an underwater mak part 1, page-3

Part 3

Conclusion:
Despite their apparent differences MAK and UCL could be seen to have some strong similarities in their phosphate targets.
-Both have areas representing significant target zones with UCL’s theoretically bigger however MAK’s is far more substantiated.
- MAK has the impediment of mining rock at a depth underground of 30-50 m with issues around transportation and processing. UCL has a resource that is geologically simple and straightforward to process but under a lot of water – 250-300m.
- Both projects are in countries considered to be stable for investors, surprisingly Namibia rates higher on some measures than Australia although I personally prefer Australia!
- Both companies’ projects have been through several hands during periods in which they were not economically feasible but both now have prices going in their favour. As such I would think there is ongoing risk related to price however current analysts opinions appear to suggest pricing strength out to 2014 and possibly at even higher prices than currently being realised. Both companies could be well into production by then if all feasibility studies prove successful.