ucl 9 for 1 bid, page-36

nobull,

Contaminants dont appear to be an issue with MAK. I cant say for BON/UCL because I havent followed them.

As for this comment:

'On technical matters I would argue mining off the sea bed (even if it hasn't been done before for phosphate) is not rocket science.'

Whether it is proven to be simple or not is not the argument here. It's again about perception. There is a reluctance to invest in anything that has not been done before. You say you believe it is, however, most will ask well if it so easy why wasnt it done a long time ago (especially if it is so cheap to mine).

I agree that maybe part of the reason for a low marketcap is low liquidity but certainly not by a factor of 5 to 1 (versus MAK). Lack of funds and large dilution probability is certainly a factor. Again if the project is so viable then why hasn't a larger organisation prowled and taken UCL/BON over, afterall what would $10 or $20mill be to them.

Bottom line is both MAK and BON/UCL are still speculative and I believe rightly so. Although I am alot more sceptical about UCL/BON asset as alot of questions don't add up in my view. But then again I haven't researched them as my interest is in MAK.