Ann: MAK: Seventh Supplementary Bidders Statement, page-10

re: Ann: MAK: Seventh Supplementary Bidders S... Gravolta,

Maybe we have different investment time horizons if you want MAK to pay a fuller control premium now.

I think in terms of our Iranian asset this must be the bottom of the value cycle. The future of the Iranian regime, as foreign policy issues go, will no doubt play a big part in the US Presidential election later this year. The Iranians will be found out if they've been telling fibs. (Modern mass spectrometers require utterly minute amounts to make an accurate determination of chemical composition). That sort of chemical analysis combined with interviews to explain the satellite pictures will reveal the truth at Parchin, IMO, no matter how much the Iranians try to cover up, and if they are found out to have been fibbing again, that is when all those death-sentence-passing judges in Iran will probably start to lose their nerve, IMO. Just like the currency devaluation preceded the actual sanctions, it will be the anticipation of the end of the regime that will bring it down even faster?

I dislike the MAK tactics, and I genuinely think our Board will do a better job (although that does not necessarily guarantee that UCL will be a better investment than MAK: it is how the risks (outside the control of the directors?) derisk that perhaps determines which will be the better investment in the future?).

I think I understand your point that the UCL Board have successfully frustrated MAK from obtaining 100% control and that as a result we have only received a half hearted offer from MAK, and have therefore have been denied a proper control premium. That is a fair point, but I see no reason why MAK should have the right to take Mehdiabad off me at the bottom of the value cycle and to substitute some Wonarah exposure instead.

As to the work involved in being a shareholder of either entity, well I prefer dividing by 30 ad nauseam (the share consolidation necessitated that) than having to write a side of A4 to complain about misleading statements to the ASX every quarter. Mr Drummond either made a knowingly misleading value judgement in the MAK quarterly about the proximity of Wonarah to Tenant Creek or he is seriously ignorant about his own company's assets. That statement (a bullet point) helps to convey Wonarah is more technically and economically feasible than it perhaps is. Finally his value judgement on the Paterson's research being an independent endorsement of his views just sent me round the bend. The Mehdiabad zero valuation made me throw up. I view Drummond as untrustworthy as a consequence. I don't know if that all makes sense. I think you just have to decide on your own interests what to do. I am a fan of Iran so I am weird. As to being hauled over kicking and screaming to become a MAK shareholder, well they know what they can do with that idea. I owe a great deal of thanks to JK for not having to endure that. Just my view.