Seals, hiI think your post on the MAK thread is excellent, as...

Seals, hi
I think your post on the MAK thread is excellent, as always. And yes it makes me laugh to recall how MAK slagged off UCL for its geared $297m NPV figure being prepared on "false" assumptions of debt availability when MAK now comes up with an even higher, far less conservative, NPV of $554m. I agree MAK are working to undermine the JV, but I just assumed it is part of their defence against being bid for (even if it is not called that). I just read it all as political point scoring, but I am not going to support our board (Ross and Jordinson) until they come up with sound reasoning for giving away $36m of potential Mehdiabad value (even if it is valued at near zero currently) just to save airfares etc. on duplicate sets of directors travelling out to Namibia and other peanut sized savings on finance costs (economies of scale in having one borrower rather than two perhaps?). Yes, you maybe right about MAK trying to slow down UCL's work so they can catch up (you usually are) but it might also just be about saving Mr Lawrenson's job. We will have to see. Sorry I am not about to resume supporting our Board (not that they need my support): I am just too angry with them - they should have done an in-specie scrip (if that is the right jargon) in respect of Mehdiabad before bidding for MAK so that I can maintain my bet on Iran regime change. Just my view. Regards