Some thoughts. I have been racking my brain trying to think just...

Some thoughts. I have been racking my brain trying to think just how FMS might be able to find a satisfactory solution for all stakeholders regarding the recent non-binding indicative proposal from BBIG. I thought it time to express some of those thoughts to other shareholders with the intent of helping towards a positive solution. I will be sending a copy to JG and AW.

What are some of the outcomes shareholders should expect?

1. Maximising future shareholder value.

2. Getting returns (and growth) to shareholders in the relatively short term.

3. Protection for all shareholders and the company.

4. Certainty.

5. Any agreements with BBIG (or other) must be a good deal for FMS and should avoid paying any acquisition payments (or royalties etc.) until FMS is profitable. No taking the cream if top. Sharing the risk.

6. Agreements should be skewed to FMS likelihood of success and sustainability. If FMS not making a good margin then others shouldn’t get fees or repayments.

7. Sunset clauses (on any royalties or fees for tonnage) linked to current PIOP planned mine life.

8. MOST IMPORTANTLY we need to get an alignment of shareholder goals so that ALL shareholders make their best returns from FMS ongoing success. We need to get to the point where TIO get their best return from their shareholding in FMS rather than from BBIG.

9. Minimal dilution.

10. NO INCREASE % IN TIO (TODD) FMS SHAREHOLDING.

There will be other outcomes that others can add but there are some for now.

The major fly in the ointment here is, I believe, the ownership of BBIG is not 100% Todd or 100% not Todd related and is a seperate entity. Otherwise BBIG could be absorbed into FMS but that would be totally unacceptable given the effective change in power could disadvantage minority shareholders.

Some key questions -

Q1. Can those outcomes be achieved with any agreement between FMS and BBIG?

Q2. Is there a bigger picture that could turn this opportunity into a much better solution for all parties?

Q3. What are TIO (Todd) objectives here? Sell out? Stay in? Make $$ from BBIG proposed royalty to other?

Comments on the questions above -

A1. Possibly, but I thinks unlikely. I don’t think FMS will be able to negotiate what minority shareholders would think a good deal and a deal that may achieve the outcomes outlined earlier.

A2. This could be difficult to put together as it would be a 3 way (or more) deal. Let’s discuss this opportunity further.

A3. TIO’s objectives - we don’t know.

Let’s look at Q2/A2 and discuss further.

What if a company with lots of IO experience and expertise with a big market cap were to get involved? I am thinking of MIN. Would it be in our (and BBIG) best interest to consider a scrip deal for PIOP and BBIG’s assets? So MIN would acquire the project and provide project funding in exchange for shares in MIN. This type of deal could give FMS shareholders that want to see PIOP go to production exposure to the PIOP project and future benefits. Shareholders would also gain exposure to MIN’s current portfolio and any dividends. The success of the project may have a high likelihood of success. Shareholders could stay in or sell whenever that want due to the liquidity of the stock. This may provide an exit strategy for TIO if that is their objective.

Would MIN be interested? Would they be able to add further value and returns for their shareholders? Would they be able to add further volume by say diverting the BCK Marillana project to Balla Balla port from a spur off the PIOP rail instead of a longer rail link and developing berths at Port Headland? Are there other opportunities they could use to piggy bag on the project? I believe this is well worth some study and investigating there benefits of the economies of scale. I am not going to discuss a scrip ratio as that will come after some study should the overall concept be considered feasible.

Could other potential third parties such as BHP, RIO, FMG, Roy Hill, or other be considered? Frankly I would think maybe FMG. BTW, I am not a shareholder of any including MIN. A study and proposal could be considered for both MIN and FMG.

Now the above will hopefully provide some stimulus for thought. Yes, many questions yet to be answered. Better to be looking at positive solutions at this time IMO. I look forward to constructive comments. I believe it helpful to provide feedback and alternatives to FMS as they proceed with their discussions.

GLTA.