MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Norilsk Nickel”) December 2011 Board Meetings Outcomes

Independent Non-executive Directors’ Blog January 2011

Re : MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Norilsk Nickel”) December 2011 Board Meetings

Dear Shareholders,

                Norilsk Nickel held two board meetings in December - on December 16th and again on December 28^th.  The primary topics of discussion at these board meetings were:

1. Proposed sale of shareholding in OGK-3
2. Proposal of Norilsk Nickel to buy the Rusal shareholding in Norilsk Nickel
3. Long Term Shareholder Value Program (Share-buybacks)..
4. Preliminary review of the long term production strategy for the company.
5. Review and approval of the 2011 budget.

 1) As many of you know, OGK-3 is the majority owned power production subsidiary of Norilsk Nickel that was purchased a number of years ago during the privatisation of state owned power assets. This investment has not performed particularly well, especially in the post 2008 climate of reduced demand for power generation in Russia. As a consequence of this, and the lack of any operational synergies with our core mining assets, OGK-3 was deemed a non-core asset and buyers have been sought that would be willing to purchase the asset.  After some time, a bid emerged for OGK-3 from InterRAO as part of a relatively complex consolidation project that involves existing public and private power production, generation and sales. This project, fully endorsed by the Russian Government, would create a new, partially state owned large integrated power producer that would be competitive with other large Integrated Power Producers in Europe and elsewhere. 

The bid was an all stock share exchange offer with Norilsk Nickel receiving “New InterRAO” shares in exchange for the company’s shareholdings in OGK-3.  In the absence of any other bid, due diligence and documentation was started by both parties.  Late in the process, as it neared completion, a second, cash proposal to acquire the company was received from Eurosibenergo, a company associated with Rusal. Both the existing proposal and the new proposal were reviewed at the December 16^th meeting of the Board and instructions given to management to attempt to resolve various issues with both bids and present them by the December 28^th meeting. 

This work resulted in an improved, perfected bid from InterRAO  and, while the Eurosibenergo bid was also improved there were a number of issues and preconditions with this bid that raised significant concerns about completion. Based on these issues and the inflexibility of the time lines associated with the InterRAO process, the majority of the Board determined that the InterRAO offer provided the most value with the least risk and approved this transaction.

This is the second major non-core asset disposal of Norilsk this year and continues the process of the company focussing on its core mining and metal processing assets.

2) During December, the company made a proposal to Rusal to acquire its shareholdings in the company for US$12 billion in cash. This offer was made at a significant premium to the market and represented what the company believes was a fair offer.  The offer requires Norilsk Nickel to incur significant leverage but is unlikely to jeopardise the company’s ability to complete it’s ambitious environmental and modernisation program at its core assets.  After a period of negotiations, this offer was turned down even after the offer to include the OGK-3 shares as a sweetener.  Both the management and the majority of the Board felt it was not prudent to increase the offer any further and this proposal has now lapsed. The management of the company is still prepared to discuss this issue with Rusal at any time.

3) Once it was clear that the offer to acquire the Rusal shares by the company was not likely to proceed, at least in the short term, the board discussed various alternatives for long term shareholder value creation including dividend policy, share buybacks (both on market and via tender), special dividends etc... At this time, the company is essentially debt free and through a combination of the proceeds of asset sales, operational cash flow and moderate borrowing can easily afford to return capital in some form to its shareholders.. The Board has been advised by Citibank and UBS that Norilsk shares are undervalued compared to large international competitors and closing this gap is desirable. Given various sensitivities to the absolute level of cash dividends paid in any period of time, it makes sense to consider share buybacks, that all shareholders can participate in equally, as an efficient way of returning capital to shareholders. The majority of the board approved a program that will involve share buybacks at it Dec 28^th meeting. Gerard and I believed it would have been preferable to delay this decision somewhat until a complete financial review of the long term strategic production plan and full assessment of the capital requirements of this plan has been complete. This information can be used to determine the risked NPV of the company. This process would insure that the best use of capital is, in fact, to purchase the company’s shares.

4) As previously mentioned, a major agenda item was a preliminary review of the long term production profile of the company’s core assets which included a complete assessment of the environmental technologies and requirements to meet Norilsk’s obligations to significantly reduce sulphur emissions over the coming years.  This was a very detailed piece of work and will help set a base line for production, capital requirements and operating costs that can be converted into a clear understanding of the NPVs of the core assets. This is a major step forward and will help significantly in making future corporate finance dividend and capital investment decisions. Additional work is still required to incorporate this into a full strategic plan for the company which is planned over the next several months. The Strategy Committee of the Board has been charged with working with management to complete this work over the next several months.

