summary in sgy ann. from 1 oct. re paloma, page-10

SB, its a bit like translating a real estates glowing brief on a property in this case Solimar meant to say "We have over committed and don't have the funds to develop all of our assets consequently we are defaulting on Paloma which has a legally binding clause that means we must give our share of Paloma back to Neon in lieu of the payment we previously commited to make."

Understandable given their small slice of Paloma verses their controlling holding in Kreyenhagen.

The outcome is good for Neon in that they now have 100% control which gives them greter flexibility going forward regarding any farm outs etc.