comparisons and further questions

Hi folks

Been spending a bit of time (call it flu time inbetween coughing and spluttering) researching other IO plays ie: FMS and MMX.

Clearly..very clearly i'm missing a number of things here...no doubt due to my self confessed limitations in understanding the IO industry.

Using FMS as an example:

FMS MC is valued at $250 million (more than treble PLV) and rising strongly on the back of what I would call a fairly brief but positive Fosters report and bigger players perhaps moving onto the register...with wider market interest of course.

If the report is the catalyst for the recent and continued share price movement then what differentiates an FMS treble the MC (and the $50 million)of PLV?

FMS responds favourably to a report released and the share price responds strongly...the market is on to it.

PLV had its share price rise too...however not to the degrees demonstrated by FMS....and certainly primarily 'before' any reports were publicly released to the market.

Both companies will be getting to market arguably around similar time frames.

Irvine has its deposits very close at hand on the one island. FMS has five deposits.

FMS have $50 million granted so they are way ahead of PLV in the cash stakes....but 50 million isnt going to get them their project.
They've got around 660 MT at 55.4 FE over 5 deposits and will increase that obviously.

Stage 1 DSO is slated for late 2012...so its not ahead of PLV re time to production.
Stage 2 Beneficiation is sometime in 2013.

Their infrastructure spend will be considerably more...in the hundreds of millions. Their negotiations for port and rail development and access are additional negotiations and I believe further risk.
PLV does not need to entertain thos things as we all know Irvine doesnt require that.

So in a very simple and basic sense what am I missing here?

A couple of questions arise:

What is the market missing here?

What can the company do to address that? Because if the market is missing something, and we all assume it is based on the valuation, then something needs to be addressed does it not?
What does the market need to 'get this'?

Sure we acknowledge and commend PLV for the excellent work done on so many levels; its ability to get 100% ownership of Irvine, the multiples in resource recently added, the enviro award, initiatives with the recently enlisted media company etc etc...

The recent presentation at the Investec conference stated that PLV aimed to get environmental approvals to mine by March 2012...or 17 months.
Is this the big if...the over riding impediment to valuation?

Surely not?

Irvine is part of the Kimberley Iron Ore Hub that links up through the 'existing' operations on Koolan and Cockatoo Islands. As the company stated at the recent Investec conference, the first IO sent out of australia was from this region.

To put it further into perspective, the inferred resource at Irvine already exceeds the total resource mined from nearby Cockatoo (Cliffs) and Koolan (Mount Gibson) since mining began in 1951.

Indications are that there appear to be no enviro issues as yet on Irvine. If there were I have no doubt they would be managed around the mining operation as evidenced by the companies excellent initiatives and explanations to date.

We still get back to this valuation though.

Something is holding it back. What is it? How can it be de-mystified? (if it can) and why after nearly 4 years listed on the ASX does PLV struggle to be noticed or acknowledged in a valuation sense..particularly after the unbelievably exceelent resource upgrades, the initial promising visuals from the Isthmus and the 100% total ownership and excellent relations with the Mayala?

I find it ironic that PLV has reached levels around $2.50 with 50% of the current ownership of the resource and at a time when the resource was near 1/6 of what it is now....

Different time yes. But an enormous differential there regardless.

PLV continues to go under the radar...despite a multiplied resource and despite full ownership of Irvine over the last 12 months.

With more DSO being discovered surely the beneficiation issue isn't holding investors back?
This isn't a company specific (as evidenced with FMS) issue.

Anyway, holding patiently because clearly the market is missing something here...or I am! ;)