Are RIO oppressing ERA minorities?

It appears ERA Directors (who receive entitlements in RIO stock, not ERA stock, as part of their ERA Directors remuneration) have not acted in the best interests of ERA shareholders In the following ways:

1. ERA Directors acquiesced to the environment lobby to the extent we now have an out of this world situation where $800m + will be spent rehabilitating Ranger. Where are the public statements and positions from Directors arguing against this highly questionable use of ERA resources, and defending the interests of ERA shareholders?

2. ERA Directors have provided almost zero justification or alternatives to ERA shareholders outlining profiles of rehab cash spend and ways this may be most effectively spent and raised. In particular, why the sudden dire need for cash now when the rehab expenditure profile will be spent over the next 7 years, and half the expected liability is already secured with cash on balance sheet?

3. ERA Directors have held no discussion with shareholders about the recent massive increase in the rehabilitation liability, and the steps Directors are taking to protect the company's and all shareholders interests.

4. ERA Directors have provided virtually no comment to shareholders about their view of the U market going forward (at least covering the period of the rehabilitation expense) in terms of their outlook for U price and expectations about the true values of Ranger 3 Deeps and Jabiluka. Both of which are world class long term U assets and will have a materially significant impact on the value of ERA once production recommences, providing flexibility in terms of meeting rehab liability.

5. ERA Directors have provided virtually no defence of U as a product. Directors have been virtually silent on this issue, to the severe detriment of ERA shareholders on 2 key counts:

a) They not espousing the world class U assets ERA has so they are properly valued as reflected by ASX share price.

b) They are not talking to shareholders and the public about the real place for uranium in world energy, contributing to ERA's materially mispriced shareprice, and possibly contravening Directors duties under listing rules/continuous disclosure requirements.

6. Directors have allowed uranium's unpopularity in the West to dominate public opinion and market valuation of ERA. Although unpopular in the West, much of the Eastern worlds populated areas (China, India, Indonesia and even the middle east) are currently building nuclear reactors. Japan is gradually turning its nuclear capacity back on and it is understood even Germany is importing nuclear power from heavily nuclear France.

These developments are reflected in the 100% rise in uranium's shareprice over the past 2 years from a low of US$15 to now US$30. Uranium demand world wide now exceeds the peak achieved pre Fukushima, and continues to grow.

Uranium is a CO2 free, base load alternative to fossil fuels which can help solve immediate and critical pollution problems in many of the worlds highly populated cities, by improving the air millions of people breathe. In particular, uranium is a baseload alternative to the further build out of coal powered plants. Assets owned by ERA shareholders will play a key role in meeting this demand in future.

Disclosure: Hold ERA, hold RIO.