Ann: Update on Right of First Refusal,MIN-PLS.AX, page-416

The 45 day period is not excessive in terms of a contractual agreement, yes the economy can change in an hour, but the reality is that contracts and the contractual timeframes contained within them are negotiated by the parties to the agreement in order to provide a degree of certainty over the life of the contract. The life of contracts such as these is intended to be years as opposed to weeks, hence the requirement for certainty. There is also a legal requirement for the provision of a 'reasonable' timeframe - 45 days fits this test for the ROFR aspect and the 28 days fits the test for the dispute resolution.

It is important to remember that throughout this process, PLS management have been, from what is in the public domain, compliant with the required process under the terms of the Asset Sale Agreement. A Sales Notice was provided to GAM as the rights holder at the time the BOA was signed, MIN then initiated court proceedings challenging the validity of the Sales Notice. As a resolution, and in a timely manner given the legal complexity of the matter, PLS issued a revised Sales Notice with a full copy of the BOA to MIN. MIN then chose to announce to the market that it was not satisfied with the revised Sale Notice - it appears that the announcement to the market by MIN, occurred with little or no consultation with PLS management or legal Counsel in regards to the validity of the second Sales Notice. Subsequent to this, MIN initiated a second matter in the Courts, following PLS management issuing a Dispute Resolution notice to MIN. The service of the Dispute Resolution Notice was appropriate and complied with contractual requirements of the Asset Sales Agreement.

PLS issued the Dispute Resolution Notice in good faith in an attempt to resolve the mater, one way or the other. Despite this, and despite the contractual requirement for the parties to participate in the dispute resolution process in good faith, it appears that MIN are intent on prolonging the issue through whatever means it seems to think is appropriate through the Courts.

Careful reading of the most recent PLS announcement will fill in some gaps if the announcement is read with a critical eye.

Whilst not optimal timing, this matter will not delay the progress of the construction or permitting as these are separate aspects.

Some one questioned earlier if GLC would still be interested in paying $0.50 per share as per the BOA. The BOA is a contractual agreement and provided the conditions precedent in the contract are met, they will be bound to pay the contractually agreed price or face potential action for breach of contract.

All IMO.