the focus and the message is..?

A Company Transformation? NO.
A Company Change? Yes.

We see the Tassie assets are now under consideration again....we heard PLV the first time I think when they said the same thing several years ago and failed to adequately follow up on shareholder questions or act on that.

Irvine is effectively several years off where it was originally supposed to be.
The Tassie assets the same deal re a decision made on them.
How are those 'exploration' projects looking right now?

Are shareholders taking notice of this pattern?

Colliers Bay? Look forward to a similar process of exploration all over again...information to keep shareholders happy at the 'busyness' of the company while PLV spend valuable dollars raised from ,sophisticated investors for pennies chasing new projects when they have two substantial assets needing further capital and development right under their noses.

Is it good business and sensible use of company resources in a tough climate to chase long term potential production opportunities?

Should PLV be exploring or further developing existing production assets and the flagship project Irvine?

Spending exploration money on promoting the company would be of more value to shareholders - PAC might back that up as currently we are multiples below their base valuation.

Do shareholders want shiny new projects that will suck more dollars and dilution, or do they want more work done on promoting the company that is clearly documented as being seriously undervalued?

PLV is approaching 2014 at 10 cents. Its a sub standard effort and one that has seriously underperformed and disappointed....for years.

Cockatoo is shaping up as the future and as the opportunity to raise production and life of project.
Thats where the $$$ spend should be.

The message Colliers sends is that PLV are going exploring all over again with borrowed dollars in a tough market to raise capital.....that sends a mixed message.

A company that nearly went under not that long ago is now looking to expand operations and resources into greenfields projects with a producing asset under its nose needing more $$$$.
Its raising cheap capital and diluting an already undervalued company by doing it.
It has debt to pay, so its raising capital on the cheap to not pay it off?

Do the math.

PLV should be spending 'that' money, if anything, on developing its relationships with the associates it clearly cannot get along with - that ironically has caused shareholder wealth destruction on numerous occasions.

We know PLV can drill holes, raise capital and take over production assets that need a lot of work and dollars to continue operating.

Lets see PLV get much better at improving its business relationships with its Chinese partners and improving a shareprice that is seriously undervalued.

This focus will return much much more to shareholders than any number of trips to Colliers Bay ever will.