5) The 2011 budget for the Russian assets of the company was presented as is customary in the Company.  This work gives a detailed picture of the production, costs and capital requirements of the Russian assets and expected financial results of this portion of the business. A majority of the board approved this budget, while a minority, including ourselves, felt that, in the future, the budget should be approved as a fully consolidated budget including all international assets, planned asset sales and other, non production related issues such as dividends and corporate financing plans.  While the CFO explained the issues that occur, especially with joint venture that have different budget time periods, this is nothing new for large corporate and most find ways to work around these issues in presenting an approving budgets.The Budget Committee of the Board has been instructed to work with management to complete this work over the next several months.

This would not be a complete report to shareholders without a comment on two additional items; the sale of cira. 8% treasury shares to Trafigura and Rusal’s request for yet another EGM.

On the sale of treasury shares to Trafigura, shareholders should be aware that the Board has never reviewed or approved this transaction and is still not aware of its terms. Under Russian corporate law, offshore subsidiaries are wholly controlled by the management of the company and management appoints directors of those companies.  While this practice is completely alien to those of us that operates with a background of English or US corporate governance, Russian corporate practice is completely different with regards to the management of assets held by subsidiaries. In fairness to the management, the board has been pushing to for the disposal of non core holdings and these treasury shares are certainly one of those.  We would however, have preferred that this disposal had been discussed and the terms outlined to the board. This will be a future topic of discussion between the Norilsk Nickel Board and the management of the company.  Needless to say, Gerard and I were unhappy with the way this transaction was conducted and believe it should have been fully reviewed by the Board regardless of the legal niceties.

The Rusal request for yet another EGM is regrettable in that, while they have a legitimate dissatisfaction with some of the corporate governance aspects of Norilsk Nickel (such as the Trafigura treasury share sale noted above), it is my opinion that the most productive way forward is for a united board to work with management to resolve these types of issues.  Given the almost certain outcome of the EGM, this action becomes nothing more than a major distraction for management.

                In reality, 2010 has been a highly successful year for Norilsk Nickel. The production targets have been fully met at below budget spending. The balance sheet has been fully repaired, the dividend restored and the company enters the new year with essentially no debt. Two large non-core asset sales have been completed (Stillwater and OGK-3) and the company is clearly focussed on value optimisation of its core assets while improving its environmental and social performance.  For the first time, a long term strategic production plan that starts to look at the life of assets and clearly demonstrates to the market the core strength of the business has been published. The share price has responded and improved from US$143 on December 31 2009 to US$241 a year later.  Let’s hope for more of the same in 2011.

                Happy New Year, Gerard Holden and Brad Mills

Feedback from shareholder meetings

During the last few weeks I visited a large number of the non-aligned shareholders in Europe and North America.

One of the common questions from shareholders was a request for a clear expression of the Company's long and medium term strategy.

Over the last couple of days I have discussed this issue with the senior management.  They have assured me that a detailed long term startegic plan will be brought to the Board imminently for consideration.  Furthermore the General Director assured me that a deatiled Five Year Plan will be brought to the Board for review and approval shortly thereafter.

This is an important element to assist the management in achieving its goal to maximise long term shareholder value as well as to assist shareholders identify the true value of this fantastic company.

Update on Audit Committee Held on 20th October 2010

On 20^th October 2010 I chaired a meeting of the Audit Committee (the “Committee”) of MMC Norilsk Nickel (“Norilsk Nickel” or the “Company”).  We enjoyed a full quorum, with other members present being Andrei Bougrov, Brad Mills and Max Sokov. 

Key items on the agenda included review of the Company’s auditors’ (KPMG) special report on the concerns previously raised by one of the Company’s largest shareholders and an update from management on the implementation of the Global Business System. 

KPMG’s senior representatives presented a detailed report, which had previously been made available to members of the Committee for review, covering the three areas of marketing, insurance and off-shore contracts.

