I noted yesterday that Fosters Stockbroking did not like the OZL...

I noted yesterday that Fosters Stockbroking did not like the OZL purchase of Carrapateena.
I remembered that on 15 Nov last year Fosters had put out a bullish report on ERA with a price target of $16.
http://www.fostock.com.au/talkingpoint.htm
[The laggard in the uranium space ? upgrade to Buy.
We commence this week with a strong Buy on ERA as we believe the recent strength in the uranium price is not fully reflected in the share price.]
On 30 Nov 2011 I sent the following email to Fosters.
Your 15 Nov Talking Point - ERA Ltd
Dear Foster Stockbroking,
I owned a small parcel of ERA pre-GFC.
I have had a read through your Talking Point paper on ERA and I think it could be improved.
Your correctly identify ERA as "The laggard in the uranium space".
Then before telling readers why ERA is a laggard - you jump in with a "strong Buy on ERA".
In my humble opinion the salient points that deter investors are;
[1] The ERA share price has halved in a year as their production has slumped due to lower grades - so they would not be ranked anywhere near as high as you indicate in the Table - "largest-producing uranium mines - 2009". Who wants a stock where production is declining.
[2] On top of this is the issue of contract pricing where ERA seems to be locked in to old prices to an unfortunate degree.
[3] ERA operations are sensitive to rain events causing shutdowns and we all know that every summer sees a monsoon wet season of varying length and intensity which is a risk for ERA.
[4] ERA's 3 Nov Presentation talk of future projects which will enhance production.
(a) Heap leach hopefully starting in 2013 which should boost production for several years - but far too late to cushion the 2010 grade decline - and investors would hope that heavy rain events will not adversely impact the open-air heap leach process.
(b) Production from Ranger 3 deeps and other longer term mineralised positions on the Ranger lease is planned to progressively takeover from Pit 3 sources before 2021. No detailed planning timeline is presented - investors have to take the underperforming ERA on faith.
It must be pointed out that all these future developments take place on the increasingly crowded ERA RPA site (see map "Exploration - 2011 Priorities") and that potential for negative impacts from rain events is likely to increase in future years as industrialisation occupies a greater area of this RPA.
[5] In view of the fact that uranium prices were steadily improving from 2004 - it seems surprising that ERA are not further advanced with future mine planning to maintain or even increase production.
[6] It is a puzzle to me why ERA does not engage in exploration for uranium in Australia and indeed the world - I can only conclude that RIO does not want this - which makes ERA a strangely handicapped company.
[7] The development of Jabiluka would be a "gamechanger" but to date it has been a mirage because it depends on the signature I think of one person.

I trust my comments are constructive,
All the best and thanks for making some of your valuable research public.

I never got a reply.
It is good that financial journalists are taking notice - we need more critical journalism around the resource industry.
Good luck to holders.