Ann: Pilgangoora Roadshow Presentation, page-121

Hi Oz,

I had a couple of thoughts on your earlier post, and not intending to be critical as I think you have raised some valid points.

“Here we have 8 MOUs, yet we don't know who they are at all. Likewise for who might be these mysterious funders. For some reason PLS seems to have to keep this all in secrecy, unlike the other companies (ORE named FM quite early)”

There may be contractual obligations that restrict PLS from naming the entities that they have a MOU with. However in saying that I remember reading that one of the MOU’s was for Mitsubishi.

“The big picture is taking care of the small issues first, not leave them hanging, especially if it is your only attempt at a mine. The 'big end' of town needs to see that you can do things before they will invest with you, it is probably why the SP is still languishing in the 30's.”

This is always a difficult one, IMO. Although TT is small, it probably warrants further attention with the delays and “for proof” that PLS can transition from explorer to miner. However as others have stated the market price for Tantalum may not be favourable to fully commit to TT and PLS also have to focus on developing a mine that requires up to AUD $185m which I’m sure you recognise takes a fair amount of work.

When you consider that there are possible legal proceedings over TT, there may not be much that PLS management can legally disclose. As much as I would like to have the cash flow from an operating mine, if the market price is such that the ROI is almost non-existent there is no point dedicating resources to it.

Apologies if these points have been raised earlier. Perhaps a call to PLS management may shed further insight.

Cheers, TCS