EGM, page-36

Ok, the dust has settled, and having attended the meeting, my observations/ thoughts are as follows....

It was great to catch up with likeminded Shareholders. We sat around a table sharing a meal, and approx. 30% of FMS shares were represented at that meal alone. When it came to voting on the resolution, it is clear that what OUR Todd loaded board describes as "a few minority shareholders", is actually almost 40% of the company. The facts are these;
ALL board members would be removed, were it not for the support of ONE shareholder - they would do well to consider this in the future.
As was pointed out yesterday, there are only two players in this company - Todd and their institutional supporters, and EVERYONE else.

It has been suggested over many months/ indeed years, by many shareholders, that the Board has been very selective in the messaging it promotes, the critical commercial information it releases and its equitable consideration of ALL shareholders’ interests. To the point in fact, that many shareholders have suggested the board is being disingenuous. I personally found nothing at yesterday's EGM to counter that view.

Mr Wolley when asked, said that working in the best interests of ALL shareholders was at the front of his and every Director's mind. He obviously didn't see, or maybe agree with ASIC's ruling that the move to de-list was coercive, and to the benefit of only TIO (his employer). Further, when Mr Wolley was asked a question about Todd's reason for NOT supporting the nomination of a Director, which was supported by nearly 40% of the company (and almost 100% of minority holders), he, as Vice President of Todd Minerals, said he was only here as a representative of FMS, and couldn't comment. So not evasive at all then.

Mr McAdam, the Executive Director that works for US as shareholders, when questioned on a matter of disclosure, commented that he and the board told us everything that was legally required by ASIC, we were not being treated as mushrooms, and he DIDN'T CARE if we didn't believe him. He also said he didn't agree with the takeover panels judgement, or the decisions of ASIC. So, in effect, he was saying he didn't agree that the delisting was coercive, or to the detriment of minority holders - I'm not sure how independent that statement sounds?

Re the Chair, he was in my opinion very protective and quick to shut down anything too uncomfortably out of sync with his vision for the meeting. And whilst he was correct in explaining that questions could only be asked about the motions as each motion was being addressed, what he neglected to mention was that there would be no opportunity to ask any questions outside of this format, or at any other time during the meeting. When the realisation set in amongst minority holders that this was the case, and he was challenged, he shut people down straight away and said he had been clear from the start. Well, maybe in part he had, but the FULL process (or lack of opportunity for additional questions) was NOT addressed to my recollection - I am happy to be corrected, which would be easily done as FMS recorded the meeting.

Overall, and this is only my opinion, I felt the mood and attitude of the board went beyond arrogant, beyond patronising. I felt genuine contempt. Fuelled by the fact that their key supporter was backing their existence, and not entertaining a truly independent Director.

So here we are, Groundhog Day. So, what have we learned?

In my opinion, we have learned that TIO has no interest in a genuinely independent Board Member - for the life of me, I've no idea why.

We've learned that this exercise, and the general minority zeitgeist is not perpetrated by a small band of dissident shareholders, the feeling of non-representation, and distrust of the current board is the view of almost 40% of OUR company.

We've learned that our board, and it's Todd employed members, are fully supportive of Todd's and only Todd's vision for FMS.

We as the minority cannot change this, as yesterday's exercise showed. We can continue to voice our disapproval of our board as a 40% stakeholder in the company, and hope that TIO at some point is overwhelmed by the slew of still to come publicity in relation to their actions, and at some point agrees to do the right thing.

We can also vote down anything that must pass as a special resolution, IF we feel it is not in our interest.

In the meantime, our independent board goes back to the drawing board, and looks at ways of making what everyone else sees as a company that in the right hands will be immensely profitable, an attractive proposition to financiers.

The clock is ticking. Contrary to what OUR board said in the quarterly about FMS being used as an "example" in the state agreement, the fact is, PIOP, the FMS asset, is named specifically, and other marketable deposits would appear to be non-existent.

We also have a real catch 22, again as mentioned in OUR board's quarterly, whereby Todd can't vote on a BBI infrastructure, but they can vote down any alternative. A strange point to make in a quarterly report from an independent board some might say.

Whatever our fate in this venture, we ALL share it. I hope now that TIO appreciates the level of support (40% approx.) that exists as a combined force in minority holders, it can become a little more pragmatic in its direction. Minority shareholders are going no-where. If we were going to jump ship, it would have happened some time ago. We all see the value of FMS and we all want to be rewarded when it comes to fruition.

To that end, I hope our board, working for ALL shareholders, changes its focus to getting this project off the ground and into production. If they don't have the expertise to market our world class asset, maybe they could step aside and let somebody else more competent do it. A start would be to at least start highlighting it again. We've gone from 1.4 billion tonnes of very marketable ore, to having to do more work on what we've got before entertaining a possible infrastructure solution.

Just sell what we've already got. We've years of exploration data, and data around grades and volumes.

Nobody's leaving the party. Let's either take the handbrake off and make money together, or, continue down this path, and lose money together.

Doesn't seem a very hard decision - does it?