Nup - Goarmy you're going to have to show me where it says 'low...

Nup - Goarmy you're going to have to show me where it says 'low grade gold production' if you want me to accept your comments as fair. I've read it, and re-read it and can't find where it says that at all.

Perhaps you have taken something like "...lower than expected grade profile than was indicated in the work done when the feasibility study was completed resulting in a lower than expected annualised production base..." and misinterpreted it?

'Lower than expected grades' does not mean low grade.

'Lower than expected annualised production base' - it's no secret that MUN haven't been hitting the targets they 'initially' planned to... there's been plenty of discussion about it - and other issues (also reported) have compounded the production issues... but IMO they've been doing everything they can to resolve these issues and have been very up front about it.

The issue with the initial modelling was reported to the market in 2008 - there was even an open briefing. (09/09/2008)

Perhaps you would like to read the quarterly from last October (28/10/2009) where grades are shown for the 200 and 300 ore bodies. You can see there that many of the grades are 'less than expected' - but not low. In fact the company seems pleased that the grades are within an acceptable range. Even in the latest half-yearly they quote the reconciliation between planned and delivered grades as 'strong'.

I'll accept your apology, because i would never hold a view that it is acceptable to withhold important material facts from shareholders. I just don't agree that that is the case here.

Cheers