just curious, page-10

Taking into account all outstanding options in PDY & AGU, and the partly paid (pp) shares in AGU, along with the amount of cash each company would then have and the number of shares on issue, then use the 70:30 ratio of the project to determine 'fair value', I come up with about 2.1 PDY for each AGU share.

As an AGU holder I would prefer around 3:1 and as a PDY holder 2.1:1 would be great. For me around 2.5:1 would feel about right and the benefits of 5 good directors on 1 board (Stokes, J Saunders, the 2 new PDY appointments and Quinn) and the savings that alone will bring, along with about $33m in cash and 100% ownership of a potentially large project would be worth it over the longer term.

The merged company would have around 4.5b shares and $33m in cash fully diluted, or could have less shares and cash by offering AGU optionholders and pp shareholders the appropriate ratio of PDY shares to cancel their holdings.

No need for a partner until the magnetite JORC resource is much larger and we know just how much hematite there is. Once a decision has been made to let a cornerstone investor in, we are somewhat locked out of any potentially better future deals that may come along. I'm happy for the company to look at potential partners but there is no hurry to sign someone up.

Until Oakajee is built there is nowhere to take the magnetite anyway. The hematite may be viable by truck if the resource turns out to be mineable and could help fund future magnetite drilling so getting a partner for this may be a better move initially.

Alternate views are welcomed