open letter to mr drummond, page-3

Several points:
1. The Iranian Govt. recognised much of UCL's expenditure on the mine.
2. The Iranian Govt. has legislation to protect foreign investments. Although it does not follow due process and has opaque unaccountable decision making, it also has to live in the same plantet and in the long term recognise its liabilities even if chooses not to right now for political reasons.
3. The costs are recoverable via a lengthy legal process (7 years for international arbitration?).
4. The Govt. receives about 80% of its revenue from oil sales, so probably doesn't need to have discriminatory royalty taxes on foreign investors.
5. The nuclear issue helps to limit the time that they can go on being economically irresponsible.
6. Equitable sharing of the economic rent from the mine is more likely to be a problem than debt procurement or requirements that force employment of large numbers of local people. The mine would be in the lowest quartile by production costs according to the BFS.

Zero valuation is ridiculous, and it portrays the grasping nature of some MAK shareholders to get their hands on it if I may say so.