Key findings are:

Marketing

• The majority of Norilsk Nickel’s products are sold on international markets to recognised metal consumers.
• The main profit accumulation centres are at the production centres based in Russia.  These are therefore the main tax-paying entities.
• Robust credit assessment/control procedures are in place, which minimize the risk of bad debts.
• The detailed monitoring and budgeting processes implemented by the Company allow the achievement of the two key objectives of the Sales department:
• o   realization of all production output through strong and weak markets; and,
• o   maximization of the selling price.
• Based on the selected sample that was subject of the analysis:
• o    on average the actual sales prices for base metals were above the average LME cash settlement price for the period; and,
• o   there are no fixed price or unusual sales agreements identified.
• The Company performs hedging operations with two main purposes:
• o   achieving an actual average sales price close to the average annual cash settlement LME price; and,
• o   maintaining uninterrupted delivery of products to customers.
• The overall financial effect of hedging transactions in H1 2010 was not significant.
• There are no indications of affiliation between the Company’s staff and sales counterparties.
• Insurance
• Given the remoteness of many of the Company’s assets the Company has historically adopted a policy of insuring that all critical risks, for which insurance is available on the market, are 100% insured.
• Analysis of the most material insurance contracts and comparison with the next best offers obtained by the Company during the tender process indicates that it selected the best available offer for the most material contracts.

Offshore Consulting Contracts

• Material consulting contracts (defined as greater than US$500,000 spend per annum) entered into by international subsidiaries of Norilsk Nickel were identified to be focused on an international programme to promote palladium as a metal of choice and to a supplier of investment relations and corporate brokerage services.

KPMG’s overall conclusion was that there is no evidence of wrongdoing or malfeasance in these areas.

The Committee made a number of constructive recommendations to management as a result of receiving KPMG’s report.

The Committee received a detailed presentation from the Head of the Company’s Global Business System Project on the status of implementation of this project.  The Committee congratulated the team on its progress to date and encouraged it to press forward with this multi-year, multi tens of millions of euros project.  This important project has the personal backing of the General Director and the Committee requested quarterly updates form management going forward.

Getting to the truth of RUSAL, the ISS and the EGM

Dear Shareholders,

I have spent the last week visiting with shareholders from London, Stockholm, Frankfurt, New York and Boston. Obviously we are in a high stakes game for the future of Norilsk and many billions of dollars of shareholder value are in play and at risk. What I have been trying to understand and get across to shareholders is what does RUSAL really want and why does RUSAL want to break the current board and elect a whole new slate of directors at this time?

I have to make a few assumptions and ask you to accept them as well for the moment. The first is that Gerard Holden and I are true, vigorous, independent directors, both with more than thirty of years of experience in the mining industry with lots of big company and large asset operational experience.  We were recruited by outside head hunters to bring these skills to Norilsk and we have been working hard for 18 months to understand Norilsk’s operations and assets, its Board, the shareholders, its strategic options and the government’s interest in the company. The Second is that the primary role of the independent directors over the last 18 months has been to protect minority shareholder interests and insure that all shareholders are treated equally; i.e., to generally look out for the future of Norilsk and all its shareholders.

What has occurred over the last 18 months while I have been on the board is that 1) the company has recovered from the financial crisis in fine form. 2) Net debt is almost all gone. 3) Margins are expanding rapidly and the dividend payouts have been restored 4) We have started to identify the capital requirements for growth and environmental clean that the company needs to spend over the next five years.

What is equally important is what has not happened. There have been no special asset deals for Russian only shareholders. There have been no special share buy backs that work for the special benefit of large Russian shareholders.

This then brings us to the true heart of the matter. RUSAL desperately need cash and are willing to do almost anything to get it. They desperately want me off the board. Enough to lie to shareholders and the ISS about me by saying directly that I have taken payments from Interros or have some financial interest with Interros. If that is not reason enough then they also suggest that I was a poor CEO at Lonmin (I am happy to stake my track record at Lonmin against Mr Deripaska’s performance at RUSAL since it went public at any time).  I know this because the ISS has confirmed in writing that they received this information from RUSAL.  I have now referred the matter to legal counsel, as lying to shareholders to damage the reputation of a director has real consequences. Let me be absolutely clear – I have never had any financial relationship in any form with Interros nor taken any money from Interros. I am prepared to defend this in a court of law with full disclosure. I suspect Interros itself will not be happy about being accused of bribing independent directors.

