NEURIZER LTD — AGM Information 2012

Nov 21, 2012

==> picture [596 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

MARATHON RESOURCES LIMITED

CHAIRMAN’S ADDRESS

9[th] ANNUAL GENERAL MEETING

In my report to Shareholders at last year’s AGM I advised you of the actions taken by your Company against the Government of South Australia. This action followed the unprecedented decisions announced by the then Premier in July 2011 to ban mining at Arkaroola and to proclaim the land so that exploration and mining would not be permitted, ever.

The Supreme Court action was settled in February 2012 and the Company received a payment of $5m towards exploration costs incurred over the years at Mt Gee. I remind you that the resource at that time was the 5[th] largest undeveloped uranium resource in Australia and our expectations were that, with further exploration, drilling and assessment, it would become Australia’s 2[nd] largest undeveloped uranium resource. That opportunity has passed and Marathon has moved on.

However there are some salutary lessons from the experience:

1. The cycle of investment in the mining industry, movements in operating and capital expenditure estimates, and changes in commodity prices, combine to affect the size and price of risk capital required for mining ventures. Timing is critical for good projects; delays are costly and perhaps terminal;

2. Political support is tenuous at best and the frustrations and delays experienced by Marathon with both Government and regulators serve as a reminder that personal political agendas can have disastrous consequences for companies like ours;

3. The mining industry is characterised as being wealthy and unresponsive to the interests of some stakeholders. This is far from the truth, especially for the small companies, and many South Australian explorers will struggle to find sufficient cash resources to survive the current paucity of risk capital. I remind you that Marathon willingly and gladly raised sufficient risk capital for the exploration of Mt Gee and a total of $20m was expended directly at Mt Gee over the period of our lease. There are not too many enterprises in this state which have committed that amount of capital without handouts from the Government;

4. The overwhelming influence of environmental and heritage activists and bureaucrats in South Australia in recent years, supported by Government, has seen the pendulum swing far away from balanced development and economic growth. The regulators of the mining industry have been unable to meet the challenge against other Departments to ensure development takes place effectively, legally and with respect to the interests of all stakeholders. The South Australian Planning Framework is based on the triple‐bottom line concept – i.e. a balanced treatment of environmental, social and economic considerations;

==> picture [596 x 94] intentionally omitted <==

1. The essence of sovereign risk arises as a consequence of the weighting given to environmental factors in the triple‐bottom line assessment and the over–regulation of industry. The SA Government’s actions in the North Flinders have jeopardised the State’s reputation as a safe place for resource investment. There will be lasting effects in the State from retrospective regulation which threatens the ability to attract investment in the resources sector. Contributing $5m towards costs which were four (4) times that amount hardly satisfies the test of being a good corporate citizen and therefore sovereign risk will remain a difficult legacy for a long time; and

2. The last point relates to the indigenous community and you have heard me pay tribute previously to the Adnyamathanha people. As with many groups in our society there is a proper place for vocal minorities and our experience is that, certainly, dissenting voices were heard from the Adnyamathanha. However the overwhelming majority of them supported our efforts and the long‐term legacy arrangements we had settled, and the security we offered, are now lost forever.

My Chairman’s address in the Annual Report and the letter accompanying the AGM Notice contained comments about the rehabilitation of Mt Gee and the agreement reached to hand over the geological samples generated from Marathon’s exploration activities for future scientific and geological research. This work has now been satisfactorily concluded.

I also made some comments about the uranium industry and that Marathon considered that the political and social factors applying to that industry did not warrant further investigation or investment by us.

Let me summarise our position:

1. The timeline for investment in uranium is too long for Marathon to recommence activities from the beginning;

2. Any renewed uranium exploration would require substantial funds and dilution of existing shareholders would occur;

3. Marathon persisted at Mt Gee because of its potential size. It was the 5[th] largest undeveloped uranium resource in Australia, and, in our view, would have become the 2[nd] ;

4. South Australia is blessed to contain 40% of the world’s undeveloped uranium resources – the claim is not fallacious but is misleading as the resources need to be concentrated in easy proximity to an expensive plant to be economic. Many of our resources are in disparate locations and it may be a hard road to make mining and extraction profitable.

Despite our conclusions it is a pity that the debate is not opened for a rational discussion on a repository for nuclear waste. The inevitability of all global stakeholders agreeing that a safe haven must be found somewhere in a stable geological and political environment is an opportunity this State should consider.

Marathon’s Current Position & Future

Marathon’s Board and management have spent several months investigating many mineral exploration prospects in Australia and overseas. We have also done some further assessment of emerging growth areas within the broad energy domain. However our reserves are limited and available funds are insufficient to acquire many projects which have developed towards JORC assessment and equally insufficient to commence green fields exploration in the current capital markets.

2

We are looking to support good people with good prospects which offer an increase in value for shareholders without too much dilution. We have identified over 100 projects with over fifty (50) in total from all Australian states and forty nine (49) internationally from twenty (20) countries.

We would hope to be able to announce an investment decision in the next few months and in the meantime we are preparing the assets of the Company for sale and we will advise shareholders and the ASX of the proposed transaction as soon as we can.

Board & Staff of Marathon Resources

History will record that Marathon was singled out for unprecedented action which seriously affected its value and prospects. Notwithstanding that, there is great resolve in the Board and staff to recover reputation and value.

I want to acknowledge just how marvellous they have all been in meeting that challenge.

Peter L Williams

Chairman, Marathon Resources Limited

3