Ann: NST: Update to EKJV Offers, page-3

Yes.

How can they even make these statements to the market. The terms fair and sensible seems to me to be a play on the words fair and reasonable which are usually reserved for the conclusions of experts in expert valuation reports in takeover offers and convey real meanings based on analysis.

TBR/RND have disclosed to the market that based on third party valuations that they have engaged, using different valuation methods, the offer significantly undervalues TBR/RND interest in the EKJV.

How can NST continue to call the offer fair and sensible when they have provided no third party independent report to back their claim and it’s obvious for all to see that based on FY2018 production numbers NST’s 51% share in the EKJV accounts for about $1 billion of its market capitalisation?

As a minor shareholder of TBR I want the board to test these claims in a court as I think having them stand in the market as they do is damaging our company and potentially misleading investors. The Trade Practices Act prohibits the making of misleading statements whether they are made intentionally or not. I believe these statements are damaging to our company and need to be tested to determine if they are justifiable or not. I don’t believe that $112.5 million can be claimed to be fair and sensible for an asset that produced a $40 million profit last year. The experts should be able to determine the EKJV’s profitability going forward and this should be laid out for the market to see for both sets of shareholders, NST’s and TBR/RND’s. The $A gold price is now also over $1,800 and this would effect the values of cash flows and reserves in the ground.

How are these unsubstantiated statements that damage our company allowed to stand in the market place?

If the company won’t take any action to have these statements removed maybe a shareholder should approach the ACC and see if they won’t take action on our behalf to determine if these statements are misleading or not. Esh