So, why do they want me off the board? Two reasons, First, I have stopped special dividends in the form of share buy backs. These are unfair to minority shareholders and the quantum suggested was imprudent until the company’s balance sheet is fully restored. Secondly, I am an opponent of merging Norilsk and RUSAL. These are two very different businesses, one is high margin with huge growth potential currently not visible to shareholders (Norilsk) and the other is a highly leveraged energy arbitrage play wholly dependent on Russian government subsidies in the form of low power and freight rates (RUSAL). Gerard Holden has also stood by me in these fights.

This, I believe, is the heart of the argument. RUSAL proposes that western Shareholders vote for more independent directors knowing full well that there are not enough voting GDRs to elect more than two. Voting for three or more independent directors insures a board which is highly likely to have no independent western directors.  This outcome, I believe, would result in a loss of value to western shareholders. If RUSAL can’t get this result, then they want you to elect very inexperienced directors who have no significant knowledge of Russian boards, Russian corporate governance issues and little or no mining experience. It is also highly unlikely that their proposed slate of directors will be able to commit the significant time (more one week a month) required to be an effective independent director of Norilsk. The chances of RUSAL driving through a nil premium merger with RUSAL become much higher. The likelihood of pushing through share buybacks and paying excessive dividends, while not funding growth and environmental cleanup due to lack of understanding of what is required by independent directors is also higher.

Finally, why did the ISS buy the RUSAL position? I think simple disinformation sold to them by RUSAL cloaked in a nice fluffy package of "we are such good guys with a plan to do things better" is the main reason. Anyone who pays for this service and their sadly inexperienced and naive analysts should reconsider the value they are getting for their money as they obviously can’t see through the RUSAL lies to their real agenda.

Vote no on the first Proposition at the EGM. Keep the current board and ask RUSAL to join the rest of us in making Norilsk a better company.

Thanks,

Bradford A. Mills.

Board Meeting Thursday 23rd September 2010

Following a period of review, and after a visit to the Norilsk mining and production facilities,  which highlighted the size and scale of the operations and the quality of the technical management team, Gerard Holden and Brad Mills, independent non-executive directors of MMC Norilsk Nickel, presented a series of recommendations to today's Board of Directors in Moscow.  These covered corporate governance, medium term planning, capital structuring, environment and marketing.  As a result the Board discussed the recommendations and encouraged management to accelerate development of a number of programmes for review by the Board.  The recommendations presented today are aimed at assisting management to maximise the value of the world's leading nickel and palladium producer.  Representatives of both major shareholders supported our recommendations.

Visit to Norilsk of Bradford Mills and Gerard Holden on 15th - 17th September

Brad Mills and myself landed early morning Wednesday 15th September, 7 time zones east of London after a comfortable 4 hour flight from Moscow on one of Norilsk’s NordStar Airlines’ leased 737-800 NG planes.

7 time zones from the UK and a full season difference as the short polar autumn had been and gone.  We were greeted by sub zero temperatures and a howling wind.  Before too long we were enjoying a breakfast of hot coffee, pancakes and stewed red berries from the short summer.  Our three day visit allowed us to experience Norilsk – its environment, residents and operations.

Underground, the hugely wealthy Oktyabrsky mine showed a combined tracked and trackless operation working in close quarters.  After a thousand metre descent by shaft we were transported to the heart of the mine in a covered wagon on rails – very civilised, if a little cramped for my large frame!  We were greeted by pleasant conditions with ample ventilation and a strong safety ethic.  From jumbo drills preparing the next production blast to the remote controlled load – haul – dump operator mucking out an earlier blast, we experienced a clean, well balanced mining operation with many production faces and development stopes coming forward in harmony.  The new mine manager (3 days into his job but previously the Chief Engineer) provided a highly detailed explanation of the challenges ahead as the mine over the next few years will be gradually increasing the production of less rich cuprous ore as compared to previous years (“only” around 4% copper and 1% nickel!) requiring a reasonable increase in haulage capacity to maintain historic metal production levels.  His task will be helped by the seven shaft systems at the site.  He explained his second focus is to keep worker injuries low after a good performance in the first half of the year.  He has a target market of worker experience 0-5 years and greater than 15 years being the ones historically most likely to suffer accidents at work and will be focusing his educational programmes on these individuals.

The Talnakh concentrator is huge by anyone’s standards treating ca 7 million tonnes of polymetallic ore (containing copper, nickel, PGMs and various by-products) per annum.  Mostly renovated in the 1990’s – early 2000’s  this facility is fit for purpose and was operating smoothly at the time of our visit.  Within the next few years as ore treatment volumes increase its efficiency will improve as new technology is incorporated in the process.

