avarice greed and our children's future, page-40

Hi all,

It is reassuring to have read that the majority of large shareholders and directors are committed to seeing this through to production as opposed to a cheap sale. Great news.

However, in relation to resolution 3, if anyone reading this thinks that Mark Jones and Garry Thomas received too many shares on the 23/10/09, then let's put things in perspective.

Garry Thomas became director on 22/11/07.
Mark Jones became director on 2/7/08.

On page 12 of the agm announcment 23/10/09, there total financial benefit as a result of receiving 2.5 million shares and options each came to $1,864,750 each.

They had to clean the company up after Klaus Eckhoff abandoned it, battled through the GFC when raising money was very difficult and then clenched this potash deal for a song and turned the company around. They had been busy working for us for 23 and 16 months respectively before they received those shares and options.

Ian Stalker became a director on the 24/9/10. No doubt he has done some very good work in introducing ELM to some big institutional buyers. He joined after the drilling program commenced and has been there 7 months.

On page 10, of the AGM announcment last week Ian Stalker's total financial benefit not including his salary comes to at least $6,765,125.

That is 3.62 times more of a benefit than what Mark and Garry received each.

Has he done 3.62 times more effective work than those guys to deserve such a payout?

He's only been there 7 months...

I doubt it very much imo but maybe there's some Stalker supporters out there that could share with us some compelling reasons why he should receive such a benefit?

I am very comfortable in voting no to resolution 3 and 7.