interesting agm, page-22

Nightspore, I know this may seem strange, but the most important question that I wanted to ask at the AGM was regarding De Graaf's departure from GDY.

I don't know the answer to your question, but will be putting it to him in our next conversation.

It is important to know that such a situation will not occur again, and the onus is on De Graaf to convince investors of his ability to maintain a strong relationship with the directors.

Regarding project risk, I would argue that GDY has a lower business risk profile (with significant funding, an attractive PPA, the Origin JV, the previous demonstration of actual heat extraction, etc, etc, etc.) than PAX, with a production cost that is significantly lower the LC production cost (and like the North West Shelf, the resource size will justify the energy distribution infrastructure).

PAX have some very low risk projects in a technical sense, but that is no substitute for having deals signed and well drilled.

I do however agree that PAX has the lower chance of outright failure, and that signing a JV to develop the LC project is extremely likely to happen with the next 12 months.