Buddy – thanks for your reply. I am no accountant and so value...

Buddy – thanks for your reply. I am no accountant and so value your input in that area.

SuperTim – You asked a few questions:

"regarding the NICE guys, what's your take with their board position?"
It is not conventional for a debt provider to take a board position. They would normally set debt covenants and monitor compliance via financial reports. In PLV's case it makes sense to have NICE on the board. First, think about the significance of the funding package. PLV has raised 40 odd percent of our market cap of $57m. Compare it to WEG's 20% stake that cost them $17m odd at 35.5c. It’s a massive achievement by PLV and a major commitment by NICE. They have a right to a board position. Second, the $23m funding off-take involved 1mt or nearly all of Cockatoo's probable resource. Was that potentially a NICE off-take or someone else? In any case, there is more risk on the $24m funding given that repayment requires ore sales other than the probable resource. Yes, I know 1mt does not sell for $23 per ton and surplus cash would be available. However, that cash is arguably committed elsewhere, such that my risk argument still applies. Third, I've spent quite a few hours researching NICE and no warning signals came up. The new director can add value to the PLV board. Lastly, NICE have a heavy focus on coal and arguably need to beef up the iron ore side of their activities. PLV is one of the vehicles for them to do that.

"Are NICE reps for WEG"
That's conspiracy theory stuff. Both separate entities looking to do the best for themselves in my opinion.

"Do you think PLV are positioning them to replace WEG lock stock and barrel, incl of Irvine off-take?"
If I were NICE (and given their size), I would not be interested in any three-way relationship. I'd pay a premium for greater control and that extends to both Irvine and Cockatoo. It’s a fact that WEG sought to have SS&T buy them out. The WEG director attended 1 out of 3 available board meetings in 2012. They hardly appear serious long term partners. Their stake/rights are still for sale if you ask me. It is not for PLV to position NICE to replace WEG. It’s a commercial transaction between WEG and NICE. I would expect PLV would be informed on the status as a matter of courtesy.

"do you believe that WEG has met their half of the bond, i haven't read that anywhere"

This potentially goes to part of the issue with the Auditor in my opinion. When they say cashflow they effectively mean ore flow. For PLV to repay existing commitments it needs ore flow (pre-payments/letters of credit/off-takes are all defined or linked to the ore) and ore flow requires some capex. If WEG do not meet their capital commitments then JV provisions allow PLV to meet the shortfall and increase its JV stake and thus profit share. So PLV's funding task, as I understand it, is to cover a worst case scenario that WEG do not come up with their share of the capital.

If WEG are in difficulty it plays in favor of NICE who in my opinion are willing buyers of WEG's Irvine/cockatoo stake. If WEG have met their funding commitments (bond, past and future capex, debt repayments) nothing I have said applies. If PLV needed $24m its reasonable to assume that WEG needed the same amount. I have no idea what WEG's funding position is.

Big picture questions SuperTim. I hope I'm not far off what you were thinking.

Sensible release by PLV today. People need to know that things are moving along.

Cheers
Bleasby