rights be outlined when the feasibility study was completed last year? It seems these goal posts have been put in place when the majority of work is completed and it is already known by directors that these goals are very likely to be met. My understanding of performance rights and incentive schemes is to motivate employees to meet or outperform their duty to a business. These dates in resolution 5 do not appear to motivate, rather they continue to providing performance based incentives for first shipment being as late as April 2012, a delay which would be deemed not even satisfactory by the vast majority of shareholders.

Given these performance rights are likely to be met in full, coupled by the issue of options to Mr. Peter Rowe and the requested capital raising that gives total new shares of 12,200,000. I invite you to entertain the following scenario.

There are currently 75 million shares on issue which would move to 94 million if all options were converted. Let?s assume all options are converted currently without acceptance to any of the resolutions and in 12 months time we are fortunate enough to have a market capitalization of $200,000,000. This would give a share price of approximately $2.13. Conversely if the same scenario occurs with all resolutions being accepted and options converted there will be approximately 117.5 million shares on issue. With a market capitalization of $200,000,000 it gives a share price of $1.70. That is essentially a 25% difference in share price and that is without taking into account the shareholder resentment and repercussions of these capital issues.

Are there other avenues being explored for the funding of stage 2 feasibility such as funding from revenues of stage 1 or via debt? Will performance rights be pegged to outstanding achievement and goals rather than the satisfactory or mediocre attainment of timeframes and/or monetary goals?

I invite you to answer these queries and also comment on my statements above as myself and many other shareholders are bewildered at the companies decision to further dilute the long supporting shareholders at current undervalued prices.

I look forward to hearing back from either Mr. Ian Finch or a company representative in the coming days.

Regards

Joshua xxxxxx