594 million tonnes at 18.2% maiden jorc, page-15

yes sigma, that's essentially my point about the much narrower statistical base you chose to use.

12 months is the medium term on Google finance then it jumps to 5 years which is useless in the context. Yet 12 months is a pretty good comparison as it brings Sandpiper into the play. MAK was doing nothing until RP took off in it's bubble. They were about 6 months ahead of UCL in exposure to that bubble being in when it started (UCL got Sandpiper when bubble was already starting to recede) so losing the first 6 months of the 18 month period squares it up roughly as an assessable playing field.

The two companies head to head with similar type projects show UCL in front on market. It's a fact that MAK has performed worse than UCL over the last 12 months. Of course MAK has fallen from a bubble driven speculative high which virtually always leads to an overshoot on the down side.

I think the market is saying quite clearly that MAK haven't yet established viability of what they claim they have got. There's plenty of reasons to be as sceptical about Wonarah as Sandpiper until MAK prove otherwise. I recall clearly that the 2007 Annual Report had Wonarah shelved as economically nonviable, the only real change in that equation was a spec bubble in RP prices.

People are coming on here spouting how strong MAK is when there is no hard evidence to back up the claims. You've got some chemical analysis, some drill results, an inferred JORC and some budgets from the company but no technical feasibility studies and no bankable feasibility studies, yet. I actually think MAK's chances are ok if the DSO proves adequate but where are the key facts?? Starting to look like CDU, another company which I think will make it but put out more promises than hard evidence.

Instead of focussing on getting their studies sorted the BON/MAK directors have organised a nice little consolidation of their own interests while destabilising shareholders of BON and UCL. What's that all about???

Just some alternative possibilities to the views you're promoting.