Ann: Response to ASX Aware Query, page-4

Firstly that is a ridiculous way of coming to a valuation. You'd need to look at the remaining reserves and resources and the historical resource to reserve conversion and factor in the likelyhood of those reserves/resources being extended with some operating cost, sustaining cap assumptions and a future gold price assumption. Just saying $150 million is quite generous based on the price paid almost 5 years ago is plain nonsense and doesn't apply any valid valuation methodology. It also belies the fact that the EKJV contributes about $1 billion to NST's market capitalisation. The truth probably lies somewhere between $150 million and $1 billion. I'd need to do some calculations to get a better idea. I'm completely flabbergasted at the markets. The CEO of a company comes out with a public statement declaring that a fair value for one of its assets is $156 million when the market values it closer to $1 billion and the market does nothing to punish the NST share price. If I was a NST shareholder I'd take this news very badly. Just shows what a sham markets are nowadays. It's buyer beware, because there isn't anyone else protecting you.

As far as not taking up any first right of refusal (if one validly even existed at the time of the Barrick sale), I'd say Mt Billis was a pragmatist and realised that it wasn't going to be easily achievable when he basically only had four full time staff working in his office (including himself and two non-mining qualified office secretaries). Esh