First Uranium Corporation T.FIU

Again I Say

[Hmmmmmmm]

Be careful.

I would hope shareholders would not get excited about a new bid of $100M although that's what I have read.

Ezulwini has $400MM in infrastructure, plus the original cost, plus the gold, plus the uranium, plus the earning power.

$70MM to $100MM is better but not good enough.

I'd hold out for fair value for both MWS and Ezulwini.

[colt451]

I think we need a measure of pragmatism though...we have 150M due in just over a month, management has shown they cannot turn EZ around. However, we have an extremely strong asset MWS. I completely agree, anything under 100M is an insult, but I would be willing to accept anything over 100M on the basis that it allows us to become a profitable gold junior. And I promise you that if we manage to

[Hmmmmmmm]

Colt I disagree with your statement: "but I would be willing to accept anything over 100M". That's .12/share more than the current situation of .11 and deteriorating. There will still be $23MM in service charges and $30MM in escrow that will somehow evaporate. If MWS was offered 75% of NAV, why wouldn't you want the same (as a starting point) for Ezulwini. We'll soon see if