congrats!, page-44

Donthat,
A lengthy reply, but I hope it helps you to understand that there are two sides to every story ....

You said: "Superhard You dont see CB,s reason to remove Dr Askin?"

My reply:
No I don’t.

You said: "Well I do! I totally agree with CB!"

My reply
You have every right to agree with him. I don’t.

You said: "He has not led us thru this mess he has caused it!!"

My reply:
Sorry, Askin did not cause this mess, it appears to have been caused by John Heugh. According to the information provided by the company, Heugh was DIRECTED to give up the JV negotiation role. Whether you like it or not, the Board has the right to make that decision and they did. From the information provided by the Board, JH appears not to have conformed to that Board directive and to have chosen an alternate path, including the engagement of a detective agency to investigate certain employees. The Board was obliged to act. If they did not, they would probably have been derelict in their duty.

I think its probably worth restating that directors DIRECT and executives EXECUTE. Many blame the Board for bad execution. I don’t. That is the responsibility on the Executive, which in this case was headed by John Heugh. I also think the Board did the right thing in stepping in after Surprise flowed oil and asked for 3D rather than another wildcat – remember they had also just been informed about the financial state of the company. The financial state, once again, is the responsibility of the executive – JHs responsibility -. the Board has oversight at a macro level

I stand to be corrected, but as I recall, Askin wanted the 3D ... well, so did I .. I know Karl wanted them to drill Mt Kitty in parallel ... I don’t believe we could have afforded that ... we had oil at Surprise .. we needed to bring all the resources to bear to exploit it – with good seismic. CB wanted to drill in another direction from the same hole ... and then wanted to move the rig a hundred metres away and drill again. Ask the geos on here what they think of that ?

You said: " Why would a long term holder like CB be substantially backed by other shareholders to remove the old Board unless it was warranted?"

My reply:
I don’t know ... but when he got into bed with Simon Philis and the Wesi connection then to my mind, any semblance of impartiality went out the door. I saw the Wesi website before it was taken down. I have done some research on the syndicate and I did not like what I saw. (and for Karls benefit, given that he questioned this yesterday, it was more than just a search of Google)

You said: "As per my last post addressed to The Rat those of us who have stuck in here for 4 plus years and read every single Announcement from CTP and then monitored their subsequent actions are fed up!"

My reply:
And what makes you think that you are unique, Many who disagree with CBs tactics, including myself, have also been invested in CTP for many years. I also read every single announcement and note that execution of the strategy regularly appeared fail (remember who is responsible for EXECUTION – see above)

You said: "Now normally when fed up with a Company u simply move on! Plenty of others out there!
But Cb and others and myself see an outstanding opportunity for CTP to be a very successful company given their incredible leases over such a large area."

My reply:
I too see an outstanding opportunity; you are not alone in that. That is why I have a substantial sum invested in this company.

You said:
"Sorry my friend Askin has to go and let Cottee have a free go!"

My reply:
Amazing statement ... a few days ago it was “Cottee must go unless he calls the syndicate”. The CamdenBob/Philis syndicate was touted as having sufficient votes to roll the Board. Today, the Board is still there, Cottee is still there and the syndicates nominees are gone. Please do not play the rest of us for fools. Many others, including myself were suggesting that Cottee needed to be given the reins to have a free go ... and we were rubbished. Now that the cards have fallen where they have, the syndicate groupies are all saying Cottee was their first choice ... please do not treat us as fools and stop looking thru only one eye.

I also must add that JH should be kept around as he has more knowledge of the company than any others and was the driving force in getting these leases!.

I agreed with the first part of that statement before the information came to light in relation to JH’s response and reaction to a Board directive with respect to who was to have the lead role in farm-out/JV negotiations. Also in relation to the claim that CTP employees were investigated by an agency engaged by JH.

I also question the basis for Petroleum Nominees’ legal action against CTP and its directors. What information does Petroleum Nominees have and who was the source of that information. In any event, I would expect that for Petroleum Nominees to have a case to overturn the recent capital raising, the information they have could well be confidential to CTP if it relates to the capital raising price or terms or selection of the recipients. Do your own research and make your own conclusions, I have made mine.

One last point on the capital raising and the price – I think it is entirely appropriate decision if the Board chose to place the shares at a lower price to that bid by someone they saw as a possible hostile bidder and a threat to the company. (I don’t know that that is what happened, but I suspect it may be ... otherwise, why has Petroleum Nominees lodged their legal challenge) ?

Hope that helps Donthat ... as I said there are always two sides to a story. I have my view, you have yours.