Ann: Change in substantial holding from HAV , page-4

re: Ann: CUY: Change in substantial holding f... Tahoe,

It reminds me of a quote I once read: "Give me patience Lord. But please hurry!"

As CUY was not controlled by HAV (ie a holding greater than 50%), access to base metals would have been an issue for them (i.e. they would have been limited to what they could do with the subsidiary because it was not wholly owned).

Yes, the Directors are aware of the upside potential of those tenements for base metals (which is why the majority of the licences are not exclusively limited to urnanium). It was one of the key points in the CUY bidder/target documents.

One of the important items for an explorer is access to quality ground on which to explore, so HAV just added to its acreage in a large way on my count.

Portia while delayed, is still valuable to shareholders. The free gold and bedrock gold is not going anywhere. Not sure that I want HAV to start just yet at Portia, even the MARP was signed off by PIRSA. The reasons being:

1. HAV does not currently have the cash in bank to fund it;
2. I loathe debt in this environment; and
3. I do not want to be diluted further by HAV issuing 20 million shares to raise the cash to fund the mine.

I would prefer to wait a few more months (understandably this would be unpalatable for some shareholders) for the Kalkaroo sale to be wrapped up, so that HAV can use part of that cash received to fund the Portia mine development.

If Portia works out (remember it is the gold in the bedrock that is the key), then it will be replicated at Lorenzo and Shylock (as HAV has indicated in annoucements in the past) going forward.

Native title and Maldorky are my unknowns as well.

Cheers