Ann: Appendix 4C - quarterly and commentary , page-5

As diplomatically as possible Ozwire what do the Egyptians or anyone for that matter pick up if PPY falls over? There is clearly no value in the PPY offering and even if you could get the patent for free you are getting something that cannot produce at viable levels! PPY aren't going to challenge the patent they have proven that already so why not investigate making your own products from banana? You may actually beat them at their own game since all PPY seem to want to do is spruik!

You mention paper making rates. You may well be right in the output differences but let's also compare to the timber veneering business. A typical rotary peeler for making plywood (very similar to PPY's technology) can veneer timber logs at about 50 metres per minute by 1.3 metres in width or roughly 30,000sqm/8 hour day! Yes, I know not from a "green" source but what is an FSC sourced timber? Don't be distracted by that comment though focus on the output. It appears that the PPY process cannot compete against paper making processes and it cannot compete against sustainable wood veneering processes.

Now back to the the quarterly report. No revenues from the technology but $30 odd thousand from AAMC consultancy (to whom and what was the service)?? If I had wanted to invest into an engineering firm it would have been with someone like RCR Ltd (ASX listed). PPY have no history in engineering services and there is no mention of it in their prospectus. Why mention it apart from again to create a diversion from the constant failures to deliver on their announcements. Gotta say though that PPY is addictive enough to keep me interested and I would dearly love to have them prove me wrong but they are now almost out of time.