RE:The JV AgreementHey bxju, I appreciate the time and effort you put into researching ANYTHING that may affect our investment in VLE. HOWEVER, I am not overly concerned (maybe I am wrong) in the TAT/TNP implication on VLE. The reason I say that is because this has been a ineffective JV for a long time if not from the get go so any changes can only be for the better. VLE also has been very smart to diversify development of the business outside the JV with their 100% lands and conservatively maintained a strong debt free balance sheet. I have a little experience with JV agreements and can't see any way that a contract would allow the default of one partner to affect the assets of the other. The assets of both parties are protected by contract. To suggest that a JV partner can put up the assets of the other as collateral doesn't sound right at all. It would be like your small business partner with a gambling problem loosing your part of the business due to gambling debts. Legally I can't see anyway that could happen. The way I see it either TAT/TNP will survive and be a better partner (can't be worse) or they will default and VLE will get a better partner. Possibly even VLE gets to buy a bigger stake in the JV which is a positive also. The delay in announcing the budget is obviously waiting for the Y-1 results but also may be other negotiations related to the JV(s). This is a solid management and I have a lot of confidence that they will continue to navigate through the opportunities and move the company ahead for the for the benefit of the shareholders which includes management. Be an interesting few weeks/months ahead. GLTA