wharf, page-11

Hi Joxo,

Nice to hear from you again mate. I totally agree with your sentiment re the WHARF issue.

Too much paint has been smeared by those that don't know or don't want to know the truth about the WHARF issue and be thrown out of the JV. The old board just could not be reason with and far too complacent in their old ways and no one was going to be able to change anything with them.

At least WHARF had the guts to stand up to them and offer a cheaper alternative but it was never in the hunt, pay up and shut up was the boards motto. So WHARF refused to pay for something that was over valued but volunteered to escrow their share while it was being sorted to no avail only being told to nick off.

Bullies at their best to rule the roost entirely and SHERs were on the same end of the stick, being held in total contempt and disregard. That is why the 249 came into effect initially, when enough was enough exactly the same as WHARF later reenacted about costs of the new plant and its tendering.

There is a lot that many don't know about the facts and are very quick to judge WHARF for the wrong reasons. The old boards actions and past history were unpalatable and were not to be denied, bullies at their best to those that stood up against them. ERM sat back and watched the sideshow and came in when they had to say enough is enough also and being drawn into the conflict of the slow process to production and the massive over budget plant.

Clearly I believe ERM were not happy also having top pick up the tab on WHARFs deeming to be a non JV partner. Already over budget by a country mile and then to be labored with pro rata of WHARFs cost must have left a bad taste in their mouth.

I have no objections to WHARF being reinstated and the $3/4M sure would be handy to boost the kitty and avoid a CR of some sorts. Its worth far more than the escrowed Condensate sales held aside until a decision is made. WHARF were already party to the JV and shored up the costs aplenty to pre construction of the plant including the Cattamarra Farm on which the plant sits on and are co owners of the property still.

As SHERs of EGO, I really think there are 2 issues that need to be acted upon with SHER input to the new board.

1stly to consider the reinstatement of WHARF to JV again for the injustices served upon them for speaking out and bullied out of the JV.

2ndly, I think that the new board are in such a position still that they can pressure the old ex directors to FULLY drop the litigation against Eddie and Darren as per on the walk away basis proposed on their resignation. Surely they have no fat salaries as to continue litigation and wasn't their services for 6 mths and held to arrears.????

The sooner these 2 issues are resolved the stigma may slowly detatch and convince SHERs that justice can prevail and reignite investor confidence back to EGO in a small form. The new board need to back the stand of dropping the defamatory legals that has been proved to be invalid with EGO sueing the ex directors regarding the indemnities they placed which were illegal.