Onto the metallurgical shops where copper concentrates are smelted to produce blister copper and at a separate facility, nickel concentrates smelted to produce nickel matte.  Hot and fumy despite the blizzard raging outside this is the ”dirty” part of the business.  In contrast to the process the working areas were all well organised and floor areas clean and free of obstructions. Modern efficient Outokumpu flash furnaces operate in conjunction with slightly older Pierce Smith converters to liberate the nickel, copper and PGMs from their sulphur bindings. This requires a lot of energy and is impressive to observe.

And then the chance to see the final product.  After a final fire refining, anodes are taken to the tank house and immersed in the electro-winning process to form the copper cathodes much sought after by stainless steel makers and copper rod and wire manufacturers.  Following bundling and weighing the cathodes are given their stamp which records them in the SAP system and then they are put on the train to Dudinka port.

The Norilsk production area is celebrating 75 years of operation and was recently visited by Prime Minister Putin.  This is a very harsh part of the world with hot, short summers and long, extremely cold, dark winters.  Commitment of the Norilsk workers is immense and they obviously make a huge sacrifice to live and work in such a difficult environment.  The people we met were warm and welcoming, showed good education, a passion about their business and a strong sense of belonging to the Norilsk family.  We visited the 800 bed hospital which is fully equipped with a wide range of experienced doctors and modern equipment including a number of scanners.  A few people expressed concern about the long term impact on the business of the disagreement between the major shareholders but on the whole workers showed immense pride in their contribution to the efforts of the company.

No commentary about a visit to Norilsk would be complete without a mention on the state of the environment.  There are clearly substantial legacy issues to deal with including ground pollution and many old dilapidated buildings.  We will be strongly encouraging management to develop a programme to clean up the landscape recognising that this will take time and money.  However most critical is the sulphur emissions.  These are enormous and must be reduced as soon as possible.  Local management has good ideas to achieve reductions and we will lobby management in the strongest terms to reduce sulphur emissions as quickly as feasible once the final technical solution is reviewed and approved by well-known research centers.

On balance these are well run operations with thoroughly professional management. The scale of the operations is immense and change will come slowly with considerable capital requirements.  Fortunately the reserves are equally immense and will support a long term productivity and environmental improvement program. The dedicated and hardworking people of Norilsk deserve a board and shareholders that are focussed on supporting them to deliver the best that this unique series of rich ore bodies can deliver.

Some thoughts on the developments around Norilsk Nickel

I believe that there is a strong message from 35-40 percent of the shareholder base that they want to have strong independent non-executive director representation on the Board. The two messages they gave to us when we went to talk to independent shareholders were: we want transparency in what happens, and we want all shareholders to be treated equally.

Prior to the annual shareholder meeting Brad Mills and I visited approximately 40 minority shareholders to inform them of the forthcoming annual shareholder meeting and to encourage them to exercise their voting rights in the forthcoming Board election.  We understand that 80% of all the company’s shareholders voted in the election.  If we recognize that 63% are easily identifiable then that suggests 17% were available to cast votes for non-majority shareholder or management candidates.  Brad Mills and I received most votes for any candidates on the list.  The minority shareholders which we met with were clear that they expected us to support all actions to maximise shareholder value, to vote and lobby against matters which favoured one shareholder over another, to vote for a consistent sustainable dividend policy, to vote for the appointment of an independent non-executive chairman and to resist any combination of Norilsk Nickel and any other company unless there are compelling economic reasons.

During my previous time on the Board I have always voted according to my analysis of what is best for the company and for all shareholders.  Both myself and Brad Mills have voted against proposals in the past which were not subsequently implemented in spite of a Board majority in favour.  We have previously developed an approach to discuss contentious issues before the Board meeting in order to develop solutions which work for all interested parties.

As a result of numerous requests from shareholders we have set up this resource to keep shareholders informed on our views.  We have also included email addresses should you wish to contact us directly with questions.  We will be available to meet with shareholders during the year and will conduct conference calls from time to time.  All this is designed to ensure that the voice of the independent shareholders is heard and properly represented in the Board room.

Executive directors on Board

If you look around at most international companies the size of Norilsk it's not uncommon to have the CEO, and maybe the CFO, and sometimes the COO on the board. Any Board has to be well-balanced between executive and non-executive directors. I don't think there is an overbalance here of executives and non-executives. Sometimes having a couple more executives there can actually be helpful because they feel more included in the decision-making process and it helps to get the message out to the rest of the people in the company.

