Looks like a T20 holder has had enough, page-34

Healyn

You said "THIS BOARD DID NOT SELL IT.
They did not say what the composition of the gas pay was nor where the 53m of gas pay was located for shareholders to compare to the graphics of WAPET's legacy finds at GG1 they so frequently showed in announcements prior to the drill.
They failed miserably and continue to do so."

Would you prefer this board behave like Marshall et al used to do in the old days and overhype and play games. I believe this board is being conservative and professional in order to clean up the legacy of the past.

The composition of the gas pay (I'm presuming you're referring to gas vs condensate percentage) will be more accurately understood after the flow test which will specifically target the zones identified during the drill. 53 metres is 53 metres and a contingent resource of 10.7pJ is good news regardless of what sophistry and semantics you employ to try and twist it otherwise. Is asking you to wait for the results of the flow test too much to ask or would you rather have a board that behaved like Marshall and Co. ?

The board is behaving professionally and conservatively as good boards should do.