Ann: Appendix 3B and Issue Disclosure Notice , page-6

thedalek - i doubt you'll get a reply to you email. I sent the following email and have obviously been ignored:

------------------------------------------------------------
From:
Sent: Thursday, 1 April 2010 11:52 AM
To: '[email protected]'
Subject: 1 April Announcement

Hi Vic,

Your announcement today detailed that the Directors of MSC have reasons to believe this campaign was aimed at softening MSC share price in preparation for an effective future cheap takeover. Can you please advise what these specific reasons are? Thank you.

------------------------------------------------------------

We need to ask ourselves "why would a company need to give such reasoning for the fall in sp?" I have never seen any listed company making such a statement in their announcement. It is extremely unprofessional and highlight how desperate management is to throw such excuses our way. I wonder whether there are legal grounds to charge management such a comment. Probably not as management were too gutless to specifically state any names or give full reasoning for their beliefs. This is the same tactic used in their other announcements - general and vague, yet enough to mislead poor shareholders who are dying for any good news.

The only reason a stock drops as much as MSC has is that the market does not believe in the company and distrusts management. Some reasons that fall into this category include:

1) it has not delivered on its promises
2) it is not generating any profit/ turnover
3) it is operating at a loss and with no growth

There has been many past shareholders that look upon MSC and wonder how it can still be operating. The simple reason is the major investors and long term shareholders have lost so much already that it would be silly to sell their shares as they would really be cashing in 1% of their original investment. Thus the alternative is to wait and hope that MSC turns around. Obviously this alternative is a better option than selling your shares.

To date i still do not understand what MSC owns. If you read their business summary it says MSC mines, processes and sells industrial minerals. From what we've seen in the announcements, MSC actually engages other companies to develop the high grade kaolin. Once this product has been developed, MSC does not own the IP to this product. I have not seen any legal documents or announcements that specifically state MSC will have exclusive IP or use of the final product. So my conclusion is that MSC enters into agreements with other companies to mine the kaolin and develop high grade kaolin for MSC to sell. If this is true then it would explain why MSC has not made any profit or sales. Currently there is no product to sell as it is still in the development stages, once it is developed and proven, then MSC can sell it. However what is to stop other companies from also selling the high grade kaolin? There is no exclusivity, all we've heard is "MOU" and "Agreements". No specific details whatsoever.

It is late and i am starting to ramble, but i'm sure you can all infer a lot more questions from the points i've raised.