Ann: Notice of General Meeting/Proxy Form, page-7

Okay so if presented with these three options:

(1) Retain all Cobalt assets, expand the board by 3-4 additional members, expand the executive team by 3-4 members, pay $800k-1.1m more in director's fees and executive remuneration inc. performance shares, straddle two provinces (Ontario and Quebec), plan for risk re. two completely separate battery materials (cobalt and lithium), negotiate / partner with twice the number of downstream battery materials suppliers / manufacturers, raise capital to develop and produce two discrete (ie. completely separate) products (cobalt carbonate and lithium carbonate / hydroxide)...

(2) Spin-out all Cobalt assets, giving MTC shareholders an immediate in-specie distribution when the Cobalt assets are not even fully defined, are not subject to off-take agreements, are not developed or producing etc, ie. an immediate in-specie distribution when the Cobalt assets are at their lowest value...

(3) Spin-out all Cobalt assets, retaining 33-34.6% (34.6% with the exercise of performance rights) of the newly spun-out company, including a measure of control by virtue of board appointments and voting rights, with the ability to profit enormously from any takeover offer and thus provide an in-specie distribution that is more than 5 times greater down the track...

.. Of the three of these, you are obviously in favour of the short-term sugar hit (Option #2).

I for one am very glad you're not on the board.

It's not a 70% write-down. It's called owning a smaller slice of a much bigger pie.

PS. It's not 'asset theft' and our directors own more than you do so there's no reason to fret. Board and management own 35% of MTC. So they have more to lose than any marginal gain they might receive in directors fees of the newly spun-out company. Get a grip. The iCobalt spin-off is the best choice and will allow MTC to focus on developing its world-class lithium projects in good time.

All personal opinion, do your own research etc