Possible shareholder conflict

I would encourage all parties involved to talk to each other. They should have the same objectives at the end of the day: to maximize the value of the company, to maximize the dividend flow and to have the share price recognize the unique quality of Norilsk’s assets It was a big shame to lose Mr. Voloshin as chairman and I am sure he will be back on the Board in the future.

Titov as chairman

On the day of the shareholder vote when we were informed that Mr Voloshin had not received enough votes to be re-elected to the Board both Mr. Mills and myself agreed that it would be totally impractical for, in his case, an American citizen, in my case, an Englishman, to try and be chairman of the Board of a Russian national icon. It would be senseless from our perspective, it wouldn’t be well-received by the Russian public, and it would be almost impossible to be an effective chairman. Mr. Titov was the only sensible and acceptable independent candidate to our minds. We looked at everyone who was on the Board and who was Russian, and we felt it was not appropriate to nominate anyone from one of the two major shareholder blocks given the ability to nominate an independent candidate.

On possible merger with Rusal

The current relative values of Norilsk Nickel and Rusal are such that any merger would see Norilsk shareholders dominating ownership of the combined group.  I have not been presented with a compelling argument which suggests that there are significant synergies to be achieved through a combination at this point in time.  Finally Norilsk has current net debt of under US$1 billion and expected EBITDA according to analysts around US$6 billion whereas Rusal has current net debt around US$12 billion and current EBITDA according to analysts of around US$2 billion.

A combination of these two businesses on these metrics alone does not make sense for all Norilsk shareholders. Minority shareholders expressed no appetite for this transaction at this stage. 

Comment on rumored merger with Rusal

I see no reason for Norilsk to consider a merge with the world's top aluminum producer RUSAL, (which has a 25 percent stake in Norilsk) at this stage.. There are no obvious operational or corporate synergies from the merger as the two companies are very different businesses with no operational or marketing overlap.. In my view, the market prefers high quality focused businesses. In Norilsk case this is a unique business which has high margins and should command a higher premiums in the market place. To mix the two businesses would potentially confuse the market and may result in a lower valuation of the new company than that of the sum of its parts.

Shaping the future of Norilsk

The current objective for Norilsk is to maintain its production at the current stable level. The company is starting to invest in growth, and this growth will impact production starting from 2015.

Some of the assets are obviously non core and are for sale, These are principly the Stillwater Mining interest and cetain assets in Australia. – we have taken a principal decision that Stillwater Mining shares are not a core asset and we will look to sell them in due course in a way that maximizes value for Norilsk..

Many of the smaller Australian nickel assets are short lived or high cost or both and we will look to sell them through an appropriate process.

We would like to emphasis, however that the Honeymoon Well property is a very promising projects. It needs quite a lot of work, drilling, feasibility work, etc. before we can fully quantify its value and we will carry forward with work. A reasonable guess is that it will take more than five years away before it could be developed. We do believe that in the longer term this it is a large asset and will become an important contributer for the company.

Welcome!

We welcome you on our blog, the main goal of which is to provide you with our personal view on various aspects of our work as INEDs at MMC Norilsk Nickel, as well as discuss developments related to base & precious metal markets. The idea of creating the blog emerged as a result of the feedback we are getting from our meetings with investors and desire to enhance communication, in particular:

1. We would like to establish a platform for direct communication with the market in order to deliver straitforward our personal views and messages

2. We would like to have a mechanism for receipt of feedback from first-hands in the market on a continuing basis

3. Finally, we believe the discussion in this blog will promote the efficiency of our work on the board of Norilsk and will ensure better safeguarding of interests of minority shareholders

We would appreciate reading the following rules of our blog:

1. We will strive to answer all comments related to the subject of a post, however it might take us some time to process information. Similar comments will be binded and answered together.

2. This blog represents our personal views on matters related to MMC Norilsk Nickel, so let's stay on track and not derive from it. Please understand that we won't be reading or answering any off topic comments

3. And last but not the least, a well recognized rule, please, do not write any obscene, abusive, threatening, hateful, racially, ethnically, or otherwise offensive or illegal text, and do not utilize this blog in any illegal manner.

Thank you very much and we hope you will find this blog useful.

Sincerely yours,

Brad Mills & Gerard Holden