inside business, page-3

Hi all,
Just watched the interview and printed off the transcript. I thought TB spoke very well. He came across as professional and assured. He only made one mistake. I would be interested in what others think.

Key points from the interview. I will include the commentary, then add my thoughts

1 "TB: So we've heard this asset could be up for sale, and it's been a tender process and a number of discussions that have been held over the last year or so, some of which we've participated in, and some which we've stepped away from, but ultimately we ended up buying the asset.

AK: It seems pretty neat because Prominent Hill has an eight-year mine life currently and this seems to start in about eight years time, so it seems that there's a continuous program there. But in fact Prominent Hill had eight years of mine life last year as well, so are you actually going to keep extending the mine life of Prominent Hill and end up with two mines?

TB: That's certainly the objective."

I found the "some we stepped away from" interesting. What this is showing, IMO, is that if the discussions were not proceeding to OZL's liking, they walked. It would appear they were then asked back, and finally bought. i.e. OZL had the negotiating power at all times and was happy to walk if necessary. A very good strategy. Also, the aim is to have 2 mines running together. TB does not subscribe to the "8 year LOM" theory for P Hill.

2 "TB: And the objective of that is to extend the life of Prominent Hill and hopefully find another deposit which we could also treat through the Prominent Hill operation."

Nothing new here, but it does reinforce 2 mines running together.

3. "TB: It's (C) certainly got the capability to be larger than what we know today of Prominent Hill."

We all know P Hill is a great mine (reserves plus resources). For TB to say that about C indicates the potential of the deposit.

4 "AK: So are you still in the market for deposits?

TB: Definitely, yeah."

SFR, watch this space. TB has the skill to play the trout perfectly and land it with skill. I know some posters do not think OZL will go for SFR soon. I think OZL will go for SFR when it suits OZL and they see fair value. If we have a major correction, it could be sooner rather than later. Remember cash is king, and who has the cash?

5. "TB: No, I don't think so. I think we're takeover-sensitive rather than some sort of prevention from other people to look at us."

Like in Phantom Menace - "There is always a bigger fish"

6. "AK: What sort of company would you like to end up with, assuming you don't get taken over? Would you see yourself being a global miner of base metals?

TB: No, I think what we want to do is have a company that actually gives good returns to our shareholders, and I think we're driven by that value.

Now, if we can grow larger and we continue to add value for our shareholders, that's what we will do, but we're certainly not going to rush into any opportunities unless we see the value. And I think you've seen that in the last 12 to 18 months with the company where we've been very disciplined in the approach that we've taken, and only done things that add value for our shareholders."

I thought this was really really interesting. The focus on shareholder returns is very strong. IMO, I think TB has done a cultural change in OZL, and for the company to think about shareholders first, rather than get bigger for getting bigger sake (think EQN/Lundin(lots of debt) and RIO (ended in disaster). We can see this in the "choosiness" of going after assets. They did not get into a bidding war for Citadel (o/s of their favoured countries) or go after the first low grade deposit that came available. As shareholders we need to have the patience in this area for OZL to do it in their time and not our time. The word "disciplined" came up as well and is a good adjective I think.

Feedback, both agreeing and disagreeing would be good.

HT1