Ann: Third Supplementary Bidders Statement from M, page-2

re: Ann: UCL: Third Supplementary Bidders Sta... "Inadequate disclosure in the Target's Statement of key risks currently facing UCL... the potential dilution risk faced by UCL shareholders if the Offer does not proceed."

What a load of tosh. MAK is offering scrip with the similar dilution risk. Dilution risk is linked to commodity price risk, hence the lower the phosphate price the more expensive future finance should be (in a rational world). Mak arguably has greater dilution risk because
1. It needs more capital than UCL: it has Wonarah to finance.
2. It requires a higher phosphate price to be viable, so the price of its new capital (the price that determines the level of dilution?) and thus the dilution level should be higher.

MAK needs more than a billion of capital, UCL does not if you assume the Iranian project is going to remain a no-goer while the current Iranian regime is in power.

"UCL has prematurely outlined its views on the Sandpiper Project development timetable and economic attactiveness. ... Minemakers believes UCL has no reasonable basis for making these statements."

The report from Jan de Nul on the cost of delivering the dredged material to port was a real figure and does provide a reasonable basis for working out if the project is feasible. We will be in the bottom quartile of producers by cost per tonne if we don't need a phosphoric acid plant.

With the current sanctions on Iran, the board would be completely wreckless if it wasn't wholly focused on Sandpiper. The company has no need to salvage value from Iran. The value will, more likely than not, out if there is regime change.