this only credible thing about mtn, page-28

DD, as always your comments are appreciated. However:

1. ERA Chairman: "cost improvement must be a high priority for the company in 2005." Is the ERA operation really the best benchmark to go by? Moreover, as far as I can tell that cutoff was made when uranium prices were much lower than today. Indeed, any statements about economic viability need to take into account the expected future price of uranium, because economic viability is as much about revenue as cost. Lower grade/more marginal deposits like Mt Gee (and MTN) will be among the chief beneficiaries of higher uranium prices.

2. "For the Paralana Ore system to be economic costs must be USD$40/Kg" (question: what does this figure include?).

The current price of uranium is US$ 29.85 per pound. 1 kg = 2.20462262 pounds, so each kg brings in USD$65.80.

At the price you quote the margin will be US $25.80/kg. Using your figures, a 0.06% grade would still make a profit margin at current uranium prices, which again is good news for MTN holders with 24,800 t of the stuff at 0.073%+.

Perhaps you could provide some additional information to clarify your calculations.

3. What about Hodgkinson and all the other sites for which we are awaiting results? It's far too premature to be pronouncing on economic viability with only 1 of 7 results in!